Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Thomas Allen

The following is an analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”, chapter 18. Unfortunately, I do not know who the author is or the title of the book from which this chapter comes.

The author is a racial nihilist who preaches the new morality and has no qualms about sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Although he claims to be a creationist, he is really a creationist evolutionist. Like orthodox creationists, he is a monogenist and claims that all humans come from a common origin, Adam and Eve, and, consequently, rejects polygenism, i.e., the various human races are descended from a different set of parents. Like all monogenist creationists, he resorts to using evolutionary principles to prove his theory, and, thus, he is really a creationist evolutionist. (For the difference between monogenism and polygenism, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.)

Moreover, the author rejects the term “race” and prefers to use the term “people group”; most orthodox evolutionists prefer “geographical population.” Species is a more accurate term (see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen). Whether the Negro is called a people group, a geographical population, or a race is irrelevant. The essences and traits of the Negro do not change regardless of the name.

The author claims that “all humans descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve” (p. 223). He is wrong. Since the Nephilim existed before and after the Noachian Flood, they could not be descendants of Noah. (Their existence before and after the Flood proves that the Flood was not global.) No indication is given in the Bible of Noah taking them on the ark; on the contrary, the Bible indicates that they were not on the ark since God sent the Flood to destroy them. The Nephilim were of the giant people group, Homo gigantus.

To support his claim to a common origin of all humans, he uses the evolutionary principle of the Mitochondrial Eve, which claims “to show that all people today trace back to a single mother” (p. 224 fn). His main disagreement with most orthodox evolutionists is the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. He has the mutation occurring at a much higher rate than orthodox evolutionists originally thought. However, more recent studies show that the mutation rate is high enough to place it in the biblical time frame. On the other hand, he and other creationist evolutionists reject mutations as proof of evolution because most mutations are degenerative, and the remaining mutations are neutral. What never occurs to him is that God may have used a common mitochondrial DNA for all people groups instead of giving each people group a different mitochondrial DNA. Or he gave the original parents of each people group the mitochondrial DNA that the people groups have today.

Unlike orthodox evolutionists, who believe that the various people groups evolved over tens of thousands of years, creationist evolutionists like this author believe that they evolved (or developed as they prefer to say) over a few generations. If the creationist evolutionists are correct, then the North American Indians, White Europeans, and Black Africans should be virtually indistinguishable in the United States since they have been living in the same environment and, to some extent, interbreeding, for 400 years, which is about 10 to 13 generations. Yet, after 10 to 13 generations, these people groups are still distinguishable.

The author notes that all human people groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although true, it does not prove that all humans are the same species (see “Christians and Creationism” by Thomas Allen). Also, he notes that the DNA differences of the various people groups are slight. Thus, he rejects the notion that God would use mostly the same DNA in His creation of the various human species. (Evidence shows that the genetic difference between a male and female human is one gene.)

As do nearly all creationist evolutionists, the author has a fixation on skin color that exceeds that of any stereotypical racist. Except for distinguishing between Aryans and Melanochroi, skin color is of secondary importance in distinguishing one people group from another. An albino Turanian (East Asians, Southeast Asians, and Turks) can be easily distinguished from an albino Negro (sub-Saharan Africans). (For more on skin color, see “Skin Color” by Thomas Allen.)

The author adheres to the young earth (God created the earth about 6000 to 8000 years ago) global flood model (the Noachian Flood occurred about 4400 years ago), although God’s geology refutes such a model (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen).

According to the author, Adam and Eve were mongrels and possessed all the genetic material necessary to form all the extant and extinct people groups (the identities of the extant and extinct people groups are given below). Yet, the Bible describes Adam as White (Aryan) — see “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen. Since Eve was made from Adam, she would also have been an Aryan. Moreover, God forbids mongrels in His assembly (see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen).

A characteristic of mongrels is that they do not breed true. As the author notes, the descendants of mongrel humans can range from extreme dark to extreme light and can have all sorts of mixtures of racial attributes. Yet, today’s people groups breed true. Their offspring possess the same racial attributes and traits as their parents. (The author describes Adam and Eve as looking like Melanochroi. However, as the author notes, they would have had to be mongrels if they possessed all the genes of today’s people groups.)

Also, according to the author, Noah and his sons and their wives were mongrels. Since all the people spoke the same language and lived in the same area, they would have continued to interbreed — mongrels producing mongrels. Yet, the Bible says nothing about the skin color of the people who built the Tower of Babel.

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author asserts that the various people groups resulted from the confusion of languages while the people were building the Tower of Babel — thus, proving that God is a segregationist (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Amazingly, all the people of the people group that possessed the traits and attributes of the Negro (Black, Homo niger) spoke the identical language and, consequently, segregated and separated themselves from the other extant people groups (Turanians [Mongolians, H. luridus], Aryan (Whites, White Caucasians, H. albus), Melanochroi [Brown Caucasians, H. brunus], Indo-Australian (Australian aborigines, H. australis), and Khoisan [Hottentots, H. khoisanii] and the extinct people groups (Neanderthal [H. neandertalensis], H. erectus, giants [H. gigantus], Denisovan man [H. denisova], and Florisbad man [H. heidelbergensis]). Likewise, each of these people groups coincidentally spoke the same language and consequently segregated and separated themselves from all other people groups. Such segregation and separation of human people groups should prove to creationist evolutionists like this author that God wants the people groups to be separated and not to integrate and amalgamate. But, sadly, it does not.

Furthermore, the way that the author describes the formation of the people groups following the confusion of languages seems to conflict with “the Hardy-Weinburg theorem, which states that genetic diversity cannot be bred out, i.e., the population will not grow more nearly uniform over successive generations. A group that separates from one race will not acquire the characteristics of another race. It will not lose its racial characteristics. At most, various racial characteristics will occur with a different frequency in the new group than occurred in the parent group. According to the great anthropologist Carlton Coon, ‘selection alone cannot produce changes of race or species; new genes must appear from which the selection can be made.’ One race of man cannot produce another race of man without the introduction of new genes. Genetic mutation is required to produce a new race.”[1] Thus, a mongrel people group will always produce mongrels even if divided into small separate people groups. For a people group, e.g., the Negro, to be formed from a mongrelized people group, a beneficial genetic mutation must occur. Creationist evolutionists reject the notion of beneficial genetic mutation.

According to the author, the evolutionary principle of natural selection produced the people groups of today after they left Babel. Oddly, natural selection seems to have stopped forming people groups millennia ago. The lack of new people groups being formed over the last thousand years is strange since as the author states, only a few generations are needed to change one people group into another people group, that is to have a new people group spin off an existing people group. Yet, for thousands of years, no new people group has been formed although some have become extinct.

Perhaps the author and other creationist evolutionists err because they reject the Biblical principle of “kind after its kind.” He asserts that a mongrel people group can produce different kinds (Negro people group, Turanian people group, etc.)

Also, like other creationist evolutionists, the author rejects the notion of immutable people groups. Consequently, he disagrees with Jeremiah, who declared that people groups are immutable (see “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). Like orthodox evolutionists, the author believes that people groups are mutable and that a large people group can change into several different smaller people groups.

He describes natural selection leading to lighter-skinned people inhabiting higher latitudes and darker-skinned people inhabiting lower latitudes. However, he identifies some exceptions, such as Eskimos and Pygmies. Apparently, it does not occur to him that genetics determines people groups and not the environment.

The author concludes by stating that a large interbreeding people group of mongrels at Babel became the extant people groups of the Negro, Turanian, Aryan, Melanochroi, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan and the extinct people groups of the Neanderthal, Homo erectus, giant, Denisovan man, and Florisbad man within a few generations after the confusion of languages. Natural selection instead of God formed these people groups. Furthermore, no new genetic material was needed to form these people groups. Whatever gene mutations that did occur had a degenerative effect.

Then, he states that (1) if God did not create the world in six literal 24-hour days, (2) if all humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons and their wives, (3) and if the Noachian Flood was not global, then the remainder of the Bible is not trustworthy. (For arguments to the contrary, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.) Yet, I would be surprised if he believes the geocentric flat earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat and geocentric (see “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’) According to his logic, if the earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric, then the Bible is untrustworthy.

Also, he claims, “One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately.” (P. 235.) Yet, people discriminated against other people groups and even within their own people group millennia before the theory of evolution came into being. Could racial discrimination result from people obeying God’s law not to produce mongrels (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen)? 

