Why Is This Fact Not Taught In Churches?

[Carl in Michigan]

So if the OT shows that the Garden of Eden was in East Africa

Where the hell do you imagine it says that?

 

[irosie91]

[Q

Oh, for pity's sake.

You actually think what you read in the bible are "facts", important facts, no less? And that folks go to church to learn about facts?

Yep. Its a fact that this is in the bible. Yes its a important fact. It begs the question of why did white people try to make everything about whites instead of telling the truth?

I do not recall anything about the "COLOR" of adam or eve in the bible-----or even in the Midrash or Talmud. ------Why do you insist that
"white people" call Adam "white"?

I recall plenty of parts of the bible describing people as Black or the descended from other Blacks.

I dont insist white people call Adam white. I ask why do they call Adam white.when he was obviously of African appearance.

that is true-----the writings of the bible INDICATE that being "BLACK"
is an issue of NOTE suggesting that the general population in context
were NOT BLACK. Africa is a big continent

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

 

[Asclepias]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

I thought scholars guessed that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the Euphrates triangle in the Middle East?

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Where did you get this metaphysical explanation and what makes you believe it is fact?

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

Common misconception. Its simply white desire that places it in the Middle East which was actually part of Africa at that time. Anything to get it away from Africa. We know because as you said they jump to the euphrates and Tigris instead of the more important rivers mentioned first. The Gihon and the Pishon. The Gihon being in Kush

 

[irosie91]

Show me in the Torah why its metaphysical instead of a geographical location. Can you do that?

Bereshit 1:1
Bereshit 28:13

How do You differentiate?

Neither of those have anything to do with the location of Eden and neither suggest a metaphysical instead of geographical explanation. Can you provide your logic if possible?

Verse 1 establishes the connection between the physical and metaphysical.
Verse 13 closes the cycle establishing a direct connection between earth and heaven through Yaakov's encounter with Hashem.

not so direct--------Yaakov had to buy a ladder at home depot

Did the ladder know it was Yaakov himself?
Or was it that the home depot came to Yaakov?

Home depot was FOUNDED by Yaakov. If you recall----he is the
FATHER OF BIG BUSINESS

 

[Asclepias]

[Q

Yep. Its a fact that this is in the bible. Yes its a important fact. It begs the question of why did white people try to make everything about whites instead of telling the truth?

I do not recall anything about the "COLOR" of adam or eve in the bible-----or even in the Midrash or Talmud. ------Why do you insist that
"white people" call Adam "white"?

I recall plenty of parts of the bible describing people as Black or the descended from other Blacks.

I dont insist white people call Adam white. I ask why do they call Adam white.when he was obviously of African appearance.

that is true-----the writings of the bible INDICATE that being "BLACK"
is an issue of NOTE suggesting that the general population in context
were NOT BLACK. Africa is a big continent

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

 

[Asclepias]

So if the OT shows that the Garden of Eden was in East Africa

Where the hell do you imagine it says that?

In the bible.

 

[Asclepias]

Was doing some research on the bible and was reading Genesis 2:11-13. The first 2 nations that are mentioned in the bible are Black nations. The first nation listed is Havilah. Havilah is the son of Kush and it was located in East Africa. The second nation is of course Kush. Kush is the son of Ham and it was also located in east Africa. It is known today as Ethiopia.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:11-13 - English Standard Version

11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.

Two little problems here:

1.) This is an early chapter in Genesis giving the account of Creation and describing the Garden of Eden. The only person who existed at this point in the narrative is Adam. However, the lands mentioned here - Havilah and Kush - are supposedly named after descendants of Noah. Problem is, Adam being the only person alive at this point, Noah himself hadn't been born yet, much less his descendants.

2.) The English Standard Version you cite from mentions the rivers in the past tense; "...that flowed around...". The original Hebrew text does not use the past tense when describing these rivers. The original Hebrew text reads thus:

"The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush."

I have no idea if these were black nations or not but these inconsistencies need to be bore in mind.

At this point Adam was just created. Yes these are descendants of Noah but more importantly they are closer descendants of Ham and Kush respectively. Why you see that as "a problem" needs explaining.

Because Ham and Kush were born even later. How could these lands be named after people who did not yet exist?

People tell stories using past or present tenses all the time. All this tells me is that the Hebrew rendition was obviously the original and the christian one was written later after something had changed.

Two problems with this:

1.) One does not transcribe and translate an historic text by changing meanings and timelines. That's not translation, that's interpretation.

2.) By changing passages to the past tense, it appears that the original author was speaking in the past tense when he was not.

These are definitely Black nations. Havilah as I pointed out is a son of Kush and Kush is a son of Ham. These were all Black people.

Perhaps.

Easy. God is telling the writer the location by speaking about the people of those lands.

Correct. The version that was translated uses past tense. The Torah uses present tense. Regardless they say the exact same thing which doesnt change the location.

