ONE on ONE Challenge

[sub_zer0]

Anything at all is free game. As long as it is in relation to the Bible and its teachings and why I am wrong in believing in them.

Would anybody like to go in on a one-on-one debate? First one to say yes wins, ;p.

Since I am having a hard time keeping up with all the posts, I will concentrate mostly on this one and we can discuss, debate and entertain our brains!

[towski]

Anything at all is free game. As long as it is in relation to the Bible and its teachings and why I am wrong in believing in them.

Would anybody like to go in on a one-on-one debate? First one to say yes wins, ;p.

Since I am having a hard time keeping up with all the posts, I will concentrate mostly on this one and we can discuss, debate and entertain our brains!


Well, I'm not sure I want to debate, but I do have a question, if you want to address it...

How did Noah put animals from North & South America, Africa, Asia, and Antartic penguins on the ark?

[sub_zer0]

Well, I'm not sure I want to debate, but I do have a question, if you want to address it...

How did Noah put animals from North & South America, Africa, Asia, and Antartic penguins on the ark?

The world was once Pangea, all land connected. Not only that but God brought forth animals to Noah, Noah didn't have to go get them. I have answered this before.

[towski]

The world was once Pangea, all land connected. Not only that but God brought forth animals to Noah, Noah didn't have to go get them. I have answered this before.

Oooh, sorry to take up your valuable time.

[sub_zer0]

Oooh, sorry to take up your valuable time.

LOL, no trouble here towski. You wanna debate, anybody at all?

[Sauniere]

No debate here, if you believe fanatically in the words of the Bible, a document created over a thousand years by innumerable scribes and interlopers, well, what can anyone say, you win, you know the most Bible quotes of anyone here.

To believe the words of a book emphatically, says more about your reasoning than anything you need say/write.

How nice to accept the latest version of the Bible as gospel, and ignore ten thousand years of human civilization; not to mention two million years more on the development of the human species.

[sub_zer0]

No debate here, if you believe fanatically in the words of the Bible, a document created over a thousand years by innumerable scribes and interlopers, well, what can anyone say, you win, you know the most Bible quotes of anyone here.

To believe the words of a book emphatically, says more about your reasoning than anything you need say/write.

How nice to accept the latest version of the Bible as gospel, and ignore ten thousand years of human civilization; not to mention two million years more on the development of the human species.

WOW, no debate you say yet you make so many biased points not based on fact.

Oh well, anybody wanna debate?

[Dangerrmouse]

You must be losing heavily on the other threads to run away to this one...

[muffins]

The world was once Pangea, all land connected. Not only that but God brought forth animals to Noah, Noah didn't have to go get them. I have answered this before.
And where was that in the bible? Nice to see a religious person adopt a term and concept from science though. :D

I'm surprised that we don't get knocked over more often, the way the continents have been whizzing about the globe over the last mere 6000 years or whatever :lol:

[neo of the mind]

sub_zer0

I'll debate you.

First Volley:
Adam was not the first human being.
Man was created in Genesis chapter 1 where Adam was formed in Genesis chapter 2.

[burntgorilla]

I'm surprised that we don't get knocked over more often, the way the continents have been whizzing about the globe over the last mere 6000 years or whatever :lol:

I pointed that out a while back. It was ignored, not surprisingly.

[heel31ok]

I pointed that out a while back. It was ignored, not surprisingly.
As well it should be.

[heel31ok]

sub_zer0

I'll debate you.

First Volley:
Adam was not the first human being.
Man was created in Genesis chapter 1 where Adam was formed in Genesis chapter 2.
madam Im adam

[burntgorilla]

As well it should be.

Because responding to things that you can't answer shows your argument to be riddled with holes?

[neo of the mind]

I pointed that out a while back. It was ignored, not surprisingly.

Well, I am a Christian and believe the Bible and accept it as true, I just happen to also believe that the Bible is not contradicted by science.

It would be nice to have a debate on this, if possible, but so far since I have been on this forum, it seems like everything get's sidetracked.

[heel31ok]

Because responding to things that you can't answer shows your argument to be riddled with holes?
no because respondinding to such idiocy is not required.

[burntgorilla]

You mean asking how continents managed to move thousands of miles in a couple of millenia, with no obvious supply of energy, is idiotic? What's your explanation for it?

[Atticus]

no because respondinding to such idiocy is not required.You know what they say--silence betokens consent.

A perspective not worth defending must be pretty weak. Or you must be weak in its defense.

[neo of the mind]

I guess sub_zer0 needs to start a new One on One thread :o

[burntgorilla]

It was a pretty silly idea to begin with, and he probably only came up with it because every other thread ends up with him and heel getting completely swamped by everyone else.

[sub_zer0]

Just as I thought, nobody wants to go one on one!

How about I start a topic?

Is the NT historically reliable?

[neo of the mind]

Just as I thought, nobody wants to go one on one!

How about I start a topic?

Is the NT historically reliable?


I said I would debate you. You must of overlooked the post since it's mixed in with all the off topic pot shots.

I gave you the topic I was interested in debating. If not that, then something else. I am not interested in debating whether the NT is historically reliable. I don't have the time or inclination to prove it is and as far as a debate based strictly on logic, what would be the point? I believe the NT is true and don't really care what historians think about it.

