Universalists and racial egalitarians often point out — mistakenly — that Moses married a Black woman from Africa — and therefore, the Israelites did not obey God’s command to remain a racially pure people.
These same universalists will often use this example of Moses to support their erroneous contention that Jesus Christ himself was multi-racial, and therefore, not of pure Israelite ancestry.
Here we present Chapter 3 from Charles A. Weisman’s book, Is Universalism Of God? — where he shows that Moses’ wife was not — and could not have been — a Black African.
Along a similar vein, we previously saw how Weisman demonstrated that the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts chapter 8 was in all likelihood a white Israelite, not a black African.
Weisman writes:
Did Moses Marry a Black Woman?
A very common argument raised by humanist Christians and Universalists is that Moses had a black or Negro wife. They say that this gives support to interracial marriages since Moses was a man of God — and God did not condemn the union. The verse they base this upon is 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.”
The point of contention here is not Moses’ marriage, but the superior position Moses occupied which brought about the jealousy of Miriam and Aaron. They were merely using the marriage as a pretext to start a campaign against their brother.
Since the term “Ethiopian” is used [here in the misleading English translation], many think it is in reference to the same Ethiopia of modern times in Africa south of Egypt. However, this is a false assessment.
The word “Ethiopian” means “a Cushite, or descendant of Cush” [Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, No. 3569]. Cush is a region named after the patriarch (Genesis 10:6). The original land of Cush was located in Arabia and Mesopotamia — and one who lived in these lands would be called a “Cushite” or “Ethiopian.”
Most authorities recognize that the use of “Ethiopian” in Numbers 12 is in reference to “Arabia” [see Matthew Henry, Commentary In One Volume, p. 153] — or to the lower Tigris-Euphrates valley. This was the land designated as Cush in ancient times. Speaking on this verse, one Bible authority states:
“An Ethiopian woman — Heb., a Cushite woman — Arabia was usually called in Scripture the land of Cush — its inhabitants being descendants of that son of Ham.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Zondervan, vol. 1, p. 104
Concerning the identity of the “Cushite woman,” modern writers tend to think of the Cassites, east of Babylonia or — with better justification — of Kusi in North Arabia, mentioned by Esarhaddon of Assyria [see Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Nelson, 1962, p. 259]. Professor Davidson says it may be in reference to “the Cassites, a people north-east of Mesopotamia” (see Davidson, The New Bible Commentary, Eerdman’s, p. 177).
The land or country of Cush or Ethiopia was not originally located in Africa, as most Bible scholars acknowledge:
“Cush is connected with Kish — the ancient city-state in lower Babylonia.”
Unger’s Bible Handbook, Moody Press, 1980, p. 53
“Cush — the name of the territory through which the Gihon River flowed (Genesis 2:13), translated “Ethiopia” by KJV, but in view of the distance of Ethiopia in relation to the Red Aea, the site is probably in SE Babylonia or Chaldea.”
The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, M.Tenney, 1967, p. 191
In 2 Chronicles 14:9, “Zerah the Ethiopian” refers to a person of “an Arabian tribe” [see The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1971, p.215]. In Habakkuk 3:7, the term “Cushan” — which is derived from the word Cush — is identified with “the land of Midian” which is a “region of Arabia” [Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, No 3572].
Since Midian was one of the sons of Cush, some think that the woman referred to may have been Zipporah, who was a Midianite (Exodus 2:21). Others say this was a second wife of Moses from Cush.
Recent researches (especially by Winckler) have made it probable that two districts were known both to the Assyrians and the Hebrews under the same name “Cush.” One of them was Ethiopia — while the other was in the West and South of Arabia, not always exactly defined.
Winckler considers that the Arabian “Cush” is meant in the following passages: Gn 2:13, 1:6 ff.; Nu.12:1; II Sa 18:21; II Ch,14:8 ff., 21:16; Is 20:3, 43:3, 45:14; Hab 3:7; Ps 87:4.
[see A New Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls, 1936, p. 162].
This tells us that the wife of Moses mentioned in Numbers 12 was from the region of southern Mesopotamia or western Arabia, and was thus of the same race as Abraham who was from Ur of the Chaldeans in lower Mesopotamia (Genesis 11:31) — the only region of Cushite people at that time. The Ethiopia in Africa was not actually known or so named at the time of Moses.
“The Ethiopians ruled southwestern Arabia for many years. Cush is mentioned in Genesis 10:8 as the father of Nimrod, whose kingdom began in Babylon, and Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Cush might originally have been an ancient region in Assyria named after Cush, the father of Nimrod. The present Ethiopia was unknown and uninhabited at this time.”
George M. Lamsa, Old Testament Light, 1964, p. 15
The original Cushites (Ethiopians) settled in Mesopotamia after the Flood, as did the Shemites. They both helped to form the ancient states of Sumer, Akkad, and Babel. But centuries later some migrated to Africa.
The Greek historian Herodotus (440 B.C.), states that “the Ethiopians came from the region above [north of] Egypt” [see The History of Herodotus, trans., George Rawlinson, Tudor Pub., 1932, bk. VII, p.379]. They came from the Tigris-Euphrates valley and the Sinai Peninsula.
The Cushites established a new settlement in southern Egypt and over time formed a considerable population by mixing with the dark-skinned inhabitants south of Egypt. Thus there were two areas called Cush or Ethiopia — the Arabian Cush, and the African Cush. It is like Boston, Massachusetts being named after Boston, England.
