URL: http://prince.org/msg/105/101201

Date printed: Mon 1st Sep 2014 4:30pm PDT

independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 1st Sep 2014 4:30pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forums > Politics & Religion > Blacks are descendants of Cush and Put???
AuthorMessage
Thread started 07/08/04 10:27am

comicsutra

Blacks are descendants of Cush and Put???

zkp2003 said:

. The black race descended from Cush and possibly from Put, other sons of Ham who were not involved in the incident or the curse



Ooooookay.

I feel another thread coming on.

The Black race descended from "Cush" and "probably from Put"???
Other sons of Ham who were not involved in the incident or curse???

So, as I read this, the "probably" in ur sentence means > u don't know?
Correct? A guess? A hunch? Speculation? Like Russell said:
"we consider this general view as probable as any other"

Or as an official jw minister are you prepared to submit this as
"a matter of fact"?

_ _ _ _


This thought process deserves a thread all of it's own.
Besides the other takes way to long to load.

I gotta run, but I'll be back, with lot's to say about this.
In the mean time play nice.

Peace
Reply #1 posted 07/08/04 11:13am

mochalox

duh.
"Pedro offers you his protection."
Reply #2 posted 07/08/04 12:42pm

fantasyislander

comicsutra said:


zkp2003 said:


. The black race descended from Cush and possibly from Put, other sons of Ham who were not involved in the incident or the curse
Ooooookay.

I feel another thread coming on.

The Black race descended from "Cush" and "probably from Put"???
Other sons of Ham who were not involved in the incident or curse???

So, as I read this, the "probably" in ur sentence means > u don't know?
Correct? A guess? A hunch? Speculation? Like Russell said:
"we consider this general view as probable as any other"

Or as an official jw minister are you prepared to submit this as
"a matter of fact"?

_ _ _ _


This thought process deserves a thread all of it's own.
Besides the other takes way to long to load.

I gotta run, but I'll be back, with lot's to say about this.
In the mean time play nice.

Peace


the only "possibly" here is if blacks are descended from Put. the important thing to note here is that blacks are NOT descended from Canaan, thus making any claim that their servitude in centuries past was due to that curse invalid. what more do you want to know?

and why did this deserve another thread?
Reply #3 posted 07/08/04 12:54pm

ekalb101

fantasyislander said:

and why did this deserve another thread?



Probably Comic's sincere search for untruth. Or is it truth? I forget which. neutral
Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.
Reply #4 posted 07/08/04 12:58pm

comicsutra

I'll post this for the benefit of others who may not have been following the progression
of our discussion:

"My best friend is a Mormon and confirmed all that I wrote is true"
or co-worker, or whatever. Yeah, we'll just take your word for that.
We won't question or impugn your integrity. That practice is obviously
reserved for those who post quotes from Russell that defy explanation.

Try this on for size...
Commentary in red, quotes in blue


Taking a glimpse back in time to the beginnings of the Watchtower organization, we find more than just silent prejudice at work. Several statements were put in print regarding the alleged inferiority of the black man! Let's examine a few of these statements.

Note the following from the April 1, 1914 Watchtower:

If nature favors the colored brethren and sisters in the exercise of humility it is that much to their advantage, if they are rightly exercised by it. A little while, and our humility will work out for our good. A little while, and those who have been faithful to their Covenant of Sacrifice will be granted new bodies, spiritual, beyond the veil, where color and sex distinctions will be no more. A little while, and the Millennial kingdom will be inaugurated, which will bring restitution to all mankind, restitution to the perfection of mind and body, feature and color, to the grand original standard, which God declared "very good," and which was lost for a time through sin, but which is soon to be restored by the powerful kingdom of Messiah.
(p. 105106)

Under the subheading, "CAN THE ETHIOPIAN CHANGE HIS SKIN?", the Feb. 15, 1904 Watch Tower responds:

We answer, No. But all will admit that what the Ethiopian cannot do for himself God could readily do for him. The difference between the races of men and the differences between their languages have long been arguments against the solidarity of the human family. The doctrine of restitution has also raised the question. How could all men be brought to perfection and which color of skin was the original? The answer is now provided. God can change the Ethiopian's skin in his own due time.
Prof. H. A. Edwards, Supt. of Schools in Slater, Mo., has written for the public press an elaborate description of how Julius Jackson, of New Frankfurt, Mo., a negro boy of nine years, began to grow white in September, 1901, and is now fully ninetenths white. He assures us that this is no whitish skin disease; but that the new white skin is as healthy as that of any white boy, and that the changed boy has never been sick and never has taken medicines.
(p.5253)


The reason for printing such a story, of course, is to demonstrate that God can and will change the "Ethiopian" (black man) into a white man in the New World.

The obvious question to ask at this point is, Why does the black man need to change? The reason they gave revealed their true feelings, as we see from the following excerpts:


...The negro race is supposed to be descended from Ham, whose special degradation is mentioned in Gen. 9:22, 25.

(Zion's Watch Tower, August 1, 1898, p. 230)
Noah declared, prophetically, that Ham's characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct disrespectful to his father, would be found cropping out later, inherited by his son,and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other.
(Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1902, p. 216)


Now that last line "but we consider that general view as probable as any other"
means to me,,,,"we don't know where these niggas came from"? Really tho,,,they
were trying to figure it out,,,I guess? But one thing is for sure, we can see from
these quotes that the roots of The JWs, as it relates to The Origin of The Black Man
is just as wacky as Joseph Smiths version that we read earlier. And I gotta repeat
how could any Black person be a member of any religious organization that
considers the mere fact that they are Black is a sign of a divine curse or something
that ultimately will be fixed???

I guess somebody's gotta serve the chicken and peas on paradise earth huh?
Black folks you better think about it. They may be keeping you around to be their
servants in the hereafter.

Seriously tho, what do The JWs teach today as it relates to The Origin of The Black Man?

And if it changed from Russells wisdom, when did it, what year, and why did it change?






comicsutra said:

NotDeaf said:



Wow, for someone who claims to do just TONS of research, why is it so hard for you to find THIS article?
=====
What Is the Bible's View?

Are Blacks Cursed by God?

=====

Clearly, Russell wasn't the only man wih this idea. It was a COMMONLY held idea. Remember, this WAS the late 1800's and early 1900's.

I know.....you will say that if he had God's spirit, he wouldn't belive such a thing. Well, I guess that goes for the pope as well.

Really, I find what you are doing no different than what Russell did.

He studied various religions and 'found' things that seemed right, and things that seemed wrong. You say that is what you are doing.
He published what he found. You are publishing what you find, in this forum.
He gave all glory to God for directing his search. You say that you are just following the bible.....thus giving God the credit.

I know, now you will say that this has NOTHING to do with you. But it does. It's all about you. It's YOUR interpretation of what Jesus said.

It's clear that your goal is NOT to simply dis-credit Russell. That has been done many times. The JWs in this forum have agreeded that he got things wrong. What more do you want? Do you want them to disband the religion? That's not going to happen. Do you want them to change all their beliefs to match YOURS? Again, not going to happen. Are you presenting yourself as superior in knowledge to all the JWs? That's what you say you don't like most about them.

I ask again: What is it YOU want the JWs to do?

.



You ask, why didn't I find this article?
Are you serious????

Ooooookay.

Let's start with #1. I wasn't looking for it. My research wasn't isolated to this one
particular Blasphemous error and how many sects are guilty of it. My research is focused primarily on Russell and his quotes, comments, writings, and public statements.

#2. Your question presumes that I didn't already know this fact about other religions
teaching and believing this. Well, your wrong there. The Avatar should tell you that I know something.
Now, I'll admit that I didn't now it about Joseph Smith and The Mormons til yesterday.

Now you say "clearly Russell wasn't the only man with this idea, it was commonly held
as it was the late 1800s and early 1900s."

I hope were all paying attention? This is a reoccuring rational for rather serious
serious Biblical offenses > "we aren't the only ones." No matter how true that
statement of not being the only ones is,,,,this group and that man claimed to have
the "only" and "the accurate" understanding of The Bible, yet time and time again
research is revealing that they come up woefully short, and this is just another
blatant example. And I gotta say Black people, people of color, and non blacks
of good conscience should "check yoselves b4 u wreckyoselves." Really tho.
If your a member of one of these groups and you did not know about this history,
then, it's not I who's lack of appropriate research should be questioned now is it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that some of you jws here
never heard this about Russell b4?

As for again comparing The Comic to Russell? One big difference. I'm not claiming
that I know "The Truth of The Bible" and that mine is the "only accurate" way to
understand it. Not to mention all of the false claims and erroneous beliefs about
race. Outside of the that, I guess he and I are practically twins. lol

Lastly you ask, "what is it that I want the jws to do"?

I dunno?? The subject is Russell not what the jws should do?
It's an examination of Russell not the jws? An examination of
the jws as a whole would extend itself beyond Russell. That's
really not my subject. There's enough jw ministers here at the org.
They, as you have already pointed out, know what to do and are
going to keep on doing it. Okay. But not my subject.
Really, this is a public exam, for the benefit of the general org.
community to learn from.

Now, that I answered your questions, how about answering mine.
When did the jws stop teaching that Black people are cursed?
What year? What prompted the change? And who what and where do
they teach Black folks came from to day?
[This message was edited Thu Jul 8 9:30:38 2004 by comicsutra]
Reply #5 posted 07/08/04 1:20pm

comicsutra

Now, first I'll reiterate the obvious.

"If you do not want to participate in this discussion you do not have to."

2nd. You all should know by now that personal attacks of me will not lure
me away from the subject at hand. It's really a waste of time and says more
about you than me. To think, you all are actual ministers representing your faith?

Now for those who are interested let's see if we can't make this thread as
interesting and as enlightening as the preivous two?

