Today is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. A special celebratory service was held at Westminster Abbey today. It was the Bible, commissioned by a King, that made the Word of God available to all English-speaking people so that they were no longer reliant on translations by those who could read Latin. It allowed the common man to drink, as it were, straight from the bottle.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nnaki/Raelian, I challenge you, to cogently, coherently, objectively, scientifically, and, if possible, logically and honestly, to refute, what I posted earlier re the historic veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and likewise, the following; Remember, Nnaki/Raelian, NO imagenary folly and unsupported, Star Trek nonsense. Take your time, don’t choke now; this ain’t no JACKASS, in your Pythonated gut!
Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics
by Dr Robert W. Carter
Published: 11 May 2010(GMT+10)
The evolutionary map of world migrations is startlingly close to the biblical account of a single dispersal of people from Babel. The evolutionary “Out of Africa” theory tells us there was a single dispersal of people, centered near and travelling through the Middle East, with three main mitochondrial lineages, with people traveling in small groups into previously uninhabited territory, and that all of this occurred in the recent past. Every item in that list is something directly predicted by the Tower of Babel account in the Bible. (Image http://www.mitomap.org).
It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of the Flood), and that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that (the Tower of Babel).1 It surprises them even more to learn that much of this evidence comes from evolutionary scientists. In fact, an abundant testimony to biblical history has been uncovered by modern geneticists. It is there for anyone to see, if they know where to look!
For our purposes, the most important places to look are in the Y chromosome (which is only found in males and which is passed on directly from father to son) and in the mitochondrial DNA (a small loop of DNA that we nearly always inherit from our mothers only; males do not pass it on to their children). These two pieces of DNA record some startling facts about our past.
Over the last decade, a vast amount of information has been collected that allows us to answer questions that we could not even consider earlier. The tools of modern genetics allow us to specifically ask questions about history, for our genes carry a record that reflects where we came from and how we got to where we are. The tools at our disposal are powerful.
Creation and genetics
There are two brief passages in the Creation account we can use to draw some conclusions about human genetic history. Please note that we cannot use these verses for land animals (because we do not know how many of each kind were initially created) or any of the swimming critters (“with which the waters abounded”—Gen 1:21). These statements apply to people only:
“And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Gen 2:7
“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Gen 2:21–22
These simple statements have profound implications. They put a limit on the amount of diversity we should find in people living today. The Bible clearly says the human race started out with two people only. But how different were these two people? There is an intriguing possibility that Eve was a clone of Adam. The science of cloning involves taking DNA from an organism and using it to manufacture an almost perfect copy of the original. Here, God is taking a piece of flesh, with cells, organelles, and, importantly, Adam’s DNA, and using it to manufacture a woman. Of course, she could not be a perfect clone, because she was a girl! But what if God had taken Adam’s genome and used it to manufacture Eve? All he would have had to do was to leave out Adam’s Y chromosome and double his X chromosome and, voilá, instant woman!
I do not know if Eve was genetically identical to Adam. The only reason I bring this up is because we have two possibilities in our biblical model of human genetic history: one original genome or two. Either result is still vastly different from the most popular evolutionary models,2 but we need to discuss the range of possibilities that the Bible allows.
Your genome is like an encyclopedia (almost literally). And, like an encyclopedia, the genome is broken down into volumes, called chromosomes, but you have two copies of each volume (with the exception of the X and Y chromosomes; women have two Xs but men have one X and one Y). Imagine comparing two duplicate volumes side by side and finding that one word in a particular sentence is spelled differently in each volume (perhaps “color” vs “colour”). Can you see that if Eve was a clone of Adam, there would have been, at most, two possible variants at any point in the genome? If Eve was not a clone, however, there would have been, at most, four possible variants at any point in the genome (because each of the original chromosomes came in four copies). This still allows for a lot of diversity overall, but it restricts the variation at any one spot to 2, 3, or 4 original readings.
Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel.
There are indications, however, that Eve may not have been a clone. The ABO blood group is a textbook example of a gene with more than two versions.3 There are three main versions of the blood type gene (A, B, and O). However, many, but not all, people with type O blood carry something that looks very much like a mutant A (the mutation prevents the manufacturing of the type A trait on the outside of cells). So here is a gene with more than two versions, but one of the main versions is clearly a mutation. This is true for many other genes, although, as usual, there are exceptions. The important take home point is that essentially all of the genetic variation among people today could have been carried within two people, if you discount mutations that occurred after our dispersion across the globe. This is a surprise to many.
The Flood and genetics
Like in the Creation story, there are only a few verses in the Flood account that help us with our model. But as seen before, these verses are profound.
Like in the Creation story, there are only a few verses in the Flood account that help us with our model. But as seen before, these verses are profound. About 10 generations after Creation, a severe, short bottleneck occurred in the human population. From untold numbers of people, the entire world population was reduced to eight souls with only three reproducing couples.
“So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.” Gen 7:7
“Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth… These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” Gen 9:18–19
We can draw many important deductions from these statements. For instance, based on Genesis 7 and 9, how many Y chromosomes were on the Ark? The answer: one. Yes, there were four men, but Noah gave his Y chromosome to each of his sons. Unless there was a mutation (entirely possible), each of the sons carried the exact same Y chromosome. We do not know how much mutation occurred prior to the flood. With the long life spans of the antediluvian patriarchs, it may be reasonable to assume little mutation had taken place, but all of Creation, including the human genome, had been cursed, so it may not be wise to conclude that there was no mutation prior to the Flood. The amount of mutation may be a moot point, however, for, if it occurred, the Flood should have wiped out most traces of it (all of it in the case of the Y chromosome).
How many mitochondrial DNA lineages were on the Ark? The answer: three. Yes, there were four women, but the Bible does not record Noah’s wife as having any children after the Flood (in this case, girl children). And notice the claim in Gen 9:19, “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” This is a strong indication that Noah’s wife did not contribute anything else to the world’s population. With no prohibition against sibling marriage, yet,4 one or more of the daughters-in-law may have been her daughter, but this does not change the fact that, at first glance, we expect a maximum of three mitochondrial lineages in the current world population. There is a chance that there will be less, if there was very little mutation before the Flood or if several of the daughters-in-law were closely related. At most, we do not expect more than four.
How many X chromosome lineages were on the Ark? That depends. If you count it all up, you get eight. If, by chance, Noah’s wife passed on the same X chromosome to each of her three sons (25% probability), then there were seven. If Noah had a daughter after the Flood (not expected, but possible), there could be as many as nine X chromosome lineages. Either way, this is a considerable amount of genetic material. And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.
Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found.5 This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.6 For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.
The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines “M”, “N”, and “R”, so we’ll refer to them by the same names. They would not say these came off the Ark. They claim they were derived from older lines found in Africa, but this is based on a suite of assumptions (I discussed these in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Creation7). It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood.
Let’s assume ten female generations from Eve to the ladies on the Ark. M and N are separated by about 8 mutations (a small fraction of the 16,500 letters in the mitochondrial genome). R is only 1 mutation away from N. This is an indication of the mutational load that occurred before the Flood. Given the assumption that mutations occur at equal rates in all lines, about four mutations separate M and N each from Eve (maybe four mutations in each line in ten generations). But what about R? It is very similar to N. Were N and R sisters, or perhaps more closely related to each other than they were to M? We’ll never know, but it sure is fascinating to think about.
One more line of evidence crops up in the amount of genetic diversity that has been found within people worldwide. Essentially, much less has been found than most (i.e., evolutionists!) predicted. The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000)8 people surviving. However, the reason for this lack of diversity is twofold. First, the human race started out with only two people. Second, the human race is not that old and has not accumulated a lot of mutations, despite the high mutation rate. Third, there actually was a bottleneck event, Noah’s Flood!
The Tower of Babel and genetics
The Tower of Babel has been a favorite bedtime story for generations. But is it more than a fairy tale? Could it be possible that there is evidence to back up this tale of rebellion and judgment? Like the Creation and Flood accounts, there are only a couple of verses that apply to our model of genetics. But, like the others, these verses are as profound as they are simple.
“Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.” Gen 11:1
“And they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’” Gen 11:4
It sounds like they were in a homogenous culture, but what do people in that situation do? Would you expect them to mix freely? Were language or cultural barriers present that would have prevented the sons of Shem from marrying the daughters of Japheth? Would the daughters of Ham be expected to marry freely with the sons of any of the three men? Note in Gen 11:4 that they knew about the potential for spreading out and getting separated from one another and intentionally did the opposite! However, this was against the express command of God, who had ordered them to spread out (to populate the earth). So, He took matters into His own hands.
“’Come, let Us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” Gen 11:7–8
There are tremendous implications that come from the Babel account. First it explains the amazing cultural connectivity of ancient peoples—like pyramid building, common flood legends, and ancient, non-Christian genealogies that link people back to biblical figures (e.g., many of the royal houses of pagan northern Europe go back to Japheth, the son of Noah9).
The dramatic rise in world population over the past several decades is a well known fact. From a biblical perspective, the current human population easily fits into the standard model of population growth using very conservative parameters.10 In fact, starting with 6 people and doubling the population every 150 years more than accounts for the current human population (a growth rate of less than 0.5% per year!). Population size would have increased quickly given the rate at which the post-Flood population reestablished agriculture, animal husbandry, industry and civilization. So we must ask the question, “Why are there so few people in the world today?” The answer is that the world is young and we have not been here many thousands of years.
When did the dispersion occur? Our best clue about the timing of the event comes from Genesis 10:25. In referencing the 5th generation descendent of Shem, a man named Peleg, it says, “in his days the earth was divided.” To what is this referring? Many people believe this is referring to a division of the landmasses (plate tectonics). This may be true, but it would require a huge amount of geologic activity after the Flood, and this would have occurred in historical times with no record of the events. The interpretation I favor is that this passage is referring to the division of people at Babel. Just a few verses after the Peleg reference, the section is summed up with another reference to the division at Babel. This fits both the context and the science. In context, Peleg was closely associated with Babel.
How large was the population at the time? We would expect rapid population growth, but we cannot know exactly. There are 16 named sons born to the three brothers, Shem, Ham and Japheth. If we assume about the same number of daughters, Noah had on the order of 30 grandchildren. At that rate of growth, there would have been about 150 children in Salah’s generation, about 750 in Eber’s generation, and about 3,750 in Peleg’s generation. Of course, these generations overlap, etc., so let’s say there were between 1,000 and 10,000 people alive at the time of Babel. This fits nicely with the available data. It is a high rate of growth, but wars and disease had yet to start taking their toll.
There is one more verse in this section that we need to discuss:
“These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Gen 10:32
At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history.
Do you see the implication in this simple verse? At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history. Paternal sorting would lead to specific Y chromosome lineages in different geographical locations. Since males and females from the three main families should have been freely intermixing prior to this, it also leads to a mixing of the mitochondrial lines. It is as if God put all the people into a giant spreadsheet and hit a button called “Sort According to Father.” He then took that list and used it to divide up and separate the nations.
We already saw that Y chromosomes have little variation among them. We now add the fact that this little bit of variation is almost always geographically specific. That is, after the nations were separated according to Y chromosome, mutations occurred in the various lines. Since the lines were sent to specific geographical areas, the mutations are geographically specific. The current distribution of Y chromosome lines is a tremendous confirmation of the biblical model.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) adds another confirmation. We have already learned that there are three main lineages of mtDNA. We now add the fact that these three lineages are more or less randomly distributed across the world. Also, the various mutations within each of the three main families of mtDNA are geographically specific as well.11 In other words, as the three mixed mitochondrial lines were carried along with the Y chromosome dispersal, each line in each area began to pick up new mutations, just like we would predict.