The African Cush in the ancient world became the better known Ethiopia or Cush — and the darker complexion of its people was expressed in the biblical proverb, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23) .
Some will point out that the Greek term for Ethiopian — Aithiopisse — means dark or dusky, but this is the more modern definition used in reference to people south of Egypt at a latter time period. You cannot apply a more contemporary Greek definition to ancient Hebrew words.
The original word in Numbers 12 is associated with a certain location — Mesopotamia — at a certain time period — 2300-1400 B.C. It is well known that there were no Negroes in this region at this time. Words must be kept in their proper historical context as well as the context of the original subject matter.
Nimrod was an Ethiopian (Cushite) — but certainly was not a Negroid type. Actually, there is a tradition that “Cushite” under Hebrew etymology means “fair of appearance” [see Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Nelson, 1962, p.259]. Ethiopian in the modern Greek, Latin and English languages may have inference to dark or black, but its original Hebrew etymology reveals no connotations of — or connections to — dark, dusky or black.
Kush is Kish, a Sumerian urban state.
Christian identity doesn’t make much sense, in this article you quoted a modern day Assyrian George Lamsa to promote your white supremacy in the Bible, modern day Assyrians are exactly the same as the ancient ones, the language and culture they have are nearly identical to their ancient ones and during this period of time they almost never race-mixed with other populations.
Genetically and culturally you have no proofs of your statements, I also think that what you do is considered racial idolatry.
-Zogo
“Modern day Assyrians are exactly the same as the ancient ones”
Where’s your proof of this? We know modern day assyrians/syrians are arabs, and the ancient Assyrians were most certainly not arabs. Ancient Assyrians were part of the original Genesis 10 nations, and they were Adamic, not arab. What more proof do you need?
American Assyrian……
“White Idolatry”…
Well, that’s a new one. I see how you connect the word “idolatry” — which the Bible tells us is a sin — you connect that word to “White”.
Clever.
I moved to an area of 99% White people. I like white peoples. And in fact if I were to have children I would have the desire to have White children — to see an image of myself in them i.e., Posterity.
Am I a “sinner” in your book?
American Assyrian …….
“….promote your white supremacy in the Bible…..”
“supremacy”. Another Clever word. Sounds like something another group of people like to use.
The Bible tells us — “….This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.” Genesis 5
Would you agree that Adam and Eve were “HOMOGENEOUS” in their dna?
If YES ………. then the logical conclusion is that Adam and Eve’s descendants were also HOMOGENEOUS in their dna.
Let me know when you disagree.
Question —- If Adam and Eve and their descendants were HOMOGENEOUS …………… where do the non-Adamics come from????
Do you have a logical answer?
What does George Lamsa’s opinion about the Cushites have to do with the Assyrians? That seems like a non-sequitur. One may not agree with a lot of Lamsa’s opinions such as the notion that the original New Testament was written in Aramaic. There are no original Aramaic texts of the Gospels, the earliest are Greek. Perhaps Matthew was written in Aramaic/Hebrew based on internal evidence, but we just don’t know for sure.
All that aside, just because one may agree with one of his opinions doesn’t mean we would agree with all he says, no? And just because he’s “Assyrian” doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong. Very confusing point you’re making here….
If yall use the KJV , I suggest you also use other translations alongside with your studies. The KJV is absolutely litered with mistakes !!Over 27,000 mistakes are recorded !! Heck , they state Paul was a Canaanite while it should state Zealot !!! The kjv was translated using the Latin vulgate and the Bishops Bible .
I use a 1995 NASB which imho is the best !! i will also use a interlinear but even those cannot be fully trusted !!
AP, we do not use the KJV translation exclusively, though sometimes we will link to it out of convenience, or when we feel that their translation is adequate, though hardly perfect.
Most of our links to any Scripture are to https://biblehub.com/
Biblehub offers multiple translations, including Young’s Literal translation, to choose from. This is our preferred link because it allows our readers to compare all translations and make a judgment for themselves.
18th century Prussian biblical scholar, Johann Michaelis believed that the name Cush was applied to tracts of country on both sides of the Red Sea, in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen) and Northeast Africa. Thus there were, in fact, two “Cushes” or two “Ethiopias”, which has caused much confusion among Bible readers who mistakenly believe there was only one “Ethiopia”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_David_Michaelis
CFT I noticed a change in your articles during the years:
In the beginning you wrote a lot of articles about the great replacement, anti-White racism and stuff like that which sometimes was kinda “petty” like the articles about NFL players.
You also used to share all those things on twitter and facebook to reach a wider audience, now you don’t do that anymore, are you satisfied about reaching the few thousands readers on this website and now you just want to write religious articles for these people? Don’t you want to reach more people and stuff? Do you think you’re doing “Your part” and God’s will by writing for so few people? I mean I think that only a small remnant will be saved but there is at least 100k more White people who could hear your truth and be saved.
“Josué Estébanez de la Hija”
aka
Omar Long
https://christiansfortruth.com/jewish-law-professor-resigns-in-protest-over-antisemitic-opposition-to-zionist-genocide-in-palestine/#comment-118629
aka
Alabama Lutheran
https://christiansfortruth.com/did-moses-marry-a-black-african-woman/#comment-118590
aka
Darren Cornelius
https://christiansfortruth.com/race-mixed-christian-author-pastor-abandons-faith-divorces-wife-apologizes-to-gays/#comment-118436
You are clearly a troll who has shown up here to create dissension and turn people away from the truth. We won’t speculate who you really are or what your game is, but it’s a waste of time, and your comments will no longer be posted. You’re not even good at what you do. (((Whoever))) trained you should be fired.