 

[irosie91]

[Q

I do not recall anything about the "COLOR" of adam or eve in the bible-----or even in the Midrash or Talmud. ------Why do you insist that
"white people" call Adam "white"?

I recall plenty of parts of the bible describing people as Black or the descended from other Blacks.

I dont insist white people call Adam white. I ask why do they call Adam white.when he was obviously of African appearance.

that is true-----the writings of the bible INDICATE that being "BLACK"
is an issue of NOTE suggesting that the general population in context
were NOT BLACK. Africa is a big continent

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

 

[irosie91]

Was doing some research on the bible and was reading Genesis 2:11-13. The first 2 nations that are mentioned in the bible are Black nations. The first nation listed is Havilah. Havilah is the son of Kush and it was located in East Africa. The second nation is of course Kush. Kush is the son of Ham and it was also located in east Africa. It is known today as Ethiopia.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:11-13 - English Standard Version

11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.

Two little problems here:

1.) This is an early chapter in Genesis giving the account of Creation and describing the Garden of Eden. The only person who existed at this point in the narrative is Adam. However, the lands mentioned here - Havilah and Kush - are supposedly named after descendants of Noah. Problem is, Adam being the only person alive at this point, Noah himself hadn't been born yet, much less his descendants.

2.) The English Standard Version you cite from mentions the rivers in the past tense; "...that flowed around...". The original Hebrew text does not use the past tense when describing these rivers. The original Hebrew text reads thus:

"The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush."

I have no idea if these were black nations or not but these inconsistencies need to be bore in mind.

At this point Adam was just created. Yes these are descendants of Noah but more importantly they are closer descendants of Ham and Kush respectively. Why you see that as "a problem" needs explaining.

Because Ham and Kush were born even later. How could these lands be named after people who did not yet exist?

People tell stories using past or present tenses all the time. All this tells me is that the Hebrew rendition was obviously the original and the christian one was written later after something had changed.

Two problems with this:

1.) One does not transcribe and translate an historic text by changing meanings and timelines. That's not translation, that's interpretation.

2.) By changing passages to the past tense, it appears that the original author was speaking in the past tense when he was not.

These are definitely Black nations. Havilah as I pointed out is a son of Kush and Kush is a son of Ham. These were all Black people.

Perhaps.

Correct. The version that was translated uses past tense. The Torah uses present tense. Regardless they say the exact same thing which doesnt change the location.

the torah-----is written in a special tense-----which in my feeble
mind suggests a continuum of time

 

[Asclepias]

[Q

I recall plenty of parts of the bible describing people as Black or the descended from other Blacks.

I dont insist white people call Adam white. I ask why do they call Adam white.when he was obviously of African appearance.

that is true-----the writings of the bible INDICATE that being "BLACK"
is an issue of NOTE suggesting that the general population in context
were NOT BLACK. Africa is a big continent

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Thats has nothing to do with the point. The point is that homo sapiens appeared somewhere first. That place was in Africa as pointed out by the bible and science.

 

[rylah]

Bereshit 1:1
Bereshit 28:13

How do You differentiate?

Neither of those have anything to do with the location of Eden and neither suggest a metaphysical instead of geographical explanation. Can you provide your logic if possible?

Verse 1 establishes the connection between the physical and metaphysical.
Verse 13 closes the cycle establishing a direct connection between earth and heaven through Yaakov's encounter with Hashem.

not so direct--------Yaakov had to buy a ladder at home depot

Did the ladder know it was Yaakov himself?
Or was it that the home depot came to Yaakov?

Home depot was FOUNDED by Yaakov. If you recall----he is the
FATHER OF BIG BUSINESS

I think we have ran into license dispute.
Don't be like the redheads confusing who is the Father.

 

[JoeMoma]

[Q

I recall plenty of parts of the bible describing people as Black or the descended from other Blacks.

I dont insist white people call Adam white. I ask why do they call Adam white.when he was obviously of African appearance.

that is true-----the writings of the bible INDICATE that being "BLACK"
is an issue of NOTE suggesting that the general population in context
were NOT BLACK. Africa is a big continent

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Do human beans go well with rice? Just picking at ya....... I spell lots of stuff wrong myself since I am just a human being.
Also, I don't know for sure the color of the first human beings. They died a long time ago and their skin is long gone.

 

[Indeependent]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Where did you get this metaphysical explanation and what makes you believe it is fact?

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

That is most probable because Avraham traveler South West to get to Canaan and Egypt.
The issue is living in the Garden and not being tempted to leave via the 4 “rivers”.
The 4 rivers represent (1) Thought, (2) Putting thought into action, (3) Refiing the product to no end and (4) Using the product.
In other words, all objects of non-Godly orientation are ever good enough for the ego driven free will human.

