Anthony Gottlieb’s The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy is a breezy introduction to most of the major philosophers associated with the Enlightenment. The book is organized into short chapters on René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Pierre Bayle, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.
The exclusion of Immanuel Kant from this list might seem surprising for a book that is about the Enlightenment, but that is because The Dream of Enlightenment is the second volume in a trilogy on the history of Western philosophy. The first volume, The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance, spans Antiquity to the Renaissance. The third volume will pick up the story from Kant and carry it forward to the present day.
I bought this book because I was looking for a short overview of modern philosophy before the French Revolution. Having studied the Reformation over the past few months, I’m about to start researching the Enlightenment and this book wasn’t bad for an icebreaker. I was disappointed that there wasn’t a chapter devoted to Montesquieu who was one of the most influential philosophers of the Enlightenment and one of the biggest influences on the American Founders.
In conversations on Gab, I often encounter the argument that Christianity, especially the Protestant Reformation, is to blame for “radical egalitarianism” and “universalism.” I’ve explored this at length and reject this point of view. Martin Luther and John Calvin were fundamentalists who hearkened back to St. Augustine’s most negative takes on human nature. Luther famously encouraged the German princes to slaughter the peasants in the Peasants’ War. The future of Lutheranism was institutionalization in state churches in Northern Europe. Calvin was the opposite of an individualist, egalitarian and universalist. He also hated the Anabaptists who were persecuted in Geneva.
The most radical fringe of the Reformation – the Anabaptists and antinomian sects – had a bleak future in Europe and were violently repressed almost everywhere except in Moravia. The Reformation eventually led to a world which was governed by the “whose realm, his religion” principle. Every state in Europe came to have an established church and only a handful of Dutch cities practiced Liberty of Conscience. It is true that some of the Anabaptist sects were “radically egalitarian,” but it is hard to see how modern egalitarianism sprang from the likes of the Hutterites, Mennonites and the Amish. Generally speaking, the trend was toward confessionalization and religious intolerance almost everywhere in Europe which culminated in the French Wars of Religion, Thirty Years’ War and the English Civil War.
When people today complain about “radical egalitarianism” and “universalism,” they are complaining about the ideology that sprang from the Jacobins and the sans-culottes of the French Revolution and that wasn’t a byproduct of Reformation. Liberalism sprang from the loins of the Enlightenment which was inspired by the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century.
Anthony Gottlieb’s The Dream of Enlightenment illustrates how all the building blocks fell in place: Descartes laid the foundation of individualism with Cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”) and materialism with his mechanistic physics; Thomas Hobbes contributed the “state of nature” and the “social contract” and vanquished the immaterial soul; Spinoza identified God with Nature; Locke contributed liberty and equality, the rhetoric of natural rights, tolerance and the blank slate; Hume contributed skepticism of miracles and revealed religion and divided “matters of fact” from values; Montesquieu divided sovereignty between three branches of government; Voltaire heaped ridicule upon religion and made an idol out of humanity and Rousseau contributed the general will.
There are various points of disagreement among these men, but there are greater similarities. Hobbes had a bleak view of human nature. Locke had a positive one. Both argued from the “state of nature” and the “social contract” though. Voltaire hated Rousseau and mocked Leibniz with his character Pangloss in Candide. Overall, the effect of the Enlightenment was to sap the foundations of religion with skepticism, to undermine authority and tradition, to promote liberty as the greatest good and to attempt to prop up morality on a new naturalistic basis like the physical sciences.
The Enlightenment was closely linked to the rise of the “mechanical philosophy” and the new materialism. It is inconceivable in the absence of Francis Bacon and Issac Newton. As Tom Richey says in one of his videos, “the Enlightenment was the Scientific Revolution on crack.” We’re going to have a lot of fun in the months ahead going through the philosophes one by one.
Perhaps the Enlightenment was a reaction to the carnage wrought by the Reformation and Counter Reformation. 100 plus years of slaughter and political upheaval in the name of religion had to stop.
Perhaps you’re right, but how did the Enlightenment end? With the French Revolution!
From another thread
“A lot of Scots-Irish in the South. Was that one of the reasons for the hostility between the Confederacy and the Anglo-Saxon ruled Union?”
I wanted to tell you about a book called Albion’s Seed. The author David Hackett Fischer identifies four main American cultures based on where they originated from in England (Albion) He’s incredibly thorough and the book is very enlightening on it’s thesis. While I don’t think he addresses the civil war, he does very well prove there are definitely different breeds of Americans.
