Twelve Tribes of Israel info & research thread

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Red according to who? Your and my modern understanding of red or the ancient Hebrew understanding of "red"?

Because the old testament says that the Hebrews believed that their lineage was created from the soil (Genesis 2:7). So combine red and soil and you get:




Which when we compare to the Ruddy duck/cow:




Its still the same conclusion. "Ruddy" cant be used to support an alleged reference to "pale" (being his choice of word btw) people
I sure as heck don't believe the word means pale or that the Israelites were white. But even the first picture is NOT a "black" (dark brown) colour. Just saying. If anything they were probably a people of genetic diversity.
 






Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
I sure as heck don't believe the word means pale or that the Israelites were white. But even the first picture is NOT a "black" (dark brown) colour. Just saying. If anything they were probably a people of genetic diversity.
Exodus
12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot [that were] men, beside children.
12:38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, [even] very much cattle.
 






Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
It included "white" as a possible meaning in the post you made.
No thats not how dictionaries work. There are multiple definitions to the word "fair" one being just which I think was third after the "beauty" definition. The only word they attributed the usage of "fair" in Genesis 12 with was beauty. Not skin color and not "justness".

It was all true as far as I'm aware. The Israelites were farmers and tended sheep. Just as they are still doing the same thing all over the world (agriculture) today. Most farmers all over the world happen to be white. They also have traditions linking them back to the 12 Tribes of Israel. It's all over the world.
So you're an Israelite because most farmers in the world are white (which would be false)? Not because you actually have the signs that are supposed to be on the descendants of Israel (i.e. the curses in Deuteronomy 28) but because you hold a certain occupation?

I didn't give you a jahtruth definition.
I beg to differ. I gave you the color that english language users gave to a duck/cow that is reddish/brown in color. They chose ruddy to fit a reddish/brown color and not a "pale" one like YOU assert ruddy means.

But it seems like you are wanting to try and turn this into a debate about skin colour, but the topic is the Twelve Tribes of Israel not skin colour.

or "white" (it's in your post, open your eyes and look, its right there.) Unless you for some reason are biased against white people and don't want to see it because you are being racist against white Israelites?
Don't be racist, that is lame.
Im racist because I disagree with you on who the Israelites are? I turned this into a debate about skin color when you're the one who said ruddy and fair refers to the white skin of white European and Americans?

I have only gone off of what you posted in this topic of the 12 tribes of Israel and I disagree. I disagree with it based on history and the bible by the way. Theres not really a debate to be had on it either until you can go to Deuteronomy 28 and show whoever you claim to be Israelites either being blessed according to Deuteronomy 28's blessings (that came with obedience to the Torah) or them being cursed according to the curses in the chapter for disobedience. Until then, anyone can say anything...
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
I sure as heck don't believe the word means pale or that the Israelites were white. But even the first picture is NOT a "black" (dark brown) colour. Just saying. If anything they were probably a people of genetic diversity.
Well first off, there are Africans that are that EXACT color. Not that their Israelites, but that they do exist. In America, that color was referred to as copper. The 1828 Websters definition of American:

A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America.


Secondly, they werent a genetic diverse group of people according to what was written in the bible. The old testament is a book about ONE genetic group of people starting at Abraham and going to Isaac and Jacob .and what happened to that one group in the past and what would happen to that group in the future
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Well first off, there are Africans that are that EXACT color. Not that their Israelites, but that they do exist. In America, that color was referred to as copper. The 1828 Websters definition of American:

A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America.


Secondly, they werent a genetic diverse group of people according to what was written in the bible. The old testament is a book about ONE genetic group of people starting at Abraham and going to Isaac and Jacob .and what happened to that one group in the past and what would happen to that group in the future
On average though, most people of African descent are not that colour. I thought you were referring to African Americans and not Native Americans. You also do realise that skin colour is never really mentioned in the bible to confidently use that example of soil colour as a baseline right?

There are people groups in which family members have skin tones that range from fair-skinned to dark complexions and yet they're all blood related. Considering that the Israelites intermingled with different ethnic groups over the events of the bible, it's hardly surprising. Look at how all the ethnic groups supposedly descended from a single family (Noah and his sons).
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
On average though, most people of African descent are not that colour. I thought you were referring to African Americans and not Native Americans.
Well not every "black" person is African. Here are murals in Mexico:




You also do realise that skin colour is never really mentioned in the bible to confidently use that example of soil colour as a baseline right?
Without looking, did you say that to the threadstarter who said that the bible does mention skin color in the bible or just me who piggybacked off what he brought to the table?

