Israel becomes major hub in the international cocaine trade, abuse rising

[MostReal]

I would like @Czar to expound on how the 1st Europeans weren't white...according to science.
If he truly believes in the bible, he must know that this conflicts with his beliefs of Japheth and Shem being something other than black.

Care to explain?

 

[Czar]

I would like @Czar to expound on how the 1st Europeans weren't white...according to science.
If he truly believes in the bible, he must know that this conflicts with his beliefs of Japheth and Shem being something other than black.

Care to explain?

According to science, the first man came from primates...

This was the same theory which provoked darwin to conclude that the black "race" was the least evolved physically amongst humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex

"At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian(*Aboriginal) and the gorilla"-Charles Darwin

So do you subscribe to that opinion?

Cause I find it amazing how you "believe" in the bible, yet are using the theory of evolution as a middle ground, all because of your personal bias concerning skin tone.

 

[MostReal]

According to science, the first man came from a primates...

This was the same theory which provoked darwin to conclude that the black "race" was the least evolved physically amongst humans.

So do you subscribe to that opinion?

Cause I find it amazing how you "believe" in the bible, yet are using the theory of evolution as a middle ground, all because of your personal bias concerning skin tone.

no I don't believe in evolution and those guys up there are not human...but the bones found in Europe were indeed human and blackmen....so getting back to my question.

Care to expound how the 1st Europeans were not white?


dig brother............. DIG...

 

[88m3]

no I don't believe in evolution

#higher learning

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I can't really post anything without coming off as anti-semitic

 

[Czar]

no I don't believe in evolution and those guys up there are not human...but the bones found in Europe were indeed human and blackmen....so getting back to my question.

Care to expound how the 1st Europeans were not white?


dig brother............. DIG...

Let's see what science says here.

http://www.archaeologydaily.com/new...istoric-Populations-of-Europe-and-Africa.html

"Scientists already know from genetic evidence that human populations of Africa and Europe mixed in ancient times, from the days of the Roman Empire through to the slave trade of the colonial period. But evidence of any mixing prior to that has been comparatively less abundant. Now, researchers conclude from a recently completed study (published online on March 27, 2012 in Genome Research) that genetic material was exchanged between Europe and Africa as far back as 11,000 years ago, or more."

But then again, they also said this (Since you didn't catch my edit.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex

"At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian(*Aboriginal) and the gorilla"-Charles Darwin

I think it's becoming more and more apparent that you accept darwin's theory as truth... since you obviously don't believe in the bible, which confirms that Japheth, Shem and Ham were brothers with differing skin tones. We know this based on the people who descended from them. Funny, since scripture (and history) also verifies that all 3 men's descendants intermixed with one another.


But since you somehow believe that white people were a "genetic mutation" .... Why was Laban, who was Abraham's great nephew, called white? Since his name in hebrew is the literal definition of the word.


http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3836.htm


I already know what your answer is gonna be... "He was an albino!"


Well then, are you forgetting that Javan, Japheth's son, was the ancestor of the Greek people? Josephus, who was a Hebrew during the times of the Apostles, acknowledged this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javan

Yet that didn't stop the Hamites and Shemites from mixing with the Japhetites, who were "white".
[/quote]

 

[Czar]

@iLLaV3

 

[MostReal]

Well then, are you forgetting that Javan, Japheth's son, was the ancestor of the Greek people? Josephus, who was a Hebrew during the times of the Apostles, acknowledged this.

since none of your other information addressed my question I deleted it to focus on the part that touched on it a tad. Indeed Japheth's son was the ancestor of the Greek people...simply because Japheth himself was the father of the Gentiles. You also forgot to mention the famous Ashkenaz who is also a descendant of Japheth. And where is Ashkenaz from? I'll let you answer that one as well.

Now since these guys were clearly the fathers of Europe...how does the information about the 1st HUMAN BEINGs in Europe reported as non-white sit with your cacology inspired take of the bible? As you previously stated Japheth, Shem, and Ham were indeed blood brothers...

putting 2+2 together does indeed make 4 does it not?


As I told you long ago, the Word is the Word and there simply is no getting around it. Science & you will all come on home eventually.

