Logic about same race marriage

[Kasey]

The OP:




Nothing here about the Bible, so please tell me how you identify different races.

This is irrelevant, im not talking about the OP, I am talking about those who responded to me talking about how The Bible is against interracial marriage.

 

[praying]

This is irrelevant, im not talking about the OP, I am talking about those who responded to me talking about how The Bible is against interracial marriage.

You can't say my post is irrelevant! Shame on you!


I know a challenege. I am going to start a new thread specific to racial identification. Please join me.

 

[christalee4]

Kasey - the Bible may determine your creed about interracial marriage. But - PRACTICALLY - how do you determine who is truely a pure a white person? For example, how do you classify the woman pictured on the previous post?

If you cannot logically determine who is really white and who is not, in this real world of living in these United States, what reality do you go by?

Then, the only real solution would be for your children to marry their own kin, if you cannot exactly pin down the exact racial background of potential suitors. And then you would run into problems such as incest and degeneration of your future grand children.

So, what is your solution to the problem of determining who is white, and who isn't?

 

[Ledifni]

Therefore, its not a moot point! It has EVERYTHING To do with it because the lie concerning intteracial marriage STARTS with Adam and Eve! For if Adam and Eve actually WERE the first people on earth, then there is technically no concept nor room for races such as black and white!

Thus, like I said, show me in that regard and you got me. So, go ahead, prove that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth!

Kasey, as I told you before I do not believe the Bible. It is not my intention to prove that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth because the Bible simply doesn't say. You pretend to argue that the Bible must be interpreted to support your racism, but in fact you are merely arguing that the Bible may be interpreted to support your racism.

As I see it, you've already lost the argument. You are trying to pretend you haven't, by demanding that I "prove" things from the Bible. But I don't live by the Bible, so you're asking the wrong person.

No, what I set out to do, and have successfully done, is demonstrate that your interpretation is merely a possible one. Yes, one can interpret the Bible to mean that God created others alongside Adam and Eve. One can also interpret the relevant passages to mean that when God said, "You may eat of all green plants," he failed to mention the Tree of Knowledge simply because that tree hadn't been created yet. He called Adam and Eve "them" because there were two of them. I have not seen you present any other arguments, and so as it stands, you interpret the passages to mean that only because you want them to mean that -- not because they must mean that.

As so it is with every other claim you've made in this entire thread. You insist that your interpretation is correct and everyone else's is wrong. You pretend that because you can regurgitate Hebrew word definitions from a reference book on your lap, you know what you're talking about. But in point of fact, you're simply looking for ways to interpret the Bible in support of your depraved racist tendencies. You are not reading the Bible and finding racism in it. Rather, you are racist and are reading the Bible in an attempt to justify your existing hatred.

In my opinion, God was created in man's image, that is, man conceived God as an arbitrary, infinite justification and manifestation of his own character and values. You are constructing your God through interpretation of Biblical passages, and you are choosing your interpretations based on how much like your ideas they are. As such, one cannot help but wonder what you think of God, when you are so determined to create a God of alienation and elitism. Whether you can see it or not, we all can see the valid alternate interpretations of the Bible that you could espouse -- but don't, because you simply don't want to give up your racism.

Oh, and last but not least -- using a reference book compiled by experts does not give you the sanction or approval of said experts when you draw extrapolative conclusions from the simple facts they laid out. Nor can you honestly claim that your words are their words unless you are quoting their books verbatim and adding not one single word, comment, or analysis of your own. One can draw one's entire body of facts from a respected and expert source, and still spout drivel. You're the perfect example.

 

[Ledifni]

I note with wry amusement that Kasey eagerly expects, even insists upon, attacks against his translations of specific Hebrew words. Whenever anyone attacks what he says using any other argument, he immediately and very loudly demands that the person show him which of his Hebrew definitions are wrong, even though as far as I've seen, not one person has said that he wrongly defined any Hebrew word in this entire thread.

