Races of Mankind are not Biblical

[Sean]

This is an excellent article to read...



Evolution and Modern Racism
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Man Was Created by God › All People Descended Recently from a Single Family

Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial hatreds. As a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing whatever about race. Neither the word nor the concept of different "races" is found in the Bible at all. As far as one can learn from a study of Scripture, the writers of the Bible did not even know there were distinct races of men, in the sense of black and yellow and white races, or Caucasian and Mongol and Negroid races, or any other such divisions.



Read more...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...NDtWRdScDOspWw

[shazeep]

i dislike this view, as it ignores that Scripture does in fact recognize different nations of people, different cultures, and diverse peoples. There are even distinct nations at the end of Revelation. This strikes me as an NWO agenda, "we are all one big homogenous happy family."

[Carl]

Scripture doesn't mention race or skin color, but those characteristics are a result of the divisions by tongues, tribes and nations. It seems creation was designed for diversity.

[Praxeas]

Maybe the reason is the bible almost exclusively centers it's attention in one region and is not a science book

It does distinguish between nationalities though

[Esaias]

The Bible should not be read with modern humanistic glasses, because the Bible was written long before the modern humanistic terminology and definitions came into vogue.

The Bible speaks of nations (Greek: ethnoi, source of our word 'ethnic'). The word 'nation' comes from the root from which we get 'nativity' and 'natal', meaning birth. A nation then is a grouping of people with a common birth. According to the Bible, a nation (ethnos) is a group of people with a common birth, that is to say, a common ancestor.

A man has children, those children have children, etc. As the family grows in number from generation to generation it becomes a tribe. As the tribe increases, it becomes what is called in scripture a nation. The tribe is made up of several closely related families. If those families increase and become tribes themselves, then the tribe of which they are all a part becomes known as a nation.

So the Bible recognises nations, ie ethnic groups descended from a common ancestor. As an example, the nation of Israel was a collection of tribes (which in turn were collections of families), all descended from Jacob (whose name was changed by God to 'Israel'). Jacob had a family and had 12 sons. Each son eventually had his own family. Each of those families grew and increased by births until each family had multiple 'sub families', and thus those original families became known as tribes. And the tribes altogether constituted the nation.

Esau was Jacob's brother, and his descendants likewise formed a nation. Same with Moab, Ammon, Mizraim ('Egypt'), Canaan, Heth (the 'Hittites'), Aram, Asshur ('Assyrians'), and so on and so forth. Each of these were originally families that increased in number (some more so than others) and became known as nations. Each of these then was an 'ethnicity' in the literal and original sense of the word.

So the bible recognizes various families, tribes, nations of mankind. Each grouping is so grouped primarily by descent and common ancestry. There are, of course, other nations besides those mentioned in the Scriptures, but they too would be familial 'tribal' groupings having common descent and ancestry.

The modern notion of a 'nation' as being a purely political entity without regard to family or tribal connection is a relatively recent concept, and as such is a created concept having little basis in either history or science (let alone lingustics). 'Nation' as used today has almost nothing to do with ethnicity, but almost everything to do with legal jurisdictions and legal and financial agreements. Ie 'nationality' has been 'corporatized'.

The idea of 'race' as used today is often also unbiblical and ahistorical. Humanists had divided mankind into several 'races', identified as the White, Red, Yellow, and Brown/Black races. It should be noted that originally, the colour designations were not primarily based on skin pigmentation, but had other, philosophical origins going back thousands of years. In any event, the racial characteristics recognised by humanists, anthropologists, and eugenicists were a a milieu of often complex phenotypes, including but certainly not limited to shape of the head and skull, cranial capacity (by volume), distribution of muscle tissues, hair types, eye coloring, skin pigmentation, general body type, skeletal characteristics, observable genetic commonalities and distinctions (mostly phenotypic until recently), and to a certain extent lingustics.

The common media however have reduced race to the over simplified concept of 'skin colour' as if that is a determination of anything but skin pigmentation. As a result, almost 99 percent of any 'popular' discussion of race in the mainstream media or in common discourse with the 'average American' is an exercise in absurdities rife with misrepresentations and misinformation, on any side of the discussion.

'Race' is also used as a political tool, wielded by would be commissars of public opinion, making sure everyone tows the party line (political correctness) for reasons that have little to do with popular conceptions about 'race'.