Right you are CFT , I immediately smelled the dirty wet (((RAT)))
In the Bible some say there was a certain Simeon niger who was black:
“Acts 13:1 (KJV)
13 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.”
Simeon is an Israelite name, and no black African would have been called “Simeon”. The “Niger” nickname most likely came from his dark or black hair. We can see the same with the “Black Irish” because of their black hair, whom we could call “Niger Irish”, as “niger” in Latin means black.
Simeon the Niger was an Israelite, and any other interpretation is wishful thinking by the universalists.
Alabama Lutheran
aka
Omar Long
https://christiansfortruth.com/jewish-law-professor-resigns-in-protest-over-antisemitic-opposition-to-zionist-genocide-in-palestine/#comment-118629
aka
Darren Cornelius
https://christiansfortruth.com/race-mixed-christian-author-pastor-abandons-faith-divorces-wife-apologizes-to-gays/#comment-118436
aka
Josué Estébanez de la Hija
https://christiansfortruth.com/did-moses-marry-a-black-african-woman/#comment-118632
You are clearly a troll who has shown up here to create dissension and turn people away from the truth. We won’t speculate who you really are or what your game is, but it’s a waste of time, and your comments will no longer be posted. You’re not even good at what you do. (((Whoever))) trained you should be fired.
Moses lived somewhere around 1400 to 1300 BC. Jeremiah lived around 650 to 570 BC. Could the ethnic make up of Ethiopia have changed during those approximately 900 years?? I have seen the ethnic change in American citied during my short lifetime.
Isaiah 43:3 tells us that at some point, Ethiopia was destroyed, through what seems to have been race mixing. The verse implies that the destruction has already occurred during the time of Isaiah, but maybe it means that the ball was set in motion then and complete destruction would take centuries?
Then it could be that during the time of Acts, when Ethiopia rivaled Rome, that the Queen Candace was white, as archeology confirms, the ruling caste was white (eg: Acts 8 Ethiopian), and the populace was darkening?
If Ethiopians were already known for their black skin in the time of Jeremiah then they could not have been a rival to Rome some 500+ years later.
All of which leads me back to the tattoo theory, but I admit I’m not 100% convinced of it.
Right, but as the article points out, there were two Ethiopias, no? One in Arabia and one in eastern Africa. I assume the one God gave up was the one in Africa, don’t you?
Bible often recounts events without approving of them. Many godly men have had shortcomings. Attempting to cure a Bible difficulty by changing the meaning of words is not the correct method. It would be a better exposition to simply admit that Ethiopians are black, and then explain that Moses’ first wife had caused him trouble and separated from him, and Moses was then an old man and evidently being helped by this domestic woman and so he decided to take her as his wife. It was race-mixing, bigamy, ill advised, a bad example, and caused problems, especially with Miriam. Moses had sons with his first wife, but none with the Ethiopian. The lesson to learn is that Moses’ personal mistakes aren’t grounds for rebellion against him because he was still God’s man regardless.
Namru, please show chapter and verse in the Bible where it states that Ethiopians or Cushites had black skin. You claim they had black skin, so you have the burden of proof to prove it. Show us your proof.
CFT, you will LOVE this article;
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/to-dislike-certain-ethnicities-is-racist-to-see-jews-as-equal-is-antisemitic/
I expect that (((they))) wrote this as satire for themselves and to be taken as gospel by the goyim, particularly since it is against “throwing mud” on Jesus.
Amusingly, if you were to replace “Jews” with “Israelites” in that article then it would turn into a surprisingly hardcore Christian nationalist paper that would blasted as heresy in the vast majority of churches.
BTW, how can Abraham and Moses be considered Jews? It’s a laugh that they write Jews are supposed to be a positive, guiding example for the goyim, but the only actual jew that they can name who fulfills this is the fraud Einstein.
But non-Western racists often don’t care about lineage, only about religious practice, loyalty, and identity.
Aren’t non-westerners the most obsessed with lineage? They’re mixed race and the ones who are the least mixed love to flaunt it, like brown hispanics claiming that they are white, or Jews claiming to be differently descended from the Arabs, despite having identical genetics.
And is there such a thing as an Israeli who looks even as white as Assad?
JB, this Jewish writer honestly seems certifiably insane, every other word that comes out of his mouth is a contradiction. He’s a “second generation Holocaust survivor” who receives a pension from the Netherlands while living in Israel. He’s a parasite willing to take extorted money from the goyim based on the Big Lie of the Holocaust, then he’s got the chutzpah to cry “Victim!” Don’t waste your time trying to figure him out. That’s part of his game, to waste your time figuring out his intentional obscurity.
World Jewish Congress!
“UNESCO has teamed up with Twitter, the European Commission and the World Jewish Congress to launch the campaign dubbed #ThinkBeforeSharing: Stop the spread of conspiracy theories.”
https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/17079932.html#17080022
https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/unesco-conspiracy-english-4.jpg
UN Declares War on ‘Dangerous’ Conspiracy Theories: ‘The World Is NOT Secretly Manipulated By Global Elite’
https://worldfreedomalliance.org/au/news/un-declares-war-on-dangerous-conspiracy-theories-the-world-is-not-secretly-manipulated-by-global-elite/
The United Nations was established in 1945 to put an end to all wars. The world has been at war ever since….
