BHI vs Jewish Christian Debate Deuteronomy 28׃68 does not refer to the Africa slave trade

Debate Topic and the Claim About Deuteronomy 28:68

Okay, we're live. Okay. Today's debate topic is Deuteronomy 28 -68. The debate topic is, if this does not refer to the African slave trade, Deuteronomy 28 -68. So this whole debate topic, it came from, my name is Tom, we was in Union Square a couple of weeks ago, and a Christian pastor, Andrew Rappaport, he was open air preaching and a whole group of black Hebrew Israelites came up and they asked questions and they began to engage on Deuteronomy 28 -68.

For all those who do not know about this group, the Hebrew Israelites, that's the one passage of scripture where this is the locus classicus text, is the text where this group, either falls or stands on.

And that is the text which we're going to engage today and debate on. And this is the same text that the Hebrew Israelites on the street, on the internet, on YouTube, use to convince people that the Hebrew Israelites of the Bible, that they are the real true Israelites of the Bible.

So this debate topic, we will argue one true claim and position against the other. The challenge today will be to do so with respect and not misrepresent each side or engage in ad hominem argumentation, is to be also polite and respectful.

The debater we have tonight, both completely disagree with each other's interpretation of this one passage, Deuteronomy 28 -68. So the debate topic, once again, is does Deuteronomy 28 -68 refer to the African slave trade?

Representing the Christian side is Andrew Rappaport, who is a founder of striving and president of Striving for Eternity Ministries. He was also a former senior pastor of a Chinese American Bible church.

He established the FIRE conferences, trains evangelism and equips and does outreach events. He's the instructor for Striving for Eternity Academy, an online school that teaches hermeneutics and systematic theology.

Andrew also has a podcast, a radio podcast called Rappaport, in which he, very contemporary topics of Christianity related to hermeneutics or anything ranging from hermeneutics to black Hebrew Israelites.

He covers on that. He's also the author of What Do They Believe?, which is a systematic theology of major Western religion. And he also has a book called What Do We Believe?, which is a systematic theology of Christian doctrine.

Debate Format and Opening Statement

So today's debate format, Andrew will start off first, but just to say the format, we're going to have an opening statements from both sides, 30 minutes, then rebuttals from both sides, 10 minutes, and then cross-examination, four rounds of 10 minute sessions.

One and during this cross-examination, one person asks one person and one person asks questions, another person answers, and then we're going to take questions from anybody who's watching. So feel free to write on your YouTube link to ask whatever question you want, and we'll take those questions and answer it during the question and answers.

And then finally, we'll have a closing statement. So to begin the debate, it will be a Jewish Christian, Andrew Rappaport. Thanks, Tom. I appreciate.

Let me get my clock started. I appreciate you doing this and hosting this, being the moderator. Clearly, you're ready for a battle. I see your punching bag behind you, so you're ready for it. Now, this is something that we've been asking for a year and a half.

I've been asking someone to debate me on this topic of does Deuteronomy 28, 68 refer to the African slave trade? This is, as Tom said, it is a key argument. I've put out some podcasts about Black Hebrew Israelites actually about a year ago, and then we redid them in one episode where I played the audio from the video that Tom referred.

Now, for a year and a half, we've been looking for someone to debate me on this. We really had very simple principles for the debate. We wanted people who would be respectful, not rude, no ad hominem attacks, and stay on topic.

It seems pretty simple for a debate structure, and it's been a year and a half to be able to get this together, so I'm glad this came together and that we could do this. And so I want to read the text that we're actually, the verse that we're addressing, and I want to take my time to go through this to see that what we end up seeing here is that Deuteronomy 28, 68 does not refer to the African slave trade.

Now, I understand that for many Hebrew Israelites, it becomes an issue when I say that I am a Levite. How can I make such a claim? How can I say that I'm a Levite? Because the way genealogies work is that you take your family line from my father to his father, to his father, and so on and so on, and that line can be traced back to Korahites.

If you're familiar with the Old Testament, the Korahites, they would be the keepers of the temple, back to Levi, back to Abraham. And so because of that line of succession, we would say, therefore, I would be a Levite or an Israelite going back to the line of Israel.

Now, I understand that many of the Hebrew Israelites right off the bat get upset with that because they think that I am an Edomite, meaning I'm red, therefore, I cannot be a Israelite. Now, here's the thing we have to do, and this is going to be my challenge to you as we go through my opening, is to ask you to put your presuppositions aside and ask which is more logical.