Skin color is mentioned in the bible if you know history. The bible says the Egyptians, Israelites, Kushites, Ethiopians, etc... all looked similar. Are we going to argue that Ethiopians and Kushites also werent dark skinned? While we're on that this is from the Zondervan:




There are people groups in which family members have skin tones that range from fair-skinned to dark complexions and yet they're all blood related.
Agreed. Doesnt change the fact that the reddish brown that ruddy refers to doesnt fit who this threadstarter said it fits. It fits "black" people closer than anyone else

Considering that the Israelites intermingled with different ethnic groups over the events of the bible, it's hardly surprising. Look at how all the ethnic groups supposedly descended from a single family (Noah and his sons).
I think it would be better to say that there were Israelites who intermingled, but the bible is clear that God would keep a remnant of them around for His promise to Abraham
 






Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
No thats not how dictionaries work. There are multiple definitions to the word "fair" one being just which I think was third after the "beauty" definition. The only word they attributed the usage of "fair" in Genesis 12 with was beauty. Not skin color and not "justness".



So you're an Israelite because most farmers in the world are white (which would be false)? Not because you actually have the signs that are supposed to be on the descendants of Israel (i.e. the curses in Deuteronomy 28) but because you hold a certain occupation?



I beg to differ. I gave you the color that english language users gave to a duck/cow that is reddish/brown in color. They chose ruddy to fit a reddish/brown color and not a "pale" one like YOU assert ruddy means.



Im racist because I disagree with you on who the Israelites are? I turned this into a debate about skin color when you're the one who said ruddy and fair refers to the white skin of white European and Americans?

I have only gone off of what you posted in this topic of the 12 tribes of Israel and I disagree. I disagree with it based on history and the bible by the way. Theres not really a debate to be had on it either until you can go to Deuteronomy 28 and show whoever you claim to be Israelites either being blessed according to Deuteronomy 28's blessings (that came with obedience to the Torah) or them being cursed according to the curses in the chapter for disobedience. Until then, anyone can say anything...
The book of Enoch is much more explicit about the Israelites descended of Shem being white just as Noah also was.
People are not ducks or cows, they are people. Do a Bing search for ruddy or fair complexion people, not ducks or cows.
 






Last edited:

Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Well not every "black" person is African. Here are murals in Mexico:



Um, native South Americans are not "black".

Without looking, did you say that to the threadstarter who said that the bible does mention skin color in the bible or just me who piggybacked off what he brought to the table?
Another example of you not reading previous responses in a thread.

Skin color is mentioned in the bible if you know history. The bible says the Egyptians, Israelites, Kushites, Ethiopians, etc... all looked similar. Are we going to argue that Ethiopians and Kushites also werent dark skinned? While we're on that this is from the Zondervan:

But their actual skin colour is not mentioned, we I get that from their nationality. What is that supposed to prove? Are "negroes" not considered dark-skinned?


Agreed. Doesnt change the fact that the reddish brown that ruddy refers to doesnt fit who this threadstarter said it fits. It fits "black" people closer than anyone else
Uh no, to me Native Americans fit this better than anyone else. There are other people that exist besides blacks and wites

I think it would be better to say that there were Israelites who intermingled, but the bible is clear that God would keep a remnant of them around for His promise to Abraham
And is there any mention that their blood would be pure? What are the chances of any person vein 100% pure after global history? I'm not saying it's outside of God's ability but I think its less about blood and more about lineage.
 






Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
Enoch
105:1 After days, my son Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech (Gen. 5:26-29; Luke 3:36-38).
105:2 She became pregnant by him, and brought forth a child, the flesh of which was white as snow and red as a rose; the hair of whose head was white like wool, and long; and whose eyes were beautiful. When he opened them, he illuminated all the house, like the sun; the whole house abounded with light (Sura 44:54).
105:3 And when he was taken from the hand of the midwife, opening also his mouth, he spoke to The Lord of Righteousness. Then Lamech his father was afraid of him; and flying away came to his own father Methuselah, and said: I have begotten a son, a substituted son. He is not human; but, resembling the offspring of the angels of heaven; is of a different nature from ours, being altogether unlike to us (Rev. 1:14).
105:4 His eyes are bright like the rays of the sun; his countenance glorious, and he looks not as if he belonged to me, but to the angels (Sura 44:54).
105:5 I am afraid, lest something miraculous should take place on Earth in his days.
105:6 And now, my father, let me entreat and request you to go to our progenitor Enoch, and to learn from him the truth; for his residence is with the angels.
105:7 When Methuselah heard the words of his son, he came to me at the extremities of the Earth; for he had been informed that I was there; and he cried out.
105:8 I heard his voice, and went to him, saying: Behold I am here, my son, since thou art come to me.
105:9 He answered and said: On account of a great event have I come to thee; and on account of a thing difficult to be comprehended have I approached thee.
105:10 And now, my father, hear me; for to my son Lamech a child has been born, who resembles not him; and whose nature is not like the nature of man. His colour is whiter than snow; he is redder than the rose; the hair of his head is whiter than white wool; his eyes are like the rays of the sun; and when he opened them he illuminated the whole house.
105:11 Also, when he was taken from the hand of the midwife, he opened his mouth, and blessed The Lord of Heaven (like Jesus did - Sura 19:29-31).
105:12 His father Lamech feared, and fled to me, believing not that the child belonged to him, but that he resembled the angels of heaven. And behold I am come to thee, that thou mightest point out to me the truth.
105:13 Then I, Enoch, answered and said: The Lord will effect a new thing upon the Earth. This I have seen in a vision, and explained. I have shown thee that in the generation of Jared my father, those who were from heaven (the Watchers - 12:5 & Gen. 6:2) disregarded the Word of the Lord. Behold they committed crimes; laid aside their class, and intermingled with women (and were corrupted by them as Adam was - see 12:6 then Gen. 3:17 and also Rev. 14:4). With them also they transgressed, and begot children.
105:14 A great destruction therefore shall come upon all the Earth; a deluge, a great destruction, shall take place in one year.
105:15 This child which is born to you shall survive on the Earth, and three of his sons shall be saved with him. When ALL mankind who are on Earth shall die (Matt. 24:37), he shall be safe (and those very few that are "Chosen" and with him).
105:16 And his posterity shall beget on the Earth giants, not carnal, but spiritual. Upon Earth shall a great punishment be inflicted, and it shall be washed free from all corruption (by The Flood). Now therefore inform thy son Lamech that he who is born is his child in truth; and he shall call his name Noah, for he shall be to you a survivor. He and his children shall be saved from the corruption which shall take place in the world; from all the sin and from all the iniquity which shall be consummated on Earth in his days. Afterwards shall greater disrespect take place than that which had been consummated before on the Earth (Luke 17:26-30); for I am acquainted with holy secrets, which the Lord Himself has discovered and explained to me; and which I have read in the Tablets of Heaven.
105:17 In them I saw it written, that generation after generation shall transgress, until a righteous race shall arise (Sura 3:104); until transgression and crime perish from off the Earth; until all goodness come upon it.
105:18 And now, my son, go, tell Lamech.
105:19 That the child which is born is his child in truth; and that there is no deception.
105:20 When Methuselah heard the word of his father Enoch, who had shown him every secret thing, he returned with Understanding, and called the name of that child Noah; because he was to console the Earth on account of all its destruction.
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
Um, native South Americans are not "black".
Thats not what early "white" Europeans were saying/drawing:



(Inca Nobleman)

And there’s more where that came from

Another example of you not reading previous responses in a thread.
Im guessing you didnt mention to him that the bible doesnt say anything about color?

But their actual skin colour is not mentioned, we I get that from their nationality. What is that supposed to prove? Are "negroes" not considered dark-skinned?
Im not understanding. If Ethiopians are dark skinned, and they look like Kushites who are darkskinned, who look like Egyptians, who look like Canaanites, who look like Israelites, then why are you still asking me what its supposed to prove?

And if Ham is the ancestor to all these people (sans Israel) yet Zondervan says Ham was NOT an ancestor to black Americans, then what does that leave? Shem and Japheth?

Uh no, to me Native Americans fit this better than anyone else. There are other people that exist besides blacks and wites
To you who seems to believe in narratives rather than what actually happened. What you're taught about the past is whitewashed. And you partially know that because you posted about cheddar man...