The question of 'Hispanics' is a case in point. Many people consider Hispanics to be non-whites. Many others consider Hispanics to be a subset of whites (even though the term 'Hispanic' has nothing to do with ethnicity whatsoever abd everything to do with linguistics!) in spite of the existence of 'black Hispanics' and 'white Hispanics'.

Many Hispanics are Germanics of Visigothic extraction from Spain. Others are Celtic or Gaullican (Gaulish) and Iberian. Others are English (Anglo-Saxon), Russian, German, French, etc. The fact they happen to live in Mexico or Argentina and speak Spanish makes them 'Hispanic' although from purely ethnic perspectives they are clearly European.

Other Hispanics are descended from an admixture of European (Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, etc) and native American (Aztec, Mayan, Toltec, Incan, Apache, Tejas, Hopi, Navajo, etc etc) ancestries, to varying degrees (some are more European than native, and some are more native than European).

And yet other Hispanics are almost wholly or are entirely native American (mostly from Central and South America, the Yucatan, etc).

There are in fact Hispanic Jews (not speaking of the religion of Judaism, but the ancestry of the people involved) including Central and South American 'Maranos' descended from Spanish Maranos as well as from Jews who happen to have been living in Mexico, Central or South America etc and who spoke Spanish or Portuguese or French and whose descendants are classified as 'Latinos' along with everybody else south of the Rio Grande who speaks a Latin-derived language.

So, the Bible DOES recognise ethnic groupings, distinctions, differences, similarities, correspondences, boundaries, land inheritances, allotments, prophetic destinies, and so forth. The modern concepts of 'race' however are often at odds with Biblically defined terms like 'nation', 'tribe', or 'family'.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Sean

This is an excellent article to read...



Evolution and Modern Racism
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Man Was Created by God › All People Descended Recently from a Single Family

Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial hatreds. As a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing whatever about race. Neither the word nor the concept of different "races" is found in the Bible at all. As far as one can learn from a study of Scripture, the writers of the Bible did not even know there were distinct races of men, in the sense of black and yellow and white races, or Caucasian and Mongol and Negroid races, or any other such divisions.



Read more...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...NDtWRdScDOspWw

Hogwash. Bologna.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Bible should not be read with modern humanistic glasses, because the Bible was written long before the modern humanistic terminology and definitions came into vogue.

The Bible speaks of nations (Greek: ethnoi, source of our word 'ethnic'). The word 'nation' comes from the root from which we get 'nativity' and 'natal', meaning birth. A nation then is a grouping of people with a common birth. According to the Bible, a nation (ethnos) is a group of people with a common birth, that is to say, a common ancestor.

A man has children, those children have children, etc. As the family grows in number from generation to generation it becomes a tribe. As the tribe increases, it becomes what is called in scripture a nation. The tribe is made up of several closely related families. If those families increase and become tribes themselves, then the tribe of which they are all a part becomes known as a nation.

So the Bible recognises nations, ie ethnic groups descended from a common ancestor. As an example, the nation of Israel was a collection of tribes (which in turn were collections of families), all descended from Jacob (whose name was changed by God to 'Israel'). Jacob had a family and had 12 sons. Each son eventually had his own family. Each of those families grew and increased by births until each family had multiple 'sub families', and thus those original families became known as tribes. And the tribes altogether constituted the nation.

Esau was Jacob's brother, and his descendants likewise formed a nation. Same with Moab, Ammon, Mizraim ('Egypt'), Canaan, Heth (the 'Hittites'), Aram, Asshur ('Assyrians'), and so on and so forth. Each of these were originally families that increased in number (some more so than others) and became known as nations. Each of these then was an 'ethnicity' in the literal and original sense of the word.

So the bible recognizes various families, tribes, nations of mankind. Each grouping is so grouped primarily by descent and common ancestry. There are, of course, other nations besides those mentioned in the Scriptures, but they too would be familial 'tribal' groupings having common descent and ancestry.

The modern notion of a 'nation' as being a purely political entity without regard to family or tribal connection is a relatively recent concept, and as such is a created concept having little basis in either history or science (let alone lingustics). 'Nation' as used today has almost nothing to do with ethnicity, but almost everything to do with legal jurisdictions and legal and financial agreements. Ie 'nationality' has been 'corporatized'.