Why? Because logically, the way we know genealogies is by following someone's line back to their family. Very, very few of the Africans that were in the African slave trade can do that. We do know, if you're familiar with the book Roots by, I'm trying to draw a blank on his name, Alex Huxley, I think, but he can go back to Kutukente, who was the first one of his line that was brought over because that was given from father to child, father to child, or from passed down to generations, so they knew the history of their family.

But very few can go back and do that. Now, one of the things that the argument is made is that those that were part of the African slave trade can prove that they are Hebrew Israelites based on this passage out of Deuteronomy 28, 68.

They say that this is a prophecy of the African slave trade. Therefore, those that were in the African slave trade are the Israelites. Now, if this passage is not referring to the African slave trade, then the Hebrew Israelites argument falls completely apart.

That's why this one text is so important. That's why this one text is the one that must be examined, because this is the only one that they can appeal to to say that they are Israelites. Now, I know, just as a side note I'll mention, they do come up with a picture that they often bring up about some freed slaves and free men that were both black and white living in a town called, I believe it was Israel's River or something like that, and they're referred to as Israelites.

That doesn't mean they were Israelites from the Old Testament Israelites. It means that they were Israelites living in a town that has Israel as part of its name. So you'll see that they will often go to many different proofs to try to argue something like this.

Now, today I'm going to be using the King James Bible because of the fact that that is the Bible translation that they will use. And not all that I don't believe, but most that I've run into will only use the King James Bible.

And therefore, I'm going to read out of the King James. And let us look at what this verse says, Deuteronomy 28, 68. It says, Now, the argument that you're going to hear made with this passage from almost every Hebrew Israelite that addresses this, addresses it and says that the word ships is the key word, that they will say they are the only slaves that were enslaved and sent over by ships.

Now, the argument, let me first give you the argument you'll hear from the Hebrew Israelites, and then I will give the proper interpretation and counter this. They will say that the Egypt is going to refer to bondage, not the place.

So this is them returning into bondage. They were once in bondage in a literal place known as Egypt. They came out of that. And now instead of returning back to Egypt, this is now this word means bondage.

So they're returning to bondage. They come over by ships and as they come over, they're then sold as slaves. Now let's examine what the text actually says to see if this supports the case that this could in any way remotely be referring to the African slave trade.

In verse 68, it says,. And the Lord shall bring them into Egypt. Now there is nothing in this text anywhere that would give an argumentation that this is anything other than Egypt. There's no reason to see this, that Egypt is a illustration or a simile, or it is an example of something else.

The fact is, is that the word for bondage for slave is going to be used in this same verse, why is it not used for Egypt throughout? No, the fact is that this is saying that the Lord shall bring them back into Egypt.

Egypt was a literal place where they were literally enslaved and they literally will go back to Egypt. He's going to, the Lord, remember is the one that's going to do is he's going to bring them to Egypt again.

It means that he's returning them to the place they once were. That's what again means. Now here's going to be the key. It's with ships. The argument that many Hebrew Israelites will make is that they're the only time that slaves were enslaved by ships was the African slave trade.

I'm going to argue that that is not the only time that people went into slavery by ship. Historically, what we know is that the Assyrians came into the Northern tribes of Israel, and then the Babylonians came into the Southern tribes of Israel.

And at both times, there was a fleeing of people from the land of Israel to literal Egypt. Yes, you can get to Egypt by going by land. You can also get there by ship. So their argument is usually that the, that they would have to have gone by land, uh, in those slave, in those times where they were escaping Israel and they wouldn't have gone by ship.

Why? Well, the why would be because it doesn't fit their conclusion. Uh, and this is going to be a thing I've, I've never found any, uh, Hebrew Israelite that can logically argue. They always have to rely on different logical fallacies like this one, which is called confirmation bias, which is when they start with the conclusion and only accept information that supports the conclusion and deny anything that does not support their conclusion.

So when we look at this text, we ended up seeing is that this is speaking of a literal place of Egypt where they were once enslaved and they are going to return by ship. Now it says, uh, that he said, it says by way that whereof I spake unto thee thou shall see it no more again.

Now this next part is going to be a key element. Remember the argument being made is that this verse, this passage is a, a, uh, a prophecy of the slave trade because they came over by ship. Now here's a simple rule of interpretation.

We would not take the one word ship as literal while taking everything else figurative. Egypt, they're going to say is figurative instead of literal. Here, what we end up seeing is we see here that it says quite clearly that these people, whoever you may want to argue that they are, if you would like to argue that these people who are in this, this situation where they've become slaves because of the fact that they're, they're going into bondage as the text says by ship as the text, well, the text says that they're going to be going into bondage later, it says they're going to go to Egypt, but it's when it says that they are going into, uh, Egypt, which they will say is bondage, then what we must do is we must look at this and realize that therefore the rest of the passage must be literal.

