Who invented the concept of race?

[@diannamarie464]

That's a great question! As far as I know, according to Scripture, there is only ONE race when it comes to humans. Just as there are a variety of dogs, cats, birds, etc., there are a variety of humans.

[@jaleenmorris9221]

Yes!!🙏🏾

[@disguisedcentennial835]

The Bible has clearly defined races.

[@dandehner1409]

@@disguisedcentennial835 One race - human. Many ethnic/cultural groups. We are ALL descendants of Adam/Eve through Noah's family.

[@estabon2u]

@@disguisedcentennial835 No the Bible does not.

[@Mboogie69]

Answers in Genesis has a great video series and book “Traced” diving into genetics and world history on how related we all really are.

[@BasementBerean]

The words "birth," "descent," "nation," "origin," "race," are used interchangeably across mainstream Bible translations to describe the Syrophoenician woman in Mark. The Greek word behind that also can mean "family," "stock," "tribe," and "kin," and perhaps more. People have likely been classifying people since there were people. These words fill a purpose in language, although only "saved" and "condemned" matter in the end.

[@josepha27616]

If the people in biblical times defined the term race differently than we do now, what they talked about in this video is still is valid, which I think is the essence of what they were discussing. The term 'race' as we understand it wasn't invented until Darwin is what I believe they are communicating.

[@mebsteve47]

People have always hated each other for different reasons and discriminated. Because you are a man, a woman, an adult, in a leadership position, because you don’t have an education like me, because you are not a Jew like me, because you are not a Greek like me, a Persian like me, an Egyptian like me, from a tribe like me, because you believe differently than me, because you’re wealthy, because you’re poor, because you’re strong, because you’re weak, because you don’t dress like me, because you’re different than me, because you are beautiful, because you’re ugly. Darwin hated blacks for some reason and gave others a scientific reason to believe as he did. He made up a lie to justify his hate and people use it to this day.

[@Yeshua_Follower67]

I’ve believed that “evolution” has been confused with adaptation from the beginning. ❤️. Thank you for sharing this video.

[@nicholasnelson6876]

And your belief is wrong... Lol

[@isaiahmumaw]

@@nicholasnelson6876 adaptation is a real thing, species do evolve over time but not in such drastic ways that new species arise. Some people refer to the former as micro-evolution and the latter as macro-evolution. We can observe micro-evolution, and in fact humans have harnessed this process to create better crops and more desirable farm animals, among other things. Macro-evolution does not occur under a biblical worldview, as it requires all species to have arisen from a common ancestor. It cannot be observed.

[@nicholasnelson6876]

@@isaiahmumaw false. New species develope all the time. Unless you have a background in evolutionary biology specifically there's no reason to assume you even understand the terminology required to talk about why you're completely wrong.

[@nicholasnelson6876]

@@isaiahmumaw "Under a biblical worldview". Also false. The bible is neutral on matters of biology.

[@dabbler1166]

Its kinda fun, when you are talking with someone who says we are all "evolving". I like to ask: "into What?" They have no answer.

[@disguisedcentennial835]

I’m a devout Christian. Race denying is very silly. What he just described is how all multiple species with relation to each other have come about (a prime example is the Galapagos islands). The fact we have different bone structures (you can tell the race of a person based on their skull) and the fact that medicine works differently depending on your race shows that race is not “skin deep” or “man-made.” Also, this idea did not start with Darwin. At the very least, it went as far back as Linnaeus (the father of taxonomy) in the 1700s, but I would argue it would go as far back as the Bible. What were the Amorites? The Edomites? The Egyptians? The Nubians? The Hebrews? What about the Nephilim? Even if you make the silly distinction between ethnicity and race (I think ethnicity is just a subset of race), that still wouldn’t explain away the Nephilim, Nubians, or Semites. The Nephilim, and later Rephaim (like Goliath), were borderless, instead defined by their common blood that greatly distinguished them from others. There was no kingdom of Nephil. This also applies to the Nubians and Semites, which were each comprised of many different peoples and kingdoms. To argue that different phenotypes (physical characteristics) don’t prove anything shows a lack of understanding of biology. Every phenotype has a corresponding genotype, which is a gene sequence, which is not skin deep.

[@mchristr]

We can't declare anything true or silly without first defining what that thing is. The modern concept of race is simply that differing physical characteristics constitute a fundamentally different type of human being. A biblical worldview would militate against such an idea while acknowledging that secondary distinctions obviously exist.