 

[Czar]

since none of your other information addressed my question I deleted it to focus on the part that touched on it a tad. Indeed Japheth's son was the ancestor of the Greek people...simply because Japheth himself was the father of the Gentiles. You also forgot to mention the famous Ashkenaz who is also a descendant of Japheth. And where is Ashkenaz from? I'll let you answer that one as well.

Now since these guys were clearly the fathers of Europe...how does the information about 1st HUMAN BEINGs in Europe reported as non-white sit with your cacology inspired take of the bible? As you previously stated Japheth, Shem, and Ham were indeed blood brothers...

putting 2+2 together does indeed make 4 does it not?


As I told you long ago, the Word is the Word and there simply is no getting around it. Science & you will all come on home eventually.

Once again, you show your ignorance of linguistics and etymology.

The term Gentile was used in place of goy and goyim to differentiate Jews from Non-jews in their version of the bible. Thing is, in both the Greek translation of the tanakh (Septuagint) and the Hebrew text, the words ethnos, ethne, goy and goyim are used interchanglbly for ALL three brothers and their descendants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile


http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/10-5.htm
^Japhetites

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/10-20.htm
^Hamites

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/10-31.htm
^Shemites

All being referred to as goyim.

Another example is when the Most High told Abraham he would become "The father of many Goyim/Nations"

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/17-4.htm

So there goes your "gentile" argument.

Now how about answering my questions?

Like why laban was called white? Or why the Hebrews had no problem mixing with Greeks and Romans? Or why the Spanish didn't confuse the Hebrews in their country for Negros or Morenos? Or why Josephus wasn't confused as being Niger by the romans?

Yet Simeon was called Niger by the apostles in Acts 13:1

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/acts/13-1.htm
http://biblesuite.com/greek/3526.htm

Niger.

Of Latin origin; black;

Funny, cause according to you all the Jews were supposedly black. Yet in that passage only Simeon is referred to as such. Now why would they mention his skin color, if they were all supposedly the same complexion?


Furthermore, I already explained how Noah and his wife being of a reddish brown complexion could produced two kids with polar opposite skin tones & one identical to their own. Since reddish brown is the combination of both black AND white.

You also fail to acknowledge the amount of intermixing that went on in antiquity (Which science actually verifies) and continues to go on today between the descendants of all three men.

In your opinion, wrestling with an angel, being carried off into heaven on a chariot of fire, parting an entire sea and a virgin giving birth are all very possible.

But soon as skin tone comes into the equation "Nope, that seems way too hard for God to pull off. There musta been a genetic mutation somewhere". And yet you claim to believe in scripture? Lol

 

[MostReal]

just as thought you can't answer the question

carry on breh

 

[Czar]

just as thought you can't answer the question

carry on breh

Lol I just did.

Funny how you're dancing around mines like a young Michael in his prime.

 

[Czar]

@iLLaV3

Why did the spanish call the moors morenos or moros for short? Many moors were the same color as the West African slaves. Then again, why did they refer to the slaves as negros or black?

You can't use the excuse that they "didn't know the difference"



Cause Spain is right next to Africa.

Even more interesting, why didn't they refer to any of the Sephardic jews living in their country by any of those titles?

Google searching the color maroon will bring you differing shades. Of course you're gonna pick the darkest one. Why not mention maroon is actually the skin tone of the native americans? Who weren't black.

Edit: I'm not talking about the cimarrones or black folk who intermarried and mixed with the indians when I say "weren't black"... but rather pure blooded (i.e UNMIXED) indians in general.

^I'ma need you to answer this.

Especially since the Hebrews were undoubtedly in Spain from 2nd century BC on up, yet weren't confused for black people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Early_history_.28before_300.29

@iLLaV3

 

[Yung Yogurt]

Im Cherokee and Abnaki Tribe and West Indian( Jamaican). I can trace my family. Next....

nikka trace these nuts back to ya mouth

 

[Kritic]

kounterfeet
14 hours ago

More Jew centric news from Jew obsessed Russia Today, give it a rest. Is your news editor related to Joseph Goebbels by chance?

 

[RAX 010]