And so if the rest of the passage is literal, then what we see, if we look at this text, is that this text is very clearly stating that these people who came over by ship, look at the end of that passage, and they, and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.

In other words, if you're going to take this literally, there is only one possible conclusion. These people had no buyers. They sold themselves as slaves. Now I understand in our day and age, people do not understand slavery.

Slavery was an employment system that we see. It is, uh, there are rules for slavery within scripture, uh, for example, which makes this a difference that we see in the slavery that we often think of, but slavery in the Bible was a way of paying off debt for one thing.

It was a way of providing for those who couldn't provide for themselves. And a slave got a half day's wage and therefore they were not property. They were employees, but at a reduced price so that they could pay back the debt that was owed.

And so we see that there were restrictions on slavery. Not every other nation followed that. But when we examine this, people would often sell themselves as slaves. You see this in the New Testament with a parable that Jesus tells about a son who asks for his father's inheritance.

He squanders it and he makes himself a slave to a pig farmer, and then realizes he should go and be a slave to his father because at least he would eat better. That is an example of someone who sells himself as a slave.

Why? He needs to make a living and to make a living, he's doing this. And so what you end up seeing is that this passage is talking about people that are fleeing from Israel, returning to Egypt, and what they're doing is they are going to go back to Egypt where they once were in bondage, where they once were slaves, who were their enemies, and they're going to go to them to survive because they can survive in Egypt.

We do know that there was a very large number of people historically of Israelites that fled the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities and fled to Egypt. There was a large Israeli population, Hebrew population within Egypt at those times.

Now, how did many of them get by? They couldn't just go and start up a business. It's not like we do today where you go on the internet and get a job and file for one or start your own business. When you go into a new land, you don't have as many options as we would have in this country today.

What they did is they sold themselves as slaves, literally as the verse states. They sold themselves and there were no buyers. How could you have a slave that has no buyers? Very simple. They sold themselves.

They put themselves in this position because of the simple fact that they knew they needed to stay alive, they needed to make a living, and this is what many people would do in this culture. If they moved into an area because they're fleeing warfare, they would do this very thing.

Now, what you end up doing is seeing that the only way that the Hebrew Israelites can argue their only option is to take the one word ship, literal, and take everything else as figurative. Egypt must mean bondage.

The returning again doesn't mean returning to Egypt. It means returning to bondage, but yet when you ask them, what was the bondage, they'll say in Egypt. So it makes more sense to take all of this literal.

In fact, a simple rule of interpretation with anything is you interpret things that are literal, literally, and figurative things, figuratively. There is nothing in this text to argue that this verse is not all literal, especially within its context when you look at some of the other contexts of prophecies that have already been fulfilled, had been fulfilled already.

So here's the thing. What you end up looking at is that there's nothing to say that the one word ship is literal while the rest is figurative. If Egypt does not mean Egypt, and if selling yourself as a slave, if you not having a buyer doesn't actually mean not having a buyer, then the ships also are not literal and we can make up whatever that means.

Now, let me just take a couple of minutes to explain, because I know that any Hebrew Israelites listening, they are going to argue that I do not know how to read scripture. They're going to say that I'm violating a core principle, that I'm reading the Bible as a novel.

And they want to argue that way based on one verse that they see in Isaiah 28 .10. Now I'm bringing this up only because they're going to do this anytime you see them debate. Anytime you see them on the streets arguing, they are going to say that we have to take the Bible according to Isaiah 28 .10, for precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, hear a little, there a little, they stop there and they say that the way to read the Bible is you take a little bit of here and a little bit of there, and that's how you interpret.

You just pick and choose. Well, if you pick and choose the meanings, if we pick and choose what's going to be literal and what's going to be figurative in this passage that we're looking at in Isaiah 28 .68, if you're going to say the ships are literal, but everything else is figurative, they're going to say that's the only way to properly interpret is that we have to look at it that way.

But that is not a way that anyone understands language. When we look at language, there is means of rules to interpreting language. There's grammar and things like this, and we cannot just pick and choose what we want.

What you see that they are going to do is they're going to start with a conclusion, and when they start with the conclusion, they're then going to look to prove the conclusion. They want this to be that these ships are literal, but the rest of the verse doesn't support it.

