Do all humans come from Africa?

[Speedwell]

It's perfectly good for a Christian who believes to say "I don't know every small detail of how God created, because I am not all-knowing, and I only have some very partial knowledge about it."

So one would think. But biblical creationists seem to think that if it wasn't exactly as literally record in Genesis, Christian theology falls completely to pieces.

 

[SolomonVII]

So one would think. But biblical creationists seem to think that if it wasn't exactly as literally record in Genesis, Christian theology falls completely to pieces.

Literal creationists see the creation of the world as a miracle.
If this miracle is not literally true, I hear them wonder why they ought to believe in the literalness of any miracle, such as the resurrection of the body, or heaven even.
I have often heard literal creationist ask metaphoric creationists what basis is there for believing in any miracle, once it is established that much of the Bible is metaphoric. What I have not heard, nor been to give, is an adequate reason why we should take the rest of the Bible as anything but metaphoric too.

For only the most liberal of Christians this would not be a problem anyway. But for anyone who takes even one of the Bible's miracles at face value, what is the basis for picking and choosing?

 

[Halbhh]

Literal creationists see the creation of the world as a miracle.
If this miracle is not literally true, I hear them wonder why they ought to believe in the literalness of any miracle, such as the resurrection of the body, or heaven even.
I have often heard literal creationist ask metaphoric creationists what basis is there for believing in any miracle, once it is established that much of the Bible is metaphoric. What I have not heard, nor been to give, is an adequate reason why we should take the rest of the Bible as anything but metaphoric too.

For only the most liberal of Christians this would not be a problem anyway. But for anyone who takes even one of the Bible's miracles at face value, what is the basis for picking and choosing?

That makes good sense -- that if one doesn't believe that God is creator of the Universe, then it's tantamount even to not believing in God, and how could one believe then in Christ risen, our redeemer.

What we should sincerely pray for is that the people that do believe in God as the creator, but go further and insist on their additional assertions about what Genesis 1 must mean in certain precise small detail ways -- e.g., like the "days" being consecutive without time gaps, or precisely 24 hours, or even for some that presumption that very little or no time passed at all in verse 1 before the first day -- that these extra assumptions, presumptions, and added small assertions could ever be a basis for claiming that one another person does or does not truly believe.

That person A does believe in God, because they believe in my own particular small assumption, and that another person, B, is not a full believer because they don't agree with all of my own particular small assumptions, things not in the text, and only presumed. For instance presuming either way that time passed between the days, or that no time passed between the days, either one.

That's a very read danger, a real pitfall, we should strive to avoid. That I think a huge amount of time passed during verse 1 -- on the rough order of 8-11 billion years -- should *never* make me suggest that someone else does not have faith if they don't agree with me. In short, we need to avoid being contentious. Paul wrote about this, but not only Paul.

 

[SolomonVII]

Maybe my question comes from a different place. It doesn't really matter what anybody else believes about our own personal faith.
I don't find any danger or pitfalls of people questioning whether I have faith or not.
All retrofitting aside, what I have still not heard, nor yet been able to give, is an adequate reason why we should take the rest of the Bible as anything but metaphoric too.
For the most liberal of Christian theologies, miracle doesn't matter. For Dominic Crossan, for example, the body of Christ being left on the cross as food for the dogs and the birds doesn't affect his theology in the least.
but as we keep pulling on that loose thread, it would be only the most liberal of Christian theologies that would be satisfied with a mess of yarn rather than a sweater of some sorts.

 

[sfs]

But for anyone who takes even one of the Bible's miracles at face value, what is the basis for picking and choosing?

How do you judge whether something you read on the internet, or in a magazine or a book, is literally true or not?

For that matter, what is your basis for picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are historically accurate? If you think it's all historically accurate, what's your basis for coming to that decision?

 

[SolomonVII]

How do you judge whether something you read on the internet, or in a magazine or a book, is literally true or not?

For that matter, what is your basis for picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are historically accurate? If you think it's all historically accurate, what's your basis for coming to that decision?

It is a little bit easier on the internet and current culture to cross-check sources, or discover whether this or that particular scientific study is accurate. Even then there is a lot of confirmation bias in the way that I judge something to be true. Even if I try not to, it is hard not to cherry pick sources that confirm what I already want to believe.

As for what is my own basis for picking and choosing what is historically/literally true, that is the million dollar question.
Whenever I have been asking people that very question, I frankly acknowledged I do not have a good answer to that.
My own intutition would tell me that people in the time of Jesus would have been able to accept the miracle of resurrection because they already accepted all the other miracles literally, like Jonah being swallowed by the fish, and Moses holding up his hand and winning the battle, putting it down and losing it, the miracles of Elijah, and Elisha, and the miracle of Hanukkah oil, and on and on. Jesus himself based having his resurrection supported by Scripture. I would take that to me not just Scripture being a miraculous prophecy of his life, but the basis for accepting the possibility of literal resurrection in the first place.
So here I am now, like many people, understanding the world to be billions of years old, and the history of mankind to be, well, complicated, to say the least.
I am not repeatedly asking that question rhetorically, as if I already had the answer. I am asking the question sincerely, because I don't have the satisfactory answer myself.

 

[Speedwell]

I would take that to me not just Scripture being a miraculous prophecy of his life, but the basis for accepting the possibility of literal resurrection in the first place.

Thank you, Solomon, I truly have never thought of the possibility of biblical prophecy being the basis of belief in that way. Yes, I know that OT prophesies of Jesus were important to His followers at the time, but play no part in supporting my own belief in the resurrection. It certainly helps explain an attitude towards scripture I have never understood.