After the Flood
The last remaining significant reference in the Bible that will help us build our model of human genetic history is called The Table of Nations. It is found in Genesis chapters 9 and 10. The Table of Nations is a record of the post-Babel tribes, who they descended from, and where they went. If the Bible is an accurate source of history, one might expect to be able to find a significant amount of evidence for the Table of Nations in genetic data. The truth is not that simple, however, and it is important to keep several things in mind. First, the account was written by a person in the Middle East and from a Middle Eastern perspective. It is incomplete in that there are huge sections of the world that are not discussed (sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Europe, Most of Asia, Australia, the Americas, and Oceania). It also reflects a snapshot in time. It was written after the dispersion began, but not necessarily before the dispersion was complete. Indeed, much has changed in the intervening years. People groups have migrated, cultures have gone extinct, languages have changed, separate cultures have merged, etc. The history of man has been full of ebb and flow as people mixed or fought, resisted invasion or were conquered. The history of man since Babel is very complicated. Modern genetics can answer some of the big questions, but answers to many of the smaller details may elude us forever.
This is an important topic for the creation model. The world does not look at the Bible in a favorable light. In fact, it disparages it, sometimes with open hostility. Attacks are often centered on the claim that the Bible is not reliable on historical grounds, and if the history of the Bible is inaccurate, what about the theology? Think about what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Many people today see no history in the Bible; therefore, the spiritual implications are meaningless to them. What would happen for evangelism if the history of the Bible turns out to be true after all?
Related articles
The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos
Genetics: no friend of evolution
The genetics of skin colour in people—something fishy?
Professor of genetics says ‘No!’ to evolution
Genetics and God’s natural selection
One Blood: Chapter 3—Genetics and the human family
Genetics and Biblical demographic events
Corals, genes and creation
Is there enough time in the Bible to account for all the human genetic diversity?
Island girl star trek made more sense, Here is another intriguing tale. Jesus is standing on the Mount of Olives and lo and behold he is mysteriously swept into the clouds. Can I say aliens or angels . BTW didn’t gravity exist at that time!
not to forget that JESUS took five barley loaves and two small fish and fed five thousand people .there is a moral to that story only if the jesus people would see it. but unfortunately they are trapped into a world of supposition and magic
One Blood
The biblical answer to racism
by Ken Ham, Dr Don Batten and Dr Carl Wieland
Chapter 3
Genetics and the human family
Let us now apply this basic understanding of genetics to human beings. How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)? First, what constitutes a ‘race’?
In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking about ‘races,’ were referring to such groups as the ‘English race,’ ‘Irish race,’ and so on. However, this all changed when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or ‘races’ of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others. The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered to be the missing links between an ape-like ancestor and the rest of mankind.1 This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.2 A leading evolutionary spokesperson, Stephen Jay Gould, stated that ‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’3
Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African Pygmy actually being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx Zoo.4
As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different ‘races,’ but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people.
All human beings in the world today, however, are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta in 1997 stated, ‘Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.’ This person went on to say, ‘Curiously enough, the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture.’5
Reporting on research conducted on the concept of race, the American ABC News science page stated, ‘More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word “race” should be abandoned because it’s meaningless.’ The article went on to say that ‘we accept the idea of race because it’s a convenient way of putting people into broad categories, frequently to suppress them … . The most hideous example was provided by Hitler’s Germany. And racial prejudice remains common throughout the world.’6
In a 1998 article in the Journal of Counseling and Development, researchers argued that the term ‘race’ is basically so meaningless that it should be discarded.7
Because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting prejudices, we believe everyone (and especially Christians) should abandon the term ‘races.’ We could refer instead to the different ‘people groups’ around the world.
The Bible and ‘race’
The Bible does not even use the word ‘race’ in reference to people,8 but does describe all human beings as being of ‘one blood’ (Acts 17:26). This, of course, emphasizes that we are all related, for all humans are descendants of the first man Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).9 Because Jesus Christ also became a descendant of Adam, being called the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45), the gospel should be preached to all tribes and nations. When Jesus Christ became a man (God-man), He became a descendant of Adam. Thus, He became our relative—totally man, a descendant of the first Adam, yet totally God. Any descendant of Adam can be saved, because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again.
‘Racial’ differences
Some people think there must be different ‘races’ of people because there appear to be major differences between various groups, such as skin color and eye shape.
The truth, though, is that these so-called ‘racial characteristics’ are only minor variations among the people groups. Scientists have found that if one were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent—even if they came from the same people group.10 But, these so-called ‘racial’ characteristics that many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012 percent difference genetically.11
In other words, the so-called ‘racial’ differences are absolutely trivial. Overall, there is more variation within any group than there is between one group and another. If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and vice versa. The ABC News science page stated, ‘What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.’12
The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences this way.
According to the Bible, all people on earth today descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Gen. 1–11). The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and were living together and disobeying God’s command to ‘fill the earth’ (Gen. 9:1; 11:4).13 God confused their language, causing a breakup of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Gen. 11:8–9).
Using modern genetics, we will show how, following such a breakup of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. And there is good evidence to show that the various groups of people we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.14
References and notes
1.A.S. Brown, Missing Links with Mankind in Early Dawn of History, New York Tribune, p. 11, 10 February 1924.
2.Carl Wieland, Darwin’s Bodysnatchers, Creation 14(2):16–18, March–May 1992. (See chapter 10, also.)
3.Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 127–128, 1977.
4.Jerry Bergman, Ota Benga: The man who was put on display in the zoo! Creation 16(1):48–50, December
‘He made the stars also …’ (Genesis 1:16)
Interview with creationist astronomer Danny Faulkner
By Carl Wieland and Jonathan D.Sarfati
Dr Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. & Ph.D. (Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina–Lancaster, where he teaches physics and astronomy. He has published about two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals.
——————————————————————————–
Photo by Richard Fangrad
Dr Danny Faulkner speaking at the 2011 Super Conference in Canada
Carl Wieland/Jonathan Sarfati [CW/JS]: Dr Faulkner, how did you get interested in astronomy?
Dr Faulkner [DF]: Well, I can honestly say there hasn’t been a time in my life when I’ve not been interested in astronomy. I recall being three or four years old, looking up at the sky, being amazed at what was up there.
CW/JS: Many people have this image of an astronomer, sitting there each night staring into a telescope.
DF: There really aren’t any who spend all of their time looking through telescopes. The few research astronomers who do spend a good deal of time—they have to analyse the data they collect, write it up, plan future observations. So even the ‘full-time researchers’ probably only spend about two months of the year actually observing. Most astronomers, like myself, have an academic job teaching in university or other related jobs and we do research when we can. Usually I get in seven to fifteen nights a year at a local observatory and a few more when travelling elsewhere.
How did you become a Christian?
I had a conversion at age six. My father was a minister of a small church and just as I can’t remember not being interested in astronomy, I can’t remember not going to church.
Some teach that the big bang theory of how the universe evolved is such an obvious fact that we should accept it as if it had been written in the ‘sixty-seventh book of the Bible’.
I’m really concerned with people who put that much faith in the big bang. It is the overwhelmingly dominant model … But it has many problems.
That’s absolute rubbish. I’m really concerned with people who put that much faith in the big bang. It is the overwhelmingly dominant model, and they’ve had a few impressive predictions, like the background radiation. But it has many problems—they keep changing the model to make it fit the data we have. As a Christian, my biggest concern is that it doesn’t agree at all with the Genesis account of how the world came to be, and my big concern is that when you make that the fingerprint of God, as it were, then when the big bang is discarded, what does that do to Christianity? [See also What are some of the problems with the big bang theory?]
Genesis teaches that the earth was created first and then the sun, moon and the stars were created three days later. Is there any observation in your field of astronomy which would disprove this, or make it difficult to believe?
No. Most astronomers as well as geologists argue that the universe is aged 20 billion years, and the earth ‘scarcely’ 4.5 billion years old. All that’s really built upon a lot of indirect evidence and arguments—evidence that could very easily be interpreted other ways, and there are some other astronomical suggestions that the solar system and the earth and the rest of the universe are not really that old at all.
Can you give us some of these?
First, comets disintegrate too rapidly to have been in their present orbits for all those billions of years. So evolutionists theorise about a shell of comets, an ‘Oort cloud’ too far out to see, to act as a way to ‘restock’ the inner solar system with comets every so often.
However, there’s no scientific reason to believe that there really is an Oort cloud. The so-called Kuiper belt, closer in, has been put forward as a theoretical source of shorter period comets. However, even if there are comets in this region, it doesn’t solve the problem for the evolutionists, because the Oort cloud would still be needed to resupply the Kuiper belt after a while. [For more information, see Dr Faulkner’s detailed technical article Comets and the age of the solar system.]
Then there is the moon—due to tidal friction, this is slowly spiraling away from the earth, which is slowing down its rotation. If you calculate back a billion and a half years ago, the moon would have been in direct contact with the earth. So that is a very strong indicator that the moon can’t be even a third as old as the claimed 4.5 billion years, and it is probably vastly less than that. [See The Moon: the light that rules the night.]
Also, theory suggests we should find plenty of, say, million-year-old supernova remnants, but we don’t find any—though there are many that are thousands of years old. And that is a very startling result if you really believe in a universe that’s millions of years old [see Exploding stars point to a young universe, Creation 19(3):46–48, June–August 1997 and Q&A: ‘Young’ age of the earth & universe.]
How old do you think the universe is?
Probably six to eight thousand years.
Have you ever doubted what the Bible teaches about recent six-day creation?
Not seriously. I may have gone through a brief period when I was in high school or so, due to encountering people who were into theistic evolution, but then I got a copy of one of Henry Morris’s early books. Then I learned more and more about other scientists who believed in a recent creation.
Why is it important to believe in this?
Well, we have a very clear indication from Scripture that the creation really took place in six ordinary days [see How long were the days mentioned in the biblical creation account?]. And if you think it didn’t, then you are going to have to ask the question, ‘How do you know that it didn’t happen that way?’ Good biblical exegesis will simply not allow for a much greater length of time [see How long were the days of Genesis 1?]. And once you decide you are going to let ‘science’ dictate how you are going to interpret Scripture then there is no end to it. I recently read about former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, quoted as saying that he believes in the Virgin Birth but he doesn’t believe that the world was created in six days. I think if asked why not, he would say, well, because of overwhelming scientific evidence. And I think I would reply to that, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that a virgin birth is not possible. So be consistent on this point; one’s a miracle, so is the other. If you don’t believe in recent six day creation then it opens the door to serious doubts about the Virgin Birth, about the Resurrection; those would also be scientific ‘impossibles’.
What about the argument that the universe must be old, because light would take millions of years to get here from distant stars?
That has long been the biggest challenge for creationists. There have been several suggested answers—one from Australia around 13 years ago was [Barry] Setterfield’s possible drop in the speed of light. When I first encountered that I thought it was a pretty good idea, but there are a lot of consequences of that and I don’t any more think it is the answer. Perhaps the most common idea is that God created the light in transit. I have a real problem with that one. For example, when a distant supernova explodes, there is all sorts of detailed information in the light—the speed of expansion, what isotopes are involved, even sometimes a reflected light echo from nearby gas. Yet if the light was created ‘on its way’, all this is phony information—nothing like it ever occurred. This reminds me of a fellow named Gosse who was saying over 100 years ago that God created fossils inside the earth ready-made. I think this ‘light created on its way’ idea is a first cousin of Gosse’s notion.
So what idea do you like?
I got really excited with the cosmology which Russ Humphreys presented three years ago in Pittsburgh. It’s the first serious attempt that young-world creationists have offered as an alternative for first of all the universe itself—cosmology—and second a very detailed explanation for the distant starlight issue.1 I think that’s very impressive, and even if it turns out that Russell’s not right he’s certainly leading the way in that kind of work.
What about stars claimed to be forming today?
Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognised that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place. [See also Stars could not have come from the big bang.]
Stars are not very complex, and so-called ‘stellar evolution’ (though I don’t necessarily accept all of it) is a different critter from biological evolution. So I don’t have a problem with the idea that a cloud of gas, created initially by God in a special unstable condition, or compressed by a shock wave from a nearby exploding star, might collapse under its own gravity and start to heat up to form a new star. [See also Are stars forming today?. There is also the problem of getting rid of excess angular momentum so that the nascent star doesn’t spin itself apart, and this problem is still unsolved as of the February 1997 issue of Astrophysical Journal—see What Slows The Spin Of Young, Rapidly Rotating Stars?. The conservation of angular momentum is a problem for the evolutionary origin of the solar system—see a brief explanation.]
