Bathsheba, the daughter of the queen of Shebah?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't believe that Bathsheba was black.

The OP believes she was black. That is his whole case throughout this thread. He has stated several times that she was African. We have no evidence of that biblically, no matter how the OP tries to twist the scripture. It just isn't there. I find the whole 'mark of Cain' and 'curse of Ham's descendants to be quite distasteful because it implies that black people are cursed and I do not believe that and can find no biblical reason to even contemplate it.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Fair doesn't necessarily mean blonde or white. It means righteous or beautiful (take a look at the hair of the actor in the classic film My fair lady). The ancestor of the current Norwegian kings was called Harald Hårfagre or Harald Fair-hair in English. His hair was actually dark, almost raven black. The fair part related to the length of his hair, that he wore his hair like a woman, long and combed. Also. In Hebrew, Harald sounds almost identical to a word that means uncircumcised, Heb. הערל, and he was probably related to the Merovingians who wore their hair long and were known as the fair-haired emperor-kings of France who supposedly traced their lineage back to Mary Magdalen and Jesus via their supposed daughter Sarah who was supposedly married into what became French royalty and the first emperors of Europe.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't believe that Bathsheba was black.

The OP believes she was black.

I don't believe anything much, that's all on you guys. I simply ask or speculate if you will-- if she might have been-- and that's a long throw from believing anything. If you ask me; people can believe in their churches and mosques. Faith is for the simple and stupid people who are either denying-- or is without-- knowledge.

I simply say that the word Bat-Sheba sounds a lot like Bat (daughter of-) + Sheba (seven, oath or Ethiopia). However, after having studied this a bit further I understand that she most likely wasn't an Ethiopian, since the A-sound in Sheba, is an Ayin, not an Aleph. Though these two letters are sometimes used interchangeably, especially between different Hebrew dialects and different stadiums of said language-- and Aramaic, it is not very likely she was an African.

Still, Ham is generally considered to be the ancestor of the people of Africa, and peoples like Canaan (who was criticised by his father [in the Book of Jubilees] for having settled outside his dominion, which was Africa) and the Hittites (like Uriah) who went even further away from their lot and settled in Anatolia (Asia Minor).

This is a conspiracy forum, not a bloody place for preaching. What I am demonstrating here, is linked to linguistics, not faith.

And as for the title of the thread, people must understand that there were several queens of Sheba. A king and a queen is their nation, so if Bathsheba had been a princess, she could have been the daughter of the sitting queen, not necessarily the one Solomon was visited by. Richard Lionheart was the king of England, and king George was also the king of England. That doesn't mean they were the same person.

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
This is really a mind boggling jump to ridiculous assertions. The bible has been translated. We have the original words and it's easy to know what his name was:

From

2Sa 12:24  And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him. 



H8010
שְׁלֹמֹה
shelômôh
shel-o-mo'
From H7965; peaceful; Shelomoh, David’s successor: - Solomon.
Total KJV occurrences: 293

The bible tells us exactly who she was:

(I know you all hate Wiki, but go look up the sources given)

Bathsheba was the daughter of Eliam (2 Samuel 11:3, who is called Ammiel in 1 Chronicles 3:5). Her father is identified by some scholars with Eliam mentioned in 2 Samuel 23:34 as the son of Ahithophel, who is described as the Gilonite. (See King David's Warriors.)
Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and afterward of David, by whom she gave birth to Solomon, who succeeded David as king. (United Kingdom of Israel and Judah).

en.wikipedia.org...

No we do NOT have the original words...constant errors and mistakes resound endlessly.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't believe that Bathsheba was black.

The OP believes she was black.

I don't believe anything much, that's all on you guys. I simply ask or speculate if you will-- if she might have been-- and that's a long throw from believing anything. If you ask me; people can believe in their churches and mosques. Faith is for the simple and stupid people who are either denying-- or is without-- knowledge.

I simply say that the word Bat-Sheba sounds a lot like Bat (daughter of-) + Sheba (seven, oath or Ethiopia). However, after having studied this a bit further I understand that she most likely wasn't an Ethiopian, since the A-sound in Sheba, is an Ayin, not an Aleph. Though these two letters are sometimes used interchangeably, especially between different Hebrew dialects and different stadiums of said language-- and Aramaic, it is not very likely she was an African.

Still, Ham is generally considered to be the ancestor of the people of Africa, and peoples like Canaan (who was criticised by his father [in the Book of Jubilees] for having settled outside his dominion, which was Africa) and the Hittites (like Uriah) who went even further away from their lot and settled in Anatolia (Asia Minor).

