Do all humans come from Africa?

[mindlight]

I recently accepted that Jesus the Christ was in fact middle eastern and not Caucasian like the pictures that some churches have of Jesus. Which leads me to the study of my origins as a white person.

Then I was reading in the Human article on wikipedia Human - Wikipedia and I saw under the illustration slightly down on the page the "human timeline" that homoerectus or homohabilis migrated from Africa.

So if I am to accept some sort of mixture between creationism and evolution, than also does that illustration mean that all humans are from Africa also? So that although I'm not African my ancestors are from Africa at some point?

No as the bible says they came from Iraq. Big evolution is a lie and the evidence is not readable in any kind of definitive way at this distance and so it is out of scope for scientists to postulate an Out of Africa hypothesis.

 

[EdyChristian28]

that's the Sumerian theory right. That Eden was located somewhere in that region.

 

[mindlight]

that's the Sumerian theory right. That Eden was located somewhere in that region.

Do not really care if the Sumerians agreed with it as their creation myths included various errors like polytheism and false reasoning about the flood etc. The bible is clear that Eden existed between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which placed it somewhere in Iraq. But as to where exactly we will never know as the flood destroyed all.

 

[kiwimac]

All humans are descended from homo-erectus and thus come from Africa. There were varying waves of humans moving out over time. Thus Neanderthalensis, Denisovans, et al.

 

[JackRT]

Would it bother people if Jesus truly was a black arab?

Not I.

 

[JackRT]

Over the course of this thread I have repeatedly read that "evolution is a lie". A lie is an untruth that is known to be a untruth and is said anyhow. Evolution is a theory based on massive amounts of evidence that is found convincing by the vast majority of earth and life scientists. These people are sincere in accepting the ToE, they are not liars. Could they be wrong? Yes, but that must be proven based on the evidence. That has not happened yet in the past 150 years. Do let us drop this "liar rhetoric" and deal with each other in a polite manner.

 

[devin553344]

this interesting movie also mentions that scientists might be moving away from the idea that the first humans lived in Africa

The media that is linked appears to not have audio when I tried to watch it.

 

[mindlight]

Over the course of this thread I have repeatedly read that "evolution is a lie". A lie is an untruth that is known to be a untruth and is said anyhow. Evolution is a theory based on massive amounts of evidence that is found convincing by the vast majority of earth and life scientists. These people are sincere in accepting the ToE, they are not liars. Could they be wrong? Yes, but that must be proven based on the evidence. That has not happened yet in the past 150 years. Do let us drop this "liar rhetoric" and deal with each other in a polite manner.

A person can agree that scientists are being honest about micro-level evolution and the observable adaptation of species over observable timescales and still call Big Evolution a lie. That is not the same as calling TE subscribers liars, it is rather to suggest that even the elect can be deceived.

 

[Tetra]

Over the course of this thread I have repeatedly read that "evolution is a lie". A lie is an untruth that is known to be a untruth and is said anyhow. Evolution is a theory based on massive amounts of evidence that is found convincing by the vast majority of earth and life scientists. These people are sincere in accepting the ToE, they are not liars. Could they be wrong? Yes, but that must be proven based on the evidence. That has not happened yet in the past 150 years. Do let us drop this "liar rhetoric" and deal with each other in a polite manner.

Don't know if you've seen this video, but DNA evidence is also suggesting all human life originated in Africa. Pretty cool stuff. :

 

[JoeP222w]

So if I am to accept some sort of mixture between creationism and evolution

This is one of the problems. Truth (Creationism, as defined by the Bible) does not mix with the fantasy of Darwinian evolution. A Christian cannot accept both of these doctrines. One is true while the other is false.

All humans descended through Adam and Eve, then Noah and his family. Out of the what is now considered the Middle East, not Africa.

Multiple human "races" is one of the lies of evolution. Differing skin pigmentation does not mean that there are different human "races". The is only one human race. Man uses the thought of multiple human "races" to continue to promote his or her prejudices and bigotry.

 

[devin553344]

This is one of the problems. Truth (Creationism, as defined by the Bible) does not mix with the fantasy of Darwinian evolution. A Christian cannot accept both of these doctrines. One is true while the other is false.

All humans descended through Adam and Eve, then Noah and his family. Out of the what is now considered the Middle East, not Africa.

Multiple human "races" is one of the lies of evolution. Differing skin pigmentation does not mean that there are different human "races". The is only one human race. Man uses the thought of multiple human "races" to continue to promote his or her prejudices and bigotry.

OK, while I see your point if you are to take the bible before the time of Moses as being literal (Moses being the person who wrote about Adam and Eve which existed before Moses' time). I think others are suggesting that God revealed to Moses things that aren't to be taken literal, such as things given to Moses before Moses was born. If I got that right. And that is one possibility. Which also might make sense to me. That Moses was not in fact recording historical records to be taken literal, but in fact was receiving revelations and visions from God of the history of mankind which should be interpreted by God to understand them literally.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

That child looks pretty Indian to me.
Peoples have regional and sub-racial groupings due to migration patterns.
For example, through South-East Asia Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.
there is the blending of Indian and Chinese peoples giving to various degrees of ethnicity derived
from the two original races.
People emigrated from India westwards as well, and brought their racial features into other peoples
in Arabia and into North Africa. The Gypsies or Romani of Europe are of Indian descent.