[burntgorilla]

Sub, no-one wants to go one on one because you've demonstrated repeatedly in other threads that you're never going to back down or accept you're wrong. Therefore, arguing with you is useless at the best of times.

Now, can someone tell me how the continents managed to break up so fast, and move to their current positions so quickly?

[neo of the mind]

Sub, no-one wants to go one on one because you've demonstrated repeatedly in other threads that you're never going to back down or accept you're wrong. Therefore, arguing with you is useless at the best of times.

Now, can someone tell me how the continents managed to break up so fast, and move to their current positions so quickly?

They didn't. Bering Strait.

I would argue though that the animals that were put on the ark were not all the animals on the planet, they were the animals chosen from the area that Noah lived. Noah's flood was not a world wide flood but a local flood. The reason for Noah's flood is given and it would not require a world wide flood to solve. The world wide flood occured between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. What occured is recorded in Jeremiah starting at 4:23.

[burntgorilla]

They didn't. Bering Strait.


Err, what? Are you saying continental drift doesn't exist?

[sub_zer0]

I said I would debate you. You must of overlooked the post since it's mixed in with all the off topic pot shots.

I gave you the topic I was interested in debating. If not that, then something else. I am not interested in debating whether the NT is historically reliable. I don't have the time or inclination to prove it is and as far as a debate based strictly on logic, what would be the point? I believe the NT is true and don't really care what historians think about it.

Cool, I am sorry but what post number, or perhaps you can say the topic again and we can begin neo!

I am a bit busy right now, but once you post the topic and your first points I will respond!

[neo of the mind]

Err, what? Are you saying continental drift doesn't exist?

Nope, I am saying that the continental drift is not the explanation for animals from around the world being able to get to Noah's ark. My other comments elaborate.

[neo of the mind]

Cool, I am sorry but what post number, or perhaps you can say the topic again and we can begin neo!

I am a bit busy right now, but once you post the topic and your first points I will respond!

Post#10

[burntgorilla]

Nope, I am saying that the continental drift is not the explanation for animals from around the world being able to get to Noah's ark. My other comments elaborate.

But I'm not talking about the animals. I'm talking about continents. Sub_zer0 (or heel, one of them) thought that the Earth was Pangea up until the flood, which magically caused the continents to split and then zoom across the oceans. I'm wondering how this happened.

[sub_zer0]

sub_zer0

I'll debate you.

First Volley:
Adam was not the first human being.
Man was created in Genesis chapter 1 where Adam was formed in Genesis chapter 2.

Right on, I look foward to this.

I see the discrepancy you see, but I think if we look deeper we will find they are one in the same.

The Hebrew definition of Adam is: man, mankind
1. man, human being
2. man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
3. Adam, first man

As you can see the interchanging of Adam and man in reference to Genesis 1 and 2 within the Hebrew language can happen, and still mean Adam was the first man created in Genesis 1. Not only is he the first man, but a representative of mankind!

[steveksux]

I guess sub_zer0 needs to start a new One on One thread :oHe's got the right idea, can't win a conventional debate in the other threads that are based on facts.

What we need is a Special Olympics type thread. :D For the "factually challenged"....

Randy

[neo of the mind]

sub_zer0 -

Why is the first man not named in Genesis chapter 1? Could it be that the man named in Genesis chapter 2, was named specifically because he would be the start of the genealogical line to Jesus? That the people created in Genesis chapter 1 would not be a part of that genealogical line? That genealogical line is traced to Noah and his sons that were on the ark. We can both agree that the genealogical line to Jesus outside of the ark was destroyed, correct? I will put forward the argument that Adam and his progeny were the beginning of the "Caucasian" race and that all the other races were created in Genesis chapter 1. That the description in Genesis chapter 2 is not a summary but a description of Adams forming and beginning. That the description details specific animals that were formed for Adams domestic use. That, unlike Genesis chapter 1, there was not a woman of his kind created for the purpose of companionship/completeness and procreation. That they were in a Garden that was set apart in way that protected them and kept them from needing to leave and others from getting in. That they were later forced to leave this same garden. Look at the order of events and you can see that they are not different narratives of the same story, but distinct descriptions of separate events.

Genesis 1 order:

plants

fish

birds

land animals

man and woman, (whom he told to procreate.)


Genesis 2 order:

All previous things created in Chapter 1 (signified by Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.)

Either caused specific existing fruit trees to grow in the garden or created new fruit trees in the garden to grow.

Adam

domesic animals for use by Adam

woman

[JoeR]

So Jesus was caucasian?

[neo of the mind]

He's got the right idea, can't win a conventional debate in the other threads that are based on facts.

What we need is a Special Olympics type thread. :D For the "factually challenged"....

Randy


I will be debating on facts. The facts being, what does the Bible say about this topic, not whether or not you think what it says is true or not.

[sub_zer0]

sub_zer0 -

Why is the first man not named in Genesis chapter 1? Could it be that the man named in Genesis chapter 2, was named specifically because he would be the start of the genealogical line to Jesus?

No, it was because Genesis 1 was creation in chronological order. Adam is also the representative of mankind, so God created man, the first man which was Adam.

That genealogical line is traced to Noah and his sons that were on the ark. We can both agree that the genealogical line to Jesus outside of the ark was destroyed, correct?

I do not think so.

