Science Meets The Bible: The Garden of Eden Discovered In East Africa by Gert Muller, Pomegranate Publishers, 2011
Science teaches that modern humans originated in East Africa and spread from there to the rest of the world. The Bible teaches that humans originated in the Garden of Eden and spread from there to the rest of the world. It is almost universally assumed that, in terms of location of origins, these versions are in conflict. For the first time a book challenges this assumption by referring to the relevant verses of Genesis which give the names of the lands just outside Eden and the rivers flowing through them. The Table of the Nations in Genesis is then called upon to confirm the location of these lands, two of which are in the neighbourhood of Cush in East Africa. The results are confirmed by extra-Biblical Jewish tradition such as the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch.
They are also confirmed, surprisingly, by Egyptian sacred texts such as the Book of the Dead, the Book of AmTuat and the Book of Gates. These books locate the Egyptian afterlife paradise in the Tuat or Netherworld. The geography of the Tuat turns out to be based on the lakes, mountains, mammals and birds of East Africa and not Egypt as generally assumed. Influences are traced, by the author, from Central Sudan and Upper Nubia into Lower Nubia and then Upper Egypt during the predynastic brought by the Followers of Horus. Egyptian kingship and the white crown are amongst the influences that the author postulates as coming from Central Sudan.
Every chapter reveals new and unique discoveries that will leave the reader with a completely revolutionary understanding of the origins of Egyptian civilisation and the Bible.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never understood why this line gets so little attention;
10. Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere--this was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah--like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar.
It's from Genesis 13 and implies that the garden might be in Egypt.
It's also a surprise that people don't seem to take the Bible seriously where it says a spray or mist arose from the ground and watered the earth. It's highly improbable that there's any spot on the earth that has ever been the headwaters of four rivers but the ancients knew about and talked about the hydraulic cycle where water evaporated forming clouds and the water fell from them making rivers that flowed to the sea and repeated itself.
1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus...
...1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water; 1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;
The clouds are obviously the coils of Nehebkau who is the "go-between" God since he is water in its vaporous form.
Since they know this it would follow that mist rising from the ground and evaporating could be the headwaters of four rivers as it blew on the winds. All these rivers are downwind from Egypt.
I don't really know where the Garden of Eden was but I believe I know the exact place in Egypt where the Egyptians said water ascended to heaven.
Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you should read that book. Its been obvious to most for years that Eden was in East Africa.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right. It should be obvious that the Garden of Eden was in East Africa where science tells us anatomically modern humans first arose. However it's another thing to use Genesis to demonstrate the East African location of Eden using all the main details. Have you read the book? If so what do you think of it?
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I am about 30% done with it. The Scientific evidence in the beginning is somewhat light. Wish it was more evidence heavy. Its a short read though.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I read only the free version in the link. Just part of a chapter. It looks pretty good but it's hard to tell from so little. The author seems pretty good and the writing style is easy to follow.
As I see it there are precious few clues and their number is open to interpretation. That this garden existed near or at the origin of the race is a good argument but not convincing. We need to remember that with so little evidence we can't even rule out the possibility that the garden is pure myth.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting because Muller does not say that the garden of Eden was real, only that the description of Cush and Havilah being in the vicinity mean it was in East Africa. Even mythical places can have real-world locations.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is better? to laugh or to read and then judge? The equation in Science Meets The Bible is Eden with Punt. One is the garden of God while the other is God's Land, a clear parallel. The directions given to reach the Garden of Eden in the Book of Jubilees take us to Ethiopia. So does the search for Punt. Remember the article about baboon hairs from Punt being similar to ones from Eastern Ethiopia and Eritrea. Eden does not equal Cush but is in the same region. If one reads the book they will have all the facts.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. -Genesis 2:8
Of course, there is always wiggling room to ignore the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the fact that most instances of ''Cush'' refer (South)West Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates, because technically, the Horn is East of Israel, just like New York is technically East of Costa Rica, and how Europe is technically North of South America.
posted
Funny. Just before I saw your post I saw this at Amazon.com discussions. The Lord works in mysterious ways:
"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium[bdolach] and onyx [shoham] stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia [Cush]. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth towards the east of Assyria [Asshur]. And the fourth is Euphrates [Parat]" Genesis 2: 10-14
Hiddekel and Euphrates seem to imply Iraq but Pausanias says:
"Further, there is a story that the Nile itself is the Euphrates, which disappears into a marsh, rises again beyond Aethiopia and becomes the Nile." Description of Greece Book II, 5, 3 by Pausanias (2nd century AD).