The Psalmist writes that the heavens declare the glory of God. What do you see as the best evidence for that?
I think the universe is a mighty beautiful place—I view God as the supreme artist. Then we see that there are a lot of incredible and unique things about the earth which make life possible. For example, as far as we know, liquid water only exists on the earth. We see water in vapour form in the atmospheres of several planets, in stars and the material between them. We’ve identified water in solid form—on Mars, on asteroids and comets, possibly even on Mercury. But the only place we know for sure2 that there is liquid water, one of the essential ingredients for life to exist, is on Earth. Even if it were proven elsewhere, liquid water would still be an amazingly rare and precious commodity that the earth has in abundance.
References and notes
1.See Dr Humphreys’ popular book Starlight and Time for a lay and technical explanation of this model. Return to text.
2.Note that there is now doubt about the claim of ice in moon craters (New Scientist, 14 June 1997, p.13). Dr Faulkner said to us after the interview that the alleged evidence for subsurface liquid water on Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons, is much more speculative and indirect than most think. Return to text.
Anthony P said “Thanks for your … website, it’s really easy to navigate and it is a massive bonus to be able to read back-issues of your magazines … without your ministry I probably wouldn’t be a Christian today. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.” So help us do just that!
Former Prime Minister Owen Arthur
Wed, November 23, 2011 – 7:13 PM
FORMER Prime Minister Owen Arthur thinks the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) should not have to carry any major financial burden for the Four Seasons project.
Speaking on the topic Managing Change in an era of global economic instability at a Barbados Chamber of Commerce luncheon yesterday, Arthur was of the view the project should be able to attract private investment.
“The planning and implementation of the project should be made to proceed entirely on the merits of the supporting financial analysis and on its merits in a private investment context rather than on the basis of political calculation.
“This especially should apply in respect of the involvement of the NIS. Above all, if a private developer cannot be encouraged to come in as a partner, the NIS should not be required to assume the kind of risks that are being touted,” he said.
@ Zoe…
After all the posting above…..why do you hate the Muslims and the Arabs so much (as you have clearly demonstrated on BU)?…aren’t they your brothers too?
Your hypocrisy have no bounds!!
Go ahead, I know…bilge pump, darkness, dumb dog, ignorant..blah…blah…blah….Happy Thanksgiving to you! 🙂
To Miller:
You can not have it both ways. You and others here speak to scientific assumptions; yet, when one produces these same assumptions that support the opposite view of your focus, you go off like a bull in a china shop. Chromosome 15 is scientific; it is not in the Bible. Prof Diop is not a biblical scholar; like you he similarly believes that the phenotype expression in humans are environmentally influenced. He also believes in the re-emergence of the old Egyptian forms of worship; although they have changed shape, they are still around. With chromosome 15, the Ham “story” becomes a definite possibility. In the book of Daniel chapter 2, there a long prediction that Europe would never be united again. Heard the news this morning. The Euro SHALL break up. This is a way of escape grasp it with both hands. it is like when evolutionist jump on the junk DNA syndrome then to find out that what they and scientist thought was junk was a very important part of the DNA sequence. Reason and “light” can not deliver you Miller; only the Son of God that man Jesus Christ can. If you want to feel the “power” try Jesus.
@ lemuel | November 24, 2011 at 8:43 AM |
“Reason and “light” can not deliver you Miller; only the Son of God that man Jesus Christ can. If you want to feel the “power” try Jesus.”
Go tell that to the Indians and the Chinese – approx. 2.5 billion and growing! But you can start by setting up your Jesus salvation cart on Kensington New Road.
“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas “Tom” Paine
After all the ranting…
Zoe & Phd. aren’t really answering any questions directly & succinctly. Only Lemuel seems to do so.
Really now, cut & paste is too lazy! As Christians, be smart and DEFEND your statements HEAD ON!
THE
TABLE OF NATIONS
(GENEALOGY OF MANKIND)
AND THE
ORIGIN OF RACES
(HISTORY OF MAN)
The history of the races of mankind is a fascinating subject. Biologically, a race is generally thought of as a variety, or subspecies, within a given species. All the races are a part of the human race. We have made the term race to apply to skin color, but the dictionary defines race as “a class or kind of individuals with common characteristics, interests, appearances, or habits as if derived from a common ancestor.”
Where did we come from? The answers have always been with us, as presented in the original Table of Nations. What you are about to read can best be described as an Exegesis (from the Greek exégesis, verb: exégetikos, meaning interpretation, guide, translation or critical exposition). Once you have read what is presented here, you may not view any race of people the same way again. Note that there is nothing like the Table of Nations (as presented here) in any other national tradition. Every other attempt to tell where the nations derived or where one nation derived, which comes from the time before Christ (B.C.), is hopelessly naive and filled with impossibilities and myths. There is nothing from the B.C. period that can remotely compare with this presentation as to accuracy and detail.
The fact is, that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 of the Bible has been found completely accurate; resulting partly from linguistic studies, partly from archaeology, and, more recently still, from the findings of physical anthropologists, who are, to this day, recovering important clues to lines of migration in ancient historic times. As implied in verse 32 of Genesis 10, this Table includes everybody; meaning that so-called fossil man, primitive peoples (ancient and modern) and modern man are all derived from Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In light of this, findings from anthropology, archaeology, ethnography, ethnohistory, genetics and geology, substantiate an alternate interpretation of the history of humanity. Additionally, references from historical records, ancient literature, mythology, burial customs, and other sources, all provide strong evidences.
This may seem a gross over-simplification, and even appear to oppose well-established secular anthropological opinion; however, science has proven itself over and over to be a double-edged sword. For example, it is often found that what is obviously true, is actually false. The obvious idea that the sun moved around the earth was erroneous, but until that view was corrected, little progress was made in the science of Astronomy. On the other hand, on occasion, what is obviously false turns out to be actually true. While scientific knowledge is characterized by a progressive approach to reality, it has often proved detrimental to the progress of understanding in the things which it has denied. Such is the case here. So before you begin to judge, please continue reading.
As stated earlier, race does not apply to skin color alone. Skin color is essentially the only biological difference in race, and science has been unable to determine what causes skin pigmentation. They have not been able to define the difference in cell pigment or structure. This superficial distinction is the basis for the division of mankind. Note:
Modern genetics shows that when a large, freely interbreeding group is
suddenly broken into many smaller groups which from then on breed only
among themselves (as the Biblical description of the language dispersion at
Babel would imply), different racial characteristics will arise very rapidly. It can
be shown that one pair of middle-brown parents could produce all known
shades of color, from very white to very black, in one generation. The racial
characteristics which exist today have not evolved, and generally speaking, are
simply different combinations of pre-existing (created) genetic (hereditary)
information. The environment plays a secondary role in favoring certain
combinations over others.
The Biblical viewpoint is that there is not a black race, white race, yellow race, etc. Instead, there are three distinct families or characteristics of man that make up the oldest Table of Nations in existence, which is a completely authentic statement of how the present world population originated and spread after the flood, as recorded in Genesis 10 of the Bible (a historical document itself). Here we learn the true divisions of mankind, indicating how the present population of the world came to be.
Genesis chapter 10 shows how the present world population was derived from Noah’s three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their wives (three family groups). Verse 32 states, “From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood”. These “nations” are the descendants (generations, genealogies or family histories) of the sons of Noah (verse 1). Chapter 10 describes the differentiation of nations, and asserts that we were all descended from Noah. It is important to understand that people and nations are referred to in a genealogical form (common in Hebrew and other Semitic languages). We find genealogical references in Genesis 10 are firstly to persons or families (ethnological), and secondly to nations or tribes (ethnographical); thus, the chapter ends with an emphasis on nations or tribes, which helps us understand in following chapters where they settled or “spread out over the earth” (geographical).
The majority of scholars and Bible historians agree that most of the descendants of Shem, Noah’s oldest son, stayed in the Middle East. These include the Hebrews, Persians and Assyrians. The descendants of Ham, Noah’s middle son, include the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Canaanites, Phoenicians and Hittites. His descendants appear to be the first to fill the earth, as they were the early settlers of Africa, Asia, Australia, the South Pacific, and the Americas. The descendants of Japheth, Noah’s youngest son, migrated into Europe and parts of Central Asia. The Greeks, Romans, Spanish, Celts, Scythians, and Medes were Japheth’s descendants. Some people groups merged to form one nation, as did the Persians (Shem) and the Medes (Japheth), which later became the Medo-Persian empire.
Note that the many names of family groups and nations listed here naturally follow well-established rules in the development of language, and the transfer of words between languages of a different family or nation. For example, the ancient city of Unuk (in the Bible is the first city ever built, equated with Enoch), later appears as Uruk and Erech, then as Wark or Warka by the Sumerians, and finally appears in Greek as Purgos or Pergos. The conversion of “wark” into “purg-” shows the transfer of words between languages of a different family.
Interestingly enough, purgos becomes burgh in modern Indo-European languages, which is the root of the English word, borough. Several examples of this are below, specifically in the lines of Japheth. Here we have the beginnings of all people groups through Shem, Ham and Japheth:
Shem. Also Sem. Literal meanings are named or renown (father of the Semitic races – Shemites). The sons of Shem were:
(1) Elam “eternity” (sons were Shushan, Machul and Harmon) – (Elamites, Persians);
(2) Asshur “a step” or “strong” (sons were Mirus and Mokil) – (Assyrians/Northern Iraqis);
(3) Arphaxad “I shall fail” (sons were Shelach, Anar and Ashcol) – (Chaldeans/Southern Iraqis, Hebrews/Israelis/Jews, Arabians/Bedouins, Moabites/Jordanians/Palestinians, and related groups);
(4) Lud “strife” (sons were Pethor and Bizayon) – (Ludim, Lubim, Ludians, Ludu, Lydians, Chubs, other related groups in Asia Minor and North Africa);
(5) Aram “exalted” (sons were Uz, Chul, Gather and Mash) – (Aramaeans/Syrians, Lebanese, other related groups), and remnant groups throughout Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Evidence shows that Noah’s sons kept together at first, then broke up into small groups and eventually arrived from the east in the southern Mesopotamian Plain (Gen. 11:2). The descendants of Elam, the first born son of Shem, Noah’s first born, were the first people to enter Mesopotamia. Susa, the capital city of the Elamites (Shemitic Elamites), gave rise to other early cities, such as Al-Ubaid (which later gave rise to Hamitic settlements—including the Sumerian civilization) and Jemdet Nasr. Recent excavations have provided very strong evidence of direct cultural links between some of the earliest cities in Babylonia and the lowest layers uncovered at Susa. These people established themselves first in the south and gradually spread toward the north, but without losing the cultural links. There are no known modern descendants of the Elamites. Other excavations have shown that one of the first Hamitic groups, the Sumerians, gave rise to considerable cultural advance and power in that region. Other people groups known very early included the Japhethites, noted especially for their fairness of skin, in the hill country east of the Tigris. Soon the great Babylonian empire came to be.
Further evidence shows that the rulers of Babylon attempted to avert dispersal of the people by proposing the building of a monument as a visible rallying point on the flat plain of Mesopotamia. Scripture and historical texts note that the tower of Babel, the building of which Nimrod (a Sumerian) supervised, was to have two great significances. The city of Babel would become the metropolis of the world and unite its inhabitants under the dictatorial rule of Nimrod. The tower was to be a monument to man to stand as a symbol of Babel. Given the present knowledge of Babylonian history, Genesis 11 has a solid historical foundation in early Mesopotamia. Nimrod hoped to prevent the people from scattering abroad into colonies as God intended, thus bringing upon themselves a judgment which led to confusion of the languages and rapid scattering throughout the earth. Babel means confusion. Urbanization, as attested by archaeological records, did not occur until after the dispersal of languages. The history of linguistic development and settlement patterns in Mesopotamia support this.
