morpheus24:

The purpose of my refering to the mutation that occurs in the blood cells of sickle cell carriers was to "prove" the occurance of mutations in biological organisms. This being the key element in my understanding of human races and how we came about our physical features as it is evident that these mutations played an essential role in our anthropological differences and not some story drawn out by a Jew who used his understanding of biblical references to infer on the races or peoples that populated the world within a span of 6 thousand years. You yourselve know the variations in humans cannot be accounted for in this time frame unless you are taking the bible account figuratively.


Its link to malaria is to show deductive reasoning in concluding that the occurance of genetic mutations are in direct correlation to enviromental factors ( ie viruses, sun light, lack of thereof and so on) that subsequently influence adaptability. The logic behind your phrase" and ", nothing else" would lead me to believe that there is evidence that you believe mutations are sporadic and spontaneous. The definition of mutations last time I read includes possible causes by introduction to viruses. Please see below link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutations


Another thing you say is the black man did not become black. How then did they become? was he born as such. Did God make black people first. Were all early men all black before mutations caused them to become fairer skinned. I don't believe white or fairer skin is an anomaly but a mutation that was rapidly sustained as a survical mechanism for people who lived in regions that fostered this occurence and have evidence to back that up.

Your third point says that "it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j"

Note that those scientist were obviously influenced by their ethnocentriic or should I say Eurocentric viewpoints(fact which can be proven again) and by the writings of scholars who eluded to the 3 sons story thus the groupings of present day negroes into hamitic people. Present day scientist do not use those categories any longer seeing that its origins are not well founded.( Notice the descendants of Japhet don't group themselve into japhetic tribes do they?)

I agree that "at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attempt at grouping the races of the world as far as accuracy, well that leaves much to be debated.


Most people do not care or find the subject matter tedious and complex but I don't. the more information I get the more the story of the 3 sons is debunked for me which is why I made reference to them earlier because this was my starting point.

if you have anything to add to help me further my understanding please feel free to reply

1. Mutations do happen. It is my personal opinion that mutations do not occur frequently enough to account for the diversity of life we see on our planet,even if the earth was a gazzillion gajillion years old. Even when you take into consideration introduction of genes to viruses and radiation and all possible causes put together. 
An arguement on mutation is a topic for another thread and  you re welcome to start such a thread.This is an ongoing dispute at the highest circles of knowledge in biology so we both wont reach any conclusions fom exchanging ideas. It is also of my personal opinion that the variation and diversity we see on earth can only be accounted for by a sudden spontaneous arrival at biological complexity. Note that this is my personal opinion as i realise that i have no direct evidence to substantiate my claim. However, evolutionists have not yet put forward a convincing arguement to prove the veracity of their claims either (once again, my opinion and also that of numerous scientists and other well informed people).

I am not one to take the biblical accounts strictly literarily; just like nobody takes all the words in even an informal letter from a friend literarilly. a good deal of common sense is needed to understand the bible. so when the bible indirectly claims the earth is only 6000 years old, instead of criticising it is not difficult or too far fetched to realise that the bible was talking about the age of civilised man. civilised man is roughly give or take a few thousand years ; 6000 years old. However, time is not an important factor for creationists as it is for evolutinist.  A spontaneous sudden arrival of biological life forms needs just a day to take effect


2. Yes. Man was created black in the sense that he was crerated with melanin in his skin. when he migrated to parts of the world with very high intensity of sunlight, a mechanism triggered of the production of more melanin, thereby making him darker. Evolution came into play in the sense that people who found it easier to produce melanin survived while those who couldnt died off eventually and the negroid race was created. in essence, man became darker but he was always dark. Even so, some really white skinned negroes still exist(top of my head example:some suprsilinly light skinned igboes exist in Nigeria, i have dated some of them and i was always fascinated by their almost white skin)

A mutation is an anomaly (in the sense that it is not normal). Mutations created variants of humans who didnt have any melanin(albino) or very little melanin (white) these people couldnt stand the sunlight they were exposed to in the fertile crescent (middle east and northern africa,  where civilisation is generally accepted to have sprung up from) and so they migrated to colder parts of the world where their was less sunlight. they became isolated and developed characteristics that are consistent with the race called Caucasian.
note that even though i agree that evolution plays a strong role in the development of the human race i do not use the very broad term evolution to mean what die hard evolutionists claim it should mean. Evolution simply means change. change in the sense that when u were born u were a baby. now, i assume you are an adult. hence, u have evolved. saying that u evolved from some apelike creature to what u are now simply tasks my brain even if it does not task yours.
broad and wide sweeping


3. present day scientists cannot group races into 3 groups because they have tried to do these divisions in detail. They do not use the biblical groupins anymore not because they disagree with them but because scientific knowledge has allowed us to go far more into detail than Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) did.

