Is the "white" man's ? Lucifer?
Options
Black Boy King
Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
Just trying to put the pieces together
One thing I noticed in the Bible is the distinctions between ? and LORD ? /LORD. LORD ? /LORD is used most often throughout the King James Version, but ? is used during Genesis chapter one, creation of the heavens and earth (and some places very important places throughout the Bible).
New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines each as follows (NOTE: it says anything in paranthesis can be removed at will in definitions):
NOTE: Words that are italicized are "brief English descriptions" and should be looked up in a trusted dictionary (Oxford set or something before the 1960-70s such as a Random House dictionary). If your dictionary doesn't have [ ]'s to include the etymology of a word, it is worth nothing and will do you no good.
? - (main reference # is 430). : (sometimes plural sense) but specifically used of the supreme ? ; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative
^This is the term they mean when they say "walked with ? " or "Son of ? ", etc.
LORD ? /Jehovah (reference # 3068)- (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of ?
Also, it defines the word Adam:
Adam (#120): ruddy, that is, a human being. mean man of low degree. shows blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy
^Sounds alot like the cave man. I mean, I've never seen an African turn red in the face... anyway...
So lets take it to Genesis 3: where ? sends Adam out of the garden of Eden.
22 And the LORD ? said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD ? sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
First off, who is "us"? the word "Us" was used in chapter one but that is ? referring to what I believe are angels which is why he CAPITALIZES "Us" and says we will create man in OUR image (this is the creation of THE original man?). Though the "us" here is uncapitalized. Which leads me to believe LORD ? is subordinate to the Creator.
Also in Psalms 82:6:
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Also Jesus reiterates it to the JEWS (not the fake ones of today, the original Hebrews) in John 10:34:
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself ? .
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
So would it not make sense for ORIGINAL MAN to be godly/? -like/GODS? Who else would they be referring to?
Now it is accepted today that the Hebrews were "black". Which differentiates them from Adam, who is a low man that turns red in the face. So it is very possible that when LORD ? mentions "us" in Genesis 3:22, he could be talking about those equal to him, that is, the Hebrews.
Now let's look up the word Lucifer in the Hebrew dictionary of New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It states:
Lucifer (1966): the morning-star
Italicized words, as I said before, are brief English descriptions. Being that English is an equivocal language, I always make it my duty to look up a word in an Oxford dictionary set at school or one of my OLDER 1960s Random House College Edition dictionary. ? webster and their fuckshit
morning star: any bright planet seen in the east immediately before Sunrise
.........................uh...........
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
So therefore, LORD ? created a "star" to maintain his tree of life from which allows those who eat from it to live forever. Is this not what they say those in the NWO and all that other conspiracy ? are trying to achieve? Don't they say that they worship Lucifer? If so, does it not all make sense?
If I made a wrong turn here, someone check me. I'm just trying to find my place
One thing I noticed in the Bible is the distinctions between ? and LORD ? /LORD. LORD ? /LORD is used most often throughout the King James Version, but ? is used during Genesis chapter one, creation of the heavens and earth (and some places very important places throughout the Bible).
New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines each as follows (NOTE: it says anything in paranthesis can be removed at will in definitions):
NOTE: Words that are italicized are "brief English descriptions" and should be looked up in a trusted dictionary (Oxford set or something before the 1960-70s such as a Random House dictionary). If your dictionary doesn't have [ ]'s to include the etymology of a word, it is worth nothing and will do you no good.
? - (main reference # is 430). : (sometimes plural sense) but specifically used of the supreme ? ; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative
^This is the term they mean when they say "walked with ? " or "Son of ? ", etc.
LORD ? /Jehovah (reference # 3068)- (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of ?
Also, it defines the word Adam:
Adam (#120): ruddy, that is, a human being. mean man of low degree. shows blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy
^Sounds alot like the cave man. I mean, I've never seen an African turn red in the face... anyway...
So lets take it to Genesis 3: where ? sends Adam out of the garden of Eden.
22 And the LORD ? said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD ? sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
First off, who is "us"? the word "Us" was used in chapter one but that is ? referring to what I believe are angels which is why he CAPITALIZES "Us" and says we will create man in OUR image (this is the creation of THE original man?). Though the "us" here is uncapitalized. Which leads me to believe LORD ? is subordinate to the Creator.