I would be very careful of the book by David Hackett Fischer as his name is suspiciously jewish. These kikes at very good a writing half truths while rewriting our history.
The Enlightenment led directly to the Napoleonic Wars.
Virtually any society can be prone to outbreaks of crackpotism, if the right people aren’t there to make sure things don’t get too far away from sanity.
Still waiting for AI Robot Jesus that can channel Jesus from beyond the grave.
And with the French Revolution the jews were emancipated, imagine that. It wasn’t a French Revolution at all but a jewish Bolshevik revolution as were the revolutions all over Europe in the middle of the 1800’s. Then of course we had the jewish Bolshevik revolution of Christian Russia and worst yet WWI &II destroying Christian Germany our own kinsmen at the behest of the jewish bankers.
jerry Same thing with Cromwell taking power in England. Catholic Edward I booted them out, and England was free of the jew for about 400 years. Jews gave Cromwell money to launch his attack on Charles I, and he let them back in.
The first Jews who got to vote as emancipated citizens were residents of the USA. Jews might have had power behind the scenes in the UK but they didn’t get to vote until the 1840s. Jewish emancipation in Revolutionary France was happened in the 1790s.
The French Revolution had longer term consequences.
O/T but not really – has any-one read “Terror in the Night: The Klan’s Campaign Against The Jews” by Jack Nelson?
Do you recommend that book, madam?
I do. You’ll read some fascinating info…………
As there are many Christians here… Do Christians expect Jesus to physically return to earth?
Yes we look for His second coming. Why do you ask?
So Jesus, a person will ‘return’ to Earth and be able to talk to people and eat a cheeseburger?
“Do Christians expect Jesus to physically return to earth?”
That depends on what you mean by “physically return to Earth.”
According to the traditional, orthodox (meaning, ‘right believing’) Scriptural witness, Christ DID return to Earth, in judgment (against the Jews, the Deicides, and the only surviving members of the Old Covenant) in AD 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem. By this act, Christ then ‘sat down at the right hand of the Father’ and rules from ‘on high’ as the Kingdom is built by His Elect, until ‘all Israel shall be saved’- [Rom. 11:26] that is, all Adamic humanity that are the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ [St.Paul].
This is known as Preterism- and is the only valid eschatological/biblical approach that guarantees victory, because it has already happened, thus proving all the prophecies, and corroborating Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary.
The other schools (amillennialism, premillennialism, and its’ heretical offshoot, dispensationalism) all are systems doomed to failure. Which (of course) is why they are so popular. Pseudo-Christians are afraid to take the Law of God and use it to the ends for which it was created- to smite God’s enemies, and erect the Reign of God, NOW, ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’
The Jews (of course) are all IMPOSTERS, and are under the greatest curse of God. Allowing them to live, to be a part of culture, to even own ANYTHING, is to tacitly submit to Satan. Hitler finally got that idea down, and almost succeeded. But it was the Judas goats in the West, who gave the Christ-killers the means to land us in the mess we are in, today. All else follows from that premise.
Luther and Calvin at least were willing to use the power of the sword to establish God’s Kingdom, even though they were apostate Catholics. Why don’t their followers do likewise?
Blaming undesirable human behavior on Satan? “use the power of the sword” ? um ok …
Fr John: Your theology is way off base. At the time of Christ the Edomites (Romans Chp 9) and descendants of Judas’ Canaanite son Shelah ( Malachi) had infiltrated and overtaken the priesthood and temple. They were appointed to those positions by the edomite Herod. (Revelation 12). Paul told the Romans who were Israelites of mostly the Assyrian deportation In Romans 16:20 that they would bruise Satan under their feet shortly. Approximately 13 years after Paul said this the Romans utterly destroyed the temple in Jerusalem where the edomites were. That is the so-called jewish diaspora. The main body of the Israelites did NOT return to Jerusalem. The 42,500 that did return came back to Jerusalem from Babylon to fulfill the Daniel 70 Weeks prophesy. That is why the Israelites in Judea were expecting their Messiah as the Samaritan woman at the well attest. The people to whom the epistles are written within the Greco-Roman world were all descendants of the main body of Israelites that were released after their captivity in Assyria and Babylon. Now we would call it White Christendom. The second advent and marriage supper of the lamb is when we slay all of our enemies which means all non-adamic people. The period we are now in and are held captive by jewish hegemony worldwide is in Ezekiel 38 & 39 and Revelation 17-19. We now await mystery Babylon’s fall, the jew. And yes Christ most certainly will return and we await that as well.