Further, he cites Acts 17:26, but like all creationist evolutionists, he focuses on the first part of the verse. The first part reads, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Thus, since the verse says that God made of one blood all humans, all humans descended from a common pair, Adam and Eve. Whatever “blood” means in this passage, it does not mean that all people have the same blood. A person’s people group can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

He ignores the implications of the second part of the verse because it leads to the notion that God created the various people groups (species of humans) at different times and at different locations. The second part reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Moreover, the author errs when he claims that Rahab the Canaanite was an ancestor of Jesus (see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen). Also, he errs when he claims that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. Being a pious man, Boaz would have followed the law, which prohibited marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3), and would not have married Ruth if she were a Moabite. He knew that she was an Israelite. 

Then, he asserts that God discourages (forbids) interfaith marriages but does not forbid interracial marriages. The stories of Dinah and Ezra requiring the Israelite men to send their foreign (strange) wives and children away refute this assertion.

To marry Dinah, the Hivites converted to her religion. Nevertheless, her brothers killed them — not because of their religion as they were of the same religion as Dinah, but because of their people group, which differed from hers.

Ezra’s separation was based on people groups and not on religion. The Israelite men had ceased following the Israelite religion, or else they would not have married strange women. They expelled their strange wives and children regardless of whether they followed the Israelite religion. The division was based on people groups instead of religion.

(For more on Ruth, Diana, Ezra, and similar stories, see “A Response to Bibleinfo's Justification of Miscegenation,” “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author resorts to evolutionary principles to support his explanation of the origins of the human races or people groups, which is his preferred terminology. Natural selection is the primary evolutionary principle that he uses. Also, when he can use genetic mutations to his advantage, he uses them. Otherwise, he rejects mutations because they are usually degenerative or, at best, neutral. However, while claiming that he is a creationist, he refuses to give God credit for creating the various human races (people groups).

The author abandons the basic principles of zoology in classifying man. To support his dogma, he must abandon these zoological principles and adopt new methodologies. Thus, he rejects the principle of Straus-Durckheim: “In treating this subject [human races or people groups], as it ought to be, simply as a question of pure zoology, and upon applying to it the same principles as to the determination of other species of animals belonging to one genus, one arrives, in fact, at really recognizing many very distinct human species. . . .”[2]

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (TC Allen Company, Franklinton, North Carolina, 2001), p. 7.

2. J. C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth; or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1857) p. 613.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Discussion with an Idiot

A Discussion with an Idiot

Thomas Allen, editor

Below is a discussion between me and an idiot. This discussion resulted from a comment that I made to a comment that another person made to an article. The article is titled “Police Officer Arrests Man Reciting Bible Verse at Pride Rally” at https://wltreport.com/2023/06/06/police-officer-arrests-man-reciting-bible-verse-at-pride-rally/#comment-6210524182. [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.]

The idiot is somewhat arrogant and a racial nihilist. As a racial nihilist, she does not care about persevering the American Negro and seems to rejoice in the Negro’s demise. On the contrary, she denies that the Negro race, the White race, and any other race exists. (I use “she” and “her” for pronouns for this idiot because she did not specify which one of the 100 plus pronouns is her preferred pronoun.)

Moreover, this idiot is a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine and probably considers herself a conservative. Further, she is convinced that King had a high moral standard, was a strict follower of biblical morality because that is where King got his morality, and was faithful to his wife. Thus, she has a weird understanding of the Bible and seems to believe that the Bible does not condemn illicit sex. For someone who mentions the Bible as frequently as she does, she has a shallow understanding of the Bible. Also, she understands the Bible through the lens of wokeism.

Moreover, although she idolizes King, her comments show that she knows little about him. One would think that anyone who idolizes King as much as she does would know about his infidelity, which is common knowledge. Either she is too stupid to know or she rejects what she knows is true because it tarnishes her idol.

Originally, I thought that this person was ignorant. Later, I discovered that she was stupid. Ignorance can be fixed with knowledge; stupidity cannot be fixed. However, I did not find her stupid because she disagreed with me. I found her stupid by the way that she disagreed and what she wrote. (I have had many people disagree with me whom I do not consider stupid. An example is King.)

Furthermore, this person is not the only idiot that I have encountered. For example, one moronic person claims that he knows more about what a clause in the Constitution means than does the person who wrote it.

I have left the idiot’s comments and the other comments as they were posted. To one of my comments, I have added some clarification and have enclosed it in brackets. I have substituted “Idiot” for her pseudonym, “Me” for my pseudonym, “Original Commenter” for the person who commented on the article, and “Third Party” for the person who commented during our discussion. 

The comments are not in chronological order but are in the order that they appear in the comment section. The discussion follows.

 Original Commenter: In the Last Days what is good will be called evil and what is evil will be called good. This is a fine example of that scripture. The good man was trying to warn of the consequences of sin. We don’t make the laws, God does and still have consequences for disobedience.

Me: Martin Luther King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” Thus, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. According to King, people should not obey unjust laws.  https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-real-king.html

Idiot: Em, the ten commandments are the laws that God gave mankind for mankind’s benefit. Which of these laws would you propose we not obey, and why? Just curious ...

Thou shall not murder perhaps? Thou shall not bear false witness? Do these seem “unjust” to you?

Me: I did not say that we should not follow the ten commandments. I am saying that the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine said that no one is obliged to obey any law that they did not help make by voting for those who made the law.

Idiot: oh, btw, Martin Luther King said we are not obliged to follow IMMORAL laws. Big difference.

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Note the “MORAL responsibility” - WHERE do you suppose REVEREND King got his “morality” from, hmmm?

Idiot: I didn’t say to not follow the ten commandments either.

YOU said any law we didn’t have a part in making, we are not obliged to follow.

We didn’t have a part in making the ten commandments, so we shouldn’t be obliged to follow them.

So I asked YOU which of these laws would you NOT follow?

Soooo?

Me: I did not say that we are not obliged to follow laws that we didn’t have a part in making. King said that. King defines an unjust law as one in which people had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote. According to King’s definition, the ten commandments are unjust because people had no part in making them and, therefore, they are not obliged to obey them.

Idiot: The quote YOU provided was about something totally different. People who are denied the right to vote shouldn’t have to follow laws they had no say in making. We actually fought an American Revolution for this very reason. Britain throwing people in jail without trial by jury and imposing tax laws on Americans when Americans had no say in parliament, where the laws were coming from.

It was a quote about people who are denied the right vote.

Me: But the principle is still applicable to OT laws since people were denied the right to vote and neither the Israelites nor anyone else beyond God had a say in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

Idiot: No, it does not apply. That was not even close to what King was referring to. For one, he definitely said we have a moral responsibility to follow just laws. Where did REVEREND King get his morality, and just laws from? THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Me: “Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.” Then, “I don’t expect that anything I write will change the minds enclosed in concrete already...."

Third Party: You cannot use reason to debate or convince or inform someone who has rejected reason.

If reason is your argument, and he won’t hear it, you are wasting your breath and conceding any hope before you begin.

Idiot addressing Third Party: Yep, you perfectly described why Me has desperately avoided answering where Reverend King got his morality from. :-) When you avoid reasoning and facts you have rejected them. When your mind is that closed, you will never be able to learn anything new. Sad, isn't it?

Idiot: Oh Lord, I don’t want to admit where Reverend King got his morality from! Noooo! It'll make me look stupid!

Me: I don’t know where King got his morality and just laws from, but I do know that he did not get them from the Bible.

Idiot: You don’t know where REVEREND King got his morality from, but you somehow do know it wasn’t from the Bible??????

Liar. You tried to avoid the question because you DO know, and didn’t want to answer. :-)

I suspect that you know exactly where King got his morality from. Everybody else does.

You just exposed yourself, dear. Good job!

Me: Where did King get his morality? Although you seem to think that he got it from the Bible, he did not. King was an integrationist and hated segregationists. The God of the Bible is the great segregationist; therefore, King loathes him. Proof that God is a segregationist: The world’s two greatest segregationist events were the Noachian Flood (where God segregated Noah and his family from the rest of the people) and the Tower of Babel. God was the cause of both of them. Further, God told the Israelites that when they entered Canaan not to integrate with the inhabitants, i.e., segregate themselves. Also, God segregates the saved from the unsaved. Thus, while God teaches segregation, King teaches integration.

According to Acts 17:26, when God created the races, He determined the boundaries of the habitats. Did God create the races of man, or did they evolve? The Bible supports creation; you probably support evolution. King's racial policy of integrating the races leads to amalgamation and, therefore, the destruction of the races. Do you support the deliberate destruction of what God created? God so despises amalgamation that He forbids mongrels, multiracial people, to enter His assembly. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html

King seems to have got his morality from Satan, but that is speculation on my part.

Idiot: God forbids “mongrels” and “multi-racial” people from His assembly??

Quote the Chapter and verse FROM THE BIBLE that proves this????

