Now before anyone gets triggered, I'd like to state that I'm black myself which is why I've brought this up because I have been HAUNTED by this doctrine for over 10 years. I understand this is a sensitive subjected but I absolutely need COMMUNITY-wide support and guidance on this subject. I don't know were else I can discuss but I NEED to discuss with you guys. This is not something I can just talk about in DM's.
Someone recently linked me this video below. The Creator of the video tries to use numbers 25 as an example of the Leviticus rules were those who lie down with the beast must be slain but he completely ignores the fact that israelites in numbers were slain not necessarily because they fornicated with the foreign moabite women but because they worshipped baalpeor even though ruth was moab (They've even gone as far as to argue Ruth was not moabite by blood) and that god only had so much animosity towards the moabites towards their idolatry and actions towards the israelites . Also, He uses the Israelite woman and midianite woman as an example but ignores the fact that Moses married a midianite woman and, in fact, was punished for having a problem with this. Alongside that fact, Where is the proof that any of these tribes were even black? Then there's also the verses in Exodus where he mentions that the verses referring to animals could've only been referring to bipedal creatures, not quadrupeds. He also states the verse in Leviticus that the Beast being slain alongside the man/woman for lying together could only happen because the beast felt guilt for what it had done.
One problem with things like this is that they are silly enough that it feels like giving attention is actually counterproductive... not to mention the amount of time it takes to actually respond to it that could perhaps be spent on other things. But correcting error isn't a bad thing, so I'll give it a whirl.
A bit confusingly, you say "the video" but then show three videos. I will be primarily focusing on the first. Unfortunately, it is overloaded with padding and takes a while to even get to its point--the whole thing could have been done in 1/2 or even 1/3 of the time it takes, and its presentation isn't very great. But essentially, its argument is concerning the Hebrew word
behemah, which is translated as beast in older translations like the KJV, but as animal in more modern ones (this shift came about due to a shift in meaning of the words; beast previously was used in English to refer to animals in general, but in modern English is normally used to just refer to large or dangerous animals). But the video's argument is that behemah includes black people (possibly all non-whites, but blacks are the ones in focus). Well, it actually avoids
explicitly saying saying that is its conclusion, but the video leaves it blatantly clear that is the conclusion it wants you to reach.
It's not quite clear if it's saying that behemah (which I will mostly just use the term "beast" to describe going forward) exclusively applies to blacks or if they're just one of the groups that fall under it. If it is claiming it means exclusively them, then that makes total nonsense out of something like Deuteronomy 14:4-5, which when listing beasts they are allowed to eat, mentions the ox, sheep, goat, and more. Obviously this word includes animals. If, however, it is saying that non-white people are included in that word, but not the only members, then a number of arguments seem to make less sense (for example, when it argues that it doesn't work to refer to animals in a particular verse because the verse suggests the animals are intelligent, that collapses because if animals are included under the term beast then you still end up with the problem that it's talking about those animals).
So let's take a look at its arguments. First it appeals to things like Exodus 9:9 which mentions the beasts (behemah) suffering from boils or Exodus 11:5-7 mentioning the firstborn of the beasts dying. However, it asserts that the word beast here cannot refer to animals, because the cattle ("livestock" is probably a better term) of the Egyptians had already died as specified in Exodus 9:6.
But this brings up a major problem: As was specified in Exodus 9:3, the livestock was "on your [Egypt's] livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks." So this includes horses that were killed. But the Egyptians have horses in Exodus 14:9, when they're pursuing the Israelites!
Some have used this to try to attack the Bible on this basis by saying it's inconsistent on this point (to have the horses die but then for the Egyptians to have them), but there are several explanations,
as seen at this link. Exodus 9:3 specifies "in the field" which could indicate that all those that were not on the field at the time, like those in stables, were spared. Alternatively, Exodus never states the plagues all happened immediately after one another, meaning they could have occurred over a larger span of time, and Egypt could have replenished its animals in the intervening period. Or maybe the Egyptians just took animals from the Israelites, as those of the Israelites survived.