4. I still do not see how you have debunked the story of Noah s kids or how you can. The dude who wrote the story simply divided the races he was aware of into three very broad groups. Semitic , Hamitic and Japhetic (or proto-iberian). the dude was not writing a scientific journal, yet for a historical book he was reasonably accurate. at least accurate enough for scientists, almost 4000 years later to still agree with his very broad, naive, amaterish yet fairly accurate groupings

We all used to be so white, we became so black by spending too much time tanning.

@ all,
whenever i read through threads like this it just amazes me the level of knowledge we men of today have achieved.

Am an adherent of the Grail Message , and this Grail Message answer the whole questions bothering the human soul, and this question has also been answred in the Grail Message, but there'no time here for me to start the explanation cos of time and i'll implore anyone who is seriously seeking to find answers to questions about life should pick up a copy and read, cos he that seeks with sincere genuinty he will surely find

simmy:


1. Mutations do happen. It is my personal opinion that mutations do not occur frequently enough to account for the diversity of life we see on our planet,even if the earth was a gazzillion gajillion years old. Even when you take into consideration introduction of genes to viruses and radiation and all possible causes put together.
An arguement on mutation is a topic for another thread and you re welcome to start such a thread.This is an ongoing dispute at the highest circles of knowledge in biology so we both wont reach any conclusions fom exchanging ideas. It is also of my personal opinion that the variation and diversity we see on earth can only be accounted for by a sudden spontaneous arrival at biological complexity. Note that this is my personal opinion as i realise that i have no direct evidence to substantiate my claim. However, evolutionists have not yet put forward a convincing arguement to prove the veracity of their claims either (once again, my opinion and also that of numerous scientists and other well informed people).

I am not one to take the biblical accounts strictly literarily; just like nobody takes all the words in even an informal letter from a friend literarilly. a good deal of common sense is needed to understand the bible. so when the bible indirectly claims the earth is only 6000 years old, instead of criticising it is not difficult or too far fetched to realise that the bible was talking about the age of civilised man. civilised man is roughly give or take a few thousand years ; 6000 years old. However, time is not an important factor for creationists as it is for evolutinist. A spontaneous sudden arrival of biological life forms needs just a day to take effect


2. Yes. Man was created black in the sense that he was crerated with melanin in his skin. when he migrated to parts of the world with very high intensity of sunlight, a mechanism triggered of the production of more melanin, thereby making him darker. Evolution came into play in the sense that people who found it easier to produce melanin survived while those who couldnt died off eventually and the negroid race was created. in essence, man became darker but he was always dark. Even so, some really white skinned negroes still exist(top of my head example:some suprsilinly light skinned igboes exist in Nigeria, i have dated some of them and i was always fascinated by their almost white skin)

A mutation is an anomaly (in the sense that it is not normal). Mutations created variants of humans who didnt have any melanin(albino) or very little melanin (white) these people couldnt stand the sunlight they were exposed to in the fertile crescent (middle east and northern africa, where civilisation is generally accepted to have sprung up from) and so they migrated to colder parts of the world where their was less sunlight. they became isolated and developed characteristics that are consistent with the race called Caucasian.
note that even though i agree that evolution plays a strong role in the development of the human race i do not use the very broad term evolution to mean what die hard evolutionists claim it should mean. Evolution simply means change. change in the sense that when u were born u were a baby. now, i assume you are an adult. hence, u have evolved. saying that u evolved from some apelike creature to what u are now simply tasks my brain even if it does not task yours.
broad and wide sweeping


3. present day scientists cannot group races into 3 groups because they have tried to do these divisions in detail. They do not use the biblical groupins anymore not because they disagree with them but because scientific knowledge has allowed us to go far more into detail than Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) did.

4. I still do not see how you have debunked the story of Noah s kids or how you can. The dude who wrote the story simply divided the races he was aware of into three very broad groups. Semitic , Hamitic and Japhetic (or proto-iberian). the dude was not writing a scientific journal, yet for a historical book he was reasonably accurate. at least accurate enough for scientists, almost 4000 years later to still agree with his very broad, naive, amaterish yet fairly accurate groupings

I didn't debunked the Noah story and its "Historical account of races." It debunked itself by the inaccuracies the authors present in their linkage with genealogy and race that have researched by science and evidence, thus the abandonment of these classifications of peoples.