I suspect this is because he really has no idea what he's talking about, and the only place he can feel confident is in his Hebrew definitions -- because they come from an expert and not from him. One wonders whether Kasey has ever uttered an original word in which he can place any degree of confidence.

 

[Kasey]

Kasey, as I told you before I do not believe the Bible. It is not my intention to prove that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth because the Bible simply doesn't say. You pretend to argue that the Bible must be interpreted to support your racism, but in fact you are merely arguing that the Bible may be interpreted to support your racism.

Yeah, you dont believe in the Bible, so why are you trying to show that Im a bigotory racist thats completely evil? Uh-huh, right. In addition, if you really were a student of the Bible, or even a greater one than I, like you claimed to be earlier, you whould have addressed Adam and Eve just like I challenged you to do.

Is that all you can do? Call me names? My oh my, that makes you look like a troublemaker. Aside from that, just because you call me a racist, doesnt mean that IM wrong. You have resorted back to the typical of defense of "I cant prove you wrong, so Im going to call you names and try to make you look bad". Grow up.

As I see it, you've already lost the argument. You are trying to pretend you haven't, by demanding that I "prove" things from the Bible. But I don't live by the Bible, so you're asking the wrong person.

If you dont live by the Bible, then why are you even trying to debate me on the subject which is the entire foundation for my arguement? Thats a contradiction.

No, what I set out to do, and have successfully done, is demonstrate that your interpretation is merely a possible one. Yes, one can interpret the Bible to mean that God created others alongside Adam and Eve. One can also interpret the relevant passages to mean that when God said, "You may eat of all green plants," he failed to mention the Tree of Knowledge simply because that tree hadn't been created yet. He called Adam and Eve "them" because there were two of them. I have not seen you present any other arguments, and so as it stands, you interpret the passages to mean that only because you want them to mean that -- not because they must mean that.

Your efforst were futile, because if that were the case, you would addressed ALL of my points. Whenver I direct you to Adam and Eve, you back off and say that you dont need too, which shows beyond a shadow of a conclusive doubt that I have backed you into a corner. Adam and Eve is the foundation for everything that I have been saying. It prove that the Bible speaks into a context of a race.

The creation accounts are completely different with those created in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Those in genesis one were given completely different commands than Adam in Genesis 2. Those in Genesis 1 were told that they could eat of all the trees, those in Genesis 2 were told they couldnt. Those in Genesis 1 were told to replenish the Land, subdue it and have dominion over all the animals. Those in Genesis 2 were NEVER commanded to do that. Adam was commanded to dress and keep a garden, those in Genesis 1 had nothing to do with a garden! You cant get around this. Im not personally interpreting anything, the Bible is interpreting itself.

As so it is with every other claim you've made in this entire thread. You insist that your interpretation is correct and everyone else's is wrong. You pretend that because you can regurgitate Hebrew word definitions from a reference book on your lap, you know what you're talking about. But in point of fact, you're simply looking for ways to interpret the Bible in support of your depraved racist tendencies. You are not reading the Bible and finding racism in it. Rather, you are racist and are reading the Bible in an attempt to justify your existing hatred.

Hey! Ledifni! Address the word "seed" in Leviticus 22:3 which is the context of 22:12-13! Dont be a hypocrite! Address it! You call me a racist, saying that Im trying to use the Bible to justify what you to be wrong, so address it! Show me on how the word doesnt mean like I have showed! You havent done that! That shows you to be wrong!

In my opinion, God was created in man's image, that is, man conceived God as an arbitrary, infinite justification and manifestation of his own character and values. You are constructing your God through interpretation of Biblical passages, and you are choosing your interpretations based on how much like your ideas they are. As such, one cannot help but wonder what you think of God, when you are so determined to create a God of alienation and elitism. Whether you can see it or not, we all can see the valid alternate interpretations of the Bible that you could espouse -- but don't, because you simply don't want to give up your racism.

