[QUOTE="King-Kai"]However, these characters are actually described as Black in the books. For example:

[quote="The Hunger Games"]And most hauntingly, a twelve-year old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that, she's very like Prim in size and demeanor.OrkHammer007

The boy tribute from District 11, Thresh, has the same dark skin as Rue, but the resemblance stops there.The Hunger Games

But... casting was screwed up here, anyway. The actress who plays Katniss should have darker skin, because her character spent most of her time outdoors hunting.

Considering the fact that Suzzane Collins - the author of the books - is American, and the fact that Blacks have a historical presence in America, it is safe to assume that the characters are intended to be Black, not indian. In America, dark brown skin == Black.

The only weird thing about her being black is the fact that her sister, the main character, isn't. It confused the hell out of me.kris9031998

Whose sister? Rue's?

I'm going to work for three hours. I'll be back. Chat among yourselves.

I haven't read the books, so were the characters in them a certain ethnicity or race originally?

Pirate700

Yes, they are. The last two quotes in the OP are from the books. They describe the characters as Black.

In this episode of The Philip Defranco show, Phillip discusses a series of racist comments posted on Twitter by fans of The Hunger Games. Apparently, some fans are disappointed that certain characters were portrayed by Black actors/ actresses. These characters are Rue, Thresh, and Cinnamon. Here are some of the comments:

I know, rue is too black for what I pictured. But Peeta IS nomworthyAbi

I was pumped for the Hunger Games. Until I learned that a black girl was playing RueJohn Knox IV

why did the producer make all of the good characters black smhmari

However, these characters are actually described as Black in the books. For example:

And most hauntingly, a twelve-year old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that, she's very like Prim in size and demeanor.The Hunger Games

The boy tribute from District 11, Thresh, has the same dark skin as Rue, but the resemblance stops there.The Hunger Games

So, what do you think of this OT? Why do people have such a problem with this? Why do people hate Blacks so much? Discuss.

Here's another video on it.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]His education in foreign language is?

LJS9502_basic

What's YOUR education in Hebrew and Greek? NONE. He uses footnotes from various Bible translations/ versions which explain the meaning of certain words. He cites scholars, Christian apologists and theologians, etc. He also cites sources which explain the meaning of Hebrew/ Greek words. He provides lots and lots of evidence. It's not just him spouting conjecture. It's irrefutable evidence. The first video is only ten minutes long, yet you still haven't watched it. Conclusion: You're a coward.

My dude, just watch the darn video. What are you afraid of? It's only ten minutes long. Ten...Minutes...Long. That's nothing. Furthermore, there's is this explanation:

The word means "young maiden" and may be used to refer to a virgin. In ancient Hebrew culture, virgins were often young maidens (i.e. young women who were not married) because women did not lose their virginity until they became married. However, the word does not explicitly mean "virgin". Essentially, all virgins are maidens, but not all maidens are virgins. Hence, the term "maiden" can be used to describe a virgin, but it does not explicitly identify the woman in question as a virgin. This is a fact because there is a distinct Hebrew word for "virgin": Bethulah. Bethuluah LITERALLY means virgin, while almahonly implies the mere possibility of being a virgin.

Source.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Using the Bible in no way means you understand it. And yeah....it is important if you use a youtube video for proof. Anyone can have an opinion but that doesn't mean it's an educated opinion. To understand the bible you have to understand the culture and the language. The word you used I'm assuming you got from this dude's videos....and it took me less than 5 seconds to figure out that argument was 100% wrong. Less than 5 seconds. How good of a source do you really think he is? Because he has zero credibility with me when it's that easy to refute his opinion.

LJS9502_basic

My dude, these aren't just opinions. He can literally show you a verse in one of the Gospels that (supposedly) references a passage in the OT as the basis for a claim and then show you one of the following:

• The passage referenced has been LITERALLY reworded/ altered.
• Taken out of context.
• Taken from only part of a sentence.
• DOES NOT EXIST!

Refusal to recognize the arguments simply because they're from YouTube video is an Ad-Hominem (i.e. because they're from YouTube videos, they must be wrong). This is a fallacy. I think you're afraid of the truth. By now, you could have at least watched the first video; it's only ten minutes long.