 

[Halbhh]

Maybe my question comes from a different place. It doesn't really matter what anybody else believes about our own personal faith.
I don't find any danger or pitfalls of people questioning whether I have faith or not.
All retrofitting aside, what I have still not heard, nor yet been able to give, is an adequate reason why we should take the rest of the Bible as anything but metaphoric too.
For the most liberal of Christian theologies, miracle doesn't matter. For Dominic Crossan, for example, the body of Christ being left on the cross as food for the dogs and the birds doesn't affect his theology in the least.
but as we keep pulling on that loose thread, it would be only the most liberal of Christian theologies that would be satisfied with a mess of yarn rather than a sweater of some sorts.

Sorry, my bad wording. It's hard enough for people to really get exactly what another persons means even when you are in person and looking at their face, much less these little short paragraphs. It makes me appreciate the subtly wonderful clarity Christ achieves in a few words, and which I fail to achieve often in many more words.

I don't mean it's a danger for someone to question whether I have faith. I'm glad if they do. I'm happy to tell them about what has happened to me. I mean it's a danger for them to judge and condemn me, and thus themselves. (To judgmentally conclude wrongful characterizations against me because I read something differently than they did.)

About the far deeper question of what is and is not metaphor in the words of Christ, Who is the reason most of us ever read in the Bible to begin with, I've gradually gotten to realize there are depths of meaning, and my best approach is to read through the gospels again, even for the 5th, or 7th time, just because over and over even the best reader can be totally surprised by the depths of meaning they just did not get before.

That's the gold. You read what you think you totally already have all down, and it's like the 10th or 15th time, and you are a good reader, and suddenly....you get a crucial thing -- new to you! -- about something powerful and deep you just weren't ready for before.

 

[more4less]

Well, most likely that I believes that after the flood, that they started to colonized where they could stay warm and raise crops. And they found evidence that Egypt was once a tropical paradise. But later on, God had cursed the land. And so they had migrated around the earth, and some were pushed away from off of other lands that the strong had claimed. But Adam and Eve did not originated from Africa. I believe that they originated from the Land of Israel. Which in the year of Jubilee, that they must go back to the land that they has originated from.

Luke 2:4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

Exodus 13:19 Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the Israelites swear an oath. He had said, “God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place.”

Joshua 24:32 And Joseph’s bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph’s descendants.

 

[Radrook]

The Bible is very clear that mankind was not created in Africa. So it boils down to whether you will say the Bible was lying or not.

 

[JackRT]

The Bible is very clear that mankind was not created in Africa. So it boils down to whether you will say the Bible was lying or not.

The issue is not "truth or lie". The real issue is "literal or figurative".

 

[Radrook]

The issue is not "truth or lie". The real issue is "literal or figurative".

Jesus treats Genesis as a literal account of human history as did the Apostles. That might not be good enough for you, but its good enough for me.

 

[JackRT]

Jesus treats Genesis as a literal account of human history as did the Apostles.

That does not surprise me given their background.

That might not be good enough for you, but its good enough for me.

That does not surprise me either.

 

[Radrook]

That does not surprise me given their background.



That does not surprise me either.

So your church considers Jesus and the Apostles liars?


Sorry but that goes completely contrary to what Christianity taught and teaches.

1 Peter 2:22
"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

In fact, if we go about calling Jesus a deluded liar-we have no business claiming Christianity to begin with.

 

[Radrook]

Here is a relief sculpture found in Arabia.
What racial type would you ascribe to him?

I once referred to such features as indicative of whiteness and was angrily told by an African American co worker that there are black people who have those features as well.

 

[Radrook]

That is a good likeness of Jaques DeMolay, the last Grandmaster of the Knights Templar who was arrested, tortured and crucified on a door. But then again, maybe not.

PS --- I refer to the face on the Shroud of Turin

Here is a facial reconstruction based on the Shroud

 

[Episaw]

Why? (Not that what I wrote was particularly sarcastic.)

Chloroquine resistance in P. falciparum malaria.

Really? Who are these biologists who think it is a fact that evolution cannot happen? What fraction of Christian biologists believe this?

You should try and learn not to slander people about whom you know nothing.

ONE. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Two. A disease becoming resistant to treatment is not evolution as nothing has changed.

Three. Google the question and you will get everyone who fits the bill.

Four. How do you know that I know nothing about these people? As you have never met me I would consider that statement a figment of your imagination.

 

[sfs]

ONE. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Nonsense. Puns are the lowest form of wit.

Two. A disease becoming resistant to treatment is not evolution as nothing has changed.

The malaria parasite has changed genetically. That is evolution.

Three. Google the question and you will get everyone who fits the bill.

Google didn't state a claim here. You did. Presumably you know who these people are, so support your claim.

Four. How do you know that I know nothing about these people? As you have never met me I would consider that statement a figment of your imagination.

I'm one of the people you slandered. As you helpfully have just pointed out, you have never met me and you don't know anything about me.

 

[Episaw]

The malaria parasite has changed genetically. That is evolution.

Scientists attack malaria in blood cells by altering parasite genes

"Researchers have discovered it is possible to slow the development of the malaria parasite inside blood cells by altering its gene expression. They suggest that even drug-resistant strains, which are on the increase worldwide, may succumb to this technique."

I have investigated your claims on medical sites and they do not agree with you. This is the only comment I have found that even mentions genes.

They do talk about various strains of mosquitoes but everyone is a mosquito and nothing changes so it is not evolution.

Evolution is when one species changes into another. I have read the history of Malaria from go to whoa and it was a parasite from go and is a parasite at whoa. Nothing has changed.

The rest of your comments are not worth responding to.

 

[SolomonVII]

I was out walking my little toy poodle the other day, and this St Bernard came around sniffing her butt. They were the same species and all, common ancestor even, but the whole idea of what was going down was ridiculous to point where neither I nor the master of the St Bernard could refrain from cracking a smile.