Why Is This Fact Not Taught In Churches?

[Asclepias]

I've been told by Jews they dont subscribe to the NT. How do you know Jews wrote the NT?

No they do not accept the New Testament because they don't believe Jesus is the messiah.
It was the followers of Jesus, his disciples who wrote the New Testament and founded the 1st Churches.

There is no proof the disciples wrote the NT or even existed for that matter. Its unclear exactly who wrote them.

Yes there is proof and yes they existed.

Link? Heres mine.

These 12 Men Shaped Christianity—But Were They Real?

I've been told by Jews they dont subscribe to the NT. How do you know Jews wrote the NT?

No they do not accept the New Testament because they don't believe Jesus is the messiah.
It was the followers of Jesus, his disciples who wrote the New Testament and founded the 1st Churches.

There is no proof the disciples wrote the NT or even existed for that matter. Its unclear exactly who wrote them.

Yes there is proof and yes they existed.

Link? Heres mine.

These 12 Men Shaped Christianity—But Were They Real?

What evidence is there that the apostles died for their faith? | Evidence for Christianity

Your own link admits it made a mistake.

"The only apostle whose death is specifically described by non-Christian
sources is James."

Then they correct their mistake.

"Note: Author’s correction!!! It is the martyrdom of James, the Brother
of Jesus which is recorded in Josephus XX, not James, the son of Zebedee.
James the brother of Jesus was killed in AD 62, while James “the elder”
was executed in AD 44. Only the former execution is reported by Josephus."

 

[Asclepias]

In the bible

So you can't tell us. The Bible says Asslilps is an idiot

I told you in the OP. I cant help that you were too dumb to read it.

 

[irosie91]

skin color determination is MULTIALLELIC

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

so? skin color is no more useful in determining "ORIGIN" of humans than flower color is in determining the origin of ONIONS

So? So that means the people were all dark and only recently in the last 8k years they have mutated to light.

you are confusing melanocyte with dark skin--------or even NEURAL CREST CELLS

You are confusing your opinions with facts and science. The link is there for you benefit. Educate yourself.

your citation is childish-------it is not "SCIENCE"-----it is an interpretation of some discussions at a meeting of geneticists written
in a manner appropriate for the WEEKLY READER (remember---that fifth grade little periodical? ) Skin color EXPRESSION (ie phenotype)
is a very complex interaction of MANY MANY alleles. ALL GENES
are-----actually "MUTATIONS"

 

[Asclepias]

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today."

so? skin color is no more useful in determining "ORIGIN" of humans than flower color is in determining the origin of ONIONS

So? So that means the people were all dark and only recently in the last 8k years they have mutated to light.

you are confusing melanocyte with dark skin--------or even NEURAL CREST CELLS

You are confusing your opinions with facts and science. The link is there for you benefit. Educate yourself.

your citation is childish-------it is not "SCIENCE"-----it is an interpretation of some discussions at a meeting of geneticists written
in a manner appropriate for the WEEKLY READER (remember---that fifth grade little periodical? ) Skin color EXPRESSION (ie phenotype)
is a very complex interaction of MANY MANY alleles. ALL GENES
are-----actually "MUTATIONS"

I think youre missing the point that the mutation for light skin didnt occur until 8k years ago. Those geneticists youre mocking are smarter and more professional than you are so who do you think I'm going to believe? This is what they do.

 

[irosie91]

so? skin color is no more useful in determining "ORIGIN" of humans than flower color is in determining the origin of ONIONS

So? So that means the people were all dark and only recently in the last 8k years they have mutated to light.

you are confusing melanocyte with dark skin--------or even NEURAL CREST CELLS

You are confusing your opinions with facts and science. The link is there for you benefit. Educate yourself.

your citation is childish-------it is not "SCIENCE"-----it is an interpretation of some discussions at a meeting of geneticists written
in a manner appropriate for the WEEKLY READER (remember---that fifth grade little periodical? ) Skin color EXPRESSION (ie phenotype)
is a very complex interaction of MANY MANY alleles. ALL GENES
are-----actually "MUTATIONS"

I think youre missing the point that the mutation for light skin didnt occur until 8k years ago. Those geneticists youre mocking are smarter and more professional than you are so who do you think I'm going to believe? This is what they do.

the article was not written by a geneticist

 

[Marion Morrison]

Sorry, Asslips, your alternative black history is bullshit.

Anytime you'd like a lesson in reality, I'm happy to oblige.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

The Bible teaches about the Spirit yet humans like you and many others want to limit that to a carnal view. That is the problem.

1 Timothy 4 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

If the bible was just teaching about spirit it wouldnt specify locations, genealogies, people, names, etc. Thats simply a cop out people use when they dont want to address the point.

Only in your own decrepit ideology. The Bible is teaching 'you' about the spiritual makeup within you as a human 'IF, you have an ear to hear'; if you don't you are merely sleeping in the dust of the earth; meaning you are dead to the spirit within.