Also in Psalms 82:6:
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Also Jesus reiterates it to the JEWS (not the fake ones of today, the original Hebrews) in John 10:34:
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself ? .
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
So would it not make sense for ORIGINAL MAN to be godly/? -like/GODS? Who else would they be referring to?
Now it is accepted today that the Hebrews were "black". Which differentiates them from Adam, who is a low man that turns red in the face. So it is very possible that when LORD ? mentions "us" in Genesis 3:22, he could be talking about those equal to him, that is, the Hebrews.
Now let's look up the word Lucifer in the Hebrew dictionary of New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It states:
Lucifer (1966): the morning-star
Italicized words, as I said before, are brief English descriptions. Being that English is an equivocal language, I always make it my duty to look up a word in an Oxford dictionary set at school or one of my OLDER 1960s Random House College Edition dictionary. ? webster and their fuckshit
morning star: any bright planet seen in the east immediately before Sunrise
.........................uh...........
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
So therefore, LORD ? created a "star" to maintain his tree of life from which allows those who eat from it to live forever. Is this not what they say those in the NWO and all that other conspiracy ? are trying to achieve? Don't they say that they worship Lucifer? If so, does it not all make sense?
If I made a wrong turn here, someone check me. I'm just trying to find my place
Comments
-
I revere his position in the Judaeo Christian pantheon as the light bringer, same as Prometheus imo. I surrender my will to no thing other than the point from which all else emanates. Call it what you will and cast your stones if it makes you feel better.
-
HEBREWS AND RED
There are Hebrews who misapply the usage of the word red. This confusion is brought about through the misunderstanding about the birth of Isaac son Esau.
Gen 25:24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her ? .
Gen 25:25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
Many Hebrews say the red mention in this verse is associated with white. They go as far to say Esau was a white man, some take it farther and say he is the father of the white European nations. Both are untrue.
The Hebrew word used to describe David as Ruddy is the same Hebrew word used to describe Esau as Red. This is the Hebrew word Admony Pronounce Ad-Mo_nee, it's number 132 in the Strong's concordance. The word means red or reddish. Both King David and Esau were Hebrews, scripture tells us the Hebrews are and were a black skinned nation. So how do these two Hebrews get associated with being white skinned Europeans? What does it mean by describing them as red?
Admonee / ruddy has nothing at all to do with white skin, the word for white skin in Hebrew is laban, it means white or becoming white. Laban is used in Exodus 4: where Yah tells Moses to put his hand into his ? , and it turns white as Snow. Laban is also used to describe Moses sister Miriam when Yah struck her with Leprosy and turned her entire body white (Numbers 12). It's used once again to describe Gheazi being stricken with Leprosy and having his skin turn white in 2nd kings 5:27.
Never once when it mentions Israelites being turned white with Leprosy, does it describe their skin as turning red or ruddy. That's because red and ruddy is not associated with white skin. If the redness of David and Esau were associated with white skin, the word laban would have been used.
Gen 24:29 And Rebekah had a brother, and his name was Laban: and Laban ran out unto the man, unto the well.
One point of great interest is this. Laban was the Uncle of Esau / Edom, Laban Name means white, Edom means Red (Admonee). The Red associated with Esau appearance at birth is not white or Laban.
The ancient Egyptians who were a black people portrayed themselves, some Ethiopians and Canaanites as reddish brown, this red is a mahogany color.
Among ancient Black people, and among many black people today throughout the world. Red or ruddy was a complexion that would be Mahogany in appearance. Lets prove this.
In a Narrative written by a Slave name Oladuah Equino which can be found in a very good book called the Classic Slave Narratives.
He gives us these details about some men who lived near his village in Nigeria West Africa.
"THESE ARE SOMETIMES VISITED BY STOUT MAHOGANY-COLOURED MEN FROM THE SOUTH-WEST OF US. WE CALL THEM OYE-EBOE, WHICH TERM SIGNIFIES RED MEN LIVING AT A DISTANCE."
classic slave narrative the life of Gustavus Vassa page 16.
NOT ONLY ARE THESE NIGERIAN MEN CALLED RED BUT THAT RED IS COMPARED TO MAHOGANY.
-
very interesting...i hve to come back to read this later.
