- Religion and Philosophy»
- Christianity, the Bible & Jesus
Who Is Esau: False Arguments
Note: Though I am quoting the Apocrypha, I am not approving them (nor disproving them) as being canon to the scripture. I am simply quoting them because the arguments used for these false doctrines use them.
Welcome. Today we are going to disprove the idea that Esau was white in an effort to disprove the Black Hebrew Israelites. I must note that not all of them believe Esau was white. But the majority of them do.
Here's the problem. Genesis 27 39. If the fatness of the earth promised to Esau is the whole earth like some believers say, where does that leave Jacob's inheritance? Many people falsely assume that Esau was promised the whole world. We come to two conclusions
- The "fatness of the earth" doesn't mean all of the Earth, but some good parts of it.The 12 Tribes were promised a very specific allotment of land, not the entire world.
- In most of the translations we see it says he would not get the fertility of the earth and dew of heaven.
Another argument a lot of people use is Hebrews 12 16. They think this is saying that Esau ate red meat. "See, the white man loves that red meat." They conveniently remember how Genesis says the food was called red pottage, and combine it with this to call it red animal flesh.
Genesis 1 29 says the Most High gave us every herb and fruit, for MEAT. Meat? Why does he call it meat? Doesn't meat only mean flesh? No. The Biblical definition of meat means food.
Look up Hebrews 12 16 with the Strong's Concordance and define the word meat. You get 1035. brósis, which means eating, or food. If we do the same thing in Genesis 1 29 we get 402. oklah, which means food or eating. So now we have established that meat in scripture can mean basically any part of the food groups. So what was this "meat" that Esau sold his birthright for?
Genesis 25 34 tells us what it was. Bread and pottage of LENTILS. It was red lentil pottage. A lentil is a vegetable. And there is no mention of animal flesh. "There could have been red flesh in the pottage." Red pottage is not called red pottage because you have the option to include meat in it. It is called so because of the red lentils in it. And as we will see in a moment, red or ruddy can also refer to a brownish color.
"Where do we get the name Caucasian from? The Caucus Mountains, where it is said white people dwelled. And scripture says Edom dwelled in Mount Seir, further proving that these cave dwelling Edomites are the so called white man."
First off, I hope that they are using this argument just based on the fact that both relate to mountain dwellings because if some of them actually think Mount Seir and the Caucus Mountains are the same place then they really need to get a map. The Caucus Mountains are in Eurasia, the combined continental landmass of Europe and Asia. Nowhere near the Middle East.
Second of all, they do realize that whites were not the only ones who dwelled in mountains or used cave systems in history, right? This is ancient times. Caves were used by everyone for shelter and housing when needed. And if they can't take my word for it, let's look in scripture to see other people who dwelled in caves. We can see that not all of them are
- Lot dwelt in one after the destruction of Sodom, (Genesis 19 30)
- The cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23 17)
- The cave of Makkedah (Joshua 10 10)
- The cave of Adullam (1 Samuel 22 1)
- The cave of Engedi (1 Samuel 24 3)
- Obadiah's cave (1 Kings 18 4)
- Elijah's cave in Horeb (1 Kings 19 9)
And with that we can make the same argument for the mountains thing. Whites are not the only ones who dwelt in mountains according to basic common sense.
The Cunning Hunter
"Who likes to hunt for sport? Whites."
It just means Esau was a skilled hunter. I also hear them argue that this is true because a lot of whites like to hunt for sport rather then food. Scripture does not even say Esau liked to hunt for sport, they just pull that out of nowhere. By this same logic, all people descendant of Jacob should be dwelling in tents.
Red and Hairy
Esau is described as red. But it doesn't exactly mean red like blood. Red soil, red heifer, these things are a dark ruddy brown color. Let's prove this. Genesis 25 25 says he came out red and hairy. "White men are red and hairy". It means he had hair. He came out hairy all over. It does not mean hairy like a white person. Plus white people are not always born with hair.
