[_ Old Earth _] The sons of Noah compared to Human genetics

[Nick]

Thread re-opened. Please keep in mind the ToS, especially #1, which theLords posted above. Science forum privileges can always be revoked.

 

[Sparkey]

Nick, Moderators - thanks for reopening the thread.

I do have a question about the concept of 3 races descending from the sons of Noah. I like to question and challenge everything and appreciate Scriptural authority so bear with me please, but are we sure that the idea of "RACE" itself is biblical?

Is there a biblical definition for "Race"? I know that only Noah and his family made it through the flood but to my way of thinking some who share this belief have tried to create a rational explanation between observed differences and form groupings based on shared physical traits. Probably the most noticeable would be skin color but when I think about the "flavors" of man - the distinct differences in coloration, there are not 3 but rather 5 or more kinds.

• White or Caucasian (More pinkish than 'white')
• Black or Negroid (African origin)
• Brownish (Italian, Spanish, India, Islander etc)
• Reddish skin undertones for otherwise brown skin color (I've heard others describe natives this way, pardon)
• Yellow (not yellow anymore than Caucasian is white - but oriental or Asian)
• Other "colors" too

And that's just skin. When we consider shape, height, eye and hair traits and color, facial and bone structure there are far more than 3 base groups that can be formed. It's difficult to speak about some of these things well because of the danger of sounding like I'm stereo-typing groups and individuals but my thought is that God blessed some families and groups in certain ways and those things continue to be passed down from generation to generation.

There's more to it than just skin color too, if we look at it. Race is a sensitive issue these days. But the basic idea is division and separation to form identity. Wouldn't it be more accurate to think in terms of families of man who share similar attributes? Cultural influence more than ancestrial would better explain the distinctions we observe. The way I think about it is more in terms of the migration of language-blocked families after the Tower of Babel as the significant factor, not so much the convenient groupings found in the attempt to line things up into Shem, Ham and Japeth. So then can we say that because of imposed language barrier (or other unknown factors) groupings of different families formed culturs and natural gene pools? It seems reasonable to me that after Babel groups traveled with others who they could communicate with to settle in various regions. Language, more than shared ancestry formed the distinctions. Yes?

"And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan. These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died." - Genesis 9:18-29 KJV

The Scripture shows that Ham was the father of Canaan. I read that the area they lived in was west of the Jordan and that Ham was the progenitor of the Phoenicians and of the various nations who peopled the seacoast of Palestine. Other Scriptures document the origins of other nations. The incesteous relations between Lot and his daughters formed the Moabites and Ammonites, for instance (Gen 19:36-38). I've not studied this sufficient and don't pretend to be any kind of expert but would like to try to understand.

The Sons of Noah concept doesn't explain the modern day ideas of Race well enough to my mind. God knows where the various groups originated and was intimately involved with them. He refers to the 'people of the North' for instance or other directional and/or regional distinction or calls them by the name of their significant ancestor. Trying to trace everything back to 3 introduces inconsistencies for me. I'm called white by some but does my family share the same cultural identity with all the distinct groups found within that "race"? How many flavors of white are there? Certainly the same could be said of other major "racial" groupings. Can we really say that skin color is the deciding factor and if the Shem, Ham, Japeth theorists are correct, why are there more than just three skin-tones?

Thoughts?

 

[reba]

Sparrow,

maybe this goes along with your thoughts.

Just looking at the "native" folks along California ... Alaskan natives have a strong Oriental look as we come down into California we can see the beginnings of the South American Indian look. The changes in looks and culture are truly there.



Two of my Grandsons same parents.
one is almost blond with a slight wave blue eyed one glace and you know he is American
one is dark straight hair dark eyes one glance and you know he is American Indian

The little subtle differences show up. (I cant spell newonceses) Nuance thanks sparrow

What do we know of the women the sons of Noah or Noah married?


OPPS i dont like to delete posts, just cause i messed up, so i wont! I did not notice this was the science thread....

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow,

maybe this goes along with your thoughts.

Just looking at the "native" folks along California ... Alaskan natives have a strong Oriental look as we come down into California we can see the beginnings of the South American Indian look. The changes in looks and culture are truly there.



Two of my Grandsons same parents.
one is almost blond with a slight wave blue eyed one glace and you know he is American
one is dark straight hair dark eyes one glance and you know he is American Indian

The little subtle differences show up. (I cant spell newonceses)

What do we know of the women the sons of Noah or Noah married?


OPPS i dont like to delete posts, just cause i messed up, so i wont! I did not notice this was the science thread....

Hi, Reba! (welcome)

Yes, that helps. I think in terms of family and cultures that traveled together and eventually formed national boundaries. But the nations are somewhat artificial and don't necessarily depict origins well. The other day I was in a discussion with a young man at school and he, being born in Spain, pointed out how Germanic and Latin language influenced the major groupings that linguists observe among flavors of "white" peoples.

I can't pronounce the Spanish "R's" and find it easier to form the harsher sounds when he tries to teach me. It may be off subject some but what I'm trying to say in thread is that the 3 race concept is too simple to explain the complexities we observe when we look at mankind and various groups. Your thought about the wives of the three makes sense to me because women are born with all their "seed" in them - the ovaries do not continue to produce after birth but all the gametes are formed within women while they are in the womb. The progeny of men then are more influenced by environment and perhaps choice. The combination of the 8 individuals could help explain and answer my question at least in part.