The idea of 'race' as used today is often also unbiblical and ahistorical. Humanists had divided mankind into several 'races', identified as the White, Red, Yellow, and Brown/Black races. It should be noted that originally, the colour designations were not primarily based on skin pigmentation, but had other, philosophical origins going back thousands of years. In any event, the racial characteristics recognised by humanists, anthropologists, and eugenicists were a a milieu of often complex phenotypes, including but certainly not limited to shape of the head and skull, cranial capacity (by volume), distribution of muscle tissues, hair types, eye coloring, skin pigmentation, general body type, skeletal characteristics, observable genetic commonalities and distinctions (mostly phenotypic until recently), and to a certain extent lingustics.

The common media however have reduced race to the over simplified concept of 'skin colour' as if that is a determination of anything but skin pigmentation. As a result, almost 99 percent of any 'popular' discussion of race in the mainstream media or in common discourse with the 'average American' is an exercise in absurdities rife with misrepresentations and misinformation, on any side of the discussion.

'Race' is also used as a political tool, wielded by would be commissars of public opinion, making sure everyone tows the party line (political correctness) for reasons that have little to do with popular conceptions about 'race'.

The question of 'Hispanics' is a case in point. Many people consider Hispanics to be non-whites. Many others consider Hispanics to be a subset of whites (even though the term 'Hispanic' has nothing to do with ethnicity whatsoever abd everything to do with linguistics!) in spite of the existence of 'black Hispanics' and 'white Hispanics'.

Many Hispanics are Germanics of Visigothic extraction from Spain. Others are Celtic or Gaullican (Gaulish) and Iberian. Others are English (Anglo-Saxon), Russian, German, French, etc. The fact they happen to live in Mexico or Argentina and speak Spanish makes them 'Hispanic' although from purely ethnic perspectives they are clearly European.

Other Hispanics are descended from an admixture of European (Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, etc) and native American (Aztec, Mayan, Toltec, Incan, Apache, Tejas, Hopi, Navajo, etc etc) ancestries, to varying degrees (some are more European than native, and some are more native than European).

And yet other Hispanics are almost wholly or are entirely native American (mostly from Central and South America, the Yucatan, etc).

There are in fact Hispanic Jews (not speaking of the religion of Judaism, but the ancestry of the people involved) including Central and South American 'Maranos' descended from Spanish Maranos as well as from Jews who happen to have been living in Mexico, Central or South America etc and who spoke Spanish or Portuguese or French and whose descendants are classified as 'Latinos' along with everybody else south of the Rio Grande who speaks a Latin-derived language.

So, the Bible DOES recognise ethnic groupings, distinctions, differences, similarities, correspondences, boundaries, land inheritances, allotments, prophetic destinies, and so forth. The modern concepts of 'race' however are often at odds with Biblically defined terms like 'nation', 'tribe', or 'family'.

Good post Esaias....

We are ALL one race...the human race.(with different pigmented skin)

[FlamingZword]

The different races begun after God confounded the languages of the World.

as each group went its way, they became tribes which mixed basically among themselves, Because of that certain DNA features became prominent that distinguish them from other groups.

The genes that allowed for the better survival of the tribe were those that were of the survivors of the tribes.

all the physical traits of each nation came from only breeding within their group, those traits became more stronger and noticeable.

Black skin was a survival pigmentation which benefited those tribes which settled in parts of Africa.
White skin was a survival pigmentation which benefited those tribes which settled in parts of Northern Europe.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The different races begun after God confounded the languages of the World.

as each group went its way, they became tribes which mixed basically among themselves, Because of that certain DNA features became prominent that distinguish them from other groups.

The genes that allowed for the better survival of the tribe were those that were of the survivors of the tribes.

all the physical traits of each nation came from only breeding within their group, those traits became more stronger and noticeable.

Black skin was a survival pigmentation which benefited those tribes which settled in parts of Africa.
White skin was a survival pigmentation which benefited those tribes which settled in parts of Northern Europe.

[Sean]

The idea of differing races in Human beings was heavily taught in Darwinism......


Descent of Man
The full title of Darwin’s most famous work included some stark words: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin envisioned the spontaneous formation of simple life evolving into higher forms through the pitiless forces of nature selecting the fittest.

Darwin demonstrated how he believed evolution shaped man in his subsequent book The Descent of Man. In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.”

Darwin wasn’t the first to propose biological arguments for racism, but his works fueled the most ugly and deadly racism. Even evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory” (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...f1ojF3dso-ilaw