You obviously lack the ability to realize the bible is teaching history, geography, culture etc in addition to spirituality. This may be very confusing to you due to intellectual constraints but not everyone suffers from the same limitations you have experienced. There are verified historical events, places. and people that are in the bible which cross cultural and religious barriers.

 

[Asclepias]

So? So that means the people were all dark and only recently in the last 8k years they have mutated to light.

you are confusing melanocyte with dark skin--------or even NEURAL CREST CELLS

You are confusing your opinions with facts and science. The link is there for you benefit. Educate yourself.

your citation is childish-------it is not "SCIENCE"-----it is an interpretation of some discussions at a meeting of geneticists written
in a manner appropriate for the WEEKLY READER (remember---that fifth grade little periodical? ) Skin color EXPRESSION (ie phenotype)
is a very complex interaction of MANY MANY alleles. ALL GENES
are-----actually "MUTATIONS"

I think youre missing the point that the mutation for light skin didnt occur until 8k years ago. Those geneticists youre mocking are smarter and more professional than you are so who do you think I'm going to believe? This is what they do.

the article was not written by a geneticist

The study was done by geneticists.

Adaptation of human skin color in various populations

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today

While I believe there WERE "humanoids" on earth prior to the CREATION of Adam, the fact remains Adam was created on the banks of the Euphrates -- which is NOT in Africa.

That tells me something about the groups God calls his CHILDREN and those refered to prophetically as "beasts."

The implications I try not to think about but try to treat EVERYONE with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.

 

[Asclepias]

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today

While I believe there WERE "humanoids" on earth prior to the CREATION of Adam, the fact remains Adam was created on the banks of the Euphrates -- which is NOT in Africa.

That tells me something about the groups God calls his CHILDREN and those refered to prophetically as "beasts."

The implications I try not to think about but try to treat EVERYONE with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.

Even if that were true, the people in the area of what is now called the euphrates were African appearing people at that time and it was considered part of Africa.. You dont get white people by creating someone from the earth or as the Torah puts it the humus. You get someone thats...well dark brown like the earth.

 

[RodISHI]

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

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.

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.

The Bible teaches about the Spirit yet humans like you and many others want to limit that to a carnal view. That is the problem.

1 Timothy 4 - Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

If the bible was just teaching about spirit it wouldnt specify locations, genealogies, people, names, etc. Thats simply a cop out people use when they dont want to address the point.

Only in your own decrepit ideology. The Bible is teaching 'you' about the spiritual makeup within you as a human 'IF, you have an ear to hear'; if you don't you are merely sleeping in the dust of the earth; meaning you are dead to the spirit within.

You obviously lack the ability to realize the bible is teaching history, geography, culture etc in addition to spirituality. This may be very confusing to you due to intellectual constraints but not everyone suffers from the same limitations you have experienced. There are verified historical events, places. and people that are in the bible which cross cultural and religious barriers.

The Lord plants and plucks for his purpose and that isn't for your racist views or anyone else's. To be darkened or to be black means you need to be awakened, you are in a state of shatteredness (being forged) or dawn is breaking. You are clueless as you desire to ignore the Hebrew that wrote the majority of the holy books. You desire to make it all carnal when it is not. It is by and for his holy spirit we live or die and a book was recorded for those who could hear and see. Not you or anyone else can claim an exclusive to that Holy Spirit that makes alive for any one nation, people or sect.

 

[irosie91]

you are confusing melanocyte with dark skin--------or even NEURAL CREST CELLS

You are confusing your opinions with facts and science. The link is there for you benefit. Educate yourself.

your citation is childish-------it is not "SCIENCE"-----it is an interpretation of some discussions at a meeting of geneticists written
in a manner appropriate for the WEEKLY READER (remember---that fifth grade little periodical? ) Skin color EXPRESSION (ie phenotype)
is a very complex interaction of MANY MANY alleles. ALL GENES
are-----actually "MUTATIONS"

I think youre missing the point that the mutation for light skin didnt occur until 8k years ago. Those geneticists youre mocking are smarter and more professional than you are so who do you think I'm going to believe? This is what they do.

the article was not written by a geneticist

The study was done by geneticists.

Adaptation of human skin color in various populations

yes-----good article-----and does not support your weird allegations----

 

[irosie91]

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today

While I believe there WERE "humanoids" on earth prior to the CREATION of Adam, the fact remains Adam was created on the banks of the Euphrates -- which is NOT in Africa.

That tells me something about the groups God calls his CHILDREN and those refered to prophetically as "beasts."

The implications I try not to think about but try to treat EVERYONE with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.

Even if that were true, the people in the area of what is now called the euphrates were African appearing people at that time and it was considered part of Africa.. You dont get white people by creating someone from the earth or as the Torah puts it the humus. You get someone thats...well dark brown like the earth.

wrong-----only highly composted "earth is ----DARK BROWN-----the basic stuff is blondish

 

[Asclepias]

You are confusing your opinions with facts and science. The link is there for you benefit. Educate yourself.

your citation is childish-------it is not "SCIENCE"-----it is an interpretation of some discussions at a meeting of geneticists written
in a manner appropriate for the WEEKLY READER (remember---that fifth grade little periodical? ) Skin color EXPRESSION (ie phenotype)
is a very complex interaction of MANY MANY alleles. ALL GENES
are-----actually "MUTATIONS"

I think youre missing the point that the mutation for light skin didnt occur until 8k years ago. Those geneticists youre mocking are smarter and more professional than you are so who do you think I'm going to believe? This is what they do.

the article was not written by a geneticist

The study was done by geneticists.