The question that is on the board is
"Did Black people descend from Noahs descendants"?
In particular "Cush or Put"?

As I see it, this is a 3 dimensional subject.

1. What if anything does the Bible say specifically about The Origin of The Black Man?
2. What does science say about The Origin of The Black Man?
3.What does your {meaning those who are reading this} Religion/or belief system
{for those not influenced by religion but have a perspective on this subject} say
about the origin of The Black Man?

I'll go first.

Now mind you, many Churches no longer touch this subject in todays contemporary
services. However, as we have seen by Russell and by zkp2003, there is a teaching
on it in various Theologies.
Just because it is not openly discussed like we are about to do here, doesn't mean
that various braches of the church do not have a specific answer to this question.
As NotDeaf pointed out it was "common" to think that Black folks were Black as
a result of a divine curse in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and my guess is some
churches still actually believe this to this very day! Well, we know from what was posted
yesterday about Joseph Smith that he believed black skin was a curse.

Anywayz, Noah's offspring huh? You know I still haven't gotten an explanation
why and when did the JW's change the offspring that bore the BlackMan?

Anyone want to try that? What more do I want to know you ask?
When and why did it change ministers??
Reply #6 posted 07/08/04 1:34pm

fantasyislander

comicsutra said:


Anywayz, Noah's offspring huh? You know I still haven't gotten an explanation
why and when did the JW's change the offspring that bore the BlackMan?

Anyone want to try that? What more do I want to know you ask?
When and why did it change ministers??


there have been quotes posted in the other thread from later years showing that JWs don't think like that.

so, we know that we don't believe blacks were descended from Canaan who was cursed. we've already established that fact, correct? so now all you want is a date as to when that happened? correct?

i'm at work now, so i'll have to get back to you on that. someone else may be able to answer sooner, but i'll try to get to it tonight.
Reply #7 posted 07/08/04 2:01pm

comicsutra

Now let's have a look.

Genesis Chapters 5 thru 10
We get the geneology of Noah.
However it is not until Chapter 10 that we first see "Cush and Put."
10 whole chapters after "In the beginning" and "God said Let us make man."

One of you good scholarly Bible Ministers will give us a time reference on that.
From Adam to Cush and Put.

I'll move on. The more important fact is that whatever the time frame is that
it happened afterwards. Would you agree? Okay.

Wow,,that's saying alot. Now mind you The Bible does refer to there being
"Two Adams" in Corinthians. Does this factor into the equation somehow?
Now,,,let me say,,,again,,,this is examination. I present this only as an exam.
Nothing more nothing less. Okay ,,,so Noah is a direct descendant from Adam and Eve?
Hundreds or even thousands of years removed but a descendant just the same right?
So, I guess the obvious question is were Adam and Eve Black? If todays kinder genteler
version and doctrine of belief that Black folks are the descendants of Cush and Put,
and no longer the cursed descendants of Noahs other seed, then their parents
must have been Black right? Then, Noahs sons had to be Black right?
And Noah being a descendant from Adam and Eves offspring Seth who must of been
Black right???

Okay,,,here is where you ministers can clear this all up for us. No curse produced
the blackness you say today? Yesterday 1800's/1900's it was a curse that made
black folks black. Now since we have a better understanding of genetics today isn't
it appearant that the only explanation, now that you say it wasn't a curse, is that
genetically their parents, Cush and Puts parents had to be Black people and their parents
had to be Black , and so on and so on.....?
Reply #8 posted 07/08/04 2:10pm

333

I see the point comic is trying to make here.

God knows everything, that is, he knows all truth.

Therefore God could never be wrong.

The Watchtower claims to be the channel of God. The Watchtower claims that it is the only organization of God. The Watchtower claims that only to them is the Bible not a sealed book. The Watchtower claims they alone knows the wisdom of God.

"Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book. (The Watchtower - July 1, 1973)

"Consider too, the fact that Jehovah's organization alone in all the earth is directed by God's holy spirit or active force." (The Watchtower - July 1, 1973)

"All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the 'greatly diversified wisdom of God' can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the 'faithful and discreet slave'." (The Watchtower - Sept.1, 1994)

The Watchtower has been wrong in the past on many topic. It has changed its doctrines and teachings over the years. It has given dates of events which were to happen, but never came to pass. The Watchtower has changed its mind about theology over and over again.

Now, since the Watchtower does make all the above claims, how could it ever be wrong? Either the Watchtower is wrong, which proves the above claims are false or God was wrong? Since it is impossible for God to be wrong, that only leaves one choice.

Herein lies the problem. If anyone claims that to speak for God himself, and clearly change their minds about their theology, doctrines, and teachings, then you can be sure that they do not speak for God himself. If God cannot be wrong, and God always speaks the truth, then the one who says he speaks for God himself cannot be wrong about any doctrine. Because that would mean that either God was wrong or God lied. On this subject of racism, even if the Watchtower did not know better, surely God does. Why did he not inform the Watchtower. If the Watchtower is God's only organization, the channel of God, the only organization to which the Bible is not a closed book, how could the Watchtower get it wrong?
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Reply #9 posted 07/08/04 3:41pm

fantasyislander

i found this in a WT from 9/1/67, in the Questions From Readers section. i have found other quotes from earlier magazines showing that JWs do not consider black people to be inferior, but the topic of this thread is discussing from whom they were descended.

*On page 326 of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, there is an illustration of Noah’s three sons, showing one with skin darker than that of the others. How is it determined that one was dark-complexioned? From whom did the Negroid peoples descend?—S.D., U.S.A.

The illustration mentioned presents three men slaughtering an animal. The three men represent Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s three sons. (Gen. 10:1) The one with skin darker than the others represents Ham. Ham’s name means “swarthy” or “brown,” and it also carries the suggestion of “hot.” In The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia, Volume II, page 754, the comment is made: “The general opinion is that all the Southern nations derived their origin from Ham (to which the Hebrew root Khawm, not unlike the Greek. . . , burned faces, lends some force).” A Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings, relates the Hebrew word for Ham to an Egyptian word meaning “black” and shows that this Egyptian word is an allusion to the dark soil of Egypt as compared with the desert sand. It seems reasonable that if Ham received his name at birth, probably he was a child with skin that was somewhat darker than that of his brothers, and the illustration indicates this.

Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. The descendants of Mizraim, such as Philistines and Egyptians, were not Negroid. (Gen. 10:6, 13, 14) Canaan also was not Negroid, neither were his descendants. However, Ham’s son Put is shown on Bible maps as having settled in the east of Africa, his descendants being Negroid. (Nah. 3:9) As for Ham’s son Cush, he is very evidently a principal progenitor (perhaps along with Put) of the Negroid or dark-complexioned branch of the human family (Jer. 13:23), as indicated by the areas of settlement of certain of his descendants. (Gen. 10:7) This fact disproves the theory advanced by some who incorrectly endeavor to apply to the Negro peoples the curse pronounced on Canaan, for Canaan, the brother of Cush, did not produce any Negro descendants but, rather, was the forefather of the various Canaanite tribes of Palestine. (Gen. 9:24, 25; 10:6, 15-18) Since it was from Ham that the dark-complexioned peoples descended, the aforementioned illustration appropriately depicts Ham as being somewhat darker in skin color than his brothers, in harmony with the meaning of his name.


is this what you were looking for?
Reply #10 posted 07/08/04 3:44pm

fantasyislander

333-

focus please. the topic of this thread is from whom were the black people descended, that is all. please stick to the discussion.

do YOU have any quotes or ideas about who black people are descended from?
Reply #11 posted 07/08/04 5:25pm

ekalb101

fantasyislander said:

i found this in a WT from 9/1/67, in the Questions From Readers section. i have found other quotes from earlier magazines showing that JWs do not consider black people to be inferior, but the topic of this thread is discussing from whom they were descended.

*On page 326 of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, there is an illustration of Noah’s three sons, showing one with skin darker than that of the others. How is it determined that one was dark-complexioned? From whom did the Negroid peoples descend?—S.D., U.S.A.

The illustration mentioned presents three men slaughtering an animal. The three men represent Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s three sons. (Gen. 10:1) The one with skin darker than the others represents Ham. Ham’s name means “swarthy” or “brown,” and it also carries the suggestion of “hot.” In The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia, Volume II, page 754, the comment is made: “The general opinion is that all the Southern nations derived their origin from Ham (to which the Hebrew root Khawm, not unlike the Greek. . . , burned faces, lends some force).” A Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings, relates the Hebrew word for Ham to an Egyptian word meaning “black” and shows that this Egyptian word is an allusion to the dark soil of Egypt as compared with the desert sand. It seems reasonable that if Ham received his name at birth, probably he was a child with skin that was somewhat darker than that of his brothers, and the illustration indicates this.

Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. The descendants of Mizraim, such as Philistines and Egyptians, were not Negroid. (Gen. 10:6, 13, 14) Canaan also was not Negroid, neither were his descendants. However, Ham’s son Put is shown on Bible maps as having settled in the east of Africa, his descendants being Negroid. (Nah. 3:9) As for Ham’s son Cush, he is very evidently a principal progenitor (perhaps along with Put) of the Negroid or dark-complexioned branch of the human family (Jer. 13:23), as indicated by the areas of settlement of certain of his descendants. (Gen. 10:7) This fact disproves the theory advanced by some who incorrectly endeavor to apply to the Negro peoples the curse pronounced on Canaan, for Canaan, the brother of Cush, did not produce any Negro descendants but, rather, was the forefather of the various Canaanite tribes of Palestine. (Gen. 9:24, 25; 10:6, 15-18) Since it was from Ham that the dark-complexioned peoples descended, the aforementioned illustration appropriately depicts Ham as being somewhat darker in skin color than his brothers, in harmony with the meaning of his name.


is this what you were looking for?


