Mormons Change References To Blacks, ...

Mormons Change References To Blacks, Polygamy

There are 291 comments on the nhpr.org story from Mar 17, 2013, titled Mormons Change References To Blacks, Polygamy. In it, nhpr.org reports that:

The Four Standard Works, which contains the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, are the holy scriptures of the Mormon Church.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at nhpr.org.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#21 Apr 21, 2013
David wrote:
You sit here and go and look up a Pontifical... yet at the same time, many Mormons (you probably included) think that blacks WERE ACTUALLY CURSED!
<quoted text>
We were speaking of curses. I know you're shallow ability to understand a conversation didn't allow you to note that.
Just like the same hindrance of non-comprehension doesn't allow you to understand the black curse of Cain was taught through the RCC and certain people breaking off from the RCC continued to teach the curse of Cain into Europe and then into America.
Many Christian ministers still believe in the curse of Cain though they won't say a lot for fear of public backlash.
By the way, it was Christians who followed the genealogy of Cain to the area of the middle east and Africa for the last 1700 years. Christians stated the curse of Cain was a dark/black skin.
That evidence is still there by a Christian point of view. The difference being they don't even speak about the genealogy of Cain for fear of being labeled a racist.
So most modern day Christian ministers won't touch the topic with a ten foot pole and avoid that section of the Bible as much as possible.
Christians thoroughly examined the curse of Cain with thousands of scholars viewpoints for tens of centuries and now modern Christianity in the name of racism claims they had it wrong? Too fricking funny really....lol.
David

Collierville, TN

#22 Apr 21, 2013
No we are speaking of who promotes those curses.

A pontifical isn't the same as the Bible itself, nor is it the same as saying that Moses or Jesus did it.

I don't consider a pontiff a prophet, nor should I. Oh that's more proof that your silliness is fraud... living prophet? More like LYING prophet.

And furthermore about the RCC teaching the curse of cain? Find it. SHow it. And even still, if you prove, it then what/ You've proven that Mormonism copied one false teaching from the RCC. Thanks. No really... thanks.

Whether or not it's Christian ministers, RCC, CNN, 123, ABC, Do-Re-Mi, the FACT is, there was no curse on cain applied to BLACK PEOPLE.

the FACT is Mormonism taught that there WAS.

THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE.

Now in regards to who has it wrong. The passage in ENGLISH says that "God set a mark upon Cain" (nothing about black people, black skin all over the body).

The HEBREW says that God made an OATH with Cain.

So yea, you, nor any other idiot wants to touch that with a ten foot pole, because you don't want to lose that racial superiority mindset when it gets crushed by the facts.

Again

1. The Bible in English doesn't even imply that the black race had any relation to a mark or curse on anyone.
2. Actual FACTS on the ground refutes the notion in ANY EVENT
3. Mormonism teaches that there was
4. Mormonism didn't get it from any revelation, it clearly copied it from.... you said it... RCC, or Baptist, or it doesn't MATTER who... Mormonism didn't get it from God.

And with your last comment. "Christians thoroughly examined the curse of Cain with thousands of scholars viewpoints for tens of centuries and now modern Christianity in the name of racism claims they had it wrong?"

MOST of the viewpoints, for tens of centuries made no reference to Cain. It wasn't until the Muslims perpetuated it and during slavery some Christian traders copied it from them that it took off.

So Modern Christianity in the name of racism sure DID HAVE IT WRONG. It took actual thorough examination of the TEXT OF THE BIBLE to prove it.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We were speaking of curses. I know you're shallow ability to understand a conversation didn't allow you to note that.
Just like the same hindrance of non-comprehension doesn't allow you to understand the black curse of Cain was taught through the RCC and certain people breaking off from the RCC continued to teach the curse of Cain into Europe and then into America.
Many Christian ministers still believe in the curse of Cain though they won't say a lot for fear of public backlash.
By the way, it was Christians who followed the genealogy of Cain to the area of the middle east and Africa for the last 1700 years. Christians stated the curse of Cain was a dark/black skin.
That evidence is still there by a Christian point of view. The difference being they don't even speak about the genealogy of Cain for fear of being labeled a racist.
So most modern day Christian ministers won't touch the topic with a ten foot pole and avoid that section of the Bible as much as possible.
Christians thoroughly examined the curse of Cain with thousands of scholars viewpoints for tens of centuries and now modern Christianity in the name of racism claims they had it wrong? Too fricking funny really....lol.
David

Collierville, TN

#23 Apr 21, 2013
This crap didn't come about until about 500 years ago.