I dont want your opinion, I want fact. So, the fact is, the word "seed" in Leviticus 22:3, 12-13 "SHOWS" you to be wrong. I rest my case. I asked you SPECIFICALLY to explain that and you havent given one ounce. Therefore, you lose the arguement.

Oh, and last but not least -- using a reference book compiled by experts does not give you the sanction or approval of said experts when you draw extrapolative conclusions from the simple facts they laid out. Nor can you honestly claim that your words are their words unless you are quoting their books verbatim and adding not one single word, comment, or analysis of your own. One can draw one's entire body of facts from a respected and expert source, and still spout drivel. You're the perfect example.

Get real, you yourself has stated that you have my sources and if things were as you stated them to be, you would have addressed the word "seed" to show how Im wrong. They are dictionaries, DESIGNED for thise with no pracitcal knowledge of Hebrew/Greek.

They show you to be wrong, period and because of that that I specifically challenged you (yeah, im repeating myself) to address the word "seed", and until you do, none of your statements here can be trusted. You have deliberately IGNORED what I challenged you to do and that shows that you cannot hold your ground.

I rest my case. I have the evidence as I have showed and your actions of not addressing what I have specifically asked you prove that I do. Thanks!

 

[Kasey]

I note with wry amusement that Kasey eagerly expects, even insists upon, attacks against his translations of specific Hebrew words. Whenever anyone attacks what he says using any other argument, he immediately and very loudly demands that the person show him which of his Hebrew definitions are wrong, even though as far as I've seen, not one person has said that he wrongly defined any Hebrew word in this entire thread.

I suspect this is because he really has no idea what he's talking about, and the only place he can feel confident is in his Hebrew definitions -- because they come from an expert and not from him. One wonders whether Kasey has ever uttered an original word in which he can place any degree of confidence.

Yeah, because that is the key word that everything depends on in Leviticus 22:12-13 about God being AGAINST interracial marriage. It proves you to be wrong. Going to continue to ignore it, or are you going to address the evidence? You want to prove me wrong, then you get around that word and you go against The Strong's Concordances' and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Riiiiiight. I get very specific on my last rebuttal towards you concerning showing the evidence of the word "seed" in Leviticus 22:3, which is the context of Leviticus 22:12-13 and you immediately back off, call me names and go on a tangent regarding something else. What a load of marlakey. Thats a sad joke, Lednifi. If you had the evidencee to show me how Im wrong concerning that word, you would have stated it for all to see. You havent, you merely started calling me names and saying Im wrong when you didnt address what I specifically asked you to.

Stop being a hypocrite. Stop calling me names when you cant prove Im wrong, stop ignoring the evidence that I shove right in front of your face. Address the word "seed" in Leviticus 22:3. Show me how that is not what I presented it to be! Since you havent so far, I seriously doubt you can now, for you stated that you had my same sources, which shows that you know exactly what Im talking about, which shows that you know that your wrong, which shows that I have proved that everything I have stated concerning the Bible is true.

 

[kofh2u]

THIS QUOTE FROM ABOVE SEEMS WRONG FORTHE BIBL:
Quote:
Logic about same race marriage

Same race marriage should be banned because procreation without adaptation is harmful to society, to the parents and child, and to the gene pool. Without interracial marriages, the phenotype of the population remains the same, leaving this population stagnant and with a lack of genetic development and adaptation. This means that children from same race marriages add nothing to society while using up resources and part of the workforce by taking time away from the people that need to take care of them. In order to promote continuous adaptation of the whole of society, all marriages must be interracial and anything else should be illegal.


CONSIDER:
In the case of the Jews, God apparently knew how important it would be that the Jews remained pure and did not interbred.

This was the only way that the prophesies of their return to the Promised Land could be expected.

Even with the attention to non-intermarriage, many anti-semites, muslim professors, and PLO terror organization try to say the citizens of Israel are NOT really Jews, vut half bred Western European immigrants.