If a historical account is to be reasonable accurate it has to present truths that can test the scrutiny of research and confirmation without bias.

Again I am not disputing the genealogy of the Noah only that it bears no relevance to the races that exist today in the world and the church should be taught to shrug off these connections which are filled with racist innuendos and fallacies by authors who had a skewed sense of the world and themselves.

i dont think u read my post. scientists didnt abandon the noah approach because it was flawed, they modified it to suit present day scientific findings.
evolutionists still look to Darwin as the father of evolution though they have greatly modified his theory today.

simmy:

i don't think u read my post. scientists didnt abandon the noah approach because it was flawed, they modified it to suit present day scientific findings.
evolutionists still look to Darwin as the father of evolution though they have greatly modified his theory today.

I read the thread alright. "What modifications are you talking about?"

Please enlighten me by sighting them. I don't see how the jewish classificaton of human races was modified. If you are talking about the tribes and groupings mentioned in the "so called historical human race account" maybe they kept a few names and classifications of peoples seeing that it was of no relevance to rename these peoples. There is even till today dispute among those accurate classifcation of peoples since its difficult to trace the true origins of certain people mentioned in tth "historical account of races"

The comparison to Darwin's theory is inaccurate. His model was built upon and modified. The historical groupings by Josephus who is the culprit behind this classifications of peoples is built on myth and heresay.

Saying people are semitic, hamitic is more of a linguistic classification that a racial one which I'll agree scientist still use but by no means are they building upon the so called "blocks" of the historical account. The palestinian/Philistines of yesteryear are not the same as the palestinians of today, yet the people are called Palestinian cause of the region they come from. We cannot assume that because they are called palestinians some how they are the offspring of the original forebearers of that name unless invesitgated. We simply use those terms to simplify matters.

morpheus24:

I read the thread alright. "What modifications are you talking about?"

I don't see how the jewish classificaton of human races was modified. If you are talking about the tribes and groupings mentioned in the "so called historical human race account" maybe they kept a few names and classifications of peoples seeing that it was of no relevance to rename these peoples.

If they were as innacurate as you have made them out to be,  im sure scientists would have re-classified all; of them and wont have kept any names[quote

There is even till today dispute among those accurate classifcation of peoples since its difficult to trace the true origins of certain people mentioned in tth "historical account of races"

[/quote]

Dog, show me just one theory which is not disputed at some levels in the scientific community. the fact that there is even  a dispute (about 4000 years later) implies that whoever wrote Genesis must have done at least 'some research' and wasnt writing fables from the top of his head.

[quote author=morpheus24 link=topic=133599.msg2312136#msg2312136 date=1212083334]

The comparison to Darwin's theory is inaccurate. His model was built upon and modified.

Ok. mayb i went a little offpoint. scientists didnt xctly build on the biblical model. but the moral remains the same. if the Genesis account was so innacurate, the scientific world would have completely distanced itself from it.

The historical groupings by Josephus who is the culprit behind this classifications of peoples is built on  myth and heresay.

thats your opinion dude

Saying people are semitic, hamitic is more of a linguistic classification that a racial one which I'll agree scientist still use but by no means are they building upon the so called "blocks" of the historical account. The palestinian/Philistines of yesteryear are not the same as the palestinians of today, yet the people are called Palestinian cause of the region they come from. We cannot assume that because they are called palestinians some how they are the offspring of the original forebearers of that name unless invesitgated. We simply use those terms to simplify matters

i ve already said and i will say again,  whoever wrote Genesis was not writing a scientific  journal so its irrrelevant if its a racial or linguistic classification. Biblical scholars decided that black people were of Hamitic stock. and coincidentally, there was a curse put on them in the bible which can be linked to the travails of the black man. However, it is interesting to note that under jewish traditions , ALL foreigners (Gentiles) where under a curse. Ironically the jews invented or at least made popular the concept of racism (please don't accuse me of being anti-semitic)

simmy:

3. i am not claiming the whole world came from shem ham and j, neither am i disputing the fact but it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j

I dispute the claim that everyone descended from Ham, Japheth and Shem. And, no, scientsts don't generally divide the world's races into three very broad groups.

4. Note that present day negroes fall into the very broad group scientists refer to as hamitic.

"Hamitic" is, at best, a pseudo-scientific term.

