The Table of Nations is False?any Geneticists here?

[willymonfrete]

in the Table of Nations we have three sons of Noach,Cham,Yafet and Shem,Shem is the alleged ancestor of the Semitic peoples and I would assume J lineages.Ham is the Alleged descendant of the E lineages,but how is this possible?

according to population Genetics all lineages arose from Africa,namely the L lineages maternally and the Y-DNA lineages arose from Haplogroup A another lineage still present in africans.was noah a african?and why do people still have his Genetic lineage?

also,europeans are a mix of natufian levantine farmers,a amerindian like population called Ancient north eurasians and Indo-europeans who are supposed to be the Descendants of Japeth.Natufians are E1b1b1 and descend directely from eastafrica.they mixed with cromagnon women and created a hybrid race wich introduced farming and invaded europe,then a place of hunter gather Ancient northeurasians wich they mixed with and killed off,its only later that indo european pastoralists took over these europeans and bred with them,pelasgians(pre indo european greek population like myceneans) and sardinians are the most Levantine Farmer in the world.

another thing the bible confuses me about is the lineage of canaanites.Canaanites seem to have '‘Semitic’'lineages like J haplogroup,but in the bible they are Hamites and should have a african lineage like E1b1b1 .

Where did Native americans come from?all native americans are Q lineage,wich is the brother subclade of R lineage the signature lineage of indo europeans,both downwind from haplogroup P.so Native americans Should be Japethic,maybe Yafet was P and his two unnamed Children were R or Q?the problem is P is a clearly australoid lineage found commonly among papuans.this makes sence from a secular model,where africans come first then they migrate to eurasia and become australoids and australoids morph into other races.

where did Eastasians come from?their subclades are directely related to australoids.there is no Genetic difference between australoids and eastasians,since aetas,negritos,jarawa type people according to secular anthropology only morphed into eastasians phenotypically 10,000 yrs ago(Remember that eastasia was australoid and still has australoid minorities).but australoids are supposed to be Hamites!their genetic data suggest they downwind directely from present day african lineages.this is the problem,the data suggests we all descend from africans.

there is a crackpot theory called the Out of America theory by German Dziebel anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/ where we allegedly descend from america,but the Genetic data doesn’t seem to support anything other than african origin.

I’m going to be Honest,I believe in the bible because of mostly anecdotal evidence of people meeting Jesus,miracles of saints,being saved by Jesus from Hell,seeing Christ in visions,but I’ve come to regard the book of Genesis as mostly allegory or poetry with the exception of Adam and Eve,wich is Dogma(but even that I only believe with forced assent,since Genetic data suggest we come from africans and never went below 500 people).

I Believe Enoch ,cain and abel were real of course because the Apostles mention Enoch and noah as real people I just don’t know how.same for Noah and his sons,maybe they were just spiritual ancestors of these nations?

it seems 2200 BCE all these nations that allegedly descend from Noah already existed and had thriving civilizations.

How Can I take the book of Genesis at face value and not Poetize everything except the parts that are Dogma to Believe?

I have never gotten any reply by a educated Christian and I’ve Tried to discuss this.most people don’t know much about anthropology.

A last issue I have is Denisovan DNA in australoids and Neanderthal DNA in all eurasians(asians,europeans,middle easterners,native american)if neanderthals were just pre-noahic men why do africans have no or lesser levels of neanderthal ancestry?any neanderthal ancestry came in the last 1000 yrs due to back migration of middle eastern traders and migrants.

were neanderthals even human?did they have souls?

 

[Xystus]

How Can I take the book of Genesis at face value and not Poetize everything except the parts that are Dogma to Believe?

Genesis is not a science text book.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

With a lot of new discoveries in the recent last few years. archiologist are no longer certain that mankind rose out of Africa. I know. I can’t spell big words! Peace.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

How Can I take the book of Genesis at face value and not Poetize everything except the parts that are Dogma to Believe?

I agree with the other two responders: the Bible is not a history book or an anthropology book. The Catholic Church does not forbid you from taking it literally, but I think common sense does.

If you want to see the official position of the Church, read Dei Verbum, one of the Vatican II reports: “…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

This is also paraphrased in the catechism: “To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.”

Note the ends of both of those statements: What is to be believed is the message “for the sake of salvation.” Not details of history. That’s just a story. It doesn’t matter.

Other than basic doctrine, there is no “official” Catholic interpretation of the Bible. The Church will occasionally give a negative view–“You shouldn’t believe this or that interpretation,” but a variety of Bibles with different interpretations are given the imprimatur and nihil obstat.

So you have to ask yourself what is it in whatever verse or chapter you’re reading is “for the sake of salvation.” Almost always there is a very simple message: God is good. Obey God. Or something along those lines. Not the details. They don’t matter!

But of course the Bible isn’t pure fantasy either, so yes, of course there are historical things in both the Old and New Testaments. But you can make a long, long list of what historical facts the Bible gets wrong, or facts that contradict the same facts found elsewhere in the Bible. Just take a look at the differences in the story of the Resurrection! Atheists leap on these things and say “See! The Bible is nonsense!” But of course these historical “facts” that are wrong or contradictory are not “for the sake of salvation.” Does it affect salvation if king so-and-so appears in different historical eras? Does who arrived first at Jesus’s tomb matter to salvation? Of course not. It doesn’t matter. So a true Catholic response to those sorts of things is “So what?” (Garry Wills actually wrote that in one of his books.)

I also read a lot of anthropology and am fascinated by early pre-history. Neanderthals and Denisovans developed after leaving Africa, so of course the Africans who remained in Africa don’t have their DNA. In the same way, these mutations in DNA that enable us to trace haplogroups outside of Africa evolved after modern man left Africa.