Getting back to the OP about do all humans come out of Africa? The answer is no.
God created different races pretty much for each continental region.
Over the millennia humans migrate and trade and settle and inter-marry.
Evolution is atheistic non-sense. God created human beings. We are sacred and have souls.

God didn't create a man and a woman for each continent. we all came from adam and eve. they were one ethnicity. humanity started off by people pro-creating with close relatives. kain had to have married one of his sisters. sooner or later albinos started popping up.

light skin is a result of a lack of melanin. you don't start with a people with no melanin and then have people start gaining melanin. parents can't pass down what they don't have.

 

[AlexDTX]

I recently accepted that Jesus the Christ was in fact middle eastern and not Caucasian like the pictures that some churches have of Jesus. Which leads me to the study of my origins as a white person.

Then I was reading in the Human article on wikipedia Human - Wikipedia and I saw under the illustration slightly down on the page the "human timeline" that homoerectus or homohabilis migrated from Africa.

So if I am to accept some sort of mixture between creationism and evolution, than also does that illustration mean that all humans are from Africa also? So that although I'm not African my ancestors are from Africa at some point?

My own opinion is that the Garden of Eden was in what we call Jerusalem today. When you put the continents back together, Israel is the center. Likewise, it makes sense to me that God would reconcile mankind at the place of the crime, so Jesus was, in my opinion, crucified where the tree of the knowledge of good and evil formerly stood. As for mankind after the flood, the ark settled on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey at the headwaters of the Euphates and the Tigris. The descendants of Noah walked down stream to Mesopotamia which is Iraq to day. The middle east is not Africa. Interestingly enough, according to Josephus, Africa was named after one of the sons of Abraham and Keturah, Ofrica, who apparently migrated to the dark continent.

 

[JoeP222w]

OK, while I see your point if you are to take the bible before the time of Moses as being literal (Moses being the person who wrote about Adam and Eve which existed before Moses' time). I think others are suggesting that God revealed to Moses things that aren't to be taken literal, such as things given to Moses before Moses was born. If I got that right. And that is one possibility. Which also might make sense to me. That Moses was not in fact recording historical records to be taken literal, but in fact was receiving revelations and visions from God of the history of mankind which should be interpreted by God to understand them literally.

The Bible uses more than 40 different types of literary genre. It is not only literal. The Bible does indeed use literal genre, but it also uses poetry, prose, law, figurative, metaphor, analogy, parable, hyperbole, similie, irony, psalms, prophecy, apocryphal and other forms of literary genres. The passage of concern must be interpreted in historical context, examining original languages, cultural context and authorial intent.

Moses is credited as writing the first 5 books of the Bible. The Bible did not exist before Moses was born, but was passed down through oral tradition, perfectly preserved without error by the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[CrystalDragon]

This is one of the problems. Truth (Creationism, as defined by the Bible) does not mix with the fantasy of Darwinian evolution. A Christian cannot accept both of these doctrines. One is true while the other is false.

All humans descended through Adam and Eve, then Noah and his family. Out of the what is now considered the Middle East, not Africa.

Multiple human "races" is one of the lies of evolution. Differing skin pigmentation does not mean that there are different human "races". The is only one human race. Man uses the thought of multiple human "races" to continue to promote his or her prejudices and bigotry.

Thing is, how can we exactly prove that the Bible's creationism is true? We can't go just because the Bible says so because that's circular reasoning. And if we assume that Moses was the one who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, then he wrote about events centuries before he was born that were passed down through oral tradition. Things get muddled when they're told between a small group of people over a short period of time, let alone over centuries.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What if Marry and Joseph's families came from Europe?

We have the genealogy of Mary in the Bible. We know that she descended from David.

 

[joshua 1 9]

View attachment 194660
This is most likely the true face of Jesus Christ - the miraculous imagery on the Shroud of Turin.
The face is Caucasian, or Euro-Aryan - definitely not Negroid, nor Indian, not Chinese, not Aztec...

 

[CrystalDragon]

We have the genealogy of Mary in the Bible. We know that she descended from David.

We only have Joseph's genealogies, albeit two separate ones. As far as I know women's genealogies were never kept track of.

 

[JackRT]

We have the genealogy of Mary in the Bible. We know that she descended from David.

We have no Biblical genealogy of Mary. Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 specifically claim to be genealogies of Joseph. The claim is made that one is actually of Mary. I find this claim to be specious. The fact is that these two genealogies contradict each other and both contradict the genealogies given in the old testament.

 

[JackRT]

A person can agree that scientists are being honest about micro-level evolution and the observable adaptation of species over observable timescales and still call Big Evolution a lie. That is not the same as calling TE subscribers liars, it is rather to suggest that even the elect can be deceived.

The most that can be said is that "Big Evolution" is wrong. I would disagree but that is beside the point. Until proven wrong, it is not a lie.