A Biblical Exegesis

You'd be surprised how much fuss and speculation there is over Melchizedek.

Really? Why's that, Tangent?

On the three Biblical races: one of them is explicitly the Hebrews. The other two correspond roughly to Europe and Africa. To my knowledge, there are no Austronesians, East Asians or Native Americans in the Bible. It's a simple matter of geography.

Abraham was hardly the only member of his race, I'd've thought.

As for Melchizedek, the fact that he's apparently respected by Abraham, then disappears with little exposition, almost never mentioned again.

edited 13th Mar '10 8:19:21 AM by Tangent128

Clearly he's a Chekhov's Gun.

edited 13th Mar '10 8:40:33 AM by Tzetze

Abram is descended from Shem, and therefore a Hebrew, right?

So anyone who dislike Abram is an Anti-Shemite?

^^ I guess if all Shemites count as Hebrews, but the term is usually scoped to Israelites in my experience.

Native Americans, Indians and Aborigines are all Asians.

I thought it was

Shem=Asian

Ham=African

Japheth=European

edited 14th Mar '10 12:06:46 PM by S.exe

The Jewish people are asian now?

Well, the Middle East is technically a part of Asia by most definitions, even if nobody thinks of it that way.

I do.

And yeah, just took a Wiki Walk to verify this and it turns out that we're all right. Sort of.

Even if the races made sense, there are a lot of other problems. For example, how did the three of them get wherever they had to be (Europe, Africa, Asia) anyway? Plus, Shem has to populate about half of the world's landmass, thanks to how vaguely you've defined "Asian", including quite a few areas not connected by land.

Uhm, Natural Movement? The fact that there are people there in the first place proves that it happened.

The fact that there are people in Australia does not prove that they are descended from Shem. That's not how logic works. More specifically, you're assuming your conclusion.

edited 14th Mar '10 9:07:05 PM by Tzetze

The areas not connected by land have people. That strongly suggests that people managed to get there.

The sons presumably didn't move out there personally, it's just saying which way their tribes grew over time.

I still find it rather odd that Shem would populate so much more land than his brothers.

Also, that does not account for regional variations.

Shem' descendents moved across the world in the exact same way science predicted it.

(Bering Land Bridge for the Native Americans, Indonesia for the Australians)

Where did you think they came from? The dirt?

Well the entire world being descended from 3 men is impossible anyway so the issue is moor.

You're talking about impossibility when dealing with a religion? Bad move dude.

Barring a miracle, it's impossible.

@Tzetze: It's not like they tried to split things up evenly, or could have known there was a lot more land to the east.

@Myrmidon: I don't rule out miracles, but what's specifically impossible about three natural patrilineal ancestors?

The massive amount of inbreeding that would have to go on.

Depends in part on the diversity of the parents involved.

Shem' descendents moved across the world in the exact same way science predicted it.

...what the hell?

Where did you think they came from? The dirt?

Ocean, actually.

It's not like they tried to split things up evenly, or could have known there was a lot more land to the east.

I realize that, but there being so many more descendants of Shem seems odd. I mean, they'd all reproduce at the same rate, right?

Depends in part on the diversity of the parents involved.

I don't think that it does, actually. I've heard that the lower limit on the number of people needed to prevent bad genetic drift is 150 or so. With just three ancestors they would homogenize quickly.

Of course this doesn't explain why they're so diverse in the first place. Miracle, I'm guessing? Or why they moved to such extremely disparate locations. And then there's Adam and Eve and incest...

I meant that Shem's family would migrate in the same way we know humans did. We know for a fact the humans originated in one place,which menas we already know the human migration pattterns.

The larger number of Asians is a cross between having a lot more land and just straight up luck.

And I'm no anthropologist but I know for sure that Oceanic people's didn't rise out of the sea like Athena.

You know, if the whole of the human race is inbred, that would explain a lot

Here's what I was talking about.◊

edited 15th Mar '10 3:43:00 PM by S.exe