LOL...no Fantasy. What you have posted is a reasonable and accurate answer as to what JWs currently believe. NOT what he's looking for.
Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.
Reply #12 posted 07/08/04 5:48pm

comicsutra

fantasyislander said:[quote]i found this in a WT from 9/1/67, in the Questions From Readers section. i have found other quotes from earlier magazines showing that JWs do not consider black people to be inferior, but the topic of this thread is discussing from whom they were descended.

Alrighty then...

[quote]*On page 326 of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, there is an illustration of Noah’s three sons, showing one with skin darker than that of the others. How is it determined that one was dark-complexioned? From whom did the Negroid peoples descend?—S.D., U.S.A.

I always find Biblical Illustrations more telling of the illustrator than of whats being depicted.
Forgive me, but Life Everlasting and what it has to say on this subject is presented here by you as fact or guestimation?


The illustration mentioned presents three men slaughtering an animal. The three men represent Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s three sons. (Gen. 10:1) The one with skin darker than the others represents Ham. Ham’s name means “swarthy” or “brown,” and it also carries the suggestion of “hot.” In The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia, Volume II, page 754, the comment is made: “The general opinion is that all the Southern nations derived their origin from Ham (to which the Hebrew root Khawm, not unlike the Greek. . . , burned faces, lends some force).” A Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings, relates the Hebrew word for Ham to an Egyptian word meaning “black” and shows that this Egyptian word is an allusion to the dark soil of Egypt as compared with the desert sand. It seems reasonable that if Ham received his name at birth, probably he was a child with skin that was somewhat darker than that of his brothers, and the illustration indicates this.

Now with all due respect to your above paragraph, I'm reading a lot of "general opinion"
and "probablies" in there. Which suggest to me that this is guess work? Now for the sake of the discussion, my American Heritage College Edition defines Hamite as :
One said to be descended from Ham. 2. A member of a group of peoples inhabiting Northern and North Eastern Africa. It also says descendants of the ancient Egyptians.



So, this definiton would not jive with the one given by you quoting "Southern Nations"?
I will research further into Ham meaning "swarthy" and all that later. Now, "it seems reasonable" you say, and "probably" you say? These are the very things that I would
think "accurate knowledge" would be able to state as matter of fact? And if one can't
do it, why not just leave it alone??? Why speculate about something God obviously
has not given you or That Organization "accurate" knowledge of??? This tends to be
the tradition of "best guess work" started by Russell in that Organization.

Let's go on...
"One child somewhat darker than the others"? I'm afraid we're gonna have to do better than that. I understand that ur guessing, but we gotta do better. That just doesn't make sense!

What was the genetic cause for Ham to be Black! Not "darker." Black!!??? And his brothers
other than genetically Black??? Same parents right? Now b4 u start guessing and speculating all over the place, heres ur opportunity to say "honestly, I don't know." Because theres got
to be a genetic explanation for this
?


Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. The descendants of Mizraim, such as Philistines and Egyptians, were not Negroid. (Gen. 10:6, 13, 14) Canaan also was not Negroid, neither were his descendants.


I gotta ask,,why do you assume that they were not Black???
As far as I know, and my dictionary confirms that "CUSH" means :
A legendary ancient region of Northeast Africa where the Biblical descendants of Cush settled
also known as Ethiopia. In other words,,,,Black People. We're talking Africa, Egypt which
is on the African Continent, and Ethiopia,,,the land of The Blacks,,,and ur saying that
out of all of these folks listed in the geneologies from Adam up to Noah to Seth and Cush and Put that only Ham was Black but his parents wasn't???



However, Ham’s son Put is shown on Bible maps as having settled in the east of Africa, his descendants being Negroid.


Maps??? Produced by who? Post a link.



(Nah. 3:9) As for Ham’s son Cush, he is very evidently a principal progenitor (perhaps along with Put) of the Negroid or dark-complexioned branch of the human family (Jer. 13:23), as indicated by the areas of settlement of certain of his descendants.


Huh???
Now we are back to "Can the Ethiopian change his skin"? Your kinda jumping all over the place here. I see no connection In ur asertion of Ham and Cush and {Jer 13:23}
other than the fact it's generally refering to Blacks but specifically to Ethiopians? Egypt
and Ethiopia are two different African Countries right? At any rate were talking Black.
Blue Black people. Ham and Cush according to you were Ethiopian Black skinned?
What was he a freak of nature? His brothers were white and his parents were white
and yet he's born Ethiopian Black?? It's gotta make better sense than that?
And wassup with the changing of the skin question??



(Gen. 10:7) This fact disproves the theory advanced by some who incorrectly endeavor to apply to the Negro peoples the curse pronounced on Canaan, for Canaan, the brother of Cush, did not produce any Negro descendants but, rather, was the forefather of the various Canaanite tribes of Palestine. (Gen. 9:24, 25; 10:6, 15-18) Since it was from Ham that the dark-complexioned peoples descended, the aforementioned illustration appropriately depicts Ham as being somewhat darker in skin color than his brothers, in harmony with the meaning of his name.

is this what you were looking for?

Is this what I'm looking for???
Yeah, I guess I was looking for the revised official jw explanation of this subject of The Black Man.

I gotta say, with all due respect, we will endeavour to see if we can't find a more
comprehensive understanding. But I do appreciate ur imput. Very insightful.

It's an interpretation, using guestimation and it reads as such.

Hey can you post a copy of that picture from that book? That would be cool.
Reply #13 posted 07/08/04 5:48pm

fantasyislander

ekalb101 said:

fantasyislander said:

i found this in a WT from 9/1/67, in the Questions From Readers section. i have found other quotes from earlier magazines showing that JWs do not consider black people to be inferior, but the topic of this thread is discussing from whom they were descended.



is this what you were looking for?


LOL...no Fantasy. What you have posted is a reasonable and accurate answer as to what JWs currently believe. NOT what he's looking for.



yeah, i kinda figured that out. but this is what he said he was looking for. so, here it is. any more questions?
Reply #14 posted 07/08/04 5:59pm

comicsutra

I think it's about time to add this element to the discussion



AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS - commonly know as "LUCY" - Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson was a half complete skeleton he named after the Beetle's song "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". A year later 13 more similar skeletons were found. Remarkably the skull was even more ape-like than other australopithecenes.
In his book "Lucy, The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said: I had no problem with Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same primitive features."
On the basis of a hip and knee joint found later, however, Johnson "decided" that Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. He thus deduced Lucy was an ancestor of man, as well as an ancestor of A. africanus (the original Australopithecus).

However, there are conflicting reports as to whether Lucy did actually walk upright. The following quote was taken from The Institute for Creation Research web-site (see links).

"The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all".

HOMO HABILIS -

The taxon Homo habilis had an illegitimate birth when Mary Leakey discovered some badly shattered skull fragments in 1959. Her husband Louis made the comment that it was nothing more than a "damned australopithecine". His attitude soon changed however when he found stone tools near the site of Homo habilis. Jumping into the fire, he quickly named it Homo and publicized the find widely. He was soon discredited when other australopithecenes were found in Africa, also with stone tools. Homo habilis was "demoted" to australopithecine. This didn't stop Leakey though. In 1964, he found four more specimens in Olduvai Gorge. These he claimed had bigger brains than Australopithecus and surely deserved to be classified as Homo habilis. Measurements of the cranial capacity were nearly impossible since the skulls were so badly crushed but, nonetheless, it was concluded that they averaged 642 cc's, or 200 cc's larger than Australopithecus and he considered that enough to make them Homo.
Not everyone was as enthusiastic as Leakey was about his new "handymen". Homo habilis was soon considered an empty taxon that was inadequately proposed.
New life was breathed into Homo habilis by Louis and Mary's son, Richard Leakey who was working in the Lake Rudolf area in Kenya. Leakey found numerous stone tools and 40 specimens of Australopithecus. Then, in 1972, he he made a discovery that was to shake the world of paleoanthropology to it's foundations. He found the toolmaker his father had long sought in vain. Perhaps he found even more than he bargained for. He found several fossilized bone fragments of a skull which his wife Meave carefully assembled to make a nearly complete skull minus the lower jaw. The skull was named KNMER 1470 for its registration at the Kenya National Museum in East Rudolf.
The skull capacity was difficult to measure because of the condition of the assemblage but was estimated to be 800 cc's (later lowered to 750 cc's), much larger than so called ape-men skulls. There were only small eyebrow ridges, no crest and a domed skull typical of humans today. Indeed it appeared to be a human skull. Professor A. Cave who first demonstrated that Neanderthal man was completely human examined 1470 in London and concluded: "As far as I can see, typically human". In addition, Leakey found 2 complete femurs, a part of a third femur and parts of a tibia and fibula near the skull which he said "cannot be readily distinguished from Homo sapien."
Let's talk about the dating of 1470. In 1969 samples of KBS tuft from just above the layer in which 1470 was found was sent to Cambridge University for potassium argon dating. Three different test gave an age of 220 million years old +or- 7 million years ! This was considered unacceptable for for this strata given its fossil content, so the errors were blamed on "extraneous" argon. Several more tests were done, and the best, most acceptable date was placed at 2.61 million years old. In National Geographic of June 1973 Richard Leakey stated," Either we toss out the 1470 skull or we toss out all our theories of early man. It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings. 1470 leaves in ruin the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary changes."
What was the problem? The problem, given the age of 2.61 myo, made 1470 contemporaneous with Australopithecus, if not older -yet looked identical to modern man. This absolutely unseated Australopithecus as ancestor of modern man ! In later lectures, Richard Leakey never made reference to 1470, preferring perhaps, to sweep it under the rug. However, in a PBS documentary in 1990 he stated,"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving." This from the world's foremost paleoanthropologist


I'll comment on this later.