NWO: Communism By The Backdoor Part 7 – The United Nations
https://tv.gab.com/channel/catharesin/view/jwo-jew-world-order-62eb8decd91850085f9d7ffb
The United Nations was formed so that an international organization would officially recognize Israel as a “legitimate” nation-state.
It as the League of Nations that was formed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency to “end all wars”. 20 years later we had WWII.
You the man.
I just came across a book titled
Atlantas, Edda & Bible 200,000 Years of Germanic World Culture and Secrets of the Holy Scriptures
by Hermann Wieland.
It was banned and destroyed by the Allies (All Lies) after the war. I’m only a few pages into it, but it is very interesting so far.
Maybe it’s a book CFT would want to take a look at.
Of course, black Hebrews also believe that Moses had another wife besides Zipporah, and her name was Tharbis, Queen of Ethiopia. No, don’t look for her in the Bible, she’s not there, but she’s mentioned in apocrypha writing, the book of Jasher, and by Josephus, the Roman historian.
https://wearehebrew.com/moses-wife/
But again, given the time frame, Queen Tharbis would not have been a black African either way. But that didn’t stop Hollywood, in the movie, “The Ten Commandments”, to depict her as coal black:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f7/b6/f2/f7b6f29b0f1c3060525b0b1d806dee7c.jpg
That’s disappointing, since Heston’s casting has been “triggering” woke folk for decades, as it is the most accurate portrayal.
Nowadays we have Christian works such as The Chosen that are so woke they blaspheme by having Mary be an Arab and Joseph be a negro.
In a few decades, I will not be surprised if people look at the population of all the East Coast cities mentioned in Hamilton and conclude that it is historically accurate because the nogs in the play jibe with the nog populations.
God instructs the Israelites to remain racially pure because He was afraid that intermarriage would weaken the Israelites faith in Him by bringing other gods into the household. But, if the other racial partner were to convert, it seems to be OK.
God’s mission is to position his chosen people to destroy the other gods and their people.
This is what they will get in return for their pride,
for insulting and mocking
the people of the Lord Almighty.
11 The Lord will be awesome to them
when he destroys all the gods of the earth.
Distant nations will bow down to him,
all of them in their own lands. (Zephaniah 2)
There is not one god but many gods. Each nation/race has its own god. When you believe in the Jew God, you are destroying your own native god. When you celebrate Christmas, instead of Yule, you are dishonoring your native god. As time goes on, your race will grow weaker and weaker, as your knowledge of your native god becomes nothing more than a faint memory.
What was the “native” God of the aryan race 5,000 years ago? Or is the God of pagan Europeans, allegedly “Odin” or Wotan”, the one that counts as “real”? Are you aware that Wotan was a real tribal chief who was then turned into a “god” after his death? Does that matter, or is does he still qualify as a “native” God of Europeans? What about the Greek and Roman gods? Were they real “native” gods of the white race? So many to chose from? How do you know which ones are real?
The writer goes to a lot of pain to distance anything “African” from the ancient Israelites. But the fact is, the ancient people did intermarry, and they were not exactly as racists as the modern Homo- Hypocritus
The whole of Middle East and north Africa was heavily mixed up because of the constant conflict and exportation of culture from one Kingdom to another. There is no point in belabouring the claim of “Racial Purity” of the Israelites. It only existed up to the Babylonian Exile, and even before then, God accepted “strangers” in to the House of Israel, if at all these strangers adopted” Yahwehism”
So, when the writer rejects the claim that “Moses married a Black woman from Africa — and therefore, the Israelites did not obey God’s command to remain a racially pure people.” whether this is true or not, is totally irrelevant, since “Israel Racial Purity” no longer plays any role, and its totally irrelevant. Anyone who wishes to play this card and entertain this illusion is deeply misguided.
The writer also rejects the assertion that “Jesus Christ himself was multi-racial, and therefore, not of pure Israelite ancestry.” Well, at least we know, that Jesus Christ was a descendant of David, Son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, who married a Moabite by the name Ruth. So There!
In regard to African Ancestry of anyone Israelite, , Solomon Himself claims that he was black, and his skin has “dark colouring” “Beloved; I am black but lovely, daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the pavilions of Salmah. Take no notice of my dark colouring, it is the sun that has burnt me. My mother’s sons turned their anger on me, they made me look after the vineyards. My own vineyard I had not looked after!” Songs Of Solomon; 1:5-6 Playing apologetics and preaching “Racial Purity” of the Israelites, also fails to address the fact that Solomon had a harem of foreign concubines, and we do not know how many Israelites copied their King! It failed to address the fact that many Babylonians converted to Judaism (Esther 8:17) It fails to address the fact that Edomites converted to Judaism. All this, and more which is in History, shows Israel as a race which eventually was totally diluted, and a Religion, “Yahwehism” which was totally replaced by “Traditions of The Elders” or the so-called “Judeo-Talmudism”
Race purity today, plays absolutely no role, and the writer and Charles A. Weisman, might desire to hide their deep seated racism, and the fact that this is just a racist rant, but they have not succeeded.
King David is described as “ruddy” and “fair”, which means white, and you are claiming his son, Solomon was black? How can that be?
So-called “Black Israelites” quote the same verses as you to claim Solomon, and the Israelites, were black, but clearly Solomon here is using metaphorical language to describe his mood, not his skin color. It’s hard to have any serious discussion of the Bible with someone with cannot discern literal from metaphorical language, as it the case here.