(PS - I just take my best guess: Nuance -- then highlight and hit the spell-check button <---- it's the one on top with the green check-mark and ABC on it)

 

[Tsigano]

So basically all you want to do is have everyone validate your hypothesis without anything more to go on that an arbitrary selection of haplogroups on the basis that according to some criteria they can be fitted into three categories and, by a convenient coincidence, the Bible promotes a piece of legendary folklore that the (quote arbitrary) 'three races' of humanity originate in the three sons born to Noah and his wife, regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support any element of this piece of speculative fantasy. Never mind that the evidence shows these haplogroups separating from one another over many more than one generation and never mind that these separations occurred tens of thousands of years before Genesis was even imagined as a tale.

The fact is everything you try to post is just an attempt to make the Bible out to be a book of myths and fables with a load of high sounding nonsense that is nothing to do with the subject of the thread. I just find it tedious. Sorry. I do not feel this way about the Bible

moderators -
I just wanted to discuss something that I have noticed similarities on to have a load of stuff trying to disprove the flood as just some fable or myth and it didn't actually happen. The subject of the thread was nothing to do with this.

I do not accept that the Bible is a book of myths and I'm not interested to get into a discussion about whether it is.
I did have lots to say about the actually finding with the DNA Y haplogroups and how it compares to the account of the sons of Noah but now I have no more desire to contribute
I leave it here

 

[lordkalvan]

The fact is everything you try to post is just an attempt to make the Bible out to be a book of myths and fables with a load of high sounding nonsense that is nothing to do with the subject of the thread. I just find it tedious. Sorry. I do not feel this way about the Bible

Eh, no, I don't. There is historical truth in the Bible, but there are also morality tales, parables and inspiration offered in ways that do not have to be taken strictly literally simply because they are written down in the Bible. Where I have addressed the subject of the thread directly, you have simply accused me of dismissing the comparison you have been making, disregarding any question directed towards understanding why you regard the comparison as valid at all.

moderators -
I just wanted to discuss something that I have noticed similarities on to have a load of stuff trying to disprove the flood as just some fable or myth and it didn't actually happen. The subject of the thread was nothing to do with this.

Again, I was not the first poster here to mention the flood. I simply responded to the relevant post and subsequent posts that arose. Threads rarely adhere strictly to one topic as ideas and thoughts tend to flow across boundaries as related subjects crop up.

I do not accept that the Bible is a book of myths and I'm not interested to get into a discussion about whether it is.

Nowhere have I said that the Bible amounts to nothing more than a book of myths. You misrepresent what I have written and the context in which I have written it.

I did have lots to say about the actually finding with the DNA Y haplogroups and how it compares to the account of the sons of Noah but now I have no more desire to contribute

Well, that's a pity because I think it could have been an interesting discussion if you could have developed the idea further. Often the soundness of an hypothesis can be best demonstrated (and even strengthened) by responding to energetic criticism. I am sorry if you found my criticism too energetic in this respect.

I leave it here

Obviously that is your choice to do.

 

[turnorburn]

maybe there was an individual called Noah around whom legends were woven, but there is no evidence that the biblical story is any more an historical account of real events than there is that the tale from which it was adapted - the Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria - is also an historical account of real events.

There appears to be no genetic evidence that supports this contention.

A fanciful story 'explaining' the origins of crude 'racial' characteristics that the tellers of those legends could recognize does not satisfactorily explain the much greater diversity amongst humanity than these narrow, restricted categorizations suggest exists. Most genetic diversity amongst humans exists in Africa, which rather implies an African origin for humanity and makes Mitochondrial Eve most likely black.

Mate, that's a pretty big maybe.

turnorburn

 

[lordkalvan]

Mate, that's a pretty big maybe.

Well, maybe there was a King of Uruk called Gilgamesh and his companion Enkidu. Maybe there was a Geat hero named Beowulf. Maybe there was a British leader against the Saxons named Arthur. Determining that the individuals named in tales surrounded with fantastical events were adapted from real persons and that they experienced any of the adventures attributed to them requires more evidence than just the stories themselves. Floods are common in Mesopotamia and, when the Sumerian civilization was flourishing, river traders who lived on the barges that gave them their living were common. Perhaps Noah was such a river trader?

 

[turnorburn]

Umm, I don't believe I was the first person to raise the topic of the biblical flood in this thread.

What do you mean 'always contradicting itself'? What examples are you thinking of? You have just used the science of molecular evolution as it concerns haplogroups to support the idea that the 'races' of humanity can be traced back to Noah's three sons. There seems to be some dissonance here.

I don't think that simply referencing unspecified 'programs and documentaries' that by your own admission you can only recall patchily can be regarded as providing persuasive evidence in any scientific meaning of the word. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, 150 years of 'learning new things' has only reinforced scientists' confidence in the essential robustness of that theory. In this context, there is no evidence that the haplogroup groups you have identified descended from three specific individuals born to the same husband and wife within the timeframe generally espoused by YECism for the biblical flood, i.e. around 4500 KYA.

So do most other Christians as far as I understand it, but as the Bible was not written as a science textbook, there is no reason to suppose that the fallible men who wrote it down had a better understanding of the natural world than we have developed after several centuries of scientific inquiry. If the Christian God exists, why do you suppose he granted us the ability to inquire about, analyse and understand his creation as it actually is rather than as a pre-scientific culture imagined it to be?

I have 'dismissed' nothing. I have simply pointed out that there is nothing in the science of haplogroups that supports the idea that you are trying to put forward. As it is this science that provides the basis for your argument, it seems illogical to simply accept the part that seems crudely to support your hypothesis while ignoring the more specific analysis and conclusions that show that it is untenable.

And how does this support your idea that the human 'races' descended from the three sons of a single couple living some 4500 KYA?

G-Day Mate

Still trying to prove awe nevermind