So a reference to the Euphrates does not exclude an Ethiopian location AND is consistent with the previous two verses of Genesis 2. Haddakel and Parat are more likely to be branches of the Ethiopian Nile.
Diodorus then says:
"Now the Ethiopians, as historians relate, were the first of all men and proofs of this statement, they say, are manifest. For that they did not come into their land as immigrants from abroad but were natives of it and so justly bear the name "autocthones" [ie "sprung from the] is, they maintain, conceded by practically all men; furthermore those that dwell beneath the noon day sun were, in all liklihood the first to be generated by the earth, is clear to all..." Library of History Book 3, 2 by Diodorus of Scicily
The idea that Ethiopia was the birthplace of humanity was not confined to Genesis but occurs there earlier than it does in the classical world. Food for thought.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of your sources are Hebrew sources. The time when the biblical concept of Cush was similar to the Greek concept of Aethiopia was long gone in the time of Diodorus and Pausanias, who mostly knew of Aethiopia in the restricted, Sudani sense:
quote:"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients."
-Strabo
Strabo knew that, by his time, the concept 'Aethiopian' had shifted to almost exclusively refer to localities in Sudan, which is where we get these rather forced explanations of Genesis 2:10 being a description of a locality somewhere along the Nile.
The rivers that flowed through the ''land of Cush'' and the ''land of Havilah'' do not refer to localities in Africa, and certainly not Abyssinia. Havilah (one of the regions with which Eden shared a river) was at the same lattitude as Egypt, and intermediate between Egypt and Shur to Havila's West, and Assyria to Havila's East, see Genesis 25:18. That whole verse is meant to describe the location of the Ismaelites (between Shur and Havilah), which again, speaks against an African location. Everything about those passages indicates Havilah was a locality somewhere in Northeastern Arabia, and near the Euphrates, exactly how it is described in Genesis 2:10.
Additionally, Southern parts of the Arabian peninsula and the Horn were obviously to the South, see Matthew 12:42, not to the East of the Hebrews.
The garden of Eden, on the other hand, was to the East of the Hebrews, as I've demonstrated earlier.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet: "and the fact that most instances of ''Cush'' refer (South)West Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates,"
Goredema's response: Jewish Heritage Online Magazine tells us: "Although there are other biblical associations, Cush generally refers in the bible to Nubia, a region south of Egypt corresponding roughly to present-day Nilotic Sudan. If this is the case here too, then Pishon and Gihon maybe terms of the Blue Nile and White Nile". http:www.jhom.com/topics/rivers/Eden.htm
In other words Muller has already taken your arguement into account. I notice you did not include a reference for your assertion about Cush mainly referring to SW Asia.
JHOM quote taken from Science Meets The Bible: The Garden of Eden Discovered in East Africa by Gert Muller, Pomegranate Publishers, 2011
Swenet:'quote:"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." -Strabo'
Goredema's response: How did Strabo know what the "meaning of the ancients" would have been? He had read historical literature such as Homer and says so himself. Anyone in his day who conducted similar research would have known this too. The same goes for scholars who came after Strabo who were scholars of history/geography. Those who were not scholars of history/geography were the ones who needed telling about the ancient meaning of Ethiopia. Judging by the titles of the quoted books of Diodorus and Pausanias in my previous post they were quite familiar with history/geography and therefore with the ancient concept of Ethiopia. So when Diodorus says "Ethiopians were the first of all men" and are referring to places far to the south of Egypt it is not because they are confusing these places for SW Asiatic locations. When Pausanias says there is a tradition of the Euphrates emerging from mountains "beyond Ethiopia" he means places far to the south of Egypt and is not confusing it for SW Asiatic locations. In conclusion then the quotations from Diodorus and Pausanias strongly support the East African location for the latter two rivers of Genesis 2 that is strongly implied by the first two rivers.