Verses about Israelites being white:
1 Samuel 17:42:
“And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth and ruddy and of a fair countenance…”
Solomon 5:10:
“My beloved is white and ruddy the chiefest among ten thousand…”
Lamentations 4:7:
“Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk they were more ruddy in body than rubies…”
Isaiah 29:22:
“Therefore thus saith God, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.”
1Samuel 16:12:
“So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance. And God said, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.””
Psalm 51:7:
“Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”
Description of Abraham’s wife Sarah from the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“…Her skin was pure white…”
Eric, you say;
“It’s hard to have any serious discussion of the Bible with someone with cannot discern literal from metaphorical language, as it the case here.”
Look, while I agree that the “Adamic Race” was supposed to be “Pure Race” it never achieved that distinction, even at the very beginning. The “Adamic Race” were “Sons Of God” and “Man” was The Spirit, the Image of God, who was inherited by the rest of Mankind. So, what does the bible state:
“ When men (Who inherited The Spirit of Man) began to be plentiful on earth, and daughters had been born to them, the sons of God, (The Adamic Race) looking at the daughters of Man, (The Human Spirit) saw they were pleasing, so they married as many as they chose.” Yahweh said, ‘My Spirit must not forever be disgraced in man, for he is only but flesh; his life shall last no more than a hundred and twenty years’ The Nephilims were on earth as that time (and even afterwards) when the sons of God, resorted to the daughters of Man and had children by them. These were heroes of the days gone by, the famous men.” Genesis 6:1-4.
So, you can very well see that the mix-up started at the very beginning. Unless you want to claims that the creation story is just a story.
Bigfoot, why did you just ignore all the evidence that Eric laid in front of you from the Bible that contradicts you argument? Instead you moved on to another verse. Just for honesty’s sake, you could admit you were wrong about Solomon being black.
As far as Genesis 6 is concerned, we wrote an extensive essay to address the central issues of mixing in “Genesis 6: What Really Happened Between The ‘Sons Of God’ And The ‘Daughters Of Man’?
https://christiansfortruth.com/genesis-6-what-really-happened-between-the-sons-of-god-and-the-daughters-of-man/
If you are sincere, please take the time to read it, along with the comments. You give no real evidence that the entire Adamic race became mixed with non-Adamics; rather you merely presume it because you need to account for the other races.
Well, CFT, Am not ignoring Eric or what he said. His point is that he is trying to explain the difference between “literal” and “metaphorical language” as used in the bible. Anyone can understand “literal” and “metaphorical language”. It’s a common-day usage, as it was of old. When The Lord calls the Pharisees “Brood Of Vipers” or when he called the Herod “Fox” surely this is figurative.
When Eric quotes the Bible where its written;
“And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth and ruddy and of a fair countenance…1 Samuel 17:42” Ruddy, can mean anything from “reddish, Rosy, Flushed, Glowing, Healthy looking, or Red” There is nothing “Black or White” here. Same with the next quote where the word “ruddy”
My intention in quoting the Bible where Solomon claims to be black, is simply to show:-
(1) It may not be true that Solomon was “white” It does not matter.
(2) The issue of Israelites Being black or white is irrelevant.
(3) Those who belabour arguing of the “Whiteness” of Israel are imbibing on Kool-aid, and in pursuit after nothingness.
However, as for you, CFT you do have a slant in your argument, which triggers alarms in my mind, and that is why I have to be on the alert whenever I read your articles. I really do wish I would end up being more informed or persuaded to another viewpoint after reading your articles. I really do. That is why, I am not surprise that you do not agree with me, just as I do not always agree with you. It’s healthy.
Like when you say; “You give no real evidence that the entire Adamic race became mixed with non-Adamics; rather you merely presume it because you need to account for the other races.” You yourself do not explain who were “nephilims” only who they were not. You do not explain who were “The Sons Of God” only whom they were not.
Your article (https://christiansfortruth.com/genesis-6-what-really-happened-between-the-sons-of-god-and-the-daughters-of-man/) criticizes the views of others, yet it does not shed any light. It leaves one giddy with perplexity, trying to discern exactly what you intended to say-but did not. It rejects al views, but hardly gives any that one can compare with his own, wrong as it may be.
Bigfoot …………..
At the turn of the 19th Century, Anthropologists were pretty much in agreement that 4 distinct groups of people existed — White, yellow, black and red.
What is your theory as to the origin of these people.
Do you belong to the “everyone comes from Adam and Eve” theory; or do you have a different theory/understanding.
This topic has come up a few times here at CFT. I do not believe you commented on this article as an example — https://christiansfortruth.com/does-acts-1726-prove-that-all-races-are-of-one-blood-in-christ/
Would you read “Not of One Blood” and give us your opinion on this treatise?
https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Not-Of-One-Blood.pdf
I never like to assume; but I have a suspicion that you do subscribe to the “all living peoples come from Adam and Eve” theory.
If YES ……………………. would you mind explaining how that happened?
I will be honest, this is what I believed for 20 years of my adult christian life. I didn’t know “why” I believed it — I believed it because everyone around me believed it. But it was never explained to me nor did I care too much about it at that time. But I also have to admit that I wasn’t a “Christian” then either. I was a christian like most are — just cultural christians, following the herd.
I would sure appreciate a logical and SCRIPTURAL explanation as to how it is possible that we can get 4 distinct groups of people out of ONE homogenous couple.
Thanks.
