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.
How would YOU know that? Give us a break! Everyone else knows they had Red skin and green eyes just like the rest of the Martians.appleofhiseye said:News Flash:
Adam and Eve had light Brown skin!
Not White Not Black!
It's all a matter of dominant/recessive genes as to what color you skin is.
Interracial marriages or not.
Empire. The USA is an Empire that spans a continent and also has some islands. The USA is not really a nation. Not all of a Empire is going to be ukngodly and perverted.Kasey said:The US is an ungodly, perverted nation that is bent on doing everything but living according to the Bible. Its no suprise that its "changing". Yet, its not changing for the better, its changing for the worse and it will continue to be this way all the way up until Christ returns to establish His Kingdom.
Your children will more than likely end up like that, but my children will not. They will be taught God's Law and live every day of their lives in accordance with the Bible, not your philosphy nor anyone elses.
Ledifni said:Leviticus 22:13 is one of the two instances of a particular commandment: that only those who are purely of Aaron's line may eat of the holy food. Not purely Jewish, but purely of Aaron's line. Non-Levitical Jews were not allowed to eat of the holy food even if they were pure Israelites. Any daughter of a priest who married a "stranger" could not eat of the food. However, where is the command that she may not marry the stranger? It is not there. Only a command that if she does, she may not eat the holy food because she is no longer purely of Aaron's line.
No, with the purity of Aaron's blood. Those verses are great and all, but which one says that the daughter of a priest may not marry a stranger? They say that if she does, she may not eat the holy food -- but do they say she may not marry him? Nope.
Nehemiah 13, as I have repeatedly pointed out, speaks of the Moabites and Ammonites and the transgression of Balaam. It is a punishment on those two nations for Balaam's curse, not a command to keep the races pure. Unless you're so certain God's a racist that you just want to interpret them that way, of course...
Furthermore, the words used are "ereb" and "nokriy." "Ereb" means "a mixed multitude," and can mean a group of men and women as easily as a group of Israelites and Moabites. "Nokriy" means "foreign" or "alien" -- it definitely refers to a non-Jew, but has no particular negative connotation.
Ezra 9:11-12 refutes your point. In that passage, God explains why the Israelites were not allowed to marry the strange women spoken of in Ezra 10:2-3:
"The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness.
"Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. "
As you can see, Canaan was full of people whose practices God found abominable. Because of these abominable practices (the word "therefore" in verse 12 demonstrates that the restriction applied for the reasons given in verse 11), they were forbidden to marry these people. Not because of their race, but because of their practices. You argue that it was because of their race because of the Hebrew word used to describe them. The Hebrew word is accurate -- they were of a different race.
However, when God specifically states the reason the Israelites are not to marry them, he says it is because of their practices. This implies that if they mended their ways, there would be no prohibition, and this is powerfully supported by the fact that Ruth, a member of these races herself, took up righteous ways and became an ancestor of Jesus himself.
My Hebrew lexicon has the Hebrew word translated as "bas****" here to mean "illegitimate child" OR "mixed" OR "born of a Jewish father and heathen mother or vice versa." These are listed as three separate and valid translations. So, while you could translate Deuteronomy 23:2 to mean that people of mixed-race are forbidden to enter the assembly of the Lord, you could also translate it to mean that an illegitimate child cannot enter the assembly of the Lord. Either translation is valid -- but you choose the racist one. Says quite a lot about you.
Deliberately? Your specious arguments are ones I've addressed already. I'm consolidating my arguments in this post because you say this is a complete list of your arguments. I refute this post, and you slink away in shame. Fair?
Now, Leviticus 22:12-13 are addressed above, exactly as I addressed them before. They do not forbid interracial marriage, they forbid those who are not pure Levites from eating the holy food.
Where, Kasey? Where does it state that she is not to have children? It states that she is not to enter into the holy place or eat the holy food (in case you didn't know, the holy place is the outer portion of the Holy of Holies, which is the Temple's inner sanctum, and the holy food is the anointed sacrifice that merits instant death for anyone who is not an absolutely pure and absolutely righteous member of the Levitical High Priests). It does not state that she is not to have children -- merely that if she does she is one of the many Israelites who are not permitted to eat the holy food.