5. at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attemp atgrouping the races of the world. ( a fairly accurate one if u ask me)

Tracing the origins of all of the races of the earth is still an ongoing process which still baffles scientists, so whatever we say on this thread is subject to a great deal of speculation

That's not right. A great deal is known about the origins of races, so there's no need for the many, often despairing, speculations that have appeared in this thread. That is not to say that there isn't much to be disovered, just that enough is known.

simmy:

If they were as innacurate as you have made them out to be, im sure scientists would have re-classified all; of them and wont have kept any names

Who kept what names? Even at the height of racial classification based on features, the use of the Biblical terms were used mostly by Christian scientists. Further, in the classification of race by features, they had at least one extra racial classification with which to contend (Austraoid, and to be pendantic, Mongoloid). Hamitic isn't a racial classification, and, yes, it's inaccurate.

Ok. mayb i went a little offpoint. scientists didnt xctly build on the biblical model. but the moral remains the same. if the Genesis account was so innacurate, the scientific world would have completely distanced itself from it.

Or not even bother with rubbish of that kind.

@ kag

1. no one claims the whole world descended from the big 3. so i don't see y ure disputing somehting no one is claiming. However, everyone agrees civilisation spread from the fertile crescent which vaguely agrees with the biblical account.
2. the term hamitic is pseudo0scientific?
YES it is! the dude who wrote Genesis was not writing a scientific journal!

3. Enough is known about man s origins to know that whatever was stated in Genesis is reasonably accurate! and i wasn t speculating. if anything,  i was calling against speculation.

i wonder y people treat the bible as a scientific journal which has to be scientifically accurate in all its detail. what do you expect? a detaile scientific classification of races based on language, features and genetics

Also, by the way, the bible NEVER directly claimed the whole world descended from noah and his kids. you concluded that was the bible s message and then turn around and criticise the bible 4 its in accuracy! classic strawman if u ask me

simmy:

@ kag

1. no one claims the whole world descended from the big 3. so i don't see y ure disputing somehting no one is claiming. However, everyone agrees civilisation spread from the fertile crescent which vaguely agrees with the biblical account.

No one claims that the whole world descended from Ham, Japheth and Shem? Since when? Biblical literalists, which I got the impression you were, do indeed believe that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all of humanity, livng the Earth to be populated from the descendants of the aforemetioned three. If you dont believe that, then indicating a physical ark and actions of a Noah et al., becomes moot. Further, the sons of Noah become just as useless in this discussion.

2. the term hamitic is pseudo0scientific?
YES it is! the dude who wrote Genesis was not writing a scientific journal!

Then you realise that this: "Note that present day negroes fall into the very broad group scientists refer to as hamitic." was inaccurate, yes?

3. Enough is known about man s origins to know that whatever was stated in Genesis is reasonably accurate! and i wasn t speculating. if anything, i was calling against speculation.

Nonsense. Enough is known about origins to know the Genesis account is allegorical at best; not, reasonably accurate. By the way, you did speculate.

i wonder y people treat the bible as a scientific journal which has to be scientifically accurate in all its detail. what do you expect? a detaile scientific classification of races based on language, features and genetics

I don't expect anything other than a hope that people realise that, as you say, it isn't a science journal, and that it is no where close to being inerrant.

Also, by the way, the bible NEVER directly claimed the whole world descended from noah and his kids. you concluded that was the bible s message and then turn around and criticise the bible 4 its in accuracy! classic strawman if u ask me

Silly me for applying a literal reading of Noah's flood to a discussion that had the implication that not only did all Black people descend from Ham but that the names of Noah's sons formed the basis for race classifiation.

By the ay, I didn't conclude that as the Bible's message - I've always advocated a non-literal reading of the text.

YES it is! the dude who wrote Genesis was not writing a scientific journal!

So, in what sense should we understand Genesis? metaphorical, allegorical, literal, mythological, etc, etc?

3. Enough is known about man s origins to know that whatever was stated in Genesis is reasonably accurate! and i wasn t speculating. if anything, i was calling against speculation.

Glib statements such as this should not be taken seriously unless you provide evidence as to how the Genesis account corroborates with other known and indisputable facts about human origins. Let me give you a few of such facts;

1) Humans are known to have evolved in Africa from common ancestor with chimpanzees.
2) Modern humans are at best only about 100,000 years old
3) Neandarthal are a distinct species from humans
4) Human migration was from Africa outward, rather than from the Arabian desert into Africa.
etc, etc

Can you show how the Genesis account fits into this picture?

huxley:


So, in what sense should we understand Genesis? metaphorical, allegorical, literal, mythological, etc, etc?

