>According to the Bible Noah was our last common ancestor with niggers.
tl;dr
Makes absolute sense one would think scripture says this. Christians say this. Contrary to Christians, scripture lists the nations descended from Noah in Gen 10, and they're White nations.
----------
----------
It's not a giant boulder moved in saying Christians reimagine the OT (and the NT) for a civic palate, ever more modern.
Gen 10 is what is called the Table of Nations, and it's the list of the nations descended from Noah. Only White nations are listed there.
Yet nations not of the list are mentioned throughout Genesis after, whenever they have interactions with the listed nations. Such nations--and those nations later descended from them--are distinguished from the listed nations of Gen 10. (Ex. From which nations could the Israelites take wives.)
Among these unlisted nations are even some that were named before the Noah passages, before the flood. Yet they're there around after the flood?
Why?
The flood was only for man (only those called "adam" and descendents thereof) and covered "all of the land" (the lands of the only people scripture concerns itself with--those it gives lists of who they were, where they were).
The timeline of a flood ~3100 BC that is in accordance with all manuscipts and fragments of scripture before the "aid" of a sect of jews called the Masoretes "re-interpreted the timeline" (that all Bibles have now) did correspond to a real, major flood in the White lands of the time.
The same list of nations is confirmed again in the NT, in Acts 2 with the gathering of travellers hearing the apostles, the passage naming their current nations and these being named "all of the nations which are under heaven."
Scripture is counter to civic Christianity, which one might as well just call Christianity because every brick-and-mortar, tax-exempt (i.e. jew tolerable) denomination will tell you niggers came from us or we came from them, we're all one in origin and destiny, just hold each other close, etc.
And Christians should expect this.
The Bride (us), it's written, was led to "a wilderness" away from her land, "to rest and grow."
And "in the wilderness," upon His return, it's written, Christ will find, where His Bride should be, instead the Whore of Babylon (still us) sitting on "many waters, which are many nations."
Christians care more about getting "into heaven" rather than the kingdom of heaven of which Christ said "one must have been born of above" (now translated to "one must be born again" 💀).
They care more about telling a heartful, all-welcoming story and then leaving earth, whether that be the rapture not in scripture or the everlasting-party-day-in-heaven not in scripture, when Christ's claim is that He will destroy "the sea" (the many waters) and establish a heavenly kingdom *on the earth* (not house us in heaven).
I've shortened this (lol, lmao, I know) rather than the basically commentary-length effortpost a full review would require. Inevitably will come passers-by who'll refer to "but this passage" or "this other one says" on which to balance an entire civic spin, and I'm just going to leave those be and not go back and forth with those here. This is already a wall of text, and it would take lengths and talking about Greek vocabulary, grammar, looking at which people came from whom in history, following the geneaologies people glaze over, prophecy, just an entire commentary, to address every slip we, the Whore of Babylon, will speedbump stumble over to "get to heaven."
Hate niggers. Luv me Christ and His children, believing and unbelieving: Whites and their children. Simple as. 🍻