Ledifni said:I've repeatedly shown you how you haven't proved that Adam and Eve were not the first people on Earth. In this post, I have addressed that claim and all of the rest of your claims (assuming you were telling the truth that your post detailed all of your claims) in even greater detail and found every single one wanting, using context and connotation and Hebrew translations.
Now that all of your statements have been refuted in one post (ok, split into three parts, but close enough), what are you going to do? You don't have any other verses to run to, because this post got 'em all. Will you go and try to find some other verses to contradict these verses? Or will you pretend that I didn't address some of your arguments and simply repeat them? Whichever tactic you choose to employ, rest assured that I will see through it and expose it. Good luck!
mhatten said:kasey what does the NT mean to you? How does it fit in your philosophy?
Misty Minister said:How would YOU know that? Give us a break! Everyone else knows they had Red skin and green eyes just like the rest of the Martians.
"Adam and Eve had light Brown skin!
Not White Not Black!"
Blackguard_ said:Kasey you seem to ignore the New Testament, how would explain Galatians 3:28, about there being "neither Jew nor Greek" in Christ unless you argue the Jews and Greeks are the same race. If they are, what is the point of Paul's "wall of partition" speech in Ephesians 2?
Ephesians 2:11-18
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
And Glatians 3,
7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
...16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ....................
....
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Can non-whites/Adamites be Christian? If "No", why does Paul mention things like this, as nothing would have changed from the OT if they still had to stick to "Adamites"? You said as much in the Rahab story, she was not Hebrew, but was Adamite and so her marriage into the Hebrews was not race-mixing.
So what, Pray tell, is Paul's point in Ephesians than?
And I'm curious as to how you interepret Acts 17:26
Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Was Luke wrong, as you imply there are at least 2 bloods?
kofh2u said:Now kasey is just founding his arguments upon tne shaky personal understanding of the Genesis metaphor.
He says, "Adam and Eve is the basis, the foundation. If they were created as the first people on earth and all people came from them, then interracial marriage and producing mongrel children wouldnt matter would it.
But, the unrealistic understanding of Adam being "created as the first people" denies the evolutionary process. Basing his modern sociological perspective on a misinterpretation of what Genesis is trying to tell us compounds his errors.
His archaic theological view becomes all the worse by using it to found his sociology.
As an example:
Gen. 4:1 And Adam, (an eponym for the whole species, Ramaphitecus Man), knew Eve, (mother of all
hominoids), his wife; and she conceived, (through her line after thousands of years), and bare Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another species of hominoid), from the LORD.
Kasey said:No you have not. Show me where you addressed each and every single piece of evidence that I stated regarding the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Show me the post #! I have asked you to do this a couple of times, but you havent responded.
Show me the post #! Come on Ledifini! If you have shown me wrong, then this would be a piece of cake for you!
Ledifni said:You are a despicable liar and cheat. I can't show you that post, and you KNOW I can't show you that post, because you just reported it for the word "bigot" and had it deleted. This post will probably get me yet another warning, but I don't care. A person as low as you are deserved to be told so publicly.
I have no interest in any further discussion with you. A person who will stoop so low as to have someone else's post deleted so he can then pretend that person didn't post his arguments -- you aren't even worth speaking with. Goodbye.
Kasey said:Uhhhh....hello? Im saying that Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on earth.
Aside from this, Im not talking about Evolution.
Ledifni said:You are a despicable liar and cheat. I can't show you that post, and you KNOW I can't show you that post, because you just reported it for the word "bigot" and had it deleted. This post will probably get me yet another warning, but I don't care. A person as low as you are deserved to be told so publicly.
I have no interest in any further discussion with you. A person who will stoop so low as to have someone else's post deleted so he can then pretend that person didn't post his arguments -- you aren't even worth speaking with. Goodbye.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?