The Strong's Concordance describes the word red as ruddy. The word for this is admon, which came from adom, which means to be red. But let's check something out. Numbers 19 1-10 talk about sacrificing a red heifer. Is it blood red, or a brown color? I looked at many photos of red heifers and the only blood red heifer was in a drawing, so it is not credible. And let's get back to the lentils. When Esau asked for the red pottage, his name was changed to Edom. So the redness of the lentils and the redness of Esau are related. Are the red lentils from before a blood red, or a brown color?
They also argue that Esau was a leper because of Exodus 4 6, which says leprosy is white. They also ignore many other symptoms of leprosy in scripture.
- a rising, a scab, or bright spot and the hair in the plague is turned white (Leviticus 13 2)
- an inflammation (18-28); (4) on the head or chin (29-37)
None of these are mentioned in Esau's case. Even though in Miriam's case these are not mentioned (Numbers 12 20), we are clearly told that this is leprosy. Esau is not mentioned as being a leper, so him being red does not automatically mean he is a leper.
So from what we have gathered, and given the relation to the color "red" we saw earlier, we can confirm that this was most likely in regards to Esau's hair, or that Jacob and Esau only had a slight difference in skin color. But if the latter is true, it is not so different as compared to a so called white person and a so called black person. I have even heard some of them say, "Esau means wasted away. That means his skin has no melanin." That's just adding to it. Esau means "hairy"The name of Edom, "red", was also given to him from his conduct in connection with the red lentil "pottage" for which he sold his birthright (Genesis 25 30 and 31).
A lot of them will say, "Then how did white people become white?," to which I will answer with science.
- "Why do people from different parts of the world have different colored skin? Why do people from the tropics generally have darker skin color that those who live in colder climates? Variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation."
- "As early humans moved into hot, open environments in search of food and water, one big challenge was keeping cool. The adaptation that was favored involved an increase in the number of sweat glands on the skin while at the same time reducing the amount of body hair. With less hair, perspiration could evaporate more easily and cool the body more efficiently. But this less-hairy skin was a problem because it was exposed to a very strong sun, especially in lands near the equator. Since strong sun exposure damages the body, the solution was to evolve skin that was permanently dark so as to protect against the sun’s more damaging rays."
- "Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success."
- "There is also a third factor which affects skin color: coastal peoples who eat diets rich in seafood enjoy this alternate source of vitamin D. That means that some Arctic peoples, such as native peoples of Alaska and Canada, can afford to remain dark-skinned even in low UV areas. In the summer they get high levels of UV rays reflected from the surface of snow and ice, and their dark skin protects them from this reflected light." (Modern Human Diversity - Skin Color)
Let's say that the previous verses we went over was saying his skin was red like a so called white person. We have one problem.How can one white man make a bunch of white people if Esau married other blacks? Read Genesis 28 and onward. He married Hamitic and Semitic women, all of which are not white. A majority of the Hebrew Israelites who believe Esau is white believe that everyone else was black, including Esau's wives. You look at mixed people and a majority of them still have black features no matter how light their skin is. How can one white man have babies with a dark skinned woman, and all of a sudden all of his children become the palest people on Earth? So if Esau was white and his wives were dark, the odds are that a majority of his descendants would not come out as being white especially if you believe everyone else was dark. Some people say that they became white by inbreeding, but scripture never says that all or a good majority of Esau's children committed incest. And if Esau is the first white man (or at least the first one of this age as they also believe Cain was cursed with being white, Genesis 4 15), who would his descendants be marrying if they believe everyone else was black? They would have been marrying dark skinned people, which would eventually cancel out most if not all traces of being white in appearance. Even if any of his children did come out white, generations down the line they would be dark skinned due to them being the minority.
And a lot of them also say he was albino and passed it on. But yet they also say Esau was described as red and Jacob's color was not described because he looked like everyone else. But wait, we aren't told what color Esau's children are. So why say they all became white, when they would say this logic is faulty if we use it on Jacob? That is hypocritical. Also, albinism is not always passed on. So even if Esau was an albino, that doesn't mean his children would be. We can prove this when we research what causes albinism.