So, the foundation of a democratic, free society in Israel is a blessing to 1.44 billion Christians who can now pilgrimage and tour these lands long forbidden to them over thosands of years.

This blessing to the Jew, that he has credibility as the "people of the book" is enormously significant, both to the Jews, and the fulfillment of Christian prophecy:

Zech. 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of
all the nations (and denominations of Christian religion) which (since 70 AD) came against (this newly established) Jerusalem shall even go up from year (2025AD) to year (thereafter) to worship the King, (the Lion of Judah, root of David: [Rev 5:5]), the LORD of hosts, (the host of unceasing Christian tourism), and to keep the feast of tabernacles, (and build cube shaped geometries as if Sukkoths).

 

[Ledifni]

*sigh*

As usual, Kasey doesn't touch my arguments, but instead uses lots of pretty exclamation points to direct everyone's attention to some other part of the Bible that he thinks might be able to support his bigotry.

Have fun with that, Kasey.

 

[Ledifni]

But Kasey, your Leviticus 22:3 argument is so pathetic that I can't help but address it. "Seed" in Leviticus 22:3 refers to Aaron's seed, that is, his family and descendants. It states that any of Aaron's seed who is unclean, e.g., a leper, may not eat of the holy food. It has nothing to do with race.

How many times are you going to do this, Kasey? You have not yet addressed one single rebuttal of mine. Every time, you run wildly back to your Bible to find a verse, any verse, something that has a Hebrew word you can translate! Oh no! Desperation! That one didn't work on him, where's another Hebrew word?! Quick!

So how many times do you plan to go hunting for another Hebrew word? This is pointless. Your ideas are clearly refuted by everything you've shown yet. So what purpose do you pretend to serve by finding parts of the Bible that might not refute you? I see no reason to play that game. You've already made yourself ridiculous enough, no need to belabor the point.

 

[Kasey]

But Kasey, your Leviticus 22:3 argument is so pathetic that I can't help but address it. "Seed" in Leviticus 22:3 refers to Aaron's seed, that is, his family and descendants. It states that any of Aaron's seed who is unclean, e.g., a leper, may not eat of the holy food. It has nothing to do with race.

Um, excuse me, dont ignore the rest, which clearly states a race of men, stock, race. The context in question is Leviticus 22:12-13. It specifically states that if she was divorced and had no child, she could come back. Thats the context. The context is a race of men, or racial lineage. She was the priests daughter, of a specific lineage, yet, if she married without to a foreign, alien, out-landish, which, in the context, could only mean a different race, then she wouldnt be allowed to heat the holy things. Only if she was divorced and has NO CHILD would she be allowed to come back.

If it has nothing to do with race, then there wouldnt be no need for "no child" in Leviticus 22:13. That alone proves it has everything to do with race. For a cultural/faith/religion thing doesnt really matter when concerning a racial matter as the culture can be independant of the race. Its a racial context because of the ALL the definitions of the word seed, which you have ignored, as well as "no child" which completely supported Nehemiah 13:3,27. Dont forget Ezra 10:2-3. The word strange there is "nokriy" again, and just as you have admitted previously that the translations that I have shown are correct, then you cannot ignore the fact that the definition also means "non-relative". In the context of Leviticus 22:3, 12-13, this is racial. Marriage to different races and those BORN unto them are to be put away, which is completely supportive of Deuteronomy 23:2, which is supportive of the fact that Adam and Eve were created in context of those animals and plant-life created previously of being "AFTER THEIR KIND"

How many times are you going to do this, Kasey? You have not yet addressed one single rebuttal of mine. Every time, you run wildly back to your Bible to find a verse, any verse, something that has a Hebrew word you can translate! Oh no! Desperation! That one didn't work on him, where's another Hebrew word?! Quick!

The Hebrew makes all the difference. However, your not a Christian, so why should it matter to you? In your response right now, you deliberately ignored the rest of the definitions to the word "seed" in that context. You deliberately didnt mention the context of Leviticus 22:12-13 which is based in verse 3 as well as that which you mentioned.