-
edit: crossing out the last line of this post. Strong's says Esau's "redness" was like Adam's by referencing back to #119. my apologies
Great drop bambu. Definitely going to add that book to my library list
I'm not sure if we are speaking in the same context in our use of the word "red". What is described in your posts seems to be a skin complexion of red tint, i.e. the American Indian (well.... the aboriginal Indians LOL, not the ones today) which were also described as "copper colored". This seems to go in line with the description of the Ancient Egyptians, Ethopians, etc.
Though in the description of Adam, Strong's specifically uses the word "flush" (verb) as well as saying he (Adam) turns rosy (action), and shows blood in the face. This cannot possibly apply to heavily melaninated people, i.e. Negroids, unless we are referring to some type of lacerations in the face.
Interesting that you bring up Esau; I think that story holds something key. Is it a coincidence that in Genesis 3, LORD ? told the serpeant (which Strong's says is a snake.. a deceptive untrustworthy person):
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
And LORD ? told Rebekkah:
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said , If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy ? , and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
26 And after that came his brother out , and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.
And he was named Jacob which means (according to my NKJV) "supplanter or deceitful" <--- exactly what the serpant was. My NKJV then says "lit. one who takes the heel". But we both know, those who only read the Bible literally are the fish and aren't grasping the real meaning being conveyed.
Jacob then proceeded to trick his father into giving him Esau's blessing. So in turn, Jacob was the father (or conqueror?) of several nations:
29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
Hmmm... nationssss bow down to thee? Is he not given a nation of his own like his predecessors? Would this idea be synonymous to conqueror?
Well heres the kicker.... Esau was red-skinned in the way you described. The Word compared his skin to the red pottage he sold his birthright for. Jacob on the other hand was probably white. According to the Word... Though, in today's world, much of this information is perverted and backwards. -
so its accepted now that hebrews were blacc by whom?
i mean dont pray to lucifer most of the time but i wouldnt really trust a king james -
The white mans ? is strength and power idealized in himself.
the gods of europe thor,odin,zeus are about power. -
Great drop bambu. Definitely going to add that book to my library list
I'm not sure if we are speaking in the same context in our use of the word "red". What is described in your posts seems to be a skin complexion of red tint, i.e. the American Indian (well.... the aboriginal Indians LOL, not the ones today) which were also described as "copper colored". This seems to go in line with the description of the Ancient Egyptians, Ethopians, etc.
Though in the description of Adam, Strong's specifically uses the word "flush" (verb) as well as saying he (Adam) turns rosy (action), and shows blood in the face. This cannot possibly apply to heavily melaninated people, i.e. Negroids, unless we are referring to some type of lacerations in the face.
Interesting that you bring up Esau; I think that story holds something key. Is it a coincidence that in Genesis 3, LORD ? told the serpeant (which Strong's says is a snake.. a deceptive untrustworthy person):
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
And LORD ? told Rebekkah:
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said , If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy ? , and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
26 And after that came his brother out , and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.
And he was named Jacob which means (according to my NKJV) "supplanter or deceitful" <--- exactly what the serpant was. My NKJV then says "lit. one who takes the heel". But we both know, those who only read the Bible literally are the fish and aren't grasping the real meaning being conveyed.
Jacob then proceeded to trick his father into giving him Esau's blessing. So in turn, Jacob was the father (or conqueror?) of several nations:
29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
Hmmm... nationssss bow down to thee? Is he not given a nation of his own like his predecessors? Would this idea be synonymous to conqueror?
Well heres the kicker.... Esau was red-skinned in the way you described. The Word compared his skin to the red pottage he sold his birthright for. Jacob on the other hand was probably white. According to the Word... Though, in today's world, much of this information is perverted and backwards.
You are going to have to be more specific with "flush &turning rosey"..........
The only mention of white stems from Arabic interpretations............
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H120
It should be understood that the Arabs were usurpers.............
They took what was good and made it bad, typical of most ancient & modern usurpers...............
Again the word used for white was laban...........
Oh Yea......
The IC might have solved this one for you already.......
That redbone thread...............
The whiteness or blushing is just conjecture, imo...............
If you have some other evidence please drop it.............
Why is there even mention of "whiteness" with red, or reddish...................
-
Great drop bambu. Definitely going to add that book to my library list
I'm not sure if we are speaking in the same context in our use of the word "red". What is described in your posts seems to be a skin complexion of red tint, i.e. the American Indian (well.... the aboriginal Indians LOL, not the ones today) which were also described as "copper colored". This seems to go in line with the description of the Ancient Egyptians, Ethopians, etc.