I will put forward the argument that Adam and his progeny were the beginning of the "Caucasian" race and that all the other races were created in Genesis chapter 1. That the description in Genesis chapter 2 is not a summary but a description of Adams forming and beginning. That the description details specific animals that were formed for Adams domestic use.

All of that is not biblical, and if it contradicts scripture, throw it out.

As far as contradiction or difference between 1 and 2:
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

[steveksux]

I will be debating on facts. The facts being, what does the Bible say about this topic, not whether or not you think what it says is true or not.Then you are at a disadvantage. Facts bounce off Subzero without effect like bullets off of Superman. :D

Randy

[neo of the mind]

So Jesus was caucasian?

That would be an affirmative. The Bible describes his ancestory in a limited amount, due to the overall insignificance of the fact.

1Sam 16:12
1Sam 17:42
Song of Solomon 5:10
Lam 4:7

[Dangerrmouse]

Now Randy, sometimes if he is really really mad, he does :p

[neo of the mind]

No, it was because Genesis 1 was creation in chronological order. Adam is also the representative of mankind, so God created man, the first man which was Adam.

- Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:10, God gives out the names Day, Night, Heaven and Earth. Why not give a name for man then, ie. Adam?


I do not think so.

- So you can show me a person in the Bible that is an ancestor to Jesus that was alive before and after Noah's flood but not on Noah's ark?


All of that is not biblical, and if it contradicts scripture, throw it out.

- I was putting forth a summary argument and until you show me that it contradicts the Bible, It's not thrown out yet.

As far as contradiction or difference between 1 and 2:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CARM.org
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

- So, the recap consists of Gen2:5-6??? That could only recap one day of Chapter 1 at that, so it's not really a recap is it?

Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

- Actually, that would be proof that Genesis 2 is not a detailed account of the sixth day in Genesis 1. Why is Genesis 1:29 mentioned as detail in Genesis chapter 1 while there are other details, which are more significant from Genesis 2.

[sub_zer0]

- Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:10, God gives out the names Day, Night, Heaven and Earth. Why not give a name for man then, ie. Adam?

The point is, Adam and man mean the same thing, they are interchangeable!

- So you can show me a person in the Bible that is an ancestor to Jesus that was alive before and after Noah's flood but not on Noah's ark?

I didn't know that is what you meant, you are correct. But that does not mean that his ancestory stops after the flood.

- I was putting forth a summary argument and until you show me that it contradicts the Bible, It's not thrown out yet.

Within your summary you should include passages that back up this wild statement.

- So, the recap consists of Gen2:5-6??? That could only recap one day of Chapter 1 at that, so it's not really a recap is it?

It is not just a recap, but a "detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made."

- Actually, that would be proof that Genesis 2 is not a detailed account of the sixth day in Genesis 1. Why is Genesis 1:29 mentioned as detail in Genesis chapter 1 while there are other details, which are more significant from Genesis 2.

Why does this matter?

[JoeR]

The point is, Adam and man mean the same thing, they are interchangeable!

Yet you interpret it literally as a man named Adam and not as a metaphor used to explain humanity's shortcomings.

[sub_zer0]

Yet you interpret it literally as a man named Adam and not as a metaphor used to explain humanity's shortcomings.

No, Adam sinned just as Eve did, explaining humanity's shortcomings.

[Dangerrmouse]

Would that be the Adam-as-metaphor-for-mankind, or Adam-as-individual-person-made-out-of-mud?

[sub_zer0]

Would that be the Adam-as-metaphor-for-mankind, or Adam-as-individual-person-made-out-of-mud?

It would be Adam, representative of all mankind who sinned and doomed all of mankind to the bondage of sin that can only be broken by Christ.

[neo of the mind]

The point is, Adam and man mean the same thing, they are interchangeable!

- There is a distiction between the two Hebrew words, hence the translation into "Adam" in specific cases and "man" in others.
I'll go with the translators of the KJV, no disrespect intended.


I didn't know that is what you meant, you are correct. But that does not mean that his ancestory stops after the flood.

-I guess I misunderstood your misunderstanding, LOL. I didn't intend to infer I thought that his ancestory stopped after the flood. So we are on the same page here.

Within your summary you should include passages that back up this wild statement.

-wild statement of course, something new, not, but I will leave those details for later. I should not have brought them up, considering that we will have a tuff enough time staying on track.


It is not just a recap, but a "detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made."

-I got that part, I was pointing out that I didn't think the article and/or your comments of there being a recap was correct. My comments pointed out why I didn't think this was in part a recap.


Why does this matter?

- this is the other piece of the article you cited. There was the recap and then there was the statement that it was also a detailed account of the sixth day. I was pointing out that if you look at the sixth day in Genesis 1, it mentions the fruit bearing trees in the detail, but my question is why? Why would it mention that particular detail in Genesis 1 if Genesis 2 was for the purpose of giving "more" detail of the sixth day? The sixth day account in Genesis 1 should have briefed upon the two "trees" in the Garden or the Garden itself if it was a summary of creation in relation to a more detailed account in Genesis 2. I don't think I am coming across with this too clearly, so I will spend some time and elaborate on it more later.

[sub_zer0]

-I got that part, I was pointing out that I didn't think the article and/or your comments of there being a recap was correct. My comments pointed out why I didn't think this was in part a recap.

