The Genographic Project

For those interested in discovering your British Israel roots that determine you are an heir to the throne of England.........or to establish your legitimacy as an end-time prophet through your royal blood line from David.........

 

The Genographic Project 

Dennis On: Sanctified Ignorance

Sanctified Ignorance is Still Ignorant

We all have our stories of how we got here and who we are in the universe. Most stories told by every culture point out the unique origins of that culture, like as not, springing directly from that particular cave or mountain in distant and mysterious times in the past. When the National Geographic Genographic research team gently informed aboriginal Australians of their African origins, according to the DNA evidence, the Elders reacted with a simple "no, we originated here and maybe they came from us." Comforting and upholding of ancient aboriginal beliefs, but not scientifically true. You could feel the tension this new information brought into the cultural beliefs that for so long had encouraged and sustained them. I doubt they will change their understanding of themselves with this bit of scientific information.

A similar reaction occurred when the team informed the Navajo in the Americas of their DNA origins linking them to a still existent people in Siberia. The immediate reaction was understandably defensive for Navajo origin stories which had them always living in the Four Corners area of the now United States. In time, I believe they agreed that there was room for both the science and the tradition and, in this case, both maintained their truths on tribal origins. But the science was more literally correct. The uneasiness was palpable.

And now the Indigenous People's Council on Biocolonialism, the IPCB is raising even more concerns about the effect this knowledge will have on belief systems of indigenous peoples. For better or worse, "Indigenous peoples have consistently voiced their opposition to this type of research because it breaches cultural values, bioethical standards and human rights law. The IPCB believes the project is being undertaken at the expense of indigenous peoples. Debra Harry, the organization's executive director, writes on their website, "It is quite likely this project will advance new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowledge of ourselves. There can be no claim as to which understanding is correct, and will result in a clash of knowledge systems. Moreover, there could be serious political implications that result from a so-called "scientific" assertion that indigenous peoples are not "indigenous" to their territories, but instead are recent migrants from some other place. This cuts at the heart of the rights of indigenous peoples, which are based upon our collective, inherent right of self-determination as peoples, under international human rights law." A standard ethical requirement in human research is that the benefits must equal the risk. The IPCB believes that in this type of research, there will be no benefit to indigenous peoples, yet the research creates substantial risk for the individuals and peoples affected."

It is this advancement of "new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowlege of ourselves," that seems to be so difficult for humans to handle. Truth is still true though denied by all. In such defensiveness science always get's called "science so called" and even does in the Bible as "Science, falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20). This phrase is always used when the science is really not false, but it is threatening to sincerely held beliefs. I don't like someone knocking the nose off my idols any more than the next guy, but that's progress, painful and ever moving forward. The Bible makes fun of learning at times in this nervousness over knowledge when it mocks those who are "ever learning, but never able to come the knowledge of the truth" (II Tim. 3:7), to which I say, at least they keep trying and even Jesus is reported to have said, "seek and ye shall find." Of course he meant spiritually but it's good advice in all endeavors too.

The moment you believe you have it, you've lost it.

We all have our origin stories that, in time, will probably prove to not be true, at least not literally. We live in an age where even most Christians realize that the origin stories of mankind in the Garden of Eden, through a first set of parents, Adam and Eve, are not literally true. The problem with believing that is that much of the doctrine in the New Testament requires the story of the first Adam and Eve to be literally true as they lead to such literally true doctrines as the role of women in the church, why women have babies painfully, Jesus being the "Second Adam" and the Doctrine of Original Sin. All of these beliefs and teachings are destroyed by the Genesis story not being literally true.  Scientific truth has implications for Biblical origin stories.

If there was no real Eve, or Adam whose fault this wasn't ;) who really caused all of mankind to fall into original sin, for which we all must repent etc, then there is no need of repenting of that which never happened or of needing a Savior in the way portrayed in the New Testament. Stories and ideas have implications to say the least. Many Christians think it is ok NOT to believe in things being literally true. But that has incredible implications for other things they think they believe but dont' realize the connection and contradictions their position causes theologically. Plainly, if there was no literal Genesis like creation of mankind and fall into sin, and it is shown to not be true by good science, the implications are staggering in how we will have to change our views. Frankly most won't but will, as always, attack the messenger and burn the message, or just burn both.