I'm not saying it's outside of God's ability
Agreed. So if He says He will gather the descendants ofAbraham Isaac and Jacob then there’s no reason to wonder if He preserved them or not. Without mentioning that the curses He places on the descendants of Israel are to be a sign on them. So all we have to do is go thru history and see who went thru the things outlined in the curses. And the people that went thru them weren’t a “mixed” group of different ethnicities
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
The book of Enoch is much more explicit about the Israelites descended of Shem being white just as Noah also was.
People are not ducks or cows, they are people. Do a Bing search for ruddy or fair complexion people, not ducks or cows.
well I’m glad you deleted that pathetic post accusing me of racism for comparing the color on an animal to that on a human (black AND white ironically).

Going by the animal that English speakers named, ruddy is a dark reddish brown color. Doesn’t match your people at all

that’s without mentioning that you can’t go thru Deuteronomy 28s curses and match it up with who you claim are Israelites
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Thats not what early "white" Europeans were saying/drawing:



(Inca Nobleman)

And there’s more where that came from
Do you have any sources for those pics? Seems interesting and I haven't seen these before.

Im not understanding. If Ethiopians are dark skinned, and they look like Kushites who are darkskinned, who look like Egyptians, who look like Canaanites, who look like Israelites, then why are you still asking me what its supposed to prove?
Is there anywhere in the bible where they're mistaken for each other? I may have come across passages like that but I don't recall them.

And if Ham is the ancestor to all these people (sans Israel) yet Zondervan says Ham was NOT an ancestor to black Americans, then what does that leave? Shem and Japheth?
Okay so let me get this straight . . . Does this mean that African Americans are not actually descended from Africa? So the slave trade was a lie? It's not impossible but isn't the slave trade the biggest thing most BHI use as proof of their connection to the curses of Israel? And if they're not from Africa where did they come from? If they're the real Native Americans then what about the ones called "Indian" Americans? I know colonialism collapsed many cultural identities (happened to my people as well).

To you who seems to believe in narratives rather than what actually happened. What you're taught about the past is whitewashed. And you partially know that because you posted about cheddar man...
Uh no . . . . If I saw sources that showed otherwise with actual proof then no.

Agreed. So if He says He will gather the descendants ofAbraham Isaac and Jacob then there’s no reason to wonder if He preserved them or not. Without mentioning that the curses He places on the descendants of Israel are to be a sign on them. So all we have to do is go thru history and see who went thru the things outlined in the curses. And the people that went thru them weren’t a “mixed” group of different ethnicities
But blacks were not the only people of colour who were historically oppressed. Look, I'm not saying they had mixed ethnicities -rather that within a single ethnic group can exist a range of different skin tones which is why focus on skin colour is not important. It's lineage and whoever the real Israelites are will be called by God Himself when the time is right. But for the sake of clarity -didnt Abraham come from modern day Iraq? Would he then not have looked Middle Eastern? And also which parts of history do you use to determine that? Which sources do you trust to share the truth?
 






Last edited:
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
630
Why is skin color such a big deal in this thread? Just know that almost every statue, or painting of Jesus Christ and others in the Bible have been white washed because satan doesn't want us to know their true appearances.

Jesus is said to have hair like wool, like like wool, eyes like fire (symbolic, it's most likely not actually red) feet that looks like fine brass burnt (So a chocolate skin tone then) also if you type in brass, it looks like a golden skin tone, but if you type in burnt brass, it's a chocolate color, so there you go.

As for Adam and Eve, they were both dark toned too. God made Adam out of SOIL, what is the color of soil? The color of a chocolate bar. They were both dark skinned too, as well as with the majority- if not, all people in the bible.

If anybody worships Mary, she isn't meant to be praised first of all, second all these Catholics praying in Spanish and stuff, this lady is NOT OF YOUR HERITAGE, SHE IS DARK SKINNED.

Honestly, I'm starting to think black people went into slavery just because we were made in the image of God. Also, Gods people...when you see yourself in Gods kingdom, I'm pretty sure nearly everybody will be of a dark skin tone, most likely black people, and some people of Mexican heritage. Of course there'd be more races, but I'm just saying the majority of faces you see will not be light skinned.
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
Do you have any sources for those pics? Seems interesting and I haven't seen these before.
First picture is from Arnoldus Montanus in the 1600s. The second picture is by a painter named Andres Sanchez Gallque made in 1599.