“And yes Christ most certainly will return and we await that as well.”
So in your [Jerry] version Jesus will be a human once more able to talk to people?
It is not my version it is was the Bible says and I will give just one example. Acts chapter 1 verse 11. “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” This is speaking of the 2nd Advent obviously.
In is not jerrys version but what the bible actually says. One example is Acts 1:11. “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” This is talking about Christ’s return at the 2nd Advent.
What would be traumatic for Christians would be a bigass Golden Mecca/Kaaba ‘New Jerusalem’ floating down from the sky over Israel on Judgement day…
Revelation (the book) inspired me to chuck any Bibles I possessed a long time ago. No 2 clergy seems to interpret it in the same way. The book simply doesn’t belong or fit next to the tolerable Gospels. Paul’s writings also radically differs from anything Jesus did or said in the Gospels.
So, I answer your question about Christ physical return and I can give you more examples from scripture,
but why should on I waste my time on you. You are not going to believe no matter what I prove. As for Paul’s epistles they are fully in accord with Christ. The entire New Testament is to reconcile the cast off 12 Tribes of Israel, non of whom where ever called jews, with Yahweh their God. The Old Testament is a prophecy of the New Testament. The New Jerusalem has nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal state in Palestine which will be destroyed and they will finally get their holocaust on a world wide scale. The New Jerusalem is an allegory for the seat of government of the 12 tribes no matter where they are scattered around the globe. Whether you want to believe it or not the Revelation and prophecies in the Old Testament have come true. Of course not all is fulfilled yet, as I said earlier we now await the fall of Gog which is the same as mystery Babylon and the last war in heaven, which will be right here on earth. So regardless of your responses I will dust off my feet and move on from you which is exactly what we are told to do in the gospel. You don’t want to believe? Fine with me
Thank you, I’m always looking for interesting new books to read!
Hunter I firmly disagree on your take on John Calvin. The Catholic Gazette of February 1936 records a discussion at the Bnai Brith Meeting in Paris in which an old Rabbi spoke on John Calvin saying that he was really John Cohen and he was paid by the Elders of Zion to sew discord among the Christians and he accomplished his goal. Calvinism is the direct ancestor of Evangelical Christianity and the Baptist Faith. One thing about Calvinism seen first in New England, was its extreme devotion upon the Old Testament. In later years this came around with the Seventh Day Adventists and Scofields Bible.
The Southern Confederacy was very much NOT a Protestant Nation. The CSA was if anything an High Anglican (Episcopal) Nation AT THE TOP with the Protestant groups fighting for the middle and the bottom. When the CSA was destroyed the tradition of High Church Anglicanism was dead forever. The Southern Baptists grew like kudzu in the economically socially destroyed South and by the 1890s had turned the South into a Baptist Theocracy.
Give you an example. The FIRST ERA KKK, had no religious requirements, all one had to be was an Ex-Confederate Soldier a Democrat and a Freemason. Jews and Catholics were in the First Klan, among these was Bernard Baruch’s father Simon Baruch of South Carolina. THE SECOND ERA KKK Wizard Simmons was a Southern Methodist originally, although Im unsure about later. The Second Era Klan put forth a doctrine that was right out of the Southern Baptist Convention. Catholicism was outlawed, as was Orthodox Christianity, no Klansman could practice either religion. The Klan was Pro-Prohibition, in other words the KKK didn’t believe in drinking, but strangely enough this wasnt enforced much. The Second Era for the first time made Jews an official enemy. This vision of the Klan has largely lasted to this day.
Ironically the Southern Baptist Convention which was in 1920 basically a giant Ku Klux Klan rally, sometime around WWII broke with the KKK and has since been busily covering up that past
John Calvin was actually ethnically French. (Nèe Jean Cauvin). He later moved to Geneva at the behest of his friend William Ferrell.
On the high Anglican roots/Baptist question of the CSA. I agree that there was strong high church leadership in the ranks of the chaplains/officers, however don’t forget the average low country soldier who comprised the bulk of the military. Many of these folks attended Presbyterian churches, Methodist churches, and general or primitive Baptists churches. I think it’s interesting that many of them only had service once a month because the preachers would ride a circuit between many church congregations.
