Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Question about the Flood

Where it is written..."made from one blood," the word "blood" was not in the text in that verse.
Actually it is there, just not in the Alexandrian text. It's in the Received Text, from which the KJV/NKJV is translated.

As we know one race doesn't produce a different race then we know it wasn't from one man.
You're basing your reasoning on the assumption that there is more than one human race, rather than basing your view on what Scripture actually says. Because you already believe that there are different races, you don't accept that the translation should be "one man", despite the consensus of centuries of Bible translators. That all are descended from one man, one blood (Adam) - that we are one human race - is the straightforward reading of Scripture.

If you can show me where a Chinese couple gave birth to a Caucasian or a Caucasian couple to an Indian, etc., etc., then I would say, "See, this is new" and your belief could be proven.

Have you heard of Sandra Laing? She was a "black" girl born to "white" parents in the 50s, in South Africa. Her parents Abraham and Sannie Laing were white, their parents, grandparents and great grandparents were white, but she was dark-skinned. Just Google "Sandra Laing" and you'll find pictures of her with her parents.

Similarly, there are a number of recent examples of couples whose twins are dark and light-skinned. For example:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,384862,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28471626/
http://fisherwy.blogspot.com/2006/10/tw ... inger.html

I doubt there are many, if any, couples in the world that are "pure Negroid" or "pure Caucasoid" (or whatever). Such categories have little or no meaning. We're all mixed in some way, especially within Europe and the US.

"Skin colour" is one of the obvious ways in which people define "race", but the truth is, we're all just different shades of the same colour. Whether we're "white" or "dark" is dependent on the amount of melanin in the skin. More melanin makes for darker-skinned people, less melanin makes the person lighter-skinned. There's no meaningful genetic difference between them. Between any two people, the genetic difference is around 0.5-0.9%, even if they come from the same people group (so-called race). "Racial" characteristics (shape of the eyes, skin tone, etc) account for just 6% of this variation, making the total "racial" variation between people of different "race", at most, an insignificant 0.054%.

Within the human race there is an abundance of variation in skin tone, hair colour, eye shape, and so on. But after the introduction of different languages at the Tower of Babel, that genetic variation was "divided out" in accordance with the different language groups. Thus, within people of a certain language, certain physical traits became more prominent because the gene pool was restricted to what was inherent within that group. Similarly, a certain degree of variablity was lost, such as that required for lighter-skinned people to produce dark-skinned offspring. Were there to be total intermarriage between the people groups, the "races" would cease to exist - there would simply be a mixture of all physical traits inherent within the gene pool of the (one) human race.
 
inhopeofglory said:
Where it is written..."made from one blood," the word "blood" was not in the text in that verse.
Actually it is there, just not in the Alexandrian text. It's in the Received Text, from which the KJV/NKJV is translated.

Bullinger was very thorough in listing what words were missing out of what texts. He simply stated that "blood was missing from the texts," plural. As I know all races didn't come from one man I know that we are not of one blood. But, if one believes we are then... :D

[quote:2jtxkchy]As we know one race doesn't produce a different race then we know it wasn't from one man.
You're basing your reasoning on the assumption that there is more than one human race, rather than basing your view on what Scripture actually says. Because you already believe that there are different races, you don't accept that the translation should be "one man", despite the consensus of centuries of Bible translators. That all are descended from one man, one blood (Adam) - that we are one human race - is the straightforward reading of Scripture.[/quote:2jtxkchy]

I don't assume there is more than one race....there is obviously more than one race and Scripture tells us there is. Are we all the human race? Yes.


[quote:2jtxkchy]If you can show me where a Chinese couple gave birth to a Caucasian or a Caucasian couple to an Indian, etc., etc., then I would say, "See, this is new" and your belief could be proven.

Have you heard of Sandra Laing? She was a "black" girl born to "white" parents in the 50s, in South Africa. Her parents Abraham and Sannie Laing were white, their parents, grandparents and great grandparents were white, but she was dark-skinned. Just Google "Sandra Laing" and you'll find pictures of her with her parents.

Similarly, there are a number of recent examples of couples whose twins are dark and light-skinned. For example:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,384862,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28471626/
http://fisherwy.blogspot.com/2006/10/tw ... inger.html

I doubt there are many, if any, couples in the world that are "pure Negroid" or "pure Caucasoid" (or whatever). Such categories have little or no meaning. We're all mixed in some way, especially within Europe and the US.

