The Most Racist Christians are usually not Young Earth Creationists

It's pretty surprising to some that in-spite of how Leftist I am I still stick to Six-Day Young Earth Creationism including a truly Global Flood in the days of Noah, and also emphasize Evolution's ties to Scientific Racism.

First off, you got YouTubers like Inspiring Philosophy and R.C. Apologist and their buddy Michael Heiser who are willing to entirely accept the Theory of Evolution, but remain devout Calvinists believing in Eternal Torment and calling Homosexuality a Sin.  So the exact opposite of me in terms of where to break with traditional American Fundamentalism does exist. What is more likely to effect how you treat other people?  What you believe about things that happened thousands of years ago?  Or believing other people are Reprobates who God Hates?

And yes it's true some of the Scientific Racists of the 18th and 19th Centuries saw themselves as being totally compatible with being devout Christians.  Thing is I've visited the websites of the most openly Racist modern Christians, you'll often stumble upon them looking into Lost Tribes related theories, and they tend to believe in an Old Earth and a Local Flood.  Basically I'm talking about forms of "Christian Identity".

Whether or not they place a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, they definitely place one between Genesis 2:3 and 2:5.  They believe the Adamim created on the 6th day were the primitive races, cave men and ape men.  And then much later God created the first "Civilized" or 'White" Man and that's who was placed in The Garden of Eden.  Even the grandfather of modern White Supremacy made this distinction clear.  And later Houston Stewart Chamberlain seems to have felt the same.  Early important figures in how Polygenesist interpretations of Genesis developed in America include Daniel Parker, Charles Caldwell, Lester A Hoyle, Alexander Winchester, Charles Hamilton Smith, Samuel George Mortonn, Charles Pickering, Louis Agassiz, Josiah C. Nott, George Gliddon, Samuel Kneeland and Nathaniel Shaler (a founding member of the Immigration Restriction League).  

I'm not aware of Ripley, Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard saying anything about how Genesis fit into their racial theories, all three of their books are absent of Biblical references but do refer to Darwin and Evolution a lot.  Charlton S. Coon was explicitly an Evolutionist.

Yes some Monogenist Creationists have let Racism influence how they interpreted the existence of different ethnic features, both before and after Darwin.  But the rise of truly militant hateful Scientific Racism is intimately tied to the rise of Polygenism.

Fact is it was Pre-Darwin Moongenist Creationists like Samuel Stanhope Smith, Georges-Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon and Johann Blumenbach who started correctly observing how "racial" features are a product of the environment (also Martin Delany and George Washington Williams). they were wrong on the specifics of how and why, but that's how Science starts.  The bias some had in concluding Adam and Eve were White instead of looking like those indigenous to where The Bible says God created them is embarrassing however and I won't defend that.

Now I don't agree with any layer of these racist polygenesists' logic.  Meaning even if it were true some people didn't 100%  or at all descend from the same Adam it wouldn't make them inferior or any less eligible for Salvation or to become Full Citizens of God's Kingdom.  Anyone sapient enough to respond to The Gospel is who The Gospel is for.  And as a Believer in Universal Salvation, plenty of verses justify not even limiting it to Humanity, we're told Jesus will Reconcile all THINGS to God, and that every Knee shall bow, and God will be All in All.  Gregory of Nyssa was confident of even Satan's eventual Salvation.  But that's a big IF because even Atheist Scientists don't consider Polygenism credible anymore.

Paul said at Mar's Hill in Acts 17:26 that God has made of One Blood all the Nations of Men on the Face of The Earth.  Now the websites I refereed to address this verse, first choosing to favor the Alexandrian texts over the Textus Receptus/KJV for this verse even though that doesn't really help them much, it's still saying He made of one Man all Nations.  They want to use a very particular definition of "Nation" to say it means all Civilized Nations, but Paul didn't say a Greek term that would mean that, Nations here is Ethnos, from which comes our words Ethnicity and Ethnic which are sometimes used as synonyms for "race".

Many scholars see this part of the Mar's Hill Sermon as Paul refuting the common Greek view, the Greeks didn't believe in a Single Adam figure but many Autochthons, and that the truly Civilized were only those descended from Deucalion.  Which the Greeks did not think included the Jews.

Now these sites may well admit that by now everyone descends from Adam and maybe even Noah because of all the exploration and globalization.  It is now a Genetic fact even Evolutionists can't deny that all Humans have both a Mater-Lineal and Pater-Lineal common ancestor and those Ancestors were Humans not some "missing link".  And that was not what 19th Century Evolutionists predicted.

And that's why they emphasize Miscegenation so much, they claim only "pure" descendants of Jacob are truly Elect.  They view Cain and his wife as the first "interracial marriage" and then they might use a Sethite view of Genesis 6 but both have been used by Racists.  Then they'll say The Flood was only local, it only flooded the main homeland of Adam's family (which Cain was exiled from) so non Seed of Eve people did survive.

They may try to support identifying the Kenites with Cain, but since Moses married a Kenite Wife that would be a problem for them.  Mostly their Biblical Evidence of non Noahite "races" in the post Flood world are the Raphaim, Horites, Emims and Zuzims (later called Zamummim) of Genesis 14, and possibly later the Anakim who they may say descend from the Genesis 6 Nephilim.  They'll try to argue Ham's descendants were the ones particularly prone to intermarry with them, especially the Caananites who lived in the same region.  And misuse Genesis 36 to argue for the Edomites and Amalakites being tainted, and in time the Moabites and Ammonites followed suit.  Plenty of this I've already addressed in past posts on why it's only Spiritually mixed marriages God was concerned with.

Then the Anti-Semitism creeps in.  They may or may not tie in the usual Kazzar Myth, or a modern Jews being Edomites narrative.  But mostly these types seem to want to argue that the Southern Kingdom was far more susceptible to Miscegenation, and that while the North had their Spiritual problems they were the Kingdom that remained "Racially" pure.  And so they'll call Judah "the true Lost Tribe".  And then they'll argue the Northern Kingdom became Europeans even though The Bible places them in the exact opposite direction.  Problem is they forget that Joseph's wife was a Mizraimite which undermines that whole narrative.