[@Samy-sx6kn]

The title of Darwin’s book according to Wikipedia „On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life“

[@pierreferguson1300]

Zechariah 9:6 “A mixed race shall settle in Ashdod, And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.“

[@Crym123]

I once listened to a sermon which stated we should avoid being too involved in cultural wars because, like Darwinism, it will resolve itself over time. I remember thinking then how much harm had been done because the church half absorbed Darwinism for this very reason.

[@Window4503]

Crazy, isn’t it? Despite the fact that the Bible would have insulated Christians from this nonsense, what ended up happening was that people read the Bible through the lens of Darwinism and used it to justify various atrocities. Just like today, if believers had simply stuck to the Word without infecting it with worldly philosophies, there wouldn’t be such a cultural barrier to Christianity (e.g. “The Bible justifies slavery,” etc.).

[@renegadeoftruth2891]

If the culture war is anti Christian, the church has no choice but to be counter cultural if she wants to truly survive and thrive as the true Bride of Christ.

[@its.okay.to.be.christian]

So in order to attempt to dismantle the concept of race, he promotes the idea of evolution. Observing the world around us and understanding that different people are different, and using the word race to describe those differences is not hateful.

[@nathanielalderson9111]

Adaption is not evolution and never has been. Darwinism is "origin"and it's the one that is pushed as evolution (nothing to cells to multi-complex life). It's also chemically impossible and is a terribly stupid theory specifically introduced to take away from the Creator that intentionally made us. Time and again WE messed up HIS plans then blame our faults on Him.

[@Window4503]

God built adaptability into his creation. Most creationists accept that microevolution is observable and not in opposition to God’s Word. That’s what Felder is suggesting. Darwinism, which is unbiblical, promotes MACROevolution, the idea that whole kinds of creatures came from one common ancestor rather than being made according to their kinds and having some genetic variation as Scripture describes. While the term “evolution” is a dirty word for Christian culture, there’s nothing wrong or unbiblical about the concept so long as it acknowledges God made every living thing according to its kind and that it cannot cross over (so no primates to humans or fish to lizards). Variation according to the surrounding environment is the basics of how genes work.

[@Alan112573]

And let's not forget that Darwin was partly motivated in his work by his hatred of slavery, and the theories of polygenesis that contributed to ACTUAL racism. As a Christian, I'm a bit embarrassed by the slander Darwin gets from other Christians.

[@nathanielalderson9111]

@@Alan112573 You shouldn't be embarrassed. It was another time and another life. Darwin was wrong, and is opposed to God. Whose side are you on?

[@Alan112573]

@@nathanielalderson9111 I'm not on anyone's "side". I'm just pointing out that we Christians (I'm a conservative Christian who accepts common ancestry) are sometimes guilty of slander when it comes to Darwin. For a much more balanced and contemporary Christian view of Darwin, find BB warfield's essay after Darwin's death.

[@TheSaintFrenzy]

Standing on the authority of the word of God, from Genesis onward! I love it. Let's teach our children the same.

[@West3720]

There's a difference between recognizing physical distinctions between humans (the concept of race) and deciding on how you those people should be treated based on those distinctions (racism).

[@ConservativeMirror]

I haven't read Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," but everything I can find about it says that human evolution isn't covered in this text, rather he discusses that in his later book, "The Descent of Man." So, clearly, the word "races" in the title isn't referring to human races. Also, the U.S. slave trade occurred prior to "On the Origin of Species" releasing in 1859, so clearly humans saw each other differently prior to the popularization of evolution.

[@hwd7]

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was a leading evolutionist and Marxist, as well as a staunch anti-racist. Yet he admitted: "...Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths..."

[@nicholasnelson6876]

@Dakota Bledsoe Nowhere is slavery justified in any of his literary work...

[@estabon2u]

@@nicholasnelson6876 Darwin did justify slavery, maybe not formally in his work, but he was very much in favor of it.

[@nicholasnelson6876]

@@estabon2u citation needed. Lol

[@estabon2u]

@@nicholasnelson6876 Citation??? Uh, his own words concerning different so-called "races" .

[@xaindsleena8090]

The Bible's mosaic laws treated Hebrews indentured servants and non-Hebrew slaves quite differently. If we had laws that treated people of different ethnicities differently, people would call that racist

[@estabon2u]

You clearly have not read the Bible

[@xaindsleena8090]

@@estabon2u yes I have, have you? What did I say that you disagreed with ?

[@estabon2u]

@@xaindsleena8090 You do realize that We/America did in fact have laws that treated certain ethnicities differently?

[@emmanuelyohannayakubu9457]

Thanks for this enlightenment, I know that Darwinism is filled up with some spurious fables .. The Bible is always Right.