Actually, a simple cheek swab was all it took for me to find out my own amazing DNA trip out of Africa 70,000 years ago. Perhaps this is done for some reason somewhere, but for the Genome project, this fear is very unfounded. Our genetic history is easily taken from the inside of our mouths. Every cell contains the whole.
Simply speaking, it appears that ALL modern humans originated in and then spread out from Africa within the last 100,000 years or less. What a great story to read at Clan meetings! All the "differences" we see in humans are adaptations we made along the way in our trek from there to Europe, Asia and the Americas. Good science gives us good explanations, always subject to new information about this process.

Indeed, we do need to insure the privacy of the individual if they wish it and we need to be sensitive to the process that others go through when they are faced with the implications of such information and research. It takes time to accept change and as stated, many won't, but rather will just become angry and defensive. We see this all the time in the attacks Christian literalists launch into from their pulpits when new knowledge threatens old ideas.
It's funny, in my previous church affiliation there was a belief that always annoyed me scientifically. It was the belief, now long discredited, that the Lost Tribes of Israel turned up as the powerful nations of Europe, The British Empire and of course, America. I was Dutch, so that clearly put me in the Tribe of Zebulun, according to the theory. I never gave a sermon on this topic! However, my DNA shows I made no such trip through the middle east to become an Israelite and go on into Europe. Rather it shows a long trip through Iran, Iraq the various "Beckastans" on out onto the steppes of Asia and then one big swing into Europe as Cro-Magnon and then into France, Holland and England in much more recent times. That British-Israelism idea is bunk and DNA testing will show it to be so. That particular idea is racist if ever there was one.

The historical speculations of the Book of Mormon on race origins have been destroyed by DNA testing.  Native Americans are Siberian in origins for the most part and not Middle Eastern from the Levant.  Of course, this will not stop the spread of Mormonism but it does leave them with some difficult problems to explain. Don't worry, the truth of the matter won't stop that Church anymore than it has stopped others.  The book will no doubt become "spiritual truth" instead of literal truth at some point in the future and continue to deceive.

So good science is not "science, falsely so called" or "so called science." Yes, it has implications for theologians and Christians but believing something is true never makes it really true and we need to always have a love of discovery. Sorry to say, it is usually the reactions to new information by those most threatened by it that plunges our world into chaos.

Dennis C. Diehl

DenniscDiehl@aol.com

Women's Head Covers ARE A Requirement for COG Women Today!

Pretty soon this is what women in the Church of God Malmite will be wearing.

The Apostle has spoke, AGAIN!  You rebellious brawling cantankerous women had better SUBMIT! 

A reader of Apostle Malm's blog had this to say about women's hair coverings in church:

 I, too, agree with Christian…God’s Word is the standard, not a linked article. God’s Word says a woman’s LONG hair IS her covering…1Cor.11:15. I come from a Catholic background and always wore a veil until learning this from God’s Word when God called me in the mid 70s.

The Apostle responds:

God’s word says that if a woman refuses to cover her head she should be shorn. If her hair were her covering, why is she to have her hair shorn for not wearing it? If you have hair you would always be covered and would not need to be shorn; or to be threatened by Paul with being shorn! How many refuse to wear their hair? If they refuse to wear their hair they would already be bald so why the need to shear them? We have been mistaught for a long time and now the tradition means more than the scripture. James

Scripture is in red, Apostle Malm's interpretation is in black:

I Corinthians 11

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her [Lord, ruler] head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. To fail to cover her head while worshipping and praying is a shame to a woman; even as it is a shame to have her head shaved. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: If the woman's hair were her covering; why should she be shorn for not covering her head? If her hair is her covering, than her head is already covered so why should she be shorn? And if the woman have no hair to cover her head: how can she then be shorn? Therefore if a woman refuse to cover her head in worship; she should have her head shorn. but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. If she is ashamed to have her head shorn, then let her cover her head in worship and prayer.

 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power [a covering]on her head because [as an example for] of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? A man does not have the glory of long hair; needing to be covered. 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.  A woman’s hair is her covering crown of glory, her mantle or veil. Therefore she must humble herself and cover her crown of glory in the presence of her God. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.  This instruction is in response to the Jewish practice of men covering their heads in prayer. The question being addressed here is not about women covering their heads while praying; but about men covering their heads while praying.  Paul is saying that a man is the head of the woman; and as such is a figure of Christ; while the woman is a figure of the Church and is to be humble herself before her God; by covering her crown of glory in humility when coming before God in prayer or worship.