Where did different races come from?

[LPT]

I can't say the process from dirt to human, but I can say God is still in the creation business. People today are created from a egg ball of soup and a tad pole to human in 9 months. Today as I write this Suns are being created inside super heated nebula's.

Yes God is still always at work.

 

[so-jesus-e-deus]

I believe that it was in the Babel's tower. I don't believe that only the change of language would be sufficient to disperse all people around the world. On the other hand, to see persons have their countenance and color changed together with their language would seem to be a aberration.

 

[dcontroversal]

except you came from a electrified human sludge egg in the womb of woman, well for the most part, it took the tad pole swimming up stream to complete You.

This has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have read......man you should actually pay attention....You know....Jesus is that light that lights every man that comes into the world....they have discovered that at the moment a sperm burrows through the outer lining of an egg a brilliant flash of light is made...LIFE BEING CREATED....

 

[Depleted]

I believe Darwin would call this "evolution of species". The mutation of a species to adapt to its particular climate/environmental surroundings.

And most of what Darwin believed is no longer believed.

 

[Depleted]

See the actual article I reference for details -

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are two are very different accounts of the same creation story; originally recounted by at least two distinct individuals.

They may contradict each other here and there, but I'm not suggesting one is 'more correct' than the other - simply stating that the same story has been retold from many sources over time. It seems that when it was finally committed to writing, two variations of the story were prevalent - both were nicely woven into a single narrative.

Similar to the nativity narratives - two different accounts, but in today's culture, they're frequently combined/woven into one scenario. e.g. the three wise men never made it to the manger, but there they are in most nativity creche scenes. Bad comparison perhaps, but same general idea - the weaving of what is clearly two different literary accounts into one.

I'm not suggesting it somehow 'lessens' God, it's just how man has related this particular account over time.

Don't have to read it. Got stuck being taught that crap in school. When I was finally done school, and didn't have to give their answers for the test, I researched it. And blew huge holes in it. Something should get around to doing after school is out.

If I want to read fiction, I'll pick up a book.

 

[Depleted]

Chapters 1 and 2 are NOT different accounts. Chapter 1 looks at creation in its entirety and is primarily concerned with process. Chapter 2 focuses on the creation of man on the 6th day; and is primarily concerned with relationships.

Hebrew grammar makes it impossible to view them as separate accounts.

So does English syntax and basic comprehension.

 

[Depleted]

Well, after looking at this in more detail – I can see where arguments could be made for both.

From a literary point of view, the stylistic differences between chapters 1 and 2 seem to suggest different authors; however, a closer analysis of the actual grammar, as a few people have pointed out, provides for a single authorship.

I get where it’s one account grammatically; but I have to admit, stylistically I’m having a hard time not seeing two complementary accounts somewhere in the very distant past.

That said, not to get off on a tangent, I still stand by post #21 – these are creation stories and are not meant to be as literal as people take them.

And if you did any basic study of the accounts you can quickly come to the conclusion there is a huge difference from the Lord's account and all the other accounts.

 

[Depleted]

I can't say the process from dirt to human, but I can say God is still in the creation business. People today are created from a egg ball of soup and a tad pole to human in 9 months. Today as I write this Suns are being created inside super heated nebula's.

Yes God is still always at work.

They dropped the tadpole thing at least 20 years ago. The rest is conspiracy "reality."

 

[trofimus]

Creation scientists like Ken Ham say that if you make a table of row 1 with dominant A and B and row 2 with recessive a and b then combine the possibilities , the genetic differences show up quickly.

I do not think that anybody who thinks that the Universe is 6000 years old is a "scientist". Ken Ham is not just a "creation scientist", he is a "young Earth, 24 days" proponent.

We have Asian people for thousands years. No apparent change. We have European people thousands years. No apparent change. We have Negro people for thousands years. They are still black (and remain black even when living in Europe for centuries). So Ken Ham is wrong. It does not happen quickly...

It probably may happen relatively quickly if it would be a controlled, selective genetic cultivation. But not naturally.

 

[trofimus]

I believe that it was in the Babel's tower. I don't believe that only the change of language would be sufficient to disperse all people around the world. On the other hand, to see persons have their countenance and color changed together with their language would seem to be a aberration.

It would make sense.

Because its not just a language what separates nations (like many nations inside relatively small Europe), its also appearance and culture what separates races (like Europe´ separation from Africa or from muslim world).

 

[LPT]

This has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have read......man you should actually pay attention....You know....Jesus is that light that lights every man that comes into the world....they have discovered that at the moment a sperm burrows through the outer lining of an egg a brilliant flash of light is made...LIFE BEING CREATED....

Of coarse and you know what? people and most land animals and most marine animals are created from two things, the soup egg and tad pole semen. people can't even fathom why or how God creates life today, less fathom the past creations.

i know it's easy to call it idiotic when one doesn't have a clue as to how or why.

 

[LPT]

They dropped the tadpole thing at least 20 years ago. The rest is conspiracy "reality."

