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

In the Spirit of Sankofa and Truth!

Chevron,

Outside of eisegesis, which means the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, or reading into the text; there is no other way to extrapolate the mark of Cain to mean white in color.


Certainly, the first family was dark and the same color, which means that a white mark would have had the opposite affect intended. And if they were white, which they were not, and the mark was black, which destroys your concept, the same applies in terms of non-affect of the intended.

Here is the text in question:

16. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him shall kill him.

If verse (14), below, isn't considered, then we take the above out of context. Here is verse 14:

Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me.

The mark had to have protected Cain from becoming a vagabond, a fugitive, or being found in that desperate condition, by others, not a color mark. The mark simply assured Cain that none would find him destitute, according to scripture and proper exegesis.

The hebrew word for mark is owth and is probably from uwth(in the sense of appearing), which means: to come, assent-consent, while owth means: a signal, as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.-mark, miracle, sign, token.

Fair interpretation (exegesis) yields the mark to be no more than a hedge that God placed around Cain, so as to prevent him from being set apart from others, in other words, none would know that Cain was guilty as charged based upon his appearance as a vagabond or fugitive in hiding.


Chevron Dove said:
There! . . . You have it!!! There is something about 'the mark of Cain'! It's right there in the Bible...


 
Chevron,

Outside of eisegesis, which means the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, or reading into the text; there is no other way to extrapolate the mark of Cain to mean white in color.


Certainly, the first family was dark and the same color, which means that a white mark would have had the opposite affect intended. And if they were white, which they were not, and the mark was black, which destroys your concept, the same applies in terms of non-affect of the intended.

Here is the text in question:

16. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him shall kill him.

If verse (14), below, isn't considered, then we take the above out of context. Here is verse 14:

Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me.

The mark had to have protected Cain from becoming a vagabond, a fugitive, or being found in that desperate condition, by others, not a color mark. The mark simply assured Cain that none would find him destitute, according to scripture and proper exegesis.

The hebrew word for mark is owth and is probably form uwth(in the sense of appearing), which means: to come, assent-consent, while owth means: a signal, as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.-mark, miracle, sign, token.

Fair interpretation (exegesis) yields the mark to be no more than a hedge that God placed around Cain, so as to prevent him from being set apart from others, in other words, none would know that Cain was guilty as charged based upon his appearance as a vagabond or fugitive in hiding.






Bro Clyde,

Whose interpretation is right; yours?

If you think that I'm referring to Cain being marked as 'white' then your interpretation of what I said is wrong.

When you say;

"Outside of eisegesis, which means the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, or reading into the text; there is no other way to extrapolate the mark of Cain to mean white in color."

Then you interpretation is also in question regarding Cain being protected from being a fugitive and a vagabond. As you have shown, the Bible says, he was marked so that he would not be killed.

When you say;

"The mark had to have protected Cain from becoming a vagabond, a fugitive, or being found in that desperate condition, by others, not a color mark."

Again, this is your own interpretation. This is not what the Bible says.

When you say;

" The mark simply assured Cain that none would find him destitute, according to scripture and proper exegesis."

Again, this is your own interpretation. This is not what the Bible says. It says that God marked Cain so that he will not be killed.


When you say;

"Certainly, the first family was dark and the same color, which means that a white mark would have had the opposite affect intended."

Again, this is your own interpretation and you are not basing this on any reference. It's just what you are saying as if you are the authoritarian. I do agree with you but, my basis is on research not because, I am that I am and I say it so it is true.

When you say;

" And if they were white, which they were not, and the mark was black, which destroys your concept, the same applies in terms of non-affect of the intended."

Again, you are saying this that as if you are God, the almighty. Furthermore, what is my concept!?--that Cain was white!? If that is what you have interpreted that I said then, your interpretation of what I said is wrong.

I agree with Kemestry on the the text of 'Cain was marked' and that 'white' has something to do with the mark of Cain. But now, I'll take it a step farther:

I believe that mutation and the mark of Cain is an issue. Based upon genetics when I took it in college, once mutation does occur, the question revolves around EXPRESSION. Whatever Cain was marked with correlates to 'other gene factors' that does manifest in a geographical basis of people in the 'nodeastern' [northeastern] regions of the world and this is not limited to 'the color white' but other factors [alelles] that shows up. So in regards to Cain being like Adam and Eve; yes. But in regards to his 'mark', I believe that the answer lies in his generations of which showed up again even after the Biblical Flood through the descendants of JapHeth [his wife] of whom also concentrated in THE NORTHEASTERN REGIONS OF THE WORLD.
 
Bro Clyde,

Whose interpretation is right; yours?

If you think that I'm referring to Cain being marked as 'white' then your interpretation of what I said is wrong.

When you say;

"Outside of eisegesis, which means the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, or reading into the text; there is no other way to extrapolate the mark of Cain to mean white in color."

Then you interpretation is also in question regarding Cain being protected from being a fugitive and a vagabond. As you have shown, the Bible says, he was marked so that he would not be killed.

When you say;

"The mark had to have protected Cain from becoming a vagabond, a fugitive, or being found in that desperate condition, by others, not a color mark."

Again, this is your own interpretation. This is not what the Bible says.

When you say;

" The mark simply assured Cain that none would find him destitute, according to scripture and proper exegesis."

Again, this is your own interpretation. This is not what the Bible says. It says that God marked Cain so that he will not be killed.


When you say;

"Certainly, the first family was dark and the same color, which means that a white mark would have had the opposite affect intended."

Again, this is your own interpretation and you are not basing this on any reference. It's just what you are saying as if you are the authoritarian. I do agree with you but, my basis is on research not because, I am that I am and I say it so it is true.

When you say;

" And if they were white, which they were not, and the mark was black, which destroys your concept, the same applies in terms of non-affect of the intended."

Again, you are saying this that as if you are God, the almighty. Furthermore, what is my concept!?--that Cain was white!? If that is what you have interpreted that I said then, your interpretation of what I said is wrong.

I agree with Kemestry on the the text of 'Cain was marked' and that 'white' has something to do with the mark of Cain. But now, I'll take it a step farther:

I believe that mutation and the mark of Cain is an issue. Based upon genetics when I took it in college, once mutation does occur, the question revolves around EXPRESSION. Whatever Cain was marked with correlates to 'other gene factors' that does manifest in a geographical basis of people in the 'nodeastern' [northeastern] regions of the world and this is not limited to 'the color white' but other factors [alelles] that shows up. So in regards to Cain being like Adam and Eve; yes. But in regards to his 'mark', I believe that the answer lies in his generations of which showed up again even after the Biblical Flood through the descendants of JapHeth [his wife] of whom also concentrated in THE NORTHEASTERN REGIONS OF THE WORLD.
that is an interesting point you make and there seems to be an illusive and vague correlation to the book, "The Iceman's Inheritance", and "Yurugu" by Marimba Ani.

If i am not mistaken the biblical context does make reference to the ancestry of Nimrod and it is common knowledge ,about the amount of fuss and gorification that the illuminati place on him and his type of power,

so your conjecture seems quite plausable in the context of historical politics, and political activities ,
and the "Cain-like" excuses made over hundreds of years
for White Supremacy
 

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