Noah's Ark Question

[mulimulix]

If Noah's family were the only humans to survive the flood, why are there different races/ethnicities? Shouldn't every human today be the same race that Noah was, seeing as we are (allegedly) descendants of him?

 

[Yekcidmij]

If Noah's family were the only humans to survive the flood, why are there different races/ethnicities? Shouldn't every human today be the same race that Noah was, seeing as we are (allegedly) descendants of him?

Maybe it's just the case that Noah and his family weren't the only humans to survive. Maybe it wasn't a global flood in such a manner than the entire surface of the earth was under water.

 

[Faulty]

To be more accurate, we are the descendants of Noah's three sons and their wives.

While his sons would of had a similar genetic structure to Noah, their wives would have been something completely different.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Jacob and Esau were 'twin' sons of Isaac and Rebekah, but Esau was 'red and hairy', the progenitor of today's Turkish people, who are still 'red and hairy'. A strong physical distinction can spring up in a single generation. It is thought that Ham was black, and was the father of the black race.

 

[Jpark]

If Noah's family were the only humans to survive the flood, why are there different races/ethnicities? Shouldn't every human today be the same race that Noah was, seeing as we are (allegedly) descendants of him?

That's where the tower of Babel story comes in.

Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

So the Flood was global. Incest was temporarily allowed by God.

 

[mulimulix]

To be more accurate, we are the descendants of Noah's three sons and their wives.

While his sons would of had a similar genetic structure to Noah, their wives would have been something completely different.

But, obviously, there are more than three or four races. For the ~4000 years between the flood and the present, they have to account for every single ethnic group. Look how many there are: Lists of ethnic groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jacob and Esau were 'twin' sons of Isaac and Rebekah, but Esau was 'red and hairy', the progenitor of today's Turkish people, who are still 'red and hairy'. A strong physical distinction can spring up in a single generation. It is thought that Ham was black, and was the father of the black race.

See above

That's where the tower of Babel story comes in.

Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

So the Flood was global. Incest was temporarily allowed by God.

Similar to above; This verse says nothing about changes of the people themselves. It is referring to countries ("boundaries of their habitation") and nations ("Every nation of mankind"). Where does it talk about creating ethnicities or changing the physical people? If I was to write a book and say I created all of these territories, and placed the respective people in them, that doesn't imply anything except what I mentioned.

 

[ebia]

If Noah's family were the only humans to survive the flood, why are there different races/ethnicities? Shouldn't every human today be the same race that Noah was, seeing as we are (allegedly) descendants of him?

Because the Noah story is a story. A story that answers the question "why does God not just wipe out evil?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But, obviously, there are more than three or four races. For the ~4000 years between the flood and the present, they have to account for every single ethnic group. Look how many there are: Lists of ethnic groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



See above



Similar to above; This verse says nothing about changes of the people themselves. It is referring to countries ("boundaries of their habitation&quot and nations ("Every nation of mankind&quot. Where does it talk about creating ethnicities or changing the physical people? If I was to write a book and say I created all of these territories, and placed the respective people in them, that doesn't imply anything except what I mentioned.

The bible also says nothing more about the physical characteristics of the Edomites that sprang from Esau, yet those 'red and hairy' features are evident even today. There is plenty of room for those other 'nations', read 'nationalities', to have inherited strong distinguishing physical traits from a single progenitor. The bible simply doesn't go into each and every ethnic history to reveal why they look like they do. I, my son, and my grandson look so much alike physically and facially that my daughter-in-law comments on it whenever we're together, so strong is this genetic trait in my family. I also know many families whose children hardly look related. Go figger.

 

[Mr Dave]

Because the Noah story is a story. A story that answers the question "why does God not just wipe out evil?"

Precisely. It's just a story.

 

[salida]

If Noah's family were the only humans to survive the flood, why are there different races/ethnicities? Shouldn't every human today be the same race that Noah was, seeing as we are (allegedly) descendants of him?

Heres how:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html

(more genetic info)
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf

The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into
small inbreeding groups. This ensured that the resultant groups
would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By
itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would
be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly
called ‘races’. In addition, the selection pressure of the environment
would modify the existing combinations of genes so that the physical
characteristics of each group would tend to suit their environment.
There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for
the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various
people groups result from different combinations of previously
234~Chapter 18 existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added to.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Heres how:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html

(more genetic info)
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf

The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into
small inbreeding groups. This ensured that the resultant groups
would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By
itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would
be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly
called ‘races’. In addition, the selection pressure of the environment
would modify the existing combinations of genes so that the physical
characteristics of each group would tend to suit their environment.
There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for
the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various
people groups result from different combinations of previously
234~Chapter 18 existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added to.