[This message was edited Thu Jul 8 18:00:01 2004 by comicsutra]
[This message was edited Thu Jul 8 18:01:46 2004 by comicsutra]
[This message was edited Thu Jul 8 18:03:34 2004 by comicsutra]
Reply #15 posted 07/08/04 6:02pm

fantasyislander

comicsutra said:

I think it's about time to add this element to the discussion

. . . . a whole bunch of stuff . . . .

I'll comment on this later.




[This message was edited Thu Jul 8 18:00:01 2004 by comicsutra]
[This message was edited Thu Jul 8 18:01:46 2004 by comicsutra]


sorry, but what does this have to do with the topic?
Reply #16 posted 07/08/04 6:09pm

ekalb101

Adios amigos. Im off for home to get ready for tomorrow....my 2004 Walk With God District Convention!! See yawl next Monday. Take care.
Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.
Reply #17 posted 07/08/04 6:11pm

fantasyislander

ekalb101 said:

Adios amigos. Im off for home to get ready for tomorrow....my 2004 Walk With God District Convention!! See yawl next Monday. Take care.


have a great time! tell me what you think of it when you get back, K? and don't miss the drama! biggrin
Reply #18 posted 07/08/04 6:13pm

comicsutra

What does it have to do with it????

I said a 3 dimensional approach is the method used in this exam.

Paleoanthropologist are people who have committed their lives to the
study of the origin of man. Seems reasonable to include their perspective
on this subject. Surely, you didn't think we would just take the proven
time and again "inaccurate" guestimations of some men and not
include the perspective of men and women from the field of science
did you?? Let's put it all on the table.
Reply #19 posted 07/08/04 6:16pm

fantasyislander

comicsutra said:

What does it have to do with it????

I said a 3 dimensional approach is the method used in this exam.

Paleoanthropologist are people who have committed their lives to the
study of the origin of man. Seems reasonable to include their perspective
on this subject. Surely, you didn't think we would just take the proven
time and again "inaccurate" guestimations of some men and not
include the perspective of men and women from the field of science
did you?? Let's put it all on the table.



ok, fair enough. you can put whatever you want into the discussion, after all, it is your thread.

i added my part, and what i believe, so i'll be seeing you later!

have a nice discussion! bye! wave
Reply #20 posted 07/08/04 6:40pm

comicsutra

Once again, thanks for your contribution on what the jws believe.
We'll see if we can't tarry on a while, with perhaps imput from non jws?

Actually I gotta run too.

But b4 I go, let's hear from The Egyptologist.
A study and subject Russell was also rather fond of.





Ancient Egyptian ethnographic "mural of the races" found in the tomb of Rameses III - Monuments from Egypt and Ethiopia by Karl Richard Lepsius (German: "Denkmaler aus Agypten und Athiopian"). French Egyptologist Champollion found similar murals in other royal tombs.






Egyptian / Semite / Other Africans /European





"One Picture is worth more than ten thousand words." - Chinese Proverb

The hieroglyphics to the right of each figure labels each one:
(Ref: The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vols 1&2, E.A. Budge, Dover.)

Egyptian Ret (page 435a,b) = Men: We also have "ret na romé" or "We men above mankind." This ideology allows us to understand that there are actually only three races represented here; Black, White, and Semitic since the Egyptians considered themselves in a class of their own, while still showing that they belonged to the Black racial group.


The Black "Land" nonsense:

Catechism: "The Egyptians called their country Kemet or Black after the color of the soil."

Egyptology contrived this idea from Herodotus, “Egypt is a land of black soil…We know that Libya is a redder earth.” (Herodotus, The History, book 2:12); conveniently ignoring the fact that he also mentioned that the Egyptian people were black as well. So, to anyone, not familiar with the Ancient Egyptian language, this "Kemet = black soil" might seem like a plausible conclusion. It is not. Here's what the Ancient Egyptian language has to say (Ref: EHD, page 787b.):

Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black

Kememu = Black people (Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).

Kem [khet] = extremely black, jet-black

Kemet = any black thing. Note: "t" is silent - pronounced Kemé

Kemet [nu] = Black nation = Egypt. Note: the determinative [nu] means any Egyptian nation, community, or settlement; has nothing to do with earth or land (to, ta, ateb).

Kemet [Romé] = Black people. Egyptians.

Kemit = Black books, Egyptian literature.

Kem wer [miri] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water.

Kemi fer = Black double house; seat of government. Note: by reference to Wolof again, we know that to make a plural of per or house, the "p" becomes an "f" or fer. Thus fero=great houses (double), it is not pero as Budge writes.

In Ancient Egyptian, the adjective precedes the noun when the noun represents anything sacred or holy (i.e., a deity or the word Black itself), otherwise the adjective follows the noun:

Kem ti = Black image, sacred image : ti oubash = white image

Kem ho = Black face/title of a god : ho oubash = white face

Kem ta = Black land : Ta deshret = Red land (also; Ta Sett) [land = "To" in modern Egyptian]

This rule does not apply when Black is used as a noun-adjective of nationality:

Hompt Kemet = copper of Black; Egyptian copper : Hompt Sett = copper of the Red nations; Asiatic copper

Ro in Kemet (page 416a) = speech of Black; mute ro n Kemet = word of the mouth of Black; the Egyptian language

Kemet Deshret = Black and Red; good and evil; fertile and barren, etc.; Duality

Deshretu (page 554a,b) = red ones, red devils. Used also to refer to the Namu and Tamhu; not a complimentary label
Reply #21 posted 07/08/04 7:51pm

fantasyislander

comicsutra said:

. . I always find Biblical Illustrations more telling of the illustrator than of whats being depicted.
Forgive me, but Life Everlasting and what it has to say on this subject is presented here by you as fact or guestimation?

uhm, i posted a quote from a watchtower. just in case you missed that. i'm afraid you're not making much sense to me.

. . .
Now with all due respect to your above paragraph, I'm reading a lot of "general opinion"
and "probablies" in there. Which suggest to me that this is guess work? Now for the sake of the discussion, my American Heritage College Edition defines Hamite as :
One said to be descended from Ham. 2. A member of a group of peoples inhabiting Northern and North Eastern Africa. It also says descendants of the ancient Egyptians.



So, this definiton would not jive with the one given by you quoting "Southern Nations"?
I will research further into Ham meaning "swarthy" and all that later. Now, "it seems reasonable" you say, and "probably" you say? These are the very things that I would
think "accurate knowledge" would be able to state as matter of fact? And if one can't
do it, why not just leave it alone??? Why speculate about something God obviously
has not given you or That Organization "accurate" knowledge of??? This tends to be
the tradition of "best guess work" started by Russell in that Organization.

again, posted a quote here. not me saying, literally. you did get that part, right? that this was a quote from a magazine?

Let's go on...
"One child somewhat darker than the others"? I'm afraid we're gonna have to do better than that. I understand that ur guessing, but we gotta do better. That just doesn't make sense!

What was the genetic cause for Ham to be Black! Not "darker." Black!!??? And his brothers
other than genetically Black??? Same parents right? Now b4 u start guessing and speculating all over the place, heres ur opportunity to say "honestly, I don't know." Because theres got
to be a genetic explanation for this?
. . .

I gotta ask,,why do you assume that they were not Black???
As far as I know, and my dictionary confirms that "CUSH" means :
A legendary ancient region of Northeast Africa where the Biblical descendants of Cush settled
also known as Ethiopia. In other words,,,,Black People. We're talking Africa, Egypt which
is on the African Continent, and Ethiopia,,,the land of The Blacks,,,and ur saying that
out of all of these folks listed in the geneologies from Adam up to Noah to Seth and Cush and Put that only Ham was Black but his parents wasn't???


ok, so where do YOU think they came from? no, it doesn't say that he was black, only darker. i'm sure the genetics had a little to do with it, and the environment in africa helped add to skin becoming darker. why? well, if you're so interested in it, why don't you research it more? is it possible for two of the same parents to have kids with different skin color? yes. my cousins, all from the same parents, one with red hair and really light skin, one with brown hair and a little darker, and another with brown hair, and even darker, with freckles. so Ham was darker than his brothers. big deal.

. . .Maps??? Produced by who? Post a link.

again, this was from a magazine. i don't have the maps they were referring to.

. . .
Huh???
Now we are back to "Can the Ethiopian change his skin"? Your kinda jumping all over the place here. I see no connection In ur asertion of Ham and Cush and {Jer 13:23}
other than the fact it's generally refering to Blacks but specifically to Ethiopians? Egypt
and Ethiopia are two different African Countries right? At any rate were talking Black.
Blue Black people. Ham and Cush according to you were Ethiopian Black skinned?
What was he a freak of nature? His brothers were white and his parents were white
and yet he's born Ethiopian Black?? It's gotta make better sense than that?
And wassup with the changing of the skin question??

jumping around here? jumping from what? sometimes, you make NO SENSE at all. disbelief

. . .Is this what I'm looking for???
Yeah, I guess I was looking for the revised official jw explanation of this subject of The Black Man.

I gotta say, with all due respect, we will endeavour to see if we can't find a more
comprehensive understanding. But I do appreciate ur imput. Very insightful.

It's an interpretation, using guestimation and it reads as such.