So what do they do? They say that that's figurative, that that doesn't actually mean Egypt, and that no man shall buy you doesn't literally mean that, but the word ship means that. There's no way to take this argument and see the way this breaks down and then look at this to say this is the meaning of it, and if you're going to argue that that is the meaning, that the only way to do it is precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, then I'm going to argue that Mark chapter nine, verse three proves that Jesus Christ is white.

How? Because it says there, and his remnant became shining, exceedingly white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them. Now, any Hebrew Israelite that wants to deny that that is saying that it is the, that Jesus is not white, they're going to argue, well, it's his remnant, his clothing.

But I'm going to say that the clothing is figurative, therefore he's white. That's speaking of his skin. That's his remnant. Now you have no argument. You see, the only way you can argue that Jesus is not white based on that verse is to rely on the rules of interpretation, the same rules that I am relying on right now for Deuteronomy 28, 68, to show that this verse has to be taken either completely literal or completely figurative, that this verse, either Egypt is literal, the ships are literal, and no man shall buy you is literal, or it's all figurative.

Therefore the ships do not mean the ships. And now it is no longer a prophecy of the African slave trade. So no matter how you look at it, this is either a prophecy that was fulfilled in history from the Israelites that fled the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions, or this is still not the African slave trade because the ships are not literal anymore, and therefore, sorry, it's still not the African slave trade.

So either this was the Israelites that are the Jews today, and it was fulfilled literally in time already, but this cannot be the African slave trade because the ships would not be literal if Egypt is not literal and no man shall buy you is not literal.

So the reality we see is that this is either all literal or it's all figurative. You cannot argue that Egypt is figurative, no man shall buy you is figurative, but ships are literal. There's no way to argue that.

And if you do argue that way, then you have just lost any way of refuting the fact that I would argue that Jesus would be white based on Mark 9 3 because his remnant, it's not easier to say that his remnant could be his skin rather than his clothes, that's much easier of an argument than you're going to make out of Deuteronomy 29 68.

And so I will concede the rest of my time to our opponent and let him take the floor.

Questions About the Opponents and the Missing Hebrew Israelites

So for a year and a half, we've been challenging the black people and they've been back and, um, so we, today we got all the Hebrew Israelites that was came out of being a keyboard warrior and that was bold enough to show, show, um, show up for the debate and I'll let the Hebrew Israelites introduce themselves, all the Israelites that showed up, that's it.

Here they are. They're everyone that showed up. That's it. Yeah. Just like the verse says the, um, wicked flee when no one is pursuing, but the righteous as bold as a lion, they've been challenging us.

We, we, we've been challenging them for a year and a half. They said they want to debate. Well, when, um, when the debate time comes, this is who shows up.

And, and the only thing we requested of them in this debate was that they would please just be polite and stay on topic. No ad hominem attacks. And this is what we have. And so, uh, you know,.

So I guess, um, because they didn't show up, we'll just, uh, we would have to, um, now move to the, uh, whatever audience questions there is.

Well, I, I, let me, let me do my rebuttal, you know, rebut his, his, his argument. Um, you know, Mr. Hebrew Israelite, you, you, I appreciate you coming in here. Um, so you claim that this is, uh, that you are a, um, a Hebrew Israelite.

Can you trace your line back to, uh, all the way back to, um, you know, to the, you know, to one of the tribes. Oh, oh, you're silent. You have nothing to say. Okay. Well, um, does he, does he have any questions for me?

Nope. I guess not, I guess not there. So, uh, I guess maybe we could take questions. Like you said, let's move to audience questions.

Yeah. I guess, uh, with those rules of, you know, being polite and not using logical fallacies, I guess they have nothing to say.

And, and that's the whole thing that we see here is, is, is that they are, they are, uh, as, as you have seen countless times, they're great at arguing. Um, for, uh, on the streets when they have a mob of people, but they will not come on and debate us here.

You know, Tom, as, as you might remember about a year ago, we had, uh, someone that wanted to, uh, said they were willing to debate us and they, uh, or debate me and have, but we said we wanted to do it on our channel where we could control the number of people coming in.

So it would be a one-on-one debate and that we would control the fact that they wouldn't silence us or me. Um, and they tried to argue, they had a bigger platform than us and therefore we should go to their platform.

And yet when I said, gave the numbers and showed that our platform was actually larger than theirs. The logic would say that then they should come on to our platform, right? Since we're the larger platform and they wanted the bigger audience.

