Black People : white scientist say WHITE SKIN IS A DNA MUTATION

In the Spirit of Sankof and Truth1

Yes, Brother Clyde, both YOUR extrapolation and MINE is MOOT, which is exactly the applicable root of this discussion.




And I never intended to "sway" you either, Brother Clyde....Likewise, I was putting another point of view on the table. When I used the word "sway," that was in direct response to YOUR statement that I could not "REMOVE" you from YOUR understanding....So, okay. YOU said "remove" and I said "sway." But, CONTEXTUALLY, don't those two words mean the SAME THING?------NOW, WHO'S "SPLITTING HAIRS??"

And, I wasn't "putting words in your mouth." ---I asked a question.--YOU introduced the Hebrew words for "mark" and "hedge." So, my QUESTION related to Hebrew grammar usage in the books of Job and Genesis.

However, all throughout this debate, I simply saw an exchange of differing opinions....YOU saw "SHALLOWNESS" and "UGLINESS."




Again, Brother Clyde, your language here smacks of you internalizing this debate, taking this personally.

However, if Deuteronomy 29:29 is applicable to others when attempting to "interpret" or "extrapolate" Biblical scripture, then it is also applicable to YOU.

As you also agreed, "NO ONE knows what the mark was placed on Cain." Therefore, it is a MOOT point, i.e. "arguable" and "debatable."






sister cherryblossom,

My take on this discussion remains the same, it has been non-productive and should have ended earlier. I don't buy the attempt to escape from answering why you felt the need to put Deuteronomy 29 to me. How do you explain being frivolously redundant, what was the point? Do you honestly think that I am unaware of its meaning, if so, that is terribly disrepectful.


Finally, I have not, as you say, internalized this discussion nor taken it personally. Why is there a need to establish this false preception?

 
sister cherryblossom,

My take on this discussion remains the same, it has been non-productive and should have ended earlier. I don't buy the attempt to escape from answering why you felt the need to put Deuteronomy 29 to me. How do you explain being frivolously redundant, what was the point? Do you honestly think that I am unaware of its meaning, if so, that is terribly disrepectful.

Finally, I have not, as you say, internalized this discussion nor taken it personally. Why is there a need to establish this false preception?


Brother Clyde, I have not attempted to "escape" anything.

I answered your question. You just didn't like my answer.


I REPEAT>>>>I REFERRED YOU TO DEUTERONOMY 29:29 BECAUSE IT ALSO APPLIES TO YOU WHEN INTERPRETING OR EXTRAPOLATING BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE.

I NEVER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANT.

IN FACT, I BELIEVED THAT YOU DID KNOW WHAT IT MEANT.

THAT'S WHY I SPECIFICALLY USED IT.

FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO DEEP, COMPELLING "NEED" ON MY PART TO REFERENCE Deut. 29:29.

AND....I ASSURE YOU, I EXPERIENCED NO UNFATHOMABLE, UNCONTROLLABLE URGE, MENTAL NOR PHYSICAL WHEN I DID SO.

AGAIN>>>>IF DEUTERONOMY 29:29 IS APPLICABLE TO OTHERS WHEN INTERPRETING/EXTRAPOLATING BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE, THEN IT ALSO APPLIES TO YOU.

So and therefore>>>>YOUR "extrapolation" as well as MY "extrapolation" is APPLICABLE to Deuteronomy 29:29.
 
In the Spirit of Sankofa and Truth!

Bro Clyde,

When you say;

"Again, in my mind and view, to say that because the Bible is silent on the names of the wifes of Noah's sons, as well as Noah's wife, is pure eisegesis."

This is your interpretation and that is just it.

If Noah was perfect in his generations, that means that his wife was a descendant of Seth. But all four of the women are WRITTEN OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE. For you to inject that my freedom to believe what I choose is 'this or that' is very controlling. If you don't believe it then, you don't have to come behind me and tell me things like 'it's eisegesis' or 'it's dangerous' or etc. I came from a very controlling environment and therefore, I love my freedom to express myself.

When you say;

" . . . To me your position says this, since there is this gap, we fill it with the wife's being the daughters of Cain, because the Bible does not say that the wifes were found without guile, as it only says this for Noah."

In your own book [of which was very informative and had great substance] you even mentioned the incest that did occur. Now, while I have much input on this very issue, I will not take away from your great research on the matter but choose to share my research on it. In this way, I'm merely seeking to find ways to reach the ultimate TRUTH AND CONFIRMATION from the HOLY SPIRIT. I'm not trying to be the best. In regards to Noah's wife, the issue here is HER POSITION. How could she be the victim!? Based upon my research, her behavior was DARK, VERY DARK. She was found with MUCH GUILE. My position is definitely not that all of the four women were daughters of Cain. I've taken a scientific approach and looked at GENESIS on their descendants and etc. Again, you are saying things based on what you believe others think and this is very controlling.

When you say;

"If all that is true about Noah, Chevron, and it is, one would think reasonably then that Noah and his family was good in the eyes of God, since Noah knew better than to allow his family to marry outside the sons of God, which is to say, the line of Seth."

Oh! --how authoritarian you are!!! Did Isaac stop Esau from marrying two Hittite women!? Noah was not perfect. He was a just man but, he was born in sin. Like Solomon said [paraphrasing] there is no such thing on this earth as a man who has not sinned.

When you say;

"As I have mentioned to sister cherry, I think we, Sis. Chevron, should no longer debate the Bible. So, from this point forward, I will commit to stop sharing biblical interpretations. This should solve our immediate problem of going back and forth, in this manner, creating unfriendliness"

Bro Clyde, you addressed me! And now, you are trying to set the rules on how I should defend and debate. When referencing something whether it is a link to secular books, magazines or the Bible, it is proper. In education, it is a must to reference research papers and etc.