From here the three families of man populate the earth, and Shem’s descendants are well documented. Modern day Arabs and Jews trace their lineage to Shem. Many Arabic nomad tribes still claim they descended from Shem. The descendants of Shem are often called Semites, a term first used in the late 18th century for peoples listed in the Bible as descended from Shem. Today the term Semite refers to peoples who speak any of the Semitic languages, including the ancient peoples who inhabited Babylonia. Modern peoples speaking Semitic languages include the Arabs and Jews. Today, the Semitic-speaking peoples are concentrated in the Middle East and northern Africa.
Ham. Also Kham. Literal meanings are hot, burnt or dark (father of the Mongoloid and Negroid races – Hamites). He was the progenitor of:
(1) Canaan “down low” (sons were Zidon1, Heth, Amori, Gergashi, Hivi, Arkee, Seni, Arodi, Zimodi and Chamothi) – also Canaanites, Cana, Chna, Chanani, Chanana, Canaana, Kana, Kenaanah, Kena’ani, Kena’an, Kn’nw, Kyn’nw, Kinnahu, Kinahhi, Kinahni, Kinahna, Kinahne (Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, Asians, Malayasians, AmerIndians2, Eskimos, Polynesians, Pacific Islanders, related groups3);
(2) Cush “black” (sons were Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama and Satecha) – also Chus, Kush, Kosh (Nubians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Ghanaians, Africans4, Bushmen, Pygmies, Australian Aborignies, New Guineans, other related groups);
(3) Mizraim “double straits” (sons were Lud, Anom, Pathros, Chasloth and Chaphtor) – also Misraim, Mitzraim, Mizraite, Mitsrayim (Egyptians, Copts);
(4) Phut “a bow” (sons were Gebul, Hadan, Benah and Adan) – also Putaya, Putiya, Punt, Puta, Put, Libia, Libya (Libyans, Cyrenacians, Tunisians, Berbers, Somalians, North Africans, other related groups).
Tribes in other parts of Africa, Arabia and Asia, aboriginal groups in Australia, native Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Eskimos were birthed from descendants of Canaan, Cush, Mizraim, and Phut.
Looking at history, whichever region is considered, Africa, Europe, Australia, or America, the major migrations have always been from Asia. In every area of the world where Japhethites have subsequently settled, they have always been preceded by Hamites. This pattern applies in every continent. In early historic times the circumstance seems always to be true, the earliest fossil remains of man being Mongoloid or Negroid in character and in head shape, whereas those that came last belong to the family of Japheth (Caucasoid). If you study ancient history and technological achievements, which were in many ways the equal of, or superior of, much that we have today, were founded and carried to a high technological proficiency by Hamitic people, showing an amazing adaptability to the world in which they live. Their achievements were exploited by the Japhetic people, who became great scientific discoverers. The Hamitic migrations indicate they sought a way of life, not an understanding or a control of nature beyond what was immediately useful.
1. Zidon (or Sidon) and his descendants settled on the Mediterranean coast of present-day Lebanon, then known as the land of Canaan. The Sidonians called themselves Kena’ani, or Canaanites. Interestingly, the Canaanites spoke a Semitic language, probably adopted from a large migration of Semites who came from land and sea, and introduced their language and a sophisticated maritime technology about 1800 B.C. Historians suggest the first Cannaanites succumbed to racial and linguistic intermixture with the invading Semites, which led to the loss of their own ethnic predominance, as evidenced by modern excavations. They eventually moved westward and occupied a very narrow coastal strip of the east Mediterranean, building new cities, and establishing significant trade with neighboring nations. In fact, the Israelite name for “Canaan” came to mean “traders”, though some suggest the name Canaan is from the Hebrew name Hurrian, meaning “belonging to the land of red purple.”
The Canaanites were known for their red and purple cloth (a purple dye was extracted from murex snails found near the shores of Palestine, a method now lost). The Greeks called the land of Canaan “Phoenicia”, which meant “purple”. The Phoenicians became a nation of great trade, language, and culture. Phoenician, Hebrew, and Moabite were a group of west Semitic languages, all dialects from Canaan, as referred to in Isaiah 19:18. The writing system of the Phoenicians is the source of the writing systems of nearly all of Europe, including Greek, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic, and the Roman alphabet. The Phoenician empire fell under Hellenistic rule after being conquered by Alexander the Great about 332 B.C. In 64 B.C. the name of Phoenicia disappeared entirely, becoming a part of the Roman providence of Syria. At the beginning of the Christian era, remaining Phoenicians were the first to accept the Christian faith after the Jews. Zidon’s name is still perpetuated in the modern-day city of Sidon (Saidoon is the Phoenician name, Saida in Arabic) in southern Lebanon.
2. Evidence for diverse migrations into the Americas comes from research on living American Indian populations, which includes data from Mitochondrial DNA. These studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia, Siberia and northern Scandinavia. These groups include the Lapps in northern Europe/Scandinavia, the Yukaghir in Siberia, plus Indians and Eskimos/Aleuts throughout Canada and America. Ancient skeletal remains show a range of physical attributes (round-headed) suggesting separate migrations of different populations from Asia and the South Pacific, representing 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations. One unique exception are the Sioux Indians, the popular red-skinned tribe having a long-head shape similar to that of early Italic peoples in Europe. They are thought to be descendants of Canaanites who intermarried with Indo-Europeans while migrating across Europe, and subsequently sailing to America. Studies of the native languages of the Americas have shown them to be extremely diverse, representing nearly two hundred distinct families, some consisting of a single isolated language.
3. The vast aggregate of peoples who are generally classified as Mongoloid, who settled the Far East, have been a question as to where they fall into the Table of Nations. The evidence shows they are Hamitic, even though some have incorrectly reasoned that the Chinese were of Japhetic stock, and the Japanese were either Japhetic or Semitic. There are two names which provide clues. Two of Canaan’s sons, Heth (Hittites) and Sin (Sinites), are presumed to be the progenitors of Chinese and Mongoloid stock. The Hittites were known as the Hatti or Chatti. In Egyptian monuments the Hittite peoples were depicted with prominent noses, full lips, high check-bones, hairless faces, varying skin color from brown to yellowish and reddish, straight black hair and dark brown eyes.
The term Hittite in Cuneiform (the earliest form of writing invented by the Sumerians) appears as Khittae* representing a once powerful nation from the Far East known as the Khitai, and has been preserved through the centuries in the more familiar term, Cathay. The Cathay were Mongoloids, considered a part of early Chinese stock. There are links between the known Hittites and Cathay, for example, their modes of dress, their shoes with turned-up toes, their manner of doing their hair in a pigtail, and so forth. Representations show them to have possessed high cheekbones, and craniologists have observed that they had common characteristics of Mongoloids.
*Khittae has, at times, been incorrectly associated with Kittim or Chittim (Greek Kition, Roman Citium, Jewish Cethimus), son of Javan, son of Japheth. Interestingly enough, Javan has been incorrectly interpreted to mean Japan. History distinctly shows Javan to be the ancestor of the Greeks and other related Mediterranean people groups.
Sin (or Seni), a brother of Heth, has many occurrences in variant forms in the Far East. There is one significant feature concerning the likely mode of origin of Chinese civilization. The place most closely associated by the Chinese themselves with the origin of their civilization is the capital of Shensi, namely, Siang-fu (Father Sin). Siang-fu appears in Assyrian records as Sianu. Today, Siang-fu can be loosely translated, “Peace to the Western Capital of China”. The Chinese have a tradition that their first king, Fu-hi or Fohi (Chinese Noah), made his appearance on the Mountains of Chin, was surrounded by a rainbow after the world had been covered with water, and sacraficed animals to God (corresponding to the Genesis record). Sin himself was the third generation from Noah, a circumstance which would provide the right time interval for the formation of early Chinese culture.
Furthermore, those who came from the Far East to trade were called Sinæ (Sin) by the Scythians. Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer, referred to China as the land of Sinim or Sinæ. Reference to the Sinim in Isaiah 49:12 notes they came “from afar,” specifically not from the north and not from the west. Arabs called China Sin, Chin, Mahachin, Machin. The Sinæ were spoken of as a people in the remotest parts of Asia. For the Sinæ, the most important town was Thinæ, a great trading emporium in western China. The city Thinæ is now known as Thsin or simply Tin, and it lies in the province of Shensi. Much of China was ruled by the Sino-Khitan Empire (960-1126 A.D.), which Beijing became the southern capital. The Sinæ became independent in western China, their princes reigning there for some 650 years before they finally gained dominion over the whole land.
In the third century B.C., the dynasty of Tsin became supreme. The word Tsin itself came to have the meaning of purebred. This word was assumed as a title by the Manchu Emperors and is believed to have been changed into the form Tchina. From there the term was brought into Europe as China, probably from the Ch’in or Qin dynasty (255-206 B.C.). The Greek word for China is Kina (Latin is Sina). As well, Chinese and surrouding languages are part of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Years ago, American newspapers regularly carried headlines with reference to the conflict between the Chinese and Japanese in which the ancient name reappeared in its original form, the Sino-Japanese war. Sinology refers to the study of Chinese history.
With respect to the Cathay people of historical reference, it would make sense to suppose that the remnants of the Hittites, after the destruction of their empire, travelled towards the east and settled among the Sinites who were relatives, contributing to their civilization, and thus becoming the ancestors of the Asian people groups. Still others migrated throughout the region and beyond, making up present-day Mongoloid races in Asia and the Americas. The evidence strongly suggests that Ham’s grandsons, Heth (Hittites/Cathay) and Sin (Sinites/China), are the ancestors of the Mongoloid peoples.
4. There are many native African tribes which trace themselves back traditionally to Ham. The Yoruba, who are black skinned, for example, claim to be descendants of Nimrod, son of Cush, whereas the Libyans, who are much lighter skinned, are traced back to Phut. The Egyptians were direct descendants of Mizraim. Ancient Egyptians have been considered the greatest technicians in all human history. Other African groups trace their roots back to Ham or one of his descendants. It is therefore suggested that all of Africa, despite the different shades of color of its native populations, was initially settled by various members of this one Hamitic family.
The evidence appears to point consistently in the same direction, supporting that not only Africa with its black races, but the Far East, the Americas, and other Island nations with their colored races were all descendants of Ham. The Hamitic people were the first to reach the far and distant lands of the world, preparing the way for the future. Their inventions and discoveries made a significant impact on the world, and provided inspiration for the Japhethites.