The question of when souls were given to man is obviously a question science can’t answer. It’s a religious question. We don’t know, and have no way of knowing. And frankly, why do we care? The Church teaches that “true” man began with Adam, a single man. That doesn’t contradict science, although it may contradict some theories. So there is no conflict.

But I think you are on a fool’s errand if you’re taking a bunch of names of Noah’s children and trying to track them down using scientific information! You’re trying to merge two totally different planes: science and religion. It’s futile. They’re not talking about the same things–one is explaining how things work, the other is explaining why.

 

[edwest2]

Genesis is not a science text book.

But it is obviously regarded as one. Hence the fairly similar questions posted here on a regular basis.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree with the other two responders: the Bible is not a history book or an anthropology book. The Catholic Church does not forbid you from taking it literally, but I think common sense does.

If you want to see the official position of the Church, read Dei Verbum, one of the Vatican II reports: “…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

This is also paraphrased in the catechism: “To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.”

Note the ends of both of those statements: What is to be believed is the message “for the sake of salvation.” Not details of history. That’s just a story. It doesn’t matter.

Other than basic doctrine, there is no “official” Catholic interpretation of the Bible. The Church will occasionally give a negative view–“You shouldn’t believe this or that interpretation,” but a variety of Bibles with different interpretations are given the imprimatur and nihil obstat.

So you have to ask yourself what is it in whatever verse or chapter you’re reading is “for the sake of salvation.” Almost always there is a very simple message: God is good. Obey God. Or something along those lines. Not the details. They don’t matter!

But of course the Bible isn’t pure fantasy either, so yes, of course there are historical things in both the Old and New Testaments. But you can make a long, long list of what historical facts the Bible gets wrong, or facts that contradict the same facts found elsewhere in the Bible. Just take a look at the differences in the story of the Resurrection! Atheists leap on these things and say “See! The Bible is nonsense!” But of course these historical “facts” that are wrong or contradictory are not “for the sake of salvation.” Does it affect salvation if king so-and-so appears in different historical eras? Does who arrived first at Jesus’s tomb matter to salvation? Of course not. It doesn’t matter. So a true Catholic response to those sorts of things is “So what?” (Garry Wills actually wrote that in one of his books.)

I also read a lot of anthropology and am fascinated by early pre-history. Neanderthals and Denisovans developed after leaving Africa, so of course the Africans who remained in Africa don’t have their DNA. In the same way, these mutations in DNA that enable us to trace haplogroups outside of Africa evolved after modern man left Africa.

The question of when souls were given to man is obviously a question science can’t answer. It’s a religious question. We don’t know, and have no way of knowing. And frankly, why do we care? The Church teaches that “true” man began with Adam, a single man. That doesn’t contradict science, although it may contradict some theories. So there is no conflict.

But I think you are on a fool’s errand if you’re taking a bunch of names of Noah’s children and trying to track them down using scientific information! You’re trying to merge two totally different planes: science and religion. It’s futile. They’re not talking about the same things–one is explaining how things work, the other is explaining why.

'The Church does teach that God, not natural processes, actually did things only God can do. Some will say science and the Bible are compatible. Obviously, some, not referring to anyone in particular, do not think so. The soul is a critical part of who we are. We all have one and Original Sin as well. But I’ve strayed off topic and will end here.

Ed

 

[Erikaspirit16]

'The Church does teach that God, not natural processes, actually did things only God can do. Some will say science and the Bible are compatible. Obviously, some, not referring to anyone in particular, do not think so. The soul is a critical part of who we are. We all have one and Original Sin as well. But I’ve strayed off topic and will end here.

Ed

Not sure why you’re posting that in reference to my post. I don’t see anything in your post I would disagree with:

God, not natural processes actually did things only God can do–for example, the creation of the universe.

Science and the Bible are compatible–yes, because one explains how things happened and one explains why they happened. Two separate questions, two separate answers.

Soul a part of who we are–Agree. But “soul” is a religious belief, not a scientific fact or theory.

One original sin: Agree. No incompatibility with theory of evolution, although some individual scientists have theories incompatible with that. But not the theory of evolution as a whole.

 

[Della]

The author of Genesis wasn’t interested in genetics–obviously since science, in the modern sense of the word, didn’t exist.

So, what was the purpose of telling us the story of Noah and his sons, the founders of nations? Who were they? Why are they important. And what lineages aren’t mentioned?

The Hebrews were a tribal people. They viewed their ancestors as their history, not history that included their ancestors. If they named people it was because they played an important part in their genealogies and thus their history. They didn’t bother to name people who had little to no significant role in their history.

In the genealogies of Jesus, in both Matthew and Luke’s Gospels, people are included and people are left out, and in both for the same reasons. Matthew’s Gospel was meant for his fellow Jews, while Luke’s for the Gentiles. Hence, different lists to address the interest and needs of two different peoples. Both lists have the same end, however, to show Jesus’ connection to the lineage of David, from whose house the Messiah would come.

Scientific evidence isn’t the right approach to interpreting Scripture. Sure, science and Scripture often line up and affirm one another, but neither science nor Scriptures are back-ups for one another since they deal very different criteria, exist for very different reasons, and have very different means of/ends for telling us something about creation and man’s place in it. Science merely tells us about the properties of the material world, while Scripture deals with the whole of creation, material and spiritual with the emphasis on the spiritual–man’s relationship with God.

So, efforts to try to line up genealogies to known genetics is a waste of time. Trying to prove anything by doing so can be worse than a waste of time and effort–it can damage, unnecessarily so, the faith of those who can’t understand the different criteria each uses to tell us things about creation, our place in it–especially true regarding who God is and what he wants–the latter being entirely outside the purview of material science.