Where did the Black Race come from??

[TaliOrlando]

I am hispanic and have many Black Friends who are still learning about Christ. I was asked, where did the Black Race come from. If God Created Adam and Eve, where did that race come from, also where did chineese people get their style of eyes from.

I hope no one gets offended its just a real question I always wanted to ask. Because of Chinese people eyes evolved to what they are now... the does evolution exist. Where did the Black Race come from??

 

[webdog]

Doesn't it have to do with Melatonin?

 

[tragic_pizza]

I am hispanic and have many Black Friends who are still learning about Christ. I was asked, where did the Black Race come from. If God Created Adam and Eve, where did that race come from, also where did chineese people get their style of eyes from.

I hope no one gets offended its just a real question I always wanted to ask. Because of Chinese people eyes evolved to what they are now... the does evolution exist. Where did the Black Race come from??

See, that's part of the problem with having a rigidly Fundamentalist view of the creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

Having races which are adapted to the region in which they originate implies evolutionary change, but does not exclude an act of creation by God.

To be honest, I have heard very serious white people insist that the dark skin of the African is the sign of Cain's mark, and thus a curse. That this is a breathtakingly ignorant thing to say is obvious, and an indication that being a slave to letters in a book is a dangerous thing.

 

[TaliOrlando]

Doesn't it have to do with Melatonin?

I dont know.. please explain!! Doesnt the Bible mention something about it. Thanks tali

 

[LeBuick]

If God Created Adam and Eve, where did that race come from, also where did chineese people get their style of eyes from.?

You take the view Adam and Eve were light skinned and didn't have chineese features. Maybe your question is backwards? Could that be the reason we don't know more about the appearence of the first man and woman? Or don't have a picture of Jesus?

To be honest, I have heard very serious white people insist that the dark skin of the African is the sign of Cain's mark, and thus a curse. That this is a breathtakingly ignorant thing to say is obvious, and an indication that being a slave to letters in a book is a dangerous thing.

I have heard this also, where did this theory come from. If it were Cain's mark then how did it exist after the flood? Then there is the theory about one of Noah's son's (can't remember which) being the father of the Black race.

I think the answer is here;

Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

 

[webdog]

I dont know.. please explain!! Doesnt the Bible mention something about it. Thanks tali

I always thought that once man populated the earth, in climates where the sun beat down brutally, melatonin produced greatly to protect their skin from the sun. Just one of those awesome things about God's creation!:godisgood:

 

[thjplgvp]

My personal view which has been raked over the coals on at least one session here on the BB is as follows.

When the languages were confounded at Babel one of the side effects was that the gene pool was stirred. Prior to Babel all people were of one race and one language but after Babel people migrated (they were wanderers prior) according to language. The disruption of the gene pool would not have been seen as happening quickly but slowly probably through 2-5 generations. Different genes would become dominant in each individual language dialect as people married within their dialect group.

Over a period of time their language group would come to be identified by both language and race. I also personally believe that race and language were part of God's planed order to keep men from accomplishing anything they set their mind to.

Technology has brought man a long ways toward unifying the world populations once more. One of the results of this unification is that men will see themselves once more as a single race but within that concept will come the violent persecution (which we are seeing unfold presently) of anyone who holds to the view of allegiance to one God namely Jesus Christ.

thjplgvp

 

[webdog]

Since the Bible is silent on race, thjplgvp's theory is as good as any I've heard, and what I think may be the case. Evolution has NOTHING to do with it, however.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Since the Bible is silent on race, thjplgvp's theory is as good as any I've heard, and what I think may be the case. Evolution has NOTHING to do with it, however.

Well, whatever.

:BangHead:

 

[bound]

Doesn't it have to do with Melatonin?

Hi webdog,

It's Melonin, not Melatonin.

God Bless.

 

[DHK]

Yes, I also agree for the most part, with thilqvp.
In Genesis 11, God confused the languages. The only ones that were able to understand each other were undoubtedly small family units. Others that were building the tower were totally frustrated because no one could understand the commands and directions given to each other. It was total chaos.
Thus the family units started to disperse and populate the world as God had originally commanded them.
Within their own family units they began to develop their own characteristics, which have remained to some extent to this day, and that would include color.

Within the gene pool of Adam, and thus Noah, there would be enough genetic variation to account for all the races and differentiation thereof that we have today.

 

[Daisy]

I have heard this also, where did this theory come from. If it were Cain's mark then how did it exist after the flood?

One of the wives, perhaps?

Then there is the theory about one of Noah's son's (can't remember which) being the father of the Black race.

Ham, for looking at his father's nakedness.

Hi webdog,

It's Melonin, not Melatonin.

God Bless.

Yeah, I always mix those up. Melatonin is the sleepy hormone.

 

[Eric B]

See, that's part of the problem with having a rigidly Fundamentalist view of the creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

Having races which are adapted to the region in which they originate implies evolutionary change, but does not exclude an act of creation by God.

To be honest, I have heard very serious white people insist that the dark skin of the African is the sign of Cain's mark, and thus a curse. That this is a breathtakingly ignorant thing to say is obvious, and an indication that being a slave to letters in a book is a dangerous thing.