- "Albinism is inherited. It's not contagious — you can't "catch" it from someone else. People are born with albinism because they inherit an albinism gene or genes from their parents."
- "In the most common forms of oculocutaneous albinism, both parents must carry the albinism gene for a child to be born with the condition. Even if both parents carry the gene, the chance of each of their children being born with albinism is one in four." (Albinism at kidshealth.org, third page)
Another argument is that Esau or his descendants married Cannanites and that the Cannanites are white because they were leprous (or albino according to some of their interpetations). But let's go over that. Noah cursed Canaan. With what? Servitude. And Canaan is meant to be a possession of the 12 Tribes. They read Leviticus 14: 34 as saying leprosy was in the whole land of Canaan. So they put these verses together to say that all of the Canaanites are leprous, as in white. But read on. Leviticus 14: 33-44. You see that it is an individual house itself, not the whole land. It refers to a singular house, not the land of Canaan. It also never said that this referred solely to the land of Canaan. While it mentions Canaan, this was a law so it doesn't solely refer to this place. This was for the land that they owned no matter what it was.
And it also mentions that the leprosy in the walls is green or red. So we see that this stuff grows on walls, comes in green or red, and was hazardous enough to make people flee the house. It isn't leprosy of the skin. It's mold. Mildew. Mold comes in red and green and can be very dangerous. And to further prove this point, it says the HOUSE was shut up seven days. Not a person. Verse 40 says that if the mold is not gone within seven days, the STONES in the wall are to be taken out and cast out of the city. So if this was about leprosy of the skin, why are they taking parts of the wall out? Shouldn't they be casting a person away? And verse 41 and onward talk about scraping the house and replacing the stones. It's mold.
Jeremiah 49 10
"See there? It says he made Esau bare. That means he made Esau white by stripping him off his black color." While I don't think all "Esau is white" arguers use this, this is a common argument I have been receiving as of late., you need to read the whole section of Jeremiah 49 as it relates to Esau. The scriptures concerning Esau/Edom in Jeremiah 49 are verses 7-22. When you read through it we see specific locations being mentioned again. Teman, Dedan, Bozrah, and Edom. If you read the verses before verse 10 you will notice that it is about a prophecy of destruction on this land. Verse 13 shows us that when it says that Bozrah became "a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes." Bozrah was the capital city of Edom. Bozrah means "sheepfold" and was a pastoral city in Edom southeast of the Dead Sea. The prophets Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah predicted Bozrah's destruction.
So we can tell that this is not about his skin color being taken away. And as the picture to the right shows, this land was not in America or any other European country. It's in modern day Saudi Arabia. It is about this land itself, not about Esau or his children becoming white.
Nest Among The Stars
Obadiah 1 4 says Esau made his nest among the stars. "See that? The white man landed on the moon." .
When we read the other translations, it is saying EVEN IF the Edomites were to set their nest in the stars, they would be brought down as a lot of translations are accepting that. This would be further emphasizing the Most High's anger with them. Here are some commentaries to prove my point.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
- "'Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle' - (or, thy nest) The eagle builds its nest in places nearly inaccessible to man. The Edomites were a race of eagles. It is not the language of poetry or exaggeration; but is poetic, because so true. "And though thou set thy nest in the stars." This is men's language, strange as it is. 'I shall touch the stars with my crown;' 'I shall strike the stars with my lofty crown;' 'since I have touched heaven with my lance." As Job says Job 20:6-7, 'Though his excellency mount up to the heavens and his head reacheth unto the clouds,' yet,' he shall perish forever, like his own dung."
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
- Thou exalt thyself] There is no need to supply the word “thyself,” as is done by A.V. and others (“though thou wentest as high as the eagle.” Ewald). “Thy nest” is the subject of both clauses. The words as they stand give a perfectly clear sense in English, as in Hebrew: though thou exaltest as the eagle, and though among the stars thou settest thy nest. Comp. Numbers 24:21, Habakkuk 2:9.