Hey can you post a copy of that picture from that book? That would be cool


uhh, thanks, i guess. (???) you can do some more research on this if you'd like. i'll look forward to reading what you come up with on the origin of the many different skin colors. do you think you'll research orientals and indians as well? or are you only interested in blacks?

and i don't know if i have access to the book that was mentioned in the quote from the watchtower from 1967, but i'll look. if i find it, it'll have to be a picture taken with my camera phone as i don't have a scanner.
Reply #22 posted 07/08/04 9:07pm

solarboi

fantasyislander said:

comicsutra said:

. . I always find Biblical Illustrations more telling of the illustrator than of whats being depicted.
Forgive me, but Life Everlasting and what it has to say on this subject is presented here by you as fact or guestimation?

uhm, i posted a quote from a watchtower. just in case you missed that. i'm afraid you're not making much sense to me.


jumping around here? jumping from what? sometimes, you make NO SENSE at all. disbelief

. . .Is this what I'm looking for???
Yeah, I guess I was looking for the revised official jw explanation of this subject of The Black Man.

I gotta say, with all due respect, we will endeavour to see if we can't find a more
comprehensive understanding. But I do appreciate ur imput. Very insightful.

It's an interpretation, using guestimation and it reads as such.

Hey can you post a copy of that picture from that book? That would be cool


uhh, thanks, i guess. (???) you can do some more research on this if you'd like. i'll look forward to reading what you come up with on the origin of the many different skin colors. do you think you'll research orientals and indians as well? or are you only interested in blacks?

and i don't know if i have access to the book that was mentioned in the quote from the watchtower from 1967, but i'll look. if i find it, it'll have to be a picture taken with my camera phone as i don't have a scanner.



Has anyone seen the documentary "The First Eve"? It was on the Discovery channel about two or three years back. Archaelogical evidence demonstrated that the first woman was a black woman and all the races we see today came from her. The various differences we see today are only because the africans migrated to various ends of the earth, from that centralized area of Africa. When they found new environment, the features of the africans changed and they gradually adapted to their environment

I thought it was interesting and I find that much easier to believe. I personally always thought that the first human pair was black. I mean, two white people can't make a black baby, but two black people (yes, darker skinned black people) can make a baby that looks just like a white child.

I've actually seen this happen.

I think it's because blacks are the progenitor of all races today.
Pick It Up....There's A Bass...
Reply #23 posted 07/08/04 9:15pm

fantasyislander

solarboi said:

fantasyislander said:



uhh, thanks, i guess. (???) you can do some more research on this if you'd like. i'll look forward to reading what you come up with on the origin of the many different skin colors. do you think you'll research orientals and indians as well? or are you only interested in blacks?

and i don't know if i have access to the book that was mentioned in the quote from the watchtower from 1967, but i'll look. if i find it, it'll have to be a picture taken with my camera phone as i don't have a scanner.



Has anyone seen the documentary "The First Eve"? It was on the Discovery channel about two or three years back. Archaelogical evidence demonstrated that the first woman was a black woman and all the races we see today came from her. The various differences we see today are only because the africans migrated to various ends of the earth, from that centralized area of Africa. When they found new environment, the features of the africans changed and they gradually adapted to their environment

I thought it was interesting and I find that much easier to believe. I personally always thought that the first human pair was black. I mean, two white people can't make a black baby, but two black people (yes, darker skinned black people) can make a baby that looks just like a white child.

I've actually seen this happen.

I think it's because blacks are the progenitor of all races today.


i've never thought of that before, but certainly possible. it's just as plausible that all colors came from a black Eve as a white Eve, or even a yellow or brown Eve. one other thing i've thought of, perhaps not directly related to this, was what color Jesus skin was. his parents were israelites in what is now the Middle East. so, most pictures show him to be white, but wouldn't he have been darker? like a brown color for instance? i only mention this because i never understood why christian people could be prejudice against other races? in all likelihood, Jesus wasn't white. and no matter what you believe (creation or evolution) we all came from one pair of humans, so we're all related. every human on earth can trace their lineage back to Adam and Eve. (or the first two evolved humans, whatever you believe) so, how could someone be racist against their own distant (very distant) relatives? i guess i'll never understand racists . . .
Reply #24 posted 07/08/04 9:26pm

comicsutra

fantasyislander said:

comicsutra said:

. . I always find Biblical Illustrations more telling of the illustrator than of whats being depicted.
Forgive me, but Life Everlasting and what it has to say on this subject is presented here by you as fact or guestimation?

uhm, i posted a quote from a watchtower. just in case you missed that. i'm afraid you're not making much sense to me.

_ _ _
Comic:
My point here was that since the mags perspective is nothing more than a guess, it follows that the guesser would depict the images according to the turn of the last centurys age old
racial prejudices and bias's. In earnest it's the same as Russell just a different more politaclly correct offspring.

_ _ _
jumping around here? jumping from what? sometimes, you make NO SENSE at all. disbelief

. . .Is this what I'm looking for???
Yeah, I guess I was looking for the revised official jw explanation of this subject of The Black Man.

I gotta say, with all due respect, we will endeavour to see if we can't find a more
comprehensive understanding. But I do appreciate ur imput. Very insightful.

It's an interpretation, using guestimation and it reads as such.

Hey can you post a copy of that picture from that book? That would be cool


uhh, thanks, i guess. (???) you can do some more research on this if you'd like. i'll look forward to reading what you come up with on the origin of the many different skin colors. do you think you'll research orientals and indians as well? or are you only interested in blacks?

_ _ _

Comic:
Ummm...I believe Asians would be less offensive. Orientals?? What century are u from?
Actually, I notice this is a reoccuring tactic with u and the other jws who have responded to my threads. No this thread is not about those other subjects. Feel free to start one up if you like. Now I know, it is rather difficult to imagine that this subject is only about this subject. However it is just about this subject. So rest asking me about other subjects. In case you've 4 gotten
Russell>Can The Ethiopian change his skin>Russell > no but God can and will> Russell > Blacks are the descendants of Ham and Canaan. I mean I reposted the premise for the thread earlier.

Now, an examination of the general assumption that the Black mans sequential order in
the creation chain is on display now. I hear you as a representative of the jws saying in words "Blacks showed up on the scene some kinda way genetically through Noah and his seed." I got it. Now, I posted a couple of thought processes that definately challenge that assumption. If The Paleoanthroplogist have found {oh and I have more to post from them and their findings} that the oldest mans remains were found in Kenya, Africa, then we're going to have to recheck the sequencial order. Because the man found in Kenya their estimating is roughly a million or more years old, and of course he had a mother and a father and so on and so on... So it follows that theres more to consider than guestimations from proven inaccurate biblical revisionist. The Kemet or Egyptologist and their studies also have to be considered, simply because the part of Africa that is in question in Genesis where all of the geneology is taking place is Egypt which translates according to The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary as Kememu or Kememou meaning {Egyptian} Black people. So, we have to look at all of this and ask is it reasonable to accept the assumption that these characters that were obviously in the land of The Blacks, were not in fact Black people? It's a valid question considering the authors of the "curse" as an explanation were often racist white theologians.

In Genesis it starts "In the Beginning." Then we see "Eden" mentioned and not too long after we see Ethiopia mentioned, and, eventually Egypt,,and,, I dunno that Kememu Egyptian Black people are not in fact Black people and have always been Black people? We're gonna research and check it out. No harm. No foul. Just research.
_ _ _

and i don't know if i have access to the book that was mentioned in the quote from the watchtower from 1967, but i'll look. if i find it, it'll have to be a picture taken with my camera phone as i don't have a scanner.


_ _ _


Comic:
No worries.
Reply #25 posted 07/08/04 9:56pm

comicsutra

solarboi said:

fantasyislander said:



uhh, thanks, i guess. (???) you can do some more research on this if you'd like. i'll look forward to reading what you come up with on the origin of the many different skin colors. do you think you'll research orientals and indians as well? or are you only interested in blacks?

and i don't know if i have access to the book that was mentioned in the quote from the watchtower from 1967, but i'll look. if i find it, it'll have to be a picture taken with my camera phone as i don't have a scanner.



Has anyone seen the documentary "The First Eve"? It was on the Discovery channel about two or three years back. Archaelogical evidence demonstrated that the first woman was a black woman and all the races we see today came from her. The various differences we see today are only because the africans migrated to various ends of the earth, from that centralized area of Africa. When they found new environment, the features of the africans changed and they gradually adapted to their environment

I thought it was interesting and I find that much easier to believe. I personally always thought that the first human pair was black. I mean, two white people can't make a black baby, but two black people (yes, darker skinned black people) can make a baby that looks just like a white child.

I've actually seen this happen.

I think it's because blacks are the progenitor of all races today.


Peace solarboi
Welcome to the discussion.

You might find this interesting...


Genetically speaking and I will post a reference, but it has laong been proven
that in the genetic make up or code of The Black Woman and Man that they are
the only species on earth that have the gentic capability to produce the whole
human family. Dr. Mendel an Australian Scientist is the founder of this fact.
Medels Law #3. The American Heritage Dictionary College Editon reads:

Law of Dominance: If one pair of genes is dominant and the other recessive,
the recessive trait may appear in an offspring only if both genes of it's pair are recessive.

Which basically means as long as the dominant genes are present the recessive genes
won't or can't appear. The genetic dominance is found in one human beings dna.
It's the Black Man and Woman. What does this mean you ask? Well someone said earlier
that two white people can produce a Black child? Well, that might happen in the movies,
but according to the laws of genetics, it's an absolute impossiblity. Recessive genes
cannot produce dominant genes. I'll post more on this later,,,tomorrow.

Gregor Mendel lived from 1822-1884. Around about the time Russell was predicting
Jesus invisible return, the end of times and all that. The same time period that Russell expoused
along with others that Blacks were the descendants of a cursed person? I know that
they didn't have the net. back then but he sure would of been head of his class
if he had this kind of accurate knowledge under his belt huh?
Reply #26 posted 07/08/04 10:29pm

comicsutra

Now let's stretch this out a little further
and see if we can't connect some of these
principles, dicoveries and thoughts with scripture?

The Bible starts "In The Beginning"
"Let us make man in our image and after our likeness:"

Then it reads "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them."