Any of these explanations, and possibly others, will explain where Egypt's horses come from, as well as explaining the boils on the beasts or their firstborn dying. But the explanation from the video, that it's because the beasts were blacks,
doesn't solve this question. It offers no explanation for where Pharaoh's horses are from! Its whole argument is
based on all of the Egyptian horses dying, along with the rest of their livestock! Any explanation it could offer for how the Egyptians got the horses back--such as the ones I mentioned, namely that the Egyptians took them from the Israelites, took them from another country, or that it wasn't every livestock of theirs that perished--undercuts its entire argument that it isn't talking about animals when it says beasts!
So much for that claim, then. We move on to its next claim, which is to appeal to Exodus 19:13 and say that it has the Israelites and beasts being told not to touch the mountain with their hands (odd it only cites Exodus 9:13 when the actual command is in Exodus 19:12), telling the viewer to note that it was not telling the beasts not to touch the mountains with their paws or hooves, and that animals wouldn't understand what Moses was talking about, so the beasts understood simple directions and had hands.
So, first, Exodus 19:12-13 for context:
12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: 13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount."
(normally I avoid using the KJV and use more modern translations, but due to the emphasis on "beast" I will use the KJV as it renders the word as such)
As we can see, this assertion of theirs is nonsensical. It says not to touch the mountain in Exodus 19:12, but does NOT say anything about touching with hands at all (I
checked the Hebrew to be sure). The only mention of hands occurs in Exodus 19:13, where it says no one's hand should touch the animal or person who touched the mountain, and they should therefore be killed from a distance (stoning or being shot through). But this reference to hands is only in regards to how the Israelites, when killing the animal or person who touched the mountain, should do it in a way that does not require them to actually touch them. The word "hand" is not here being used to refer to the beasts. As for the claim that it would be silly for Moses to go around telling animals this when they couldn't understand, it
doesn't say Moses told animals this. Animals belonged to the people and thus by telling the people to do this, they would be trying to keep their animals away. There is no reason to posit the idea that animals would need to understand this.
It then claims that because Leviticus 20:15-16 ("15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them") says the beast is to be put to death, that means the beast knew what it was doing was wrong. I would say that on the face of it this is a silly conclusion, because animals are killed for all kinds of reasons beyond them doing something wrong (such as eating them). But this can be disproved by another Bible verse, namely Exodus 21:28-29:
"28 Now if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall certainly be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. 29 If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. "
(NASB; previously citations used the KJV, but for clarity I used the NASB here)
If an ox kills a human, then the ox is put to death. This poses a major problem for the Leviticus 20:15-16 interpretation offered. If the person who offers that interpretation claims the ox knew what it was doing was wrong, it negates its argument about the Leviticus passage because an animal can know what it is doing is wrong. But if they instead claim that the ox
didn't know it was wrong, then that also negates its argument about the Leviticus passage because here we have an animal being killed despite not knowing what it was doing was wrong..
It then puts forward the claim that an example of them killing over the prohibition on having sexual relations with a beast is in Numbers 25. This, like so many of the rest of it, is baffling. Numbers 25 gives no indication whatsoever that it has
anything to do with Leviticus 20:15-16; the video just asserts this with no evidence. Numbers 25 was rather about about idolatry being brought into the Israelites by pagan women, as just reading the thing will clearly show you. Though it seems you already recognized that.