Good luck with that one, dear. :-)

Me: The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” The Hebrew word translated “half-bred” means “mongrel.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned this. [I did fail to cite the verse, which is Deuteronomy 23:2; however, it was cited in the link of my previous comment. Obviously, she had not read the linked article.]

Idiot: Once again you have failed. Source? Chapter and verse please.

Idiot: You also know nothing of the Bible but you are revealing yourself in very profound ways.

oh, btw. The Bible NEVER mentions anything about different "races."

Different people groups, such as the Hittites, Cushites (African tribes), Israelites, etc. But NEVER different races because there is only ONE race in the Bible. THE HUMAN RACE.

The ONLY segregationist here honey, is YOU.

God separated the people at the tower of Babel because His plan was NEVER for a “one world order.” Thank God for that!

And different races don’t “evolve.” That's a non-sensical [sic], totally UN scientific statement. DUH! What is WRONG with you???? Doesn’t even relate to “evolution or creation.” The ignorance here is astounding.

And how the hell does God “dispise amalgamation????”

So glad you posted that last post. You discredited yourself beyond repair. My dear, you are your own worst enemy.

Reverend King, and ALL Christians, get their morality from the BIBLE. The living word of God. Period. Now go back to your mummy's basement before you hurt yourself.

Me: Obviously, you suffer from intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility. People like you are causing the dying of the country, the decaying of Christianity, and the growing genocide.

Further, your knowledge of the Bible is appalling. Cush is Arabia (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/03/cush-and-ethiopia.html) The Bible NEVER mentions anything about “the United States,” “Russia,” “nuclear war,” and many other things that people find in the Bible. Some translations do use the word race in the sense of ethnicities. Also, the Bible speaks of tribes and nations. Ethnicities, tribes, and nations are monoracial in the biological sense and are subdivisions of a race — thus, implying race in the biological sense.

When God separated the people at Babel, He segregated them; He certainly did not integrate them. “How the hell does God ‘dispise amalgamation”?” He told the Israelites not to integrate (amalgamate) themselves with the people of the promised land; instead, He told them to segregate from them.

I never said that the races evolved. God created them; therefore, we should promote policies that protect and preserve them (segregation and separation) and not policies that genocide them (miscegenation and amalgamation). Why do you want to destroy the races that God created? You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.

If King got his morality from the Bible, why was he a fornicator? Why was he, like you, a promoter of policies that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Idiot: What makes you think that King was a fornicator? oh, wait, are YOU judging him by BIBLICAL standards?

Whatever. What policies did King promote that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Name one. I dare ya.

Me: Since King’s morality comes from the Bible and since King had sex with women other than his wife, then, according to you, biblical morality approves of people having sex with women other than their wives.

King promoted integration. Integration leads to interracial marriages and mating. Interracial marriages and mating lead to the breeding of the races involved out of existence. And that is genocide. King promoted interracial marriages. You also want to genocide Blacks.

Idiot: So according to you, interracial marriage promotes genocide? wow. Just wow. How sick and pathetic.

You also need to educate yourself on the definition of “genocide.”

(Spoiler alert: the definition does not include interracial marriage)

Idiot: I don't know if King was faithful or not. Who was the other woman?

Well?

Idiot: “according to me???” Quote me where I said that the Bible supports adultery.

Waiting ....

Idiot: Em, no. The Cushites are descendants of CUSH. Grandson of Noah, and the father of Nimrod. The land of Cush in the Bible is ETHIOPIA.

The African lands south of Egypt. Please read a Bible before you post.

There is NO translation of the Bible that uses the term "race." Never. None, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

All Bibles were translated from the original Hebrew (and some Aramaic like the Book of Daniel) into the other languages DIRECTLY.

Hebrew > Greek

Hebrew > Latin

Hebrew > English

etc. etc etc.

So we know there is no reference to different “races” at all. Only different tribes. That is just a fact.

And yes you did say the races “evolved.” Try to be more clear and specific because when you pose a question about “creation vs evolution” in the same breath, that is the obvious assumption.

As for your idiotic question, “Why do you want to destroy the races that God created?”

I do not want to destroy anything. But as far as mixed marriages, I have no problem with that.

As for your “ass-umption,” it doesn’t even make sense, : “You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.”

What the hell does that even mean? What the hell policies would “protect and preserve races” without being blatantly racist???

And just explain to me how anyone would “genocide races??” Well?

Me: The American Standard Version, which may be the best literal translation of the Bible, uses the word “race.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned that Cush was Arabia and not a region south of Egypt.

Idiot: Actually, the best literal translation is The King James Bible.

And please quote chapter and verse where any Bible uses the word “race.”

Idiot: Whaaa !!! ????

Ok, so explain “intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility.”

What does any of that even mean, and how does it intellectually bolster your opinion?

Mmmmm? Waiting ...............................

Me: I thought that you were ignorant and could be educated. However, I have discovered that you are stupid and beyond hope. Therefore, I must follow Mark Twain’s advice.

Idiot: FAIL! Was Mark Twain’s advice to crawl away with your tail between your legs? LMAO!

Cya.

Me: Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. – Mark Twain

I have been arguing with an idiot and do not want to be dragged down to your level.

Idiot: LOL! Look at your posts dear. Do who see whole paragraphs of childish invectives in mine? Nope.

I did not let you drag me down to YOUR level, as evidenced by our posts for all the world to see.

Nice try, no fly. You're done here.

Idiot: Sorry kiddo. We ALL KNOW where pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from. THE BIBLE. EVERYBODY already knows that. You cannot deny that and maintain any illusion of credibility or integrity. End of that story.

Me: You claim that pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from the Bible. Consequently, homosexual pastors and fornicating pastors like King get their morality from the Bible — really?

Idiot: ??? We all know that Pastors and Reverends get their morality from the Bible, as do all Christians. Once again you are desperately trying to create a diversion to get out of the corner you are painted in to.

Yes, Reverend King got his morality from the Bible. It's that simple.

Idiot: OH Lord, I can’t answer the question, so let me divert with childish ad hominems [sic] so I don’t have to admit how closed my mind is! Worse than concrete! lmao!

Idiot: Actually YOU did say that. And ONLY you since you misquoted King.

Martin Luther King NEVER said we shouldn’t follow laws we didn’t vote for, except in the context of those who were DENIED the right to vote. It wasn’t a reference to the general population.

Martin Luther King said we had a duty to NOT follow *IMMORAL* laws. I provided his quote for you. And this pertained to EVERYONE.

Big difference.

And my question to you, was which laws that we did not vote for (ie; the Ten Commandments) should we not follow, since we obviously didn’t vote for these laws.

THE END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Location of Eden

Location of Eden

Thomas Allen

8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. . . . 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis, Chapter 2)

Where is Eden located? Several locations have been suggested. They include Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Mongolia, Kashmir, Australia, Mesopotamia, and the North Pole.

Havilah is noted for its gold and gemstones. Because it is noted for its high-quality gold, Havilah is often associated with India or Arabia. If it is in India, the Pishon is the Indus. If Havilah is Arabia, then the Pishon is the sea around the Arabian peninsula.

Many locate Cush in either Ethiopia or Central Asia. Thus, the Gihon is either the Nile (the Ethiopian location) or the Oxus, the Amu Darya (the Central Asian location).

According to the information given in Genesis 2:10-14, one river came out of Eden and divided into four. Because the Euphrates is mentioned as one of these rivers, most people assume that Eden was in Mesopotamia. Under this theory, the Tigris is the Hiddekel. There is much dispute about the two rivers corresponding to Pishon and Gihon. 

Upper Mesopotamia is perhaps the most popular location of Eden. According to proponents of this location, the Euphrates is the Euphrates of Mesopotamia and the Hiddekel is the Tigris. The identity of the Pishon and Gihon are uncertain. Some identify these two rivers with canals between the Euphrates and Tigris. Also, the Karun and Karkheh rivers have been identified as the other two rivers. Others identify them with various small rivers. 

Another popular location for Eden is the Armenian highlands at the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris. According to this theory, the Pishon is either the Phasis (Rioni) of Georgia or the Kura, a large tributary of the Araxes (Aras). The Gihon is identified as the Araxes. (For problems with this location, see Davis.)

Calvin and others have suggested that Eden was in the area where the Euphrates and Tigris empty into the Persian Gulf. Here, the two rivers come together and then divide into several mouths. Thus, the Pallakopas canal becomes the Pishon, and the Gihon corresponds with the Kahana or Guhana canal near Babylon. A problem with this theory is that the rivers come together instead of dividing.