Now I like the redundance. He makes it clear, then clarifies it,
then clearly re-states it again. Awesome!!!
So there is absolutely no room for confusion or need for interpretation.
It's one of those scriptures that clearly speaks for itself.

Now,,,heres the fun part,,who is He talking about???
He's talking about the first two people that were going
to have the divine responsibilty of multiplying and replenishing
the earth. These two blessed people are our parents if you will.
For those who beleve in The Bible they started it all.
That's how I understand it anywayz.

So,,,if it is genetically impossible for two recessively genetic people
to produce genes even slightly more dominant than their own according
to Mendel, then it's only reasonable to ask who's blood or dna has the
power to fullfill, "as by one blood" written in The Book?

Now I've presented all of this to show that it's questionable to say the least
on a Paleoanthropological level, according to The Laws of Genetics, and as well
as Geologically speaking to assume, let alone present with any authority
what so ever that The Black Man is some kind of distant cousin of sorts
to The Let us make Man Man that is written of in The Bible. That's what
the research is saying to me so far. And to add insult to the injury religious
people claimed yesterday and I believe some still do to this very day, like
Joseph Smiths followers, that Black skin is a divine curse??

I mean,,.. ,,, ,,wow!
Reply #27 posted 07/08/04 11:24pm

solarboi

comicsutra said:

Now let's stretch this out a little further
and see if we can't connect some of these
principles, dicoveries and thoughts with scripture?

The Bible starts "In The Beginning"
"Let us make man in our image and after our likeness:"

Then it reads "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them."

Now I like the redundance. He makes it clear, then clarifies it,
then clearly re-states it again. Awesome!!!
So there is absolutely no room for confusion or need for interpretation.
It's one of those scriptures that clearly speaks for itself.

Now,,,heres the fun part,,who is He talking about???
He's talking about the first two people that were going
to have the divine responsibilty of multiplying and replenishing
the earth. These two blessed people are our parents if you will.
For those who beleve in The Bible they started it all.
That's how I understand it anywayz.

So,,,if it is genetically impossible for two recessively genetic people
to produce genes even slightly more dominant than their own according
to Mendel, then it's only reasonable to ask who's blood or dna has the
power to fullfill, "as by one blood" written in The Book?

Now I've presented all of this to show that it's questionable to say the least
on a Paleoanthropological level, according to The Laws of Genetics, and as well
as Geologically speaking to assume, let alone present with any authority
what so ever that The Black Man is some kind of distant cousin of sorts
to The Let us make Man Man that is written of in The Bible. That's what
the research is saying to me so far. And to add insult to the injury religious
people claimed yesterday and I believe some still do to this very day, like
Joseph Smiths followers, that Black skin is a divine curse??

I mean,,.. ,,, ,,wow!


Okay, you confused me on the "distanct cousin" part, but don't you mean son of "Let us make man in our image".

It God said be fruitful and fill the earth, then this would have to have been a black human pair, because blacks are the only race that can produce every type of complexion and hue that's present on the earth today and that's including the white man.

Wasn't this brought out in a Time magazine some years ago?
Pick It Up....There's A Bass...
Reply #28 posted 07/08/04 11:25pm

solarboi

solarboi said:

comicsutra said:

Now let's stretch this out a little further
and see if we can't connect some of these
principles, dicoveries and thoughts with scripture?

The Bible starts "In The Beginning"
"Let us make man in our image and after our likeness:"

Then it reads "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them."

Now I like the redundance. He makes it clear, then clarifies it,
then clearly re-states it again. Awesome!!!
So there is absolutely no room for confusion or need for interpretation.
It's one of those scriptures that clearly speaks for itself.

Now,,,heres the fun part,,who is He talking about???
He's talking about the first two people that were going
to have the divine responsibilty of multiplying and replenishing
the earth. These two blessed people are our parents if you will.
For those who beleve in The Bible they started it all.
That's how I understand it anywayz.

So,,,if it is genetically impossible for two recessively genetic people
to produce genes even slightly more dominant than their own according
to Mendel, then it's only reasonable to ask who's blood or dna has the
power to fullfill, "as by one blood" written in The Book?

Now I've presented all of this to show that it's questionable to say the least
on a Paleoanthropological level, according to The Laws of Genetics, and as well
as Geologically speaking to assume, let alone present with any authority
what so ever that The Black Man is some kind of distant cousin of sorts
to The Let us make Man Man that is written of in The Bible. That's what
the research is saying to me so far. And to add insult to the injury religious
people claimed yesterday and I believe some still do to this very day, like
Joseph Smiths followers, that Black skin is a divine curse??

I mean,,.. ,,, ,,wow!


Okay, you confused me on the "distanct cousin" part, but don't you mean son of "Let us make man in our image".

It God said be fruitful and fill the earth, then this would have to have been a black human pair, because blacks are the only race that can produce every type of complexion and hue that's present on the earth today and that's including the white man.

Wasn't this brought out in a Time magazine some years ago?


Oh, peace to you also Comic.
Pick It Up....There's A Bass...
Reply #29 posted 07/09/04 1:24am

couldUB

solarboi said:



Okay, you confused me on the "distanct cousin" part, but don't you mean son of "Let us make man in our image".

It God said be fruitful and fill the earth, then this would have to have been a black human pair, because blacks are the only race that can produce every type of complexion and hue that's present on the earth today and that's including the white man.

Wasn't this brought out in a Time magazine some years ago?



It would make more sense to me that the first human pair would be somewhere in the middle. Much like the middle eastern complexion is now. Their children would have varied in shade slightly and then as they scattered to distant parts of the world and had children, their concentration in colour would have become more and more distinct, eventually creating the extremes we have in colour now.
Distance is to love, as a breeze is to a flame…
…it enkindles the great
and extinguishes the small.
Reply #30 posted 07/09/04 1:46am

Heiress

couldUB said:

solarboi said:



Okay, you confused me on the "distanct cousin" part, but don't you mean son of "Let us make man in our image".

It God said be fruitful and fill the earth, then this would have to have been a black human pair, because blacks are the only race that can produce every type of complexion and hue that's present on the earth today and that's including the white man.

Wasn't this brought out in a Time magazine some years ago?



It would make more sense to me that the first human pair would be somewhere in the middle. Much like the middle eastern complexion is now. Their children would have varied in shade slightly and then as they scattered to distant parts of the world and had children, their concentration in colour would have become more and more distinct, eventually creating the extremes we have in colour now.


yes, i remember that article.

there were pictures of what someone thought adam and eve would look like. it was more or less mediterranean.
Reply #31 posted 07/09/04 3:01am

solarboi

couldUB said:

solarboi said:



Okay, you confused me on the "distanct cousin" part, but don't you mean son of "Let us make man in our image".

It God said be fruitful and fill the earth, then this would have to have been a black human pair, because blacks are the only race that can produce every type of complexion and hue that's present on the earth today and that's including the white man.

Wasn't this brought out in a Time magazine some years ago?



It would make more sense to me that the first human pair would be somewhere in the middle. Much like the middle eastern complexion is now. Their children would have varied in shade slightly and then as they scattered to distant parts of the world and had children, their concentration in colour would have become more and more distinct, eventually creating the extremes we have in colour now.


Yeah, but where's your proof. I mean, I don't remember what magazine it was, but I distinctly remember the program "The First Eve". They were dark skin black people.

Haven't you ever heard that the cradle of civilization is in Africa and not anywhere else?
Pick It Up....There's A Bass...
Reply #32 posted 07/09/04 4:47am

couldUB

solarboi said:

couldUB said:




It would make more sense to me that the first human pair would be somewhere in the middle. Much like the middle eastern complexion is now. Their children would have varied in shade slightly and then as they scattered to distant parts of the world and had children, their concentration in colour would have become more and more distinct, eventually creating the extremes we have in colour now.


Yeah, but where's your proof. I mean, I don't remember what magazine it was, but I distinctly remember the program "The First Eve". They were dark skin black people.

Haven't you ever heard that the cradle of civilization is in Africa and not anywhere else?



Heyyyyy! Easy sweetie! Just sayin what would make more sense in my opinion. Not putting forward any factual argument.

I had heard about this theory, but that's all I thought it was at the moment. I will do a bit more research into it and bring those to the table.

Peace.


biggrin



.
Distance is to love, as a breeze is to a flame…
…it enkindles the great
and extinguishes the small.
Reply #33 posted 07/09/04 4:59am

Rhondab

couldUB said:

solarboi said:



Yeah, but where's your proof. I mean, I don't remember what magazine it was, but I distinctly remember the program "The First Eve". They were dark skin black people.

Haven't you ever heard that the cradle of civilization is in Africa and not anywhere else?



Heyyyyy! Easy sweetie! Just sayin what would make more sense in my opinion. Not putting forward any factual argument.

I had heard about this theory, but that's all I thought it was at the moment. I will do a bit more research into it and bring those to the table.

Peace.


biggrin



.



Time mag and the discovery channel both presented theories that Eve had to be an black African woman because of genetics.

I personally think its true.
Reply #34 posted 07/09/04 5:09am

Rhondab

Rhondab said:

couldUB said:




Heyyyyy! Easy sweetie! Just sayin what would make more sense in my opinion. Not putting forward any factual argument.

I had heard about this theory, but that's all I thought it was at the moment. I will do a bit more research into it and bring those to the table.

Peace.


biggrin



.



Time mag and the discovery channel both presented theories that Eve had to be an black African woman because of genetics. And Nova did a show on genetics and they said that there is a group of ppl in Africa that can be genetically linked to every race of ppl on the planet. They even did an experient with students to see how "far removed" they were from these African ppl. It was very interesting.


