White Europeans could have evolved as recently as 5,500 years ago, according to research which suggests that the early humans who populated Britain and Scandinavia had dark skins for millenniums.
It was only when early humans gave up hunter-gathering and switched to farming about 5,500 years ago that white skin began to be favoured, say the researchers.
This is because farmed food was deficient in vitamin D, a vital nutrient. Humans can make this in their skin when exposed to sunlight, but dark skin is much less efficient at it....
Jim Lincoln wrote: Scofield [1917 Notes] wrote: Romans 11:1: cast That Israel has not been forever set aside is the theme of this chapter. (1) The salvation of Paul proves that there is still a remnant (ro 11:1) (2) The doctrine of the remnant proves it (ro 11:2-6). (3) The present national unbelief was foreseen (ro 11:7-10). (4) Israel's unbelief is the Gentile opportunity (ro 11:11-25). (5) Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree, Christ (ro 11:17-22). (6) They are to be grafted in again (ro 11:23,24).
Oh No! Jim; It's no wonder that you believe all this rapture baloney - If you keep believing the fiction of Cyrus Scofield.
Mind you Scofield was an accomplished and convicted forger - so he was very good at conning people.
Jim, forget it. Your last post contains a triviality, another strawman, & a petitio principii, illustrating why I consider protracted debates with you a frustrating waste of my time.
Neil, I make no bones about being philo-Semitic. You mean we get to pick and choose the verses we like and can ignore the rest? Interpretation is a straight forward practice, and I eschew, Allegory. It's right there in black and white in the Bible what God says about Israel. Israel and the Church: the Differences
Romans 11 1I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Scofield [1917 Notes] wrote: Romans 11:1:
cast That Israel has not been forever set aside is the theme of this chapter. (1) The salvation of Paul proves that there is still a remnant (ro 11:1) (2) The doctrine of the remnant proves it (ro 11:2-6). (3) The present national unbelief was foreseen (ro 11:7-10). (4) Israel's unbelief is the Gentile opportunity (ro 11:11-25). (5) Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree, Christ (ro 11:17-22). (6) They are to be grafted in again (ro 11:23,24).
Neil wrote: SJ John, I thought it was only the High Priesthood that was reserved for Aaron's sons, but your point is otherwise valid.
Thanks. I do recall an account in the book of Judges, where a man named Micah "hired" a Levite to be a priest for his very idolitrous house temple, alter, and silver idols; but I was under the impression that this was yet another act of yet another person at that time doing "what was right in his own eyes". If I do find an example of a ligit priest that's not a son of Aaron, I'll let you know.
Again, Jim, you have been unjust in misrepresenting my views. It's not a bias as you claimed (as if borne of emotion or experience), but a lack of conviction that the Dispy take on certain verses & inferences therefrom is the best one. I'm not merely parroting the Reformed playbook here. And whether "Replacement Theology" has resemblance to RCC doctrine is logically irrelevant - "Guilt by Association." Rome believes in the Trinity; should I abandon that doctrine for this reason, too?
On one occasion in these forums I pointed out this sort of fallacy to *both* sides of the Dispy debate, but of course no one seemed to notice.
Jewishness for you is now a "minor amusing plus", rather than a wistful desire (conveyed by your emoticons) as before. Evidently, ground doesn't just shift in Calif., but also in Nebraska!
No, Neil, it would be something as minor amusing plus to be Jewish, but the only way to salvation is Christ, for Jew and Gentile alike, The Salvation Provided by God.
So, I find Neil, quite rational, informed, and intellectual --except perhaps on the matter of Eschatology
But to humor you, I've already studied my family history in detail back several centuries, & have seen no evidence of "Jewish" ancestry whatever. And if I did, I wouldn't care anyway, for I glory not in the flesh.
Ah, Neil, there are so many spots such as the following to help trace your Jewish roots (Do you have any? Too bad, I don't think I have any. ), Just another example, Tracing the Tribe: The Jewish Genealogy Blog but the Zola Levitt Ministries is a good site to get information on a whole lot of things happening to Jewish Christians and Israel.
Oh please, Jim! Did you pull those out of your hip pocket? The 1st article (discussing priestly *garments*!) is so irrelevant & superficial, I wonder if you even bothered to read it. Or perhaps you think I'm stupid. Of *course* it's easy for Israelis to set up the 3rd Temple, when they invent the rules out of whole cloth!
Jewish traditions (generally scorned in the NT) are not an adequate substitute for objective genealogical data of the quality found in the OT & Matthew 1. How do they know there was no interruption (including even 1 Gentile intermarriage!) for the past two millenia? Having the last name Cohen proves nothing. And what infallible source tells us that Aaron & the Levites, & all their descendants, had the Kohanim genetic marker? And what infallible source tells us DNA analysis is reliable anyhow (Gordon Clark, q.v.)?