Adaptation of human skin color in various populations

yes-----good article-----and does not support your weird allegations----

Of course its a good article. Glad you agree which causes a problem for your silly claims. It absolutely supports not my allegations but their allegations. From the link you just said you agree with.

"Skin color adaptation in modern Eurasians
In Europeans, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 [16–19] are two golden genes related to the evolution of the light skin color. SLC24A5 encodes the NCKX5 protein, which is a member of the transmembrane protein family and regulates the calcium concentration in the melanosome"

 

[irosie91]

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today

While I believe there WERE "humanoids" on earth prior to the CREATION of Adam, the fact remains Adam was created on the banks of the Euphrates -- which is NOT in Africa.

That tells me something about the groups God calls his CHILDREN and those refered to prophetically as "beasts."

The implications I try not to think about but try to treat EVERYONE with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.

Even if that were true, the people in the area of what is now called the euphrates were African appearing people at that time and it was considered part of Africa.. You dont get white people by creating someone from the earth or as the Torah puts it the humus. You get someone thats...well dark brown like the earth.

the word "HUMUS" does not appear in the Torah------it is not Hebrew.
Humus is highly composted soil

 

[Asclepias]

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today

While I believe there WERE "humanoids" on earth prior to the CREATION of Adam, the fact remains Adam was created on the banks of the Euphrates -- which is NOT in Africa.

That tells me something about the groups God calls his CHILDREN and those refered to prophetically as "beasts."

The implications I try not to think about but try to treat EVERYONE with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.

Even if that were true, the people in the area of what is now called the euphrates were African appearing people at that time and it was considered part of Africa.. You dont get white people by creating someone from the earth or as the Torah puts it the humus. You get someone thats...well dark brown like the earth.

wrong-----only highly composted "earth is ----DARK BROWN-----the basic stuff is blondish

Sorry but youre wrong yet again...

Humus - Wikipedia

Humus has a characteristic black or dark brown color and is organic due to an accumulation of organic carbon.

 

[irosie91]

your citation is childish-------it is not "SCIENCE"-----it is an interpretation of some discussions at a meeting of geneticists written
in a manner appropriate for the WEEKLY READER (remember---that fifth grade little periodical? ) Skin color EXPRESSION (ie phenotype)
is a very complex interaction of MANY MANY alleles. ALL GENES
are-----actually "MUTATIONS"

I think youre missing the point that the mutation for light skin didnt occur until 8k years ago. Those geneticists youre mocking are smarter and more professional than you are so who do you think I'm going to believe? This is what they do.

the article was not written by a geneticist

The study was done by geneticists.

Adaptation of human skin color in various populations

yes-----good article-----and does not support your weird allegations----

Of course its a good article. Glad you agree which causes a problem for your silly claims. It absolutely supports not my allegations but their allegations. From the link you just said you agree with.

"Skin color adaptation in modern Eurasians
In Europeans, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 [16–19] are two golden genes related to the evolution of the light skin color. SLC24A5 encodes the NCKX5 protein, which is a member of the transmembrane protein family and regulates the calcium concentration in the melanosome"

right-----nothing to do with AFRICA -------it is environmental all over
the world-----natural selection in the Darwinian lingo

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I told you in the OP. I cant help that you were too dumb to read it.

You lie. You did NOT tell us the Scripture that allegedly says the Garden of Eden is in Africa.
Post it or apologize for the damn lie.

 

[irosie91]

Which doesnt really help your argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today

While I believe there WERE "humanoids" on earth prior to the CREATION of Adam, the fact remains Adam was created on the banks of the Euphrates -- which is NOT in Africa.

That tells me something about the groups God calls his CHILDREN and those refered to prophetically as "beasts."

The implications I try not to think about but try to treat EVERYONE with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.

Even if that were true, the people in the area of what is now called the euphrates were African appearing people at that time and it was considered part of Africa.. You dont get white people by creating someone from the earth or as the Torah puts it the humus. You get someone thats...well dark brown like the earth.

wrong-----only highly composted "earth is ----DARK BROWN-----the basic stuff is blondish

Sorry but youre wrong yet again...

Humus - Wikipedia

Humus has a characteristic black or dark brown color and is organic due to an accumulation of organic carbon.

right ORGANIC-------to wit the breakdown of plants and creatures
in existence for millions of years. Not just the third ROCK from the sun

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Even if that were true, the people in the area of what is now called the euphrates were African appearing people at that time and it was considered part of Africa.. You dont get white people by creating someone from the earth or as the Torah puts it the humus. You get someone thats...well dark brown like the earth.

Idiot thinks when "white" people return to the earth the earth becomes blond.