Genesis 2:1 states that the "heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts." All is done, creation is finished, the seventh day God rested and sanctified it, verses 2-3.

Then it goes into a more detailed explination about the second creation day of creation in Genesis 2:4-6:
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

So what is being recapped in Gen. 2:4-6 is the second creation day, as earth and heaven were made on day 2 but it is before day three because no shrub of the field had sprouted yet.

It is also saying that there is a "mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground", that is how plants will sprout.

Then in Genesis 2:7 it skips day three, four and five and Moses goes on to detail the creation of man and woman or Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

[julierep]

That would be an affirmative. The Bible describes his ancestory in a limited amount, due to the overall insignificance of the fact.

1Sam 16:12
1Sam 17:42
Song of Solomon 5:10
Lam 4:7

What? How do you determine that from those verses?? :confused:

[neo of the mind]

What? How do you determine that from those verses?? :confused:

julerep- what other race of people are ruddy (blush) and "white"?
The "caucasian" race is the only race that I am aware of that fits that description. The scriptures I gave give that description.

Don't know how much more direct it can be.

Song 5:10
My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
KJV

[sub_zer0]

julerep- what other race of people are ruddy (blush) and "white"?

The "caucasian" race is the only race that I am aware of that fits that description. The scriptures I gave give that description.

In all those quotes the word "ruddy" means a healthy reddish color. You are making a wild statment with still nothing to back it up Biblically. Maybe if it explicitly said David was caucasian and not a Jew, you would have something.

Song of Solomon 5:10 isn't even speaking about David.

[neo of the mind]

In all those quotes the word "ruddy" means a healthy reddish color. You are making a wild statment with still nothing to back it up Biblically. Maybe if it explicitly said David was caucasian and not a Jew, you would have something.

Song of Solomon 5:10 isn't even speaking about David.

ruddy as in this: The word man (Strong’s #120, adam) in Genesis 1:26 and 2:7 comes from the same Hebrew root word, Strong’s #119, adam, meaning, “to show blood in the face, flush or turn rosy, be dyed red, red (ruddy).”

Who said Jews were not caucasians? I didn't.

[sub_zer0]

ruddy as in this: The word man (Strong’s #120, adam) in Genesis 1:26 and 2:7 comes from the same Hebrew root word, Strong’s #119, adam, meaning, “to show blood in the face, flush or turn rosy, be dyed red, red (ruddy).”

Who said Jews were not caucasians? I didn't.

You said Jesus was a caucasian, He isn't, that is the point. Until you give Biblical evidence of this, you shouldn't believe it.

[JoeR]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they would have mentioned "Jesus was white, unlike everyone else" somewhere in there if he was.

[neo of the mind]

You said Jesus was a caucasian, He isn't, that is the point. Until you give Biblical evidence of this, you shouldn't believe it.

I gave scripture to show that his ancestors would be described as "caucasian". You have not given any scripture to show that they were not.

So, until you have biblical evidence, since that is what you are contraining me to, then you are left with the scripture I gave, which clearly points towards "caucasian".

[sub_zer0]

I gave scripture to show that his ancestors would be described as "caucasian". You have not given any scripture to show that they were not.

So, until you have biblical evidence, since that is what you are contraining me to, then you are left with the scripture I gave, which clearly points towards "caucasian".

Ruddy, or a healthy reddish glow to your face is not caucasian.

Those clear points are negated when it states that Jesus was a Jew.

John 4:9
9Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

Mark 15:2
Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him, "It is as you say."

Why wouldn't Jesus self-identify as the King of Jews if He actually were white?

[neo of the mind]

Ruddy, or a healthy reddish glow to your face is not caucasian.

Those clear points are negated when it states that Jesus was a Jew.

Confine yourself to the Bible now. Where in the Bible do you read that a Jew, who is a person descended from the tribe of Judah, in this context, is a race other than what is described from my earlier post?

"Ruddy, or a healthy reddish glow to your face is not caucasian."

-Really? That's the only people I've ever seen it on.

[sub_zer0]

Confine yourself to the Bible now. Where in the Bible do you read that a Jew, who is a person descended from the tribe of Judah, in this context, is a race other than what is described from my earlier post?

"Ruddy, or a healthy reddish glow to your face is not caucasian."

-Really? That's the only people I've ever seen it on.

I actually posted about it.

John 4:9
9Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

Mark 15:2
Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him, "It is as you say."

Why wouldn't Jesus self-identify as the King of Jews if He actually were white?

[neo of the mind]

Ruddy, or a healthy reddish glow to your face is not caucasian.

Those clear points are negated when it states that Jesus was a Jew.

John 4:9
9Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

Mark 15:2
Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him, "It is as you say."

Why wouldn't Jesus self-identify as the King of Jews if He actually were white?


Again, confine yourself to the Bible. If you can't, I'll ask you the question again, where do you get it that Jews are not caucasians?

[sub_zer0]

Again, confine yourself to the Bible. If you can't, I'll ask you the question again, where do you get it that Jews are not caucasians?


Where do you get that they are? Have you ever seen a Jew and a Caucasian close up?

You act as if a Jew cannot have a healthy red glow about him.

[neo of the mind]

Where do you get that they are? Have you ever seen a Jew and a Caucasian close up?