I personally think its true.
Reply #35 posted 07/09/04 7:16am

NotDeaf

As yes, the old statement is true: See first, think later.
I should have remembered this. I let your interpretation influence my reasoning. Shame on me! It's interesting that you left out one of your quotes when starting this thread. This is the quote YOU posted:

If nature favors the colored brethren and sisters in the exercise of humility it is that much to their advantage, if they are rightly exercised by it. A little while, and our humility will work out for our good. A little while, and those who have been faithful to their Covenant of Sacrifice will be granted new bodies, spiritual, beyond the veil, where color and sex distinctions will be no more. A little while, and the Millennial kingdom will be inaugurated, which will bring restitution to all mankind, restitution to the perfection of mind and body, feature and color, to the grand original standard, which God declared "very good," and which was lost for a time through sin, but which is soon to be restored by the powerful kingdom of Messiah.


You chose to focus on the 2nd half, I'll mention the 1st half. It says "those who have been faithful to their Covenant of Sacrifice will be granted new bodies, spiritual, beyond the veil, where color and sex distinctions will be no more. " This tells me that Russell believed that the Black man had the SAME opportunities as the White man. Those who were 'faithful', REGARDLESS of color could enter heaven. "where color and sex distinctions will be no more"
His assertion that all will be restored to "perfection of one mind and body, feature and color" in the Millennial kingdom, simply means that we will not have imperfections of the mind or body. DID he think that all would become ONE color....possibly. Did he say it would be WHITE? Nope.

As to the story of the Ethiopian turning white.....that was a poor choice of example. His point, it seems to me, was that god HAS THE ABILITY to do anything he wants. This boy clearly HAD a skin condition, but was being used to show ANYHTING is possible for god. Guilty of using a bad example? yup.

You question when did the JWs STOP believing that the Black man was cursed. I submit that they may not have adopted this view in the first place. Your quote of
We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other.

COULD ALSO MEAN that they never looked into it. It wasn't important to them, as they already belived that the Black man and White man had the SAME future.

As FI posted, in the 60's an article was posted showing the 'curse' WASN'T on the Black man. What was going on in the 60's? Fight for equal rights. The WTBS was showing that any use of scripture to support the anti-black side was false.


So, where DID the Black man come from? Same place as everyone else.
Were the 1st humans black? Don't know. I tend to agree with the thinking of somewhere in the middle. Middle eastern..you know. DARK? Yes.

Why does it matter? Only to show the 'curse' isn't on them. Other than that, ALL ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD.
Every single decision we make, every breath we draw, opens some doors and closes many others. Most of them we don't notice. Some we do.
Reply #36 posted 07/09/04 7:49am

fantasyislander

comicsutra said:

Ummm...I believe Asians would be less offensive. Orientals?? What century are u from?

come on now, was this really necessary? do we have to start insulting eachother??
i didn't realize this thread was going to be about which term is PC. perhaps you should say "africans" instead of "blacks", or what about "people of color." rolleyes

Actually, I notice this is a reoccuring tactic with u and the other jws who have responded to my threads. No this thread is not about those other subjects. Feel free to start one up if you like. Now I know, it is rather difficult to imagine that this subject is only about this subject. However it is just about this subject. So rest asking me about other subjects.

this is not a tactic. i was genuinely wondering. do you have to impugn malicious motives? why are you so defensive? i'm interested in the history of all ethnic groups. why are you singling out blacks (err, i mean, africans)? (wink)

In case you've 4 gotten
Russell>Can The Ethiopian change his skin>Russell > no but God can and will> Russell > Blacks are the descendants of Ham and Canaan. I mean I reposted the premise for the thread earlier.

Now, an examination of the general assumption that the Black mans sequential order in
the creation chain is on display now. I hear you as a representative of the jws saying in words "Blacks showed up on the scene some kinda way genetically through Noah and his seed." I got it.

yeah, cause that's exactly what i said. rolleyes

Now, I posted a couple of thought processes that definately challenge that assumption. If The Paleoanthroplogist have found {oh and I have more to post from them and their findings} that the oldest mans remains were found in Kenya, Africa, then we're going to have to recheck the sequencial order. Because the man found in Kenya their estimating is roughly a million or more years old, and of course he had a mother and a father and so on and so on... So it follows that theres more to consider than guestimations from proven inaccurate biblical revisionist. The Kemet or Egyptologist and their studies also have to be considered, simply because the part of Africa that is in question in Genesis where all of the geneology is taking place is Egypt which translates according to The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary as Kememu or Kememou meaning {Egyptian} Black people. So, we have to look at all of this and ask is it reasonable to accept the assumption that these characters that were obviously in the land of The Blacks, were not in fact Black people? It's a valid question considering the authors of the "curse" as an explanation were often racist white theologians.

In Genesis it starts "In the Beginning." Then we see "Eden" mentioned and not too long after we see Ethiopia mentioned, and, eventually Egypt,,and,, I dunno that Kememu Egyptian Black people are not in fact Black people and have always been Black people? We're gonna research and check it out. No harm. No foul. Just research.

so, i see you posting a lot of quotes from other people and other sources. what do YOU believe about all this? do you believe, firstly, that God created us? or that we evolved? i have done research, into evolution as well, and i have come to the conclusion that God created us. whatever skin color He made us, He made us all. i don't believe that there is any way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who blacks (africans), whites (caucasions), or any other ethinc groups descend from. i do believe that blacks (africans) were descended from Ham, but not Canaan. the reasons for this are posted above. you can scroll up and read them again if you'd like. but i guess we're not going to know for sure until after armageddon and we can ask noah himself, huh?


No worries.

fantasy: thumbs up!
Reply #37 posted 07/09/04 8:06am

fantasyislander

NotDeaf said:

As yes, the old statement is true: See first, think later.
I should have remembered this. I let your interpretation influence my reasoning. Shame on me! It's interesting that you left out one of your quotes when starting this thread. This is the quote YOU posted:

If nature favors the colored brethren and sisters in the exercise of humility it is that much to their advantage, if they are rightly exercised by it. A little while, and our humility will work out for our good. A little while, and those who have been faithful to their Covenant of Sacrifice will be granted new bodies, spiritual, beyond the veil, where color and sex distinctions will be no more. A little while, and the Millennial kingdom will be inaugurated, which will bring restitution to all mankind, restitution to the perfection of mind and body, feature and color, to the grand original standard, which God declared "very good," and which was lost for a time through sin, but which is soon to be restored by the powerful kingdom of Messiah.


You chose to focus on the 2nd half, I'll mention the 1st half. It says "those who have been faithful to their Covenant of Sacrifice will be granted new bodies, spiritual, beyond the veil, where color and sex distinctions will be no more. " This tells me that Russell believed that the Black man had the SAME opportunities as the White man. Those who were 'faithful', REGARDLESS of color could enter heaven. "where color and sex distinctions will be no more"
His assertion that all will be restored to "perfection of one mind and body, feature and color" in the Millennial kingdom, simply means that we will not have imperfections of the mind or body. DID he think that all would become ONE color....possibly. Did he say it would be WHITE? Nope.

As to the story of the Ethiopian turning white.....that was a poor choice of example. His point, it seems to me, was that god HAS THE ABILITY to do anything he wants. This boy clearly HAD a skin condition, but was being used to show ANYHTING is possible for god. Guilty of using a bad example? yup.

You question when did the JWs STOP believing that the Black man was cursed. I submit that they may not have adopted this view in the first place. Your quote of
We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other.

COULD ALSO MEAN that they never looked into it. It wasn't important to them, as they already belived that the Black man and White man had the SAME future.

As FI posted, in the 60's an article was posted showing the 'curse' WASN'T on the Black man. What was going on in the 60's? Fight for equal rights. The WTBS was showing that any use of scripture to support the anti-black side was false.


So, where DID the Black man come from? Same place as everyone else.
Were the 1st humans black? Don't know. I tend to agree with the thinking of somewhere in the middle. Middle eastern..you know. DARK? Yes.

Why does it matter? Only to show the 'curse' isn't on them. Other than that, ALL ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD.



clapping thumbs up! i agree with all of this, everything you just said.

are you a JW?
Reply #38 posted 07/09/04 10:14am

comicsutra

Top of the morning to u'all.

I see that this subject has inspired some thoughts
from more participants, Rhondab welcome.

As ususal I have to deal with the hostile participants first
b4 we can move forward.

Let's see where do we begin,,,,ah NotDeaf asked
"why did I chose to only re-post the second half of what
I originally posted all of?

The question is posed with a degree of skeptizim.
The answer is simply,,,,no reason. I posted and reposted
those quotes a few times in the other thread already.
I was merely thinking more about not taking up too much space.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now as for your sympathetic view and charcterization of Russell,
what he meant to say and or his motives behind what he said,
well, I think we've come to expect less than objective explanations
for all of his many, many, errors, blunders, and false prophecies.
Why should we expect your views on his words in this matter to
be any different??

In case u forgot "servitude" was a little different for Black people
in those days than for most everyone else. I'm just putting his
words in a historical context. The "exercise in humility" that he
casually and eloquently spoke of was in fact brutal, chattle slavery
suffered for over 300 years. And he thinks he's qualified to say
anything about the suffering of those people and of all things,
"the benefits" of that suffering? You wanna have a look at a racist
mind and how it thinks and works > Russell's is on full display.
"Youre gonna thank us later for this torment we've put you through
for the past 300 years"??? That's what I hearing in what he said.
Loud and clear!!!

The rest of your explanation is pure revisionist and not worthy of
a response. Russells words speak for themselves. You offer your
charcterization of his words and tho I don't want to, and said that
the quotes say it all, I gave u my thought's on that one too. Enjoy.