Sewnet said: "The rivers that flowed through the ''land of Cush'' and the ''land of Havilah'' do not refer to localities in Africa, and certainly not Abyssinia. Havilah (one of the regions with which Eden shared a river) was at the same lattitude as Egypt, and intermediate between Egypt and Shur to Havila's West, and Assyria to Havila's East, see Genesis 25:18. That whole verse is meant to describe the location of the Ismaelites (between Shur and Havilah), which again, speaks against an African location. Everything about those passages indicates Havilah was a locality somewhere in Northeastern Arabia, and near the Euphrates, exactly how it is described in Genesis 2:10."
Goredema's response: Funny you should say that because earlier today I was reading Muller's book and he said the following:
"There are two Havilahs in Genesis. One can be found in Genesis 26:30 where he is one of the thirteen sons of Joktan including a Sheba and an Ophir amongst them. These thirteen sons of Joktan dwelt 'from Mesha to Sephar in the eastern hill country'. In Genesis 25:18 the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael are described as occupying land from 'Havilah unto Shur that is before Egypt, as thou goest to Assyria'. This seems like the Havilah of Joktan. In Samuel 15:7 we are told king Saul of Israel wiped out and the Amelekites who dwelt from 'Havilah to Shur as thou comest against Egypt'. This again seems to be the same Havilah of Joktan and located in Arabia. The Havilah that concerns the Eden narrative, however, is the 'son of Cush'. The only Biblical verse that describes the location of this Havilah is the one mentioning the River Pison flowing through this land and a counterpart to the River Gihon flowing through Cush. Already-used logic strongly suggests that Havilah will be in the neighbourhood of Cush. Some other authors are clearly thinking along the same lines as the following excerpt shows: 'The Bible says that the River Pishon encompassed all the land of "Havilah". Havilah is the name of one of the sons of Cush, who probabaly settled near his family of origin...Although the names Pishon and Gihon have been lost in antiquity, the biblical references strongly suggest that these Edenic rivers were indeed the same rivers that flow through present-day Sudan'."
Taken from Muller(2011)Chapter 2: The Lands Outside Eden.
Muller concludes that the Arabian Havilah in the Bible is intended to be descended from Shem while the African Havilah is intended to be descended from Ham's eldest son. It makes perfect sense. Muller says:
"So Ethiopia [Cush], Egypt [Mizraim], Libya [Phut] and Canaan were, according to the Hebrews, descended from Ham [these are the sons of Ham in Genesis 10:6]. All these countries progressively border each other. Three of them are African, representing large tracts of land, but one represents a small tract of land in the part of Asia closest to Africa. It is as if this tract of land, Canaan, was considered a part of Africa. We can therefore conclude that Ham in Genesis refers to the African group of hot countries." Muller (2011), Chapter 2
With this in mind we move to the next verse Genesis 10:7 where Havilah is a 'son of Cush':
"And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan".
Cush is the father of Havilah in these verses so when we read of a land of Cush adjascent to a land of Havilah with noteable rivers we have EVERY reason to think of the rivers and lands of the Sudan-Ethiopia region. Muller also links ALL the sons of Cush with African territories in that same region. He also says those near the East African coast form a mirror of sorts with the tribes of Arabia descended from Shem because Sheba, Dedan and Havilah also occur in Western Arabia. The Arabian Dedan also has a son called Asshurim opening up the real possibility that the East African Dedan, whose sons are not given, may have been thought to have had a mirror Asshur in East Africa. This then would be the Asshur which had the River Hadakkel flowing to it's east. Muller even identifies Haddakel with the Tekezze because the etymology of one is the characteristic of the other.
Anyway that's enough. I think I've shown that Muller includes ALL the evidence, for and against before making his arguement.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. -Genesis 2:8
Of course, there is always wiggling room to ignore the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the fact that most instances of ''Cush'' refer (South)West Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates, because technically, the Horn is East of Israel, just like New York is technically East of Costa Rica, and how Europe is technically North of South America.