Japheth. Also Diphath. Literal meanings are opened, enlarged, fair or light (father of the Caucasoid/Indo-Europoid, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Aryan races – Japhethites). Japheth is the progenitor of seven sons:
(1) Gomer “complete” (sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) – also Gamir, Gommer, Gomeri, Gomeria, Gomery, Goth, Guth, Gutar, Götar, Gadelas, Galic, Gallic, Galicia, Galica, Galatia, Gael, Getae, Galatae, Galatoi, Gaul, Galls, Goar, Celt, Celtae, Celticae, Kelt, Keltoi, Gimmer, Gimmerai, Gimirra, Gimirrai, Gimirraya, Kimmer, Kimmeroi, Kimirraa, Kumri, Umbri, Cimmer, Cimmeria, Cimbri, Cimbris, Crimea, Chomari, Cymric, Cymry, Cymru, Cymbry, Cumber (Caledonians, Picts, Milesians, Umbrians, Helvetians, Celts1, Galatians, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Goths, Vandals, Scandinavians, Jutes, Teutons, Franks, Burgundians, Alemanni, Armenians, Germans2, Belgians, Dutch, Luxembourgers, Liechensteiners, Austrians, Swiss, Angles, Saxons, Britons, English, Cornish, Irish, Welsh, French, and other related groups);
(2) Magog “land of God” (sons were Elichanaf, Lubal, Baath, Jobhath and Fathochta) – also Gog, Gogh, Magug, Magogae, Mugogh, Mat Gugi, Gugu, Gyges, Bedwig, Moghef, Magogian, Massagetae, Dacae, Sacae, Scyth, Scythi, Scythia, Scythae, Sythia, Scythes, Skuthai, Skythai, Scythia, Scynthia, Scynthius, Sclaveni, Samartian, Scoloti, Skodiai, Scotti, Skoloti, Skoth-ai, Skoth, Skuthes, Skuth-a, Askuza, Askuasa, Alani, Alans, Alanic, Ulan, Uhlan (Scythians, Scots, Irish); also Rasapu, Rashu, Rukhs, Rukhs-As, Rhos, Ros, Rosh, Rox, Roxolani, Rhoxolani, Ruskolan, Rosichi, Rhossi, Rusichi, Rus, Ruska, Rossiya, Rusian (Russians3, Belarusians, Ukrainians); also Mas-ar, Mas-gar, Masgar, Mazar, Madj, Madjar, Makr-on, Makar, Makaroi, Merkar, Magor, Magar, Magyar (Hungarians – also Hungar, Hunugur, Hurri, Gurri, Onogur, Ugor, Ungar, Uhor, Venger); Finns, Lapps, Estonians, Siberians, Yugoslavians, Croatians, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Serbians, Slovenians, Slovakians, Bulgarians, Poles, Czechs, and other related groups);
(3) Madai “middle land” (sons were Achon, Zeelo, Chazoni and Lotalso) – also Mada, Amada, Madae, Madea, Manda, Maday, Media, Madaean, Mata, Matiene, Mitani, Mitanni, Megala (Medes4, Aryans, Persians, Parsa, Parsees, Achaemenians, Manneans, Caspians, Kassites, Iranians, Kurds, Turks, East Indians, Pathans, Hazaras), including the peoples of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Khazachstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan, and other related groups;
(4) Javan “miry” (sons were Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim) – also Jevanim, Iewanim, Iawan, Iawon, Iamanu, Iones, Ionians, Ellas, Ellines, El-li-ness, Hellas, Hellenes, Yavan, Yavanas, Yawan, Yuban, Yauna, Uinivu, Xuthus (Grecians, Greeks, Elysians, Spartans, Dorians, Britons5, Aeolians, Achaeans, Myceneans, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Cyprians, Cretans, Basques, Latins, Venetians, Sicanians, Italics, Romans6, Valentians, Sicilians, Italians, Spaniards, Portugese, other related groups);
(5) Tubal “brought” (sons were Ariphi, Kesed and Taari) – also Tabal, Tabali, Tubalu, Tbilisi, Tibarenoi, Tibareni, Tibar, Tibor, Sabir, Sapir, Sabarda, Subar, Subartu, Thobal, Thobel, Tobol, Tobolsk (Georgians, Albanians, other related groups);
(6) Meshech “drawing out” (sons were Dedon, Zaron and Shebashnialso) – Me’shech, Mes’ek, Meshekh, Meskhi, Mushch, Muschki, Mushki, Mishi, Muski, Mushku, Musku, Muskeva, Muska, Muskaa, Muskai, Maskali, Machar, Maskouci, Mazakha, Mazaca, Massagatae, Mtskhetos, Modar-es, Moskhi, Moshkhi, Mosher, Moshch, Moschis, Mosoch, Moschi, Moschian, Mo’skhoi, Moschoi, Mosochenu, Mosochean, Mossynes, Mosynoeci, Moskva, Moscovy, Moscow (Muscovites, Latvians, Lithuanians, Romanians, other related groups);
(7) Tiras “desire” (sons were Benib, Gera, Lupirion and Gilak) – also Tiracian, Thracian, Thirasian, Thuras, Troas, Tros, Troia, Troi, Troy, Trajan, Trojan, Taunrus, Tyrsen, Tyrrhena, Rasenna, Tursha, Tusci, Tuscany, Etruscan, Eturscan, Erul, Herul, Heruli, Erilar, Vanir, Danir, Daner, Aesar, Aesir, Asir, Svear, Svea, Svie, Svioner, Svenonian, Urmane, Norge (Pelasgians, Scandinavians7, Varangians, Vikings, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Icelandics, other related groups).
The Japhetic people are, in general, the peoples of India and Europe (Indo-European stock), with which any demographer is familiar8.
1. The whole Celtic race has been regarded as descended from Gomer, though history suggests modern Celts are descended from both Gomer and Magog. Archaeologists and ethnologists agree that the first Indo-European group to spread across Europe were Celts. The Irish Celts claim to be to the descendants of Magog, while the Welsh Celts claim to be to the descendants of Gomer. Irish chronicles, genealogies, plus an extensive number of manuscripts which have survived from ancient times, reveal their roots. The Irish were descendants of Scythians, also known as Magogians, which is strongly supported by etymological evidence. Archaeological evidence shows that both the Celts (from Gomer) and Scythians (from Magog) freely shared and mingled cultures at their earliest stages. Russian and eastern European excavations plainly reveal the blending of these two groups. Their geographical locations (what is now eastern Europe, southern Russia and Asia Minor) were referred to by the Greeks under the name of Celto-Scythae, which was populated by the Celts to the south and west, and the Scythians to the north. The ancient Greeks first called the northern peoples by the general name of Scythae; but when they became acquainted with the nations in the west, they began to call them by the different names of Celts, including the Celto-Scythae. Celts and Scythians were considered essentially the same peoples, based on geography, though many independent tribes of Celts and Scythians existed. The Latins called them the Galli, and the Romans referred to them as the Gauls. Later names used by Greeks were the Galatai or Galatae, Getae, Celtae, and Keltoi. In the third century before Christ (about 280 B.C.), the Gauls invaded Rome and were ultimately repelled in Greece, where they migrated into the north-central part of Asia Minor (Anatolia). Known as fiercely independent peoples, they conquered the indigenous peoples of that region and established their own independent kingdom. The land became known as Galatia. The Apostle Paul wrote his famous epistle to their descendants, the Galatians.
Early Celtic tribes (from Gomer) settled much of the European theater, including present-day Spain, France, England and Germany, prior to contact with Scythians. For many centuries France was called Gaul, after the Celtic descendants of Gomer, whom ceded the territory to Romans and Germanic/Teutonic Franks (whence France) in the 4th century A.D. Northwest Spain is called Galicia to this day. Some of the Gomerites migrated further to what is now called Wales. The Welsh claim their ancestors “first landed on the Isle of Britain from France, about three hundred years after the flood.” The Celtic language survives intact today mainly in the two variants of Welsh and Irish/Scottish Gaelic. The Welsh call their language Gomeraeg (after Gomer). The Celts of today are descendants of Gomer, and of the blended tribes of Magog and Gomer.
2. Present-day Germanic people groups are descendants of both Japheth and Shem, and there are several references from recent and ancient history. Recent history records the descendants of Gomer migrated and settled in the region that is now northern Europe (Germany and Scandinavia). These tribes became the Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Teutons and Burgundians, descendants of some of the first peoples to migrate to northern Europe from ancient times—the Askaeni. The Askaeni were descendants of Ashkenaz, son of Gomer, son of Japheth. When the Askaeni arrived in northern Europe, they named the land Ascania after themselves, which later translated Scandia, then Scandinavia. Later in history, we find the Askaeni being referred to as Sakasenoi, which became Sachsen, and finally Saxon. The Saxons played an big part in European and English history. Ashkenaz has been one of the most well preserved names throughout European history.
Semitic peoples also migrated to central Europe (southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland). These people were the descendants of Asshur, son of Shem, and is where the name “German” originates. Asshur is well known in history as the father of the Assyrians. The Assyrians occupied a Mesopotamian city on the lower Tigris River called “Kir” and placed captive slaves there (also referenced in 2 Kings 16:9). The city was populated by the Assyrians for many years, and the inhabitants became known as “Kir-men”. The Assyrian “Kerman” were driven from their land shortly after their fall about 610 B.C. They migrated into central Europe where they were called “German” or “Germanni”, a general name used by the Romans to represent all Assyrian tribes. The known Assyrian tribes were the Khatti (also Hatti, Hessians)—Chatti is still the Hebrew term for German, and Khatti was often used by the Romans to represent Germanic tribes; the Akkadians (Latins called them Quadians); the Kassites (or Cossaei); and the Almani (or Halmani, Allemani was the Latin name). Today, Germans refer to themselves as the “Deutschen”, which is derived from the Saxon word for an “Assyrian”. Their country name is Deutschland. The Romans referred to the Deutschen as Teutons. Ancient Hindu literature uses both the word “Asgras” and “Daityas” to refer to the Assyrians. “Daityas” is a Sanskrit word for “Deutsch”—a name applied to the Assyrians over 1500 years before the birth of Christ.
3. Ancient peoples known as the Sarmatians (not to be confused with the Samaritans) and Alans lived in the area around the Caspian Sea from about 900 B.C. Sarmatian and Alani tribes were later called Scythians (Slavs of today), who were also known as the Rukhs-As, Rashu, Rasapu, Rosh, Ros, and Rus. There is no debate that they were the inhabitants of southern Russia, and the existence of the names of rivers, such as the “Ros”, refer to Rus populations. Much later, about 739 A.D., the word Rus appears again in eastern Europe, interestingly, from a different source. Finnish peoples referred to Swedes as “Ruotsi”, “Rotsi” or “Rus” in contrast with Slavic peoples, which was derived from the name of the Swedish maritime district in Uppland, “Roslagen”, and its inhabitants, called “Rodskarlar”. Rodskarlar or Rothskarlar meant “rowers” or “seamen”. Those Swedish conquerers (called Varangians [Vikings] by the Slavs), settled in eastern Europe, adopted the names of local tribes, integrated with the Slavs, and eventually the word “Rusi”, “Rhos” or “Rus” came to refer to the inhabitants. Russia means “land of the Rus.” Scholars continue to debate the origin of the word Rus, which has derived from two sources: the Ruotsi or Rhos, the Finnish names for the Swedes, and earlier from the Scythians called the Rashu or Rosh in southern Russia.
4. The Aryans first come into historical view about a thousand years before Christ, invading India and threatening Babylonia. Historians of old reference an Aryan chief called Cyaxeres, king of the Medes and Persians. The Medes and Persians seem to have been tribes of one nation, more or less united under the rule of Cyaxeres. Elam (son of Shem) is the ancient name for Persia. Elamites are synonymous with Persians. The Persians are thus descended from both Elam, the son of Shem, and from Madai, the son of Japheth. The Medes and Persians had settled in what is now modern Persia, the Medes in the north, the Persians in the south. The most notable Persians of today are the Iranians. Interestingly, the word Iran is a derivative of Aryan. The Medo-Persian people groups are divided into hundreds of clans, some sedentary and others nomadic. All speak Indo-European languages, and some groups have pronounced Mongoloid physical characteristics and cultural traits, derived from Mongolian invasions and subsequent cultural integration. An example today would be the Uzbeks of Uzbekistan, and remnant groups living in Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia.
5. The history of Britain can be traced back to the sons of Japheth. Historical evidence strongly suggests the first inhabitants of the British isles were the descendants of Javan (from his sons Elisha and Tarshish), and of Gomer and Magog. Gomerites are today’s modern Welsh. Traditional Welsh belief is that the descendants of Gomer arrived about three hundred years after the flood, and the Welsh language was once called Gomeraeg. The Welsh (Celts) are thought to have created Stonehenge. Additionally, the descendants of Tarshish (Elisha’s brother) apprear to have settled on the British Isles in various migrations about the same time. Genesis 10:4 refers to Tarshish as those of “the isles of the Gentiles”. The Phoenicians traded silver, iron, tin and lead with them (Ezekiel 27:12), and even mention the incredible stone monuments at Stonehenge. Around 450 B.C., ancient historian Herodotus wrote about shipments of tin coming from the “Tin Isles” far to the north and west. There is no question that the British isles, including the northern coast of Spain, were the seat of the tin trade. King Solomon acquired precious metals from Tarshish (1 Kings 10:22). English historians assert that British mines mainly supplied the glorious adornment of Solomon’s Temple, and in those days the mines of southwestern Britain were the source of the world’s supply of tin.
