> Now you’re avoiding. How can everyone be of ‘one blood’
> when not all people have the Rh factor?
Ever hear of recessive genes? Blood type is due to genetic variations no more profound than eye color, skin color, etc. Any time an organ is transplanted, be it blood, or an eye, or a kidney, factors that can cause adverse reactions must be considered.
Noah Webster wrote his doctoral dissertation on the emergence of Indo-European languages. He was an expert on language, certainly much more so than you or I.
He clearly understood the underlying Greek in that passage of Acts 17. Contextually, Paul was referring to the Creation Story in Genesis, whether or not you believe it.
Webster clearly understood “one blood” to refer to “one ancestor”, not to a specific “blood type” due to genetic variations no more profound than those that affect eye color, hair color, nose size, height, or melatonin content of the skin.
And IF all humanity are NOT of one blood, meaning one ancestry, then for which blood type did Jesus shed His blood? What blood type did He have? What was his hair color? What color were His eyes? How big was his nose? How tall was He? What was the color of His skin?
I don’t know whether you are an evolutionist, but I once was a committed evolutionist that considered the Genesis account risible. However, the facts reveal that the Evolution Story is more fantastic, more far-fetched, far more improbable, and requires more blind faith, than the Creation Story.
None of us were there to observe, but there was One who was there and inspired others to record the Creation Story in His inspired Word.
At the end of the day, it is unlikely that I’m going to convince you, and you’re certainly not going to convince me.
This forum, and the internet in general, is not very different in essence than the Aeropagus in Acts 17.
I’m not an evolutionist. You still haven’t explained the Rh factor and why only some people have that and where it came from. But, yeah, you are not going to change my mind so we are essentially done.