Ledifni said:
Kasey, did you even read what he said? No, clearly you did not. He said, "You are ignoring the context." You continue to ignore the context. I pointed the context out to you, even, and you continue to ignore the context.
I addressed this context. Show me specifically where I havent. Which post #?
The Hebrew word "ereb" means "mixed" or "impure." The Hebrew word "nokriy" means "foreign" or "strange" or "extracultural." On these two words, you are (broadly, because your actual knowledge of Hebrew is nonexistant) correct as to their meanings. But, as he correctly pointed out, you are ignoring the context.
How covenient that you leave out the "mongrel race" part which Strong's Concordance explicetly states. In addition, how convienant that you leave out the non-relative part when concerning the word "nokriy" as well.
By the way, which specific sources are you using? You didnt mention that you were using a Strong's COncordance or a Gesenius' hebrew-Chaldee lexicon. Are you using those specifically? If you are, then by all means, show me the letter designated to those particular words in those dictionaries.
The context is God telling the Isrealites to cast out Moab and Ammon
because of Balaam's curse. God's command had nothing to do with racial mixing. It had to do with the curse that Balaam placed on the Israelites to lead them astray, with the aid of and in service of the Moabites and Ammonites. The words "ereb" and "nokriy" are used here because the Moabites and Ammonites
were "ereb" and "nokriy." Nowhere does it say that the Israelites are never to marry
any "ereb" or "nokriy." Nice try, but try again
Uh, yeah, it doesn, but a different Hebrew word is given for it and its in Deuteronomy 23:2 and its the english word "bastar#". In the Hebrew it "mamzer" and it specifically means someone of mixed racial heritage. In addition, this is completely verified by the fact that the Bible specifically states that a bastar% could not enter into the congregation of the Lord even up to his TENTH generation. It never said anything about beyond that. That proove as well that this is talking in a racial context. Its like saying that I have a bowl of chocolate and vanilla pudding. If I mix the two together, I get a mixture. If I continue to put either the white vanilla or the chocalate pudding, but never both, eventually, one will weed out the other.
Now, notice in verse 3, it specifically talks about the Moabites and Ammonites in the exact same way IN ADDITION to the part about Balaam. How coveniant that you didnt mention that part. The context is everthing. Its talking about the mongrelized Moabites, not the pure-bred racial ones as Ruth, who married Boaz, was a Moabite and for the Bible to say that Ruth is a just a few generations away from Christ Jesus means that Ruth would have had to been racially pure for the BIble specifically states that a mixed or mongrel person cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:2. Christ did that several times and if Christ himself was a mongrel, then the Bible is nothing but a contradictory lie.
However, that is not the case, as the context obviously shows. Therefore, its still exactly what I have shown. Aside from this, the main piece of evidence, outside of Deuteronomy 23:2-3, Nehemiah 13:3,27 and Ezra 10 as well as Leviticus 19:19 is the fact that the Bible specifically teaches that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. If they were, then everything that I have said would be a lie. Thus, since you have never addressed this, this shows that I am telling the truth. Everything fits perfectly.
So, I can tell you how you can begin to show Im wrong. All you need to do is prove that the BIble teaches taht Adam and Eve were the first people on earth as in the progenitors of all of mankind. You do this and Im a liar, I will fully admit it. However, to do that, you will have to get around the fact that Adam and Eve were not created together as in the context of those mentioned in Genesis 1. Adam was given different instructions as in the aspect of keeping and dressing a garden, never to replenish the land and to subdue and have dominion over all the animal Kingdom. Adam was also prohibited on the account of one tree in the Garden while those in Genesis 1 were specifically allowed to have all trees for food. In addition, Genesis 1 states that God bless "them" specifically before he told them to replenish, subdue and have dominion over the land and animals. Eve was not with Adam until sometime later. In addition, Genesis 1 says "male and female" created he them, in a general, simultanoues context. Eve was created later.
Therefore, in order to prove that Adam and Ever actually were those mentioned in chapter 1, then you would have to show, from the Bible, and it would have to fit the context and correlation in the scriptures, all of things that I have just mentioned above. You would have to show differently as well as for it make sense. Yet, I seriously doubt that you can do that. But that is the entire context and basis for God being against interracial marriage, for if Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, then would have to be specific race of people as the context of creation itself in the previous verse before the mentioning of the creation of man, the Bible specifically states that He created the animals AFTER THEIR KIND. Thus, contextually, it would be the same for human beings. Since all the evidence points out that the creation of Adam and what happened with Adam is completely different than what happened in Genesis 1, this would mean that Adam and Eve were created as a specific kind of human beings and those created in Genesis 1 would be a specific kind as well, just as it is according to the context of the animals and plant-life being after their kind.
Also, dont forget Genesis 5:1. The Bible specifically states that this is the Book of the Generations of Adam. According to the Hebrew, its the word "towldah" and according to Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, it means the history, family, descent. If Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, there would be "NO NEED" for the BIble to specify in a saying it concerns Adam and Eve. You would have to get around this one as well.
Until you can do this, what I have said is completely true as God's Laws specifically support the evidence of AFTER THEIR KIND as specifically stated IN Leviticus 19:19. Thus, if its true with animals and plant-life, there is no justifiable way it could be any different with human beings and thus, because of that, you have Deuteronomy 23:2, Leviticus 22:12-13, Ezra 10, Nehemiah 13:3,27 for if God the Father and Christ Jesus created the animals and plant-life and human beings according to their kind, as explicetly and un-deniably as shown, then that completely explains as to why They would have Laws and Statutes against mixing animals and plants and human beings with different kinds. Thus, no mixing the animals, no mixing the plant life and that means no interracial marriage between two different races of human beings.