I like it! Mankind has degenerated genetically. In the words of Mark Twain, 'Man was created a little lower than the angels, and has been getting lower ever since.'

 

[Jpark]

Similar to above; This verse says nothing about changes of the people themselves. It is referring to countries ("boundaries of their habitation") and nations ("Every nation of mankind"). Where does it talk about creating ethnicities or changing the physical people? If I was to write a book and say I created all of these territories, and placed the respective people in them, that doesn't imply anything except what I mentioned.

But doesn't location and sunlight affect skin color over time? Or is that a misconception?

 

[ebia]

Precisely. It's just a story.

I wouldn't use the word 'just' there.

 

[Mr Dave]

I wouldn't use the word 'just' there.

Good point. I've put that badly by 'just a story' I guess I was trying to say that it is a story (certainly an important one with meaning to take from it and lessons to be learnt) but not to assign it so much that you read it as an historical account from which too much is taken. Does that make sense? There's a balance to be had and I fell into that very dangerous of traps of pushing one side further than you want to to argue against the contrary view. (I would have made this easier for myself if I'd thought my first post through more and padded it a bit).

 

[solarwave]

Some would point to the Tower of Babel

I don't think the whole world was flooded

 

[mulimulix]

The bible also says nothing more about the physical characteristics of the Edomites that sprang from Esau, yet those 'red and hairy' features are evident even today. There is plenty of room for those other 'nations', read 'nationalities', to have inherited strong distinguishing physical traits from a single progenitor. The bible simply doesn't go into each and every ethnic history to reveal why they look like they do. I, my son, and my grandson look so much alike physically and facially that my daughter-in-law comments on it whenever we're together, so strong is this genetic trait in my family. I also know many families whose children hardly look related. Go figger.

But the point about you and your grandson looking alike sort of helps my argument. I'm saying that it takes such a long time for big changes to happen that there simply was enough of it after the flood for it to happen.

Precisely. It's just a story.

So if the flood is just a story, is the Garden of Eden just a story? If they are just stories, why isn't Jesus' resurrection just a story, and then why not not the whole Bible? If one thing is a big metaphor, then there's a big chance the entire thing is one.

But doesn't location and sunlight affect skin color over time? Or is that a misconception?

After a long, long time. You'll see that black-skinned people are native to Australia and Africa and some small islands. What do those places have in common, yes, sunlight. When the Aboriginals came to Australia about 40 - 60000 years ago, they would have most likely been white. This is the time frame you need for skin colour to completely change for an entire group of people, not 1/10th of it.

The same goes for differences between white and Asian people, for example. The differences between skin, eyes, face shape and body shape would have taken a similar, probably longer time frame to take shape as man reached Asia before he reached Australia.

 

[solarwave]

So if the flood is just a story, is the Garden of Eden just a story? If they are just stories, why isn't Jesus' resurrection just a story, and then why not not the whole Bible? If one thing is a big metaphor, then there's a big chance the entire thing is one.

It is possible for a non-fiction book to have fiction in it and still make sense

 

[mulimulix]

It is possible for a non-fiction book to have fiction in it and still make sense

Besides the fact that the credibility of the Bible is in question, a non-fiction book will not have fiction in it unless it is EXPLICITLY said that is it fiction, otherwise it isn't non-fiction.

 

[ebia]

So if the flood is just a story, is the Garden of Eden just a story? If they are just stories, why isn't Jesus' resurrection just a story, and then why not not the whole Bible? If one thing is a big metaphor, then there's a big chance the entire thing is one.

Why would anyone but an idiot look at the bible, which clearly contains a vast array of different genres and assume that all the narratives are one particular subset of genres? If you walk into a library and the first section you find is the fiction, on later picking up a book from another part of the library assume that must be fiction too, or do you assess it on its own terms?


Note that non-historical narrative is not a lesser form: the early chapters of Genesis address with great truth some if the most important questions humanity ever asks. And they answer them better precisely by doing so as story. That's why most cultures answer their most important questions with story.

 

[razeontherock]

If Noah's family were the only humans to survive the flood, why are there different races/ethnicities? Shouldn't every human today be the same race that Noah was, seeing as we are (allegedly) descendants of him?

Nope. Never heard of adaptation?