Closely related to Calvin’s proposed location is that Eden is located at the head of the Persian Gulf. According to this theory, the four rivers are the Euphrates, Tigris, Kerkha, and Karun. A problem with this theory is that the rivers flow toward Eden instead of away from it.

At least, the two theories that place Eden near the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris place Eden east of the writer of Genesis. However, they fail to satisfy the description of Havilah.

According to the Scriptures, the Adamic race originated in Eden. Most people erroneously place Eden in the Middle East. The location of Eden as described in Genesis 2:8, 10-14 places it in Central Asia. 

“And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put man [Adam] whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:8) The garden in Eden was eastward or “in the east” (Moffatt’s translation) or “to the far east” (Ferrar Fenton’s translation). If Moses were the author of Genesis as the fundamentalists claim, then he, being a highly educated man, would have been knowledgeable of the Mesopotamian region. Would not he have said that Eden was in the land of Shinar or Mesopotamia if that is where it was? In Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 14:1, and 24:10, he calls this region Shinar or Mesopotamia. Moses identified Eden as being in the east because it was east of the area which he knew.

If various people who lived long after Moses wrote Genesis as many modernists and liberal theologians claim, then these authors certainly would have been familiar with the Mesopotamian region and would have referred to it by name rather than by a vague description of where Eden was located.

Also, Sargon's Chronicle identifies Eden as east of Mesopotamia. Thus, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia knew that they did not live where Eden was. Saint Ephraem’s Hymns to the True Paradise and Cosmas Indicopleusters’s Christian Topography placed Eden at the western edge of the world’s highest mountains. Hence, it was in the region of the Himalayan and adjacent mountains—although they may have thought of these mountains as near the North Pole. They certainly did not place it in Mesopotamia.

The geography of Mesopotamia does not fit the description of Eden given in Genesis. Only two major rivers are in Mesopotamia: the Euphrates and Tigris. They merge rather than divide. Eden must be found elsewhere.

“Euphrates” in Hebrew is perath and means “a river of the east” (Strongs O.T. #6578). For centuries the “Pishon” has been identified with the Indus or Ganges Rivers in India. In the ancient records, Havilah was equivalent to India. Because the Gihon was said to “compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia,” some Biblical scholars identify the Gihon with the Nile. The word “cush” originates in northern India. Here the Hindu Cush mountains still bear that name. The Hiddekel is often identified as the Tigris. If the Tigris were also called the Hiddekel, it, like the Euphrates, was named for the original river in Eden. Probably this is why Genesis 2:14 refers to it as the river that flows “toward the east of Assyria.” This modifier would prevent confusing it with the river of the same name that flows within Assyria. Except for the Indus River, the rivers commonly thought of as flowing out of Eden do not fit the Biblical description of these rivers.

One place does resemble the description of Eden given in the Bible. That place is the Pamir Plateau in Central Asia between the Hindu Cush on the south and the Tien Shan mountains on the north. Four great rivers flow from this plateau. These are the Indus, Jaxartes (Syr Darya), Oxus (Amu Darya, also called  Gihon), and Tarim. Corresponding to the Pishon is the Kumar (or Chitral) branch of the Indus. The Jaxartes is the original Euphrates. The Tarim (that is its northern branch, the Kashgar river) flows to the east and is probably the Hiddekel. Most likely, the country of Havilah corresponds to the country of Darada toward Chachmises, which is noted for its riches. Thus, the Pishon is the Kumar-Indus; the Gihon is the Oxus;  the Hiddekel is the Kashgar-Tarim; the Euphrates is the Jaraxrtes.

The Pamir Plateau is different from what it was ten thousand years ago. A catastrophe has altered it. Then the plateau was lower and the climate much milder. Today the Pamir Plateau is uninhabited. It covers an area of about 180 by 180 miles and rises 15,000 feet above sea level. Too inhospitable to be inhabited, it is a blank and mysterious place. It is now the “roof of the world.”

The Pamir Plateau matches the geographical description of Eden given in Genesis. It is the land in the east, and it has four great rivers flowing out of it.

However, if the people who claim that the Noachian Flood was global and nearly all, if not all, of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock formations resulted from the Flood, then trying to locate a place from before the Flood with today’s geography is futile. Today’s geography would have no resemblance to pre-Flood geography. Consequently, the above discussion about the location of Eden is meaningless. 

References

Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962. 

Haberman, Frederick. Tracing Our White Ancestors (White Roots). Second edition.  Phoenix, Arizona: America's Promise Lord's Covenant Church, 1962, reprinted 1979.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Weisman, Charles A. The Origin of Race and Civilization as Studied and Verified from Science, History, and the Holy Scriptures. Third edition. Burnsville, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1990.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Two Creation Stories

Two Creation Stories

Thomas Allen

In Pre-Adamite Man (1866), Mrs. George John C. Duncan argues that the creation described in Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are two different creations. Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of the pre-Adamite while Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adamic man.

According to Chapter 1, God created plants and animals before He created the pre-Adamite. Moreover, He created the pre-Adamite and the plants and animals ex nihilo. Yet, according to Chapter 2, He fashioned man from the dust of the earth. Furthermore, He also fashioned the plants and animals from preexisting material after He had made Adam. Thus, Chapter 1 describes God creating ex nihilo while Chapter 2 describes God creating with preexisting material.

Unlike the pre-Adamite, whom God created fully and instantaneously, He created Adamic man in stages. First, He molded Adamic man; then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Finally, He animated his whole frame and gave him understanding.

The pre-Adamite came into the world complete and had power and dominion over all the earth. On the other hand, Adamic man’s power and dominion were limited. Moreover, God taught him humility and dependency. While pre-Adamite entered a world fully created, Adamic man entered a world that was blank and sterile, which was void of plants and animals.

Duncan believes that the “days” in Chapter 1 are eras of various long lengths and not literal 24-hour days. (Before the Reformation, most clergymen held the notion that the “days” in Chapter 1 were eras and not literally 24-hour days.) Moreover, the creation of Chapter 2 occurred on the eighth day. During the seventh day, which was the day of God’s rest, the earth was a paradise until the rebellion of Lucifer, Satan.

According to Duncan’s argument, the pre-Adamites were sinless, and they were angels. However, they became extinct on earth before God made Adamic man. Instead of dying like Adamic man, they were spiritualized and etherealized or caught up like the saints of the rapture and removed to another world. This event probably occurred when Michael defeated Lucifer. (The geological features that proponents of a young earth credit to the Noachian Flood, Duncan credits to the war between Michael and Lucifer.)

Duncan refers to Chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis and to Chapter 19 of 1 Kings to support her claim that pre-Adamites were angles. They looked like a man and ate like a man. Luke 24:4 gives another example of an angel looking like a man. Further, resurrected humans are similar to angels. Consequently, she contends that if saints and angels are alike in heaven, then in an earlier earthly life, pre-Adamites could have been like Adamic man.

After the war between Michael and Lucifer, God reformed the world as described in Chapter 2 of Genesis. He made a paradise in Eden in which He placed a new man, Adam, who is the father of Adamic man and whom He formed from the dust of the earth.

Further, God created for the first time animals and plants or recreated animals and plants that failed to survive the catastrophic war of Lucifer’s rebellion (Genesis 2:19, 20). God formed these plants and animals from preexisting material and for the benefit of Adam. However, many types of plants and animals that had survived the war lived outside Eden.

In addition to some of the differences discussed above, Duncan notes several other differences between the pre-Adamite and Adamic man. Unlike the pre-Adamites, the family of Adam, Adamic man, is federal and united under one head and is dealt with as one, i.e., all suffer from Adam’s curse.

Another difference is that the pre-Adamite saw all of the earth as an unlimited sphere that was to be filled and subdued. Adamic man was limited to a garden in the eastern part of Eden with no sea and only one river.

Further, God created both male and female pre-Adamites at the same time. For Adamic man, God formed woman from Adam after He had formed Adam and after He had finished preparing Adam’s sphere of life.

Thus, Duncan discusses two different creations: one is depicted in Chapter 1 of Genesis and the other, in Chapter 2. Chapter 1 describes the original creation of the earth and the pre-Adamites, who are angels. Chapter 2 describes another creation, which is the creation of Adamic man. These two creations refer to two distinct species: the pre-Adamite and Adamic man. The pre-Adamites passed away after an indefinite period of inhabiting the earth. Some time afterward, God created Adamic man.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Respecter of Persons

Thomas Allen

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: – Acts 10:34

For there is no respect of persons with God. – Romans 2:11

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28 

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. – Ephesians 6:9

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: – 1 Peter 1:17

Christian racial nihilists cite these verses to justify racial integration, amalgamation, and miscegenation — which God’s word condemns — and, therefore, the genocide of the races that God created. (However, nearly all Christian racial nihilists are Darwinists; they believe that the races of man evolved and, thus, were not created. This is true even of those who claim to be creationists.) Consequently, they disagree with God, who places great importance on the races (species) of man that He created. (See “Christians and Creationism” and “Fundamental Christians and Evolution” by Thomas Allen.)