Ahh the predestined mind set, what God just went poof and you landed in the womb no egg or semen needed from before the universe was created.

reality check go buy a microscope get a sample from your husband look at it under a microscope, you will be shocked when you see little tad pole looking creatures swimming around.

 

[Depleted]

Ahh the predestined mind set, what God just went poof and you landed in the womb no egg or semen needed from before the universe was created.

reality check go buy a microscope get a sample from your husband look at it under a microscope, you will be shocked when you see little tad pole looking creatures swimming around.

That I have a husband should tell you I'm old enough to stop believing sperm = tadpoles. It should have gone noticed by you decades ago too.

 

[LPT]

That I have a husband should tell you I'm old enough to stop believing sperm = tadpoles. It should have gone noticed by you decades ago too.

Maybe your misunderstanding me, I'm not talking about frog tadpoles, the creature that men produce to reproduce look like small tadpoles not actually tad poles.

 

[1ofthem]

Maybe your misunderstanding me, I'm not talking about frog tadpoles, the creature that men produce to reproduce look like small tadpoles not actually tad poles.

Yeah, I can't believe anyone would have ever thought that a sperm was an actual tad pole....lol

 

[LPT]

Yeah, I can't believe anyone would have ever thought that a sperm was an actual tad pole....lol

Hahaha I know right, though there are people in this world who just love to jab at others. Anyone with common sense would know I wasn't talking about actual frog tadpoles.

 

[Miri]

Personsslly I think that if Almighy God is big enough and powerful enough
to create the entire universe with all its various forms, colours, shapes, sizes.

Then He is more than capable of creating Adam and Eve with the various genetic
traits in them, which showed themselves as people multiplied.

Also there is a saying birds of a feather flock together. It is still true today.
Its not hard to see how people who were blond might have procreated with other
blond people, then a family and then a tribe started of blond people.

We all still have those genetic variations in each of us. If you don’t believe me
check out the following link.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/black-white-twins-meet-sisters-5256945


Plus its not just obvious characteristics like shape of face, skin colour.
It also relates to gifts and abilities.

Over here the Welsh produce more brilliant singers than most others.

Im sure too that the families of the priests/levites would have been the same.
They were the worshipers who led the other tribes into battle.

 

[preston39]

I'll try.

What do I mean by not taking a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis?

Probably not the best or most concise explanation, but the best way I can put it is this….

Every culture has its creation stories –how the world “as we know it” came into being. Why certain things are the way they are. How certain things came into being, or became our common traditions/practice. The list goes on and on. Those stories from other cultures that are different from ours, we tend to refer to as ‘myths’, which carries the connotation something not to be taken/read as literal.

The early chapters of Genesis just happen to be the creation story as related and passed down by those ancient Semitic people who eventually became to be called the Jews, and by eventual extension, to what we know as Christianity.

Creation stories are, by their very nature, highly allegorical and figurative. They are also typically full of symbolic meaning. As such, it is difficult to regard them as relating absolute or literal stories.

If, for example, we all still practiced say the religion of the ancient Germanic people, we would adhere to those creation stories associated with that tradition. They would be as real to us as the stories in Genesis. If that were the case, we’d regard Genesis as “Jewish mythology”, and hold it in the same regard as we do “Norse mythology”.

I believe that the creation stories of Genesis can only be taken as being allegorical and figurative; as others have pointed out, the discrepancies outweigh a literal reading.

For example, God created the world – to me, the reason Genesis has it as seven days has more to do with how this ancient culture explained the way they reckoned time than anything else. How long it took, in a way, is sort of irrelevant. If this ancient Semitic culture reckoned a period of ten days rather than seven, I have no doubt that we’d be reading a slightly different account in Genesis, showing God creating the world in ten days rather than seven.

It’s not widely known, but there are actually a few creation stories that pre-date Genesis which are alluded to in other parts of the Bible (Isaiah, Job, Psalms). Here’s an interesting article from a periodical (?) out of Israel called “Haaretz” (the ads are a pain, but the article is quite interesting):

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-where-did-creation-story-come-from-1.5404560

The bottom line here is that these are creation myths – not literal stories.

K...,

I don't believe any recorded elements of creation are allegorical. Unless one is a believer in evolution I see nothing unreasonable in the recorded creation history depicted in scriptures. G-d did it His way. If He had done it it differently...some would question that history.

Either we believe in G-d or one doesn't.

 

[LPT]

K...,

I don't believe any recorded elements of creation are allegorical. Unless one is a believer in evolution I see nothing unreasonable in the recorded creation history depicted in scriptures. G-d did it His way. If He had done it it differently...some would question that history.

Either we believe in G-d or one doesn't.

off topic but I question what is up with these G-d thing I see all the time.

who came up with this bone head idea that it is disrespecting to God. in the bible you will not find one account of G-d it's God not G-d, unless the idea is really a hidden agenda to say there is no God so one doesn't need the O in it, it seems to be.

 

[SovereignGrace]

That doesn't work. The Bible is a book about God inspired by God. So to think the beginning is a myth is to believe God started by telling us a lie.

In which case, why believe the rest?

Genesis must be an inspired myth.