Glib statements such as this should not be taken seriously unless you provide evidence as to how the Genesis account corroborates with other known and indisputable facts about human origins. Let me give you a few of such facts;

1) Humans are known to have evolved in Africa from common ancestor with chimpanzees.
2) Modern humans are at best only about 100,000 years old
3) Neandarthal are a distinct species from humans
4) Human migration was from Africa outward, rather than from the Arabian desert into Africa.
etc, etc

Can you show how the Genesis account fits into this picture?

Here we go again! People ascribing what they believe to the bible and presenting their viewpoint as fact! dude you made a few assumptions
1. That human beings have chimpanzees as a common ancestor is not fact! its your opinion
2. Modern humans are at least 100,000years old,  maybe,  i never contested that fact with you. Neither did the bible.
3. Neandarthal now i really don't understand what ure getting at
4. Human migration was from Africa outward. agreed. findings indicate so. However, the reality is a little more complex than that. humans migrated outwards from Africa, settled in the Arabian desert and remigrated to all parts of the world including back to Africa. the bibe is silent about the location of man s origins. i t implies it was somewhere in the fertile crescent but elsewhere also implied that man existed in other parts of the world.

the bible makes a lot more sense if its taken in context. its a religious book that makes claims that can't be substantiated anyways. i mean how am i supposed to convince you that a place exists somewhere burning with fire and brimstone (which  by the way i don't think is a literal fire) in which a loving God is going to throw you for all eternity for not loving Him?

On subjects that can be substantiated, the bible is simply a historical book written by simple folks for simple people. it was defintiely not written for the post jet age Homo sapiens. it explains or at least attempts to phenomena in a very simplistic way. u can accuse the bible of naivety in scientific matters but to call it innacurate is taking it out of context.

@kag
u don't know what i am or believe,  so y assume?  basically i don't agree with people who think the bible should be taken in a strict literal sense.  a little bit of common sense and ability to put things in perspective is needed to understand the bible. Also a lot of skeptisicm in the scientific community

simmy:

@kag
u don't know what i am or believe, so y assume?

What did I assume?

basically i don't agree with people who think the bible should be taken in a strict literal sense. a little bit of common sense and ability to put things in perspective is needed to understand the bible. Also a lot of skeptisicm in the scientific community

So, how do you interpret the Noah story? And if your interpretation is not in a [strict] literal sense, why argue the Ham, Japheth and Shem line? What of the Creation and Eden accounts?

I agree that there should be scepticism in the science community.

simmy:


Here we go again! People ascribing what they believe to the bible and presenting their viewpoint as fact! dude you made a few assumptions
1. That human beings have chimpanzees as a common ancestor is not fact! its your opinion
2. Modern humans are at least 100,000years old, maybe, i never contested that fact with you. Neither did the bible.
3. Neandarthal now i really don't understand what ure getting at
4. Human migration was from Africa outward. agreed. findings indicate so. However, the reality is a little more complex than that. humans migrated outwards from Africa, settled in the Arabian desert and remigrated to all parts of the world including back to Africa. the bibe is silent about the location of man s origins. i t implies it was somewhere in the fertile crescent but elsewhere also implied that man existed in other parts of the world.

the bible makes a lot more sense if its taken in context. its a religious book that makes claims that can't be substantiated anyways. i mean how am i supposed to convince you that a place exists somewhere burning with fire and brimstone (which by the way i don't think is a literal fire) in which a loving God is going to throw you for all eternity for not loving Him?

On subjects that can be substantiated, the bible is simply a historical book written by simple folks for simple people. it was defintiely not written for the post jet age Homo sapiens. it explains or at least attempts to phenomena in a very simplistic way. u can accuse the bible of naivety in scientific matters but to call it innacurate is taking it out of context.

@kag
u don't know what i am or believe, so y assume? basically i don't agree with people who think the bible should be taken in a strict literal sense. a little bit of common sense and ability to put things in perspective is needed to understand the bible. Also a lot of skeptisicm in the scientific community

Simmy you are confusing me on your stance concerning this topic. I put the statement forward how did black people become black specifically refuting the 3 sons story as the origins of world races being that they are false stories based on ethnocentric view points and written by historians who were grossly biased and prejudice( Not an opinion but a fact) and further stating that their teaches be stricken from being preached anywhere possible. including Pastor Oshimolowo's sermons.