Is there anywhere in the bible where they're mistaken for each other? I may have come across passages like that but I don't recall them.
Joseph was mistaken for an Egyptian in Genesis by his own family

Okay so let never this straight . . . Does this mean that African Americans are not actually descended from Africa? So the slave trade was a lie? It's not impossible but isn't the slave trade the biggest thing most BHI use as proof of their connection to the curses of Israel? And if they're not from Africa where did they come from? If they're the real Native Americans then what about the ones called "Indian" Americans? I know colonialism collapsed many cultural identities (happened to my people as well).
Not every black person is African is what I was saying. And going by the depictions I posted so far, there were "black" people in America BEFORE the slave trade happened. The real slave trade was Europeans coming here and sending out the indigenous people they met. Not them going to Africa and conquering them and then going to America and conquering the natives in both continents, then bringing millions upon millions of Africans and populating TWO CONTINENTS full of them. Thats a false narrative meant to misdirect..

And "Indian" Americans in the modern sense of things migrated to America from Asia.


But blacks were not the only people of colour who were historically oppressed.
According to the curses outlined in Deuteronomy 28? Yes they were/are.

Look, I'm not saying they had mixed ethnicities -rather that within a single ethnic group can exist a range of different skin tones which is why focus on skin colour is not important. It's lineage and whoever the real Israelites are will be called by God Himself when the time is right
That last sentence is the beginning and end of the matter really. Im just wondering why you didnt bring up the question of focusing on skin color with the OP who introduced it? I didnt bring up these ideas out of nowhere but based everything I have said off what he said. And while I agree that within a single ethnic group can exist a range of skin tones, Im not sure why you're bringing it up. Did you assume I was suggesting that Israelites were strictly cloned colors of each other?

. But for the sake of clarity -didnt Abraham come from modern day Iraq? Would he then not have looked Middle Eastern? And also which parts of history do you use to determine that? Which sources do you trust to share the truth?
Like I said to "bible student", Christopher Colombus said he was on a conquest to capture Jerusalem before leaving to the Americas. This came AFTER the very same country (Spain) that sponsored his voyage kicked all the Hebrews within the country out. From there it shouldnt be hard to do the math on that. The history dispensed to the masses is false and one has to do deep digging to expose it.
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
Joseph was mistaken for an Egyptian in Genesis by his own family
No, it actually doesn't say that. It says that his brothers didn't recognise him (probably because it had been over 14 years since they'd last seen him and they thought he was dead anyway). They refer to him as the "lord of the land" which was his position as governor but never overtly as an Egyptian. So where did you make this conclusion:

Im not understanding. If Ethiopians are dark skinned, and they look like Kushites who are darkskinned, who look like Egyptians, who look like Canaanites, who look like Israelites, then why are you still asking me what its supposed to prove?

You said earlier that the bible describes these groups as looking similar but I want to know where because I don't remember seeing that.

Not every black person is African is what I was saying. And going by the depictions I posted so far, there were "black" people in America BEFORE the slave trade happened. The real slave trade was Europeans coming here and sending out the indigenous people they met. Not them going to Africa and conquering them and then going to America and conquering the natives in both continents, then bringing millions upon millions of Africans and populating TWO CONTINENTS full of them. Thats a false narrative meant to misdirect..

And "Indian" Americans in the modern sense of things migrated to America from Asia.

Okay, I'm gonna have to ask you to please share where you discovered this. So what we consider native Americans were not the true Native Americans then? But the Zondervan referring to Ham as the progenitor of the "dark races" doesn't include dark-skinned Americans? Why? There are Africans from Africa LIGHTER than the pictures you shared.

According to the curses outlined in Deuteronomy 28? Yes they were/are.

Really? Do you know how many ethnic groups are cropping claiming to be the true Israelites and somehow manage to fit those curses in alongside their own history? Also are you using the curses that happened as ancient history or conflating them to modern historical events? How do you know which parts of history then to use and which to discard?

And while I agree that within a single ethnic group can exist a range of skin tones, Im not sure why you're bringing it up. Did you assume I was suggesting that Israelites were strictly cloned colors of each other?

The OP focused entirely on skin colour and so did you comparing it to ruddy animals and soil. I brought it up to show it doesn't matter and I did that with BS as well.

Like I said to "bible student", Christopher Colombus said he was on a conquest to capture Jerusalem before leaving to the Americas. This came AFTER the very same country (Spain) that sponsored his voyage kicked all the Hebrews within the country out. From there it shouldnt be hard to do the math on that. The history dispensed to the masses is false and one has to do deep digging to expose it.