_ _ _ _

Now as for calling Asians "orientals",,,all I know is that in 2004
it's considered an offense. Dallas Cowboys coach Bill whathisname
had to apologize for using that word to describe Asians earlier
this year. Your lack of sensitivity on this subject surprises me
considering how you claim your group is sooooo multi-racial?
I guess you aren't as ethnically progressive or "informed" as you
think you are? Go figure.

Lastly {look at all the time I spend on distractions from the topic}
Anywayz, is it politcally incorrect or offensive to refer to Black people
as Black people in 2004? Do I really have to answer this??
Ooooookay,,,considering The Black Man in America was called
everything from "nigger" "colored" "negro" Black" and now today
"African American" and "nigga" again,,,I would imagine that Black
as in "Black Entertainment Television" carrys no offense.
Naacp still has "negro" in the title of their organization. A better
case could be made there considering the fact that Black folks have
been renamed "African Americans."

So,,,that was a rather uninformed question? Once again surprising
considering how multi cultural you say ur org is??

One more thing, the thought about the first two people being hued
somewhere in the middle of the two extremes?? Well I just say let's
explore that possibilty. Post some scientist, geneticist, and maybe
a paleoanthropologist or two that will support such an assumption.
I think genetically Dr. Mendel say's it's absolutely impossible.
[This message was edited Fri Jul 9 10:40:15 2004 by comicsutra]
Reply #39 posted 07/09/04 10:36am

comicsutra

fantasyislander said:

NotDeaf said:


Why does it matter? Only to show the 'curse' isn't on them. Other than that, ALL ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD.






This question never fails to appear when someone is less than intellectualy
prepared to pursue a given subject or when they simply do not wish
for the subject to be discussed by anyone at all.


And of course they seal the subject with a simple nursery saying that rings
hollow in the real world of everyday people trying to reasonably work out
their differences. The question of equality in the eyes of our fellow man
is more or less our subject here. Let's all try to stay focused on it. Okay?
Ooooookay!!!

Lastly,,,you will notice it's the same persons questioning why should we
examine or discuss certain subjects. It kinda makes them look like
they're afraid of what they think were going to find out.
Let's ask them,,,what are you afraid of???

I already set the course. Quotes and statements > present them.
Let's explore together. All you have to do is play along or play elsewheres.
Play elsewheres!!!????

It's up to u.

I gotta run, back in a few hours.
Play nice.
Reply #40 posted 07/09/04 10:38am

333

fantasyislander said:

333-

focus please. the topic of this thread is from whom were the black people descended, that is all. please stick to the discussion.

do YOU have any quotes or ideas about who black people are descended from?

I am focusing on the issue, just from a different direction. The fact is that the Bible does not say where dark skinned people come from. The topic is just not address. Also the players in the events, as given above, are in error.

(1) Only Ham is involved in the incidence (Gen. 9:22).

(2) Only Ham's son Canaan is cursed.(Gen. 10:25).

(3) Ham's other three sons, Cush, Mizraim, and Put, are not cursed.

(3) While I agree that Mizraim, Cush, and Put may be those from who black skin people are descended from, clearly they are not under a cursed.

(4) The curse has nothing to do with the color of anyones skin. The text says that the Canaan will be the servant of his brothers (Gen. 10:25-27)

(5) All of Canaan's descendants are the Semitic peoples (Gen 10:15-20).

Thus there is no cursed upon Cush or Put. Therefore I cannot see how anyone could trace the curse to Cush or Put. Nor can I see how the statement suppled by comic from the Watchtower, "We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other," to be valid in any sense, and this would include comments made by Mormons

"Noah declared, prophetically, that Ham's characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct disrespectful to his father, would be found cropping out later, inherited by his son,and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other. (Zion's Watch Tower, August 1, 1898, p. 230)

Nonetheless, my argument is still on point, whether it is the Watchtower or the Mormons.

If anyone claims that to speak for God himself, and clearly change their minds about their theology, doctrines, and teachings, then you can be sure that they do not speak for God himself. If God cannot be wrong, and God always speaks the truth, then the one who says he speaks for God himself cannot be wrong about any doctrine. Because that would mean that either God was wrong or God lied. Why did he not inform the Watchtower? If the Watchtower is God's only organization, the channel of God, the only organization to which the Bible is not a closed book, how could the Watchtower get it wrong?
[This message was edited Thu Aug 12 4:14:54 2004 by 333]
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Reply #41 posted 07/09/04 10:38am

Beaulah

comicsutra


I think I love U
Reply #42 posted 07/09/04 10:45am

fantasyislander

comicsutra said:

Top of the morning to u'all.

I see that this subject has inspired some thoughts
from more participants, Rhondab welcome.

As ususal I have to deal with the hostile participants first
b4 we can move forward.

hostile participants? is everyone supposed to share your view? again, i ask, why are you on the defensive???

Now as for calling Asians "orientals",,,all I know is that in 2004
it's considered an offense. Dallas Cowboys coach Bill whathisname
had to apologize for using that word to describe Asians earlier
this year. Your lack of sensitivity on this subject surprises me
considering how you claim your group is sooooo multi-racial?
I guess you aren't as ethnically progressive or "informed" as you
think you are? Go figure.

now, you go back to being insulting. what other lows will you stoop too? and you say i'm hostile???

if you would have read some of the other threads on this board in the past month, there was a long and lengthy discussion on whether people prefer the term "black" or "african american" or whatever. you would be surprised how many people still do no prefer the term "black."

and as for my use of the term "oriental", i will apologize. i admit i didn't know that you considered the term offensive. i haven't seen a lot on the news or media lately suggesting the term was unacceptable. i guess that particular ethnic group doesn't get as much publicity as concerns with blacks (or african americans, if you will).


Lastly {look at all the time I spend on distractions from the topic}
Anywayz, is it politcally incorrect or offensive to refer to Black people
as Black people in 2004? Do I really have to answer this??
Ooooookay,,,considering The Black Man in America was called
everything from "nigger" "colored" "negro" Black" and now today
"African American" and "nigga" again,,,I would imagine that Black
as in "Black Entertainment Television" carrys no offense.
Naacp still has "negro" in the title of their organization. A better
case could be made there considering the fact that Black folks have
been renamed "African Americans."

NAACP- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People . . . where is the term "negro" in that title?

So,,,that was a rather uninformed question? Once again surprising
considering how multi cultural you say ur org is??

again, refer to the above comments in regard to your insults and lack of compassion for PC terms.

One more thing, the thought about the first two people being hued
somewhere in the middle of the two extremes?? Well I just say let's
explore that possibilty. Post some scientist, geneticist, and maybe
a paleoanthropologist or two that will support such an assumption.
I think genetically Dr. Mendel say it's absolutely impossible.

i have done my research. i have come to my own conclusions. and i (personally) believe that it doesn't matter what color our first parents were. black, white, red, yellow, purple, pink, gray, blue, or whatever. the fact remains that we are all one family of humans. so, have fun with your discussion.

(i did notice, however, that you didn't answer my question about what your personal beliefs are. tell me, are you really 333 in disguise?)
Reply #43 posted 07/09/04 10:52am

fantasyislander

333 said:

fantasyislander said:

333-

focus please. the topic of this thread is from whom were the black people descended, that is all. please stick to the discussion.

do YOU have any quotes or ideas about who black people are descended from?

I am focusing on the issue, just from a different direction. The fact is that the Bible does not say where dark skinned people come from. The topic is just not address. Also the players in the events in error.

(1) Only Ham is involved in the incidence (Gen. 9:22).

(2) Only Ham's son Canaan is cursed.(Gen. 10:25).

(3) Ham's other three sons, Cush, Mizraim, and Put, are not cursed.

(3) While I agree the Mizraim, Cush, and Put may be those from who black skin people are descended from, clearly they are not under a cursed.

(4) The curse has nothing to do with the color of anyones skin. The text says that the Canaan will the servant of his brothers (Gen. 10:25-27)

(5) All of Canaan's descendants are the Semitic peoples (Gen 10:15-20).


so far we agree . . .

Thus there is no cursed upon Cush or Put. Therefore I cannot see how anyone could trace the curse to Cush or Put.

still agreeing . . .
Nor can I see how the statement suppled by comic from the Watchtower, "We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other," to be valid in any sense, and this would include comments made by Mormons

"Noah declared, prophetically, that Ham's characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct disrespectful to his father, would be found cropping out later, inherited by his son,and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other. (Zion's Watch Tower, August 1, 1898, p. 230)


i guess here is where you lose me. the WT wasn't saying that they were the descendants of Ham and Canaan, only that it was possible. and the world didn't have the info we have today. it was the general view back then. again, they are not saying that it was true, only that it was a possibility.

Nonetheless, my argument is still on point, whether it is the Watchtower or the Mormons.

If anyone claims that to speak for God himself, and clearly change their minds about their theology, doctrines, and teachings, then you can be sure that they do not speak for God himself. If God cannot be wrong, and God always speaks the truth, then the one who says he speaks for God himself cannot be wrong about any doctrine. Because that would mean that either God was wrong or God lied. On this subject of racism, surely God does. Why did he not inform the Watchtower. If the Watchtower is God's only organization, the channel of God, the only organization to which the Bible is not a closed book, how could the Watchtower get it wrong?

i believe this has been discussed in other threads, so i will not argue with you on this anymore. (and i use the term "argue" because i believe that is what you want to do. it has been explained many a time before. if you do not agree, that is your decision. you don't have to. but it has already been addressed.)
Reply #44 posted 07/09/04 11:14am

comicsutra

[snip-sos]
Reply #45 posted 07/09/04 12:50pm

sosgemini

there are no right and wrong answers here....this isnt a game.....
Space for sale...

URL: http://prince.org/msg/105/101201

Date printed: Mon 1st Sep 2014 4:30pm PDT