I am not stating that the Bible for any reason is a scientific book or should explain scientific facts and I do agree it can be used as a historical reference during investigations of historical matters. However the point I am trying to make here is that the historical account of the origins of races BASED ON THE INFORMATION FROM THE BIBLE is inaccurate. if something is proven inaccurate it is therefore false and if false should not be taught. This is the difference between pseudo science and science with the former being the manipulation of certain truths to come to an unverifiable/skewed conclusion rather than the facts standing out for themselves as verifiable by almost anyone.

The Noah/3 Sons story is a myth and cannot be verified. The Bible doesn't even support the story.

@morpheus
i have no idea what Asimolowo wrote or did not write in his book so i shal not comment on that.
However, i have said repeatedly that saying the biblical account is wrong or innacurate is taking things out of context. You are judging it by the wrong standards! did the black man evolve from Ham No! but was he grouped as Hamitic in the bible? definitely! that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times. So saying the information in the bible is innacurate is like saying because my primary school science textbook said the sun is a ball of fire , then its innacurate and false!

a lot of things cannot be verified. We still cant verify thta Jesus existed talk less Noah. neither can you verify (atleast directly) that any historical figure (a thousand years old) really existed. did Aristotle exist? how about Julius Ceaser? The Alexandrian stories of conquest and glory, di it really happen? or are they just Homer like stories its a matter of opinion.

I really don't know the answer to this question, but I'm damn sure what that seth and co. story the bible has to offer on the issue is a load oh horse manure, just like the Noah one.

Ess, i feel you. im a xtian and sometimes bible stories sound worse than horse crap even to me. but the real answer from a strictly objective point is , i dont know, if i knew the answers xtianity will cease from being a religion. i dont know if the bible is serving me a hot steamy bowl of human manure!!! thats why i need to believe the stories! u dont believe something that can be proved

simmy:

Ess, i feel you. im a xtian and sometimes bible stories sound worse than horse crap even to me. but the real answer from a strictly objective point is , i don't know, if i knew the answers xtianity will cease from being a religion. i don't know if the bible is serving me a hot steamy bowl of human manure!!! thats why i need to believe the stories! u don't believe something that can be proved

You have for once spoken some sense here, and these are;

1) I don't know. If I knew the answers xtianity will cease from being a religion.

I could not agree more. Any propositions moves from the realm of myth, hypothesis, speculation, conjecture etc, to knowledge (fact) once all (or most) of the governing mechanisms are understood and explicated in a naturalistic framework.

2) That's why I need to believe the stories! You don't believe something that can be proved.

Spot on yet again. Just as we don't belief in gravity, relativity, plate tectonic, evolution, germ theory of disease, etc. These are either facts or theories that explain some observable facts.

The real question is: Why chose to believe in the stories of the Judeo-Christian tradition and not the stories from other traditions like Mohameddans, Mayans, African etc?

simmy:

@morpheus
i have no idea what Asimolowo wrote or did not write in his book so i shal not comment on that.
However, i have said repeatedly that saying the biblical account is wrong or innacurate is taking things out of context. You are judging it by the wrong standards! did the black man evolve from Ham No! but was he grouped as Hamitic in the bible? definitely! that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times.

Wait, so Chinese people just appeared out of no where, about 4, 000 years ago?

By the way, it's not taking things out of context to point out the Bible is wrong on issues. Sure you can point out that contents in the Bible were written from a perspective of the times, but it still wouldn't make a wrong assertion any less wrong.

So saying the information in the bible is innacurate is like saying because my primary school science textbook said the sun is a ball of fire , then its innacurate and false!

Not quite the same. It's like saying the claims that there is life on the moon is wrong or inaccurate.

simmy:

a lot of things cannot be verified. We still can't verify thta Jesus existed talk less Noah. neither can you verify (atleast directly) that any historical figure (a thousand years old) really existed. did Aristotle exist? how about Julius Ceaser? The Alexandrian stories of conquest and glory, di it really happen? or are they just Homer like stories its a matter of opinion.

There are accepted ways of verifying things that have historical prominence. That Julius Caesar and Aristotle existed can be verified by many independent means, not least, the books and things they authored, the independent sources within their times - both secular and otherwise, physical representations made of them dated to their time - i.e. busts, coins, icons. Same with Alexander's conquests.

