Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.

[Angrboda]

This ones so long that it's hard to provide the full context, however this is the conclusion.

---

Obviously you haven't been reading, If you go back far enough, the dummy was asking me to provide dna samples from the serpent.

---

There that's three for you.

No, if you go back far enough, Khemikal was disputing that you had evidence that Eve fucked the serpent. If you interpret a certain passage one way, rather than another, then it's possible that Eve may have..... but you seem to have forgotten the indisputable part. Your argument, and the evidence for it, was far from indisputable. So, no.

---

No it's not, Huggy.  Your adding the term ancient doesn't add anything to it.  That the communities in Africa are the most ancient communities in Africa doesn't mean that they were the original Hebrews.   Even according to the bible, there were 12 generations preceding Moses.  So you're not even close, in addition to having once again committed ignoratio elenchi.   If I were the oldest member of my family living in America, it wouldn't show that my original family was American.  Additionally, your passage from Exodus doesn't demonstrate anything because Moses was an Egyptian by adoption and not by birth, so that he was considered an Egyptian by the daughters of Midian doesn't show that he was black.  But by all means, keep adding to the Dunning-Kruger argument instead of subtracting from it.

Sigh...

The daughter of Midian had no idea Moses was adopted, he was a fugitive at this time, they said he was Egyptian based on his appearance....

But that was NOT Khemikals argument, his argument was implying that Christianity wasn't in Africa before the Atlantic slave trade. The point I was making was that not only did black Christians exist before the Atlantic slave trade, but we go back much further.

I see how you're completely avoiding that subject.

No, as far as I can see, his original complaint was his wondering what 15th century Africans would think of modern day apologists, which you replied to by claiming that the original Hebrews were black. I've been through that entire thread and didn't see where he either made that claim, nor implied it. If you have a specific post, link me to it. Does the passage say they recognized Moses as an Egyptian by the color of his skin? No, it does not. They might have, that doesn't make it indisputable evidence. And you missed the note that I added after your reply. If you didn't present the Exodus passage in that thread, then it's irrelevant. This isn't a question of whether you can win a debate now, but whether you won a debate then. I didn't specifically look for it, so if you did provide the Exodus passage in that thread, please link to it.

And going back over that thread, I spot an additional argument, where you claimed that the people in your photo of KKK cross burnings the men in question weren't Christian, for which your evidence was the "you shall know them by their fruits" passage. Far from indisputable. That brings the total of debates to ten, and you've got three so far. Still two remaining. (Or, if you show that Khem did claim there were no Christians in Africa prior to the slave trade, that would bring the total debates to eleven, out of which you'll have shown four, leaving, once again, two remaining to be demonstrated with indisputable evidence. You seem to be doing little more than treading water at this point.)