Obadiah 1 4 and Jeremiah 49 16 also mentions how he is like the eagle. "America uses the symbol of the eagle." It doesn't say that Esau uses the symbol of the eagle. It said he exalts himself like an eagle. Eagles fly high in the air. So Edom is high minded, prideful. And it comes down and ambushes it's prey. This is a characteristic, not a blatant symbol on a flag or other item of importance to that country. Proof of that is in Job 39. Plus America is not the only country with an eagle on it. Look that up. There's a long history of other places using eagles as symbols. Including non European nations. And if you read Ezekiel 7 1-17 you can see more eagle symbolism.
Esau Is the End of the World
I am not affirming that this book is canon or not. But there is still a misconception.
- "For Esau is the end of the world, and Jacob is the beginning of it that followeth.”
"See? It just said that Esau is going to be ruling at the end of the world and he is ruling now." They believe the prophecy of Revelations to be about the modern day, where they will be set up above all nations after white people are defeated. To understand the correct context, you must read it from the beginning of the chapter.
- "And he said unto me, In the beginning, when the earth was made, before the borders of the world stood, or ever the winds blew,"
- "Before it thundered and lightened, or ever the foundations of paradise were laid,"
- "Before the fair flowers were seen, or ever the moveable powers were established, before the innumerable multitude of angels were gathered together,"
- "Or ever the heights of the air were lifted up, before the measures of the firmament were named, or ever the chimneys in Sion were hot,"
- "And ere the present years were sought out, and or ever the inventions of them that now sin were turned, before they were sealed that have gathered faith for a treasure:"
- "Then did I consider these things, and they all were made through me alone, and through none other: by me also they shall be ended, and by none other."
- "Then answered I and said, What shall be the parting asunder of the times? or when shall be the end of the first, and the beginning of it that followeth?"
- "And he said unto me, From Abraham unto Isaac, when Jacob and Esau were born of him, Jacob's hand held first the heel of Esau."
- "For Esau is the end of the world, and Jacob is the beginning of it that followeth."
So Esdras is asking, " What shall be the parting asunder of the times? or when shall be the end of the first, and the beginning of it that followeth?" We are dealing with periods of time in this passage. Esau is the end of the world. This is a symbolic meaning. Read verse 8 again. Esau is the end. What does world mean? And what did he say in verse 7? Times. Not kingdoms. The Strong's Concordance defines this as 165. aión: a space of time, an age. Esau is the end of the age. This was symbolic, not literal.
Dukes of Edom
In the KJV we read in Genesis 36 15 and 1 Chronicles 1 51 that Edom had dukes. "The people in England have dukes so that proves that they are white." But let's look into this. The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance tells us what this word is. 441. alluwph: captain, duke, chief, friend. governor, guide, ox. This word is also used throughout the KJV without the use of the word duke. And if you read 1 Maccabees 10: 65-71, you see someone not of Edom being specifically called a duke. And here is something interesting regarding the term duke at the time the 1611 was written.
- "Moreover, at the time the King James Version was made the word "duke" was not used as a title in England: the term had the same general force as dux, the word employed in the Vulgate."
So duke didn't even have anything to do with English royalty at this time.
Book of Jasher
We read in Jasher how they became one kingdom.
"And the children of Chittim ruled over Edom, and Edom became under the hand of the children of Chittim and became one kingdom from that day."
"And from that time they could no more lift up their heads, and their kingdom became one with the children of Chittim."
"See? It says they all mixed together. All of Japheth was whited out." We see one mistake in this argument. It says they became one kingdom. It never said they all mixed together. Now could there have been some mixing? Possibly, but not on this large of a scale. They became one kingdom, meaning all of them were under one ruler(s). For example, America is one country. All Americans have to obey its laws. Are all Americans related? No. They all have different backgrounds.
When Yashar'al split into two kingdoms, was it because they were different nationalities? No. It was because of indifference. By this logic, kingdom means becoming the exact same people through mixing. But not only do they share a common ancestor (Jacob), in this case they were called two different kingdoms because they were split.