The Bnai Brith Rabbi as recorded in the Catholic Gazette said that John Calvin’s family were Jewish Converts to Catholicism and if he said it, I am inclined to believe it.
The South was an Anglican High Church Oligarchy at the top with a largely Baptist lay population among the common soldiers. The Southern Aristocracy also loved Catholicism, Jeff Davis was educated by them, as long as it was Maryland Anglo Catholicism or French Catholicism, they were somewhat suspicious of the Irish Catholics, though they did treat them much better than the Yankees did. The Laymen in the South were probably 65% plus Baptists, with other groups following them.
The war destroyed the Oligarchy and left a vacuum into which Baptists exploded. The Baptist church needed nothing, it didnt need a building they could meet in a shack or even a saloon, it didn’t matter and you didnt even need an education to be a Baptist Preacher and some were illiterate. Between 1865 and 1900 the Baptists grew at a rate similar to how Early Christianity grew in Turkey Greece and Italy, it was an explosion. The Church of Christ did as well in Tennessee and because of this, the Baptists hate them with a passion. They even threatened to murder David Lipscomb, a famous C of C preacher whose University is in Nashville today because the Baptists said that he was disloyal to the CSA because he preached nonviolence and told Christians not to fight in the army.
I know this about East Kentucky, but in some places down there today there are TWO Religions. You are a Baptist or a Pentecostal, everyone else is suspect. The Baptists get violent in the mountains too, my Grandpa told me a story once about a Church of Christ preacher speaking on the radio, and when he got done the Baptist got the rebuttal. The Baptist preacher said that if anyone teaches what that guy teaches someone should take a 12 gauge shotgun and blow his head off. Now this was in violation of the FCC, but being Kentucky you could say that kind of stuff there. The sad part is, there were many men who would have obeyed the Baptist Preacher and killed the other man.
Billy Ray, as always, an interesting read. Was Cohen a Cauin before a Calvin?
Welcome back, I haven’t seen a comment from you in about a year.
I suspect John Calvin was a Cohen at least the Jews claim him as such. Calvinism is the root of Zionism. Dual Covenant Theology comes out of the formerly Calvinist churches. A Calvinist Oliver Cromwell let the Jews into England. Another group of Calvinists in the Netherlands gave them equal citizenship in the 1600’s
Here is a nice article on Baptist foundations and growth in the southeast united states
I am pretty familiar with that but like I said the Baptist Church didn’t really enter the zenith of political power in the entire South till after the war. By 1930, in some areas of Dixie, if you were not a member of the Baptist Church, you were considered disloyal and as bad as a Yankee. The Baptists held that kind of brutal total control in some counties. They even murdered people who got in their way.
The Baptists are really the spiritual heirs of the Puritans. Before the Civil War, drinking, dancing gambling knife fights, murdering, whoring were Southern past times, in fact if a Southern man didn’t do at least a couple of them, he wasn’t a true Southerner. If you hadn’t killed at least one person in your life or at least fought a duel you weren’t a true Southerner. AFTER THE WAR, the Baptist Church forced the outlawing of almost all of them, but of course revenge killing was still okay as long as the victim was guilty of rape or some very ugly sin. Cold blooded murder was to be punished by death. By the 1940’s the Baptists had changed their views on revenge killing and began their whole descent into Political Correctness and sucking the poisoned teats of Zionism.
THE BAPTIST CHURCH OF ALABAMA FORCED THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO DEMAND THE CREATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL In 1942. THE STATE OF ALABAMA RECOGNIZED ISRAEL BEFORE THE US GOV DID.
The life of Abraham Lincoln is a very interesting read, because it has a good insight into Southern Culture and why the Aristocracy constantly had to claim more frontier land. The frontier was the release valve, It kept the Poor Whites hoping to claim their own piece of land and rise up to the Aristocrats level and some of them indeed did. The issue of poor whites was more common in the settled states of Virginia and the Carolinas. The encouragement always was to these people was to GO WEST and start over. The Aristocrats always feared that someday the Poor whites would have an insurrection, if they did not have the opportunity at land. The Golden Circle was this idea, export the Poor Whites from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia to the new lands, and maybe some would show some initiative. Now the White Trash issue was part of but separate from the Poor white issue. The reason Dixie had White Trash and the North did not, was because of the thousands of Convict slaves England sent to Virginia and the Carolinas.