Though in the description of Adam, Strong's specifically uses the word "flush" (verb) as well as saying he (Adam) turns rosy (action), and shows blood in the face. This cannot possibly apply to heavily melaninated people, i.e. Negroids, unless we are referring to some type of lacerations in the face.
Interesting that you bring up Esau; I think that story holds something key. Is it a coincidence that in Genesis 3, LORD ? told the serpeant (which Strong's says is a snake.. a deceptive untrustworthy person):
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
And LORD ? told Rebekkah:
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said , If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy ? , and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
26 And after that came his brother out , and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.
And he was named Jacob which means (according to my NKJV) "supplanter or deceitful" <--- exactly what the serpant was. My NKJV then says "lit. one who takes the heel". But we both know, those who only read the Bible literally are the fish and aren't grasping the real meaning being conveyed.
Jacob then proceeded to trick his father into giving him Esau's blessing. So in turn, Jacob was the father (or conqueror?) of several nations:
29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
Hmmm... nationssss bow down to thee? Is he not given a nation of his own like his predecessors? Would this idea be synonymous to conqueror?
Well heres the kicker.... Esau was red-skinned in the way you described. The Word compared his skin to the red pottage he sold his birthright for. Jacob on the other hand was probably white. According to the Word... Though, in today's world, much of this information is perverted and backwards.
You are going to have to be more specific with "flush &turning rosey"..........
The only mention of white stems from Arabic interpretations............
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H120
It should be understood that the Arabs were usurpers.............
They took what was good and made it bad, typical of most ancient & modern usurpers...............
Again the word used for white was laban...........
Oh Yea......
The IC might have solved this one for you already.......
That redbone thread...............
The whiteness or blushing is just conjecture, imo...............
If you have some other evidence please drop it.............
Why is there even mention of "whiteness" with red, or reddish...................
Forgive me for using the term white, I know that can be very confusing (blame Amerikkka). When I say "white" I am referring to the Caucasian race, not the actual color of his skin. I wasn't implying that the Bible said anything about this man being white. I was explaining that today we would say he was "White", given his characteristics.
I'm not sure how much more specific the word flush can be. I can define it using my Random House CE dictionary:
(several definitions of course, I will choose those that are relevant)
flush (v.i) - to blush; redden | to redden; cause to blush or glow
Strong's says that adam in Hebrew comes from "to show blood (in the face), that is, to flush (synononomous with blush)" -
I'm saying that strongs does not say that adam in Hebrew comes from "to show blood (in the face), that is, to flush (synononomous with blush)"
Adam ~ אָדָם comes from the root word Ruddy ~ אָדַם
Which has no roots & is transliterated as "to be red".........
Most likely from the the earth that was used to create him (Genesis 2:7, 21-22) ....................
-
Good word, share gnosis and grow.
-
I understand what you're saying.
But Strong's italicized the word ruddy. In the beginning of the Hebrew dictionary, in the example definition, it points to the italicized word and says:
"Brief English definition (shown by italics)"
So I then look up the word ruddy in the English dictionary and get:
ruddy - of or having a fresh, healthy red color
and it comes from the OE word 'rudig'
Strong's further clarifies what they mean by "red human being" sending you to #119 which is a variation of the word adam (different accent marks is all) saying:
adam = to show blood.... etc etc.
Is it not clarifying that Adam is not a red tint (such as a copper colored American Indian, i.e. one of the Redbones), but one can actually see the blood "through his skin" (for lack of a better phrase)?
If it stopped at "ruddy" then I agree with you completely. But the definition it referenced was pretty specific. Also, there are numbers in the concordance that do reference the red tint (of soil) that you are talking about. They could have easily referenced that number which would clearly validate what you're saying. But instead, it chooses #119, to blush or show blood in the face -
I posted the definitions from strongs.......
You might not see them on mobile......
Adam is 120......stemming from the root 119 "ruddy"........
No mention of "blushing" or "blood in the face"....................
-
Ah yes, there is a placeholder for images but nothing is showing up. Though I did just visit your link. You are right, it doesn't say "blushing" or "blood in the face". I have to review that source.
Here is my source.....
-
No idea why tinypic prefers photos to be sideways, yall forgive me
-
You are talking about the adjective, Adom (strongs 122)........
The same root as Adam, Ruddy (119)..........