Written genealogy, not empirical science, is the Torah method (see Neh. 7) for determining lineage, and the "people of the book" must either heed the Torah, or stop the futile, antinomian play-acting (not restricted to Jews of course).
Strange, the Jews in Israel seem to be having less trouble in setting up the details of the third temple than you would suggest, Neil, Preparing for the Third Temple.
As far as priests are concerned you can look at the following article, The Cohanim – DNA Connection. DNA comes in handy for all sorts of things.
SJ John, I thought it was only the High Priesthood that was reserved for Aaron's sons, but your point is otherwise valid. Without a High Priest, no Jew can enter the Holy Place during Yom Kippur & offer ritual atonement for the nation. And what would they put in the Holy of Holies anyway?
The Talmud prescribes *study* of the High Priest's ritual during Yom Kippur as a way to attain atonement in the absence of the Temple. Nice try.
Matthew 1 & Luke 3 may be the only remaining excerpts of the Temple genealogical records.
Neil wrote: And worse, if we can't know who is really a Levite (cf. Neh. 7:64), then no one can become a priest anyway. So much for 3rd Temple worship. Or else Nehemiah was being way too picky, or "that was the old days" and it doesn't matter now, and all Cohens can queue up to become priests when Zionists manage to wrest the Temple Mount back from the Muslims.
Not just a Levite, but an actual son of Aaron, if I remember correctly, was required pedigree for the Israelite priesthood--making it even harder to find a truely qualified candidate.
Maybe they'll do like you said and all those "Cohens" will come up with a simpler consecration, like the offering of one bullock and seven rams that the 10 Northern tribes required to establish a priest (albeit of Bashan & not Jehovah).
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what they try to come up with.
Good point; BTW, Sephardic & Ashkenaz are the major subdivisions of Jewry.
But the "elephant in the room" here overshadowing all "melanin" issues is, how do we know for certain that *ANYONE* is descended from Judah? Neither the Law of Return (Israel) nor the Nuremburg Laws (Nazi Germany) are sufficient replacements for the Temple genealogical records (presumed lost in the 1st-Century Jewish Wars) and informal genealogies (if any) kept since then. So if we don't know who is a Jew, then no one can enter the Inner Court lawfully. And worse, if we can't know who is really a Levite (cf. Neh. 7:64), then no one can become a priest anyway. So much for 3rd Temple worship.
Or else Nehemiah was being way too picky, or "that was the old days" and it doesn't matter now, and all Cohens can queue up to become priests when Zionists manage to wrest the Temple Mount back from the Muslims.
ruddyrob wrote: ruddy can be fairly white with freckles & red hair. You see some Jews who are of this type as well as the darker middle east variety. God has a since of humor.
I thought of that too, but since today's Israel has so many transplants from Europe and everywhere else I couldn't be sure that the Biblical Jews had the same variety of physical characteristics.
U.K. John, the authentic Bible of course is the NASB, Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions I am happy to see that you don't think the a gutted AV, i.e., without preface, marginal notes, and apocrypha is authentic.
I read or heard that Ethiopians and Indians have much of the same characteristics as Caucasians, except for skin color. As the saying goes, "you can't tell a book by it's cover."
ruddy can be fairly white with freckles & red hair. You see some Jews who are of this type as well as the darker middle east variety. God has a since of humor.
Neil wrote: it's probably the fashionable "beach" image they're after. And it's also foolish; folks who keep a perpetual tan have skin like leather by the time they're in their 40's, & are ripe for skin cancer. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" - Jer. 13:23
That's what I've heard, too. Anecdotal accounts of 20th century advances in travel and increased leisure time allowing formerly fair-skinned celebrities to travel to and spend more time "on the beach", and then have their newly tanned images transmitted by TV and movies (more 20th century advances) to millions of adoring and immitative fans, who then desire to have tans of their own. And like you said: It's foolish and dangerous and cancer-causing.
It looks like in either case, whether persuing tans or fair skin, the little guy is trying to emulate the big guy's appearence.
SJ John, interesting idea. It's ironic that fair-skinned Westerners often prefer tans. I don't suppose it's because they want to look like field hands, however - it's probably the fashionable "beach" image they're after. And it's also foolish; folks who keep a perpetual tan have skin like leather by the time they're in their 40's, & are ripe for skin cancer.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" - Jer. 13:23
10
There are a total of 29 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Jason Lisle | 6/1/2005
COMMENTS | 
), Just another example, 
U.K. John, the authentic Bible of course is the NASB, 
I am happy to see that you don't think the a gutted AV, i.e., without preface, marginal notes, and apocrypha is authentic. 