Had the Lincoln family remained in Kentucky or instead migrated southward, Abe would have remained a dirt farmer and we’d never have heard of him. Because in the Stratified Southern Culture, that was his level in the Caste system. The thing was Thomas Lincoln went to Indiana and Illinois where there was no Caste system for White people. The Yankees called this leveling. In Illinois, a Lincoln could become a storekeeper, a justice of the peace, a lawyer and a politician. I honestly believe that Lincoln always believed that if he earned enough money and married into the Aristocracy, the Southern Aristocrats he envied and looked up to as a child would somehow accept him as would the Yankee blue bloods. This never happened of course. Once Trash, always Trash.
I think the reason that Abe Lincoln could never understand Southern Independence was truly because he was a social climber. He honestly believed the lies in the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson of universal white equality. Jefferson was one of these people a double minded man. He would say the common farmer was the true American, yet also say he loved the Better Sort of Old Virginia. John C Calhoun laid this bare in the 1840’s and completely repuidiated Jefferson. It is said that Lee would not mention Lincoln’s name, because one of the Aristocracy does not sully oneself with the lower people. Ironically at the end of the war, Nathan Bedford Forrest who had been hamstrung by Aristocrats and not given the material support he needed because of his low birth and starting the war as a Private, Lee later called him his greatest Lieutenant.
HUNTER SHOULD DO A PIECE ON THIS. ARISTOCRACY AND WHY THE BETTER SORT MATTERS
A good example of understanding Southern Aristocratic Ideas is the modern example of Kim Kardashian. You can dress up a Semitic Whore in 10,000 dollars worth of dress and jewelry and she still looks like trash. You can put a Nigger in a tuxedo and jewels give him a Mercedes, he is still a Nigger. This understanding is that clothing and jewelry cannot confer Aristocracy upon you. You are either born to it or you are in effect a LOW LIFE WITH MONEY. I wont use the term White Trash here as Kim is a Middle Eastern Mountain Merchants offspring. ARMENOIDS=LE HAPPY MOUNTAIN MERCHANT
billyray: Kardashian is not semitic. The kikes have redefined what a semite is. You have to be of white adamic stock to be a semite. A descendant of Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Look at the fbi most wanted. Most are certainly not white but are classified as such. She is just another mud shark arab and probably kike.
The Middle East is Semitic the Bible says where the Sons of Shem ended up and they all ended up in the Arabian Peninsula Palestine and Iraq, and later North Africa. Europeans and Orientals both came from Japheth. The Semitic Y-DNA is J1 or J2. The European DNA markers are typically R1a and R1b and there are some others like I and E1b1b. The Hebrews Arabs, Armenians, Chaldeans are all descended from Shem. In fact the South Arabs come from Shem’s descendent Joktan and the North Arabs come from Joktan’s brother Peleg who was the ancestor of Abraham as do the Israelites.
The Bible does not allow for your aspersions, you need to actually read the descendent lines in Genesis 10 and 11.
What you are missing is Joktan and Peleg are not the chosen blood line. They were originally white shemites but later race-mixed with primarily the Nubians and therefore are no longer to be considered white or shemites any longer and the same is true of Ishmael. That is why the Hebrews named them arabs which means mixed in Hebrew. The chosen blood line comes from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his sons who maintained their racial stock and did not race mix. Deut 23:2 ” A bastard (mixed race) shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord….” You are falling for the kike trick on this,
PELEG IS THE ANCESTOR OF ABRAHAM, that was the chosen line, Joktan is the South Arabians that was not a chosen line. The geneologies tell you where the people ended up, you are cherry picking. Japheth’s sons Gog and Magog ended up in Eastern Europe Caucases and spread out, Magog is identified by Josephus with the present day Ukraine. Most of the rest spread west from there. A large number of Japheths sons were in Asia Minor.
I am going by two things, language classification and genetics. Now you can dismiss genetics call it a Jewish trick fine, but languages DO NOT LIE. Semitic Languages are called Afro-Asiatic Languages. White people cannot at their base be Semites, or else we would speak a Semitic Language, as it is we speak Indo European Languages. Now if we take the Lost 10 Tribe issue. When the 10 Tribes were taken to Gozan by the Assyrians, who spoke a Semitic language, they were in an area where Indo-European ones were spoken, they intermarried and became largely like the people of their land. In other words they lost their identity. If Esdras is correct and they moved through the Caucases and into Southern Russia then spread out, by this time they were speaking an Indo-European Language.