Well, they didn't show. In fact, uh, there was a gentleman, uh, Eric Rice, who was putting, trying to put a debate together recently, like, like Tuesday and these guys didn't show. They just, they wouldn't show up.

And what we ended up seeing there is again, these guys are great at, at, I think you said it, they're keyboard warriors. They are, uh, willing to, to sit and argue behind a keyboard or in a gang group mentality on a street, but they won't come in here and have civil discourse.

Why is that?

The Charge of Racism and the Challenge to Debate

Yeah, I think, uh, at best they have racial stereotypes, conjectures and, uh, logical fallacies and conspiracy theories. It's a, it's a position they hold that is not defendable in a debate.

Yeah. I mean, let's say, let's ask our guest here. Do you have anything you can say for yourself? Nothing. See, they just can't be polite. They got nothing to say. They got no, no rebuttal. So this is legitimate though, folks.

If any of you Hebrew Israelites do want to come on, if you can control yourself and be polite, be respectful to other people, um, if you can stay on topic and not jump all over the Bible, we would love for you to come on and show me where I'm wrong in my interpretation of Deuteronomy 28, 68, there is no way that this verse refers to the African slave trade, absolutely none.

And this is the reality. And there is not a single Hebrew Israelite that can refute that from scripture. That's the point. So, Tom, are there any questions? Uh, any, any Hebrew Israelites come in? Any questions that we got, uh, from anyone in the audience?

Let me see.

Um, well, look, uh, I'll just throw a question there. Going back to ships to Egypt, if Egypt is America, and this is a reference to the transatlantic slave trade, how do they go to a place they never been?

And now that was a question that I had you and you, you had, uh, we're filming. And, uh, just before we left, that was a question that I asked those two guys that night. How could you go back? What were you going back to?

Their argument was you're going back to bondage. And so I asked, where was that bondage? They said Egypt, right? So, so it makes more sense to, uh, to argue that they are, that they're, you're going back to the physical land of Egypt, that bondage wouldn't necessarily be the verse, the, the meaning of, of Egypt in this verse and keep in mind, you know, even if you want to say that bondage and, and there could be some legitimate arguments be made that bondage could be a reference, um, to, or sorry, that Egypt could be a reference to bondage.

That it could be a legitimate argument that it could be a reference, but there is nothing to no way of interpreting. No man shall buy you. There's no way to say that that's an illustration that's figurative or anything else.

Okay. So, um, yeah, if any, if any of the Hebrews likes us watching, you're free to ask any question you want. I just see, I see one question. It says, so Hitler didn't murder Jews. Well, I guess in, in, in, uh, I think that's Donald Jacks, actually.

Well, Donald is a comedian. So yeah, I mean, Donald, the answer would be that they would, they would argue that I am not Jewish. Well, they, they would argue I'm not an Israelite. I'll be more precise.

Um, they, they would believe they would call me a fake Jew. They would say that, uh, the Jews that were murdered by Hitler were fake. They weren't legitimate Israelites. So that would be, that'd be their answer.

If, if there was someone here to actually answer that, but as we see, they couldn't show up. Um, you know, which is kind of interesting from a group that, that, you know, boasts, you know, so pridefully on the street, uh, they're, they claim they're so right, but in a year and a half, where are they come?

Let's, let's discuss this reasonably. Let's stay on topic. Let's look at what the text actually says. The only reason they would avoid it is because they know they can't answer. It's just like, you know, the last week there, there was, it was going to be a two on two debate with Eric and, and these two Hebrew Israelites, then it became a three on three.

And then all of a sudden, you know, I had said from the get go, they're never going to show, you know, they're not going to show. Now there was an, a family emergency and they wanted to postpone it. And all of a sudden all the guys just went, Oh no, we won.

You guys are running scared. And then they, they left the thread so they couldn't, they couldn't set up another date. They were never going to show in the first place, just like here. We opened it up.

We said to there, there were three different people and Tom, Tom, you'll remember this, this happened on your Facebook wall, three different supposed pastors that on your wall said they would come on, they would debate me.

They would discuss this. And what is the result? They blocked me when I asked them, will you, are you willing to not be rude and stay on topic? They blocked me so I could no longer respond to them. And so I couldn't even see the post.

You maybe can still see it today and maybe go back to the thread, drop this here. It'll be the challenge to them. Come on, be, you know, you guys man up and come on here and let's debate this. Let's discuss whether this is actually the case.

You know, we're here, we're not running scared. As the verse that you just quoted, right? The, the, the wicked flee when no one pursues them. Um, they're not willing, they, they, they make bold statements, but they're not willing to come on and actually take the challenge, can you be polite?

