I'm a descendant of Japheth. You?
Which of Noah's sons are you descended from?
Gabriel Walker
Other urls found in this thread:
bitchute.com
twitter.com
Christopher Jenkins
Sheeeeeeit I'm from Ham.
Nolan Reyes
Japeth as well here brother. Both Name wise (he's my father in the Bible) and descendant wise based on that there map.
Brandon Clark
Pretty sure East Asians are also descendants of Ham, while the Indo-Caucasoids are descendants of Japheth.
Tyler Parker
Indo-Europeans (basically the Aryan race) are from Japheth. Semitic people like Arabs and Assyrians and the Israelite's were from Shem. Canaanites and black people are of Ham. As for Asian people, I can't find much on that. I've seen Japheth, Shem, and Ham suggested for them. What's the most likely Zig Forums?
Adrian Taylor
They are not. Negroids and Mongoloids (Asians) existed way prior to Adam. It is an biological impossibility to produce a completely racially different man, while Noah was perfect in his generations (bloodline). Nowhere in the Bible is it even remotely implicated that Shem, Ham and Japheth were racially distinct.
Just watch vid related and your questions will be answered: bitchute.com
Logan Brooks
Where in the Bible does it say this?
Noah Nguyen
It is implicated that Adam is not the first man, and given archealogical findings and research the white man is the youngest race of all, being approximately 10 000 to 6 000 years old. This is why it is said, rightly so, that Negroids are the first men, because they are. Nowhere is it stated in the first chapters of Genesis that Adam and Eve were the first male and female ever alive. They did not procreate through hyper-incest and created for unexplicable reasons different reasons. The men created on day six in the creation were given completely different orders than Adam, who was created after Sabbath. You can take it as you like, but if you take the glasses of modern church narrative off your eyes you will see that there is no fallacious conclusion.
If you want further proof just watch vid related because guy in vid explains infinitely better than I do.
Andrew Moore
...
Hudson Rivera
Mutations and adaptation aren't magic.
It's how negritos ended up looking like west africans, and how asians can look like everything from pale japanese, to native americans, to brown manlets.
It's how we got blues eyes, for crying out loud.
Landon Young
Begone, heretic
Nicholas Walker
It's not macro-evolution.
Angel Collins
Noah Ward
I don't know what to tell you, man. Believe in your pagan version of Christianity while everyone with a reasonable mind laughs and mocks creationists. It is not detrimental in what version you believe in, but in this day and age, when wanting to convert people to Christianity or at least teach them about the one true God, it is better to get your facts straight.
Luke Rodriguez
I think it's likely we all have at least one ancestor from each son, everyone is at least a 50th cousin of everyone else right?
Nathan Hernandez
No one believed this shit.
The first mention of something like this in Christendom was among a really weird sect known as the Familists, in the 1500's.
There is no "modern church narrative", because we can't find any adepts of pre-adamitism among the Church Fathers.
Jacob Butler
None because they didn't exist. Modern readings like that are exactly that, modern
Cooper Moore
hey buddy, I think you got the wrong Bible
Kayden Price
Still doesn't make the Bible invalid. Read Genesis 1 and 2 at least 100 times without any preconceived "Christian" messages, maybe you will understand, some day.
Not saying that Negroids and Mongoloids are the chosen ones, only saying that they existed prior to Adam and the white race.
Aaron King
Dude, if you hold an absolute minority position in 2000 years of christian theology, that was unknown for the first 15 centuries, it's far more likely your theology is wrong, than everyone else being a heretic.
And you definetly can't invoke "muh modernist politically theology" if it's a recent-ish invention.
Jose Stewart
I think you are confused (or trying to sow discord as the agent of iniquity, or a troll). The man on the sixth day in Genesis 1, and the man after that which until then was specified as Adam who are formed from the ground in Genesis 2 are the same person. The word used for "And God said, Let us make man in our image" in Genesis 1:26 is adam in Hebrew. And after that in 1:27 which says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." mean the spirit which was given life and made eternal soul by Genesis 2:7, when Adam was shaped out of the ground and dust.
Jackson Garcia
This is the shittiest thread I've ever seen on any board
Nolan Richardson
Gap Theory Fag is always vigilant, waiting for threads to ruin.
Camden Hughes
Lebanese, probably a mix of Japheth and Shem. Not a full-blooded Middle Eastern by arab standards, but clearly not European either.
Gabriel Nguyen
Everyone in this thread is descended from all of them. Going back that many generations, you're guaranteed to have many ancestors, either or both matrilineally and patrilineally, descended from each of those individuals.
Joshua Phillips
/Thread.
Anthony Flores
I'm catholic and believe in young Earth (watch kent Hovind honestly; put biases aside and watch)
I'm Ecuadorian, so come from the Conquistadors and the pagan Incas.
Brayden Rogers
this
Tyler Rogers
"'Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.' These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hardpressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Importantly, the term microevolution will be seen by many as just a ‘little bit’ of the process that they think turned bacteria to people. In other words, it implies that simply given enough time (millions of years), such ‘micro’ changes will accumulate to amount to ‘macro’ changes. But this is not so…
Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution." - Creation Ministries International's Arguments Creations Should Not Use Article
"'Macroevolution' is a favourite word of creationists. In truth, it's simply what you get when microevolution goes on for very a long time." - Richard Dawkins on his Twitter account, Nov. 25, 2015
James Bailey
Wew.
Jayden Myers
Information increase in yeast is why we have beer.
Also, copy-number variation is literally this.
Nolan Rogers
These pics show little to no familiarity with the ancient world and subsequent developments and also seem polluted by Christian Identity we wuzism
Brayden Baker
This. The only non literal explanation I accept is from Saint Augustine or around that time. And I'm a biologist. Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens (doesn't matter how they came into being I remember if I'm not wrong that Augustine said that they came from dust or something is allegorical) and everyone who says otherwise (unless I said something contrary to the Faith without realising it) should be excommunicated from the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Ian Jenkins
What if Adam and Eve were tiggers?
Robert Anderson
*tiggers
Benjamin Gomez
Yeah, my family is Turkish, so I'm gonna go ahead and say none of them.
Isaac Rodriguez
It's more than that, it's Christian Identity pre-adamite theory. It's actually a form of judaizing that concludes whites are jews/israel and therefore should follow the Old Testament and Gospels, and rejects the writings of Paul. It openly contradicts the book of Romans, Hebrews and others. They also cannot explain the book of Acts. But of course they wouldn't start by telling you that.
Leo Gray
none, im not a jew
Juan Sanders
/\/IGGERS
Daniel Davis
Japeth or Shem, perhaps even a mix of their descendants.
Colton Myers
I'm not a jew, so none.
Angel Morgan
lel
Oliver Morris
East Asians are Semites.
so don't be antisemitic to me
Jonathan Perez
What about hispanic people?
I have ancestors that are European Spanish and indigenous Mexican (Purepecha, specifically).
Cameron Ward
Kind of all three, really. The Spanish were mostly of Tarshishan descent ad had some admixture with Shem and Hams descendants, and Mesoamericans are largely Japhethite (from prehistoric Asians over the Bering land bridge) and possibly Ham guessing from shared genes.
Anthony Reed
East Asian here, it's quite evident that East Asians are descendants of Ham (who was also the father of the African people). I've heard arguments that East Asians are "semetic" but I find the arguments to be borderline racist against black people. Pic somewhat related showing Africans and East Asians do look somewhat alike (at least moreso than Indo-Caucasoids and the Semetic race). God made each race unique and ultimately He is our Creator.