This is a conspiracy forum, not a bloody place for preaching. What I am demonstrating here, is linked to linguistics, not faith.

And as for the title of the thread, people must understand that there were several queens of Sheba. A king and a queen is their nation, so if Bathsheba had been a princess, she could have been the daughter of the sitting queen, not necessarily the one Solomon was visited by. Richard Lionheart was the king of England, and king George was also the king of England. That doesn't mean they were the same person.

And yet, earlier in the thread you posted this

Indeed! And also Eliam's father is named with them, and he was an African. Same goes with Uriah and Batsheba. Ref. 2 Sam 23:34.

So now you want to claim it was all just an intellectual exercise? I see what you did there. and I'm not buying it. You posted this as well:

And apparently the Hittites were black people and descendants of Ham. Ref. Genesis 10:15ff. They were descendants of Ham (which means Black) through his son Canaan.

You, more than once implied she was black and actually stated she was African at least once AND you source a link that is about blacks in the bible. This is the link you posted.

www.blackhistoryinthebible.com...

I actually find this whole thread disgusting because you came right out and cited the 'Ham's curse is the reason for black skin' which is a myth used to support slavery.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

We all know the tragedy of Uriah, and how king David forced himself upon Uriah's wife whom he lusted after while she was bathing on the roof, Batsheba (2 Sam 11). We also know of Solomon's later visitation by the Queen of the South aka the queen of Shebah (1 Kings 10). Was this visit made to meet her granddaughter? We know Bathsheba's father's name, Eliam, so she wasn't named after him, but perhaps a certain queen whom Solomon is said to have given a son who is believed to have brought the Ark of Covenant to Ethiopia where it supposedly still remains, guarded by a single monk who is not allowed outside the temple premises?Text

The Queen of Sheba was the queen of the land of Kitor according to Legends Of The Jews by Lewis Ginzberg. From what I have read sometime ago the people of Kitor were sun worshipers. The queen did not perchance simply visit Solomon but was ordered by Solomon to appear before him which three years later she did visit Solomon.

The queen was indoctrinated in spirits and demonology and it may be possible that Solomon was interested in her because he also was said to have control over demons etc.. Of course one must remember that most all tradition of this sort is embellished to some extent. From what I have understood, there is no in relation to this queen of Sheba and Bathsheba

a reply to: Khaleesi

Refering to a written source with added accumulated evidence, circumstantial as it may be-- like Josephus, Iraenius et al just ain't believing. It's called referencing, paraphrasing and quoting.

I may think, assume-- even theorise and by gods' sins-- assert-- but if I fall into sodding and petty belief, I would render meself into incapacity and lose my integrity completely. This here religious forum at ATS ain't Kindergarten, even though it's often a claim I end in doubt with, seeing what reeks around here and what is written. Again, this isn't a place of faith, but a conspiracy forum dedicated to find weakness in all sorts of religious crap and indoctrination.

However, you seem to have some supernatural gift that allows you to detect faith and belief in rocks and ink and may sense forbid-- scientists and empiric science and more commonly the vast fields of humaniora. Have a cuppa and think for once, you seem quite passive aggressive in your debating serious shaite you don't have the slightest clue about. Sometimes it's best to check wide arrays of sources and analyse, other than what was it this other stoop here said? Yeah parroting.....

a reply to: Seede

Indeed, that was the result of my investigation here too. Solomon and the aforementioned queen, shared more than sheets, or so they say....

And linguistic evidence and indicia point towards no relationship between the Sheba queen and the mother of Solomon.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: chr0naut

If I am right, that could mean Solomon dined together with his mother-in-law or his grandmother. The idea that Solomon had a child with her is extra-biblical and could have confused the chroniclers. What if Bathsheba was in fact the queen of Sheba in own person? Kings married other royals after all. Sounds rather odd that king David should marry (sex was counted as marriage) a commoner, don't you think? What if the guy who brought the Ark to Axum-- was in fact king Solomon himself?

Bathsheba was the daughter of Eliam, who was the son of Ahitophel, of the tribe of Judah (the same tribe as David). Her lineage is known. She wasn't the Queen of Sheba.

Forget it, I need to read up, but these guys seldom married outside their tribes. And Uriah was a Hamite, not a Shemite. The kings however, seems they didn't care too much about family descent.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

Canaanites were about as black as Egyptians. Look at old statues of Egyptian kings and heroes etc. They typically have African traits, like big lips, often reproduced in black stones. Call them brown if you like, they were certainly not Caucasians. Traditionally Shem became ancestor of the people of the Middle East, while Japheth became the Caucasians and Europeans, and Ham-- was supposedly the ancestor of Africans.