No, I don't want to create unfriendliness and hope that we respect each others beliefs and also, agree to disagree and still keep being friends. FRIENDS DISAGREE, and there's nothing wrong in that. Pleas don't be offended by my not giving you 'thanks' all of the time. I certainly will continue to hit the button and give thanks!




Chevron,

We are friends to the end, for real. The Bible is serious. Now, I hope you feel better having voiced your opinion. But there is a fine line between controlling and authoritive speech.

Look, you have made a statement that really interests me, so please provide more on them not being in the Book of Life, please.



 
In the Spirit of Sankofa and Truth!

Brother Clyde, I have not attempted to "escape" anything.

I answered your question. You just didn't like my answer.


I REPEAT>>>>I REFERRED YOU TO DEUTERONOMY 29:29 BECAUSE IT ALSO APPLIES TO YOU WHEN INTERPRETING OR EXTRAPOLATING BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE.

I NEVER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANT.

IN FACT, I BELIEVED THAT YOU DID KNOW WHAT IT MEANT.

THAT'S WHY I SPECIFICALLY USED IT.

FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO DEEP, COMPELLING "NEED" ON MY PART TO REFERENCE Deut. 29:29.

AND....I ASSURE YOU, I EXPERIENCED NO UNFATHOMABLE, UNCONTROLLABLE URGE, MENTAL NOR PHYSICAL WHEN I DID SO.

AGAIN>>>>IF DEUTERONOMY 29:29 IS APPLICABLE TO OTHERS WHEN INTERPRETING/EXTRAPOLATING BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE, THEN IT ALSO APPLIES TO YOU.

So and therefore>>>>YOUR "extrapolation" as well as MY "extrapolation" is APPLICABLE to Deuteronomy 29:29.




cherryblossom,

Disliking the answer has nothing to do with me not understanding it, and I still don't understand the frivolous manner in which it was done, especially after reading that you knew I understood the ramifications of the scripture. Of course I know the scripture applies to me, whatever gave you the idea it didn't? Better yet, what necessitated you making sure that I knew it applied to me?

Remember, you and I discovered that color wasn't an issue with the mark of Cain. It was Chevron and I that had somewhat of a disagreement on the color portion. Specifically, your opposing view with my interpretation of the text had to do with the invisibility of Job's hedge, believe it or not. Eventually, you conceded that Cain's mark was a hedge of protection of sorts.

As Christians, we are supposed to search the scriptures diligently, read diligently and pray diligently for understanding. Along with that method, we are to use common sense, as well. So, to extrapolate is something to stay away from not gravitate toward. This forum is not conducive for sincere Bible study, in that such as what went on between us occurs too often; and for that reason, I limit sharing what has been reveal to me as a result of applying the above mentioned method. Otherwise, we simply debate and split hairs rather than seek truth and understanding by holding onto our long standing beliefs, rightly or wrongly.

 
cherryblossom,

Disliking the answer has nothing to do with me not understanding it, and I still don't understand the frivolous manner in which it was done, especially after reading that you knew I understood the ramifications of the scripture. Of course I know the scripture applies to me, whatever gave you the idea it didn't? Better yet, what necessitated you making sure that I knew it applied to me?

Remember, you and I discovered that color wasn't an issue with the mark of Cain. It was Chevron and I that had somewhat of a disagreement on the color portion. Specifically, your opposing view with my interpretation of the text had to do with the invisibility of Job's hedge, believe it or not. Eventually, you conceded that Cain's mark was a hedge of protection of sorts.

As Christians, we are supposed to search the scriptures diligently, read diligently and pray diligently for understanding. Along with that method, we are to use common sense, as well. So, to extrapolate is something to stay away from not gravitate toward. This forum is not conducive for sincere Bible study, in that such as what went on between us occurs too often; and for that reason, I limit sharing what has been reveal to me as a result of applying the above mentioned method. Otherwise, we simply debate and split hairs rather than seek truth and understanding by holding onto our long standing beliefs, rightly or wrongly.

I assure you that the "manner" in which I referenced Deut. 29:29 was NOT "frivolous." It was in DIRECT response to YOUR state that there can be only 'ONE interpretation or meaning to scripture;' and so, I applied it to BOTH our "extrapolations." ---I did say that "ONE or even BOTH of us could be WRONG."

Moreover, when I referenced Deut. 29:29, let's say that I did know You KNEW what it meant AND that YOU are aware that it applies to you as well....So, again, what is the problem with me using it in this debate with YOU?

Surely, you don't feel any kind of PROPRIETARY debate ownership over Deut. 29:29 in that only YOU can use it in discussion exchange to others but not others to you. :?:

Surely, if you will, you don't, in any way, feel that Deut. 29:29 is "YOUR STUFF." :?:

Surely, you have not internalized/personalized this difference of opinion between you and me by taking my referencing Deut. 29:29 as a "slap in your face."
:?:

[..., but the bigger questions put to you are these; why compel yourself to put to me a basis of fact that I put to others?

What makes you feel the need to educate me on my stuff, if you will?

Couldn't you have simply worded this need of yours to slap pie in my face, so to speak, into words of understanding, seriously? [/SIZE]

Oh, well.

But, it looks like from here-on-out, the best thing for BOTH of us to do is leave the "Mark Of Cain" to Deut. 29:29.



PEACE IN, BROTHER CLYDE.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top