What's YOUR education in Hebrew and Greek? NONE. He uses footnotes from various Bible translations/ versions which explain the meaning of certain words. He cites scholars, Christian apologists and theologians, etc. He also cites sources which explain the meaning of Hebrew/ Greek words. He provides lots and lots of evidence. It's not just him spouting conjecture. It's irrefutable evidence. The first video is only ten minutes long, yet you still haven't watched it. Conclusion: You're a coward.

Using the Bible in no way means you understand it. And yeah....it is important if you use a youtube video for proof. Anyone can have an opinion but that doesn't mean it's an educated opinion. To understand the bible you have to understand the culture and the language. The word you used I'm assuming you got from this dude's videos....and it took me less than 5 seconds to figure out that argument was 100% wrong. Less than 5 seconds. How good of a source do you really think he is? Because he has zero credibility with me when it's that easy to refute his opinion.

LJS9502_basic

My dude, these aren't just opinions. He can literally show you a verse in one of the Gospels that (supposedly) references a passage in the OT as the basis for a claim and then show you one of the following:

• The passage referenced has been LITERALLY reworded/ altered.
• Taken out of context.
• Taken from only part of a sentence.
• DOES NOT EXIST!

Refusal to recognize the arguments simply because they're from YouTube video is an Ad-Hominem (i.e. because they're from YouTube videos, they must be wrong). This is a fallacy. I think you're afraid of the truth. By now, you could have at least watched the first video; it's only ten minutes long.

EDIT:

The word means "young maiden" and may be used to refer to a virgin. In ancient Hebrew culture, virgins were often young maidens (i.e. young women who were not married) because women did not lose their virginity until they became married. However, the word does not explicitly mean "virgin". Essentially, all virgins are maidens, but not all maidens are virgins. Hence, the term "maiden" can be used to describe a virgin, but it does not explicitly identify the woman in question as a virgin.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Are you kidding a youtube video?LJS9502_basic

My dude, it doesn't matter if it's a YouTube video. What matters is what's being said. He uses the the Bible itself, along with reason/ logic to explain things. Just be objective and watch the portion of the video concerning the so-called Virgin Birth. If you're really objective, you'd watch the entire video series and verify what he says for yourself, which you should be able to do if you have a Bible. If not, then you're simply willfully ignorant.

Fail. Who cares if anyone can create a YouTube video? I just told you that the dude uses the actual Bible to support all of his claims. Just watch the darn video and the others in the series and you can see for yourself. There are all sorts of references to "prophecies" that aren't even in the Old Testament. There are references that are altered/ reworded because Jesus does not fit the description of the passages in their original wording. There are passages taken out of context and used as supposed messianic prophecies. There are even fragments of sentences taken out of context. As I said, if you're a trully objective individual, you will watch the video. If you don't, then you're simply afraid that what you'll learn will crush the foundation of your faith. But, as the Hodge Twins say, you can do whatever the f*ck you wanna' do. It's your life. I'm just trying to free you from a system of mental slavery.

It's a five part series of videos.. Each video is very in-depth.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Are you kidding a youtube video?mindstorm

My dude, it doesn't matter if it's a YouTube video. What matters is what's being said. He uses the the Bible itself, along with reason/ logic to explain things. Just be objective and watch the portion of the video concerning the so-called Virgin Birth. If you're really objective, you'd watch the entire video series and verify what he says for yourself, which you should be able to do if you have a Bible. If not, then you're simply willfully ignorant.

The word means "young maiden" and may be used to refer to a virgin. In ancient Hebrew culture, virgins were often young maidens (i.e. young women who were not married) because women did not lose their virginity until they became married. However, the word does not explicitly mean "virgin". Essentially, all virgins are maidens, but not all maidens are virgins. Hence, the term "maiden" can be used to describe a virgin, but it does not explicitly identify the woman in question as a virgin.

Anyhow, like I said, you should watch the ENTIRE video series. There are simply too many errors that can't be swept under the rug.