The name Briton originated from Brutus (a descendant of Elisha), the first king on Britain’s mainland, arriving about 1100 B.C. Two sons of Brutus, Kamber and Albanactus, are referenced in English pre-history. From Kamber came Cambaria and the Cambrians (who integrated with the Gomerites [mostly Celts] and became the present-day Welsh). The descendants of Albanactus were known as the Albans (or the Albanach whom the Irish commonly called them). Geographers would later call the land Albion. The Britons, Cambrians and Albans populated the British Isles, which later endured multiple invasions, beginning with successive waves of Celts about 700 B.C. The Celts (or Gaels) called the land Prydain, their name for Briton. Those Celts (descendants of Gomer) integrated with the descendants of Elisha and Tarshish (sons of Javan), creating what some scholars called “a Celticized aboriginal population” in the British Isles. Some of the invading people groups were Scythians, descended from Magog, who became known as the Skoths or Scots. The name for the Celts or Cymru was “Weahlas”, from Anglo-Saxon origins, meaning “land of foreigners”—Wales. The Welsh still call themselves Cymru, pronounced “Coomry”. Later the Romans referred to the land as Britannia, invading there about 50 years before the birth of Christ. By the third century A.D., Jutes, Franks, Picts, Moors, Angles, Saxons and other groups were invading from surrounding Europe. In the sixth century A.D., Saxons called the land Kemr (Cymru), and the language Brithenig (Breton). The Angles eventually conquered Britannia, renaming the territory Angleland, which became England. Vikings invaded in the 9th century, and the Normans (or Northmen—former Danish Vikings) conquered England in 1066. Today, the British isles are settled by the ancestors of those people groups, which included Gomer and Javan (first inhabitants), plus Magog (later invasions by various people groups).
6. What of Romans and pre-Roman peoples? Migrating nomadic peoples came from across the Alps and across the Adriatic Sea to the east of the Italian peninsula. They were primarily herdsmen, and were technologically advanced. They worked bronze, used horses, and had wheeled carts. They were a war-like people and began to settle the mountainous areas of the Italian peninsula. Historians called these people Italic, and they include several ethnic groups: the Sabines, the Umbrians and the Latins, amongst others. Rome was, in part, founded by these agrarian Italic peoples living south of the Tiber river. They were a tribal people and the social logic of tribal organization dominated Roman society in both its early and late histories.
The date of the founding of Rome is uncertain, but archaeologists estimate its founding to around 753 B.C., although it existed as a village or group of villages long before then. As the Romans steadily developed their city, government and culture, they imitated the neighboring civilization to the north, the Etruscans (former Trojans). Romans are sometimes referred to as “Etruscanized Latins”. Roman legend states that Aeneas, the founder of the Roman race, was a prince of Troy who was forced to flee that city at the close of the Trojan war against Greece. Rome’s founder, Romulus, had a latinized Etruscan name. The Etruscans dominated central Italy, and had already founded many cities, having arrived some 500 years earlier after leaving the city of Troy around 1260 B.C. The Etruscans were greatly influenced by the Greeks, and the Etruscans brought that influence to the city of Rome. The Romans called Etruscans the Tusci, and Tuscany still bears the name. The first two centuries of Rome’s growth was dominated by the Etruscans. After many battles with the Etruscans, the city of Rome identified itself as Latin, eventually integrating the Estruscans and remaining peoples in the region. Rome became a kingdom, then an empire.
7. Scandinavian predecessors have a unique history. Scholars agree that Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes) came from early Germanic people groups, including the Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Teutons and Burgundians (descendants of Gomer). Ashkenaz, son of Gomer, is ancestor of those Germanic peoples. The descendants of Ashkenaz have many historical references. Known as the Askaeni, they were some of the first peoples to migrate to northern Europe, naming the land Ascania. Latin writers and Greeks called the land Scandza or Scandia (now Scandinavia). Roman records describe a large city on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea (about 350 A.D.) where a chain of mountains begins, and runs eastward along the shore and beyond it, forming a natural boundary. Those mountains were called the Ascanimians, the region was called Sakasene (a form of Ashkenaz), and the dwellers of the city were the Saki. The Saki tribes had been migrating north to Europe for some time. The Saki called themselves the Sakasenoi, which we know as the Sachsens or Saxons. Around 280 A.D. the Romans tell of the employment of Saxons to guard the eastern British coasts against barbarians. About 565 A.D., the Saxons battled over territory in the Baltic region with another powerful people, the Svear. Historical records indicate that descendants of Tiras also settled in Scandinavia, a people called the Svear. The Svear are descendants of the first inhabitants of the ancient city of Troy, a people then known as the Tiracians (also Thracians, Trajans or Trojans). They were described as a “ruddy and blue-eyed people”. The city of Troy was destroyed around 1260 B.C. after a succession of wars with the Greeks. Thousands of Trojans resettled abroad. That included Trojan warriors who sailed across the Black Sea to the Caucasus region in southern Russia; and one of the most documented of Trojan settlements is along the mouth of the River Don on the Black Sea. The locals named those Trojan settlers the “Aes”, meaning “Iron” for their superior weaponry. Later, the inner part of the Black Sea was named after them, called the “Iron Sea” or “Sea of Aesov” in the local tongue. Today, the name continues as the “Sea of Azov”.
The Aes or Aesir, travelled from the Caucasus region to the Baltic Sea in Scandinavia around 90 B.C., which is supported by several scholars and modern archaeological evidence. A tribe that migrated with them were the Vanir. The Aesir clans traded with local Germanic tribes, including the Gutar. Romans called the Gutar “Goths”, the Aesir “Svear”—Swedes, and the Vanir “Danir/Daner”—Danes. The Svear and Daner populations were described specifically as taller and fairer (blonde) than other people groups in the Baltic region. The Svear population flourished, and with the Goths they formed a powerful military alliance of well-known seafarers. The Romans noted that Svear people together with the Goths were, from the 3rd century A.D., ravaging the Black Sea, Asia Minor and the Mediterranean, using the same type of weapons as their Trojan ancestors. The Svear and Goths dominated the Russian waterways, and by 739 A.D. together they were called Varyagans or Varangians (from the Swedish Vaeringar), according to written records of the Slavs near the Sea of Azov. Like their ancestors, Scandinavians lived in large communities where their chieftains would send out maritime warriors to trade and plunder. Those fierce warriors were called the Vaeringar, which literally meant “men who offer their service to another master”. We later know them by their popularized name, the Vikings. Further evidence of Aesir (Asir) settlements in the Baltic region came from their Thracian language, which not only influenced, but is very close to the Baltic and Slavic (Balto-Slavic) languages of today. By the 9th century A.D., the Svear state had emerged as the major power in Scandinavia. The Svear, Daner and Goths, along with other Germanic tribes, settled in what is now present-day Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other parts of the Baltic region. They were forefathers of the Scandinavians—the descendants of both Gomer and Tiras.
8. Early history shows the Japhethites split into two groups. One group settled in the region of present-day India and Central Asia, and the other group in the European theater. Indo-European languages originate from those people groups who migrated throughout western Eurasia (Europe, the Near East, Anatolia, and the Caucasus). Together they form what is known as the “Indo-European” family of nations. Both of these divisions trace their ancestry back to Japheth. For example, early Aryans knew him as Djapatischta (chief of the race), Greeks referred to Japheth as Iapetos or Japetos, East Indians called him Jyapeti or Pra-Japati, Romans used Ju-Pater or Jupiter, the Saxons perpetuated his name as Iafeth, subsequently transliterated as Sceaf (procounced “sheef” or “shaif” – and recorded his name in their early genealogies as the son of Noah, the forebear of their various peoples), and the variant Seskef was used by early Scandinavians. All of these peoples, we must remember, were pagans whose knowledge or even awareness of the book of Genesis had been lost, or was non-existent.
Endnote:
The information presented here is only an interpretation of historical research and Biblical data. Certain assumptions may not be accurate, and new discoveries can change group references. We are all directly related to either Shem and his wife, Ham and his wife, or Japheth and his wife. History has long since confirmed abundantly this distribution of mankind, exactly as the Bible describes. Every human being on earth today is your cousin, whether first, second – or thousandth!
Nothing in the legendary or archaeological history of the ancient world denies the biblical account of the creation of the world, the entrance of sin and death, the judgment of Noah’s flood, and the rise of the peoples from his descendants after their dispersal from Babel. Furthermore, the historical dates used to determine the formation of people groups, nations, or kingdoms does not in any way conflict with the Genesis account, but are well within the approximate dates for the creation of the world and mankind about 5800 B.C., the flood of Noah about 3400 B.C., and the dispersal from Babel around 3200 B.C.
This information is not intendend to promote or reflect a particular theology, religious sect or genealogical group. Don’t dismiss the fact that with some of the Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites there would have been intermarriage and subsequent people groups. For example, scholars note evidence that suggests the descendants of Lud (Shemites) migrated north and intermarried with the Greeks (descendants of Japheth), and were eventually absorbed in that culture.
The interaction of all three family contributions is the theme of history. The remarkable thing is that they all can be substantiated to a degree, often unsuspected by students of history, up to the present time. The descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth are evidenced, not only by Biblical history, but archeological, anthropological, biological, ethnographical, ethnological, etymological, geological, and secular history. The question is not one of levels of worth but of uniqueness of contribution, and though differences exist, not any one group is superior or inferior.
Consider the major language groups today. Essentially, there is an increasing recognition that many of the languages of the world are related and that, subsequently, many of the cultures of the ancient world are thus also related in origin. They all can be traced back, in their various linguistic groups, to a “father tongue” embracing the major language groups of today, which are:
Indo-European (Northern India/Europe)
Afro-Asiatic (Northern Africa/Middle East/Southwestern Asia)
Kartvelian (Caucasus Mountains/Southern Russia)
Uralic (Northern Europe/Central Siberia/Eurasia)
Altaic (Eastern Europe/Central Asia)
Dravidian (Central & Southern India)
Sino-Tibetan (Northern & Eastern Asia)
Malayo-Polynesian (Southeastern Asia/Pacific Islands)
Austro-Asiatic (Eastern India/Southwestern Asia)
Niger-Congo (Western & Central Africa)
Nilo-Saharan (Northeastern Africa)
Khoisan (Southern Africa)
Eskimo-Aleut (Northeastern Siberia/Alaska/Aleutians)
Algonkian, Athapascan, Iroquoian, & Mosan (North America)
Uto-Aztecan, Oto-Manguean, Mayan, & Macro-Chibchan (Central America)
Carib, Andean-Equatorial (South America)
Torricelli, West Papuan & Sepik-Ramu (New Guinea)
Bunaban, Ngaran & Yiwaidjan (Northern Australia)
Pama-Nyungan (Central & Southern Australia)
The total number of languages in the world is estimated to be around 6000. Here are the most common spoken & written languages worldwide:
Achinese, Afrikaans, Akan, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Assamese, Aymara, Azerbaijani, Balinese, Baluchi,
@Zoe | November 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM |
“Furthermore, the historical dates used to determine the formation of people groups, nations, or kingdoms does not in any way conflict with the Genesis account, but are well within the approximate dates for the creation of the world and mankind about 5800 B.C., the flood of Noah about 3400 B.C., and the dispersal from Babel around 3200 B.C.”
So what are you telling the world here? That the earth is only 7,811 year old?
But I would provide you a hole not to further bury yourself but to use as an escape hatch to wriggle your way out!
Let us allow for the saying that “a day is like a thousand years in the sight of your god”. Therefore we get – 7,811 X 365 X 1,000 = 2,851,015,000 years which is getting very close to reality. Mankind therefore had enough time to leave the genetic engineering factory of Eden and migrate to the far corners of the planet.
Wtf Zoe…..
A link would have been nice >:O
.Zoe & Lemuel crushed the competition with irrefutable evidence
SojournerTruth | November 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM |
.”Zoe & Lemuel crushed the competition with irrefutable evidence”
It is amazing what people call evidence…..stories filled with supernatural beings magical happenings written over 3000 years ago with no proof.