West you asked.
Q. “At the turn of the 19th Century, Anthropologists were pretty much in agreement that 4 distinct groups of people existed — White, yellow, black and red. “What is your theory as to the origin of these people.” “Do you belong to the “everyone comes from Adam and Eve” theory; or do you have a different theory/understanding.”
A. No. I do not belong to the “everyone comes from Adam and Eve” theory. We have to go back, to the Genesis Story, and the creation of “Man” I have some work coming up, which I have explained in details, and I hope it will be published. For now I do not want to lengthen my argument, but state briefly from the Biblical exegesis thus:-
(1) “God said, ‘Let us make Man, in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that craw upon the earth”
(2) “The word of Lord Yahweh about Israel. It is I, Yahweh, who speaks, who spread the heaven, and founded the earth, and formed the Spirit of Man, within him.” Zechariah 12:1-2
(3) “God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4: 23-25
It follows, therefore, that “Man created in Genesis 1:26 was completely different from the Man created in Genesis 2:7-23. Man created in Genesis 1:26, was “Like us” God wanted Him to be “Like us” But when the Man created in Genesis 2:7-23, became “Like one of us” there was alarm. It was followed with curses and not blessings.
Therefore Man created by God in Genesis 1:26, was different. He was “Homo Imago Dei” “Man, The Image Of God” And given that he was created by “Us” The Trinity Majesty who is God, it follows, that “Homo Imago Dei” was a Trinity, just like God. He was a Spirit. This was what enabled “Man” to co-father The Redeemer with God. That is why The Christ has as Hypostatic Union, as The Son of God and also The Son of Man.
As for Adam, He was formed, when God initiated “The Salvation Project” for Man. Adam was the first agent from the first saviour of Man. And the History of Israel, is a History that traces the Salvation project, from God As The Father, then to God As The Spirit, and lastly, to God As The Son, who is the Manifesting Trinity of God The Redeemer. It’s the reason why the House of Israel was required to maintain “Racial Purity” as “Nation Of Priests” who could trace their origin to Adam. The rest of Mankind, as the “Children of The Trinity Of Man” When Adam failed “God As The Father” and Israel failed “God As The Spirit” the only other Saviour left was God As The Son, and the only agent left was “The Son Of Man” That is the reason why, there is no other name left for men to be saved, except The Christ! He is “Emmanuel” meaning “God With Us”
Q. “I never like to assume; but I have a suspicion that you do subscribe to the “all living peoples come from Adam and Eve” theory.
I have answered this question. The reason why most people, especially religious leaders get it wrong, with their “Young Earth” theory, and “Adam & Eve” as progenitors of Mankind, is because they failed to adequately understand the genesis story. And because of this inadequacy, they “read into the bible” their own ferocious interpretations.
The Bible is true. But you have to approach is with simplicity and also with an open mind.
I hope you get the gist.
Thanks.
Bigfoot………………..
Thanks for the answer.
Curious — why do you think the White Race is far superior to all others and WHY has it been that International Jewry has bent over backwards to erradicate White Peoples and goes out of it’s way to make White people look terrible. I mean it is so obvious to anyone with a thinking brain. And why now, in the 21st century, does the Jew try so hard to “mix” the White Race?
Do you have an explanation? 98% of this Website is dedicated to proving that which I just said. Why White people?
Not that it matters, but I disagree with you that White Adamic Man was mixed from the beginning. It’s only really been since Modern Times, the Industrial Revolution, that White peoples began to mix with the non-white peoples (transportation). Yes, of course there was always the rare occurences, but it was not common at all. Go back to pre-ww1 and Europe was WHITE. African was black, except for South Africa. Asia was Asian. Etc., etc.
Now of course in 2022 we see obvious evidence of race mixing.
Do you think Europeans pre-ww1 were a mixed race people? I.E., mixed with non-white peoples. They looked pretty White to me.
Surely you must acknowledge the White race to be a very unique and distinct from all others. No other race is even comes close.
For me personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with your “Opinion”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I think what is irritating and I’m sure irritating to others here is when you throw out the “Racist” card. Calling us here “Racists” for loving our peoples. We don’t hate non-white peoples. Far from it.
Preference is not Racist, Bigfoot. When you call us “racist” …………………. Do you understand my point? Had you just left that insult out, you may have been viewed from a much different lense.
Cool off on the slander/accusations and continue to make your arguments.
I don’t buy them, but I’m always interested in what others believe.
I have a good friend who believes in CI theology, but he holds to the opinion that if a non-white person loves God with all their heart, soul and mind and “keeps His commands” that they will be rewarded with Eternal Life. That is his opinion and I respect it. And quite frankly I have no idea one way or the other. I will let God decide who He wants to spend Eternity with. But when someone tries to “force” this kind of thinking on others, I get suspicious.
See you around.
Only one race is being targeted for destruction, and that’s the white race. And the Jews are behind it, by their own admission. And Bigfoot is in lockstep with the Jews, shaming whites for even believing that their race exists, and that the Jews want to destroy it because it is the only pure race left on earth, and thus the only proof of God’s original creation. By shaming whites into race mixing because their race is already mixed, Bigfoot aids and abets the satanic destruction of God’s image on earth. Nice job.
Natty,
I agree with you. Thanks for the support. I am giving Bigfoot the opportunity to explain himself — or you are right: he is colluding with the jews. If he believes all the races to be equal or mixed or whatever he believes………….why does the jew only target White peoples? There is no real logic to his theory.