 

[irosie91]

[Q

that is true-----the writings of the bible INDICATE that being "BLACK"
is an issue of NOTE suggesting that the general population in context
were NOT BLACK. Africa is a big continent

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Thats has nothing to do with the point. The point is that homo sapiens appeared somewhere first. That place was in Africa as pointed out by the bible and science.

so------what does that have to do with the color of their skin?-----
you are confused as to what a "MUTATION" is--------ALL GENES
ARE MUTATIONS

 

[irosie91]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Where did you get this metaphysical explanation and what makes you believe it is fact?

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

That is most probable because Avraham traveler South West to get to Canaan and Egypt.
The issue is living in the Garden and not being tempted to leave via the 4 “rivers”.
The 4 rivers represent (1) Thought, (2) Putting thought into action, (3) Refiing the product to no end and (4) Using the product.
In other words, all objects of non-Godly orientation are ever good enough for the ego driven free will human.

Avraham was not Adam

 

[irosie91]

[Q

that is true-----the writings of the bible INDICATE that being "BLACK"
is an issue of NOTE suggesting that the general population in context
were NOT BLACK. Africa is a big continent

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Do human beans go well with rice? Just picking at ya....... I spell lots of stuff wrong myself since I am just a human being.
Also, I don't know for sure the color of the first human beings. They died a long time ago and their skin is long gone.

I am pink. curried human bean goes well with paratha

 

[Asclepias]

[Q

They were not in general the color Black but African in appearance. Only certain people can truly be Black. The "unchanging color" mentioned in the bible is reference to the darkest of people in Africa. Africa is home to Black and only Black people.

Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Thats has nothing to do with the point. The point is that homo sapiens appeared somewhere first. That place was in Africa as pointed out by the bible and science.

so------what does that have to do with the color of their skin?-----
you are confused as to what a "MUTATION" is--------ALL GENES
ARE MUTATIONS

It has everything to do with the color of their skin. People in Africa are melinated. They are not white unless they are albinos. Secondly the gene for lighter skin didnt appear until about 8k years ago which is another scientific fact. Not much you can say to dispute that fact.

 

[Indeependent]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Where did you get this metaphysical explanation and what makes you believe it is fact?

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

That is most probable because Avraham traveler South West to get to Canaan and Egypt.
The issue is living in the Garden and not being tempted to leave via the 4 “rivers”.
The 4 rivers represent (1) Thought, (2) Putting thought into action, (3) Refiing the product to no end and (4) Using the product.
In other words, all objects of non-Godly orientation are ever good enough for the ego driven free will human.

Avraham was not Adam

Adam didn’t travel anywhere, Avraham did and based on his travels, Avaraham started off in Iraq.

 

[irosie91]

[Q
Nope. The human bean populations of the earth were never static---
human beans have MIGRATED WIDELY for more than a million years

We arent talking about migrations. We are talking about origins which begin in east Africa biblically and scientifically.

when you talk about HUMAN BEANS in social groups----or in geographical locations, you are talking about a HISTORY OF
EXTENSIVE MIGRATIONS. Human beans never stayed put.

Thats has nothing to do with the point. The point is that homo sapiens appeared somewhere first. That place was in Africa as pointed out by the bible and science.

so------what does that have to do with the color of their skin?-----
you are confused as to what a "MUTATION" is--------ALL GENES
ARE MUTATIONS

It has everything to do with the color of their skin. People in Africa are melinated. They are not white unless they are albinos. Secondly the gene for lighter skin didnt appear until about 8k years ago which is another scientific fact.

skin color determination is MULTIALLELIC

 

[irosie91]

The verse describes 4 rivers that exit the Garden near Eden and where they lead to.
The rivers lead to various levels of physicality.
It is our spiritual quest to stay in the Garden and not be tempted by anything outside the Garden.

Do you really think you understand the context of a cherry picked verse?
Do you really believe your soul won’t live on after your body dies and you won’t see existence from a spiritual point of view?
Now read the verses in context; they are not a geography lesson.

You didnt answer my question. You suggested a metaphysical explanation but you didnt support it. I read the verses in context. Its describing where the garden of eden is at the time of the writing of Genesis. If no geography "lesson" as you put it is implied why mention directions, rivers, and the lands these rivers were in?

I thought most people thought the Garden of Eden was in the area of the Euphrates, which is in present day Iraq?
Though it may not have sported Adam and Eve and all that, the Bible does seem to be saying that its people originated in that physical spot and they described it.

That is most probable because Avraham traveler South West to get to Canaan and Egypt.
The issue is living in the Garden and not being tempted to leave via the 4 “rivers”.
The 4 rivers represent (1) Thought, (2) Putting thought into action, (3) Refiing the product to no end and (4) Using the product.
In other words, all objects of non-Godly orientation are ever good enough for the ego driven free will human.

Avraham was not Adam

Adam didn’t travel anywhere, Avraham did and based on his travels, Avaraham started off in Iraq.

of course Adam traveled------he had to spend holidays with Cain and
his grandchildren in the land of Winken Blinken and Nod