Where, then, did the Chinese and Mongolians come from?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

Canaanites were about as black as Egyptians. Look at old statues of Egyptian kings and heroes etc. They typically have African traits, like big lips, often reproduced in black stones. Call them brown if you like, they were certainly not Caucasians. Traditionally Shem became ancestor of the people of the Middle East, while Japheth became the Caucasians and Europeans, and Ham-- was supposedly the ancestor of Africans.

Where, then, did the Chinese and Mongolians come from?

Genesis 4:16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod east of Eden.....

-- And what do you know, that place was full of people, enough to build his city which he named after his son Hanoch. Hanoi does sound plausible, though it's rather anachronistic since Hanoi is merely a millennia old city Or Indus, with their sacred Bindis and their elaborate caste-systems?

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenityThis is really a mind boggling jump to ridiculous assertions. The bible has been translated. We have the original words and it's easy to know what his name was:

From

2Sa 12:24  And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him. 

H8010
שְׁלֹמֹה
shelômôh
shel-o-mo'
From H7965; peaceful; Shelomoh, David’s successor: - Solomon.
Total KJV occurrences: 293

The bible tells us exactly who she was:

(I know you all hate Wiki, but go look up the sources given)

Bathsheba was the daughter of Eliam (2 Samuel 11:3, who is called Ammiel in 1 Chronicles 3:5). Her father is identified by some scholars with Eliam mentioned in 2 Samuel 23:34 as the son of Ahithophel, who is described as the Gilonite. (See King David's Warriors.)
Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and afterward of David, by whom she gave birth to Solomon, who succeeded David as king. (United Kingdom of Israel and Judah).

en.wikipedia.org...

No we do NOT have the original words...constant errors and mistakes resound endlessly.

Biblical scrolls were most normally written on animal skins. The book of Leviticus goes into detail about how the skins and inks are to be prepared and treated. Leviticus is attributed to Moses and so is quite old.

The most venerated scrolls, called Temple scrolls, had a usable life averaging about 800 years. They even used special instruments to follow the lines of text, to minimise bare handed contact with the scrolls (which might mark the scrolls and reduce their useful lifetime).

These scrolls were studied, deeply. They were read and re-read in public, daily. There were even calendars written to ensure that no passage of scripture was ever overlooked. It was considered a rite of passage into adult-hood that every male by the age of 12 could recite at least one significant book of scripture from memory (most frequently, the book of Isaiah). This was the level of study applied to these scrolls. Their study was at the core of Jewish culture.

The scrolls were also copied (both for personal use and as potential replacement of the Temple scrolls, should they become degraded). The copies were compared against the Temple scrolls by several methods. If the copy had a single incorrect letter, or two errors or more of a minor nature (such as malformed letter shapes), the copy was discarded as a corruption.

The Hebrew language that these scrolls were written in also was not as fluid as English and other languages. Each letter in Hebrew is pictographic and has a complete meaning of its own. Hebrew words and names are made up by stringing together a sequence of linked letter concepts or 'meanings'. In this way a Hebrew word cannot simply be redefined according to common usage (as happens in English) because each word is defined by the sequence of its letter meanings. The change of meaning of one word would, in turn, indicate a change of meaning of the letters that make up the word, which, in turn, would change the meaning of all words that use those letters. The result is that the Hebrew language retains integrity of word and name meanings over time because a change in the meaning of a single word could poison the whole language.

With those things in mind, I would suggest that we must necessarily have the original Hebrew words.

The only issues are; with translations into less rigid languages, and with those who apply their understandings of their own culture, to Jewish culture and academic legacy.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I had to come back with something I have been contemplating on for some time. Not saying it is the word of God but I study the Bible and when Cain said he feared he would be killed for killing Abel it was then that God said he put something on Cain that all would see and know it was him and he who killed him would suffer 7 fold for killing Cain. On that mark is what I focused and contemplated what could a person see from an arrows shot or spear throw distance. The only thing that any man could see clearly would be the color of his skin. If God did make Cain black it would stand to reason if Ham took one of Cains daughters to be his wife (scholars believe it was so) then the black people did come through Ham, but Ham himself was not black only some of his children would be, that being why the curse was set on Canaan rather than on Ham whom God had already blessed. Why not any of his other sons? Why did he chose Canaan the reason could be he was black.