[@ML-yc3tl]

This is just plainly, demonstrably wrong. The concept of race doesn't come from the Bible, true, but it is significantly older than Darwinism. I mean, Immanuel Kant quite famously lectured on "The four races", which remains a pretty influential view of things, and he died before Darwin was even born. And, aside from racism in its modern form, Aristotle wrote about something similar to races but with different racial boundaries.

[@robertdavis3036]

Answer: SATAN.

[@hwd71]

According to Dr Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship had a sermon on Socialism, and if I remember correctly, it was Karl Marx that coined the term or at least popularised the idea of "race" as it wasn't in Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

[@sassafras8677]

I have that dictionary, “race” is in it

[@hwd71]

@@sassafras8677 Thanks for the correction, I will have to relisten to that sermon again, maybe he meant racism, racist?

[@robertdouglas8895]

Appearances are different, but they are not real. "Judge not by appearance but judge by righteous judgment." What is real is that we are all created in the likeness of our Creator. When we think we are flesh, then you get some ideas from that. When you know we are spirit, then we acknowledge everyone has the likeness of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our identity is different when you compare part of the Old Testament with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[@gaildrake5940]

I know that secret about Darwin

[@rebeccaa.4992]

Thank you!

[@ericdailey8587]

If you believe in a young earth, then the various skin tones you find in the world developed rather quickly amongst people groups. America is relatively young and Americans move about, but it would be interesting to see if you find differences in skin tones amongst American families that have not moved around much. For example, do those of European ancestry who have generationally lived in northern New England for a couple centuries tend to be lighter in skin tone than those of European ancestry who have lived in the Deep South for a couple of centuries.

[@marcusmuse4787]

Darwin fostered atheism and racism.

[@thedude9941]

Not really atheism and racism, existed a while before Darwin lived.

[@estabon2u]

@@thedude9941 No one ever claimed Darwin invented racism, it's his "scientific theories" that clearly showed that he was a racist

[@ML-yc3tl]

@@estabon2u The video you're commenting on specifically claims it came out of Darwinism.

[@macmac3205]

100%! In fact, I believe that the ability creation has to adapt is just an extension or fulfilment of the command "go forth and multiply". That command is engraved in our DNA

[@RainbowMan.]

Beautiful! 😍

[@willjNZ]

I find it sad, now, and again we get a gem of a broadcast about this or that important Christian topic of the day, but mainly we get a little snippet regularly cut from that gem to, I would suggest, garner hits, and with those hits, revenue. I note the main Subscriber list/amount has remained somewhat static, with very low growth, and I think it quite likely the reason for this is that people are put off by the constant attempt to keep cashing in on previous VLOGs. I don't remember when it was, but I recall making a comment about this a very long time ago. Accepting that in the scheme of things where Alicia Childer's is concerned. It is most definitely not my intention to be mean spirited, I can honestly say that, but I need to say what my head is leading me to say. These snippets are not helping, they come across as both tacky and grasping, the clear hope that they will generate more money for the channel owner. Here's where the sad part comes in, I don't think that is the channel owner's intention, yes, I believe she wants to make more money, but I think she has altruistic plans for any extra money made, I just believe she has perhaps gone the wrong way about achieving that goal, assuming what I have said is correct. Look at the numbers being generated for each short snippet, while they will no doubt be generating some extra money, the 'smallness' of those clicking on t view the shortened VLOGS speak for themselves, clearly, the vast majority of Subscribers do not appear to think this is either useful, or worthwhile, I am one of them, I find myself coming in here rarely these days. Look at the numbers, then tell me I have gotten it wrong, and you may be surprised to learn that I would not be disappointed if I have made a mistake, if I have gotten it wrong. My comments are offered in a spirit of both fairness and honest critique, I sincerely hope that is how what I have written will come across and be heard. It is never a comfortable experience to have one's work critiqued, I get that, I have an ongoing understanding with both family members, friends, and colleagues that are always honest and straight forward with me, that they critique me whenever they believe it is needed. I don't always enjoy what I hear, I can assure you of that, but I always know it is coming from a place of love. Sometimes it takes a little time (sometimes longer) for me to wrap my head around the criticism being offered, It's important to pray about it, to ask God to open both your heart and your mind to the criticism, how best to make changes if indeed change is warranted, and my experience has always been that it is warranted. It's a big thing for someone close to take the risk that they might hurt your feelings, or even offend you, no matter how unintentionally that might be, we are egotistical creatures and need to watch out for responses that may cause our egos to feel somewhat punctured. If we are Christians, if we believe in, and follow the teachings of both the Old and the New Testaments we will always be aware that we are not perfect, and that there will always be times, seasons, that require, with God's help, change! I believe change is needed here, but I also accept that I might be wrong, but it wouldn't hurt to investigate the possibility of change nonetheless! May Almighty God bless you, and yours!