And thus the Secular Version of this being promoted by Secular Atheist Race Realists in the Alt-Right is basically the same narrative (including the Jews being white looking genetically tainted "Race Traitors").  Darwinism and it's Cousin Eugenics just gave Non Believing Racists a way to secularize the narrative created by the most Racist interpretation of The Bible.  Not unlike how New Atheists borrow a lot of their wrong views on History from older Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric.

So my fellow Leftists like Step Back History and Peter Coffin try to separate Biological Darwinism from Social Darwinism, saying that Creationists "Quote Mine" Darwin out of context.  But it's not a coincidence that Galton came from the same family, they are inseparable.

Now the conclusion I draw from Genesis 36 is that those Genesis 14 tribes were Caananites first and that these tribes broke off from them, not the other way around.  The Horites were named after Seir's grandson Hori, Seir was a Hivite based on how Esau's wife who descended from him is identified.  Same with the Anakim, they were I think a Royal Family of the Hittites who were also associated with Hebron.

It's Racist implications aside it might be possible to some day convince me of a Local Flood of Noah view, though currently unlikely.  It's placing Death before Genesis 3 I will never accept based on my strong uncompromising view of Romans 5 which is also central to my belief in Universal Salvation.

On the subject of Cain's Wife, first of all we're not told he met her after his exile only that that's when their son named Enoch was conceived, they could have been married already before Abel was killed.

But regardless of that, no, the existence of people already in the land of Nod isn't proof of other Adams, I feel Genesis 4 implies Seth was conceived soon after Able was killed, meaning over 100 years had passed, most of Adam and Eve's children would have left by this point following their command to fill the Earth, the first two just stayed near by because they were the heirs.

And my main response to all the people thinking these must be a different "race" or something is, why would people not related to Abel want to avenge Abel?  Elsewhere in The Torah being the avenger of Blood is the Kinsman's responsibility.

If you think the Genesis 1 and 2 Creations of Adam are different events, the problem with saying Genesis 1 is about primitives is that only Genesis 2 actually describes the matter Adam is made from, so only Genesis 1 is possibly a merely Spiritual creation.  And it was the Genesis 1 Adam given Dominion over The Earth, while you could misleadingly translate Genesis 2 as saying it's Adam was made to be a slave.

But I still lean towards Genesis 2 being more details on the Sixth-Day, Genesis backtracks on it's Chronology a lot since it was many accounts edited together by Moses.  The start of Genesis 5 makes it very difficult to separate the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Adams, since it's clearly talking about the direct father of Seth yet describes him restating Genesis 1 rather then Genesis 2.

Update August 19th: Beasts of the Field.

Since making this post I've learned there is apparently a second approach to saying Non-Whites don't descend from Adam (These kinds of Racists I've been talking about are called the Christian Identity movement on Wikipedia).  And that is to say Non-Whites are "Beasts of the Field".

Now I myself have come to consider that the "Beasts of The Field" and other creations of Genesis 2:19-20 were not the same as the normal animals created before Adam but rather more sentient beings, they are presented as potential mates after all.  But that was in the context of arguing they are what we might normally call Angelic beings, like the Cherubim/Seraphim (the Four Beasts surrounding the Throne of God in Revelation) and of course Satan who is identified by Revelation 12 with the Serpent of Genesis 3, and perhaps also the basis for the Lilith tradition.

While Wikipedia seems to list that as their main approach, the currently active websites I've looked at take the separating the Adams of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 approach.  Largely because the Beasts created in the Garden would be in the same region as Adam and so the overlapping it with a Local Flood view doesn't work as well.

Of course the Racists doing this might be talking about the Genesis 1 beasts since it's all about them saying Non-Whites are animals. But the KJV never says "of the field" in Genesis 1 and the Wikipedia page specified "of the field".  And Earth and Field are separate words in the Hebrew as well.

The main website I've looked at argues the Serpent of Genesis 3 was a non Adamite human by saying verses 1&14 distinguish the Nahash from the Beasts of the Field.  I however have it on good authority that the Hebrew does not permit that interpretation, it's purely a product of how the King James English words those verses that makes it more ambiguous.  But whatever the Nahash is, I've already refuted the false doctrine that it mated with Eve.

The crux of the "Beasts of the Field" argument is the ones in Genesis 2 must have been creatures we'd today label Homo-Sapiens if they were eligible mates for Adam.  This ignores Cattle and Fowls of the Air also being in those verses.  We know from Daniel 7 and 8 that Beasts include animals like Lions, Bears, Leopards, Deer and Goats.  Leviticus 11 also details which Beasts are Levitically clean and unclean for eating and for sacrifices, you'd think the status of the two legged ones that could talk would come up if they existed.

Genesis 2 also says Adam named every specific type of Beast of The Field, and yet the people making this non-whites are beasts of the field argument can't find a Biblical noun more specific then Beast to describe any of them.  You can find Biblical names for animals the ancient Israelites barely had experience with, yet no special name for the two legged talking ones?  One website I found arguing this lists all kinds of Torah verses about beasts they say must be about "Negroes" being kept as slaves, yet no more specific term for them.  You'd think the most useful "beasts" would be the most important to name?

I also now know that they use that Adam can also mean Red or Ruddy as evidence the descendants of Adam are those who can blush.   First of all the notion that only White People can Blush is pretty laughable to me as someone who watches Anime, clearly the concept is not alien to the Japanese.  I can also point out that Malcom X was known as Detroit Red, or that we called Native Americans the "Red Man" for some reason.  And some think red was never the color that Adam/Edom was meant to refer to but rather brown.  Regardless of all that the color the spelling A-D-M can be associated with is not the point in Genesis 2, the point is that Adam was made from Adamah which means earth, ground, clay, dust.

I'd already talked a long time ago about how what we call Ethnic or "Racial" features are a product of where various ancient nations lived.  

The Two Seed Line Theory

Is a term commonly used to refer to a teaching that Cain was actually fathered by The Serpent not Adam.  This view is sometimes tied into the Angel-Hybrid view of Genesis 6, but can also be a way to accept The Sethite View while still teaching some human bloodlines are impure.

It is fairly easy to refute, the text of Genesis 4:1 says.

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahuah."

Making it clear Adam is the father, it's the exact same way Seth's conception is described in verse 25.