Yes Chester, you are partially correct in that your source is based upon that oral Torah but may i offer what oral Torah teaches?

It matters little of the antediluvian Cain because his seed perished in the flood and we start the new world with the family of Noah. After the flood and the family had once again settled into a community, it is said that Noah had planted his vineyard and had become drunk on the wine that he grew. Now here is the twist in the story.

Torah Anthology tells us that Ham had four sons at this time and that Canaan was the youngest and first to see Noah naked. Canaan was to first to delight in this episode and told his father Ham. Ham made no effort to cover his father and did not reprimand his son Canaan as was required in the Noahide laws. But the sin was not only in looking at his father's nakedness, it was that Ham castrated his father also. Noah had wanted a fourth son to serve him in his final years. That was the custom of that day. Ham believed that it should never be proper to father a fourth son at this age and had become the judge in this matter. It is not told the reason Ham felt this way but nevertheless that is what is taught.

This was the reason Noah cursed Ham's fourth son just as Ham had cursed his father's fourth son. As a result of breaking this law, Noah cursed Ham with five punishments among which were (1) His descendants eyes became red as bloodshot eyes. (2) His descendants lips were made thick and gross as is with a negro. (3) His descendants hair and beard would be course and kinky. (4) His descendants would be unclothed or naked. (5) They would become blackened.

So this curse is not told in the writings of Moses but is taught in the oral teachings of the writings of Moses. You can read this in Torah Anthology of Me Am Loez - Bere#h Noah 5 --

By the way Chester these volumes can be purchased on line but not certain they can be downloaded online. This type of information probably is not of interest to very many people outside of Orthodox Jews who use oral and written Torah together. All Jews do not subscribe to oral Torah and some only to certain parts of oral Torah. The Reform and Conservative Jews do differ considerably from the Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Jews comprise only about 5% of Judaism today so this may be considered bogus to the majority of people.

As you can see the curse of Cain would not be in the Adamic bloodline if all were destroyed in the flood. It would have to have been after the flood and would lay in the linage of Ham.
LOL Seede

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I had to come back with something I have been contemplating on for some time. Not saying it is the word of God but I study the Bible and when Cain said he feared he would be killed for killing Abel it was then that God said he put something on Cain that all would see and know it was him and he who killed him would suffer 7 fold for killing Cain. On that mark is what I focused and contemplated what could a person see from an arrows shot or spear throw distance. The only thing that any man could see clearly would be the color of his skin. If God did make Cain black it would stand to reason if Ham took one of Cains daughters to be his wife (scholars believe it was so) then the black people did come through Ham, but Ham himself was not black only some of his children would be, that being why the curse was set on Canaan rather than on Ham whom God had already blessed. Why not any of his other sons? Why did he chose Canaan the reason could be he was black.

Yes Chester, you are partially correct in that your source is based upon that oral Torah but may i offer what oral Torah teaches?

It matters little of the antediluvian Cain because his seed perished in the flood and we start the new world with the family of Noah. After the flood and the family had once again settled into a community, it is said that Noah had planted his vineyard and had become drunk on the wine that he grew. Now here is the twist in the story.

Torah Anthology tells us that Ham had four sons at this time and that Canaan was the youngest and first to see Noah naked. Canaan was to first to delight in this episode and told his father Ham. Ham made no effort to cover his father and did not reprimand his son Canaan as was required in the Noahide laws. But the sin was not only in looking at his father's nakedness, it was that Ham castrated his father also. Noah had wanted a fourth son to serve him in his final years. That was the custom of that day. Ham believed that it should never be proper to father a fourth son at this age and had become the judge in this matter. It is not told the reason Ham felt this way but nevertheless that is what is taught.

This was the reason Noah cursed Ham's fourth son just as Ham had cursed his father's fourth son. As a result of breaking this law, Noah cursed Ham with five punishments among which were (1) His descendants eyes became red as bloodshot eyes. (2) His descendants lips were made thick and gross as is with a negro. (3) His descendants hair and beard would be course and kinky. (4) His descendants would be unclothed or naked. (5) They would become blackened.

So this curse is not told in the writings of Moses but is taught in the oral teachings of the writings of Moses. You can read this in Torah Anthology of Me Am Loez - Bere#h Noah 5 --

By the way Chester these volumes can be purchased on line but not certain they can be downloaded online. This type of information probably is not of interest to very many people outside of Orthodox Jews who use oral and written Torah together. All Jews do not subscribe to oral Torah and some only to certain parts of oral Torah. The Reform and Conservative Jews do differ considerably from the Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Jews comprise only about 5% of Judaism today so this may be considered bogus to the majority of people.

