| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology Forum » shem, japeth,cush,ham........larry ,moe................
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| cornytheclown |
 Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Do shem,japeth,ham and all the other biblical references have any
significance in modern anthropology ??? I see these names thrown about
on forums all the time in relation to who is who in the world.
I dont see how anyone could rely on the bible to prove or disprove
science...and therefore I feel that when people try and say all blacks
trace back to ham, chinese to shem etc......its all BS isnt it ??? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mujin |
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 28 Dec 2003 16:38:35 -0800, cornytheclown@hotmail.com
(cornytheclown) wrote:
Quote: Do shem,japeth,ham and all the other biblical references have any
significance in modern anthropology ???
Only in the sense that they are names of characters that appear in a
specific mythology.
Quote: I see these names thrown about
on forums all the time in relation to who is who in the world.
I dont see how anyone could rely on the bible to prove or disprove
science...and therefore I feel that when people try and say all blacks
trace back to ham, chinese to shem etc......its all BS isnt it ???
Yes, it is.
--
K
Sorrow for a husband is like a pain in the elbow, sharp and short.
English Proverb |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tedd Jacobs |
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"cornytheclown" wrote...
Quote: Do shem,japeth,ham and all the other biblical references have any
significance in modern anthropology ??? I see these names thrown about
on forums all the time in relation to who is who in the world.
I dont see how anyone could rely on the bible to prove or disprove
science...and therefore I feel that when people try and say all blacks
trace back to ham, chinese to shem etc......its all BS isnt it ???
depends on who's asking and whom you ask. many would take this as a poor
rational for a trolling frenzy, others would rally to the banner of their
respective sides chanting "religion" or "science" and boiling over at "creation"
vs. "evolution". personally, if one requires a scientific basis for their faith,
they have no faith and are therefor asking the wrong questions of the wrong
people. so in one sense i agree with you,... its all BS. the bible is neither a
source for science nor a confirmation of hypotheses, it is a testament to faith. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| cornytheclown |
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message news:<n6PHb.140$pu5.79125@news.uswest.net>...
Quote: "cornytheclown" wrote...
Do shem,japeth,ham and all the other biblical references have any
significance in modern anthropology ??? I see these names thrown about
on forums all the time in relation to who is who in the world.
I dont see how anyone could rely on the bible to prove or disprove
science...and therefore I feel that when people try and say all blacks
trace back to ham, chinese to shem etc......its all BS isnt it ???
depends on who's asking and whom you ask. many would take this as a poor
rational for a trolling frenzy, others would rally to the banner of their
respective sides chanting "religion" or "science" and boiling over at "creation"
vs. "evolution". personally, if one requires a scientific basis for their faith,
they have no faith and are therefor asking the wrong questions of the wrong
people. so in one sense i agree with you,... its all BS. the bible is neither a
source for science nor a confirmation of hypotheses, it is a testament to faith.
No, I was not trolling........I just visit some non usenet forums and
some of the so called "knowledgeable" on these, some claiming to be
anthropology "students" are always tossing about bible names.....
I didnt think about starting a bible thumper vs argument...but I see
where that could occur......sorry
thanks for the replies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| MIB529 |
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well, Semitic and Hamitic are linguistic families. Other than that, no.
cornytheclown@hotmail.com (cornytheclown) wrote in message news:<8e8f59d4.0312281638.52fdf1b9@posting.google.com>...
Quote: Do shem,japeth,ham and all the other biblical references have any
significance in modern anthropology ??? I see these names thrown about
on forums all the time in relation to who is who in the world.
I dont see how anyone could rely on the bible to prove or disprove
science...and therefore I feel that when people try and say all blacks
trace back to ham, chinese to shem etc......its all BS isnt it ??? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 am
|
|