What came first, The chicken or The egg? Science vs Religion

[Asclepias]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

Buddhism?

Why do they pray to Buddha then if they dont consider him a deity?

They admire and emulate him. But he is not a god.

from: Do Buddhist believe in god?

"Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.


The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding."

Why do they talk about gods being happy about Buddhas enlightenment? I have never met a Buddhist that didnt believe in a god.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

Buddhism?

Why do they pray to Buddha then if they dont consider him a deity?

They admire and emulate him. But he is not a god.

from: Do Buddhist believe in god?

"Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.


The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding."

This is absolutely true: to add to this picture, there are Buddhists, usually in East Asian regions like Japan, that believe that Buddha is a deity, as far as I know. Mahayana Buddhism, I believe it's called.

 

[Asclepias]

Abraham wasn't the first human. What are you talking about?

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

“I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean.” Strabo adds that “if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.”
-Strabo

 

[ThatDude30]

Science does not say there is no God. The most it says is that there is no quantifiable evidence of God.

It is you that demands that one choose. I am not a Christian, but I do not say that there is absolutely no God. Why could God not have guided evolution? Why? Maybe because you want YOUR book to be perfectly factual?

And I never said that science said there is no god. I'm saying it contradicts the bibles version on how we were created

And given the sources, demanding that they are mutually exclusive is odd.

The Bible is not a history or science textbook. And there are things in the Bible that are scientifically impossible.

I know that. What does the rest of the bible have to do with my issue on the creation of human life? Then again god creating adam from the soil is scientifically impossible. But since science cant figure it out does not mean its impossible. Are some stories in the bible a little extreme?, Yes, but if there is a god anything is possible. You cant just believe or not believe solely based on science, there are things that science will never be able to prove, either by lacking technology or understanding, that actually exists and happens. Science can not prove why some creatures can live without oxygen, but their are.
You are trying way to hard my friend, this thread is based on my creative thinking and I was thinking outside the box. I am a thinker and I always analyze. I was just reading a thread posted About evolution being useless, and my mind started going. This is what was going through my head and if you cant understand I'm sorry that you don't have an open mind and cant think in other perspectives and only go by the book. There is no reason for you to act intelligent and demean my opinion, trying to shut down my creative thinking. If you don't agree with it that's cool. It was meant to be talked about with other people that think outside the box.

 

[Indeependent]

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

You just proved you're a colossal idiot.
First of all, your Copy/Paste has no year...what a shock
No Link as you pulled it out of your ass and obviously nobody took this guy seriously enough to put this in book form.
I know, I know, Google books that's probably putting our conversion somewhere right now.
There's a ton of Judaic literature going back over 2,000 years, prior to this fool, that fully recognizes the swath of travel between India and Egypt and the varieties of people along the way as Jews were traveling that route for over 2,000 years.
Like, try reading your Talmud.

 

[Indeependent]

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

“I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean.” Strabo adds that “if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.”
-Strabo

Except you didn't and my last post will compare available works versus this loser.

 

[WinterBorn]

Science is not always right.
Science is often proven to be wrong.
Science proves whatever a leftist scientist wants it to prove especially if the leftist Gov. offers them a grant making sure that's what it says.

The difference between religion and science is that science seeks to prove things and if the theory is proven to be wrong, it is changed, adjusted or tossed out.

That's not always true.
I agree that mechanical and engineering science have to work.
Chemical science can create a "success" that causes more harm than good.

I did not make any statement about anything being good or bad.

 

[Indeependent]

Science does not say there is no God. The most it says is that there is no quantifiable evidence of God.

It is you that demands that one choose. I am not a Christian, but I do not say that there is absolutely no God. Why could God not have guided evolution? Why? Maybe because you want YOUR book to be perfectly factual?

And I never said that science said there is no god. I'm saying it contradicts the bibles version on how we were created

And given the sources, demanding that they are mutually exclusive is odd.

The Bible is not a history or science textbook. And there are things in the Bible that are scientifically impossible.

I know that. What does the rest of the bible have to do with my issue on the creation of human life? Then again god creating adam from the soil is scientifically impossible. But since science cant figure it out does not mean its impossible. Are some stories in the bible a little extreme?, Yes, but if there is a god anything is possible. You cant just believe or not believe solely based on science, there are things that science will never be able to prove, either by lacking technology or understanding, that actually exists and happens. Science can not prove why some creatures can live without oxygen, but their are.
You are trying way to hard my friend, this thread is based on my creative thinking and I was thinking outside the box. I am a thinker and I always analyze. I was just reading a thread posted About evolution being useless, and my mind started going. This is what was going through my head and if you cant understand I'm sorry that you don't have an open mind and cant think in other perspectives and only go by the book. There is no reason for you to act intelligent and demean my opinion, trying to shut down my creative thinking. If you don't agree with it that's cool. It was meant to be talked about with other people that think outside the box.

Prove that God create Adam from existing matter is impossible.
You're playing word games with a language you don't know and your credibility is sinking quickly.

 

[Asclepias]

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

You just proved you're a colossal idiot.
First of all, your Copy/Paste has no year...what a shock
No Link as you pulled it out of your ass and obviously nobody took this guy seriously enough to put this in book form.
I know, I know, Google books that's probably putting our conversion somewhere right now.
There's a ton of Judaic literature going back over 2,000 years, prior to this fool, that fully recognizes the swath of travel between India and Egypt and the varieties of people along the way as Jews were traveling that route for over 2,000 years.
Like, try reading your Talmud.