[@willjNZ]

I've had more time to think on this, pray if you will, and I have reached a point where I'm not certain I'm 100% right on what I wrote. It's still open for me, but it's not a 'be all' type thing! Here's the thing, I'm finding myself listening to a snippet, and I'm learning from it, so I have to challenge my previous thinking on breaking up podcasts and reusing them as sound byte snippets or to generate hits. If it is just to generate hits, then it's wrong, but if it's not, then I can't continue to have a problem with it, can I?

[@Yeshua_Follower67]

Adaptation ❤

[@dabbler1166]

Good question. But people were already speaking of Races before Darwin. Before 1859. So, the flood-waters subside, the Ark is opened and the people come out. Question: was there a Chinese couple, an African couple and a Caucasion couple on the Ark? No? Then, how did these 3 races arise? Some may say Races began after the Tower of Babel. Adaptation to environment. Was it Climate? Really? Then...find the place in China where their "eye-fold" is most pronounced. What is the longitude and latitude there? Now, find the same longitude, latitude and elevation in a country BELOW the equator. WHY DON'T we again find the same eye-fold in the people there if its all climate and environment? Or, find a dark-skinned African in say, the Congo. Now find the same latitude, longitude and elevation NORTH of the equator. Why doesn't nature "re-create" the same dark-skinned people, there, if it's all environment or climate? Or, many Asians and Native Americans have Black Hair, but if Race is due to Climate, then why don't people in a similar longitude or latitude and elevation (climate) in Sweden or Finland have Black hair? (shrug). Life's mysteries. But it would seem that people have categorized people throughout history. Why bother referring to anyone else as a Greek, Brazillian, Icelandic, Austrlian, Turk or Chinaman at all, if we are all the same? Tribes, kindreds, nations, etc. are all ways of distinguishing between different groups of people, and their differences. Why bother to distinguish between, say, Jebusites, Amalakites, Persians, and Egyptians or Samaritans or Chaldeans, if there are no differences? Even the Bible recognizes this. The Chinese distinguish between themselves and those of "the West", and on it goes. As for the concept of Race, it was "before Darwin". Another related question might be: who were maybe the 2 or 3 beginning/early leading PHYSICAL Anthropologists? In America, and also in England or France. They studied Race. Many before 1920. And earlier, in the 19th century. Nowadays, most anthropology is "Cultural" anthropology. But all through history, people have categorized and classified and made distinctions between people's. It seems to be "a human thing". We just do it. Even in Psychology. We have personality tests such as the Enneagram and the 16 Types of "Myers-Briggs" or the more recent "Big 5"personality test. More categorizing. Same with Race. and even tribes. Some women were "Medianites". Some aren't. Some people were "canaanites", some weren't. Someone with narrow hips who grew up in Kenya can run fast in the Olympics. A fatter, white business-man from London, not so much.

[@dentonhahn2907]

It is interesting. I have heard Curt Wise talk on this, about animals who as they moved around the world from one point and back the could inter breed with other of their own kind but as they moved they became more adapted to their environment and when they have gone full circle they no longer can interbreed, because of the changes they had gone through, there for they became a species of their own. All the DNA was there to adapt already. I think or my own opinion is, that is how God created and the command to be fruitful and multiply is indeed to have many more different species. If that is how animals were created, it stands to reason human kind also hads changed over spreading out over the land. God had told the people to scatter out across the earth, and punished them at the tower of babel, forcing them to move out. Interesting topic.

[@hopefilledholli1920]

It seems reasonable to me that each of the survivors of the ark had their own unique features that they passed onto their children, and children’s children, and so forth, making a large group of people with similar, defining features, and then skin colour adapted to the region accordingly. But those are just my thoughts after watching this video, not facts.

[@dabbler1166]

@@dentonhahn2907 I cant agree with the idea that being fruitful and multiplying means to have more different species. Why? Because it directly contradicts everything God said about everything "after its kind". For example, if Tigers mated 100 times, they'd still be tigers. They dont become cheetah's, leopards or any other species. If Egyptians had kids for 15 generations, they wouldn't be Japanese or Hawaiian. They'd still be the same.

[@dentonhahn2907]

@@dabbler1166 yes, I don't think species is the right word, I'm not sure, what I mean is , let take dogs all are k9 kind, but many many different breeds, or maybe variation of the same kinds. The cats we see from lion to the house cat are all from the same kind, same with horse and cattle. You can cross a lions with tigers, and horse with donkey, zebra. We still see phantom parts of past, like horses born with three toes and so on. So I may have gotten the words wrong, but I believe it is biblical and would support the idea of the ark and the amount of animals on it.