Saying Eve and the Serpent had sex is based on a laughably bad Augustinian view of Original Sin.  Sometimes people who don't even believe The Bible will tell me "The sexual subtext of the story is obvious, Snakes are Phallic shaped".  Except we're never told this was a Snake, the Hebrew word translated Serpent here could refer to any Reptilian animal, or even Amphibians when you include sea serpents.  Some Bible passages refer to flying Serpents which I believe were Pterodactyls.  Snakes are not the only Reptilians that crawl on their bellies, most still around today do.  Leviathan is called a Serpent twice in Isaiah 27:1.  And even outside The Bible the imagery of the Egyptian Ogdoad has the Females be Serpents and the Males as Frogs.

Some people want to say the words for "Beguiled" in Genesis 3:13 and 2 Corinthians 11:3 are inherently sexual terms.  That is absurd, those Hebrew and Greek words mean deceived, nothing more.  The Greek is Strongs 1818, the Hebrew is Strongs 5377.  Both are used in non sexual contexts.

They abuse how the context of Paul's verse talks about Virginity.  Paul is not using Virginity literally here, as he's talking about the Church as the Virgin Bride of Christ.  Eve was most certainly not a Virgin anymore when Genesis 3 happened, her and Adam were already commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and Genesis 2 ends with them being made one flesh, that's terminology about sexual union.  The context of what Paul is talking about is the Mind being corrupted, not the flesh.

Lots of New Testament verses are using terms like "son of" and "father" and even sometimes "Seed" in a not literally biological sense, because a major theme is Gentiles being adopted into Israel.  In John 8 Jesus calls people Abraham's Seed and then says that they are not of Abraham but of their father The Devil.  But 1 John 2:12 which they abuse doesn't even use the word "son", it just says Cain was of the Wicked One, the same way we are of Christ.

This theory is dependent on a lot of Extra-Biblical sources.  Interestingly enough the Targums they cite they are not citing well either. They take Targums that sound like maybe they're saying Eve "knew" an Angel, but that go on to clarify that Angel was the Angel of The LORD which is Biblically a title of the Pre-Incarnate Jesus.

One Targum says Cain and Abel were twins, which is more compatible with the text of Genesis 4 then I thought at first.  But if a Supernatural entity was involved in this in addition to Adam, that would be Yahuah based on what the text says.

And you really shouldn't cite the Proto-Evangelion of James if you're not a Catholic, it teaches early forms of certain Catholic Marian Doctrines.  Either way that text is maybe an early example of thinking something Sexual happened, but gives no support to saying The Serpent fathered Cain.

Mostly the Two-Seedline theory comes from Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Philip.  And even today these Seed-Line theorists are teaching Quasi Gnostic stuff, not proper 'the Serpent was Jesus and Yahweh was Evil' Gnosticism, but very Quasi Gnostic by saying that Adam and Eve only became physical Flesh after the Fall, like what Origen may have taught.  Adam says after Eve is created in Genesis 2 that she is "Flesh of my Flesh and Bone of my Bone", they were not merely Spirit beings.

I've seen one argue for the Adam of Genesis 1 being a separate Creation, an idea I've dealt with elsewhere. But like others using this for a compromise with Evolution he has it flipped around.  It would be the Genesis 1 creation that is merely Spiritual. Genesis 2 describes the element Adam's Body was formed from so it's clearly of a physical body, and in verse 23 Adam calls the Woman flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.  The fact that Adam is in a plural form in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 is pointed out by them ignoring the context that Hebrew often uses the Plural Suffix for individuals as a sort of emphasis.  

Now I can see the logic behind looking at Genesis 3:15 where Yahuah is talking to The Serpent.

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

And concluding there must be a Serpent Seed-Line somewhere.  The Jewish view has always been that the Seed of the Woman is Humanity in general, all Eve's descendants.  I don't view that as contradicting it being largely fulfilled in Jesus, but regardless no New Testament author quotes Genesis 3:15 as Messianic  So I can see viewing the Seed of the Serpent as a similar rival species.  But it contradicts the whole point of this same verse if they are also descendants of Eve.

It could maybe make sense to suggest they are descendants of Adam but not of Eve, but certainly not the opposite.  Though there is no solid Biblical basis for that theory either, I shall speculate none the less, but I'll do so on the Comparative Mythology Blog.

What I certainly do not believe is that any Seed of the Serpent exists in the Gene Pool of contemporary Homo-Sapiens.  If The Antichrist is a Human-Serpent Hybrid, it'll be a trait that is completely unique to him.  But I've come to doubt the assumption that the Seed of the Serpent has anything to do with The Antichrist, Revelation 13 and II Thessalonians 2 both call him Anthropos, meaning he's a normal Human Being.

With the Beast we know the seven heads and ten horns imagery represents more then one individual being involved in what The Beast represents, even if one particular individual is more important then the rest. So I've come to think the seven heads and ten horns of The Dragon are the same, the Dragon is The Serpent and it's Seed.

A lot of people think Genesis 3:15 is unique in implying a Woman can have Seed. While it's difficult for us today to accept using the same word to refer to both the male and female contributions to reproduction because of our modern scientific classifications, that is what The Bible does in more then just Genesis 3 and Revelation 12:17.  Ishmael is refereed to as Hagar's Seed in Genesis 16:10, and in Genesis 24:60 Rebeca is told that her Seed shall be thousands of millions (that's Billions).

Now it's possible you could argue that these verses don't contradict Seed meaning specifically Sperm by saying that Seed a male produced becomes a Woman's once it's entered her.  Leviticus 12:2, 15:18, and Numbers 5:28 could support that., as could Ruth 4:12 and 1 Samuel 2:20. In 1 Samuel 1:11 the "child" in "man child" is the Hebrew word usually translated seed, as well as the use of "child" in Leviticus 22:13.

But once you allow that, then that also becomes a viable explanation for Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman.  In any explanation for how a Woman having Seed makes sense, all children of Eve would be her Seed regardless of the Father.  So in order for the Serpent's Seed to be separate, it has to not descend from Eve.

