The last thing in the world that an Israelite like Moses would, or COULD, do is marry a nigger, just as it's the last thing in the world that a respectable White man like Thomas Jefferson would ever have done.
So it's interesting how, and why, this passage has been so severely misinterpreted and misrepresented.
(KJV+) And Miriam4813 and Aaron175 spoke1696 against Moses4872 because5921, 182 of the Ethiopian3571 woman802 whom834 he had married:3947 for3588 he had married3947 an Ethiopian3571 woman.802
Most modern translators use "Cushite woman" rather than "Ethiopian woman". Why? Because the Holy Bible accounts that there were two different tribes called "Cushi". One tribe of Cushi were descendants of Ham, and the other tribe were descendants of Jacob [read: they were Israelites]. The Cushi who were descendants of Ham lived in the area now known as Ethiopia, but the Cushi who was a descendant of Jacob lived in Judaea.
Under Israelite law, God would never have given an Israelite like Moses permission to marry a nigger. Such a radical departure from Israelite law would have required far more than 16 paragraphs in Numbers 12. The following is just one example of how Moses treated non-Israelites:
Num 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Jehovah.
Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Can you even imagine what a hypocrite Moses would be if he wiped out all the Midianites after marrying a nigger?
John Knight
"zaphod beeblebrox" <space at finalfrontier.net> wrote in message news:uo26181tqkfu53 at corp.supernews.com...
> I invite you all to read Numbers 12. It's a short chapter. You'll enjoy it.
>> Web
>> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:ajr1ouo8thppmno6dvbqi86n20kuhiohgl at 4ax.com...> | "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> | >Racial purity was so important to the Israelites that they "put away"
> | > their own children, when an Israelite married a non-Israelite. It
> | > was so important to Christ that he continually admonished His Twelve
> | > Disciples to go only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel":
> |
> | No they did not usually do so, since Moses did not do so, David did
> | not do so Solomon did not do so, and several other names Israelites
> | did not do so. Indeed the law in question was honored in the breach
> | more than it was respected, which is why God kept punishing the
> | Israelites.
> |
> | >With this emphasis on racial purity, it's inevitible that one of the
> | > most important ten laws to the Israelites would have been a
> | > proscription against intermarriage.
> |
> | But it wasn't.
> |
> | > iow, it makes no sense that the Ten Commandments would have repeated
> | > the proscription against "coveting your neighbor's wife" twice, while
> | > completely ignoring this most important Israelite law, one that
> | > appears to be even more important than several of the other Ten
> | > Commandments.
> |
> | It appears to be so ONLY to you.
> |
> | >This Oxford English Dictionary definition for "adultery" isn't
> | > convincing. It raises more questions than it answers. When the jews
> | > replied to Jesus' charge that they were not descendants of Abraham,
> | > they replied: " We be not born of fornication; we have one Father,
> | > even God". So it's clear that it's the word "fornication", not
> | > "adultery", which means to have sex outside of marriage, otherwise
> | > they would have said " We be not born of adultery; we have one
> | > Father, even God":
> |
> | You are correct that "fornication" mean sex outside of marriage.
> | Adultery means sex by a married person with someone they are not
> | married to.
> |
> | >The jews above weren't claiming that they weren't born of harlotry.
> | > They were making a direct reference to the state of the marriages of
> | > their ancestors. So why would two different Greek words mean exactly
> | > the same thing?
> |
> | Lots of reasons. Why do "regal", "royal", and "kingly" all mean
> | exactly the same thing?
> |
> | >If they did mean exactly the same thing, then why it wouldn it have
> | > been repeated twice in the following:
> | >
> | > Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
> | > adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> |
> | I see nothing repeated.
> |
> |
> |
> | >Here, "adultery" is translated from the Greek word "moicheia":
> | > G3430
> | > ????????
> | > moicheia
> | > moy-khi'-ah
> | > From G3431; adultery: - adultery.
> | >
> | >It's the word "porneia" which means "sex outside of marriage", which
> means the word "moicheia" must be a proscription against interracial
> marriages:
> |
> | No. It matches exactly the distinction between fornication and
> | adultery in English.
> |
> | lojbab
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020913/489efbb0/attachment.html