As you can see the curse of Cain would not be in the Adamic bloodline if all were destroyed in the flood. It would have to have been after the flood and would lay in the linage of Ham.
LOL Seede

Thanks Seede. I didn't know that.

a reply to: Seede

I am aware of this midrash that Ham castrated Noah, and also more elaborate ones, like how another midrash adds that Ham sodomised Noah to humiliate him for his curse. Most of these midrashim came out of the Babylonian exile, and much of it is pure fairytales and makebelieve. There may be some truth in them, but if you ask me many of these stories are rooted in petty racism on returning Babylonian Judeans who saw Hamites as their arch enemies, so they demonised Canaanites and Africans like Egyptians and Nubians and if they kept them as slaves they could make them eunuchs and could refuse to let them go after the seven years, even if they desired to-- despite their rights to leave their masters after the seven years according to Torah law.

If you ask an orthodox Jew any question relating to some Biblical tale or something more trivial, they are never short of elaborate explanations. Like how the story goes that the first blacksmith received his first pair of pliers by God, since it takes a pair of tongs to make one. If you ask me, these stories mostly came out of boredom and dogmatic nationalism. Demonising Africans, Philistines and other enemies of their floppy sandals' clan built up a sense of pride and contributed to extreme nationalism and protectionism.

Concerning your other post here, I think it's safe to assume that Cain and his descendants did indeed survive the highly local floods that raged following the last ice-age, after all, what is translated the Earth/world (the word Eretz) simply means nation or kingdom or land, and concerning Noah, only his kingdom is described as being laid waste from the Deluge. The Two Great Floods (Mayim translated flood in our bible, actually translates «two floods», since the suffix -ayim means double), relate to Enuma Elish and how the kings (called gods) who lived in the highlands manipulated the rivers to flood Mesopotamia and destroy the enslaved commoners who lived along the rivers' banks. Besides, at one point Bosporous caved in creating the Black Sea and created havoc and destroyed the area where Eden probably once was, which in the time of the Floods were the kingdom of king Noah-- situated at the bedrock of what is now the Black Sea.

Naturally these midrashim contributed to pogroms and much the hatred directed towards the Hebrews up through the ages. It still goes on today, and the madness won't stop until Israel is put under UN control and all the nations of the world surround Jerusalem and excommunicate the Israeli leadership and their apartheid system directed towards the indigenous population and its neighbouring countries. The majority of the Israeli population are not even Jews genetically, while Palestinians are of ancient semitic and ancient Hebrew blood, and most if not all of them are Semites, while the so called Jews are by far mostly Japhetites. In 2013 Nature published an article showing that as much as >80% of the dominant Ashkenazim Israelis are of more or less pure European descent, and Ashkenazim make up more than 80% of the population of the State of Israel. Noah's prophecy that Japheth would one day take over Sem's land or dwell in the tents of Shem and enslave Canaan looks like it's become a reality.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Seede

I am aware of this midrash that Ham castrated Noah, and also more elaborate ones, like how another midrash adds that Ham sodomised Noah to humiliate him for his curse. Most of these midrashim came out of the Babylonian exile, and much of it is pure fairytales and makebelieve. There may be some truth in them, but if you ask me many of these stories are rooted in petty racism on returning Babylonian Judeans who saw Hamites as their arch enemies, so they demonised Canaanites and Africans like Egyptians and Nubians and if they kept them as slaves they could make them eunuchs and could refuse to let them go after the seven years, even if they desired to-- despite their rights to leave their masters after the seven years according to Torah law.

If you ask an orthodox Jew any question relating to some Biblical tale or something more trivial, they are never short of elaborate explanations. Like how the story goes that the first blacksmith received his first pair of pliers by God, since it takes a pair of tongs to make one. If you ask me, these stories mostly came out of boredom and dogmatic nationalism. Demonising Africans Philistines and other enemies of their floppy sandals' clan built up a sense of pride and contributed to extreme nationalism and protectionism.

Actually, a blacksmith is a poor analogy because up until the reign of Saul (from the entry into the promised land), the Philistines prevented the Israelites from having any Iron workers at all. This gave the Philistines a tactical advantage over the Israelites (the Philistines having Iron and Bronze weapons and armour).

