How did me get different races of people?

[th1bill]

Literal interpretations of the bible are the result of man, not God.... he gave us brains so that we might use them, if you rebuke the tools God himself has given us to understand the world he created, how can you not be certain it won't be you; and not others, that won't reap the consquences of such an affront to God?

There was no global flood, so either God is wrong, or the certain stories in the bible where never meant to be taken literally, I choose to believe that God wasen't wrong.

You have the same right that every Lost and every Saved man has, the right to decide where you will spend eternity! You, interpreting the Bible, is the issue. The Word of God is self interpreting and needs only, Hoy Spirit led interpretation from the original languages into the different languages of people. Three times in the Bible we are warned not to add to nor to subtract from the Word of God.

There are some passages in scripture that are not fact in telling but, rather, are fact in principal such as the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22. The recounting of the Flood is not given to us in the same sense and what you do here is, eternally , dangerous. God does not play.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

You have the same right that every Lost and every Saved man has, the right to decide where you will spend eternity! You, interpreting the Bible, is the issue. The Word of God is self interpreting and needs only, Hoy Spirit led interpretation from the original languages into the different languages of people. Three times in the Bible we are warned not to add to nor to subtract from the Word of God.

There are some passages in scripture that are not fact in telling but, rather, are fact in principal such as the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22. The recounting of the Flood is not given to us in the same sense and what you do here is, eternally , dangerous. God does not play.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

God is Good

 

[Bluelion]

I'm not going against the statement of faith for this section. Nor am I saying that the Bible is full of errors when it comes to truth about God.

Just because a story in the bible is not 100% historically accurate, does not mean that it is not apart of God's word or not truth. God does sometimes teaches to us through stories that are not exactly accurate when it comes to history.

If the Genesis creation story's main focus is theological and not 100% accuracy when it comes to material origins, does that mean it is false and it is not God's word? No, because that would just show the original intention was not to be some science or history book. It would not fall into the "truth" category if "truth" has to equal 100% historical accuracy, however it would be another kind of "truth" (a truth more focused on the nature of God and Man).

And im not the only baptist with this interpretation of certain parts of the bible. I'm not going against baptist beliefs, so it would not be write to report me.

so you say the bible is with out error why saying it has errors..

Please explain what you mean historical accurate, Did the flood happen or not in your view?

 

[Bluelion]

God gave us brains so that we might use them.

Is that suppose to pass for wisdom?

 

[Bluelion]

Literal interpretations of the bible are the result of man, not God.... he gave us brains so that we might use them, if you rebuke the tools God himself has given us to understand the world he created, how can you not be certain it won't be you; and not others, that won't reap the consquences of such an affront to God?

There was no global flood, so either God is wrong, or the certain stories in the bible where never meant to be taken literally, I choose to believe that God wasen't wrong.

right the whole flood was a metaphor, and whats the metaphor, Wisdom of men is the song of the fool.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Did the flood happen or not in your view?

It did not happen, simply because we find so much in this world that contradicts a global flood. There are trees that date older then the supposed flood (you would think they would be destroyed) and even man made structures. We find evidence of humans existing in the Americas and Australia for a long time, way before the supposed flood event, and they were not wiped out (other civilizations/people also show no signs of being wiped out by one large flood, even the roots of the civilization of ancient Egypt existed before said flood). And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Many people (even Christians in the 19th century set out to prove a global flood scientifically) have tried to find evidence for a global flood, but they have come up short.

It is not just the fact that people find things in this world that show evidence against a global flood, but also the understanding that ancient people back then had of the world (ancient cosmologies) and the limited knowledge they had of the world. Those that wrote Noah's story did not know where all of humanity existed (therefore if they referred to humanity, it would not include say native Americans) on all of the continents (they didn't even know about all of the continents), and the fact that the world/earth to them referred to more local areas (they were not thinking of the earth as a globe).

All of this leads me to the conclusion that because a global flood goes against the truths we find in God's creation, that God did not intend for a story about some flood wiping out all of humanity to be a story with the intention/meaning to be historically accurate.

I do think though that the biblical flood story could have been inspired by an actual large local flood that caused massive damage to the people that experienced it. It just wasn't one that stretched to all continents and drowned every single human on the face of the globe minus 1 family.