It's a fact that he was of the tribe of Judah, I have not denied that. You still have not shown any scripture that refutes the scripture I gave in describing the outward appearance and the race of his ancestors. Which were caucasian.

Outside of the Bible, you have not shown anything that states that "Jews" are not caucasians.

[neo of the mind]

Where do you get that they are? Have you ever seen a Jew and a Caucasian close up?

You act as if a Jew cannot have a healthy red glow about him.


uh...let me make this clear, since it apparently is not yet.

JEWS ARE CAUCASIANS.

[sub_zer0]

uh...let me make this clear, since it apparently is not yet.

JEWS ARE CAUCASIANS.

Sorry you are going to have to do better than that to overturne hundreds of years of Christian tradition on the subject.

Some Jews are, most are not however. Certainly Jesus was not, those verses, one not even being about Jesus' direct ancestor do nothing to prove it further, they just describe a rosey appearance.

[heel31ok]

Confine yourself to the Bible now. Where in the Bible do you read that a Jew, who is a person descended from the tribe of Judah, in this context, is a race other than what is described from my earlier post?

"Ruddy, or a healthy reddish glow to your face is not caucasian."

-Really? That's the only people I've ever seen it on.
The same word is used for David as for Esau. does this suggest inherent skin tone? Both were wild and outdoors types. what role would the sun have in this description of appearance? also biblically since all people came from the same source it is possible .Many different peoples vary in light and darkness of skin tone and yet are from the same race.

[neo of the mind]

Sorry you are going to have to do better than that to overturne hundreds of years of Christian tradition on the subject.

Some Jews are, most are not however. Certainly Jesus was not, those verses, one not even being about Jesus' direct ancestor do nothing to prove it further, they just describe a rosey appearance.


Hundreds of years of Christian tradition tells us what? Speaking outside of the Bible framework, there are plenty of people of different races, ie. African and Asian that "become" Jews via the Religion but as far as race goes, the tribe of Judah was one race and came from one race.

Not one of the versus being about a direct ancestor of Jesus, eh.

1Sam16:12 references David...is he not an Ancestor of Jesus?
1Sam17:42 references David again.
Song of Solomon 5:10 references Solomon of course. His he not an Ancestor of Jesus?
Lam4:7 references Nazarites, which would be Israelites. Judah being one of the tribes of Israel.

"Certainly Jesus was not" - and what scripture do you bring forth to show that Jesus was African or Asian? I gave scripture to show his Ancestors where Caucasian, because the descriptive references point to that.

[neo of the mind]

The same word is used for David as for Esau. does this suggest inherent skin tone? Both were wild and outdoors types. what role would the sun have in this description of appearance? also biblically since all people came from the same source it is possible .Many different peoples vary in light and darkness of skin tone and yet are from the same race.


Esau and Jacob were brothers, so it's safe to say they were of the same race.

Traditional Biblical teaching would have one believe that all people came from Adam but it would also teach that Noah's flood destroyed every living thing on the earth as well, which is another discussion, but then that would leave the "source" to be Noah and his three sons.

[sub_zer0]

Hundreds of years of Christian tradition tells us what? Speaking outside of the Bible framework, there are plenty of people of different races, ie. African and Asian that "become" Jews via the Religion but as far as race goes, the tribe of Judah was one race and came from one race.

The race was Jews.

t one of the versus being about a direct ancestor of Jesus, eh.

1Sam16:12 references David...is he not an Ancestor of Jesus?
1Sam17:42 references David again.
Song of Solomon 5:10 references Solomon of course. His he not an Ancestor of Jesus?
Lam4:7 references Nazarites, which would be Israelites. Judah being one of the tribes of Israel.

Again, it is a healthy red glow, certainly the Jew could of had a reddish complexion if he was healthy during those times and that is all is meant by the use of the word "ruddy".

"Certainly Jesus was not" - and what scripture do you bring forth to show that Jesus was African or Asian? I gave scripture to show his Ancestors where Caucasian, because the descriptive references point to that.

John 4:9
9Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

Mark 15:2
Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him, "It is as you say."

He was Jewish by race and religion.

Esau and Jacob were brothers, so it's safe to say they were of the same race.

Traditional Biblical teaching would have one believe that all people came from Adam but it would also teach that Noah's flood destroyed every living thing on the earth as well, which is another discussion, but then that would leave the "source" to be Noah and his three sons.

Noah and his three sons being Jewish by race!

[heel31ok]

Esau and Jacob were brothers, so it's safe to say they were of the same race.

Traditional Biblical teaching would have one believe that all people came from Adam but it would also teach that Noah's flood destroyed every living thing on the earth as well, which is another discussion, but then that would leave the "source" to be Noah and his three sons.
The question was about inherent skin tone vesus effects of the sun as both Esau and David were outdoors active types.Though in general I guess alot of people spent alot of time outside.

[neo of the mind]

edit: post error, deleted and response below.

[neo of the mind]

The race was Jews.

Again, it is a healthy red glow, certainly the Jew could of had a reddish complexion if he was healthy during those times and that is all is meant by the use of the word "ruddy".

-again, a "healthy red glow" is only apparent in the caucasian race.

John 4:9
9Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

Mark 15:2
Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him, "It is as you say."

He was Jewish by race and religion.
I never said he wasn't of the tribe of Judah. Jesus is in fact physically from Mary is mother, who's father was of the tribe of Judah but her mother was from the tribe of Levi.