I believe strongly in the Virgin Birth as shown by my Almah post, but I've come to disagree with using Genesis 3:15 as part of that doctrine.  The Seed of the Woman is in a sense all descendants of Eve, Jesus as the Messiah is simply the key Son of Adam and Eve through whom this destiny is fulfilled.

In Romans 16:20 Paul says that God will bruise Satan under our feet. And Jesus said we will tread on Serpents and Scorpions in Luke 10:19.

In Genesis 4:25 Eve says that Elohim appointed her another Seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew.   Something I'm sure many Serpent-Seed theorists point to.  But it shows that Eve was referring to all her offspring as her Seed.  At the start of the chapter she gives Yahuah more direct credit for Cain then she did for Abel.

The Nephilim and the Sons of God

I had opposed the Sethite view for a long time.  My last major post on the Nephilim issue on my Prophecy Blog, The Sethite View and the Nephilim, was me still viewing the Nephilim and BeniElohim as fallen angels but arguing it doesn't actually depict any Hybridization.  An argument that was maybe a little convoluted.

First I want to advise fellow critics of the Hybrid view to stop making bad arguments.  What Jesus said about Marriage and the Resurrection in Matthew 22 had a specific purpose, I do still believe we will be having sex in the Resurrection because it's the Restoration of before the Fall.  The Marriage that is done away with is the patriarchal marriage of Genesis 3.  And nothing in Hebrews 1 proves Angels can't be called Sons of God, the key word in that verse is begotten, only Jesus is the begotten Son of God.

Calling this view the "Sethite view" does it a disservice because it makes it sound like it's the Racist view, when what made me grow more and more uncomfortable with the Hybride view is how it is constantly tied into racist beliefs.  The real point of the Sethite view reaffirms how spiritual intermarriage is the only mixed marriage Yahuah truly objects to.  Now it may have so happened that the peoples descended from Enosh may have been most likely to be followers of Yahuah in the Pre-Flood world, like how it was Israel Post-Flood, but that is not the actual point.

I get annoyed when people like Chuck Missler say that the end of Genesis 4 where it says "then began men to call upon the name of Yahuah" it actually says "profane the name of Yahuah" in the Hebrew.  Because this is actually the exact same Hebrew phraseology used when Abraham called upon the Name of Yahuah at Shechem and Bethel in Genesis 12.  If this "Profane" interpretation began among the Rabbis, it was probably a product of their Non-Biblical idea that you aren't supposed to pronounce the Name of Yahuah, that verbally saying it at all profanes it.  And it's the same wording used in Joel 2, quoted by Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Romans 10 for saying that All who Call upon The Name of Yahuah shall be Saved.

The Bible definitely describes Gigantic people in certain narratives, but no word used in Genesis 6 or any other Pre-Flood narrative actually means that.  We don't need supernatural hybridization to make that happen, I think this ancient Gigantism, distinct from the modern known condition, was simply a natural part of Noah's genetic potential that has been lost.  But perhaps sometimes was triggered by cross breeding similar to why Lygers get so big.

Nephilim is a word used only three times in all of Scripture, in two passages, Genesis 6 and Numbers 13.  The problem is using Numbers 13 to help us define the word has a major problem.

In Numbers 13:21-25, the narrative voice describes the Anakim and it never calls them Nephilim or describes them as Gigantic.  Numbers 13:27-29 is the first description of the Anakim and others in Canaan the spies give, and still not yet called Nephilim or gigantic.

Caleb's good report comes next, and he doesn't use the word Nephilim or talk about giants.  Then comes Numbers 13:31-33.  In verse 32 the narrator says "and they gave an evil report of the land they had searched".  The Hebrew word translated "evil report" is also sometimes translated "defaming" and "slander", like in Numbers 14:36 referencing back to this report saying it was a slander.

It is this report that first talks about the Anakim having great stature and in verse 33 twice uses the word Nephilim.  What they are saying is not accurate, they are exaggerating, and may have themselves not been using this word correctly.  And this passage is probably the reason translations starting with the Septuagint translated it Giants.

Deuteronomy 1:27-28 is again referencing back to this evil report.  Deuteronomy 2:10 calls the Anakim tall, but Saul was also tall compared to most Israelites.  Verse 11 says that Emims like the Anakim were "accounted" Rephaim, this word for accounted is also translated esteemed, reckoned, and even imagined.  It is again describing a belief that may not be true.  Verse 20 again talks about them being "accounted' Rephaim.  Verse 21 again calls the Anakim tall, but nothing more.  Deuteronomy 9:2 again simply calls the Anakim tall while referencing back to the evil report.

The first time the Anakim are mentioned in Joshua is in 11:21-22, where there is no mention of them being large in size, or Nephilim or Rephaim.  Joshua 14:12-15 again references the evil report but without talking about Giants.    Joshua 15:13-14 again mentioned the Anakim but no gigantic size.  Joshua 21:11 and Judges 1:20 are the last two references to the Anakim and they are again not called Nephilim or Rephaim or giants.

The word Rephaim is also the name of a location in Israel, and sometimes gets translated "giants" even when referring to that location.  The Rephaim as a group of people are first mentioned in Genesis 14 and 15.

The remaining references to the Rephaim are in Deuteronomy 3:11, Joshua 12:4, and 13:12.  Which all call Og the king of Bashan the remnant or all the remains of the Rephaim.  Og was defeated and killed by Israel in the time of Moses, well before the Anakim were in the time of Joshua.  So if Og was the last of the Rephaim, then this repeatedly recorded belief that the Anakim were Rephaim must be wrong.

And it also proves the word Rephaim doesn't mean Giant because Goliath came later and he's never called a Rephaim, neither are his brothers.   If Rephaim means giant then Goliath's existence creates a contradiction.

The term BeniElohim, translated "Sons of God", only appears in Genesis 6 and Job in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.  Many Christians on this issue have argued the idea of believers being Sons of God isn't introduced until the New Testament in John 1.  And that Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God is different because Adam was a "direct creation of God".  The problem is that the debate about if this term refers to angels or humans or both and if so when forgets that more verses are relevant to this issue then just those that use that exact phrase.

Exodus 4:22-23 Yahuah says to Pharaoh "Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.".   Deuteronomy 14:1 says "Ye are the children of Yahuah your God", the word for children being Ben.