You make an interesting point, though I recall Takruri pointing out that the ancient Israelite's concept of directions are different. Standing in the center they face east, which could be their 'north'. Their right hand to their 'east' is south, the their left hand to their 'west' is north and behind them is their 'south' or west. Takruri or someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Though I should point out that several scholars like Rawlinson and others have stated the original Hebrew homeland and thus 'Eden' was located in our direction of 'east' indeed and located the garden either in Iran or Pakistan.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Goredema: Jewish Heritage Online Magazine tells us: "Although there are other biblical associations, Cush generally refers in the bible to Nubia, a region south of Egypt corresponding roughly to present-day Nilotic Sudan. If this is the case here too, then Pishon and Gihon maybe terms of the Blue Nile and White Nile".
Whenever Cush is mentioned as a polity in the bible, or as a military aid of Israel, it often refers Sudani entities, but nothing points to Abyssinians or Somali’s. Cush is not used to denote a centralized polity in Genesis 2:10.
quote:In other words Muller has already taken your arguement into account.
How? And what argument exactly? He says Pishon could have been in Africa, and I say it couldn’t have been in Africa, because the region it watered was sandwiched in between Shur and Assyria. With Pishon not being in Africa, the whole theory implodes. Muller could not have taken anything I’ve said into account, if I’ve just demonstrated that Pishon was a West Asian river. Hiddikel doesn’t even need explanation, as the bible associates it with a familiar name in West Asia. Posting Greek sources that speculate that the Euphrates could have been the Nile is contradicted by the biblical passages that locate it East of Israel.
quote:I notice you did not include a reference for your assertion about Cush mainly referring to SW Asia.
You can start with Genesis 2:10. If the land of Cush itself was encircled by a river that, like the three other rivers, passed through Eden, the land of Cush that is being referred to, had to be in Asia, don’t you think? There is no river in Northeast Africa that encircles Northern Sudan, which connects to land (Eden) which in turn connects with West Asian rivers.
quote:So when Diodorus says "Ethiopians were the first of all men" and are referring to places far to the south of Egypt it is not because they are confusing these places for SW Asiatic locations. When Pausanias says there is a tradition of the Euphrates emerging from mountains "beyond Ethiopia" he means places far to the south of Egypt and is not confusing it for SW Asiatic locations.
You know what, never mind my Strabo quote. I didn’t read it properly, and so I missed that Diodorus was talking about the Euphrates, rather than the Cushite associated Pishon or Gihon rivers. Just a thought: wouldn’t you need biblical passages to demonstrate where the Hebrews themselves placed a river they wrote about? What good is Diodorus’ hearsay, in matters that involve Hebrew views of the lands around them?
quote:"There are two Havilahs in Genesis. One can be found in Genesis 26:30 where he is one of the thirteen sons of Joktan including a Sheba and an Ophir amongst them. These thirteen sons of Joktan dwelt 'from Mesha to Sephar in the eastern hill country'. In Genesis 25:18 the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael are described as occupying land from 'Havilah unto Shur that is before Egypt, as thou goest to Assyria'. This seems like the Havilah of Joktan. In Samuel 15:7 we are told king Saul of Israel wiped out and the Amelekites who dwelt from 'Havilah to Shur as thou comest against Egypt'. This again seems to be the same Havilah of Joktan and located in Arabia.
No proof, only conjecture. First off, Genesis 2:10 doesn’t detail which Havilah is being mentioned, which renders any attempt to associate it with either lineage questionable. Secondly, the bible never says there is such a thing as an African Havilah; the same evidence would be consistent with both Havilahs being in Arabia.
Muller’s desire to arbitrarily place one in Arabia and one in Africa, simply because there are two patriarchs with the same name highlights his bias.