There is no reason to question a literal reading of the Bible. This only gives the fundamentalists guilty of such doctrines an excuse to dismiss any criticism of racism as some PC watered down liberal nonsense, or whatever.
Instead, what really needed to be questioned is their interpretation of the text in the first place. (Which makes it highly ironic that they blast others for not being literal, when they change the meaning of the texts even worse.)

If you actually read the account; God never said "cursed be Canaan"! None of verses 25-27 are God's words! V.24 says "and Noah awoke from his wine; and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he [NOAH!] said "cursed be Cannan. A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren...And God shall enlarge [margin "persuade"] Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant". Not only is this not some universal curse that God had placed; still, there is nothing to even suggest that this has anything to do with descendants (even such as being the cause of their later sins and judgment), and that this goes anywhere beyond just the literal brothers! (and that assuming that God even honored it; which is not mentioned! God certainly would not be "honoring" it millennia later on distant descendants who moved to other continents; with perhaps all races having some Cannanite blood in them by then!) Yet for centuries now, the actions of "Christian" civilizations and racist laws have been justified by these things; thus bringing a mountain of disrepute onto the Bible and God! All based on a complete failure to even read the simple context of the passage and its pronouns right! And we get mad at society's "biblical illiteracy" today!

 

[tragic_pizza]

My problem with Fundamentalist literalism is that there is an insistence that their interpretation (even an incorrect one) is the only possible Christian interpretation.

What if Genesis 1-3, and for that matter the flood story, is not historically factual? What if these are allegories? Is God less God? Is Jesus less Christ? Of course not.

 

[Eric B]

The problem with that is that many elements of Genesis are later cited/referred back to by the rest of scripture as factual occurences. It would be a further stretch to try to make them referebces to allegories.

 

[Pastor Larry]

See, that's part of the problem with having a rigidly Fundamentalist view of the creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

Having races which are adapted to the region in which they originate implies evolutionary change, but does not exclude an act of creation by God.

Here is a place where understanding what is being opposed would help. The "rigidly Fundamentalists view" is not opposed to adaptation to a region, or the gradual narrowing of the gene pool in procreation. What is being opposed is the kind of evolution that would have a fair skinned person changing into a dog, or vice versa. In other words, the evolution being opposed is the evolution that changes "kind."

What if

Genesis 1-3, and for that matter the flood story, is not historically factual? What if these are allegories? Is God less God? Is Jesus less Christ?

There are some pretty serious issues at stake, most importantly the truthfulness of God. There is nothing in teh stories that makes them mythlike. The writing of Moses, and the use of Gen 1-11 by later authors, including Jesus, indicate that the stories were literally true as they stand.

On the topic of races, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis hold a "rigidly Fundamentalist view" of Genesis and gives a good explanation that we are all one race.

 

[tragic_pizza]

There are some pretty serious issues at stake, most importantly the truthfulness of God.

How so? Were the writers of the first five books of the Bible (and I do not think it's a "given" that Moses wrote them) God?

There is nothing in teh stories that makes them mythlike.

Where did rain come from? Where did death come from? Where did rainbows come from? There is much in the stories which are allegorical in nature.

Or was Moses (if, as you insist, he was the writer) around back then, hiding behind a palm frond in the Garden, hanging out with the giraffes in the Ark, taking notes?

The writing of Moses, and the use of Gen 1-11 by later authors, including Jesus, indicate that the stories were literally true as they stand.

OR the usage indicates theologians using theological writings for theological purposes.

 

[dispen4ever]

Tali, we're debating hypotheticals here. We don't know precisely how the races came about. Tell your friends that the old children's song, "Red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in God's sight" is still true. Cite the two commandments of Christ: Love God, and your neighbor. Skin color is not a mark of lesser status. Attitude is what one confronts, all in the Name above all Names. I don't care what color Jesus was/is. It makes no difference at all. He's my Savior; that's what makes a difference.

:wavey:

 

[Pastor Larry]

How so? Were the writers of the first five books of the Bible (and I do not think it's a "given" that Moses wrote them) God?

The Bible says there was only one, and therefore we should believe there was only one. Furthermore, the Bible says that they were inspired by God, and since it is impossible for God to lie, whatever he revealed is true. So yes, the truthfulness of God is at stake.

Where did rain come from? Where did death come from? Where did rainbows come from? There is much in the stories which are allegorical in nature.

How is any of that allegorical? Rain came from the clouds (as it always has). Rainbows come from the light shining through the water, as it always does. Death came from sin. Not sure what the problem was.

Or was Moses (if, as you insist, he was the writer) around back then, hiding behind a palm frond in the Garden, hanging out with the giraffes in the Ark, taking notes?

No, God revealed it to him. Are you really that unfamiliar with the historic doctrine of inspiration? And Jesus said Moses was the writer so why would doubt him?

OR the usage indicates theologians using theological writings for theological purposes.

No, that makes no sense. Jesus said what he said. Why would you deny it? You seriously think that God lied in order to make a theological point?

 

[xdisciplex]

Adam and Eve simply had a huge gene pool. Look at their children they also didn't all look the same. Answers to all these questions can be found on the internet.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp

@ tragic_pizza

Did I not give you all kinds of links to apologetic sites? Why do you not use them?
Or do you prefer staying ignorant and doubting the bible?