Now, the Homeric and Noahchide legends can, to a great extent, be either verified or falsified by examining what they claim and pitting it against evidence. So, the great flood can be said to be falsified because evidence for it is not only seriously lacking, but there is a great amount of positive evidence to show that it couldn't have occured.

The point? It's not a matter of opinion.

simmy:

@morpheus
i have no idea what Asimolowo wrote or did not write in his book so i shal not comment on that.
However, i have said repeatedly that saying the biblical account is wrong or innacurate is taking things out of context. You are judging it by the wrong standards! did the black man evolve from Ham No! but was he grouped as Hamitic in the bible? definitely! that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times. So saying the information in the bible is innacurate is like saying because my primary school science textbook said the sun is a ball of fire , then its innacurate and false!

The story of the Ham Shem and japheth are biblical accounts alright. Their relationship or genealogy cannot be verified as the the roots of races that exist in the world today. I am not judging the bible accounts of the 3 sons. I am judging the account of the authors or the so called historical opininon that these three human beings spawn the races of the world.

THE BIBLE DOES NOT SUPPORT that opinion. No one was grouped as Hamitics in the bible. No one called black people sons of Ham in the bible. Re interpretations and translations have a lot to do with the manipulation of information.

You can see I am not deviating from the topic. I ain't talking about Genesis, the flood or even the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. My point is who ever traced the origins of the races of man to tribal clans using the stories in the bible as evidence of this had little knowledge of evolutionary principles which have completely debunked the rational that in a short span of time, people's phenotypes could morph to be undeniably distinguishable from one another.

@kag
im sure the guys tht wrote the bible werent even aware tht the chinese folks existed, so i dont get your point.
@morpheus
im forced to agree with u. many people inteprete the bible and make it say what it never said, however, note that when pastors preach, they tend to make analogies and dont expect you to take them literarilly. Many people are just stupid! so they do. others like just dont understand enuff of the Xtian culture. As a pastor i can come to the pulpit and tell u tht the black man was cursed by noah and assume you understand the, should i call it, almost poetic way of positioning things. now, i state i have no idea what Asimolowo said and meant so im not defending him but all im saying is i can see myself as a pastor saying stuff like that and assuming people understand im not discussing science

@ huxley


good question
now thats a different story entirely. thats where xtianity starts from. thts where science ends and religion starts, i dont believe in mixing both, they dont mix tht well, its a personal thing and it cant be explained. u just have to feel it, just like i cant explain howit feels like to see to sm1 who s never had the sense of sight. i can try, but i ll be hopelessly lost in conveyong the real measning of sight.

Religion is not rational!! in fact its totally irrational, illogical and stupid! yet, its the truth

simmy:

@kag
im sure the guys that wrote the bible werent even aware that the chinese folks existed, so i don't get your point.

You said "that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times." So, that wasn't what you meant, then? Either the Chinese suddenly appeared out of no where or that wasn't the Bible's way of grouping the races that existed in those times.

Further, we are back to the the question of how you read the Noah story. Do you feel it is allegorical? If so, why argue the angle of Noah's descendant? If not, then how?

KAG:

You said "that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times." So, that wasn't what you meant, then? Either the Chinese suddenly appeared out of no where or that wasn't the Bible's way of grouping the races that existed in those times.

Further, we are back to the the question of how you read the Noah story. Do you feel it is allegorical? If so, why argue the angle of Noah's descendant? If not, then how?

\
dear kag
The Bible was not written as a scientific journal!!! Y must it take into account ALL the races that ever existed?where does the bible claim scientific knowledge? was the grouping of races a scientific excercise? in what context was the bible grouping the races?
Dont make assumptions.
you think you know? you have no idea!

simmy:

\
dear kag
The Bible was not written as a scientific journal!!! Y must it take into account ALL the races that ever existed?where does the bible claim scientific knowledge? was the grouping of races a scientific excercise? in what context was the bible grouping the races?
Dont make assumptions.
you think you know? you have no idea!

The hell? YOU said "that was the bible s way of making a grouping of the races that existed in those times." Not me, you. I didn't say the Bible was written as a science journal; I was clealy responding to the claim you made. Feel free to actually read what I wrote and retract at your own convenience.