Moreover, Christian racial nihilists use these verses to boost that they do not recognize a person’s race. Additionally, they promote the new morality of sacrificing the races of man on the altar of humanity.

Furthermore, Christian racial nihilists condemn stereotyping despite Paul endorsing it. Paul wrote “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith ” — Titus 1:12–13.

Nevertheless, is God really a non-respecter of persons despite what these verses suggest? The Bible describes events that show that God is a respecter of persons and that He discriminates against some in favor of others.

God showed that He is a respecter of persons when He accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s. If He were not a respecter of persons, He would have accepted both offerings or rejected both offerings. (Or, was this an instance of Him acting as a respecter of offerings?)

The Noachian Flood is another example of God acting like a respecter of persons. He saved Noah and his family while letting the others drown. If He were non-respecter of persons, He would have saved all of them. (This seems to be an instance where God respected the persons who believed Him but did not respect those who disbelieved.)

Jacob and Esau are another example that shows that God is a respecter of persons. He chose Jacob and rejected Esau. This action of choosing one person, Jacob, and rejecting another person, Esau, proves that He is a respecter of persons.

When God segregated the Israelites and protected them from the plagues that He inflicted on the Egyptians, He acted like a respecter of persons. When He separated the Israelites from the Egyptians and led them across the Red Sea, He again acted like a respecter of persons. (This segregation and separation were based on ethnicity and not on character.)

Moses wrote, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” — Deuteronomy 23:2. Since God refuses to allow mongrels in His assembly, He is acting like a respecter of persons. Moreover, His discrimination in this instance is not based on character or what a person does or does not do. It is based solely on a person’s genetics — something over which he has no control.

When God saves some people to everlasting life and condemns others to everlasting death, He is acting like a respecter of persons. He may judge differently than man would judge, but judging requires Him to be a respecter of persons unless all persons end up with the same results.

Whatever the verses cited about God not being a respecter of persons mean, they do not justify racial nihilism or the new morality. Christian racial nihilists err when they use these verses to justify their racial nihilism and the new morality. They are acting contrary to the Scriptures when they reject the notion of race and seek to scarify the races on the altar of humanity. They need to repent.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Biblical Inerrancy

Biblical Inerrancy

Thomas Allen

While some people claim that the Bible contains errors, others claim that it is error-free. Although “liberal” clergymen argue that the Bible contains errors, “conservative” clergymen argue that it does not contain any errors. This article discusses the inerrancy view of the conservative clergymen, who range from extreme literalists to adherents of broad inerrancy.

The original autographs, original manuscripts of each book of the Bible, are without error. Nevertheless, copies of the autographs have errors. However, textual critics have mostly eliminated these errors and have reconstructed the text such that it approximates the original with a high degree of accuracy.

Many proponents of the inerrancy of the Bible tend to be extreme literalists. They believe that wherever the Bible mentions history, science, geography, mathematics, etc., it is absolutely correct and without error. However, most do not go as far as considering Jesus running around heaven as a lamb as he is described in Revelation. They consider such a description as a figure of speech, a metaphor.

Yet, most extreme literalists condemn adherents of broad inerrancy for resorting to figures of speech to explain away confusing, apparently contradictory, or apparently illogical passages. (A figure of speech is an expression in which words are used in a nonliteral sense, such as simile, metaphor, personification, allegory, and  hyperbole. Figures of speech fill poetry and apocalypse.) They tend to pooh-pooh figure-of-speech arguments. Nevertheless, most of the extreme literalists resort to the figure-of-speech argument to explain away Biblical conflicts with current science — although a literal understanding of the Bible does not conflict with the science of the day that the original autograph was written. For example, in 1 Kings 7:23, the Bible states that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is three instead of 3.14 . . . . (Here, the Bible uses round numbers instead of exact numbers.) Another example is that the Bible describes the earth as geocentric, flat, immovable, and supported by columns. (Here, the Bible is using poetic language to describe the earth from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth.) However, these explanations are in the realm of broad inerrancy and not in the realm of extreme literalist inerrancy.

Another disagreement that extreme literalists have with adherents of broad inerrancy is the writing-style explanation that adherents of broad inerrancy use. Extreme literalists claim that the writers of the Bible used the same writing style that today’s great nonfiction writers use. They wrote with exactness, precision, and accuracy instead of the way that good novelists often write — who at times sacrifice accuracy and precision with poignancy to better express a truth. According to the extreme literalists, none were like the great novelists who mix fiction with facts to express a truth clearer and better than facts alone would have expressed it. Instead, they were all like good reporters who only reported the facts with no hyperbole, no interpretation, no opinions, and minimum figures of speech.

Nevertheless, most extreme literalists do recognize parables as nonfactual stories used to express a truth. However, if a parable uses a person's name, it ceases being a nonfactual story and becomes a statement of fact — as though Jesus was incapable of varying his parables.

Also, extreme literalists object to placing words in the mouths of people who did not actually say those words, as ancient writers often did. Moreover, they seem to believe that when several writers are writing about the same event, all of them saw that event from the same perspective, which was seldom the case.

Although the original autographs are without errors, copies and translations are not. Translators have to choose among various texts, such as Textus Receptus, Westcott & Hort, Majority Text, Masoretic text, and Septuagint.

For example, some translators use the Greek text for John 6:47 that contains “on me”: “. . .  He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” Others use the Greek text that lacks “on me”: “. . . He that believeth hath eternal life.” (The former is from the King James Version, and the latter is from the American Standard Version.) Thus, the first identifies where one’s faith has to be applied to have everlasting life. According to the second, any faith guarantees everlasting life.

Another example that the choice of the Greek text affects meaning is Acts 17:26. Most translations like the King James use the Greek text that contains the word “blood”: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men. . . .” However, a few translations like the American Standard use the Greek text that omits the word “blood”: “and he made of one every nation of men. . . .” While the first supports the doctrine of the unity of man and therefore evolution, the latter does not. (For another example how a choice text can give a different impression, see “Did Jesus Lie?" by Thomas Allen.)

Moreover, when translating from Hebrew or Greek to English, translators often have a choice of words. For example, in Chapter 1 of Genesis, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “day” may also be translated as “age,” as Ferrar Fenton translates it. Having Genesis 1 referring to seven days gives a completely different impression than referring to seven ages.

Another example is Genesis 7:19-24. Since the King James Version describes the Noachian Flood covering the earth, most people interpret this to mean that the Flood covered the entire planet. However, the Hebrew word that the King James and other versions translate as “earth” other translations translate as “land,” “country,” or “ground.” The latter translations give the impression that the Flood was not global.

Matthew 24:3 is another example. The Greek word that the King James translates as “world” most modern translations translate as “age”: Instead of the world ending, the age ends.

In Matthew 2:11, the Greek word that the King James and other translations translate as “worshiped” some translators translate as “paid homage,” which gives a different impression. (For another example how the choice of a word can change the meaning of a text, see “Commentary on John 3:36" by Thomas Allen.)

Ferrar Fenton’s Trinitarian bias shows itself in his translation of John 1:14: “And the WORD became incarnate, and encamped among us — and we gazed upon His majesty, such majesty as that of a Father's only Son — full of beneficence and truth.” As far as I know, he is the only translator that uses “incarnate.” All other translations are similar to the King James: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

An example of deliberate mistranslation is the New King James Version’s translation of Chapter 10 of Ezra. It mistranslates this chapter to thwart its use as a proof text that God prohibits miscegenation. In Chapter 10 of Ezra, the Hebrew word that nearly all other versions translate as “foreign” (the King James uses “stranger”), the New King James translates as “pagan.” According to the New King James, the men sent their wives away because of religion: The woman worshiped false gods instead of or in addition to Yahweh. However, the man stayed even if they worshiped false gods. According to the other versions, the men sent the women away because of their race and regardless of their religion. Their race was the issue and not their religion. (In Chapter 10, the Hebrew word translated as “foreigner” refers to people of another race — see “Stranger in the Old Testament” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, the New King James creates a hypocritical double standard. Female idolists are sent away, but male idolists are not. Many of the men were practicing a false religion or else they would not have married women of a different race, because Yahweh prohibits interracial marriages (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Thus, the two different translations give entirely different impressions. For one, the separation is because of religion; for the other, it is because of race.