In the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts...

"When the Highest divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.  For Yahuah's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.". 

A DSS manuscript of this verse however says BeniElohim instead of "sons of Israel", which has lead many scholars to insist that must be the original and tie it into Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6 to create an idea that Elyon divided the 70 nations of Genesis 10 between 70 divine/angelic Principalities.  However, whatever is the original maybe the copyist who changed it simply felt "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" meant the same thing?  When Jacob came into Mizraim his family was 70, and in Numbers 11 we see another 70 for Israel.  Jesus had His 70 Disciples also.  Deuteronomy foretells Israel to be scattered to all the nations.  And Romans 11 tells us the fullness of the gentiles will be grafted into Israel.

Psalm 82:6, a verse Jesus quoted, says "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Highest.".  This is a Psalm of Asaph, and it sounds like it's referencing back to something.  When Jesus quotes it He attributes it to The Torah.

Also in the Book of Hosea, just read 1:10 and 11:1.  In the latter Yahuah called Israel collectively His Son singular.  But in the former he says the children of Israel are sons of the living God, present tense.

In II Samuel 7:14 Yahuah through Nathan tells David that Solomon will be His Son and He will be Solomon's Father.  And eventually Solomon's great failing in 1 Kings 11 is tied to exactly what Sethite View proponents think the Sons of God did wrong in Genesis 6.

Ezekiel 16 begins by speaking of Israel as Yahuah's adopted daughter.

Malachi chapter 3 warns against marrying the Daughter of a Strange god. If the followers of strange gods are refereed to as their children, then clearly the followers of Yahuah are His children as well.

Even what's said in John 1 is not contradicting that believers already were God's Children.  It says The Word came unto "His Own" and "His own received Him not" and then He gave others the ability to become Sons of God.   The implication is that "His Own" were Sons of God already, or were supposed to be anyway.

Job provides the only place where the Hebrew term "BeniElohim" is used in a way where it seems impossible to say it's human believers and not Angels.  And it's not even at the beginning, one could argue those are deceased believers in Heaven, or that this takes place in the congregation of an Earthly Mishkan, which is repeatedly refereed to as the Presence of Yahuah, as well as of Eden when Cain left it in Genesis 4.  Ezekiel 28 tells us Satan was in the Garden of God and the Mountain of God (a term used only of Sinai), and because of the stones mentioned maybe implies he was the High Priest of that Mishkan.

It's the reference to BeniElohim and Morning Stars singing and shouting for joy when the foundations of the Earth were laid, in 38:4-7.  Which then gets cross referenced with other precedent for calling Angels stars.

Thing is, Job unlike Deuteronomy and Psalm 82 isn't quoted by Jesus in the New Testament.  But even with viewing it as God's Word it could still be viewed as a poetic narrative or parable and not literal history.  And maybe how all these things said in Job 38 connect to each other is being misunderstood.  In Revelation 2:28 Jesus says He will give the Morning Star to the over-comer.  And Job 38:6 refers to The Corner Stone, something everywhere else we know is a title of Christ, so God could have been speaking Prophetically.  And then there is the theory many Nephilim theorists like that the Great Pyramid was a Pre-Flood monument built by Sethites and the Corner Stone was it's Capstone.  Verse 7 does seem to be about the Flood.

What Nebuchadnezzar says of the Angel who appeared in the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3 also gets cited.  This is an Aramaic term (that should be translated sons of the gods, plural) being used by a Pagan Gentile King who didn't became properly a believer till chapter 4.  It's definitely not for building doctrine.  (But also this scene is commonly viewed as a Theophany, this is The Angel of Yahuah, The Word of God, not a common ordinary Angel.)

And that Pagan belief is why Skeptics agree with the Hybrid interpretation of Genesis 6 (they just don't think it actually happened) because they're seeing it in the context of how the Pagan texts of Ugarit called the gods of their pantheon the sons of El their chief god, and one at least says there were 70.  Actual Believers should be resisting that Pagan interpretation of the text rather then embracing it.

But perhaps it's disingenuous to use external sources or even later Torah verses to interpret Genesis 6 either way.  Let's think about what this term likely meant in the context of reading through Genesis blind chronologically.  The only prior precedent for something like Angels are the Cherubim and maybe the Serpent, none of them are in any way called sons of Elohim.

But when Eve gave birth to Seth near the end of Genesis 4, Seth is called a Son and then Eve says that Elohim appointed her another seed.  Seth is called at his introduction a Son as well as from Elohim. (Additionally Genesis 4:1 could be read as saying Yahuah is a co-father of Cain in some way.)  Even if I acquiesced to the Skeptics who think this text was originally written from a Pagan viewpoint, the ancient Pagans often didn't view the idea of having a Human father and a Divine father as contradictory, Alexander didn't think of it as denying Philip as his father when he claimed to be the Son of Zeus-Amon, Herakles was still heir to his father's royal line, and Oedipus was called a Son of Helios even though his story is built around him being the son of Laius.  So there is both a Pagan and a Monotheistic justification for reading that verse as proclaiming Seth a son of Elohim.  Also God-Human Hybrids (or Demigods) were mainly a Greek concept in antiquity, I've found no solid evidence of Near Eastern, Mesoptamian or Egyptian belief in similar Divine-Human Hybrids.

However maybe Genesis shouldn't be interpreted so independently. The first 5 books of The Bible are called the "books of Moses", but only 4 are directly about Moses.  Perhaps Genesis is meant to be looked at as a Prequel, and everything in it should be interpreted in terms of how it anticipates, foreshadows and sets the stage for the Mosaic narrative.  As a long time Star Wars Prequel Trilogy apologist and more recently a fan of Fate/Zero, I feel uniquely qualified to analyze Genesis as a Prequel.

In which case there is nothing in Exodus-Deuteronomy defining Angels as Sons of God, but plenty of precedent for believers being sons of Yahuah which I already cited above.  And there is no narrative from Moses time about Angels interbreeding with Humans, but a number of passages about the danger of Yahuah's people marrying those who serve other gods.  Numbers 25:1 even says "daughters of Moab" in a way that parallels "daughters of Adam".  In fact later parts of Genesis say "daughters of Canaan", "daughters of the Canaanites", and "daughters of Heth" talking about the same issue.  And beyond the Torah, Judges 14 uses "daughters of the philistines".