There's that "joint and several" routine of yours.

"CHristians who followed"... implicating what? All Christians? Nope. That "if some, then it's as good as all"?

Nope

Some Christians, commiting BLASPHEMY, like the MORMONS have done, tried to follow the genealogy of Cain to the area of the Middle East and Africa for the last 1700 years. Those claiming to have suceeded were obviously lying, and showing no proof, sought to, like yourself, use bombastic tactics to win over others, who perpetuated the myth.

A blasphemous lie doesn't become true no matter who preaches it, teaches it, nor how long. Else you may as well become a Muslim. They've been at it for 1400 years. Why not join? because you know that their version of history on the Bible is ALSO wrong.

"Christians stated"...

Yea, take that tactic to a 5th grade debate class. Hey "Christians" stated that the world is flat. "Christians" stated that

IN fact, what is it we can do to help you understand that

When you use the word "Christians" is not as good as "all Christians"

or when you use the word "Christians" that doesn't mean that "some" are as good as "correctly".

Are you unable to comprehend that? Or is this another lying tactic?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, it was Christians who followed the genealogy of Cain to the area of the middle east and Africa for the last 1700 years. Christians stated the curse of Cain was a dark/black skin.
David

Collierville, TN

#24 Apr 21, 2013
What's stopping you from speaking about it, and if it's "evidence" presenting it?

See, you "say" there's evidence, but you don't HAVE any evidence.

You have no physical evidence. You have no archaeological evidence. You have no manuscript or ancient documentation, you do not have any genetic evidence (in fact genetics show that it was whites that were given some kind of genetic mutation that gave rise to their white skin 20,000 years ago).

You don't have any scientific evidence, nor do you have any writings in the Bible.

All you have is a mistranslation of "Oath", further mistranslated from "mark" to mean "black skin" of a mark to "racially changing a person from a lighter skinned color to a darker skinned color"

So lets summarize.... You go from the Bible to

Oath -> Mark -> Entire Body Changed to black -> Negro race.

or in essence

Biblical Text -> bad translation -> unsubstantiated interpretaion -> racist hate.

And your "evidence" is what?

Nothing -> you think English is God's #1 language -> You can't imagine it being anything else -> Where else did the negroes come from.

That's the MORMON evidence. Oh yea, and the "Christian" evidence that you say these other pastors whisper about.

Well, guess what, they are all debunked, and so are you.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That evidence is still there by a Christian point of view. The difference being they don't even speak about the genealogy of Cain for fear of being labeled a racist.
So most modern day Christian ministers won't touch the topic with a ten foot pole and avoid that section of the Bible as much as possible.
Christians thoroughly examined the curse of Cain with thousands of scholars viewpoints for tens of centuries and now modern Christianity in the name of racism claims they had it wrong? Too fricking funny really....lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25 Apr 21, 2013
David wrote:
Whether or not it's Christian ministers, RCC, CNN, 123, ABC, Do-Re-Mi, the FACT is, there was no curse on cain applied to BLACK PEOPLE.
the FACT is Mormonism taught that there WAS.
THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE.
So than the opposite of your logic has to also be true or else your logic is flawed.
The Mormons teach the garden of Eden story so that makes Mormonism true.
The Mormons teach the flood so that makes Mormonism true.
The Mormons teach the Son of God was crucified on a cross so that makes Mormonism true.
The Mormons believe in the apostles so that makes Mormonism true.
And your logic also invalidates(makes wrong and incorrect and false) all of Christianity from the 1500's to around 1960 when the curse of Cain began to not be taught. Because from the Spanish to white America history records Christianity not only taught the curse of Cain was black/dark skinned Africans, they used the rules for owning slaves God gave the Israelites as proof that having slaves was okay as God made rules for owning them.
So if Mormons are false for thinking the curse of Cain was dark skin according to you, than all of Christianity that also taught the curse of Cain till the 60s and seventies was also false.
That means according to your logic Christianity has had it right for only the last 40 years.
Interesting logic. Have you told other Christians this logic of yours to see how they would react?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26 Apr 21, 2013
David wrote:
This crap didn't come about until about 500 years ago.
We have talked about this before. And unlike you, I continue to look for evidence to show how far back this "black/dark skinned curse" originates.
Some recent information that states the "curse story" is much older than either of us anticipated before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_o...

