Where did you get the map from? Is there any science backing up your claim? It also has a glaring obvious mistake - Australian Aboriginals are not negroes. They're a completely different race.
[FONT=Georgia,serif][FONT=Georgia,serif][FONT=Georgia,serif]The haplogroup that branched off of L3 was called M. Humans traveled out of Africa through a small gap in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This group traveled across the coast and ended in Australia and Polynesia. The age of this haplogroup is 60,000 years old. Since scientists know how old this haplogroup is they can infer that this group is one of the first groups to leave Africa.[/FONT]
I don't believe the scientist and I don't believe all people came from Africa.[FONT=Georgia,serif]The Aborigines of Australia believe that their people arrived in Australia when the Earth was created. They call their creation story "Dreamtime." During "Dreamtime" spirits rose from below the Earth and turned into all the natural elements in Australia. Aborigines of Australia believe that these spirits are alive within the land of Australia. They view their land as sacred.[/FONT]
theWaris1 said:They may not be negroes but they are closely related.
different branch?
theWaris1 said:India was once very White. Land of Aryans
No those people are very similar to Africans
They have affros like the Negros. The kinky hair is found only among blacks.Sorry to be blunt but I much prefer looking at the evidence than taking your word for it. What's you basis for thinking they're Negroes anyway? "Well they both kinda look brown ... ?"
And as Ishraqiyun pointed out, much as this Aryan business was romantized by late 19th / early 20th century racialists.
Eden is believed to be southern Iraq and Adam probably didn't stray to far from Eden.granpa said:what country is associated with adam or kenan or enoch?
Cain is belived to be Sargon of Babylon which is in the same area as Lower Iraq.
Sure there is a wide range of skin tones but most White skinned poeple have been bred out.There are Indians in a wide range of skin tones. Do a Google image search for "Indian Models". Indian women are some of the most beautiful on earth
That map is close to what I believe is correct for a certain period. Things changed on a major scale often.So everyone from adam to noah lived in one place in mesopotamia but then after noah they spread everywhere around the globe? That seems a little strange to me.
Sons of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
using the table of nations one can easily trace the large scale migration routes across continents and very often along rivers.
This finds were front page news. It is on more than that site I just googled.Erm, it's from a site looking for the lost city of Atlantis but OK.
Pretty impressive but they're not the oldest human skeletons discovered:So far, the earliest finds of modern Homo sapiens skeletons come from Africa. They date to at least nearly 200,000 years ago on that continent.The species that you and all other living human beings on this planet belong to is Homo sapiens. During a time of dramatic climate change 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens (modern humans) evolved in Africa.
You believe these poeple?Archaic Homo sapiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this says that archaic homo sapiens go back 500,000 years.
of course, homo erectus goes back 1.5 million years.
What!!! Are you saying that the Scofield Study Bible got it wrong?Also of interest in this regard is the fact that not even the Scofield Reference Bible (which so adamantly defends the Gap Theory in its “Notes” makes an argument for a “pre-Adamic” race on the basis of Genesis 1:28, and has changed its KJV text at this point (and in Genesis 9:1) by substituting “fill” for “replenish.” I also might note that the Gap Theory’s leading spokesman (until his death), Arthur C. Custance, acknowledged that the Hebrew male’ means only “to fill” (1976, p. 314). Neither does male’ mean to “refill” or “repopulate” in Genesis 9:1. Rather, its meaning is “to bring forth abundantly” (Workman, 1982, p. 185-204). Of the more than 300 times the KJVuses the word male’, it is translated by the word “replenish” only seven times, and even those seven could be rendered correctly as “fill” (Morris, 1976, p. 76). God's Command to "Replenish" the EarthJust kidding, I know study notes are not infallible. It is rather curious though, the whole concept of catastrophism as it applies to Biblical exegesis would seem to have come down to a single word translated 'replenish'.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Actually, all kidding aside, I am aware of several errors in Scofield's notes. But that is immaterial to our discussion.
The Scofield Bible indeed teaches the so-called "gap theory." And it suggests, in a note on Genesis 1:2, that the pre-Adamic earth may have been inhabited by angels. But in a note in Genesis 6:4 he explicitly rejected the idea that angels had interbred, or even could interbreed with humans.
No "gap theory" teacher that I have ever met or that I have ever read has expressed a notion that there was a pre-Adamic race of humans.
But the "gap theory" is not based on the word "replenish," although we sometimes take notice of it.
The theory is based on several things.
First, the Hebrew bara, translated created in Genesis 1:1 means to make something out of nothing. But elsewhere in the creation account Hebrew word asah was used. This word implies making something out of something else. (Genesis 1:7, 11,12,16,25, 26, and 31, 2:2, 3, 4, 18.)
Second, the Hebrew word hayah, translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 is translated "became" in every other place it occurs in the entire creation account. (Genesis 2:7, 10, 3:22)
Third the Hebrew word translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2 is tohu. But exactly the same form of exactly the same Hebrew word in used in Isaiah 45:18, which explicitly says that the Lord did not make the earth tohu.
So I and many others believe that the Bible says that God created the earth, and it became tohu, but God did not make it tohu. And thus it not only allows the so-called "gap," but actually says it occurred.