It really has no influence on the masculine noun........
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H122&t=KJV
Isiah 63:2
Why are your clothes so red, as if you have been treading out grapes?
Song of Solomon 4:3
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate.
-
-
so its accepted now that hebrews were blacc by whom?
Theologians & Biblical scholars.................
-
@Ziryab......
It looks like your copy does not have parts of speech or usage in it............
I suggest crossing it here.......
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H119&t=KJV -
You are talking about the adjective, Adom (strongs 122)........
The same root as Adam, Ruddy (119)..........
It really has no influence on the masculine noun........
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H122&t=KJV
Isiah 63:2
Why are your clothes so red, as if you have been treading out grapes?
Song of Solomon 4:3
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate.
Strong's says to look to H120 for the definition of Adam in Genesis. H120 references H119.
I didn't even read 122 because nothing directed me to 122. It's not relevant here.
Not sure why you need parts of speech or usage as that should already be understood. You might already be aware of this, but to clarify, if I'm reading Genesis 2:19 and I come across the word Adam, I will look up Adam in Strong's Concordance. I then will choose Genesis 2:19 (under Adam) and look at the number it references. It will reference whichever number gives the definition of the word in the context that its in.
Reading the sentence, I should already know what part of speech the word is. I can also look under "Adam" in the concordance (not the Hebrew dictionary) and find any other instance that the word Adam is used in the Bible....
I got company now, but I'll look into both sources later. -
again, I am referring to #119 which is clearly a verb. to show red. flush (to redden/blush). to turn rosy.
^that describes the nature of Adam's "redness" -
I see now........
My apologies.........
My study tools use strongs but does not use that definition for 119.......
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H119&t=KJV
From strongs......
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
119 ~ 'adam ~red ~ to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
Hebrew is a difficult language.........
What's the usage????????
adam
Exo 25:5 ~ And rams' skins dyed red,30 and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,
Exo 26:14 ~ And thou shalt make1 a covering for the tent [of] rams' skins dyed red,30 and a covering above [of] badgers' skins.
Exo 35:7 ~ And rams' skins dyed red,30 and badgers' skins, and shittim wood.
Exo 35:23 ~ And every man, with whom was found8 blue, and purple, and scarlet, 8438 and fine linen, and goats' [hair], and red30 skins of rams, and badgers' skins, brought52 [them].
Exo 36:19 ~ And he made4 a covering for the tent [of] rams' skins dyed red,30 and a covering [of] badgers' skins above [that].
Exo 39:34 ~ And the covering of rams' skins dyed red,30 and the covering of badgers' skins, and the vail of the covering.
Prov 23:31 ~ Look4 not thou upon the wine when it is red,101 when it giveth4 his colour in the cup, 3599 [when] it moveth101 itself aright.
Isa 1:18 ~ Come now, and let us reason together,11 saith4 the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white55 as snow; though they be red55 like crimson, they shall be as wool.
(No problems surrounding white)
Nahum 2:3 ~ The shield of his mighty men is made red,30 the valiant men [are] in scarlet:30 the chariots [shall be] with flaming torches in the day of his preparation,53 and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.90
ruddy
Lam 4:7 ~ Her Nazarites were purer1 than snow, they were whiter1 than milk, they were more ruddy1 in body than rubies, their polishing [was] of sapphire:
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
The descriptions of Adam "flush (to redden/blush) to turn rosy" (strongs 119) are all adjectives, associated with Adom (122)........
'describing' words; the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun..........
The masculine noun of Adam is (strongs 120)............
Those vowel points mean a lot in Hebrew...............
אָדָם ~ Adam ~ noun ~ a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)
אָדֹם ~ Adom ~ adjective ~ used in the name of colors, i.e. rosy cheeks..........
Song of Solomon 4:3
Your lips are like scarlet ribbon; your mouth is inviting. Your cheeks are like rosy pomegranates behind your veil.
@waterproof.......
Maybe you can clear this up................
-
My study tools use strongs but does not use that definition for 119.......
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H119&t=KJV
From strongs......
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
119 ~ 'adam ~red ~ to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
Hebrew is a difficult language.........
What's the usage????????
adam
Exo 25:5 ~ And rams' skins dyed red,30 and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,
Exo 26:14 ~ And thou shalt make1 a covering for the tent [of] rams' skins dyed red,30 and a covering above [of] badgers' skins.