Nnaki/Raelian, Man, you continue to manifest your ignorance and ineptitude, as you try DIGGING yourself out of one of those DEEP, DARK* BLACK HOLES* in outer space (LOL!) the likes of which, your eternal
DESTINY becons YOU!
Your FUTILITY, is so dense!
2 Peter 3:8—‘one day is like a thousand years’
Question: Doesn’t 2 Peter 3:8 indicate that the days of creation might not be literal, but thousands of years long?
Answer: 2 Peter 3:8–9 reads:
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
The first thing to note that the context has nothing to do with the days of creation. Also, it is not defining a day because it doesn’t say ‘a day is a thousand years’. The correct understanding is derived from the context—the Apostle Peter’s readers should not lose heart because God seems slow at fulfilling His promises because He is patient, and also because He is not bound by time as we are.
The text says ‘one day is like [or as] a thousand years’—the word ‘like’ (or ‘as’) shows that it is a figure of speech, called a simile, to teach that God is outside of time (because He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with 1000 years—to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same.
The fact that the passage is actually contrasting a short and long period can be shown by the fact that Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4 (Peter’s statement ‘do not forget’ implies that his readers were expected to recall something, and this passage has this very teaching). This reads:
‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.’
This is synonymous parallelism, where a long period of a thousand years is contrasted with two short periods: a day, and a night watch. But those who try to use this verse to teach that the days of Genesis might be 1000 years long forget the additional part in bold. For if they were consistent, they would have to say that a watch in the night here also means 1000 years. It’s difficult to imagine that a Psalmist (Psalm 63:6) is thinking on his bed for thousands of years or that his eyes stay open for thousands of years (Psalm 119:148).
The immediate context of the Psalm is the frailty of mere mortal man in comparison to God. This verse amplifies the teaching, saying that no matter how long a time interval is from man’s time-bound perspective, it’s like a twinkling of an eye from God’s eternal perspective.
In any case, the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 is defined by the context there—the Hebrew word for day, yôm יום , is used with the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, and the days are numbered (first day, second day, etc.). Whenever yôm is used in such a context, it is always an ordinary day, never a long period of time. The meaning of the days of creation as ordinary days is also affirmed by Exodus 20:8–11, where God told the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh because God had made all things in six days and rested on the seventh. For more information, see other articles in Q&A: Genesis under ‘Days of Creation’.
Professing to be wise Nnaki/Raelian, you have BECOME a fool!
My esteemed colleague and former tutor, Professor Dov Templebaum, has been a pioneering economic geographer and archeologist, whose published explorations into the social anthropology of first-century Judea have been inspirational to generations of scholars. I am one of those scholars, and my admiration for him knows no bounds.
Here, however, and sadly, I must take issue with Dov. All of the evidence suggests that Sammy Isaacs has always been right. Building on the meticulous and painstaking work of Manny Cohen (whom I’m glad to see participating in this discussion, after his many years of silence), Sam showed that the profession of “fart-wrangler” (“κλανιά πήρε” in the original Greek) was exclusive to the Sumerian hinterland and never even reached the coast, much less cosmopolitan Judea. It was a profession never used by the Maccabee descendency.
The confusion seems to have arisen as a result of a mistranslation from the early Greek in one of the apocrypha used as a source by at least two of the authors of the synoptics. Phonetically, the Aramaic (here rendered as late Arabic) “المعجب بخادمه” was almost identical to the old Greek. But in Aramaic (and, indeed, in the early Arab scripts), it simply meant a “follower”.
@ Zoe | November 24, 2011 at 3:31 PM |
So you fell for the trap!
You remain adamant that your god made the universe in 6 solar days- no more, no less!
He deserves to be fired and not worshipped! Why would an all powerful, omniscient (know-it-all) creator of heaven and earth and two defective slaves have to take 6 days to complete a job that could have been done in 1 day, or 1 hour or even 1 second or, ad nauseam, 1 nanosecond. Why wait so long? Was he trying to impress other gods and made numerous errors, or what? Even Superman the ET could have done a faster and better job! Ask any child born with spina bifida why your god created him or her in his image.
Professor Dov Templebaum
My former (and brilliant) postgraduate pupil Judy Tabor has rightly enjoyed an excellent career since she left Mount Scopus. I have heard of her in connection with Rhodes Scholarships and Fulbright Fellowships, and I have no doubt that she deserves them all. Her scholarship on second-century Judea is unparalleled in its acuity and breadth of knowledge. As a historical geographer and, I daresay, as an archeologist, she has few peers.
As a linguist of the ancient tongues, however, Dr. Tabor was never (shall we say) the best in the class. Her mistranslation of a mistranslation is enough, I think, to demonstrate just how wrong she is.
I have never claimed to be a scholar of second-century Judea. I do make a strong claim, however, to being a scholar of first-century Judea. Dr. Tabor (and I insist that I wish her well) would do well to remember that.
@ Professor Dov Templebaum | November 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM |
Please explain to an undergrad like me. Are you referring to first and second century BCE or CE? Because if it is ‘BCE’, you should be a scholar of 2nd century before becoming a scholar of first century?
Am I getting my nickers in a twist on this one, Professore, or it is way over my head, Sir?
Perhaps I am too late to join this discussion. Judit, thank you for remembering. I still recall fondly those study groups in the basement on Mount Scopus.
I have not been well for many years (hence my silence!!), but I think that better days are coming. I never really got over that bizarre episode with Rosie Templebaum. It seems to have haunted my life.
But enough of that. I agree with you, of course. I’ve been trying to keep up with the literature. Sam Isaacs has done some great work, as far as I can see, and surely you’re right about the Greek. As to Prof. Dov, these days I really don’t know what to think. I was sorry to hear about Rosie. It’s a miserable way to go.
But … you know …?
To Miller:
Your last piece to me seems full of desperation. You know very well that they are chinese and indian and others in the middle east who are christians. Your statement seems to imply that almost half the earth is being deprived of “power”. Furthermore, sun worship was well before christ. Most of the eastern countries were practitioners of it, especially the Egyptians during the time of Moses. That is why Moses could not accept the title of prince of Egypt; it would be to deny the ONLY TRUE God, maker of heaven and earth. Yes, Brother Miller in SIX days. That is why there is that weekly celebration called the Sabbath. It is a everlasting celebration to God’s act of creation. To be honest, your reference to the supplanting of the sun for the SON was the act of the Roman Catholic Church. This is why their implantation of pagan practices has seen an image of adoration of almost everything supposedly religious posted in all of their churches.
@ lemuel | November 24, 2011 at 5:58 PM |
“You know very well that they are chinese and indian and others in the middle east who are christians.”
Come on lemuel! I might appear desperate but you are certainly scraping the barrel! Yea, how many Christians really practice in those lands you just mentioned? Certainly not as much as Muslims, Hindus and those of other non-Christian faiths that live in so-called Christian lands. Most of these ‘orthodox’ Christians don’t even see Jesus as God but as only as the Son of God. Check out Britain, Europe, Canada, Trinidad & Guyana!
But if you have so much faith in your religion why are you an armchair Christian? You should be doing what Jesus and his disciples did and travel the hi-ways and y-ways and letting sinners and non-believers know about your sweet Jesus and the salvation he has to offer in order to have eternal life. You should start by visiting the Hindus and Muslims in Barbados and let them know that unless they accept your Jesus as God they will not be saved from damnation and will burn in Hell. I will come along and even promise to change my ways from Sun Worship to Son Worship.
Deal or no deal, lemuel boy!
Bring back Macabee Version
@ Lemuel…
Are you a Seventh Day Adventist (SDA)?
Why did God take six days to create everything instead of existence all at once?
The whole Word of God is founded upon the number SEVEN .All of life revolves around this number and it is the holy number of God. Seven symbolizes completeness or perfection. There are 7 recorded statements of Jesus while He was on the cross, there are 7 churches, with their 7 spirits, in Revelation, Jerusalem is 777 meters above sea level, the Israelites marched around Jericho for 7 days before its fall, when 7 priests blew 7 trumpets 7 times, there are 7 weeks between Passover and Pentecost. SEVEN symbolizes Spiritual Perfection and used over 700 times in the Bible. It is used 54 times in the Book of Revelation. The word FINISHED is also connected with the number SEVEN. In Revelation 10:7 we read, “In the days of the voice of the SEVENTH angel, when he shall begin to sound the mystery of God should be FINISHED.” 7-day week exists only because it was revealed by God to humanity, according to His Will.
Conclusion: We need to remember that God’s methods, His timings and His moments and thinking are often different from our timing and thinking we must allow let God be God, and do only what He is calling us to do and Live the life what God called us now and be obedient to him instead of wrestling with God’s method and God’s moment. We need to know that “God Has a Plan and purpose for everything and he uses everything for good, and everything has a reason for happening (Ecclesiastes 3:1-10). Apostle Paul clearly said that God has only provided us with a limited understanding. The scriptures says that we are to Avoid worthless, foolish talk that only leads to more godless behavior (2 Timothy 2:16)
O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20–21
But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. Titus 3:9-11.
The Word of God directs us NOT to answer questions which have no answer…”But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.” -2nd Timothy 2:23
Nnaki/Raelian, Stop asking foolish questions, man; but then again, one cannot expect other from such a Raelian like you!
Church in China experiencing ‘tremendous’ growth
by Dibin SamuelPosted: Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 11:35 (BST)
The church in China is experiencing tremendous growth like never before, says the World Council of Churches (WCC).
Mathews George Chunakara, Director of WCC’s International Affairs and Public Witness, said there had been a “unique and explosive growth” of Christianity among the Chinese people.
“I have been visiting China for the last 15 years. I am astounded to see the tremendous growth there. Their worship places are now overflowing,” Chunakara told Christian Today.
“It is not just the poor you see in churches, even the rich and educated are embracing Christianity. Beijing and Shanghai are the proof,” he added.
The ecumenical leader compared freedom of religion in the country now to a decade ago, when the church kept a tight grip on the goings on in churches. He said the situation had “much improved” and that the government was now starting to “favour” religious people.
In the early 1970s, there were an estimated 3 million Christians in China. Now, the number may be as high as 130 million. However, the government continues to keep a close eye on the activities of officials churches and there has been sporadic persecution against Christians belonging to unofficial house churches.
“The Chinese government will not raid unless provoked. Now being the fastest growing economy, they know the importance of a harmonious society. To promote such a society, they are giving religion a special role,” says Chunakara.
For instance, the Communist Government amended the Constitution two years ago to accommodate the role of religion.
“You could not expect such a thing to happen 15 years ago,” Chunakara said.
“Not only China, in many Asian countries the church is expanding. More people are coming to God. In addition, the participation of young people is absolutely remarkable in comparison with those in West. There is genuine spiritual eagerness among the grassroot level people,” said Chunakara.
He says God is using the foolish to shame the wise. God is bringing a spiritual awakening in third world countries.
Zoe | November 24, 2011 at 9:21 PM |
“The whole Word of God is founded upon the number SEVEN .All of life revolves around this number and it is the holy number of God. ”
This biblical numerology sounds like a whole lot of sorcery and magic (black or white?- all the same)! One would have thought that 3 would be your favourite number – the 3 god heads and all that baloney!
What you said about accepting things as written down or spoken by people pretending to be the mouthpieces of your god is a very good reason to dismiss the supremacy of any one religion.
Again I will repeat my guiding principle when it comes to seeking knowledge:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. ~Buddha”
@ Zoe | November 24, 2011 at 10:51 PM |
Where there is money to be made commercialized Christianity would spot a business opportunity. You can bet your 7 last bottom dollars that these early commercial posts (like the newly opened up mining towns of the 19th C) are primarily owned by white American televangelists and religious venture capitalists!
Astounding growth in the church worldwide
Posted in The Holy Spirit is on the move by Seth Barnes on 3/4/2010
As I said in an earlier blog, the world is getting brighter, not darker. Haiti was an example. What we thought was just a horrific event has been transformed into a catalytic moment in the life of the nation. And it represents a God who is on the move around the world.