When defending the genealogies of Jesus, we love to point out how in the Hebrew mindset you can be called the Son of anyone your parents descended from.  So Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God absolutely proves Humans can be called sons of God.  But during this mortal life non believers are currently estranged children, I of course believe God intends to bring everyone back in eventually, but it's us believers who already are.

The main reason lots of Christians have supported the Hybrid view is the apparent New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude.  Even though offspring of these "rebel angels' are not refereed to in those verses.

2 Peter 2:4 and 5 are possibly not even about the same thing.  Verse 4 could seemingly be describing Dathan and Korah's rebellion.

Jude verses 6 and 7 are viewed as comparing the Genesis 6 incident to Sodom and Gomorrah.  In my past studies on what Jude says about Sodom, I said both these incidents are about lust between angels and humans, emphasizing how "strange" in strange flesh means different, alien, foreign, ect.  But now I recall how my greater point about the Sin of Sodom is how Ezekiel and Jesus define it has being inhospitable to foreigners.  I should have realized sooner that Jude's intent was to condemn them for their desire to rape foreigners traveling through them. 

Jude mentioned Korah in verse 11, could it be this is all connected and he was also thinking of that incident in verse 6?  Verse 5 seems to set up the context as after the Exodus.  And you can't object to Jude then going backwards chronologically when he mentions Sodom in verse 7 because verse 11 also listed the people it refers to out of their chronological order.

Chuck Missler makes a thing out of a rarely used word for Habitation in Jude 11.  Paul's use of Oiketerion in 1 Corinthians 5:5 follows a reference to the Tabernacle in verse 1.  Thing is, Mishkan also means Habitation, Dathan and Korah created their own Tabernacle that their followers chose over the Tabernacle of Moses and Aaron.

I think the Greek root normally translated Tabernacle in the KJV is the Greek equivalent to Ohel, since it literally means Tent and is used of both the Mishkan and the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7.  I think Oiketerion should be viewed as the proper Greek equivalent of Mishkan.  A number of OT verses use Ohel and Mishkan interchangeably.

In the past I've argued Nephilim means Fallen Ones because it comes from Naphal meaning fall.  And viewed that as supporting it being of Fallen Angels because of Isaiah 14:12's use of Naphal.  But believers can also "fall away" or "fall from grace".  Maybe Nephilim originally meant Apostates or Apostasy?  It is often said that Apostasy is the theme of Jude.  Numbers 14:43 is also considered relevant to the issue of Apostasy, being possibly drawn on in Hebrews 6, and it uses Naphal.

Now in Number 13:33 it could be a wrong understanding of the word already existed, again we are told not to trust that account.  But hypothetically if at least that word was used accurately, there are ways one could argue the Anakim were Apostates, maybe people who once followed Melchizedek and then fell away and traveled south towards Hebron. 

Rob Skiba has attempted to make a point for his peculiar view by saying the second use of Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 is spelled the same as in Genesis 6 but the first use is different.  Hence him arguing these Nephilim came from the Genesis 6 Nephilim.  In the view I've proposed here, it could be these contemporary Anakim were not technically Apostates, but being called something similar because they descended from Apostates. Or more simply I could translate it "Apostates of the Apostasy".

The Enochian literature is all influenced by Greek mythological and philosophical ideas.  I've been arguing against viewing such apocryphal literature as canon since way back when I did still believe in Angel-Human Hybrids.  Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, none of them predate Greek influence.

But what's annoying is how people act like Apocryphal literature is universal in taking the Hybrid view.  The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan is one example of a text that clearly depicts the Sethite view.  The Book of the Cave of Treasures is an older Syriac version of the same story that one tells.

But what really surprised me was to find that Rob Skiba's own precious Book of Jasher supports the Sethite view.  Jasher chapter 4 verses 16-18, is clearly that book's version of Genesis 6.  Jasher chapter 3 verse 23 does use "Sons of God" seemingly of Angels in heaven, but this is unrelated to anything like the Genesis 6 account.  In chapter 4 it's clear that the people who's corruption is linked to marrying "daughters of men" are the men of Seth's clan who this chapter is chronicling. 

Jubilees chapter 5 I think could be interpreted as supporting either view, so I'm not gonna go into it.  It uses the word Angel but again that can be used of human believers. 

I've heard it claimed the Septuagint uses the word Angel in Genesis 6 which Hybrid view supporters point to, but the texts I've seen do not, either way the word can be used of human believers since it means messenger.

The Septuagint's main role in how views on this developed is in translating Nephilim as Gigantes, which is the origin of it being translated Giants, the English word Giant comes from Gigantes.  What the Gigantes were originally in Greek mythology however was not even partly human, they were siblings of the Titans.

Which interpretation is older is irrelevant to which one is true.  But regardless the Angel view can't be proven to exist before the time of Alexander bringing Greek influence to Judea.

The idea that Genetic Impurity was the reason for The Flood is what makes it the inherently Racist view.  The only intermarriage The Torah truly opposes is Spiritual intermarriage.  Malachi who is affirmed as a Prophet by the New Testament said it was marrying the daughter of a strange god Yahuah objected to.

Many Racists will use the Sethite view of course. Especially since the most blatantly racist Christians I've found online aren't even Young Earth Creationists and believe the first mixed marriage was Cain and his Wife who they wrongly claim didn't descend from Adam.

And what I'd say in a debate with them, is that if biological intermarriage was the point why did God describe it in Spiritual terms that made this confusion inevitable?  If their version of the Sethite view was the intent it would have just said Sons of Seth or Sons of Enosh.  But if the Hybrid view was true, it would have simply said Angels or just said Elohim which is already plural and sometimes used of Angels and thus not needed the "sons of" part.

In Genesis 6:11 the reason for the Flood is defined as being that the Earth was filled with Violence.  The word translated "corrupt" there is also a word often associated with warfare, being also translated things like perish and spoiler.  Verse 12 says man corrupted His way upon the Earth. 

