True..."kind" would be the same as "species". For example; lion, dog, blue whale, ostrich, etc. All humans are of the same "species",SummerMadness said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Interracial marriages on the rise, but social stigmas persist
- Thread starter SummerMadness
- Start date
- Status
YeShallTread
Well-Known Member
No...I am quoting. We need to see what is there. To say there is no race is rather silly. To say there is no "race" in the Bible is to not see. I repeat:
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Living #2416 - living, alive
Kind #4327 - family, race
Creature #5315 - soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
"It was so" and He was pleased...why aren't we?Kind #4327 - family, race
Creature #5315 - soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
- that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
- living being
- living being (with life in the blood)
- the man himself, self, person or individual
Upvote
0
YeShallTread
Well-Known Member
The Strong's defines "kind" as "family, race." Humans are one in humanity and are all the "human race" yet we are a variety within humanity. We are races within the human race. Why is there a problem with recognizing that or admitting what one does recognize and tries to say isn't there?
Upvote
0
Interpretation of kind as race is a modern definition of a word that has nothing to do with race. There was no concept of race in the time the text was written, so quoting it and pointing to a modern definition is not accurate.
The human race can have variety, but they are not different races of humans, they are still the human race; therefore, there is no such thing as interracial marriage because it's all humans with humans. "Interracial" became a word because people decided to separate based on "race" in the 15th and 16th century, their separation by race is artificial.
Upvote
0
YeShallTread
Well-Known Member
That curse is very misunderstood even when in saying "curse of Ham" for Noah cursed Canaan. Would a curse from a man (Noah) change someone's skin?
Upvote
0
- Jan 30, 2004
- 23,298
- 2,832
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Strong published this (and you are quoting Strong's definitions) in 1890. It incorporated the casual White Supremacy of the time.
More on point and specific to human beings is Numbers 12, wherein the story of Aaron and Miriam complaining about Moses's Cushite (that would be Black Ethiopian) wife is related.
Things didn't turn out so great for Aaron and Miriam in that story.
Upvote
0
YeShallTread
Well-Known Member
If you wish to believe that all humanity came from one man and woman then...okay.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
However, we should ask ourselves...if that was true why then does an Asian couple produce an Asian baby? Why then does an American Indian couple always produce another American Indian.
Again...an elephant in the room and yet he is ignored. Nope he isn't there, I don't see that elephant simply because I don't want to say there is an elephant there. I wonder how it would work if I ignored snakes....nope I don't believe in snakes so that thing coiled up beside me doesn't matter at all. I again ask...what is wrong with the recognition of races? What's the problem?
Upvote
0
- Jan 30, 2004
- 23,298
- 2,832
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
They produce a babby. We assign a race to the babby.
That was the point of the Racial Integrity Act--to assign races.
(obligatory "How is babby formed?")
Upvote
0
YeShallTread
Well-Known Member
Strong's is a terrific tool we are given to understand. To cast aspersions on it because white supremacy used it doesn't amount to a can of beans. You're suggesting throwing out the baby with the bath water. Evil people use good things to work their evil.
So, you are saying there are races when you say "black Ethiopian?" I would agree...yes there are races. Also, there are black Ethiopians and then there are residents of Ethiopia who may be Caucasian or Asian or Indian Ethiopians.
Your mistake is in saying Moses took to wife a black Ethiopian.
Numbers 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
If I lived in, even was born in, Ethiopia would that signify that I was "black?" If I was a black Ethiopian living in Mississippi I would be both an Ethiopian and a Mississippian.
Upvote
0
- Jan 30, 2004
- 23,298
- 2,832
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The OT occasionally references somatic differences or place of origin, such as in Number 12. But it does not recognize "race" in the way we have for the past several centuries. That's because our ancestors in the 17th Century or so embarked on a project to create a concept of "race".
We're dealing with different levels of ontology here. In our society, a Black body is specifically marked as such and that cannot ever change, while being a Mississippian is a status subject to change and re-evaluation.
Upvote
0
ChristsSoldier115
Mabaho na Kuya
- Jul 30, 2013
- 6,765
- 1,601
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
If you wish to believe that all humanity came from one man and woman then...okay.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.However, we should ask ourselves...if that was true why then does an Asian couple produce an Asian baby? Why then does an American Indian couple always produce another American Indian.
Again...an elephant in the room and yet he is ignored. Nope he isn't there, I don't see that elephant simply because I don't want to say there is an elephant there. I wonder how it would work if I ignored snakes....nope I don't believe in snakes so that thing coiled up beside me doesn't matter at all. I again ask...what is wrong with the recognition of races? What's the problem?
Your argument that it is biblical for people to be of a different race isn't the problem. it is what you further state that they cannot ever be together is the problem. You are cherry picking scripture and taking it out of context to fit your modern concept.
Upvote
0
Well, I remember and was raised in a society in which it was highly probable that a mixed relationship would get at least one of the members killed. That probablility is drastically decreased today.
I was old enough to become engaged in relationships at a time that a mixed marriage was still illegal in 19 states. Even where it was not illegal, the pressure against it was so great that few dared it.
Of those who did, the white partner essentially lost his or her "white card." They were subject to being treated as though they were black--if not worse--by the society majority. Their children were not "bi-racial," they were simply "black."
That is the major difference today: A white person today can "marry black" and yet remain "white" in society. Moreover, the bi-racial child today inherits social "whiteness" in a way that bi-racial children in the past did not. In fact, the concept of "bi-racial" has only become socially significant since the 1980s.
Upvote
0
ChristsSoldier115
Mabaho na Kuya
- Jul 30, 2013
- 6,765
- 1,601
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
The Bible is never wrong.Adam was the first man with a living soul and the first man in the line to Christ. As I said, it is His-story.
I don't know. Perhaps they had to account for their sins and the arrival of Adam and family showed them a better way. The Adamic line, the chosen...were chosen for a purpose, one of which was to hear God's Word, protect God's Word, teach God's Word....for humanity.
ok.. I'm done with this thread. I am not arguing with unorthodox teachings. I'll do that in the theology section of CF. This right here tells me what is going on. I don't even want to open that can of worms even more.
Upvote
0
Joykins
free Crazy Liz!
- Jul 14, 2005
- 15,720
- 1,181
- 55
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
This is suddenly bringing to mind the blond, blue-eyed gypsy children who were taken from their families/caregivers, because of course the gypsies would have stolen a white child. Then it turns out the child is genetically tested to be the child of the gypsy parents and they have a bunch of other really fair-skinned, light-eyed kids too.
?We gifted her?: Mother of blond-haired Roma girl discovered in Greece found thanks to DNA - NY Daily News
?We gifted her?: Mother of blond-haired Roma girl discovered in Greece found thanks to DNA - NY Daily News
Upvote
0
YeShallTread
Well-Known Member
Unorthodox? What is unorthodox about God's chosen being Israel?
Deuteronomy 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