So you're trying to say that the events of the bible took place in the Americas and not the Middle East. Except America was never colonised by the Romans. What about the geographical discrepancies like the proximity to Ethopia for one? How does that work?
 






Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
No, it actually doesn't say that. It says that his brothers didn't recognise him (probably because it had been over 14 years since they'd last seen him and they thought he was dead anyway). They refer to him as the "lord of the land" which was his position as governor but never overtly as an Egyptian. So where did you make this conclusion:

You said earlier that the bible describes these groups as looking similar but I want to know where because I don't remember seeing that.
If Egyptians and Hebrews looked different it would have been noticed IMMEDIATELY that Joseph looked like one of them and not like an Egyptian. But if you need it spelled out then there’s the (future) wife of Moses calling him an Egyptian when recanting the story of meeting him to her father. Furthering the point that the two nations looked similar


Okay, I'm gonna have to ask you to please share where you discovered this. So what we consider native Americans were not the true Native Americans then? But the Zondervan referring to Ham as the progenitor of the "dark races" doesn't include dark-skinned Americans? Why? There are Africans from Africa LIGHTER than the pictures you shared.
Huh? Let’s start at the murals again?


Black people with dreadlocks in Mexico before the slave trade you say brought ALL of them (allegedly) happened. How? And why are you asking me about the Zondervan? It said Ham was a progenitor of the dark races but not negroes (black Americans). So who is the progenitor to the negroes?

Really? Do you know how many ethnic groups are cropping claiming to be the true Israelites and somehow manage to fit those curses in alongside their own history? Also are you using the curses that happened as ancient history or conflating them to modern historical events? How do you know which parts of history then to use and which to discard?
I don’t think any group fits the curses in Deuteronomy moreso than the group I can point to but you’re more than welcome to bring one of the groups and how they apply it. I do know these British Israelite guys never go thru the chapter and show how it fits who they say are Israelites.
The OP focused entirely on skin colour and so did you comparing it to ruddy animals and soil. I brought it up to show it doesn't matter and I did that with BS as well.
No the OP said way more about his stance than just skin color but that’s just what I saw that really debunks the whole argument. Ruddy is a dark reddish/brown color.

So you're trying to say that the events of the bible took place in the Americas and not the Middle East. Except America was never colonised by the Romans. What about the geographical discrepancies like the proximity to Ethopia for one? How does that work?
I’m saying Christopher Columbus believed the biblical events happened in the Americas. And he was sponsored by the King and Queen of Spain who at the same time they sent him, kicked out all (open)”Jews” from their land. It’s not hard to put two and two together from that.
 






Robin

Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
583
If Egyptians and Hebrews looked different it would have been noticed IMMEDIATELY that Joseph looked like one of them and not like an Egyptian. But if you need it spelled out then there’s the (future) wife of Moses calling him an Egyptian when recanting the story of meeting him to her father. Furthering the point that the two nations looked similar
I find it a ittle disingenuous that you first asserted that the bible said they looked similar and now you play on implication of silence on the part of Joseph's brothers . . . But anyway, you do realise ancient Egypt was a racially diverse place right? No one even knows for certain what they exactly looked like. Herodotus, for example, referred to the Egyptians as melanchroes. That term is sometimes translated as “black-skinned,” but Herodotus typically used a different word to describe people from further south in Africa, suggesting that “dark-skinned” is more appropriate. He also compared Egyptian skin to that of the people of Colchis, in the Southern Caucasus. The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. Plus they themselves intermarried with people right across the colour spectrum as well. Even the aristocracy was racially integrated. Princesses from the Levant joined the Egyptian nobility for example. So Tzipporah mistaking him as an Egyptian doesnt prove anything -it was probably due to cultural designations like clothing or grooming style that marked him as Egyptian . . . Which technically he was. And where are they compared as similar to Ethiopians? You said that too.


Huh? Let’s start at the murals again?


Black people with dreadlocks in Mexico before the slave trade you say brought ALL of them (allegedly) happened. How? And why are you asking me about the Zondervan? It said Ham was a progenitor of the dark races but not negroes (black Americans). So who is the progenitor to the negroes?
I was referring to North Americans which I thought was obvious enough. What's your proof that the so-called Indian Americans came from Asia and were not the true natives? Can you provide any evidence outside of citation-less pictures at all? I never said the South Americans were brought over from Africa if you read what I said properly lmao where did you get that from? Seriously do you read what people say to you or just rewrite their arguments so you can counter them? I'm referring to the Transatlantic Slave Trade. And is the "negro" race not considered dark-skinned? That's why I asked what the distinction was for.