You cannot get around the simple fact that it is because of the word "seed" as well as the woman being spoken of as being a priest of that particular seed, or race of men, or race, or family, or stock. It specifically states that shes not to have any children, for only if she doesnt is she allowed to come back, which is supportive of Ezra 10:2-3, Nehemiah 13:3,27.

So how many times do you plan to go hunting for another Hebrew word? This is pointless. Your ideas are clearly refuted by everything you've shown yet. So what purpose do you pretend to serve by finding parts of the Bible that might not refute you? I see no reason to play that game. You've already made yourself ridiculous enough, no need to belabor the point.

Only pointless for you. Here is my evidence in chronological order.

1. Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. This proves that mankind is not all one racial lineage, which means there is a distinction between the races as specifically stated by the context of the animals and plant-life being AFTER THEIR KIND.

2. Because of #1, the Laws of God are based on a racial context, hence, Dueteronomy 23:2 of a "bastar#" not entering into the congregation of the Lord. I have shown the evidence to be that this word means one of a mixed RACIAL lineage, which is supportive of the fact that God created all things pure in their race in Genesis.

3. Leviticus 19:19 is the next piece of evidence as it specifically states not to intermix or breed the different races or species of cattle and plant-life. This is supportive of the creation account in Genesis and therefore, poses the simple question of why it wouldnt be the same with human beings.

4. Nehemiah 13:3, 27. I have shown the evidence of the word "mixed" and the word "strange", which both are contained in a racial context as the basis for all of this is still Adam and Eve, which in turn is the context of God's Laws.

5. Ezra 10:2-3 is another piece of evidence as it specifically states that those born of the union of Israel and strange wives, which is nokriy, which means a foriegn, alien, out-landish, NON-RELATIVE individual and including the marriage or union itself are AGAINST God's Law

6. Leviticus 22:3, 12-13 is yet another piece of evidence. The entire context is based on the word "seed", which is "zera" and it means offspring, progeny, stock, family, race, race of men. Verse 12-13 speaks of a woman being the priest daughter, which states specifically that if she is married to a "zuwr" stranger, which means foreign, out-landish, adulterative, she may not eat of the Holy Thing. However, if she is widowed, divorced AND has no child, she can return. The context is still verse 3, of the racial lineage, of the family, of the progeny of Aaron, of the offspring. Those in Aarons lineage are a result of the Lineage of Adam and Eve and they were NOT the first people on earth and because of that one simple fact, they context is purely racial. Therefore, this is speaking in a racial context.

As I have stated numermous times. All of this goes RIGHT back to Adam and Eve NOT being the first people on earth. I have shown the evidence completely and specifically, that there are completely two different accounts of man being created. You have what happened in Genesis 1 and you have what happened in Genesis 2 and they are both completely different.

Therefore, as I have even said previously as well, all of this depends on the fact that Adam and EVe were not the first people on earth. You would have to show that to be a lie in order to show that I am teaching lies. However, since you have not and continue to have not, it must mean im telling the truth. I think you know this because if you had the evidence, you would willfully show how Im wrong abouat Adam and Eve, to show how I might be liar, to expose me for a fraud, so therefore no one might listen to what you call a racist.

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? It would be pointless. This is why its so important. This is why it always goes back to that.

Yet, you still havent shown anything on that regard, nor addressed the specifics of Genesis, therefore, all can see that you cannot show me to be wrong and that is what shows that I am right.

 

[Kasey]

*sigh*

As usual, Kasey doesn't touch my arguments, but instead uses lots of pretty exclamation points to direct everyone's attention to some other part of the Bible that he thinks might be able to support his bigotry.

Have fun with that, Kasey.

Calling me names again Lednifi? HOw many is that this time? Racist is one, evil is another, now we have bigotry? Hmm, your on a roll. . . .

Anyways, point me to it. What post #? Explain. Show me where, just like I have asked you to do previously, but you never did.