The Bible is error-free. However, people’s understanding is flawed, and the biases of the translators have only added to this problem. Besides, God must receive a good deal of joy watching people argue and even kill each other about what His word means, or else He would have had it written and translated with much greater clarity.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Thomas Allen

Fundamental Christians attack evolution, Darwinism, as a false science. Then, with a few exceptions, these same fundamental Christians resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of the species (races) of man.

With rare exceptions, fundamental Christians are Darwinists, evolutionists. All have the various races descending from Adam and Eve. Since nearly all fundamental Christians believe that the Noachian Flood was global and killed all mankind except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, they believe that the species of man descended from Noah through his sons and their wives.

Consequently, like the Christian evolutionists, they ignore the biblical principle of according to its kind or after its kind, i.e., like begets like —at least so far as humans are concerned. Many believe in the fixity of every species except the human species. They reject Jeremiah’s teaching and believe that an Ethiopian can change his skin. Jeremiah declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

According to the typical fundamental Christian, all the species of man descended from Noah’s sons and their wives. Nearly all of them hold that Noah’s sons were of the same race as Noah and his wife. Most seem to agree that Noah, his wife, and his sons were Aryans (Whites); nevertheless, whatever their race is, it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

However, some fundamental Christians teach that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands. Many believe that Shem’s wife was an Aryan  (Homo albus) and Japheth’s wife was probably Aryan, although a few believe that she was a Turanian (Homo luridus). Most of this school contend that Ham’s wife was a Negro (Homo niger). Since the great sin that brought about the Noachian Flood was miscegenation (v. People of the Flood by Thomas Coley Allen, 2008), that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands is highly unlikely. However, if Noah’s daughters-in-law were of different races, then their races had to evolve sometime between Adam and Noah.

Most fundamental Christians believe that Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wives were of the same race. The typical fundamental Christian believes that the Aryan and probably Turanian came from Japheth. From Shem came the Hebrews, who are Aryans, and the true Arabs, who are Melanochroi (Homo brunus). The Negro came from Ham. Fundamental Christians are fuzzy about the origin of the Melanochroi — probably because nearly all of them fail to recognize this species. Usually, they lump the Melanochroi of Africa with the Negro. They lump the Melanochroi of the Middle East with either Shem, i.e. the Aryans, or the Negro of Africa. About the Melanochroi of India, nearly all of them are silent. As for the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii) and Indo-Australian (Homo australis) species, they usually lump them with the Negro.

Thus, fundamental Christians have a multitude of evolutionary occurrences. If Noah’s family are Negroes, then Ham’s family has bred true, if the Khoisans, Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi usually lumped with the Negro are ignored. Japheth’s descendants evolved into two species: the Aryan and the Turanian. Shem’s descendants also evolved into two species: the Aryan and Melanochroi.

However, if Noah’s family are Aryans, some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth have bred true; others have not. Ham’s descendants have not bred true; they have evolved into the Negro and probably the Khoisan and the Indo-Australian. Some of Japheth’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Turanians. Likewise, some of Shem’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Melanochroi. Why some of Japheth’s and Shem’s descendants remained Aryans and others evolved into other species is not explained.

If the fundamental Christians are correct about the origins of the species (races) of man, only a few generations are needed for one species to evolve into another species. If they are correct, why have no new species of man evolved in the last few centuries? Sufficient time has passed for new species to appear in the last thousand years, but they have not. Why have they not? Fundamental Christians do not explain. If the fundamental Christians are correct, new species (races) should be appearing frequently. (Racial crossing results in racial mongrels, hybrids, and not in new races.)

While fundamental Christians deplore evolution, they resort to it when it is needed to support their doctrine — although most would deny using evolutionary principles. Some may haggle over details, such as, they believe in microevolution, but reject macroevolution. (The difference between the two is the starting point and the time required for one species to change into another species. Microevolution usually starts at the family or genus level and requires only a few generations for one species to change into another species. Macroevolution starts with the first single-cell living entity and requires many generations for one species to change into another species. Both deny the immutability of a species, i.e., according to its kind or after its kind — like begets like. Consequently, they call Jeremiah a liar.) Thus, the fundamental Christian’s disagreement with the orthodox evolutionist is not one of principle, but the starting point and the time involved for a species to change to another species.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Cush and Ethiopia

Cush and Ethiopia

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted. The footnotes contain the King James Version of the scripture being discussed.]