No the OP said way more about his stance than just skin color but that’s just what I saw that really debunks the whole argument. Ruddy is a dark reddish/brown color.
If you reread what it said he kept on using the words ruddy and fair as proof of white skin. Which I was arguing against. Ruddy means red - the actual Hebrew doesn't say whether or not it's a dark or brownish colour btw.

I’m saying Christopher Columbus believed the biblical events happened in the Americas. And he was sponsored by the King and Queen of Spain who at the same time they sent him, kicked out all (open)”Jews” from their land. It’s not hard to put two and two together from that.
Yes it is hard for people who give a crap about geography and history to just accept that its easy to "put together". If you can't provide an explanation for how America truly is the holy land despite not ever being under Roman rule, or it's lack of proximity to many places mentioned in the bible . . . Then this whole theory of yours falls flat. I'm only asking you to provide a proper explanation ironing out those problems. If you've spent so much time looking into it then it shouldn't be a problem.
 






Last edited:

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
2,553
There are literally at least six dozen "marks" in Scripture describing who the true PEOPLE Israel will be during the end-times.

NONE of those descriptions fit anyone other than the English-speaking nations of the world, almost all of which are either currently under British rule, or were formerly under it.

The absurdity in not simply looking at the available Scriptural evidence to make an honest evaluation, is breathtaking, particularly all of the racial garbage that's now being thrown around.

In truth, we are spiritual-Beings that are temporarily "locked" inside of these human-animal bodies we see in the mirror. It's the human animal exteriors that have skin color, NOT the spirit-Beings (Souls) inside of them. Just like it's the car that has the exterior paint color, NOT its driver.

If some dignitary was due to arrive in a white car, should the security team at the arrival point not be informed of the car color because it might discriminate against the other cars that are different colors? If so, how would they recognize the dignitary's car, so they could protect it? Sit around and argue their opinions on what color it might be? That's how ridiculous this is.

The true people Israel were NEVER meant to be a "master race". They were meant to be a demonstration people, as they promised to be, to show the world how wonderful it is to live by our Creator's Perfect Law of Liberty.

But that didn't happen, because Israel instead wanted to be like the nations around it, and have a king (1 Samuel 8), which God allowed, even though it was a rejection of Him (free-will). And later, God promised king David that he would never want (lack) a man (descendant) to SIT upon his throne (Jer. 33:17, Psalm 89:34-36) - meaning the Davidic Israel throne is still in existence today, and MUST be ruling over a company/multitude/commonwealth of nations (Gen. 35:11, Gen. 48:16-19).

No other kingdom in the world fits that description other than the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

And the word "British" itself is NOT an English word; it's a Hebrew word that means "people of the Covenant", i.e. the people Israel.

The British went out into the world to the West, East, North and South in exactly that order, to colonize what is today the U.S., Australasia, Canada and South Africa, as prophesied.

Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as "the dust of the earth", and thou shalt spread abroad to the West (U.S.A.), and to the East (Australasia), and to the North (Canada), and to the South (Africa): and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Look for all of the clues that describe the people Israel in Scripture. THEN look at the color the human animal bodies which fit the descriptions of TRUE Israel, instead of working at it from the other direction, with nothing but prejudicial conjecture. In that manner one can trace the hand of God working throughout history to establish His Unique "Horn" Kingdom here on Earth, the reigns of which are to be given to Christ - SOON.

We have God's Word on it.

The Truth about the British Monarchy

The Truth about the British Coat of Arms

The Truth about the Current-day Whereabouts of the Tribes of Israel

The Truth About Teia Tephi, Princess of Gibraltar and Ireland

The Truth About the Stone of Destiny, aka the Lia Fail

The Truth About Glastonbury and Joseph of Arimathaea

The Truth about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the Two Witnesses
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,352
There are literally at least six dozen "marks" in Scripture describing who the true PEOPLE Israel will be during the end-times.

NONE of those descriptions fit anyone other than the English-speaking nations of the world, almost all of which are either currently under British rule, or were formerly under it.

The absurdity in not simply looking at the available Scriptural evidence to make an honest evaluation, is breathtaking, particularly all of the racial garbage that's now being thrown around.