Early church exegesis
In Syriac Christianity, early exegesis of the "curse" and the "mark", associated the curse of Cain with black skin.[18](Goldenberg, David M.(2003). "The Curse of Cain". The curse of Ham : race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2nd printing. ed.). Princeton [u.a.]: Princeton University Press. ISBN 069111465X.) Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell" (Gen. 4:5), suggesting that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.
In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written:ďAnd the Lord was wroth with Cain... He beat Cainís face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".[19](^ The History of Abel and Cain, 10, in Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, pp. 145, 250 (text) and 160, 271 (translation))

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#27 Apr 21, 2013
David wrote:
What's stopping you from speaking about it, and if it's "evidence" presenting it?
See, you "say" there's evidence, but you don't HAVE any evidence.
I said..."That evidence is still there by a Christian point of view."
So you're back to lying for effect because you don't state what I said and address what I said AS I STATED IT. You restate what I said in a context that I didn't use. That's deception and lying.
Christians that taught the curse of Cain was black skin, THEIR evidence was what was in the Bible as they interpreted it because they believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Just like Christians evidence for a flood comes from the Bible. Get it?
I was stating what Christians referred to as evidence which is what they said the Bible taught by their TRANSLATIONS of that book.
So I have no evidence because I never claimed I had evidence for or against the theory.
I know what Christians taught for over 500 years and because you claim it's a false teaching, you have thus said Christianity has been false all the time it taught that theory up until the 60s. So by your logic Christianity has only been TRUE for the last 40 years.
David

Collierville, TN

#28 Apr 22, 2013
No, the "opposite" is not true. Another absurd notion. THere is no such "rule" in the universe where one's logic and the opposite of that logic is true.

Anything that Mormonism teaches that is already explicitly in the bible has nothing to do with crediting Mormonism as true, any more than Islam, or JWs. Copying from the Bible text doesn't give credibility to the areas (the opposite) that you do NOT copy.

And yes all of the Christians and doctrines that taught that the curse of cain was black were also blasphemous liars. However, there is a difference. the RCC for instance did not rewrite the Bible to put it in there. The Methodists and Baptists for instance did not rewrite the book of Genesis and publish a "JST" or a "Book of Moses".

So no, the opposite (fabricated fraud writings) is not as true as the true (Bible text).

Do tell them all of your failure in understanding logic here.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
So than the opposite of your logic has to also be true or else your logic is flawed.
The Mormons teach the garden of Eden story so that makes Mormonism true.
The Mormons teach the flood so that makes Mormonism true.
The Mormons teach the Son of God was crucified on a cross so that makes Mormonism true.
The Mormons believe in the apostles so that makes Mormonism true.
And your logic also invalidates(makes wrong and incorrect and false) all of Christianity from the 1500's to around 1960 when the curse of Cain began to not be taught. Because from the Spanish to white America history records Christianity not only taught the curse of Cain was black/dark skinned Africans, they used the rules for owning slaves God gave the Israelites as proof that having slaves was okay as God made rules for owning them.
So if Mormons are false for thinking the curse of Cain was dark skin according to you, than all of Christianity that also taught the curse of Cain till the 60s and seventies was also false.
That means according to your logic Christianity has had it right for only the last 40 years.
Interesting logic. Have you told other Christians this logic of yours to see how they would react?
David

Collierville, TN

#29 Apr 22, 2013
"A" Christian point of view.

Do you honestly think your weak arguments depend not using "A" and "some" before the word "Christians"?

What is wrong with you is that you can't distinguish responsiblity from popularity. For you, a valid argument seems to come about when there are "some" members of an opposing group that "share" your point of view.

ANY Christian, whether be group or individual that taught that the mark of cain was black skin was therefore teaching blasphemy and heresy.

And I can do it too: Christians taught that the mark of cain negro doctrine was blasphemy and heresy.(that's to destroy your last statement).

You said "Christianity is false and it taught"... not "some Christian denominations were false and some taught".