Noah and his three sons being Jewish by race!- Judah, from which the Jews descend from, in this context, was a son of Israel. This is After Noah's time of course, so calling Noah and his sons, Jewish is wrong.

[sub_zer0]

again, a "healthy red glow" is only apparent in the caucasian race.

No it isn't, Jews certainly could of been a bit red-faced, especially when healthy as the word indicates.

Judah, from which the Jews descend from, in this context, was a son of Israel. This is After Noah's time of course, so calling Noah and his sons, Jewish is wrong.

So what race do you think Noah and his three sons were?

[neo of the mind]

The question was about inherent skin tone vesus effects of the sun as both Esau and David were outdoors active types.Though in general I guess alot of people spent alot of time outside.

Other than a sunburn, the sun makes people darker in skin tone. A caucasian can become red from the sun initially, but will develop a "tan".

The narrative of Esau would suggest that he was a "red headed" caucasian, that was rather heavy on the body hair side of things. :)

[julierep]

Confine yourself to the Bible now. Where in the Bible do you read that a Jew, who is a person descended from the tribe of Judah, in this context, is a race other than what is described from my earlier post?

"Ruddy, or a healthy reddish glow to your face is not caucasian."

-Really? That's the only people I've ever seen it on.

Actually, you cant run with the word ruddy. How can you assume that he was caucasion just because he was ruddy? Flushed is the word you are looking for to describe what you have as a caucasion turning red. I cannot agree with you here at all. :sorry:

[neo of the mind]

Actually, you cant run with the word ruddy. How can you assume that he was caucasion just because he was ruddy? Flushed is the word you are looking for to describe what you have as a caucasion turning red. I cannot agree with you here at all. :sorry:

Name a race, other than caucasian that is ruddy or becomes ruddy.

Let's be real here:

There are really just four possibly five distinct races of people from the get go.

Asian
African
South American
Caucasian
Australian Aboringine

Every other Ethnic group is a mixture of the above and I consider that a fact.

The only race that could be described as ruddy or "show blood" in the face are Caucasians.

The Bible backs me up on this. I would also suggest reading up on Leviticus where it discusses Leprosy and other skin conditions and it is obvious that the Israelities were Caucasian.

[julierep]

Name a race, other than caucasian that is ruddy or becomes ruddy.

Let's be real here:

There are really just four possibly five distinct races of people from the get go.

Asian
African
South American
Caucasian
Australian Aboringine

Every other Ethnic group is a mixture of the above and I consider that a fact.

The only race that could be described as ruddy or "show blood" in the face are Caucasians.

The Bible backs me up on this. I would also suggest reading up on Leviticus where it discusses Leprosy and other skin conditions and it is obvious that the Israelities were Caucasian.

Well I can say, because I work with sick people all of the time, of most every ethnic group, that caucasions are NOT the only people the can become ruddy. As people get healthier and their color starts to come back, a lot of ethnic groups do become ruddy.

[steveksux]

Of COURSE Jesus was caucasion:

Picture of Jesus (http://www.webspinners.futura.net/zumaltsp/Jesus2.jpg) Its obvious

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Of COURSE Jesus was caucasion:

Picture of Jesus (http://www.webspinners.futura.net/zumaltsp/Jesus2.jpg) Its obvious

Randy

Are the people in this pic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gottlieb-Jews_Praying_in_the_Synagogue_on_Yom_Kippur.jpg) caucasians as well?

Or these ones? (http://www.fotosearch.com/MDG230/wt29048/)

[steveksux]

Are the people in this pic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gottlieb-Jews_Praying_in_the_Synagogue_on_Yom_Kippur.jpg) caucasians as well?

Or these ones? (http://www.fotosearch.com/MDG230/wt29048/)They're not Jesus.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Are the people in this pic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gottlieb-Jews_Praying_in_the_Synagogue_on_Yom_Kippur.jpg) caucasians as well?

Or these ones? (http://www.fotosearch.com/MDG230/wt29048/)

So we are going by an oil painting and a photo of two guys with their backs turned.

That being said they look caucasian to me. I think you also have to realize that the "Jews" of today are not the Jews of 1500 years ago. One only has to follow the trail from Ashkenazim to Khazars.

[sub_zer0]

So we are going by an oil painting and a photo of two guys with their backs turned.

That being said they look caucasian to me. I think you also have to realize that the "Jews" of today are not the Jews of 1500 years ago. One only has to follow the trail from Ashkenazim to Khazars.

Essentially you have nothing more than what I have presented.

You may think they are caucasians, but they are Jews, that would be able to have a ruddy face.

[neo of the mind]

Essentially you have nothing more than what I have presented.

You may think they are caucasians, but they are Jews, that would be able to have a ruddy face.



ok...not getting anywhere here...since you want to discuss outside of the Bible context:

African
Asian
South American
Australian Aborigine

Because there are only five accepted classifications of Humans based on characteristics physically and genetically. The Jews fall into one category, so pick a race that the Jews fall under if they are not Caucasian as you say.

[Dangerrmouse]

A ruddy face can be far from healthy, and be symptomatic of malignant hypertension for one...

