Diversity in Races Disproves Literal Translation of Bibile.

The diversity of the various human races confirms this view of the subject. Climate and modes of life undoubtedly modify the physical characteristics of mankind, but we know the extent to which these modifications can be carried, and physiological examination conclusively proves that there are between the different races of men constitutional differences too profound to have been produced merely by differences of climate.

The crossing of races produces intermediary types; it tends to efface the extremes of characteristic peculiarities; but it does not produce these peculiarities, and, therefore, creates only new varieties. But the crossing of races presupposes the existence of races distinct from each other; and how is the existence of these to be explained if we attribute their origin to a common stock especially if we restrict the production of these various races to so brief a period? How is it possible to suppose, for example, that the descendants of Noah could have been, in so short a time, transformed into Ethiopians? Such a metamorphosis would be as inadmissible as that of a wolf into a sheep, of a beetle into an elephant, of a bird into a fish.

No preconceived opinion can withstand, in the long run, the evidence of opposing facts. But, on the contrary, all difficulty disappears if we assume that man existed at a period anterior to that which has hitherto been commonly assigned to his creation; that Adam commenced, some 6000 years ago, the peopling of a country until then uninhabited; that the deluge of Noah was a local catastrophe, erroneously confounded with the great geological cataclysm; and, finally, if we make due allowance for the allegorical form of expression characteristic of the Oriental style, and common to the sacred books of every people.

It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.

-allAn Kardec

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I believe you are mistaking biblical years (6000) as actual time. I was under the impression that they are speaking in terms of 1 year being hundreds of human years. We already know humans have been living on earth FAR longer than 6000 human years.

chadderson
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

I believe you are mistaking biblical years (6000) as actual time. I was under the impression that they are speaking in terms of 1 year being hundreds of human years. We already know humans have been living on earth FAR longer than 6000 human years.

No I am not mistaken.

The Bible tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary.

The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages

reply to post by Shadow Herder


People living in the Americas during the ancient times pretty much disproves the literal translation of the bible. There is no way if all people came from the same place in the Middle East 6000 years ago, that they'd end up in the Americas. Heck this time period is post-Ice Age and therefore there is no land bridge between Alaska and Russia. How would these people get to America and proliferate between the two continents and develop their own unique cultures and empires within a few thousand years?

Actually check that, common sense pretty much disproves the literal translation of the bible. Why is it that the OT God is so destructive? Probably because most of those destructive acts were most likely natural events like volcanoes erupting or earthquakes or the mass thawing of ice causing an unprecedented flood. The reason that these "acts of God" stopped occurring has to do with the fact that humans started understanding the world better and realized that these things happen all the time with no baring on being sinful or not.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


So do you believe that over the course of millions of ages, separated human beings living in separate conditions would develop into what some deem "different races"?

I seem to have misunderstood your initial post.

Im white and im only a tiny bit different from an Ethiopian, melanin and culture isn't much of a metamorphosis?

And you're talking out your arse about the bible, ignore anything measuring time we measure our day/night cycle by rotation of the earth. How long would a day be if you consider the whole universe?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

The Bible tells us that the world was created in six days,

No, the people that wrote the Bible tell us that. How could they know though. The didn't have any science to prove anything at the time.

The world has been here a lot longer than 6000 years. The entire Hawaiian Island volcanic chain and strata of the Grand canyon bear this out. With Science. Sorry about that.

intrptr
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

The Bible tells us that the world was created in six days,

No, the people that wrote the Bible tell us that. How could they know though. The didn't have any science to prove anything at the time.

The world has been here a lot longer than 6000 years. The entire Hawaiian Island volcanic chain and strata of the Grand canyon bear this out. With Science. Sorry about that.

You should of kept on reading instead of jumping on the reply button, here is the rest of the quote

"The Bible tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages

"

Actually I am pretty sure the Bible universal dating is opinion and conjecture, not factual.

Plus it is a logical fact that all humans come from the same original parents.

Also consider how quickly peoples physical traits can change due to environment or genetic diversity.

Things are simply too ambiguous to actually determine either way for absolute sure.

Well unless someone makes a time machine, then we can go check first hand.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

It can be beneficial to seek context.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The fun part is, much of the diversity in human phenotype expression we can thank the Neanderthals for.

Everyone on the planet, except for some small groups of sub-Saharan Black Africans of Africa, from Africa that have never left Africa, show anywhere from 1-4% of Neanderthal mixture.

The only pure-blooded humans on the planet are Sub-Saharan Black Africans.

Everyone else has a mixture of Neanderthal, Denisovan, and some other currently as of yet unknown Hominid mixed in with their DNA.