And this emphasis on violence is also consistent with the first 4 verses of chapter 6 because the word translated "mighty men" in the KJV is gibborim, which also gets accused of being a word for Giant, but what it means is warrior.  It's sometimes used of good warriors in The Bible like David's Mighty Men, and  is used of the first Warrior King Nimrod.  But in this context it's about the world becoming filled with violence.

Also Genesis 6:4 calls them "Enosh of renown" which in a Pre-flood context I feel verifies they paternally descended from Enosh, since tribal identity in The Bible is usually identified by the father's line.

And the book of Jasher's interpretation of this situation of Sethites taking daughters of men is describing those daughters of men as spoils of war.  And even Hybrid view supporters have pointed out that the language in Genesis 6:1-4 can be interpreted as implying the daughters of Adam were taken by force.

The line of Cain was also associated with Violence. From Cain being the first murderer, to whatever Lamech did.  To Tubal-Cain's clan being perhaps the world's first weapons manufacturers.

The New Testament says Noah preached repentance, you can't repent of being born a hybrid, but you can repent of living by the sword.

Now you may object that I've made two different thematic connections, a connection to the theme of foreign pagan women leading Israelites astray, and women being raped as spoils of war.  But I'd argue those themes do go together.

The main obvious Torah example of the foreign women theme is what happened with the Moabite women because of Balaam.  People forget that happened after Israel had just been militarily victorious over Moab.  And Solomon's many wives also came mostly from nations David had conquered, and chronologically Rehoboam's Ammonite mother he was married to while David still lived.

Taking women as spoils of war can lead to unwanted foreign cultural influence.  To a moderner that's not the actual reason to morally object to the practice, and I'm sure God agrees.  But when writing people a religious guide book unintended consequences are what people are more likely to listen to.

There are people out there arguing that Salvation is only for a certian Race

I shouldn't have to bother responding to these people.  But Racism is on the rise right now.

Even in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible salvation was not limited to Blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Leviticus 19 teaches that the stranger that shall dwell among you shall be treated as if he was born among you.  And again, Circumcision was clearly also allowed for foreigners.

There are people who combine their British Israelism and Two House theology to teach that the "Gentiles" of the New Testament were only the outcasts of the Northern Kingdom, the "Lost Tribes".  Now the main website I'm responding to is White Supremacist, but much of the same logic could be applied to Black Israelite or Asian Israelite theories.  I believe the "Lost Tribes" were scattered to all four corners of the Earth, so some truth exists to each of those theories.

What's dangerous is they do make a valid point about "Gentile" not exclusively meaning only non Israelites, since the same Hebrew and Greek words also get translated Nation and are used of the Nation of Israel.  So I need to refute them in a way not dependent on the mere use of that word.

Their main article on this subject quotes only one verse of Romans 11, verse 17.

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;"

And they then said "Clearly only an olive tree can be grafted into an Olive Tree" so they can say the branches being grafted in are the same ones that fell off, even though that is totally incompatible with what Paul said.

Romans 11:24 destroys their desire to use natural science in interpreting this as it clearly says.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"

In the Greek, "contrary to Nature" is the same as "Against Nature" in Romans 1:26-27.  Thus part of the theme of Paul refuting the people who agreed with that rhetorical rant by showing God does something "Against Nature' therefore "Against Nature" can't be inherently wrong.

They also have an article against using the word Seed in a spiritual sense, yet did not actually quote Galatians 3 and 4, where Paul's point is clearly about people not naturally Abraham's Seed becoming Abraham's Seed.

But I can also cite Isaiah 53.  If you're a Christian you know the Suffering Servant is Jesus, Acts 8 and 1 Peter both quote it as such.  And unless you're a Mormon you don't think Jesus had any children by natural biological reproduction.  But Isaiah 53:10 says the Suffering Servant will have Seed.  Psalm 45 also says The Messiah and The Bride will have children.

In Revelation 12, The Woman is Israel (all 12 Tribes represented), The Man-Child is the New Testament Church, separate from those is....

the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

So clearly, there is a lot of Seed here.

The statement in John about Jesus coming "Only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" needs to be understood in the context of John 1.  He came unto His own, and His  own received Him not, so He gave unto others the ability to become Sons of God.

In the training mission Jesus sent The Twelve on during His ministry, that mission was given only to Israelites, since the New Covenant wasn't quite made yet, as Jesus Blood wasn't Shed yet.  In the context of that mission we see the Samaritans are not counted as Israelites, agreeing with the narrative of 2 Kings 17.  But when we get to the true Great Commission in Acts, there the Samaritans are blatantly included, as are Syrians (He may have said Aram in Hebrew) and the Whole World.  And then Acts 8 brings The Gospel to Samaria.

Genesis 9 and the Curse on Canaan

This is one of the most abused passages of Scirpture.  In addition to how it has been and still is used to Justify Racism, Slavery and Imperialism.  I've now seen it thrown into (by the pastor I do not name) the list of clobber passages against Homosexuality.

Genesis 9:18-27

And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.  These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.  And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

 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.

 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.  And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.  God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

The first error is thinking it was Ham who did something to Noah.  The problem is the more limited meaning "son" often has to modern readers.  Hebrew had no word for Grandson, Son can mean any male descendant.  Every time this particular narrative mentions Ham it refers to him as the father of Canaan.  Canaan is the youngest of the four descendants of Noah named in this narrative, while we know from Genesis 10 that Ham was older then Shem.

Because Leviticus used "uncovered nakedness" as an idiom for various sexual relations.  The Mishna, Midrash and The Talmud (Jewish Fables, Titus 1:14) began playing games to add to what this narrative says about Ham.  And Christians have gone and played along.  One popular theory is to cite the reference that you uncover your father's nakedness when you sleep with your father's wife.

But this passages isn't using the word nakedness is any such Levitical or poetic sense.  It's a straight forward narrative.  Noah became uncovered, Ham saw it and informed his brothers that there was a problem.  Noah became uncovered before Ham saw anything.  We are reminded at this moment that he is Canaan's father.  It's possible he entered that area because he was looking for his son.  If anything Ham is also a victim.

The curse is placed solely on Canaan, not Ham or Ham's descendants in general, just Canaan.  Ironically, in light of how this would be used later, the ONLY one of Ham's sons who didn't go to Africa.  The people we tragically enslaved were probably mostly descendants of Cush, kin to Nimrod who has also been unfairly slandered.