 

[Kasey]

I didnt catch these earlier.

(1) God calls Adam and Eve "them," which means there were more than two of them, since two people can't be referred to as "them."

Obviously, Ledifni, it would be that case if the progeniters of the general races of mankind were created in Genesis 1 and a specific race of humans were created through Adam and Eve.

Where does it address Adam and Eve as "them" being blessed and commanded to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land and to subude and have dominion over all the animal and plant life? Those mentioned in Genesis 1:26-27 cannot be conclusively shown as being Adam and Eve! Aside from this, there is NOTHING, NOWHERE where God commands Adam and Eve specifically to do something like this!

(2) Before God put the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he told Adam that he could eat of all the plants on Earth (since the Tree of Knowledge wasn't on the Earth yet). After God put the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge in the garden, he said, "You can't eat of the Tree of Knowledge." This is clearly a contradiction, because... well, because Kasey can't quite figure out why God would say, "You can eat everything" before he put the one and only thing they couldn't eat on Earth, and then say something different once that thing was planted.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. Your talking as if those mentioned in Genesis 1:27 are Adam and Eve themselves. Where is your evidence for this. Its states male created he him, male AND female created he THEM. In addition, right AFTER this, it states that God blessed them and told them to have domininon of all the animal kingdom and subdue the land and to be fruitful and multiply. There is nothing in Genesis 2 to confirm this! In addition, RIGHT after telling them that they shall have dominion over the land and animals, and telling them to be fruitful and multiply, God tells them they can have all the trees for food, ALL OF THEM. Right afterwards! Thee is nothing concerning any of this in Genesis 2 when talking about Adam or Eve or both of them together.

In addition, the context of the trees being spoken about in Genesis are in a GARDEN according to Genesis 2:16. The Hebrew word for "garden", according to Strong's Concordance and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, its the Hebrew word "gan" and it means a garden (as fenced). Gesenius' says it means an enclosed garden, with trees.

This right here shows it all. Its prima-facie evidence because the Hebrew word for "earth" in genesis is the Hebrew word "erets" and it means the land either in a large or narrow sense. The context of the that word being used in Genesis 1 is Genesis 1:1, which obviously, means the planet. The word for "garden" in Genesis 2 is very, VERY specific. If Adam was in charge of the planet, then there would be no need to use a different hebrew word. This shows that Adam was put in a specific, unique spot other than those mentioned in Genesis 1 and that shows right there that I have been right all along as the planet is not a fenced in garden.

Well, since we've disposed of that ridiculous argument, here's something else I noticed from that page:

You havent disposed of anything.

You say that it was acceptable for Ruth to be an ancestor of Jesus, because she was a Moabite and Moabites are descended from Shem. Yes? Well, you surely remember Nehemiah 13, that chapter from which you drew so much evidence about God's commands concerning interracial mixing. I suggest you read the whole chapter -- then come back and tell me about how Moabites aren't "ereb" and Jesus wasn't "nokriy." This should be very interesting

Because the context of this was Dueteronomy 23:2-3. It states that a mongrel person shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, for that is what the word "bastar#" means. However, the other piece of evidence is that it specifically states even to their TENTH generation shall they not enter. The Moabites and Ammonites are mentioned in that same context in verse 3! To theri TENTH generation! This shows that their are mongrelized moabites and pure-racial ones. Thats the key and thats the answer and it fits perfectly.

 

[Blackguard_]

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?

 

[Ledifni]

You really want to play this game? You really want to try to dodge back and forth from verse to verse, dropping the ones I refute only to return to them as soon as I refute your new ones? Ok. I'll wipe the floor with you, bud.

Um, excuse me, dont ignore the rest, which clearly states a race of men, stock, race. The context in question is Leviticus 22:12-13. It specifically states that if she was divorced and had no child, she could come back. Thats the context. The context is a race of men, or racial lineage. She was the priests daughter, of a specific lineage, yet, if she married without to a foreign, alien, out-landish, which, in the context, could only mean a different race, then she wouldnt be allowed to heat the holy things. Only if she was divorced and has NO CHILD would she be allowed to come back.