If we pretend some magical deity swooshed in and created mankind "in his image", the only logical conclusion with available data would be that this god looks Sub-Saharan Black African because it's the only pur blooded human race, and this Abrahamic deity isn't known for much tolerance when it comes to man sleeping with the beasts in the field (Neanderthal, and/or other hominids).

Thus, if there was a god, that god was black, so says DNA.
... unless that god was a Neanderthal god which only hangs about because of the tiny bit of DNA still remnant, which would possibly explain all the schizophrenic god nonsense.

chadderson
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

I believe you are mistaking biblical years (6000) as actual time. I was under the impression that they are speaking in terms of 1 year being hundreds of human years. We already know humans have been living on earth FAR longer than 6000 human years.

So if you can't take one part literally, what part can you take literally?

The diversity
meaning the three types, Asian Negro and white

Next you will say whites are more evolved?

I dont see how it is proven that these skin types and race peculiarities prove anything. I dont see any science or evidence in your statement

Go on back it up, have a go.

Here is a neat topic related to the OP.

Mitochondrial Eve - Mitochondrial DNA link to a single female
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
en.wikipedia.org...



The Genesis Creation story is heavily influenced by a man educated in Ancient Egypt.

I can see countless references to the Egyptian book of the dead, and Spells of the Dead in Genesis!!

Moses was actually ticked God's first laws didn't reflect the Spells of the Dead Commandments and were more of a cookbook!

2nd set of tablets seemed to be a compromise between God and Moses!



The creation story is influenced by Egyptian studies...

It makes it even more fascinating!!

reply to post by Shadow Herder

You should of kept on reading instead of jumping on the reply button, here is the rest of the quote

Maybe I misunderstood...

"The Bible thinks this and science thinks that." Are you saying that you agree with science's "more accurate" assessment of how long the world has been here?

Please, I have a follow up.

Humanity is one of the least genetically diverse species in the planet.

To give you an example look at gorillas an endangered species.

Between two gorilla family groups there is more genetic diversity than in all of humanity.

Don't believe me look at dogs, or simple life forms like any species of plants, all ridiculously diverse compared to humans.

You can chalk it up to a genetic bottle neck caused by something 30-40k years ago, where all of humanity seems to have been wiped out except for one tribal group, estimates rang on the size of it but it's guessed around maybe 1000.

Add to that mitochondrial eve, the single women all humanity can trace its linage to genetically...

Well to say the lest it's interesting.


Just thought of a similar example, cheetahs are the same way, they almost are extinct and have been dying off, something like 80-79 percent of cheetahs can trace back to one cheetah.

Again even them more diversity than humans.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Thus, if there was a god, that god was black, so says DNA.

Or rather, so says our interpretation of DNA which we may be able to chart but as yet fully understand.

According to DNA all humans came from this one woman in Africa. How did they turn white, red, Asian and starting basketball players?

Skin pigment responds to the environment in which it resides. Hot sun and cold weather climes produce more or less of it according to the need. White skinned people under cloudy skies in the UK need less "sunblock" than darker skinned ones in Africa.

Over eons the skin adapts. I'm talking just this one attribute now, don't over react. My proof is there are no "white" African tribes or "black" Irish Lords.

Just observing...

reply to post by muzzleflash

Hi, muzzleflash!

Things are simply too ambiguous to actually determine either way for absolute sure.

Well unless someone makes a time machine, then we can go check first hand.

I look around to see how things are formed.

Trees don't appear in a short space of time. They add ring after tiny ring over thousands of years for some species. Snail shells grow from tiny to large adding a bit of shell to the opening until a spiral forms. A wasp nest is comprised of layers in shells that expand the nest to a large circular ball.

A whole forest begins with but a single tree. A herd of a million wildebeests began with only one womb.

This is the small scale but indicates that all things grow slowly. On the scale of a solar system that has to be eons. Accretion disks gathering dust, sweeping the void for planetary forever, the sun switching on at some point reducing the elements in its furnace.

Things might be destroyed quickly, creation is a slow, painstaking process.

reply to post by intrptr


But yet we are stuck with the paradox of the everpresent 'bang'.

Since its the only bang of this nature, we dont have any bangs to compare it with. Therefore calling it 'big' is a mere figure of speech.

That is what your post caused me to start thinking about, haha. The back and forth of the God-Bang.

The rocking and rolling Universe?
Harmonic NepTune Sine of the Cosmic Sea?
Super Strings of the Great Harpy?
Bubbles in the boiling water?
Hmmm....

Shadow Herder


No I am not mistaken.

The Bible tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era.

The Bible says NO such thing and you could not quote where it does. Many Christians say such silly things, but the Bible doesnt. This 6000-year idea is based on interpretations of biblical-family trees and false assumptions of how long humans lived in those days.