"Skin colour" is one of the obvious ways in which people define "race", but the truth is, we're all just different shades of the same colour. Whether we're "white" or "dark" is dependent on the amount of melanin in the skin. More melanin makes for darker-skinned people, less melanin makes the person lighter-skinned. There's no meaningful genetic difference between them. Between any two people, the genetic difference is around 0.5-0.9%, even if they come from the same people group (so-called race). "Racial" characteristics (shape of the eyes, skin tone, etc) account for just 6% of this variation, making the total "racial" variation between people of different "race", at most, an insignificant 0.054%.

Within the human race there is an abundance of variation in skin tone, hair colour, eye shape, and so on. But after the introduction of different languages at the Tower of Babel, that genetic variation was "divided out" in accordance with the different language groups. Thus, within people of a certain language, certain physical traits became more prominent because the gene pool was restricted to what was inherent within that group. Similarly, a certain degree of variablity was lost, such as that required for lighter-skinned people to produce dark-skinned offspring. Were there to be total intermarriage between the people groups, the "races" would cease to exist - there would simply be a mixture of all physical traits inherent within the gene pool of the (one) human race.[/quote:2jtxkchy]

If you want to believe that....be my guest. :D
 
SEEKER55 said:
Ok, dogs should not have been on that list, but you still didn't answer the question about what the carnivores ate after they left the Ark.
hmmm...I think I DID say something about this....ie FISH....which werent taken on the ark and apparently survived.
I also said that my dog loved eating raw potatoes.
 
GojuBrian said:
What if all the animals were pups, colts, baby animals? Kind of changes things doesn't it? ;)
Interesting possibility. :)
 
SEEKER55 said:
My biggest problem with the story of Noah’s Ark is this;
Does anyone have any estimates on the number of children and babies that would have drowned in a global flood?
Would God have killed innocent children? I don’t think so!
I think you better read it again, friend. This isnt the only time God would have ordered the deaths of innocents.
 
SEEKER55 said:
How about this incredible idea – that God IS good, just, and merciful and would NEVER kill innocent babies or ORDER anyone else to do such a thing. Maybe the stories in the Bible are just that - stories made up by MAN to serve his own purpose.
ahhh....here we go. If one cannot handle the facts one just changes them to falsehoods.
 
SEEKER55 said:
When did I say that “this world is the only world there is�
You know nothing about me and your statement; “I'm sure the touchy, feeley, feel good god of your imagination will serve you well in this world.†was not very nice.
I have no problem with people that believe in the Bible but acting like you KNOW everything and looking down your nose at other people’s beliefs is just wrong.
You mean like those who disagree with those of us who believe in a literal creation week and a worldwide flood are looked down on by those who dont ? :)
 
Imagican wrote:
NO, the FIRST chapter of Genesis explains that there were MEN AND WOMEN BEFORE Adam. PLAINLY. And what many confuse is the word LIVING. Are those ALIVE today that are in DARKNESS considered to be LIVING?
Blessings,

MEC


no, the FIRST chapter of Genesis lays out a basic overview of creation while the SECOND chapter fills in some blanks about creation.

Here there is NO man present in Genesis 2, which shows us that this is simply retelling of the creation account and adding some detail.
And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up, for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.
(Gen 2:5 MKJV)
Here we see Adam ('man') being created in Genesis 2...
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(Gen 2:7 MKJV)
How many men to some expect us to believe God created directly from the dust ?

And here the woman is shown as being created
And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam. And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath. And Jehovah God made the rib (which He had taken from the man) into a woman. And He brought her to the man.
(Gen 2:18-22 MKJV)
Woman was made in chapter 1. Why would there be a need to make women a SECOND time ???
Genesis 2 simply gives us more detail about the creation of man and woman. Its not a second creation.

Christ offered a plain explanation of my point when He stated to; 'Let the DEAD bury the DEAD'.
Blessings,
MEC
Is this a joke ?
Jesus is talking about those who are spiritually dead. Not some pre adamite race :crazy
how you made that connection, MEC, is beyond me.
 
follower of Christ said:
SEEKER55 said:
When did I say that “this world is the only world there is�
You know nothing about me and your statement; “I'm sure the touchy, feeley, feel good god of your imagination will serve you well in this world.†was not very nice.
I have no problem with people that believe in the Bible but acting like you KNOW everything and looking down your nose at other people’s beliefs is just wrong.
You mean like those who disagree with those of us who believe in a literal creation week and a worldwide flood are looked down on by those who dont ? :)

I am sorry if you took offense to anything I said.
Maybe we should just agree to respectfully disagree and leave it at that.
 
SEEKER55 said:
I am sorry if you took offense to anything I said.
Maybe we should just agree to respectfully disagree and leave it at that.
Rarely offended at anything on forums like this. Just amazed at some of the arguments presented :)
 
Back
Top