The Semitic Language groups also match the Semitic Genetic groups. If you wish to dispute that then you can, I am just going solely by the data I see before me. As for the racial composition of the Semites, they have dug up graves in Turkey, Armenia, etc and the skulls retrieved are the exact same as the so-called Middle Eastern peoples of today. Now if you wish to deny archeology fine, but this ridiculous idea that you are pushing that Noah was pure Aryan and all his sons pure Aryan is just ludicrous. Obviously judging by European groups today, Southern Europeans are obviously not Aryan.
The problem is with the Adamic philosophy is how many groups do you wish to say are not Adamic Man?
I suggest you read the genealogies of Luke chapter 3. You won’t see Peleg in there anywhere. You can’t even get the chosen line correct. By the way we have derivations in our own English language that are directly from the Hebrew and also from Greek and Latin which are all the white mans language. If you can’t get the chosen line correct then you follow down all kinds of crooked paths.
So Noah was not pure Aryan? You better reread Genesis 6:9 ” …Noah was a just man and PERFECT in his generations. So, his family had not been race-mixed with the fallen angels as described in verse 2. And the word man in all those verses are adam (H120) and yes they are white! In fact billyboy look over all the people of the world today and the white race is only pure race on the planet. All others are not races at all but mixed-race bastards, which is what the kike bastards are constantly pushing on us. And you are doing the very same thing. This language BS you are pushing is just another kike false dichotomy. Sounds to me like are one of ((them)). Enjoy the lake of fire and it is coming.
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec (PELEG), which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
The King James translated directly from the Greek and the name Peleg was TRANSALLITERATED FROM HEBREW TO GREEK. HEBER is Eber from Genesis 11. He had 2 sons PELEG the ancestor of Abraham called Phalec here and JOKTAN. Joktan is the cast off line.
You are correct by error. However Peleg was born many years before Abram and there are no promises or covenants made with Peleg. Therefore it is immaterial. You stated that Peleg was a descendant of Abram, that is impossible. As I stated, Peleg, who was a white adamic man settled in Arabia and later mixed with the Nubians. Also notice that Adam is the only man who is the son of God which of course includes all of his descendants forever. Yahweh God only made the white man and he is the God of the white man period. Why? Because that is the only man he created.
So you are going to rely on DNA from some kike? Your comment that Europeans and Orientals came from Japheth is only true to a certain point. The Japhethites were the first into Iberia, Tarshish and what is now called Spain. The Orientals certainly did not come from Japheth as they are mongoloids. How do you substantiate that Japheth are Orientals? If you read some of the early history of the Europeans,which are the 12 tribes scattered abroad, they often referred to the jews as Orientals.
The Jews control all DNA science? Really. That’s news to me considering DNA was discovered by English scientists in the 1950’s. Now if we want to talk about the disreputable DNA Testing companies owned by Jews, yes. The word Oriental in olden times was used for much of Asia including the Middle East, later it was narrowed to East Asia. Which is why some books will call someone an Oriental Studies Major who studied Middle Eastern things.
I am going solely by observable genetics and archeology. Now if you wish to say DNA is false science maybe it is or it isn’t. All I know is that the people we call Semites have a particular bone structure and skull shape and even paintings of purported Israelites in Egypt show this exact same skull shape and bone structure you see with the Jews Arabs Armenians today.
If I were super awesome the first thing I’d probably make: Flesh eating bacteria and a firey BBQ pit of to send most of the other shit I created, plus I would make everyone believe they have free will so they can blame their miserable fates on themselves.
to billyboy; Who is apparently trying to push his race-mixing, keeps focusing on Peleg. So why is he doing this? There are no promises made to Peleg anyway and Peleg had become a sand nigger long before Abraham was even born. Abraham was given the promises that were in turn passed down to issac, Jacob and his sons. Peleg is a non issue. He is outside of any promises anyway as are Ishmael and Esau who married Hittities and a daughter of Ishmael . This is the old Canaanite bait and switch he is trying to pull. Nice try billyboy
Peleg is the ancestor of Abraham
So what? Abram had many ancestors. Yahweh God changed Abram to Abraham and the promises are to him and his descendants forever exclusively and of course that promise was passed down to Isaac, Jacob and his sons. Peleg isn’t even in the picture. Get over it, Peleg is irrelevant. He and his descendants became mixed race Arabs. Arabs will all be destroyed at Christ 2nd Advent. It is that simple.