Pre-Adamite Doctrine, History and Teaching

[Research3]

This isn't true as you can get a lot of phenotypic mutations within the same species.

- Not in the different races, which is the discussion of this thread.

We have YEC's and others here who believed Noah's kids suddenly morphed into different races in only 200 years. Yet 4,000 or so years of recorded history has proven races cannot evolve and have never changed. Allow me to clarifiy:

Ken Ham and similar YEC's believe Noah was a ''middle-brown skinned man'', but who gave birth to blonde or red haired pale europeans, wooly haired dark skinned negroids and slanted eyed east asians in only 200 years. This is not science - its laughable crackpottery. You cant get all these distinct races from just one phenotype.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

This isn't true as you can get a lot of phenotypic mutations within the same species.

Not in the different races, which is the discussion of this thread.

I think we've lost each other here; phenotypes are mutations which are instantly noticeable. There are phenotypic variations both between races (Negroes are significantly darker than Caucasians) and within races (Spainards are slightly darker than Norwegians).

We have YEC's and others here who believed Noah's kids suddenly morphed into different races in only 200 years.

You'll have to leave that to them to answer. I'm not a creationist, so the question doesn't really apply to me.

 

[Research3]

Some insist that the modern day Jews are not Israelites at all. It says the true Israelites are European, particularly British, and through them, the Americans. It claims the so-called lost tribes of Israel migrated to this area after Assyria was defeated. But it is well known that the British are descended from the Celts, and that their ancestors were the Cimmerians. A number of ancient sources identify this ethnic group as Biblical Gomer, not as Israel. Two of these sources were from the Assyrian empire. This proves that Cimmeria already existed when Assyria was in power. So this theory cannot possibly be correct.

Further, those in Judea are instructed to flee when they see the abomination of desolation. Zechariah prophesied of the times following this event.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

“For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle.” (Zechariah 14:2-3)

“‘And it shall come to pass in all the land,’ Says the LORD, ‘That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die, But one-third shall be left in it: I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, “This is My people”; And each one will say, “The LORD is my God.”’” (Zechariah 13:8-9)

Since these words were written, there has never been a time when siege was laid to Jerusalem, and the Lord came to her rescue. Nor has there ever been a time when half the city was led away captive, but the other half remained there. Nor has there ever been a time when two thirds of those in the land were killed, but one third were saved and restored to faith in the Lord. Thus we see that these prophecies unquestionably refer to the future. But they are about Jerusalem, Judah, and the land. In the last section we saw many specific details proving these prophecies refer to the physical descendants of the ancient nation of Israel. But that is not all they prove. They also prove these prophecies refer to the physical land of Judea (the land now called Israel) and to the physical city of Jerusalem.

We therefore understand that Judah, that is, the real Jews, will be in their ancient homeland when all this happens. Yet the ones who live in this land are not the British or the Americans, but the modern day Jews. Thus we see that this doctrine, which is sometimes called British Israelism, is contrary to both history and scripture.

Once again another pointless rant from someone who clearly has never read the Bible. Please look up the basics of Two House Theology.

The Jews are not Israel, and never have claimed to be. The House of Israel are the Ten Tribes, the Jews only Judah. Both are completely distinct, different people.

It's not British Israelites who only claim Jews are not the House of Israel. Jews themselves admit they are not Israel.

Chief Rabbi - Dr. H. Adler:

"You are quite right to assume that the Ten Tribes did not return to the Holy Land."

Rabbi Aaron Werner of Spokane, U.S.A., when asked by the late Dr. Schiffner - "Do the Jews represent all Twelve Tribes?" replied:

"No, the Ten Tribes of Israel were carried away by Sennacherib King of Assyria and have become LOST. The Jews of today are but a remnant made up of the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi."

- Jews are not Israel and never have claimed to be. They are only Judah (with a segment of Benjamin and Levi).

Who invented the lie the Jews = Israel? You can blame that on Judeo-Christian pastors who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Research3]

I think we've lost each other here; phenotypes are mutations which are instantly noticeable. There are phenotypic variations both between races (Negroes are significantly darker than Caucasians) and within races (Spainards are slightly darker than Norwegians).

- That's called microevolution. Not large scale phenotype change.

As we know everyone accepts micro, minor changes.

You'll have to leave that to them to answer. I'm not a creationist, so the question doesn't really apply to me.

The same applies to you. In the other thread you claimed all races morphed from sub-saharan africans. This has never been observed, tested - its certianly not science.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's called microevolution. Not large scale phenotype change.