 

[Bluelion]

It did not happen, simply because we find so much in this world that contradicts a global flood. There are trees that date older then the supposed flood (you would think they would be destroyed) and even man made structures. We find evidence of humans existing in the Americas and Australia for a long time, way before the supposed flood event, and they were not wiped out (other civilizations/people also show no signs of being wiped out by one large flood, even the roots of the civilization of ancient Egypt existed before said flood). And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Many people (even Christians in the 19th century set out to prove a global flood scientifically) have tried to find evidence for a global flood, but they have come up short.

It is not just the fact that people find things in this world that show evidence against a global flood, but also the understanding that ancient people back then had of the world (ancient cosmologies) and the limited knowledge they had of the world. Those that wrote Noah's story did not know where all of humanity existed (therefore if they referred to humanity, it would not include say native Americans) on all of the continents (they didn't even know about all of the continents), and the fact that the world/earth to them referred to more local areas (they were not thinking of the earth as a globe).

All of this leads me to the conclusion that because a global flood goes against the truths we find in God's creation, that God did not intend for a story about some flood wiping out all of humanity to be a story with the intention/meaning to be historically accurate.

I do think though that the biblical flood story could have been inspired by an actual large local flood that caused massive damage to the people that experienced it. It just wasn't one that stretched to all continents and drowned every single human on the face of the globe minus 1 family.

How do you get around it then that God literally said destroy the world, and that the whole earth was covered in water, noahs ark. So you see you are saying the Bible is not accurate. As which are against the rules, I say that because i don't care to argue the point, so please stop thanks

 

[RDKirk]

"Race" come about because of the various environments on earth and the fact that people do not all live in the same kind of environment, over time people adapt to their environment.

The story of Noah does not really make sense in the context of where races came from. Because that would mean all of our genetic diversity happened in a short span. Anyways humans have not been sharing the same skin color for a long time, even before the supposed date of Noah's flood.

The research done by the Human Genome Project--which is not a Christian project--indicates that racial variation has occurred within the last 8,000 years. Let me hasten to point out that this comes from people who believe in evolution occurring over the course of millions of years, so for them to say "8,000 years" is essentially saying "yesterday."

The genetic evidence points to racial variation being so recent that it's almost historic. It is so recent that it could be within oral history and legend. It's also far too recent to be a result of environment-induced variation--which is just another way of saying "evolution."

A variation that recent is the result of inbreeding--the result of the isolated pockets of people only 8,000 years ago (by scientific measure). It could have happened even more recently than that.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

It did not happen, simply because we find so much in this world that contradicts a global flood. There are trees that date older then the supposed flood (you would think they would be destroyed) and even man made structures. We find evidence of humans existing in the Americas and Australia for a long time, way before the supposed flood event, and they were not wiped out (other civilizations/people also show no signs of being wiped out by one large flood, even the roots of the civilization of ancient Egypt existed before said flood). And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Many people (even Christians in the 19th century set out to prove a global flood scientifically) have tried to find evidence for a global flood, but they have come up short.

It is not just the fact that people find things in this world that show evidence against a global flood, but also the understanding that ancient people back then had of the world (ancient cosmologies) and the limited knowledge they had of the world. Those that wrote Noah's story did not know where all of humanity existed (therefore if they referred to humanity, it would not include say native Americans) on all of the continents (they didn't even know about all of the continents), and the fact that the world/earth to them referred to more local areas (they were not thinking of the earth as a globe).

All of this leads me to the conclusion that because a global flood goes against the truths we find in God's creation, that God did not intend for a story about some flood wiping out all of humanity to be a story with the intention/meaning to be historically accurate.

I do think though that the biblical flood story could have been inspired by an actual large local flood that caused massive damage to the people that experienced it. It just wasn't one that stretched to all continents and drowned every single human on the face of the globe minus 1 family.

What do the fossil records show us?



When a flood happens, all the dead tree limbs and garbage floats to the top and gets left up on the high ground when the water recedes. Ever notice that? Well, there are fossilized sea shells and all kinds of junk on the tops of mountains. Yep, you heard me right. Sea shells are all over the top of Mt Everest and all mountain chains. There are massive bone yards found around the mountain chains. Many places have huge amounts of bones all jumbled together, just as if they were mixed up and tossed around and dumped there. Kind of like they were all killed off in a massive stormy flood that lasted about a year and then receded, leaving all the remains behind in clumps.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Yep, you heard me right. Sea shells are all over the top of Mt Everest and all mountain chains.

I am aware of that, however that does not prove a global flood. Do you know the processes of how mountains are formed? Anyways the top of the mountains along time ago used to be under water, so it makes sense for their to be sea shells on them.