Yes, weak my friend, you are very weak.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I said..."That evidence is still there by a Christian point of view."
So you're back to lying for effect because you don't state what I said and address what I said AS I STATED IT. You restate what I said in a context that I didn't use. That's deception and lying.
Christians that taught the curse of Cain was black skin, THEIR evidence was what was in the Bible as they interpreted it because they believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Just like Christians evidence for a flood comes from the Bible. Get it?
I was stating what Christians referred to as evidence which is what they said the Bible taught by their TRANSLATIONS of that book.
So I have no evidence because I never claimed I had evidence for or against the theory.
I know what Christians taught for over 500 years and because you claim it's a false teaching, you have thus said Christianity has been false all the time it taught that theory up until the 60s. So by your logic Christianity has only been TRUE for the last 40 years.
David

Collierville, TN

#30 Apr 22, 2013
You are going to be looking and looking, because that wikipedia article about the Syrian priest is old news. In fact that book by Goldenberg has been out for 10 years, have you actually BOUGHT a copy yet?

Secondly, countenance falling doesn't mean "negro race" nor was it implied in that. and you're still referencing stuff OUTSIDE the Bible.

Thirdly, if you read the entire book, it stated his "face" was black, not his entire body turned black and he became a negro. In this context the black refers to the injury (see the book of Job), to his face.

The bottom line, its one thing to form an opinion based on an interpretation.

Its quite another to teach doctrine explicitly going from condemning races, and curses, and forming notions that black people were banned and their mark and this and that... to the point that Jesus own atonement had no effect.

No, only Mormonism has that stupidity
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We have talked about this before. And unlike you, I continue to look for evidence to show how far back this "black/dark skinned curse" originates.
Some recent information that states the "curse story" is much older than either of us anticipated before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_o...
Early church exegesis
In Syriac Christianity, early exegesis of the "curse" and the "mark", associated the curse of Cain with black skin.[18](Goldenberg, David M.(2003). "The Curse of Cain". The curse of Ham : race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2nd printing. ed.). Princeton [u.a.]: Princeton University Press. ISBN 069111465X.) Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell" (Gen. 4:5), suggesting that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.
In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written:ďAnd the Lord was wroth with Cain... He beat Cainís face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".[19](^ The History of Abel and Cain, 10, in Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, pp. 145, 250 (text) and 160, 271 (translation))

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31 Apr 22, 2013
David wrote:
No, the "opposite" is not true. Another absurd notion. THere is no such "rule" in the universe where one's logic and the opposite of that logic is true.
"...the FACT is, there was no curse on cain applied to BLACK PEOPLE.
the FACT is Mormonism taught that there WAS. THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE."

The above is your statement. You stated since Mormonism taught the curse of Cain was black/dark skin, you stated..."THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE."
Christianity has taught the curse of Cain for centuries. So by your same logic, THEREFORE Christianity is FALSE.
And in science, the opposite is always valid and true. So if telling what you call is a lie makes a religion entirely false, than the telling of a truth makes that religion totally true.
Otherwise, it would be good wisdom to say instead that you believe the teaching of the curse of Cain being black/dark skin by Mormons is wrong etc. But there is no wisdom or truth to declare an entire religion is false because you claim a single belief is in error. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32 Apr 22, 2013
David wrote:
Anything that Mormonism teaches that is already explicitly in the bible has nothing to do with crediting Mormonism as true, any more than Islam, or JWs. Copying from the Bible text doesn't give credibility to the areas (the opposite) that you do NOT copy.
People claim most stories in the Bible can be shown to be copied from Sumerian and Egyptian stories. They claim the Bible is nothing but a fraudulent copy of stories from other nations. Now what?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33 Apr 22, 2013
David wrote:
"A" Christian point of view.
Do you honestly think your weak arguments depend not using "A" and "some" before the word "Christians"?
What is wrong with you is that you can't distinguish responsiblity from popularity. For you, a valid argument seems to come about when there are "some" members of an opposing group that "share" your point of view.
ANY Christian, whether be group or individual that taught that the mark of cain was black skin was therefore teaching blasphemy and heresy.
And I can do it too: Christians taught that the mark of cain negro doctrine was blasphemy and heresy.(that's to destroy your last statement).
You said "Christianity is false and it taught"... not "some Christian denominations were false and some taught".
Yes, weak my friend, you are very weak.
<quoted text>
You don't get it two directions dude.
You stated..."THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE." You gave no exceptions and there are many factions of Mormonism. There are many Mormons that don't believe in the curse of Cain being black/dark skin because they have a right to have an opinion and to disagree.
So by your logic, since Christianity taught the curse of Cain for unknown centuries THEREFORE Christianity is FALSE.
That's your logic dude, not mine. I know better than to make such an idiotic statement that a single teaching makes an entire religion false.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#34 Apr 22, 2013
David wrote:
You are going to be looking and looking, because that wikipedia article about the Syrian priest is old news. In fact that book by Goldenberg has been out for 10 years, have you actually BOUGHT a copy yet?
You stated before and now again that the curse of Cain being black/dark skin was never taught beyond 500 years ago. That is what you claimed dozens of times. You claimed that to believe people didn't interpret the curse of Cain story anciently as Christians began doing back 500 years ago.
The fact is that there is historical evidence that the curse of Cain having black/dark skin was interpreted back over the last 2000 years.
That doesn't make the story true or false. It's a story and everyone has an opinion when they read a story. The curse of Cain story has been dated back to the Septuagint of 200 BCE. It's one of the first stories the Israelite and non-Israelite scholars read for the last 2200 years.
David