In truth, we are spiritual-Beings that are temporarily "locked" inside of these human-animal bodies we see in the mirror. It's the human animal exteriors that have skin color, NOT the spirit-Beings (Souls) inside of them. Just like it's the car that has the exterior paint color, NOT its driver.

If some dignitary was due to arrive in a white car, should the security team at the arrival point not be informed of the car color because it might discriminate against the other cars that are different colors? If so, how would they recognize the dignitary's car, so they could protect it? Sit around and argue their opinions on what color it might be? That's how ridiculous this is.

The true people Israel were NEVER meant to be a "master race". They were meant to be a demonstration people, as they promised to be, to show the world how wonderful it is to live by our Creator's Perfect Law of Liberty.

But that didn't happen, because Israel instead wanted to be like the nations around it, and have a king (1 Samuel 8), which God allowed, even though it was a rejection of Him (free-will). And later, God promised king David that he would never want (lack) a man (descendant) to SIT upon his throne (Jer. 33:17, Psalm 89:34-36) - meaning the Davidic Israel throne is still in existence today, and MUST be ruling over a company/multitude/commonwealth of nations (Gen. 35:11, Gen. 48:16-19).

No other kingdom in the world fits that description other than the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

And the word "British" itself is NOT an English word; it's a Hebrew word that means "people of the Covenant", i.e. the people Israel.

The British went out into the world to the West, East, North and South in exactly that order, to colonize what is today the U.S., Australasia, Canada and South Africa, as prophesied.

Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as "the dust of the earth", and thou shalt spread abroad to the West (U.S.A.), and to the East (Australasia), and to the North (Canada), and to the South (Africa): and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Look for all of the clues that describe the people Israel in Scripture. THEN look at the color the human animal bodies which fit the descriptions of TRUE Israel, instead of working at it from the other direction, with nothing but prejudicial conjecture. In that manner one can trace the hand of God working throughout history to establish His Unique "Horn" Kingdom here on Earth, the reigns of which are to be given to Christ - SOON.

We have God's Word on it.

The Truth about the British Monarchy

The Truth about the British Coat of Arms

The Truth about the Current-day Whereabouts of the Tribes of Israel

The Truth About Teia Tephi, Princess of Gibraltar and Ireland

The Truth About the Stone of Destiny, aka the Lia Fail

The Truth About Glastonbury and Joseph of Arimathaea

The Truth about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the Two Witnesses
Is the leader of your cult English?
 






Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,053
well I’m glad you deleted that pathetic post accusing me of racism for comparing the color on an animal to that on a human (black AND white ironically).

Going by the animal that English speakers named, ruddy is a dark reddish brown color. Doesn’t match your people at all

that’s without mentioning that you can’t go thru Deuteronomy 28s curses and match it up with who you claim are Israelites

The talmudic people like to do that, calling others cattle except for themselves. I deleted it later, to give you the benefit of the doubt. The white south africans (mostly Dutch and British descent but also mixed with other descents) are suffereing almost every curse stated in Deuteronomy 28 right now, many of them are losing their farms and homes or their lives and being hijacked, raped and often tortured to the point of death, or old white people being burnt with hot clothing irons, just to hurt them, etc. (it's truly horrible) and it is gradually starting to happen to others too. It may soon start to be like that in the USA as well, or in other ways, and some of the curses are already starting to happen again there too in many places. Look at all the homeless on the streets of American cities. Look at all the tent cities that are cropping up and growing in size. That's happening now; what do you think it is going to be like when (not if, but when) the economy crashes again and THIS time, it won't be possible to bail the economy out, so they can kick the can down the road a bit longer. What do you think will happen? It will get ugly. You can't keep borrowing money from the banksters at interest (usury) and expect the economy to survive; it cant'. A coming systemic crash is a mathematical certainty.

It also happened to to them already in the past because they have always been part of the Israelites who went captive into Assyria (the 10 Tribes - the majority of Israel, not the Jews, not Judah). They are currently having a homeless epidemic, while God is making China, Russia and Iran stronger and stronger, so that they will defeat the UK & USA in WW3 and win the war, to punish Israel (UK & USA). Then slavery will follow again, for those who have survived the war.

It will get worse and worse until the UK & USA are defeated in the upcoming WW3 against Russia and China.
http://jahtruth.net/horse.htm
 






Last edited:
Top