₦airaland Forum

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!

@ 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

@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

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

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.

@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!

oga, how much is it?

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

@ 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

sex

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)

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.

STUPID CHELSEA!!!
No b abrahamovich wan go win europe on his home soil
O ju tiiii

MAN U 4 LIFE!!!!

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

@morpheus
im typing this out in a great hurry because im at work and i really should b doin smthng more constructive.
i tried to read through your highly emotive outbursts on this thread and i find your statements consistently full of half truths.
for instance i remember  ( i remember not to what purpose) you trying to logically present to us how the red blood cell of a sickler got to be in the shape of a sickle. your argument was reasonable (tho i questioned some of your logic) but inherently flawed for one simple reason. It was FALSE! simply because something is logical does not make it true. that s what u refer to as erroneus thinking.

Now as to how the black man became balck
1. the black man did not become black,  it was the white man that became white. white skin is an anomaly,  a mutation close to albinism. its simply skin without melanin. the earliest men were probably closer to negroid than anything else
2. someone said (i remember not who) that since there are more than 3 races in the world , we all couldnt have come from shem ham and japhet; (and u agreed) a statement i would expect from my three year old neice due to its naivety.
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
4. Note that present day negroes fall into the very broad group scientists refer to as hamitic.
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


PS in case u are wondering the sickle shape of a sicklers rbc is simply due to mutation. nothing else. the link with malaria is simple. those who carried a recessive sicker gene also carried an slight immunity to malaria and so they thrived in parts of the world where malaria was endemic. they naturally died out in other parts of the world

imhotep:
So, why did their simple faith not save them?

Xtians should learn that u can't have an answer to everything in life. Why is there so much suffering in the world despite God s love? why are their natural disasters in which the good die with the bad? why did Job suffer so much?

no one can question God and i can't claim to know why they died. mayb Peter lost his temper and pronounced death on them rashly,  or mayb God saw into their hearts and realised that they would never change. no matter what i think it would all amount to speculatiuon.

@ imhotep

even tho some of Oladegbu 's criticisms are unfounded i quite agree with a number of them. however, ur i foun d ur answer to his criticism unsatisfactory

imhotep:
One more 'pagan' practice => The bible was compiled and approved in 393 AD

@olaadegbu
You must reject the bible in order for your anti-catholicism to be consistent.
Go and compile/approve your own bible from your own sources.
Afterall, Jesus never wrote any book.

the methods in which the books of the bible was chosen to become the bible was quite transparent and logical. quite unlike many of the doctrines of the catholic church acquired along the way. the old testament was already widely in use by Jews and early Xtinas and even Jesus Xrist himself. the gospels were generally accepted by the early church as a true representation of Xrist s life and works (remember many of them were actual eyewitnesses themselves or at least were jesus 's contemporaries). all the council had to do was choose books that were consistent with all the already accepted ones.

those books which are not included in the protestant bible (macabees ,etc) are not necessarily considered false or bad. they just are not congruent with the teachings of the other books. and so to avoid confusion, they were excluded .

crap

hey mail, sorry dont do nairaland on weekends, striclty 4 my boo! but i ll drop smthng today, it aiight if ure too busy to reply, reply anytime u want, hybrid shld b able to make an xception 4 u

hey shaz, no hard feelings

wassup flo, waiting on you
mailmac nice 1, good to see ur exams havnt taken the emcee in u away, i ll take u on once i m thru with flo

Mailamac : 1 love all the best in your papers

This one s 4 floshow- no hard feelings


This flowshow s a mofo 4 sure
f, ing homo wants a tatse of my seed
oh no! go get some  from your hoe,  hi saucekid
Your metaphor s an eyesore im the one with the cruel intentions (see battle with saucekid)
your ryhmings out of timing youre a bore stop the pretensions
My lines are heavier than lead they ll weigh u down
instead of battling me dawg u can go shag shaz and give her head
bitch u can't stand me even with a thousand mics in your hand
my rhymes will bury u quick like its f ing quicksand
I'm dangerous like a mad bull
next to  me youre a tadpole
im a pilgrim on a mission on a rap journey
your gay mouth emissions can only battle your granny
Your Stupid Ass FLOWS/ Have got nothing to SHOW.
Your re completely useless,  like an arrow with no bow
a love-vendor with no hoe
a body without a soul
you re whacker than saucekid and even saucekid is whack
im going to murder you and then him back to back
this is a nuclear attack dawg, i ll keep busting u till your brain splits
relentless i stay focused like a baby searching 4 his mamas teats
like a bitch on heat im a make u  lower your pants
your stupid reply to this ish will follow but ive already slowed your rants  (pronounce slowered)
game over! my ish has wont the battle won before it begun
im a messiah to u bitch!bow down before me son

Word!

wassop to evry1
i ll take on floshow, wit 4 my verse dawg

any 1 know where mailmac is?