Collierville, TN

#35 Apr 22, 2013
Nope wrong again.

CHRISTIANITY didn't teach that the mark of Cain was black skin. BlASPHEMOUS HERETICAL sects and BLASPHEMOUS teachings, that did EXACTLY what Jesus warned... that took the truth of the Bible and altered it.

Therefore it's no longer "Christian" when lies are added to it.

One of the reasons Mormonism IS false is because Mormonism participated IN the lie.

And in science, the concept of the "opposite being true" is a nonsense statement. The opposite of truth is not also truth.

So for instance, the Bible has no teaching about Blacks being cursed.

the Mormon scripture does.

Now, here is where you're totally messed up:

Mormon doctrine is based in part on this teaching. Your concept of the pre-existence, of the priesthood itself, of atonement, of salvation, and so forth. Your entire book of Mormon is based on a faulty teaching about Native American history, because the entire story is set to explain where (some or all, doesn't matter) dark skinned Native Americans came from.

The race skin color blasphemy is what you use to explain the notion of the origin of Adam and Eve, of the nature of the USA in the revelation, of the western white male being at the pinnacle of god's grace and so on...

These same blasphemies, which you admit other denominations also taught, were corruptive and pushed people away from God, because all of them were false.

But here is the core difference. They invented them based on an interpretation which can be corrected. The text says 2+2=4 and they misunderstood 4 as being 5. Or they forgot how to add. But the Bible clearly, and Jesus clearly taught the truth.

You... your mormonism, has this ingrained in the actual texts, which are supposedly to "correct mistakes in the Bible".

You're basically saying that Mormonism isn't false because even though the text says 2+2=5 it's ok that some Mormons teach that 2+2=4. Even though your book and your founder and ALL OF YOUR PROPHETS can't teach simple math.

You cannot separate them.

Mormonism therefore is false.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"...the FACT is, there was no curse on cain applied to BLACK PEOPLE.
the FACT is Mormonism taught that there WAS. THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE."
The above is your statement. You stated since Mormonism taught the curse of Cain was black/dark skin, you stated..."THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE."
Christianity has taught the curse of Cain for centuries. So by your same logic, THEREFORE Christianity is FALSE.
And in science, the opposite is always valid and true. So if telling what you call is a lie makes a religion entirely false, than the telling of a truth makes that religion totally true.
Otherwise, it would be good wisdom to say instead that you believe the teaching of the curse of Cain being black/dark skin by Mormons is wrong etc. But there is no wisdom or truth to declare an entire religion is false because you claim a single belief is in error. Understand?
David

Collierville, TN

#36 Apr 22, 2013
Well until you find the sumerian story that shows that Black people were cursed, or until you find the sumerian story of Jesus and him rising from the dead, then let us know.

Now in regards to copying from other nations... again you can't seem to understand something:

If it actually HAPPENED, then so what if the Bible COPIED it.

The Bible is a collection of Jewish stories, some of which would clearly be copied because... DUH... the stuff HAPPENED.

MORMONISM however tells stuff that

DID

NOT

HAPPEN

and it copied stuff that was made up in the 1830s, NOT 5th century BC, not 9th century AD.

No native american cursed with black skin. Nope, didn't happen.

No black curse with cain. Nope, didn't happen.