You have references where you can look up this up. There is a reason europeans dont want to speak of it. Take a guess.

Show me where it says the middle east was called the middle east back then. The entire region was populated by Black people. If you doubt that please explain to me how did the son of Cush populate that area. Nimrod is the guy that founded Babylon (Sumer).

 

[Indeependent]

Science is not always right.
Science is often proven to be wrong.
Science proves whatever a leftist scientist wants it to prove especially if the leftist Gov. offers them a grant making sure that's what it says.

The difference between religion and science is that science seeks to prove things and if the theory is proven to be wrong, it is changed, adjusted or tossed out.

That's not always true.
I agree that mechanical and engineering science have to work.
Chemical science can create a "success" that causes more harm than good.

I did not make any statement about anything being good or bad.

You did make a statement albeit not a judgmental statement.
I gave a contemporary example of how people misconstrue even today's event for profit.

 

[S.J.]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

That's not what I'm saying, idiot.

 

[Asclepias]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

That's not what I'm saying, idiot.

What are you saying then idiot? You are the one that made the claim.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, the answer is the egg, dinosaurs had the egg. They weren't chickens.

Religion exists because HUMANS exist. Dogs don't worship any gods.

 

[Asclepias]

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

“I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean.” Strabo adds that “if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.”
-Strabo

Except you didn't and my last post will compare available works versus this loser.

So he is loser because he proved you wrong or because you have some evidence? I'm waiting.

 

[Indeependent]

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

You just proved you're a colossal idiot.
First of all, your Copy/Paste has no year...what a shock
No Link as you pulled it out of your ass and obviously nobody took this guy seriously enough to put this in book form.
I know, I know, Google books that's probably putting our conversion somewhere right now.
There's a ton of Judaic literature going back over 2,000 years, prior to this fool, that fully recognizes the swath of travel between India and Egypt and the varieties of people along the way as Jews were traveling that route for over 2,000 years.
Like, try reading your Talmud.

Show me where it says the middle east was called the middle east back then. The entire region was populated by Black people. If you doubt that please explain to me how did the son of Cush populate that area. Nimrod is the guy that founded Babylon (Sumer).

It wasn't called the Middle East back then.
India was referred to as India and Africa was referred to as Africa and so on and so forth.
And Jews traveled, just like many others, the entire span of land to do business, and they met people of different color skin, complexion and features.
Cham and his children took Gaza, Egypt and it's questionable that they took Africa.
The Africa issue is explained through the three separate creation account of humans.

 

[Indeependent]

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

“I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean.” Strabo adds that “if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.”
-Strabo

Except you didn't and my last post will compare available works versus this loser.

So he is loser because he proved you wrong or because you have some evidence? I'm waiting.

He's a loser because you can go on Amazon and buy almost any book on Judaica and read about all the Rabbis who traveled for business.
He probably had some Liberal, bleeding heart agenda.

 

[S.J.]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

That's not what I'm saying, idiot.

What are you saying then idiot? You are the one that made the claim.

Yeah, idiot? Where did I make the claim that religions don't believe in a higher power?

 

[Indeependent]

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

“I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean.” Strabo adds that “if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.”
-Strabo

Except you didn't and my last post will compare available works versus this loser.

So he is loser because he proved you wrong or because you have some evidence? I'm waiting.

Out of curiosity, where's the Link for that image?
I know it's going to be some obscure site or Google Books that scans every "will never ever be read by anybody, but what the heck" book ever published.

 

[Indeependent]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

That's not what I'm saying, idiot.

What are you saying then idiot? You are the one that made the claim.

Yeah, idiot? Where did I make the claim that religions don't believe in a higher power?

Post 5 displays yet again what an idiot AssLips is.

 

[Asclepias]

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

Thats funny. Maybe if you tried harder you would have found it.

“It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, “that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.)

You just proved you're a colossal idiot.
First of all, your Copy/Paste has no year...what a shock
No Link as you pulled it out of your ass and obviously nobody took this guy seriously enough to put this in book form.
I know, I know, Google books that's probably putting our conversion somewhere right now.
There's a ton of Judaic literature going back over 2,000 years, prior to this fool, that fully recognizes the swath of travel between India and Egypt and the varieties of people along the way as Jews were traveling that route for over 2,000 years.
Like, try reading your Talmud.

Show me where it says the middle east was called the middle east back then. The entire region was populated by Black people. If you doubt that please explain to me how did the son of Cush populate that area. Nimrod is the guy that founded Babylon (Sumer).

It wasn't called the Middle East back then.
India was referred to as India and Africa was referred to as Africa and so on and so forth.
And Jews traveled, just like many others, the entire span of land to do business, and they met people of different color skin, complexion and features.
Cham and his children took Gaza, Egypt and it's questionable that they took Africa.
The Africa issue is explained through the three separate creation account of humans.

No acutally it wasnt and thats why you lack any proof other than your opinion. Show us in the Talamud your proof. I need quotes. I notice you tried to ignore my question about Nimrod being the one to found Babylon. Why so silent?