As I have said, the general belief of the "Esau is the white man" believers is that all of the countries such as the European countries, Asiatic countries, Spanish countries, and the American countries were originally black but were whited out by the white Edomites. Lets compare the land of ancient Edom to the rest of the world. So by their logic, the people from this little piece of land ended up expanding whiting out a large portion of the Earth. How was this small little place able to expand their population all over the Earth and change the ancestry and skin tone of almost the entire population if everyone else was black according to their logic? I already addressed the contradiction if Esau was white and married only black women. There is no scriptural prophesy that Edom would become this large of a population and be in all the corners of the Earth, or that he would white most of it out.
Who Are the Caucasians?
The land of Kittim was a settlement in present-day Larnaca on the west coast of Cyprus, known in ancient times as Kition, or (in Latin) Citium. So Kittim and Javan are both the descendants of Japheth. And there is no blood relation to Esau mentioned. Their ancestor is Japheth. They are not descendants of Esau. We see more proof in 1 Maccabees 1-4. It says Alexander, son of Phillip, came out of the land of KITTIM. The seed of Javan. And he also became the FIRST to rule over Greece after slaying Darius. So a man of Kittim became ruler over Egypt. Read on and it says that they made many wars and conquered. The children of Japheth, just like scripture said they would, are taking over and ENLARGING THEMSELVES. Look at that map. The Greeks come from Japheth. Esau and Japheth are two separate people. 1 Maccabees 5 shows us a distinction between the Romans and the Edomites due to them being referred to by different names and the fact that they are recognized as two seperate people.
- "The first of Noah’s grandsons mentioned is Gomer. Ezekiel locates the early descendants of Gomer, along with Togarmah (a son of Gomer), in the north quarters (Ezekiel 38 6). In modern Turkey is an area which in New Testament times was called Galatia. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus records that the people who were called Galatians or Gauls in his day (c. AD 93) were previously called Gomerites."
- "They migrated westward to what are now called France and Spain. For many centuries France was called Gaul, after the descendants of Gomer. North-west Spain is called Galicia to this day."
- "Some of the Gomerites migrated further to what is now called Wales. The Welsh historian, Davis, records a traditional Welsh belief that the descendants of Gomer ‘landed on the Isle of Britain from France, about three hundred years after the flood’. He also records that the Welsh language is called Gomeraeg (after their ancestor Gomer)." (The sixteen grandsons of Noah).
According to scripture. the so called white man comes from Japheth. And before we go on, let me make something clear; this is not arguing for or against the Ashkenazi Khazar theory. But saying that they call themselves Ashkenazi must mean that they're gentiles is not proof. They call themselves that because they are a Jewish diaspora population who coalesced as a distinct community in the Holy Roman Empire around the end of the first millennium. In other words, their ancestors lived in Ashkenaz. For example, an African American in America may not be from Africa. But his ancestors are. The difference being is that the map shows that the Japhites are the ones who originally settled these lands, so we can call them the Caucasians of today.
Who Built Petra?
It is well known that the United States has a lot of influence from Greco-Roman archeology, especially in the higher ups. One could make the connection between this and the ruins in Petra, which was the land of the Edomites. But the Edomites did not build those monuments. We will be reading the Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization by George Livingston Robertson.
"XXVII THE HISTORY OF THE IDUMEANS"
- "Shortly after Jerusalem's fall and Judah's exile to Babylon in 586 B.C., the Edomites migrated, for some reason, from their particular home in Mt. Sier, to southern Judah and the adjacent portions of the Negeb, and from that time onward they were known as Idumeans."
- "Their migration was apparently due to the northern movement of the desert Arabs known as the Nabateans, who suddenly emerged out of the wilds of Central Arabia, until at some time during the sixth century B.C., they succeeded in expelling the sons of Esau from their mountain fastnesses, and took possession of the rock-city of Petra."