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.

If it has nothing to do with race, then there wouldnt be no need for "no child" in Leviticus 22:13. That alone proves it has everything to do with race.

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.

For a cultural/faith/religion thing doesnt really matter when concerning a racial matter as the culture can be independant of the race. Its a racial context because of the ALL the definitions of the word seed, which you have ignored, as well as "no child" which completely supported Nehemiah 13:3,27.

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.

Dont forget Ezra 10:2-3. The word strange there is "nokriy" again, and just as you have admitted previously that the translations that I have shown are correct, then you cannot ignore the fact that the definition also means "non-relative". In the context of Leviticus 22:3, 12-13, this is racial.

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.

Marriage to different races and those BORN unto them are to be put away, which is completely supportive of Deuteronomy 23:2, which is supportive of the fact that Adam and Eve were created in context of those animals and plant-life created previously of being "AFTER THEIR KIND"

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.

The Hebrew makes all the difference. However, your not a Christian, so why should it matter to you? In your response right now, you deliberately ignored the rest of the definitions to the word "seed" in that context. You deliberately didnt mention the context of Leviticus 22:12-13 which is based in verse 3 as well as that which you mentioned.

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.

You cannot get around the simple fact that it is because of the word "seed" as well as the woman being spoken of as being a priest of that particular seed, or race of men, or race, or family, or stock. It specifically states that shes not to have any children, for only if she doesnt is she allowed to come back, which is supportive of Ezra 10:2-3, Nehemiah 13:3,27.

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.

continued in next post...

 

[Ledifni]

continued from last post...

As I have stated numermous times. All of this goes RIGHT back to Adam and Eve NOT being the first people on earth.

Which you've failed to prove.

I have shown the evidence completely and specifically, that there are completely two different accounts of man being created. You have what happened in Genesis 1 and you have what happened in Genesis 2 and they are both completely different.

Therefore, as I have even said previously as well, all of this depends on the fact that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth. You would have to show that to be a lie in order to show that I am teaching lies. However, since you have not and continue to have not, it must mean im telling the truth. I think you know this because if you had the evidence, you would willfully show how Im wrong abouat Adam and Eve, to show how I might be liar, to expose me for a fraud, so therefore no one might listen to what you call a racist.

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? It would be pointless. This is why its so important. This is why it always goes back to that.

Yet, you still havent shown anything on that regard, nor addressed the specifics of Genesis, therefore, all can see that you cannot show me to be wrong and that is what shows that I am right.

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!

 

[kofh2u]

The argument doesn't cut it, that diversity by means of racial intermarriage is good. Sameness is not a useful survival tool. And, there is evidence that mankind has different mental capabilities rooted in genetic differences.

We need "differences" in the way we think in order find different solutions to the same problems.

But, for Jews, the genetic "proof" of racial purity of Jews, all the way back to Moses, certifies the Jewish claim to their land, Promised by God.
From Journal Lancet:
Rabbis are quick to point out that the genetic study confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. "

 

[Ledifni]

The argument doesn't cut it, that diversity by means of racial intermarriage is good. Sameness is not a useful survival tool. And, there is evidence that mankind has different mental capabilities rooted in genetic differences.

We need "differences" in the way we think in order find different solutions to the same problems.

I'm not arguing in favor of enforcing opposite-sex marriage. In fact, nobody in this thread has done so. Not even the OP. You should really try to keep up with the thread.

 

[kofh2u]

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.

 

[Misty Minister]

How many folks on this thread are European-American? See, everyone gets a hyphon....happy? How many folks on this thread have never had a relationship or friendship with someone other than their race? Why are people so afraid of ethnicity and race? I don't get it...I never will...I am so sick to my stomach right now from reading this $%#@ that I want to puke.

Maybe they live in northern Wisconsin!