And ANYTHING that Mormonism did copy that "IS" true? That was either plagarized off the Bible, or taken from the accurate understanding of history and science of the 1830s.

Just like the Quran, taking Greek science and pretending it was "revelation from God", taking parts of the Bible to accomodate the Christians to convert to Islam. Mormonism is no different.

Except the racist texts. Garbage.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
People claim most stories in the Bible can be shown to be copied from Sumerian and Egyptian stories. They claim the Bible is nothing but a fraudulent copy of stories from other nations. Now what?
David

Collierville, TN

#37 Apr 22, 2013
Ok let me make it easier for you.

ALL of the factions are false. ALL of them.

The reason is because the core of Mormonism is the "book of Mormon" and the "Pearl of Great Price".

Those books are FALSE, falsely conceived in lies from a man pretending they were translations of old testament writers, and native american jews.

False from the first letter to the last letter in all of it. You see the difference?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it two directions dude.
You stated..."THEREFORE Mormonism is FALSE." You gave no exceptions and there are many factions of Mormonism. There are many Mormons that don't believe in the curse of Cain being black/dark skin because they have a right to have an opinion and to disagree.
So by your logic, since Christianity taught the curse of Cain for unknown centuries THEREFORE Christianity is FALSE.
That's your logic dude, not mine. I know better than to make such an idiotic statement that a single teaching makes an entire religion false.
David

Collierville, TN

#38 Apr 22, 2013
Then show it. Show that the curse of Cain was taught 2000 years ago, that is 1st century AD.

Show it.

Because the teaching didn't start until about the 12th century. Prior to that, you had mere speculation about a priest here, or some talmud passage there.

But you will not find a teaching about the Jewish priesthood, during the days of moses, excluding Levitical Jews of Egyptian, Nubian, or Kushite descent.

You will not find "Pathrushites, or Cretian, or Egyptian, or Panehesi descendent Jews being excluded from marrying into Levitical families.

It doesn't exist.

And again, MORMONISM invented a lie that MOSES wrote the "book of moses" explicitly teaching it as well as the JST translating explicitly teaching.

and here is more of your deceptive use of sentance structure:

"The curse of Cain story has been dated back to the Septuagint of 200 BCE."

when you SHOULD say "The curse of Cain story has been dated back to 200 BCE, the same period of the Septuagint." (even though it actually is NOT traced back to that period)

because it's not traced back to the Septuagint.

Oh and since you're so deceptive... "which curse of cain story" are you referring to? The one about the Negro race being cursed, or some "other" story? Becuase you know, I don't want to be sooo confused by you. HAHAHAHA
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated before and now again that the curse of Cain being black/dark skin was never taught beyond 500 years ago. That is what you claimed dozens of times. You claimed that to believe people didn't interpret the curse of Cain story anciently as Christians began doing back 500 years ago.
The fact is that there is historical evidence that the curse of Cain having black/dark skin was interpreted back over the last 2000 years.
That doesn't make the story true or false. It's a story and everyone has an opinion when they read a story. The curse of Cain story has been dated back to the Septuagint of 200 BCE. It's one of the first stories the Israelite and non-Israelite scholars read for the last 2200 years.
David

Collierville, TN

#39 Apr 22, 2013
For all of your "it was found" or "it was shown" statements...

Show it.

You haven't shown one link to one single scrap of paper, one quote, one anything.

It's all your own assumptions.

And your stupid theory that the opposite of truth is also truth.

“me! chee hoo! LOL!”

Since: Oct 09

New Zealand

#40 Apr 22, 2013
Mormons r on par with muslims.. Thats an insult not a compliment.. These dudes.. Wear speical undies.. No lies lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sotomayor: US high court needs more diversity, ... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Quirky 61
News Even in museums, battles loom over Confederate ... (Jul '15) Jul '15 rebel111 2
News Leftwich convicted (Sep '11) Jun '15 in the know 3
News Texas Supreme Court blocks same-sex marriage li... (Feb '15) Feb '15 Yee Haw 1
News Man claims kingdom so daughter can be princess (Jul '14) Jul '14 Mechanic 11
News Court To Consider 5 Gay Marriage Cases At Once (Jun '14) Jun '14 DNF 11
News Recalls becoming 'background noise' that owners... (Jun '14) Jun '14 shawn 2
More from around the web