[Cedars]

...Adam was not the first human being.
Man was created in Genesis chapter 1 where Adam was formed in Genesis chapter 2.
The two creation accounts are likely two different versions (perhaps by two different authors). It is not unusual in scripture to have more than one account of something (e.g., there are two accounts of Hagar's dismissal in Gen. 16 and 21).

[sub_zer0]

The two creation accounts are likely two different versions (perhaps by two different authors). It is not unusual in scripture to have more than one account of something (e.g., there are two accounts of Hagar's dismissal in Gen. 16 and 21).

No, I don't think it was by two different authors and it isn't even two different versions, it is however a different account, as in a detail of a creation day in Genesis 2 verses 4-25 that makes it different from the chronological creation account of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3.

Genesis 2:1 states that the "heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts." All is done, creation is finished, the seventh day God rested and sanctified it, verses 2-3, following from Genesis 1:31. So the creation account should really be from Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 2:3.

Then, after finishing the chronological creation account (Gen 1:1-2:3) it goes into a more detailed explination about the second creation day of creation in Genesis 2:4-6:

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

So what is being detailed in Gen. 2:4-6 is the second creation day, as earth and heaven were made on day 2 but it is before day three because no shrub of the field had sprouted yet.

It is also saying that there is a "mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground", that is how plants will sprout.

Then in Genesis 2:7 it skips day three, four and five and Moses goes on to detail the creation of man and woman or Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

[Cedars]

No, I don't think it was by two different authors and it isn't even two different versions, it is however a different account, as in a detail of a creation day in Genesis 2 verses 4-25 that makes it different from the chronological creation account of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3.

Genesis 2:1 states that the "heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts." All is done, creation is finished, the seventh day God rested and sanctified it, verses 2-3, following from Genesis 1:31. So the creation account should really be from Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 2:3.

Then, after finishing the chronological creation account (Gen 1:1-2:3) it goes into a more detailed explination about the second creation day of creation in Genesis 2:4-6:



So what is being detailed in Gen. 2:4-6 is the second creation day, as earth and heaven were made on day 2 but it is before day three because no shrub of the field had sprouted yet.

It is also saying that there is a "mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground", that is how plants will sprout.

Then in Genesis 2:7 it skips day three, four and five and Moses goes on to detail the creation of man and woman or Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.
Two versions that certainly are compatible, or two accounts. Although authorship of the Pentateuch (or first five books of the Bible) is uncertain (so "versions" could possibly be correct but I will not argue this point as it doesn't matter to me which one you call it), I certainly have no quarrel with calling them "two accounts."

However, Frances Hogan (author of "Can You Trust the Bible") makes a better argument:

"Genesis 1 presents the creation of the earth as a liturgical reading -- that is, a test for use in public worship. The authors (who appear to be the priests of the temple in Jerusalem) present God as doing a certain amount of work each day. Then, like a good Israelite, he rests on the Sabbath! The presentation of the material is somewhat artificial, specially chosen by the authors to present the holiness of the Sabbath and to highlight the fact that God is the author of everything around us. One must not worship the sun, moon, or stars, for they are only creatures of the great Creator of the universe.

"The authors are not teaching science; therefore their text should not be read as a scientific manual. Yet they tell us that God created inanimate matter first, before proceeding with the creation of plants, animals, and finally the human race. The authors seem to know that life on earth is impossible without light, which they put on the first day, and water, which they place on the second day.

"Genesis 2 could not have come from either the same hands or the same school of theology as Genesis 1. Genesis 1 speaks of God in a distant, transcendent way, while chaptters 2 and 3 speak fo the Lord who is near us and involved with us. He creates us with great care. He is described as the great parent who is anxious to make his children happy in a lovely home on earth with everything they need. He gives them not only human life but spiritual life when he breathes the breath of God into them..."

"Since both Creation accounts are valuable in what they teach, the compilers of Genesis decided to leave them side by side. They realized that the two accounts make different points with regard to Creation and the Fall.

"We can see from this example that we must not think of human biblical authorship in the modern sense, of a single hand producing a whole text. Authorship includes the person who gave the teaching in the first place, the teachers and preachers who passed it on, and those who compiled and edited the book in its final form. Thus the substance of the Pentateuch is Mosaic, but the text has passed through many hands before reaching the form in which we have it today.

"For ancient peoples the message was more important than the scribe who committed it to paper. The name given to a book indicated whose teaching was being given. The people knew that the Pentateuch was the teaching of their great leader and lawgiver, Moses, and they treasured it."

[sub_zer0]

Two versions that certainly are compatible, or two accounts. Although authorship of the Pentateuch (or first five books of the Bible) is uncertain (so "versions" could possibly be correct but I will not argue this point as it doesn't matter to me which one you call it), I certainly have no quarrel with calling them "two accounts."

OK, two accounts if indeed you think they describe the same thing.

Jesus spoke of Moses writing Genesis, why can't you?

[Cedars]

OK, two accounts if indeed you think they describe the same thing.

Jesus spoke of Moses writing Genesis, why can't you?
Moses IS essentially the author of Genesis, even if he didn't actually write it himself. Whether he did or not makes no difference to my faith. Does it yours?

[sub_zer0]

Moses IS essentially the author of Genesis, even if he didn't actually write it himself. Whether he did or not makes no difference to my faith. Does it yours?

Well yeah, because if I don't believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, I am not following what Jesus taught. Thus making a difference in my full walk in Christ. Jesus clearly taught Moses wrote the Law, which is the first five books of the Bible in Judaism.