We Americans tend to confuse our personal and national circumstances with that of the church around the world. We may be struggling, but God’s work is not. Things are moving rapidly across the globe. More people are coming to Christ now than at any other time in the history of the world. Consider these facts as presented in a recent article by J. Lee Grady:
There are now about 600 million Christians in Africa. Protestant Christianity grew 600 percent in Vietnam in the last decade. In China, where a 50,000-member megachurch was raided in Shanxi province a few weeks ago, there are now an estimated 130 million churchgoers.
“We have no reason to fear the future. Whatever challenges loom ahead, the same God who carried us through this past decade will give us success in the next one.”
Astounding church growth has occurred in Guatemala, Brazil, India and Ethiopia. In Nepal, which had no Christians in 1960, there are now a half-million believers. The Christian population of Indonesia has mushroomed from 1.3 million to 11 million in 40 years.
Smug scholars in Europe and the United States love to cite Islam as the world’s fastest-growing religion, but observers know the facts: Christianity, while waning especially in Europe, is growing faster than ever in the Southern hemisphere. Philip Jenkins, who wrote The Next Christendom in 2002, declared: “The center of gravity has moved to the global south. So if we’re looking for the religion that is going to affect the largest number of lives in the 21st century, it is almost certainly going to be Christianity.”
We need to be encouraged with what God is doing in the earth. If you’ve been a witness to this move of God, what have you seen lately?
Zoe posted……
“Smug scholars in Europe and the United States love to cite Islam as the world’s fastest-growing religion, but observers know the facts: Christianity, while waning especially in Europe, is growing faster than ever in the Southern hemisphere.”
This I found on Wiki…..
Claims to be the fastest growing religion
Note that it would be an ‘argumentum ad populum’ fallacy to claim that being the “fastest growing religion” has any logical consequences about the truth of that religion.
While it is possible to find claims that almost any religion is the fastest growing, it is much harder to find ones backed up by scientific data.
Where is your scientific proof here Zoe? You cant just cut and paste another’s perspective and parade them on BU as facts…..come on man, You should ‘know’ better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion
The more I read the Christians on BU and elsewhere, the more I am convinced that the whole Bible story is an ‘argumentum ad populum’ 😉
To Miller:
How can you quote from a book or traditional eastern enlightenment scrolls to defeat sayings and writings in another book, the Bible. Are you telling us that university students and scientists must now ignore the previous work done in a discipline and “reason” on it before it can be accepted as credible? Are you saying that all libraries and sources of books or thoughts of human contemplation should be discarded for your “reason”. Yet, the philosophers who were on the fore front of the reason movement “wrote” down their thoughts for posterity, and we now read them. How did you know about much of the “adverse learning” that you demonstrate here each day? Did you “reason” it out? How long did each “reason” take? Who or what validated your conception of what was the thing to believe? Was it another human being, a holy guru from the east or one of your friends from Kensington New Road? Miller my friend you are sounding less lucid than a person in the full flight of a psychosis.
Again stop with the chinese and indian fulcrum; it shall not accomplish its desired effect. You challenged christians to go on the highway and the byway to spread the good news about salvation. Yet, when it is being done right here on this blog; you are spewing all kinds of venom. You latest pieces do show desperation creeping in; maybe the “reason” construct is not holding, but you are allowed to say “I was down the wrong path”. You are among friends.
To Technician:
I am a believer in the traditional God Command philosophical construct; just as many here gleefully wear on their shirt sleeves their John Stuart Mills, Nietzche, St. Augustine, relativism and cultural relativism constructs. I do not hide from what I believe and when that can be demonstrated to be wrong then I shall accept what is demonstrated to be right. There are Sabbath keeping churches that are not of the seventh day adventist ilk. These churches celebrate the Sabbath because as the SDAs they recognize that it celebrates God’s great creation.
Inbreeding caused demise of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, new study reveals
” One of Europe’s most powerful royal dynasties was so obsessed with securing its blue-blooded inheritance through family marriages that it brought about its own extinction through inbreeding, scientists have found.
The Hapsburgs ruled Spain from 1516 to 1700, presiding over the first global empire, but died out after generations of intermarriage, according to the first genetic analysis of the family.
The royal fashion of marrying relatives to preserve the dynastic heritage culminated in a monarch who was so genetically inbred that he was unable to provide an heir and power passed to the French Bourbons.
The dynasty was one of the most important and influential royal families in Europe – branches of the family ruled Austria, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands, the German empire and Spain.
Scientists have examined the family tree of the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, King Charles II, who died in 1700 at the age of 39, and discovered that, as a result of repeated marriages between close relatives, he was almost as inbred as the offspring of an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister or father and daughter.
The study found that nine out of 11 marriages over the 200 years were between first cousins or uncles and nieces, producing a small gene pool that made rare recessive genetic illnesses more prevalent.
“Only half of the babies born to the dynasty during the period studied lived to see their first birthday, compared with about 80 per cent of children in Spanish villages at the time.
The study, published this week in the journal Public Library of Science One, indicated that Charles II suffered from two separate rare genetic conditions, which were almost certainly the result of his ancestors’ marriage patterns and which effectively assured that the dynasty died out with him.
Nicknamed El Hechizado (“the hexed”) because of his deformities, Charles II was not only inflicted with an extreme version of the Hapsburg chin, as immortalised in portraits by Titian and Velazquez, but his tongue was said to be so big for his mouth that he had difficulty speaking and drooled.
Historical accounts record that he also suffered from an oversized head, intestinal upsets, convulsions and, according to his first wife, premature ejaculation and his second wife, impotence.
“He was unable to speak until the age of four, and could not walk until the age of eight. He was short, weak and quite lean and thin,” said Gonzalo Alvarez, of the University of Santiago de Compostela, who led the study.
“He looked like an old person when he was 30 years old, suffering edemas [swellings] on his feet, legs, abdomen and face. During the last years of his life he could barely stand up and suffered from hallucinations and convulsive episodes,” he said.
The scientists concluded that medical problems of Charles II were not random but could be symptoms of two genetic disorders; an inherited thyroid deficiency, and renal tubular acidosis, a type of kidney failure that can cause metabolic problems.”
By Fiona Govan in Madrid
1:36PM BST 15 Apr 2009.
THE TELEGRAPH.
@ Lemuel….
A simple yes or no was all that was required……geeez.
Why do you always have to cloud the issue?
Is the answer a yes or no?
To Technician:
In your technical parlance, do not try to pigeon hole me and then attempt to bombard me from a point of view where you think I can not mount a frontal or rear guard attack. That shall never happen. The only one here who is cloudy is you. Whether I am of the SDA faith or not is not relevant here. You have already voiced your portion on the “evil” impact of faith. I don’t see how a yes or no could be any help to you, spiritually, at this stage of your gleeful scoffing and tearing down of all things spiritual.
To ALL BU Scoffring ‘Bildge Pumpers’ I re-post my challenge to Nnaki/Raelian, and ALL ‘Scoffers’ whose ONLY, non-substantive folly, IS* stupid “REDHERRING” voidless, nonsense, that any idiot can write in short, futile sentences, as you all continue doing!
Zoe | November 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM | Nnaki/Raelian, I challenge you, to cogently, coherently, objectively, scientifically, and, if possible, logically and honestly, to refute, what I posted earlier re the historic veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and likewise, the following; Remember, Nnaki/Raelian, NO imagenary folly and unsupported, Star Trek nonsense. Take your time, don’t choke now; this ain’t no JACKASS, in your Pythonated gut!
Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics
by Dr Robert W. Carter, and my other posts, from bright intelligent men/women, REFUTE them, with sound counter evidence, NOT IGNORANCE, folly and Bildge Pumping HOGWASH!
@ Lemuel….
I asked a simple question, you find it hard to answer, now you go on a rant….sad.
If you are ashamed to say to which denomination you belong, you are doing something wrong but I do understand the rules of one day Christianity.
Dont worry about me, I am happy where I am and I can say exactly who I am and where I stand without confusion.
You are correct, what you are has absolutely no bearing on my life, you neither add or subtract to it.
What I do find amazing about people like you and Zoe, is the fact that you always call others scoffers and mockers but in reality, aren’t you all scoffers and mockers also?
Don’t you all scoff at other beliefs? Don’t you all mock other beliefs and even go as far as condemning them because you believe yours to be the only truth?
Here we have Zoe frothing and spitting venom because others dont believe in his stories.
You all can’t scare or insult people into believing.
Stupse!
To Technician:
Like a spoiled child you did not get your little straw doll to put some blows on, and there you go frowning and scoffing. You can call me what ever, but if you are so settled in your beliefs and point of contemplation why would you worry about my one dayism. About right and wrong, Tech, some day coming soon if your God be God we shall see, but if the God of the Bible affirms he is the real and only God, it would have been a shame that a little herb cause you to lose all of the profit from his LIGHT.
@ Lemuel…..
I dont tear down all things spiritual….
I tear down all things ReLIEgion!!
A little herb….?!?!?
LOL….here you go again…..that little herb was created by your God for man..lol.
To Technician:
I really had a good laugh at that last one. I must concede it was created by Him, but did he intend that it be used for recreational purposes. That is what most use it for.
To Techie:
I try to affirm all things spiritual from the word of God. Religion has been misused and abused by man, and it continues today.Have to go see you later.
To Techie:
I try to affirm all things spiritual from the word of God. Religion has been misused and abused by man, and it continues today.
Glad to read this but IMHO, you are mixing the two, which can be dangerous (as aptly demonstrated over and over by Zoe).
ReLIEgion and Spirituality is not (IMHO) the same (Zoe will refute this with cut and paste).
“Again stop with the chinese and indian fulcrum; it shall not accomplish its desired effect.”
Your Holy Highness, please pardon my political incorrectness!
Is it OK to refer to them as “significant cultures from the Eastern Hemisphere which do not accept the teaching that Jesus is God or even as the Only Son of God as part of the religious practices?
My question to you is this: Do you see these “other religions’ as spiritually inferior to your Christianity to the extent that the practitioners will never be saved through grace and enter into the Kingdom of God?
Please answer in a simple and clear manner?
Secondly, do you accept the Book of Revelation as a clear indication of the very imminent return of Jesus Christ to Earth when those who believe in him will be taken to Heaven?
Again a simple answer will suffice.
Thanks very much for your cooperation, your Holiness!
Why is Jesus the only way to heaven/God?
Why is Jesus the only way? Because Jesus said He was the only way. “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me,” (John 14:6). Of course, just because someone says he is the only way, doesn’t mean he is. But, this is why we need to look at Jesus’ miracles as a proof that He was right about who He said He was. Jesus walked on water, calmed a storm with a command, raised people from the dead, and rose from the dead Himself. It is the fact of His incredible deeds.
Now, if Joe Schmoe on the street said that he was the only way to God, we’d look at him and say, “Yeah, right.” But, if Joe calmed a storm with a command, raised someone from the dead, walked on water, etc., that would add a lot of credibility to his claim. After all, he is demonstrating extraordinary abilities consistent with his claim.
This is the case with Jesus. He made extraordinary claims and performed extraordinary deeds. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that what Jesus said was true — especially since He claimed to be God (John 8:24,58; 10:30-33; 5:18).
Also, consider that no one else has done what Jesus has done. No one else has risen from the dead, calmed storms, raised others from the dead, and fulfilled numerous prophecies, etc. Though some may have claimed to be able to do one or two of these things, none have done all the things Christ has done as well as claim divinity. Since Christ has done all of these things and since He claims to be God in flesh, then it is logical to believe what He has said… that He is the only way.
As we speak, many Indians, Chinese, and thousands of Muslims across the Middle East, and elsewhere in countries, that have traditionally embraced a variety of other non-Christian beliefs, are coming to The Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Saviour and Lord of all mankind, with Glorious testimonies of His liberating POWER, presence and PEACE in their lives, accompanied by many miraculous events, I.e., healing of sickness. etc, which they never experienced before; as HE* said, it would happen, IF* you you BELIEVE* in Him!
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.