This "curse" is really a Prophecy.  It was strictly speaking I feel fulfilled when David finished conquering the land.  That is when Israel's military expansion period was over.  If it goes beyond that at all it could include when Alexander finished fulfilling Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, or Rome conquering and enslaving the Phoenician outpost of Carthage.  After that I firmly believe Canaanites ceased to exist as a distinct nation.

Regardless of Canaan committing a Sin and misfortune befalling his descendants because of that, being descended from Canaan does not make one automatically Evil.  Rachab was from Canaan as well as Uriah The Hittite.  Both named in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus.  Also Hiram King of Tyre who was an ally of Solomon, and the other Hiram who was the architect of The Temple was paternally a Tyrian.

For more refutations of Racism go here.

Now to address what it was Canaan did.  The pastor who I do not like to name says (assuming Ham did it) something homosexual was done to Noah.  I'm sure plenty others have viewed it that way too.  This pastor adds that it demonstrates an inherent link between homosexuality and drunkenness (I wish I knew how to add an eye roll emoji to this blog).

If something sexual was done to Noah, which does seem plausible, the problem is that it was done to him while he was asleep making it Rape.

Another theory is that he castrated Noah, this is usually suggested by bizarre theories trying to make Noah Ouranos of Greek mythology and Ham (who they assume did it) Cronos.  This being justified by that Japheth became a Titan as Iapetos in Greek mythology.

All we know is Noah became uncovered, Ham's interruption may well have prevented Canaan from entirely finishing what he was doing.

Christians should oppose Capital Punishment

Don't simply throw all the Old Testament passages on Capital Punishment at me, we are under the New Testament, and are no longer bound by The Law. We are under the dispensation of Grace.

People will try to gather NT support for Capital Punishment by misusing a few passages.

Romans 13, is one of the most abused passages of The Bible, constantly twisted by Evil Governments to make Christians think they should have blind loyalty to Government. This is definitely a passage that should only be read in the KJV, and I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's sermons on it. But that's immaterial to it's relevance here.

"for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

First off this passage is about acknowledging Government, not what Christians should do if they ever wield civil authority. But bearing the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and punishing evil doers, is not something limited to capital punishment. Any time a police officer or prison guard has to use a weapon that fits this verse. This really doesn't address Capital Punishment at all.

I've seen people cite Roman 1:32, about sins being "worthy of death", this is about the same thing as "the wages of sin is death".

People also cite Acts 25:11 where Paul says he is willing to be killed if he has done anything wrong. He is merely acknowledging the law of the land he lived under. And because he knew Roman law he knew he had not broken it. This was still before Roman law ever outlawed Christianity itself.

Christians should oppose Capital Punishment because of John 8

John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". I really get annoyed at all the absurd conjectural arguments supposed "Christians" use to write off what the clear message of this verse is. That no one has the right kill another person for their Sin since we're all Sinners. I don't care about all your "they were trying to trap him" or "she was innocent since the guy wasn't there too", for the latter Jesus would have just said that.

Or some will argue Jesus really meant being guilty of the same specific Sin.  That is ridiculous, not only does nothing Jesus said indicate such a qualifier, but it's absurd to think this massive crowd of people contained not a single person who never committed blatant adultery.

Now people will throw out Matthew 15 where they seem to think the point is Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the Torah's law about stoning rebellious children as evidence Jesus didn't intend to do away with such laws. The point here is He's condemning the Hypocrisy of men who obey man made traditions dogmatically and try to impose them on others, but not the actual Law. And for the example He chose a law they had a good loving reason for not enforcing.

On The Old Testament

Now, because Capital Punishment first shows up in Genesis 9, and this is before Abraham much less Moses, people say it's not eligible to be something done away with, only things unique to Israel are what the Church isn't held to.

The Problem is the number one thing fulfilled and thus done away with is the Sacrificial System. And that goes back at least to Genesis 4 (probably implied in Genesis 3). It's why Noah brought seven rather then just two of the clean animals on the Ark, so that when everything was over he could make offerings without committing genocide.

In fact, the origin of Capital Punishment in Genesis 9 is intricately linked to the concept of Blood Sacrifices.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Verse 4's command against digesting Blood is repeated in Acts 15 as something Christians should still obey. But that's there for the opposite reason as the other two commands here, that's condemning something Pagans did in their perverted blood sacrifice rituals.

Verse 5 is the first clear stating of the concept given in Leviticus as "the Blood is the life" and clearly defined in Hebrews as "without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins".

The way verse 6 follows that kind of gives me the impression that Capital Punishment is a type of sacrifice, the one form of Human Sacrifice that the Mosaic Law was okay with. That some passages say executed people were to have their bodies burned I think adds support to that.

And indeed, the true Sacrifice that all the others were merely rehearsals for was carried out in the form of Capital Punishment. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed Crucifixion as fulfilling the requirement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Crucifixion unlike Hanging with a rope (which people might at first assume being meant here) fits the Genesis 9 requirement that Blood be shed.

Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, where there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian custom and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.

Jesus was made Sin for us. Even though he was completely without Sin, God poured out his Wrath upon him as if he where just as evil as Haman or Hitler.

In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree.  Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab.  They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone of Saul's sin against them.  Likewise Jesus died to atone for the Sin of Adam, because he was the Son of Adam.

Christians who are pro-Capital Punishment like to point out how God explicitly prevented Cain from being killed for his act of murder, and seemingly likewise did the same for his descendant Lamech, in Genesis 4. And suggest that because of this lack of capital punishment the Earth became filled with violence and that's why The Flood was necessary, and so God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9.

This argument amazes me, these are "conservative" Christians and yet they're effectively arguing that God himself made a mistake not allowing Cain to be executed.

The reason for The Flood is explained in Genesis 6 not 4, it's the Nephilim activity (whatever you think that means).

Biblical History is supposed to come full circle. So if anything the fact that God was clearly against men killing other men for their sins, even murder, before he allowed it in Genesis 9, shows God is against it in principle and that it was always meant to be done away with once The Law was fulfilled.

Ezekiel 40-48 contains no references to any Capital Punishment being carried out in the Messianic Kingdom.