[@dabbler1166]

@@dentonhahn2907 crossing a lion and a Tiger, eh? But what happens when that crossed "cub" grows up and has kids? Can they? If yes, what will THEIR kids be like? I don't know the answer to that. However..... suppose a Farmer breeds a "better" HYBRID crop of corn. You CAN get a hybrid crop. But-- once you take that Hybrid, and try to mate it with some other hybrid, in hopes of getting a super-duper hybrid, what happens? It takes a RAPID nose-dive downward. It is as if Nature (or God?) were saying to us: "You might get away with it for ONE generation. But after that, I'm putting a stop to it." -- "Everything after its kind" . . . On a completely different note, I wonder, before the Tower of babel, were there already people in Egypt? If yes, how did they get there before people "scattered" from Babel? If no, then the Pyramids were built after the Tower of Babel? But if that's the case, doesn't it make ya wonder why people would bother trying to construct gigantic pyramids after "failing" with the Tower? I can't help thinking that there is more to the whole Tower of Babel story than what we know or have now. Interestingly, i've heard that ancient chinese history doesn't really begin til soon after the Tower of Babel. Why? Was there some giant catastrophe? Who knows? I admit, I'm speculating. But some of that "Ancient stuff" is fascinating to think about.

[@steveprofiler]

I simply love socratic method don't you? I do not really care if people agree with me or not. In my view it is more interesting when people disagree with themselves to let them find out that critical thinking makes logic seem obsolete so any opinion is as good or bad as another. So instead of stating that everything is relative, I ask if it is. And when people say no it is not,I just go on and on until they find out fore themselves that maby it is. So therefor I ask you now. Is there something in you're opinion that you want to state or discuss that is not relative?

[@Yeshua_Follower67]

So good

[@Alan112573]

I have to disagree, Darwinism is NOT at its core "racist". In fact, many of the racist views of Darwin's time arose from the idea that there were MULTIPLE, independent "stocks" from which different peoples arose. Darwin showed that these ideas were wrong, and that there was only ONE human race. This would have quite gratifying to him to know, because he was very much opposed to slavery; his refutation of polygenesis would have struck a blow against the philosophical foundations of slavery

[@estabon2u]

So now we're rewriting history about I see.

[@Alan112573]

@@estabon2u Not to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know where specifically.

[@Alan112573]

@@estabon2u Read Darwin's Sacred Cause by Adrian Desmond for evidence of Darwin's opposition to slavery, and the polygenetic views that in part supported slavery. It's an interesting read! Btw, just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a Christian (a conservative, orthodox evangelical in any fair-minded definition of the word). I just think Darwin gets an unfair rap from many brothers in Christ. B.B. Warfield would agree with me; he wrote a very complimentary article about him after Darwin's death (not sure if it was a eulogy per se), though he also expressed his concern about Darwin's final agnosticism. It's time to stop making Darwin the boogyman.

[@lindaann1066]

I can't understand a word he's saying

[@republiccooper]

What did Darwin mean by called species? Did he mean that those species that exist today were called over those who died out (since they weren't suited to the environment)? Was it racist or just what the goodly guest was saying implicitly...?

[@doofusmeister8795]

Darwin invented the concept of race? Sorry. Not even close. May I politely suggest that you do a little bit research on the topic before offering such a strange generalization?

[@catholicactionbibleonlyist1813]

Who invented the concept of race? may have been Carl Linnaeus, he pre dates Darwin hate is strong with this one

[@hwd7]

"...With some controversy, Linnaeus placed apes and monkeys in the genus Homo and he tried to identify several missing links as part of an Aristotelian chain of being between apes and human beings. Linnaeus still believed in special creation, but others in the 18th century, such as Lord Monboddo, in contrast to Linnaeus argued for an evolutionary progression from ape to man. However, the evolution of man was rejected by Comte de Buffon and Peter Camper on the basis of direct studies of apes and belief in the divine uniqueness of human beings..."

[@JamesRichardWiley]

God created diversity so God created race. But only if you believe in a man made Hebrew, desert, tribal god named Yahweh.

[@marthaj67]

You are mistaken. Yahweh is THE God. He is the Creator of the Universe and everything in it. He is not a "man made Hebrew, desert, tribal god" and you will find that out soon enough.

[@hwd7]

Perhaps you can explain how life evolved from the Virgin Mother Earth from mud into mudskippers and mudlarks.