IF the Bible is fake.....

If you are reaserching HISTORY to write a book...guess what? YOU ARE A HISTORIAN.

- - - Updated - - -

If that's the same man, then it's a whitewashed version of the Real King James who was Black. understand? but I can tell it's not the same man just by looking at it.

 

That does not make you a historian, which actual historians pointed out by nearly universally rejecting his thesis.

 

So by your logic, none of the paintings of King James were whitewashed during the Renaissance? is that your claim?

Because ANY painting of King James that's white, is either whitewashed or a total reproduction of the Black King James.

- - - Updated - - -

Lots of books are rejected by society, the Bible is one of them. don't mean the dregs that denounced them are correct in their assumptions.

 

Oh Really? then what is this book about then? I guess all of this history is fairytale stuff too huh?


http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Knows-No-Color-Line-Research/dp/0960229450

 

We aren't talking about what society believes nor crawling through the dregs.
Competent academics that are experts in their fields rejected his premise.
Do you think YOU are a historian?

 

ANYONE who researches history is an Historian. you don't have to have a degree from Harvard. just the will to research history.

 

Do historians change their views on history....or pick one version and refuse to budge on it even with conflicting facts go against it?

- - - Updated - - -

"skin" is the keyword. Guess why?

 

The will AND the skill.
You are halfway home.

 

Terrific book, I'm sure. He speaks of how a minority race intermingled with the majority for centuries.
The author also rejected your faith.

 

So by your logic If an Edomite wrote it, it MUST be the truth ...PRAISE WHITE MAN JESUS!!!

 

Jesus wasn't "white".

he looked like an Arab/Berber/Kurd/Persian.

 

This book is not history. It's a story tale made up for people like you to absorb. And you have. Try reading REAL history and stop making yourself look foolish. I am tired of reading such rubbish that can easily be, and has been, refuted by many posters on this thread. If you wish to believe in fairy tales may I recommend works by Hans Christian Anderson or the Grimm Bros. At least they make no pretence at being real so you should be OK

With that I finish on this thread and move on.

 

Too bad. The author is very well respected.
The book just doesn't prove what 4Horseman wishes it did.

- - - Updated - - -

How did you form that response to what he said, other than from your own racism?
There are many black, credible historians that would recognize you as a loon.

 

Provide an academic source for your claim or admit that you are lying.

 

Constantine didn't force anyone to convert to Christianity. He only made Christianity legal.

 

So the Holy Bble and the other books I posted are not good enough? now you need ANOTHER source? one that will suit your taste?

- - - Updated - - -

The heathens that didn't appreciate it felt forced. and it was forced. by LAW of Constantine.

 

1. The Bible is not an academic source and much of what is in it is refuted by historical evidence.

2. Constantine didn't force anyone to convert. He only made Christianity legal. Paganism wouldn't be made illegal for another century or so.

You really need to stop deliberately lying or you are going to end up getting permabanned.

 

Just because a quack writes a book claiming to "refute" the Bible, don't mean it's factual. you just fell for an okey-doke that's all.

Constantine passed a Law FORCING Christianity on the heathens of the land. they didn't like it of course but they had to deal with it.

No different than Barack Obama passing an Executive Order into Law and all Americans have to deal with it whether they like it or not.

time to GET EDUCATED!

 

Constantine did not sign a law forcing everyone to convert to Christianity. He signed a decree making Christianity legal. It wasn't until several emperors later that Christianity was made the official religion of the empire and several more emperors after than that paganism was declared illegal.

You are the one who needs to get educated.

 

There are colored paintings of King James I. Why don't you rely on those at all? Right... because then you'd have nothing to back up your crazy theory.

 

King James was a white European.

any claim otherwise is an ignorant lie.

England, means "land of the Angles".

any claim otherwise is an ignorant lie.

 

Because they may actually be Whitewashed. I posted the Black &White to show you CLEARLY he is a Black Man.

And since you have no clue about Iconoclasm and the many, many paintings the Edomites distorted, whitewashed or just plain destroyed, I'd rather rely on Black & White photos.

but since you asked, here is a picture of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel whitewashed. Only a trained eye can tell.



- - - Updated - - -

 

Name: King James I
Born: June 19, 1566 at Edinburgh Castle, Scotland
Parents: Mary, Queen of Scots, and Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley
Relation to Elizabeth II: 9th great-grandfather
House of: Stuart
Ascended to the throne: March 24, 1603 aged 36 years
Crowned: July 25, 1603 at Westminster Abbey, also as James VI of Scotland at Stirling Castle on July 29, 1567
Married: Anne, Daughter of Frederick II of Denmark and Norway
Children: Three sons and five daughters, of whom three survived infancy; Henry, Elizabeth and Charles
Died: March 27, 1625 at Theobalds Park, Hertfordshire, aged 58 years, 9 months, and 7 days
Buried at: Westminster
Reigned for: 22 years, and 3 days, King of Scotland for 57 years 1567-1625
Succeeded by: his son Charles

Does this mean Mary Queen of Scotts was black as well.....perhaps Charles was simply an albino.

 

Yes, Mary was an Israelite. and if I'm not mistaken, King James's son Charles was beheaded to keep him from becoming the heir to the thrown.

THIS is how those Edomites in England came into power today. So when you see Queen Elizabeth understand that she is NOT ROYALTY of the bloodline of King James. Not even close.

 

Why would you think that? Back up your assumption with something tangible, otherwise I see no reason to not go by the actual colored paintings.

It isn't clear at all, it's a friggin' black and white drawing. The darker color of his face looks like shading to me, a common thing to do with drawings. Look at the picture you provided. Look at his hands. You see how part of his hands are darker than the others? Yeah, people use shading to give the appearance of shadows.

Right, because apparently the "Edomites" only decided to "whitewash" the colored paintings for some reason.

Oh, yeah, care to explain what your "trained eye" sees as evidence that this was "white washed"?