So the Edomites were kicked out of Petra in the 6th century B.C. The Nabateans inhabited that place. Remember this.
- "The coming of the Romans into Palestine during the first century B.C. greatly changed the complexion of the country. Not only did they take full possession of Palestine proper,"
- "they eventually took Petra and reduced the whole territory formerly known as Edom to the status of a Roman province."
So the Edomites were kicked out of Petra in the 6th century B.C. The Nabateans inhabited that place. Now in the 1st century the Romans have taken over.
"The Monuments of Petra" Page 79
- "Today all of these splendidly carved tombs and temples are marred, and in the process of decay. The slow but persistent effects of natural erosion has been accelerated by reckless Oriental iconoclasm (that's people from the East who painted over things), until every sepulcher has been completely emptied, and not even an inscription remains to identify the dead. It is accordingly impossible to date Petra's monuments with any precision. We can only guess from the different types of architecture (Remember this. They can date it from the different types of architecture.) and a few other hints that are left at hand that probably the great majority of them belong to the period 200 B.C.-200 A.D."
We read earlier that the Edomites were kicked out of Petra in the 6th century B.C. But a majority of Petra's architecture was done at a completely different time period.
- "The Khazneh (The building above, the same one they always use to say Esau is the white man), which greets the eye long before the explorer has actually issued from the Siq, is the glory of the gorge. It is the most remarkable monument, as we have already seen in the entire Necropolis. It faces the exit of the Siq. No other rock-hewn edifier, even in Petra, can really be said to compare with it., It dates very probably from the first century A.D., as its style is not Roman, but Hellenistic: the pomp and decoration of the late Roman architecture being entirely wanting."
So the Khazneh was built around the 1st Century A.D., at the time when the Edomites did not even live in the land.
- "On the other hand, the Corinthian capitals, the elaborate moldings, the decorative reliefs on flat surfaces, and the free use of statues and carved animals, show that either the Nabateans were themselves capable of such workmanship, or they employed, like Solomon when constructing the Temple in Jerusalem, foreign architects and foreign workers to execute it."
- "One authority groups the Kahzneh with the Corinthian Tomb and the Dair and makes them all based on foreign models, which may be supposed to have been carried out to the order of foreigners, with foreign designers, and possibly foreign workmen."
So it is most likely not native to the land of Petra and was not constructed by the Nabateans, but by foreigners.
"IV. ON THE NORTHEAST WALL OF THE CITY." Pages 89-90
- "Passing the Theater and keeping to the right, we soon come to the most imposing series of rock-hewn tombs in all Petra. They are cut into the northeast wall of the city which is known as al-Khubtha. Most of them are of pure classical, or Roman type. The first large one is known as the Urn tomb. The rock-front of the monument has been so cut down as to provide a large flat area or court in front of the Tomb, over seventy feet wide, adorned with Doric porticoes on either side. Five ancient arches of solid masonry sustain this area, which naturally furnishes the Temple tomb an imposing setting. Some of these arches are still in place, but most of them are buried under the ruins of those that have fallen. Over the great mass of fallen stones, it is necessary to scramble in order to reach the level area."
- "The façade is that of a Grecian temple, except that the four tall pilasters on its face are in raised relief, one half of each being buried in the rock The door has a classical architecture over two pilasters, which in turn, have Nabatean capitals."
So these particular capitals are Nabatean, not Edomite or Greco-Roman.
- "The interior consists of a huge chamber about sixty-two by fifty-two feet in dimension, with a number of recesses or loculi in it, which have been thrown together, to turn what was once a tomb into a church. A Greek inscription, in red paint, on a panel in the back wall at the extreme left as you enter, records the fact of its consecration to Christian worship by a bishop whose date is identified as 447 A.D. This is the latest date connected with Petra."
So all of these arguments about Esau being the white man have been proven to be taken out of context. Now, let's go onto the next part; If Esau is not the white man, what happened to the Edomites? We will also go into how the connection between Edom and Rome is flawed according to scripture.
Peace and blessings.