Now, "back to the the question of how you read the Noah story [which you've somehow managed to avoid on each turn]. Do you feel it is allegorical? If so, why argue the angle of Noah's descendant? If not, then how?"

simmy:

@kag
im sure the guys that wrote the bible werent even aware that the chinese folks existed, so i don't get your point.
@morpheus
im forced to agree with u. many people inteprete the bible and make it say what it never said, however, note that when pastors preach, they tend to make analogies and don't expect you to take them literarilly. Many people are just stupid! so they do. others like just don't understand enough of the Christian culture. As a pastor i can come to the pulpit and tell u that the black man was cursed by noah and assume you understand the, should i call it, almost poetic way of positioning things. now, i state i have no idea what Asimolowo said and meant so im not defending him but all im saying is i can see myself as a pastor saying stuff like that and assuming people understand im not discussing science

If many people inteprete the bible and make it say what it never said isn't it an irresponsible thing to do. Even if the pastors tasks is to feed the spiritual needs of the congregation, he shouldn't lie or misconstrue the information he is diseminating to them or accept teachings he absorbed from seminary shcool without trully invesitgating such important matters. At least we have clarified the matter that I am not disputing what the bible says but what people say about what the bible says.

Ignorance is the worst type of disease a man can have, to point out errors which are evident is to do justice to Christianity and mankind as a whole. My beef with Pastor Oshimolowo is against what a poster here who obviously goes to his church and hears him preach about this topic simply believes what he is told without invesitgating the facts. For the pastor to continue to preach the origins of races based on accounts linked to biblical references, assuming the follower to be intelligent enough to distinguish analogy from fact is wrong.

Teaching about the adaptations of man in a more scientific context should be encouraged without necessarily referencing to the Bible to justify or confirm such discoveries. The Bible is intentionally silent on this matter because differences in mankind in terms of race are not important to its overall message and the concept of race and color or the way your nose is shaped is man made.

@morpheus
im forced to agree with you. many pastors are either ignorant or careless. however, i believe its your duty to know what you believe. you shouldnt rely on anyoneelse.

@kag
alright already, if you dont get my point drop it and go n do other stuff ok?

by the way ive delibrately ignored ur question. its another topic for another thread and im not in the mood 4 tht now

Like i said, you think you know?
you have no idea,

simmy:

@kag
alright already, if you don't get my point drop it and go n do other stuff ok?

Is this the new brand of cop-out? 'Cos, I didn't get the memo. Look, I addressed what you wrote specifically, even going as far as to cite your words in context. I'm pretty sure I got your points. If not, point out the ones I didn't.

simmy:

by the way ive delibrately ignored your question. its another topic for another thread and im not in the mood 4 that now

Like i said, you think you know?
you have no idea,

Your cake: trying to eat it and having it afterwards doesn't work. It really isn't another topic, but whatever.

I probably have little or nothing to add to this discussion as it is clear that people with the correct scientific information have been able to articulate themselves very clearly on this issues and also provided sources so that is good. The main thing I would like to say is that the bible and biblical accounts are obviously composed mostly of fairy tales invented by people in ancient times. Although it may have some very little historical truth in it, studies from multidisciplinary angles have shown that most of the genisis stories are just myths and that there is no evidence of Noah's ark as being the truth,it is more like a plagiarised work. In fact there are several earlier accounts of such an occurrence as the great flood by different civilisations in ancient times and I know of at least one epic of the great leader Gilgamesh who sailed the great floods and survived where the whole world perished. Likewise Sargon of Akkad was placed in a basket to save his life as an infant at least a thousand years before moses. Another example of this plagiarism is in the story of Mises the ancient Egyptian law giver or bringer who went up into the mountains and brought back the laws of ma at on stone tablets several thousand years before Abraham first walked in Egypt. There is loads more texts and excavated scrolls that prove that the hebrews copied most of the stuff in their old testament from ancient African civilizations and had the audacity to change stuff in there to dehumanise the very people they stole this information from, this is where the story of ham comes from and it is utter nonsense as Morpheus says.Furthermore Israeli archaeologists and Jewish rabbinic scholars have come out to confirm that the stories in the old testament are infact full of non truths , half truths and blatant lies, This is the same book that has been tampered with so many times it has over 3000 versions.
In conclusion I have to say we cannot categorically say this is where blacks whites or even life came from because although science has been able to discipher a lot of the information we have access to today, science is ultimately changing in reflection of what can be pr oven to be true at any point in time and science is always willing to change its position on anything as long as you can prove this through testable evidence which can be reproduced by anybody. Having said this the most plausible answer to that question in my opinion from what little i know about science and history is that the first man was a black man and every other human race is a mutated version of the black man .