Can you, can you actually do a formal debate and can you stay on topic? I guess that's too hard.

Sakari and Other Hebrew Israelite Groups

Um, G220 ministries asks, have you reached out to Sakari to debate? That's a, that's a Hebrews like group, I believe from California, Sakari.

No, if, um, I mean, if, if, uh, and, and G220 ministries, um, is, I'm going to assume that's, that's brother Ricky, uh, who, and he has dealt with them. He has, uh, dealt with them up in, in the Cleveland area.

Um, but if, if you want to reach out and have them, you know, if, if it's someone, you know, that can, that can have a discussion, a debate where, where it's not name calling and ad hominem attacks and, uh, and they can stay on topic, I'm, I'm game for that.

Um, but what, what I often find and, and actually Ricky had, I witnessed this, right, uh, they, they like Ricky cause he's got some red hair. So that somehow means he's, he's closer to an Israelite. Um, but I, there's no way I could be, um, and you know, they just resort to name calling.

Um, and you know, I think it was even in the video you took, Tom, there was, you know, there was, uh, calling out for world war three and, and, uh, the video that, that Ricky, uh, has is they, they were, they were saying, I can't wait for these race wars to start popping was the, was the one kid was kept saying.

And, and this is really what this is about. And this is, this is, you know, where my heart breaks for these folks, because the reality is this, um, these young men, a lot of them are young men, uh, are being, uh, they're being, um, brought into a belief system that is one they wish was true.

It's a, it's very racist. I have the same feeling, uh, toward their racism as I would the KKK. Okay. Uh, it needs, the racism needs to stop. And that's the thing that you, you see, they just, they, they can't seem to do.

Um, you know, and, and that's what I'd like to see. I'd like to see them do that. I'd like to see them actually, you know, be willing to, you know, to just, you know, man up, just come on and, and let's debate.

You know, I see, uh, Donald Jack's made a comment. I self identify as one. I think that that brings a good point as just, um, the absurdity of their claims, just like we've seen genetically, archeologically, historically, and today we've seen biblically, um, they, there's nothing to substantiate that claim that they're the real Israelites.

So how would you answer that? Just believing that there is like, does that make them Israelites?

Well, yeah. I mean, they, they argue it, they argue this not based on logic, not based on Bible, the, the one key verse they have on the Bible, that is the whole thing they rely on just fell apart because there's no way that you can take, uh, Deuteronomy 28, 68 to mean that the African slave trade, like I said, it's once you say that the ships are literal, then the, them selling themselves into slavery, them having no buyer is also literal.

And so that's not the African slave trade that does not describe the African slave trade. And so the only other option you have is to say it's all figurative. And if it's all figurative, now you've just removed the only thing that links this to the African slave trade, which is the ships.

So biblically, no argument, um, genealogy. Can they trace their line back? As I said earlier, there's no way to trace it back. There's no way for them to be able to go back and see the line that they would have to be able to say that their line goes back and I'll say something else that you'll see with these, these folks is they'll say only the, the Hebrew Israelites were enslaved in the African slave trade, and this becomes an interesting argument because when they make that argument, it's really simple what you end up having.

What you have happened is once you have that, now you have a logical dilemma. So you have two brothers, they live in the same house. They had the same parents. One is kidnapped as an African slave trade in this African slave trade, and the other is not.

What do you do now? Now, all of a sudden one is an Israelite and the other isn't. So how could that be? That's it. See, it doesn't even fit logically. So logically they're not Hebrew Israelites biblically.

They're not Hebrew Israelites. Genealogy wise, they cannot prove they're Hebrew Israelites. There is no way that they can say by the, by the melanin in their skin, the amount of melanin is the proof that they are Israelites.

The only way they have it is on this one verse, Deuteronomy 29, 68, to say the one word ships. That's all they got. And once you dismantle that, they have nothing left.

Salvation, Blood Sacrifice, and the Work of Jesus Christ

We have a question from Jenny. The Black Hebrew Israelites say that because I'm Asian and come from the result of Lot having incestuous relations with his daughter, is there any salvation for me?

The, well, I would say, yes, there's salvation for you because it's in Jesus Christ, not your bloodline. And that's the whole thing is that, you know, what you see in the scriptures and you see in the Bible is that Jesus Christ, Almighty God, and by the way, many of the Hebrew Israelites do not believe Jesus was God, but Jesus Christ came to earth to die as a payment of sin because of that, we could be set free, what you see in the scriptures is that God made the sacrifice that would set us free, all people.