I have a question for you — what is your belief as to the origin of the non-white peoples? You said White peoples are the only “pure” race. Not sure what you mean by that. Would you like to elaborate?
I see it as “original” peoples. I believe in Pre-Adamites. I believe God created the yellow, black and red man during the animal creation. So they would be a pure or “original” creation. Just as a Lion or a Bear is an original or pure creation. Kind after Kind.
Curious your thinking process here. Thanks.
West your question:-
Curious — why do you think the White Race is far superior to all others and
(A) Whether or not the “White People” are “Superior” is a moot case. Moot,
because, “whiteness” is a perception, and so is “superiority” Each race, each people, each tribe, each family, each individual have their own ingrained fundamental values which influence their perception. What we have is “prejudice”, which you prefer to call “Preference”
(Q) WHY has it been that International Jewry has bent over backwards to eradicate White Peoples and goes out of it’s way to make White people look terrible.
(A) The International Jews is a “Equal Opportunity Revolutionaries” They only pretend to favour one race over another, as a Messianic strategy, not because they hate one group of goy more than the others. They hate all the goy equally, and any perception to the centrally is just that-perception. They are not just eradicating the “White Race” They are eradicating all races, all religions, all governments, and basically, all that the goy society held dear, and formed their web of cohesion as a society. It’s a Kabbalistic Principle of “Tikum Olam” do yourself a favour and study Lurianic Kabbalah, and the Heretical Messianicism of Sabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank.
(Q) And why now, in the 21st century, does the Jew try so hard to “mix” the White Race? )Do you have an explanation? 98% of this Website is dedicated to proving that which I just said. Why White people?
(A) Its nothing personal to the “White Race” Its a global strategy. Their Messianicism advocates the destruction of all races, and the mongrelisation of the goy races. And they have the tools to do it. The Monopoly of Global Credit. But you are welcome to entertain the idea that they are eradicating the “White Race” because its the “most superior.” You have not yet gotten the Big Picture.
(Q) Do you think Europeans pre-ww1 were a mixed race people? I.E., mixed with non-white peoples. They looked pretty White to me.
(A) I would advise not to get too preoccupied with colour. Its distracting. And it’s just that-colour.
(Q) Surely you must acknowledge the White race to be a very unique and distinct from all others. No other race is even comes close.
(A) It’s a feel-good feeling, for one to perceive your race as “Superior” I will not deny you that.
(Q) For me personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with your “Opinion”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
(A) Exactly
(Q) But I think what is irritating and I’m sure irritating to others here is when you throw out the “Racist” card. Calling us here “Racists” for loving our peoples. We don’t hate non-white peoples. Far from it. Preference is not Racist, Bigfoot. When you call us “racist” …………………. Do you understand my point?
(A) I do, I do. But you see, it’s a play out with semantics and platitudes. To one, preference is racism, and to another racism is preference. And we can argue all day long about it, and in the end, its just an opinion………which one is entitled to, as long as you do not cross the law.
Bigfoot………
“………What we have is “prejudice”, which you prefer to call “Preference”….”
Define “Prejudice” for me please.
West, well, if what Bigfoot says is true, that Adamic man was not racially pure, then nor were their Israelite descendants. And if the Israelites were not pure, then they were not worthy of being God’s chosen. Their laws against mixing were in vain because they were already mixed, which makes God into a liar.
If Israel was not racially pure, then Christ himself was not racially pure, and He was not the spotless sacrifice that was required by God. If he was not spotless, then He died in vain and cannot save us.
Mixed race people are double minded and always serve two masters, and thus can never, with an unconflicted heart, worship the one true God.
That’s what I mean by “pure”, I suppose. Do I think there are other races that are unmixed? Maybe, but they aren’t Adamic, and therefore their purity is not by choice but by happenstance. Their Gods do not require it.
And I believe that Bigfoot is hopelessy naive or intentionally ignorant when he says the Jews hate all non-Jews equally. That is patently false. History bears this out. The Jews have lived among the Chinese and controlled their economies, yet never once did they ever use their “power of the purse” to shame the Chinese into hating their race and then try to flood China with non-Chinese.
The Jews have lived among Blacks in Africa and never tried to impose diversity on them to destroy them racially. Only in white nations have Jews done this, and to claim otherwise is insulting to our collective intelligence. It’s not just our “perception” that we are being targeted.
There is a palpable “enmity” between Adamkind and the Jews that cannot be ignored. Jews don’t hate blacks or asians because blacks and asian have nothing that Jews want or envy. Jews have abducted and murdered pure, innocent white children because of the power it gives Jews and the hatred they have for us and our Savior. Jews hate purity and want destroy it because it’s something they can never be, outcasts that they are.
Natty,
Thank you. Well thought out comment. I agree with everything you said.
In regards to a person like Bigfoot —- I always try to give a person the benefit of the doubt.
But all one has to do is just ask a few questions — or “…give him enough rope…..” in other words.
It is obvious now who he is and what he is trying to do.
People are either naive (spiritually immature) or calculated. Bigfoot is Calculated.
Opinions are one thing —- forcing those opinions through manipulation is quite another.
If it were me, people like him would be excommunicated. I get plenty of “white guilt” in the real world. I don’t need it here — the only place I can fellowship with like-minded Christians.
Thanks for the reply.