Finally, it offers the interpretation of Jeremiah 31:27 claiming that it says in the last days, the beasts will be mixing their seed with with that of man, and that therefore the seed of the beasts can be mixed with that of Israelite (again, without explicitly saying it but making it clear from context, it is trying to claim this refers to interracial relationships). This, however, seems a bizarre interpretation of Jeremiah 31:27, which, while mentioning the seed (presumably referring to offspring) of humans and beasts, says
nothing about them mixing; indeed, the fact it says "seed of man" and "seed of beasts"
separately (rather than "seed of man and beasts") seems to only be enforcing that fact. Even worse for the video's argument, Jeremiah 31:27 appears to be talking about what it regards as a
positive development, talking about how while God previously tore down Israel and Judah for wrongdoing, God will watch over them again and Isreal and Judah will be rebuilt. So rather than some kind of thing to be cautious of, Jeremiah 31:27 appears to be talking about how Israel and Judah will again be sown with animals and humans as a
reversal of their previous misfortunes.
And so, every single one of these arguments appears to fail quite badly when examined, with some failing so miserably it's the sort of thing that makes you wonder if you should be listening to the arguer at all, if they're going to claim something so stupid.
This concludes the first video. The second video is not about race at all, but is about someone trying to find the existence of Bigfoot in the Bible, and appealing to Jonah for evidence (this will be discussed shortly). The third one is too long for me to bother looking through, but a glance through an automated transcript of it indicates it's using the same basic arguments as the first one, and also mentions the Jonah reference (which will again be discussed shortly). There might be some new things there, but it's not worth my time to try to hunt them down, especially given how bad the ones already discussed were.
However, What does urk me is the shevya/brute beast verses and the jonah verses that I've seen them used before: "8Furthermore, let both man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and have everyone call out earnestly to God. Let each one turn from his evil ways and from the violence in his hands." For example, What kind of animal calls out earnestly to god or turns evil away from his hand, Am I just to assume that this part is referring to man only?
I think you may have gotten a bit confused. The first video lists several words in the Old Testament that are used to refer to animals (or "beasts" as it says), namely
behemah,
beir, and
cheva (or chevah), though the video spells them all differently (e.g. "shevya" instead of "cheva"); not sure if it's a different Hebrew romanization process (there are, admittedly, a number of them). But the thing is, not a single example it used was cheva (every instance of that word is found in the Book of Daniel), but it instead it constructed its argument based on "behemah", which I already covered. Of course, it's partially the video's own fault for not making this clear at all.
You do, however, here bring up an argument not from that first video, namely the Jonah verse (Jonah 3:8). And so the question, as you say, is how an animal can do such things. Before anything else, we should note that the context of this is that this is part of a
proclamation by the King of Nineveh. In other words, this is (presumably) his words, and maybe he just phrased things a bit confusedly. Anytime someone
says something out loud in the Bible, its validity must be construed only in the context of the speaker. This wasn't a decree from God or anything, it was a decree from the king, and maybe he just phrased things a little poorly.
But even if we were to ignore that fact, there are two interpretations that solve the problem. One is that the portion about calling out earnestly to God and turning from evil ways and violence in their hands is only humans. The other is that it does still involve the beasts, but this does not mean they cannot be regular animals. Joel 1:18-20 refers to animals groaning out and crying to God--and while it uses behemah here, the context shows it must be involving actual animals, or else the specification of cattle and sheep make no sense. In regards to the turning from evil and from violence, as domestic animals do what their owners tell them to, this would be them turning away from evil because their owners are not telling them to do those anymore. As for the mention of hands, as noted this can refer to paws of animals, but much like how the English word "hand" can be used in a metaphorical sense and not referring to literal hands, so it can in Hebrew. And it should be noted that the word for hand here,
kaph, is used in Leviticus 11:27 to clearly refer to paws; there is no plausible argument I can think of against the idea that this is referring to four-legged animals in Leviticus 11:27 (given the fact, you know, it
says it's referring to animals that go around on all fours), so this word
can refer to paws.
And that seems to just about wrap it all up. The idea that in these passages "beast" (behemah) isn't referring to animals but rather non-white humans doesn't make much sense at all, and as far as I can tell is an idea that only came about in the 20th century as a way for white supremacists to try to find a biblical basis for their beliefs.