[Cedars]

Let me re-phrase to make it clearer. Moses IS essentially the author of Genesis, even if he didn't actually write it himself. "For ancient peoples the message was more important than the scribe who committed it to paper. The name given to a book indicated whose teaching was being given. The people knew that the Pentateuch was the teaching of their great leader and lawgiver, Moses, and they treasured it" (Frances Hogan). Whether Moses was actually the scribe or not who wrote it makes no difference to my faith. I know Moses essentially authored the Pentateuch.

[Kong]

Anything at all is free game. As long as it is in relation to the Bible and its teachings and why I am wrong in believing in them.

Would anybody like to go in on a one-on-one debate? First one to say yes wins, ;p.

Since I am having a hard time keeping up with all the posts, I will concentrate mostly on this one and we can discuss, debate and entertain our brains!There is nothing wrong with you believing in something. It is an honorable thing, (to belief in nothing is also a belief deserving honorable mention, a good starting place.) So in a nutshell, what is your basic belief and why would anyone be interested in debating you about it? Is this just another pissing contest?

[sub_zer0]

There is nothing wrong with you believing in something. It is an honorable thing, (to belief in nothing is also a belief deserving honorable mention, a good starting place.) So in a nutshell, what is your basic belief and why would anyone be interested in debating you about it? Is this just another pissing contest?

Basic belief is the Bible is the word of God, and what it says is truth!

Certainly people think I am wrong? If so, how am I wrong and why am I wrong?

This is a way of me seeing what everybody has to say about my belief and theirs, and why mine is wrong.

[Dangerrmouse]

This is a way of me seeing what everybody has to say about my belief and theirs, and why mine is wrong.


You have amply demonstrated that your extreme faith is unshakeable, and have boasted that this is so. (see my sig.) The above statement is therefore untruthful.

[sub_zer0]

You have amply demonstrated that your extreme faith is unshakeable, and have boasted that this is so. (see my sig.) The above statement is therefore untruthful.

That is my point, I have heard what other people have said on here and my faith is still unshakeable! I am not boasting but merely saying that I am secure in my Biblical beliefs because nothing contradicts or refutes them, at least nothing on this board.

But, thank you Dangerrmouse, in you signature I am among the likes of Albert Einstein and John Lennon...

But my real name is Tony, so you can use that if you like. :p

[JoeR]

I am not boasting but merely saying that I am secure in my Biblical beliefs because nothing contradicts or refutes them, at least nothing on this board.

They clearly have, again and again, but you have had your fingers planted firmly in your ears.

[sub_zer0]

They clearly have, again and again, but you have had your fingers planted firmly in your ears.

I don't read with my ears, hehe.

[heel31ok]

They clearly have, again and again, but you have had your fingers planted firmly in your ears.I think what is clear is you think there has been refutation when clearly there has not except in your mind. Since you are on the side refuting you take any answer as doing the trick. That is understandable but not the point and sub not being convinced by weak refutation is not indicative of fingers in his ears but a working brain in his head.

[sub_zer0]

"Certainly Jesus was not" - and what scripture do you bring forth to show that Jesus was African or Asian? I gave scripture to show his Ancestors where Caucasian, because the descriptive references point to that.

I guess you missed when Abraham himself is called a Hebrew in Genesis 14:13, the first use of the term and during a time before the tribes of Israel.

13Then a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew Now he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and these were allies with Abram.

Before the time of the tribes of Israel they were Hebrews not caucasians and Abraham was not only the father of the Israelites (Jews) but the Arabs as well.

While you have descriptors as references to what the race was, in Genesis 14 I have shown an explicit mention to what the race was before Judah. I would argue that when God first created Adam and Eve, they were Hebrew and spoke in Hebrew.

[neo of the mind]

Sub:

It follows like this in my opinion (summary and not detail). I won't get into the other race issue in this post.

Adam and Eve
Seth
Noah
Shem Ham Japeth
Shem's son Eber is were you get "Hebrew" from.

So all the prodigy from Eber are Hebrews.
Abraham is a Hebrew.
Jacob (Israel) is a Hebrew and all of his sons are Hebrews.

But you can't call anyone before Judah a Jew, Hebrew yes, but not a Jew.

You are correct that Abraham was the father of the Ishmaelites (Arabs)

[sub_zer0]

Sub:

It follows like this in my opinion (summary and not detail). I won't get into the other race issue in this post.

Adam and Eve
Seth
Noah
Shem Ham Japeth
Shem's son Eber is were you get "Hebrew" from.

So all the prodigy from Eber are Hebrews.
Abraham is a Hebrew.
Jacob (Israel) is a Hebrew and all of his sons are Hebrews.

But you can't call anyone before Judah a Jew, Hebrew yes, but not a Jew.

You are correct that Abraham was the father of the Ishmaelites (Arabs)

Right on, it is just that my whole point is that they were Hebrews before Jews, not caucasians.

[neo of the mind]

Right on, it is just that my whole point is that they were Hebrews before Jews, not caucasians.

and my point was that the Hebrews are caucasians. LOL.

I'll get into another topic later that will discuss this and maybe it will add more "proof" to it or not, will see.

[Strel]

What is the point of debating with someone who is brainwashed beyond redemption?