Bigfoot, sounds like you’re imposing the Catholic notion of the “Trinity” on Genesis. You do know that the Trinity appears nowhere in the Gospels, right? It was invented by the Catholic Church and enforced as “official” doctrine 400 years after the death of Christ. And, no, the early church fathers did not believe in the Trinity.
And in case you haven’t looked into its origins, it is pagan, babylonian to be specific, like much of the Catholic doctrines and rituals.
https://www.trinitytruth.org/paganoriginsofthetrinity.html
West, to answer your question, this is the opinion of others, but I too, get the point:-
(1) “There is a thin line between what’s considered prejudice or preference. Prejudice is defined as an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand without knowledge of the facts. Prejudice can also mean hatred of a particular group, race or religion. Preference is simply the exercise of choice.” “ I believe it’s fair to say many things or people that we call prejudice could in the end be nothing more than someone’s preference “.https://www.bgfalconmedia.com/falcon_media_brands/bg_news/is-preference-really-prejudice/article_145dbdd8-e281-564c-8051-9301884132be.html
(2) “There is a fine line between racial preference and prejudice and knowing the difference between the two may curb unconscious racism……………..A lot of people misuse the word preference in order to cover up their racial prejudice.” https://medium.com/perceive-more/racial-preference-or-prejudice-400578f04558
Well, as you can see, it’s like arguing whether the glass is half full or half empty.
Bigfoot, you quote a Jewish leftist website like Medium as some kind of authority on the definition of prejudice or racism? It this a joke? You do understand, I hope, that Jews are the ones obsessed with “racism”, “bias”, “bigotry”, “prejudice”, etc.? These are all Jewish weapons to silence their enemies, and you are attempting to give this whole canard some kind of credibility.
Jews love to talk about the “fine line” between this and that, and they are the ones who insist that they get to define that “fine line”, always to our detriment.
The Bible, from its beginning, is prejudiced, and God’s choices are His own and often not “democratic” or “fair”. It is a book about only one people, “the generations of Adam” and no one else.
To squeeze all “races” into the Bible ignores the uncomfortable reality that, unlike our modern Marxist societies, God is “biased” for certain people, and “prejudiced” against others, and He has no obligation to explain to us why.
If your are looking for “fairness”, the Bible is not for you. For those who gripe about “fairness”, I suggest the writings of Karl Marx.
I’m thrown for a bit of a loop by this. I agree with the main idea, but it’s the minor details that have me perplexed.
1.) Moses fled Egypt into Saudi Arabia?
2.) I thought the “Ethiopian can’t change his skin” referred to their practice of extensive tattooing, hence the comparison to a leopard’s spots?
3.) Archeology proved that Ethiopian Cushites were White into the period of the New Testament, when they were a rival of Rome; Isaiah 43:3 tells the end of Cush, but did they meet that end during the time chronicled within the Bible?
https://christiansfortruth.com/pyramids-of-the-ancient-aryan-kingdom-of-kush-ethiopia-and-sudan/
Is there any negroid at all anywhere in the Bible?
RB, I recall that theory about a leopard changing its spots as a reference to Ethiopians tattooing their skin, but I personally thought it was a stretch, and it never sat well with me.
Funny thing is that Ethiopians did change the color of their skin over time, from white to black, as was the case with all of the Near East.
Either way, I still don’t really understand what that verse means, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. ”
If evil men cannot repent and change their ways, then what’s the point of it all? Isn’t the Bible based on the idea that we all are capable of evil but can repent and change, and be saved? If not, then we are all leopards who can’t change their spots?
I agree, the verse doesn’t really make sense especially with the surrounding context. I’m tempted to infer the verse is lost in translation or simply mistranslated. If you look at this verse in the Septuagint and the ABP it is not in the form of a question. From the ABP:
“If the Ethiopian shall change his skin and the leopard her colors then you shall be able to do good while learning the bad.”
Of course, with this translation the problem now appears to be within the metaphor: a leopard changing its spots. Which if we imagine that to be the markings on one particular leopard physically changing then the metaphor does not really make sense. However perhaps this phrase about the leopard and the Ethiopian (or Cushite) is an idiom that we don’t understand and perhaps in trying to understand it through a modern lens we fail.
I also think that with the inclusion of this verse Weisman weakened his position in this chapter. He just tacked it on at the end as an example of Cush in Ethiopia becoming mixed with no exposition on the verse itself. As if we’re just supposed to accept that these words from Jeremiah are speaking of race mixing Ethiopians, as if it were self-evident? Just based on the reading of the Greek and the fact that the word Ethiopia is translated from the Hebrew word Kushi (descendant of Cush) I don’t see why someone would want to force negros into the Bible using this verse.
As RB asked: “Is there any negroid at all anywhere in the Bible?”
I certainly haven’t come across any.
Agrippa, thanks for that analysis. It reflects many of the thoughts I’ve had about that verse, its contradictions, etc.
Yes, I think it probably refers to some idiomatic phrase or aphorism that does not translate well into other languages. We see this today. There are such idioms in other European languages that make absolutely no sense in English and cannot really be translated.
Blacks are not in the Bible because they are simply not part of “the generations of Adam” (Gen.5:1), and it’s a mistake to put them in it because it creates confusion trying to explain how they fit in to the narrative.
If blacks want to be in a bible, they should write their own bible, instead of culturally appropriating the white man’s Bible. Why would they want to worship the white man’s God anyway?
Jas:
Tattooing does change a white man’s skin, but not a negro’s since it is black on black. Since Ethiopians can’t change their skin, they must be black:
” Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” Jeremiah 13:23