    There is good evidence that “Cush” or Kûwsh, son of Ham, is not synonymous with the region south of Egypt, biblical African Ethiopia. In the Scriptures, it is seldom, if ever, used as a synonym for biblical African Ethiopia. This is especially true for Genesis 2:13, 10:6ff; Numbers 12:1; 2 Samuel 18:21; 2 Chronicles 14:8ff, 21:16; Psalm 87:4; Isaiah 11:11, 20:3, 43:3, 45:14; Ezekiel 28:10; and Habakkuk 3:7.
    Most, if not all, biblical dictionaries identify Cush with Ethiopia, a region south of Egypt. However, most mention the existence of an Arabian Cush. The biblical African Ethiopia stretched from Aswan in present-day Egypt through northern and eastern present-day Sudan into northern present-day Ethiopia. It was the region between the junction of the Blue and White Nile to the First Cataract, the location of present-day Aswan and biblical Syene.
    In the Septuagint and Vulgate, “Cush” is usually translated “Ethiopia.” In the King James Version, Kûwsh is translated “Cush” eight times and “Ethiopia” nineteen times. Kûwshîy (“Cushite”) is translated “Ethiopian” eight times and “Ethiopians” twelve times. Many other translation follow the King James Version. The Hebrew words should have been consistently and correctly translated “Cush” or “Cushite.” Such translation would have avoided the confusion of identifying Cush with modern-day Ethiopia, Nubia, or biblical African Ethiopia.
    Most often, Cush refers to a people or region in Arabia instead of the region in Africa south of Egypt. As noted above, a number of Scriptural passages support this conclusion. Some of them are reviewed below.
    First, Moses married a Cushite woman (Numbers 12:1) of Midian (Exodus 2:16,21; 3:1). Midian is in northwest Arabia and eastern Sinai. Zipporah is the only wife of Moses mentioned in the Pentateuch. Did Moses travel to the Upper Nile to Nubia or Abyssinia to find his wife or did he take a wife in eastern Sinai or northwest Arabia? The latter. (Some commentators claim that Zipporah is not the Cushite woman. Their argument is based on rejecting Midian as part of Cush. However, if Cush was Arabia, as most Scriptures referring to Cush imply, instead of Abyssinia or Nubia, then this claim loses its weight.) Cushites include Midianites and other Arabic people. In Habakkuk 3:7 Cushan is mentioned in parallel with Midian identifying two names for the same region. (In Hebrew “cushan” (kûwshân) is believe to be derived from “cush”(kûwsh).  Hence, “cushan” is another name for “cush.”) In Judges 1:16, Moses’ father-in-law is called a Kenite. The Midianites, Kenites, and Cushites referred to in these passages are all the same people.
    Second, in Ezekiel 29:10, God says that He will make Mizraim (or Egypt) a land of desolation from the tower of Syene (Seveneh) to the borders of Cush. Syene was Aswan near the Nile’s first cataract on the border of Egypt and Nubia (Ethiopia). If Cush is synonymous with Ethiopia, then the passage reads, “from Ethiopia to Ethiopia,” which is nonsensical. However, from Syene to Cush beyond the Isthmus of Suez gives the passage sense. Cush refers to Egypt’s eastern border, not its southern border. Hence, Cush refers to Arabia or a region of Arabia.
    Third, in Genesis 10:7-8, lists the descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtechah, Sheba, Dedan, and Nimrod. Nimrod is associated with Mesopotamia. The remainder are associated with the Arabian Peninsula. However, Seba appears to have crossed over to Africa and settled along the coast of present-day Ethiopia and Djibouti.
    Fourth, in Genesis 2:13, before the Noachian Flood, Cush was identified with Mesopotamia. This identification assumes that Eden was in or near Mesopotamia. However, because “Cush” is translated “Ethiopia,” some place Eden in present-day Ethiopia. Thus, the four rivers flowing from Eden are the White Nile, The Blue Nile, the Atbara, and the Tekezé (Takkaze). More likely, Eden was where the Pamir Plateau of Central Asia is now with the four rivers being the Indus, the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the Oxus (Amu Darya), and the Tarim (see Allen’s Adam to Abraham for a more detailed discussion). This would place the original Cush in Central Asia. In any event, it is not in Africa where the King James version places it. However, if the Noachian Flood was global, trying to locate Eden based on post-Flood geography is ridiculous. After the Flood washed away all land and covered much of the planet with sedimentary deposits, which in some place is more than a mile thick, the geography before the Flood bears no resemblance to the geography after it.
    Fifth, the description given in Isaiah 11:11 indicates that Cush is Arabia. This verse names countries to which the Jews were dispersed during the Exile. Pathros was part of Egypt (Ezekiel 29:4). Hamath was north of Phoenicia. Elam and Shinar bordered the Persian Gulf. Islands of the sea were the islands of Greece and the Mediterranean. Cush must have represented Arabia and not some country 1500 miles away. If Cush is Arabia, then the countries named circumscribe Judea. That Jews were dispersed to nearby Arabia, part of which was under the rule of Babylon, is highly probable and likely. That Jews were dispersed to a far away country beyond the southern border of Egypt and beyond Babylon’s rule is highly improbable and unlikely. Furthermore, if Cush here is not equivalent to Arabia, then this immense peninsula, which was very familiar — much more so than Ethiopia — to the Judeans, would be omitted from the list of countries around Judea. (The King James Version got this one right.) Moreover, the Jews were recalled from the regions in which the remnant remained. However, at that time, the Jews had never colonized Ethiopia and were never carried there in their captivity.
    Sixth, according to 2 Chronicles 14:13, the Cushites (or Ethiopians) fled to Gerar, which is located in southern Palestine in the foothills of Judean mountains in southern Philistia; it was between the Kingdom of Judea and the wilderness of Shur and Paran. Hence, it is the extreme northwest of Cush (Arabia) to which Zerah fled. Thus, the battle was in northwest Arabia. Zerah was probably a powerful chieftain coming out of Arabia instead of a Nubian from south of Egypt.
    Seventh, in 2 Chronicles 21:16, the Arabs are described as being near, living near, or located by the Cushites (or Ethiopians in most translations). In this verse, Cushites must be in Arabia instead of Africa. Arabs at this time were much nearer Arabia than Africa.
    Eighth, in Psalm 87:4, the Psalmist names Rahab (or Egypt), Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia (Cush). This verse describes the countries encompassing Zion or Judea: Rahab to the south and southwest, Philistia to the west, Tyre to the northwest and north, Babylon to the north and east, Cush to the southeast and south. Here Cush must refer to Arabia, not Africa, to complete the encompassing.
    Several verses are occasionally cited to prove that Ethiopia (Cush) was south of Egypt and, therefore, Ethiopians were Negroes. These verses include 2 Kings 19:9; 2 Chronicles 14:9-14; Isaiah 20:3-5, 43:3, 45:14; Jeremiah 13:23, 46:9; and Ezekiel 30:5, 38:2-6. A few of these are discussed below.
    First, Jeremiah 13:23 is used to prove that Ethiopians were Negroes; thus, Ethiopia would then be in Africa south of Egypt. This verse does not identify the race of the Ethiopians and, therefore, does not prove that Ethiopians were Negroes (they were Melanochroi regardless of their location in Nubia and Abyssinia or Arabia). However, this verse does imply the immutability of the races, species, of humans.
    Second, in 2 Kings 19:9, Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (Cush) was more likely an Arab than an African. The king of Assyria observed Tirhakah advancing toward Hezekiah. The Assyrian king’s ambassador advised Hezekiah that Tirhakah would not save Judea from the Assyrians. Was it more likely that the Assyrians learned of an African army before Hezekiah, whose kingdom was contiguous Africa? Or, was it more likely that the Assyrians would have notice an army coming out of Arabia before Hezekiah did? One point in favor of Tirhakah coming from Africa instead of Arabia is that African Ethiopians had recently gained control of Egypt.
    Third, excluding Magog, which is unidentifiable, although some believe it is Russia, the nations described in Ezekiel 38:2-6 are in or around Assyria if Cush is understood to mean Arabia instead of the region south of Egypt and Libya is not the region west of Egypt. The King James Version translates bow as Libya. Most other translations translates bow as “Put” (In Genesis 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 1:8, the King James Version translates bow as Phut, and elsewhere it translates it as “Libya” or “Libyans.”) Although the location of Put or Phut is disputed, most place it in Africa. It is most commonly identified with Libya. It is also identified as east Africa bordering the Red Sea, i.e., from Upper Egypt to Somaliland. Based on the assumption that Cush is the region south of Egypt, Put has been identified with Punt, present-day Somaliland. If Cush is in Arabia and Lud refers to the Lydians in northeast Egypt (see the discussion on Lud below), then Put would be to the east of Egypt. “According to Glaser the name [Put] first referred to E. Arabia, was then transferred to the S. Arabian incense coast, and was eventually applied to the African coast of Somaliland” (Davis p, 504).
    Fourth, Ezekiel 30:5 mentions Cush (Ethiopia, KJV) together with Put (Libya, KJV), Lud (Lydia, KJV), and Chub. Chub or Cub is probably Lub or Lubim. Like Lub, Cub is generally identified as Lybia. Likewise, Lud or Ludim is often identified as Libya. However, some identify Lud with the Lydians who came from Lydia in Asia Minor and settled in northeast Egypt. Others identify Lud with a Berber tribe, a tribe in Cyrenaica, or Ionian and Carian mercenaries. Another possibility is mercenaries from Lydia in Asia Minor. In any event, Lubim were mercenaries, who were famous as archers. Nevertheless, the connection of the countries mentioned in Ezekiel 30:5 implies a geographical proximity. However, the proximity may be to the east of Egypt as well as to the south of Egypt. Arabia is a better choice because the Cushites are known to have settle in Arabia. However, that the Cushites or any other Hamites settle south of Egypt is doubtful.
    When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, the Septuagint translation, the translators translated “Cush” as “Ethiopia.” It is this maltranslation that has led to confusion of the Arabs with Nubians and the Arabian Peninsula with the Upper Nile.
    In Greek “Ethiopian” means “scorched-face” or “burned-face.” Hence, “Ethiopian” is a dark-complexioned person, such as a suntanned Arab. It was applied to the inhabitants of Arabia and northwest India. Herodotus described Asiatic Ethiopians in the army of Xerxes, who were different from the African Ethiopians. Only later, after 525 B. C., did the Greeks become aware of the Nubians, who were Melanochroi, and true Negroes south of Egypt. Over time “Ethiopian” became reserved only for these people.
    In summary “Cush” refers to Arabia in its widest sense and Arabian tribes, who are mostly a dark-complexion, Melanochroi, in chapter ten of Genesis. With perhaps the exception of a few passages in the later books of the Bible where geographical precision is sacrificed for poetry, “Cush” means Arabia not Abyssinia or Nubia. Where it may refer to an African people, it refers to Nubians and true Ethiopians, neither of whom are Negroes, but who are Melanochroi. It never includes any of the Negro races.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Allen, Thomas Coley. Integration Is Genocide. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1997.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Fausset, A.R. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd edition. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960.

Winchell, Alexander. Preadamites or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam; Together with a Study of Their Condition, Antiquity, Racial Affinities, and Progressive Dispersion over the Earth. Fourth Edition. Chicago, Illinois: S.C. Griggs and Company, 1888.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Christians and Creationism

Christians and Creationism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The addendum was added in 2025.]

The discussion below shows that many Christians who claim to be creationists support Darwinism, that the breed-of-dog analogy fails to support the argument of all humans descending from Adam and Eve, and that the only living thing that Eve can be the mother of the Adamites, Aryans, or Whites, if Darwinism is false.