Exo 35:7 ~ And rams' skins dyed red,30 and badgers' skins, and shittim wood.
Exo 35:23 ~ And every man, with whom was found8 blue, and purple, and scarlet, 8438 and fine linen, and goats' [hair], and red30 skins of rams, and badgers' skins, brought52 [them].
Exo 36:19 ~ And he made4 a covering for the tent [of] rams' skins dyed red,30 and a covering [of] badgers' skins above [that].
Exo 39:34 ~ And the covering of rams' skins dyed red,30 and the covering of badgers' skins, and the vail of the covering.
Prov 23:31 ~ Look4 not thou upon the wine when it is red,101 when it giveth4 his colour in the cup, 3599 [when] it moveth101 itself aright.
Isa 1:18 ~ Come now, and let us reason together,11 saith4 the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white55 as snow; though they be red55 like crimson, they shall be as wool.
(No problems surrounding white)
Nahum 2:3 ~ The shield of his mighty men is made red,30 the valiant men [are] in scarlet:30 the chariots [shall be] with flaming torches in the day of his preparation,53 and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.90
ruddy
Lam 4:7 ~ Her Nazarites were purer1 than snow, they were whiter1 than milk, they were more ruddy1 in body than rubies, their polishing [was] of sapphire:
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
The descriptions of Adam "flush (to redden/blush) to turn rosy" (strongs 119) are all adjectives, associated with Adom (122)........
'describing' words; the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun..........
The masculine noun of Adam is (strongs 120)............
Those vowel points mean a lot in Hebrew...............
אָדָם ~ Adam ~ noun ~ a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)
אָדֹם ~ Adom ~ adjective ~ used in the name of colors, i.e. rosy cheeks..........
Song of Solomon 4:3
Your lips are like scarlet ribbon; your mouth is inviting. Your cheeks are like rosy pomegranates behind your veil.
@waterproof.......
Maybe you can clear this up................
That's the tricknology of the scribes Pharisee's the serpent seed who is not Hebrews are black that is known as Amalek who was put in the seat of Moses by rome. They mixed the word Adom and Adam and the only way even though the scripture says what color the people of the book are to deceive the people is saying that Adam and Adom is the same and when it's not and also by word of mouth and they wrote it in some strongs.
See how easy by a stroke of a pen that because can change the meaning of the word by changing one letter.
But check this out in scripture when the word Adom is used it was used for dark brown blacks the color of MAHOGANY also.....
I will have to go in my notes again to give a better explanation how and who changed the word and why..... -
Clarity.........
'adam
The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 0119
Original Word Word Origin
~da of unknown derivation
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
'adam TWOT - 26b
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
aw-dam' Verb
Definition
to be red, red
(Qal) ~ ruddy (of Nazarites)
A. QAL and NIPHAL verbs were very simple, but the opposite is true with Piel and Pual verbs. They are extremely difficult even for the advanced scholar. The dictionary will determine how the word is used.
B. These verbs are intensive in nature, but the intensification happens in one of four ways.
1. Quality: Something becomes stronger
2. Quantity: Something becomes greater
3. Reality: It is made reality
(Pual)
to be rubbed red
dyed red
reddened
(Hiphil) ~ "Hithpael" has 4 main uses :
1 - Describing reflexive verbs (to dress oneself etc.)
2- Mutual verbs (to get married, to correspond with, to chat with etc.)
3- Passive verbs (to suntan etc. )
4-Verbs that describe a false situation : to be a "wise guy" , to "play dumb", to masquerade/disguise etc.
- " Hithpael" can be either future , present or past, depending on the first letters { to get dressed= lehitlabesh ( infinitive)MITLABESH for present, HITLABESH for past and YITLABESH for future }
- It can be either passive active or middle voice.
(Hithpael)
to redden
to grow red
to look red
King James Word Usage - Total: 10
dyed red 5, red 4 ruddy 1 -
i'm looking for my notes and the video with it and I cant find it for ? , it was jewish scribes that changed the words and meaning of some Hebrew words to fit their agenda......YAH willing I will come across it again or find it and will up this thread for better understanding
-
The name of this thread should be changed because these are some of the gods of the white man not the ? of abraham.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYvtDaVEYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP_NeirFIkM
The movie the wicker man shows a good example of one of the white man's religions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gZfUoWZW6A