Concerning your other post here, I think it's safe to assume that Cain and his descendants did indeed survive the highly local floods that raged following the last ice-age, afterall, what is translated the Earth/world (the word Eretz) simply means nation or kingdom or land, and concerning Noah, only his kingdom is described as being laid waste from the Deluge. The Two Great Floods (Mayim translated flood in our bible, actually translates «two floods», since the suffix -ayim means double), relates to Enuma Elish and how the kings (called gods) who lived in the highlands manipulated the rivers to flood Mesopotamia and destroy the enslaved commoners who lived along the rivers' banks. Besides, at one point Bosporous caved in creating the Black Sea and created havoc and destroyed the Area where Eden probably once was, which in the time of the floods was the kingdom of king Noah-- situated at the bedrock of what is now the Black Sea.

The breaking of the Bosporus and flooding of the Mediterranean Sea into Black Sea would not affect the Biblical lands to the South. Nor could it have covered Mt Ararat (more than 3 miles above sea level) to any appreciable height.

The Enûma Eliš does not include a flood myth per se but I can see that one might interpret struggles of 'the gods' for supremacy, as accounts of ancient kings. Regardless, it is only an assumption.

While there are similarities between The Enûma Eliš and the first chapter of Genesis, there is no reason to think that one account was more, or less, ancient than the other. What we do know is that they are different enough that it is unlikely that one was copied from the other.

The earliest flood myth, of which we have samples, is probably the Sumerian Eridu Genesis. The Epic of Atra-Hasis (datable to 1646–1626 BC, according to the attribution in its text) is the earliest Babylonian flood myth and Gilgamesh quotes it.

I would have thought that, with your choice of avatar name, you'd be aware of these details?

Naturally these midrashim contributed to pogroms and much the hatred directed towards the Hebrews up through the ages. It still goes on today, and the madness won't stop until Israel is put under UN control and all the nations of the world surround Jerusalem and excommunicates the Israeli leadership and their apartheid system directed towards the indigenous population. The majority of the Israeli population are not even Jews genetically, while Palestinians are ancient and many of them are Semites, while the so called Jews are Japhetites.

Why the hell would you demand that any one sovereign nation be put under the control of an international coalition such as the UN? What could be your motivation, eh? Perhaps we should put America under UN control, for its war mongering and denial of the right of privacy for its own population?

And the implication that Jews were not indigenous to Israel prior to 1947 is just BS. In 1947, under the British Mandate (immediately before the creation of the state of Israel), 34.4% of the non-Christian population of what is now 'Israel and the Palestinian Territories' identified as Jews (the remainder being primarily Syrian and Arab Moslems - none identified as Palestinian because there was no such thing).

In 2013 Nature published an article showing that as much as >80% of the dominant Ashkenazim are of more or less pure European descent, and Ashkenazim make up more than 80% of the population of the State of Israel. Noah's prophecy that Japheth would dwell in the tents of Shem and enslave Canaan looks like it's become a reality.

Except that non-Jewish Israeli nationals can vote (except those from the areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority). Also, Israeli law does not discriminate against any Israeli national. All are equal under Israeli law, regardless of sex, race and creed.

Palestinians are not enslaved. Your suggestion is obviously inaccurate hyperbole and probably racist.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Concerning your other post here, I think it's safe to assume that Cain and his descendants did indeed survive the highly local floods that raged following the last ice-age,

I do not understand why you would make a statement such as the above statement when it is perfectly clear that the genesis account tells us that ---

Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
'
Your ideology has been revealed and it is very frightening.

a reply to: chr0naut

Why the hell would you demand that any one sovereign nation be put under the control of an international coalition such as the UN? What could be your motivation, eh? Perhaps we should put America under UN control, for its war mongering and denial of the right of privacy for its own population? And the implication that Jews were not indigenous to Israel prior to 1947 is just BS. In 1947, under the British Mandate (immediately before the creation of the state of Israel), 34.4% of the non-Christian population of what is now 'Israel and the Palestinian Territories' identified as Jews (the remainder being primarily Syrian and Arab Moslems - none identified as Palestinian because there was no such thing).

Very well said and with this revelation of his ideology, It is a very dangerous mind that suggests this sort of behavior. I thank you chrOnaut for the excellent post.

a reply to: Khaleesi

what I was trying to show that form the distance of a spear throw or an arrow shot is too far to clearly see a small mark on a person.

I wasn't making allusions to Cains death. I believe he died of old age and had many children. No one wanted to kill him because they would be cursed with a death 7 times worse than that they gave him.

I agree the mark is never spoken of as to what it was.