Are Christians Really Creationists?
Are Christians true creationists or are they Darwinists? Whether a Christian is a creationist or a Darwinist, i.e., an evolutionist, can be discovered by simply asking him if all the races (species) of men are descended from Adam and Eve. If his answer is yes, he is a Darwinist. If it is no, he is a creationist.
Today, most taxonomists are lumpers. That is, if two otherwise different animals can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they should be lumped together as the same species. Thus, the dog (Canis familiaris), the gray wolf (C. lupus), and the dingo (C. dingo) used to be considered different species. However, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, taxonomists have lumped them together as Canis lupus. The coyote and jackal have not yet become part of C. lupus. (However, a dog can also breed with a jackal [C. aureus] and a coyote [C. latrans] and produce fertile offspring. Likewise, a wolf can breed with a coyote and a jackal and produce fertile offspring.)
Some other species that can mate and produce fertile offspring are the gaur or Indian bison (Bos gaurus) and the gayal (Bos frontalis), the American bison (Bison bison) and the yak (Bos grunniens), the American bison (Bison bison) and the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus), the American bison (Bison bison) and the domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the domestic horse (Equus caballus) and the Przewalski's horse or Mongolian wild horse (Equus przewalskii), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and llama (Lama glama), the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the lion (Panthera leo) and the leopard (Panthera pardus), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). Several of these interbreeding species are of different genera. Most likely, the Clymene dolphin, formerly called the short-snouted spinner dolphin  (Stenella clymene), is a hybrid species of the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba).
Another possible example is the red wolf  (Canis rufus) and the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon). Some zoologists believe that the red wolf and eastern wolf are really hybrids of the gray wolf and the coyote. If the red wolf becomes a hybrid, it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. (A true creationist would argue that the reason the red wolf appears to be a hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote is that God created the red wolf using DNA similar to that which He used in creating the gray wolf and the coyote.)
Another example of two species mating and producing fertile offspring is the Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer) and the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The Cuban crocodile has become an extremely endangered species, partly because the American crocodile and the Cuban-American crocodile hybrid are breeding it out of existence. (We are seeing a similar scenario being set up to exterminate the White race. In the United States, the American Negro has been a chief weapon in this destruction. However, the American Negro is being destroyed by being used to destroy the White race. Nevertheless, the death of the American Negro is acceptable collateral damage to rid the universe of an evil far greater than Satan: the Aryan race.)
Some creationists admit that different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. According to them, such interbreeding is how new species or kinds, as they like to say, came into being. For example, Anas poecilorhyncha and A. platyrhynchos are two species of ducks that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although these two species do not normally come into contact with each other, when they do, they interbreed. Their offspring is so viable that it is recognized as an independent species, A. oustaleti.
Many Christians believe that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are angelic beings. These angelic beings interbred with human women (Adamites) and produced fertile beings, the Nephilim. Many non-Christians and New Agers also believe that angelic beings mated with humans. Since the Nephilim were alive centuries later at the time of Moses, two things are proven: The Noachian Flood was not global, and the Nephilim were fertile. Thus, angelic beings of the spiritual realm mated with human beings of the physical realm and produced fertile offspring. According to the lumper’s primary criterion for defining a species, angels and humans are of the same species.
This absurdity shows that the ability to produce offspring should not be the primary criterion for determining a species. Contrariwise, the inability to produce fertile offspring should be used to disqualify creatures from being classified as the same species, instead of the ability to produce fertile offspring being used to classify them as the same species.
Likewise, the same is true of DNA. (Do spiritual beings have DNA?) DNA should be used to exclude rather than to include. If two similar groups have similar DNA, it is because the Creator used similar DNA in making similar groups, i.e., species or kinds as many creationists prefer to use. Therefore, because Aryans, Turanians, Melanochroi, Negroes, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians have similar DNA and can produce fertile offsprings when they interbreed does not make them the same species. (Have Khoisans and Indo-Australians ever interbred and produced fertile offspring?)
One interesting aspect about using DNA to determine species is the water buffalo or domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). This species consists of two subspecies: the river buffalo with 50 chromosomes and the swamp buffalo with 48 chromosomes. These two subspecies can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with 49 chromosomes.
Like orthodox evolutionists, creationist Darwinists reject the notion of the fixity of species. Both orthodox evolutionists and creationist Darwinists believe in the mutability of species. Their primary disagreement is the starting point and time required for one species (or kind) to change to another species (or kind). Another major difference is that orthodox evolutionists believe that life began by some kind of spontaneous generation, while creationist Darwinists believe that life began by some kind of divine creative act.

Breeds of Dogs
Many creationist Darwinists point to the more than 300 breeds of dogs to support their claim that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Most contend that all the species of Canis (the gray wolf, including the domestic dog and dingo, the coyote, African golden wolf, Ethiopian wolf, Eurasian golden jackal, Asiatic wild dog, African wild dog, black back jackal, and side-striped jackal) descended from a common pair of parents. Some claim that all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyote descended from common ancestors; that is, all the species of the Canidae family have a common pair of initial parents. Thus, these so-called creationists resort to Darwinism to expand the origins of species. God merely created the initial parents from whom these species evolved (developed, as these creationist Darwinists like to say). If true, their assertion that all humans descended from Adam and Eve easily supports that the biological races of men are different species: They evolved (or developed) into different species from common parents.
As for the breed of dogs, they are artificial creations. With perhaps a few exceptions, they do not occur naturally. Breeders have developed them by breeding dogs with traits that they want. Breeders keep the offspring that have the desired traits and cull the rest. They keep breeding the offspring until the offspring breed true with the desired traits. Where is the evidence of such an authoritarian program in the development of the various human species, races, and breeds? If the dog breeder analogy is accurate or has merit, then God would have selected offspring from Adam and Eve and bred them to produce the desired racial traits and would have destroyed those who did not have the desired traits.
If Occam’s razor (“simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones”) is applied, the simplest solution is having God creating the parents of each race. That is, each biological human race is descended from a different pair of parents. Fewer assumptions are involved in this explanation of the species of men than the evolutionism offered by creation Darwinism. Moreover, it is more Biblical.
In the nineteenth century, before political correctness gained control of science, anthropologists and others could discuss the races of men and their hybrids with an honesty and frankness that cannot occur today. Some anthropologists concluded that some human hybrids lack fecundity to survive for more than a few generations, if that long. That is, if the hybrids did not breed with one of the parent stock, they would die out within a few generations. In On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo (edited by C. Carter Blake; London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, Paternoster Row,1864), Dr. Paul Broca summaries some of these studies. He comments (page 61):

Zoologists have, in each of the natural groups which constitute the genera, recognised several types which they denominate species.
The human group evidently constitutes one genus; if it consisted only of one species, it would form a single exception in creation. It is, therefore, but natural to presume, that this genus is, like all the others, composed of different species. In the greater number of genera, the various species differ much less from each other than certain human races. A naturalist, who, without touching the question of origin, purely and simply applies to the human genus the general principles of zootaxis, would be inclined to divide this genus into different species.

Eve: Mother of All Living
In Genesis 3:20, the Bible calls Eve the mother of all living. From this statement, most creationists infer that all species of men are descended from Adam and Eve. (According to the “two seed” theory, only some humans are descended from Adam and Eve; the remainder is descended from Satan and Eve.)
If the passage that Eve is the mother of all living is literally true, and it has to be literally true if all species of men descended from Eve, then evolution (or perhaps devolution) is proven, and Chapter 1 of Genesis is wrong. If Eve is the mother of all living, then all animals, plants, fungi, protozoa, bacteria, and archaea are descended from her. The passage does not limit “all living” to only humans: That is merely an unsupported inference. Thus, evolution is not from a primitive single-cell creature toward the complex human. It is the opposite, i.e., from the complex human to the most primitive single-cell creature, which is more correctly devolution. (Consequently, the theory held by many creationists that life on earth is degrading or devolving is supported.) To avoid this absurdity that all living things descended from Eve and the contradiction of Chapter 1 of Genesis, the most appropriate interpretation of this passage is that all Adamites, Aryans, or Whites are descended from Adam and Eve — and nothing more.

Addendum

The following are additional species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

1. A goat (Capra hircus) bred with a sheep (Ovis aries), an ibex (Capra ibex), or an aoudad (Ammotragus lervia) produces fertile offspring. 

2. A domestic sheep (O. aries) bred with an Asiatic mouflon (O. orientalis), mouflon (O. musimon), or big horn sheep (O. canadensis) produces fertile offspring.

3. A mouflon  (O. musimon) bred with a big horn sheep (O. canadensis) or a urial (O. vignei) produces fertile offspring.

4. Two species of mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. polionotus, can produce fertile offspring when mated.

5. Two other species of mice, P. leucopus and P. gossypinus, can also produce fertile offspring when crossed.

6. A llama (Lama glama) bred with an alpaca (L. pacos) produces fertile offspring.

7. Two species of barking deer, Muntiacus reevesi and M. muntjak, can produce fecund offspring.

8.  Two species of chinchillas, Chinchilla brevicaudata and C. laniger, produce fertile offspring when they interbreed. 

9. Guinea pigs, Cavia aperca and C. porcellus, produce fertile offspring.

10. Two species of chimpanzees, Pan satyrus and P. schweinfurthii, can interbreed and produce fecund offspring. 

11. Two species of leaf monkeys, Pithecus chrysomelas and P. cruciger, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

12. A slate-colored junco (Junco hyemalis) bred with white-winged junco (J. aikeni), Oregon junco (J. oregonus), and gray-headed junco (J. caniceps) produces fertile offspring.

13. A pig (Sus domesticus) can breed with a wild boar (S. scrofa) or banded pig (S. vittatus) and produce fertile offspring.

14. A domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus), red jungle fowl (G. gallus or G. bankiva), Ceylon jungle fowl (G. lafayette), gray jungle fowl (G. sonnerati), and Javan jungle fowl (G. varius) can all interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. 

Copyright © 2019, 2025, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.