So you're saying that variations between races are examples of microevolution?

In the other thread you claimed all races morphed from sub-saharan africans. This has never been observed, tested - its certianly not science.

You asked about Noah and the flood, which admittedly I don't dwell on very much.
However the fact that the earliest humans were probably Negroes has been demonstrated by DNA. In another thread I showed you that 'Cheddar Man' (an ancient caucasian man found in Britain) belongs to halpogroup U, which can trace it's ancestry back to the Middle East. You took this as proof that Britions were descended from Mesopotamians, so I assume you think DNA is a good way to gather evidence.

Haplogroups are a bit like trees or bushes. There are many tiny little twigs, connected to many branches, all connected to a main 'trunk'. If you look at haplogroups you'll see there are lots of little variations, which all belong to the same group, which belong to certain families. At the trunk of the haplogroup tree is a group which came from Africa. Hence the first humans were probably black.

 

[granpa]

i dont think genetics is that advanced yet.
AFAIK, all they have shown is that african populations have the greatest amount of variation.

even if those african populations are where we all came from that still doesnt prove that they were black at that time.

they could have become black later.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

i dont think genetics is that advanced yet.

You don't need to take my word for it:

In recent years, the sequencing of complete mtDNA genomes has resulted in a huge increase in the resolution of the worldwide mtDNA tree, and in the potential concomitant power of phylogeographic analyses. The tree topology confirmed that all human mtDNAs coalesce in Africa and that all lineages that evolved outside Africa descend from two branches, referred to as haplogroups M and N, of the African haplogroup L3.​

-ncbi.nlm.nih.gov​

Incidently the 'mitochrondrial Eve' belonged to haplogroup L (the oldest haplogroup), traced back to sub-saharan Africa.

AFAIK, all they have shown is that african populations have the greatest amount of variation.

Another reason to think black Africans were the first humans. They have been living in that area the longest. By contrast Native Americans have the lowest genetic variety, because the Americas were the last places on Earth to be inhabited by humans.

 

[granpa]

that just proves that people have been in africa the longest. which we already know from fossil record. It doesnt tell us what color our earliest ancestors were.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It doesnt tell us what color our earliest ancestors were.

Erm, debating whether black Africans have always been, well, black is another topic.

 

[granpa]

the topic as i understand it is whether the bible was written for the descendants of adam and whether adam was white and whether all people are descended from adam.

if adam was white and all people are descended from him then my comments are spot on.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

if adam was white and all people are descended from him then my comments are spot on.

And if you think Adam was a white man you're coming dangerously close to follow Research3's racist rubbish. Sorry.

 

[granpa]

again you start slinging mud.
if the idea is wrong then point out where.

dont sink to that level. Its not christian.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

if the idea is wrong then point out where.

Sorry for being rude but having to prove that black people have always been black seems, well, silly. I know why Research3 believes Adam was white but why would you?

 

[granpa]

I already explained that to you several times.
Do you not listen at all?

chimpanzees are born white and become black as they age.
at some point hominids evolved that remained white throughout life.
this is called neoteny.

Since all modern blacks are born black and remain black it seems more probable that they (modern blacks) evolved from whites at least once in Africa and possibly a second time in India.

 

[granpa]

people have been in africa for 1.5 million years.

you dont believe that something as simple as skin color can change in all that time?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I already explained that to you several times.
Do you not listen at all?

I've seen it before. Sorry but it's a really, really poor example.

you dont believe that something as simple as skin color can change in all that time?

Skin colour can change - if you live in a different environment. Fair-skinned people wouldn't last long on a continent as blazing as Africa. They lack the large amounts of eumelanin pigment they need to protect them from the Sun.

 

[granpa]

They lack the large amounts of eumelanin pigment they need to protect them from the Sun.

not in the rainforest which is where we originally came from.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

not in the rainforest which is where we originally came from.

Not what?

 

[Research3]

And if you think Adam was a white man you're coming dangerously close to follow Research3's racist rubbish. Sorry.

Note Notedstrangeperson calls you racist if you think Adam was white, but has no problem with Adam being black...

That's liberals typically though for you.

 

[Research3]

At the trunk of the haplogroup tree is a group which came from Africa. Hence the first humans were probably black.

And as Granpa has repeatedly pointed out blacks are not the only native peoples to Africa.

The native Berber peoples are Caucasoid, not negroid.

Native Kabyle's from Algeria:

Nothing 'black' about them.

Please take a basic history or anthropology course.