The occurrence of Hametic tribes being put in Semetic lineages (or the other way around) is not unique; we see the same thing happening in the bible with Midian, Babylon and other Sumerian city-states. The what or why’s are irrelevant, the point is, nobody in his right mind would seek a Sudani location for Mesopotamian city states, or Midian, just because they sometimes appear to be associated with different lineages. Regardless of the equivocality 'Havilah' in Gen 2:10, Josephus identified him and all the other sons of Cush with Arabian tribes that were well known in his time.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. -Genesis 2:8
Of course, there is always wiggling room to ignore the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the fact that most instances of ''Cush'' refer (South)West Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates, because technically, the Horn is East of Israel, just like New York is technically East of Costa Rica, and how Europe is technically North of South America.
You make an interesting point, though I recall Takruri pointing out that the ancient Israelite's concept of directions are different. Standing in the center they face east, which could be their 'north'. Their right hand to their 'east' is south, the their left hand to their 'west' is north and behind them is their 'south' or west. Takruri or someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Though I should point out that several scholars like Rawlinson and others have stated the original Hebrew homeland and thus 'Eden' was located in our direction of 'east' indeed and located the garden either in Iran or Pakistan.
You're right, it was indeed different. For all practical purposes though, it doesn't matter much what cardinal points they applied to the four main directions. Their cardinal direction that pointed to Assyria (whatever it was, West, North, South), is what we call 'East' today. Same with Egypt. Whenever Egyptians allude in their texts to their worldview of Sudan being in the North, Egyptologists translate that word as 'South'.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet: "Whenever Cush is mentioned as a polity in the bible, or as a military aid of Israel, it often refers Sudani entities, but nothing points to Abyssinians or Somali’s".
Goredema's response: I have never said Cush in the Bible refers to Somalis or Abyssinians. The quote refers to "Nubia" and "Nilotic Sudan" and it is this JHOM quote that you are responding to. So where did you get Somalis and Abyssinians from? In Genesis 2 Cush is not Eden but is in the region of Eden. You mention a red herring.
Cush is not used to denote a centralized polity in Genesis 2:10.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sewnet: "Cush is not used to denote a centralized polity in Genesis 2:10".
Goredema's response: The only reason these lands are mentioned is to give the reader some idea of where the rivers were using nations known to the Hebrews in the 7th century BC when Genesis was written. Cush was known to the whole world at that time so I have no reason not to believe Genesis was referring to Cush in Sudan. The fact that there was no polity called Cush during the time of Adam in the Genesis story is irrelevant.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Swenet said previously: "and the fact that most instances of ''Cush'' refer (South)West Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates,"
Goredema now: After reading this I responded by using the JHOM quote from Mullers book to show that the primary use of Cush in the Bible is for an African nation and that your words are FALSE. Muller quoted this with the purpose of identifying the Cush of the Bible using sources from Judaism. Therefore he had taken the possibility of anyone trying to claim that Cush does not refer to an African nation into account. That is what I meant by the words below:
"In other words Muller has already taken your" arguement into account.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet said: "He says Pishon could have been in Africa, and I say it couldn’t have been in Africa, because the region it watered was sandwiched in between Shur and Assyria".
Goredema's response: There's nowhere in Genesis 2 where Shur is mentioned. You're ASSUMING that the land of Havilah mentioned in connection with the Ishmaelites in Genesis 25:18 is the same one as that of Genesis 2. Muller says this Havilah is more likely to be named after Havilah, one of the thirteen sons of Joktan who dwelt in Arabia given in Genesis 26:30. By mentioning Shur you have introduced something that is not in the Genesis 2 narrative.
Swenet said: "With Pishon not being in Africa, the whole theory implodes".
Goredema says: You haven't demonstrated anything and nothing has imploded.
Swenet said: "Muller could not have taken anything I’ve said into account, if I’ve just demonstrated that Pishon was a West Asian river".
Goredema's says: Muller has quoted ALL the Bible quotes you suggested me to read in order to show me Pishon was West Asiatic. He anticipated you. He obviously saw you coming from a mile off.
Swenet said: "Hiddikel doesn’t even need explanation, as the bible associates it with a familiar name in West Asia".
Goredema's response: As I've already said Hiddekel is a descriptive etymology. Josephus gives an etymology of the river and links it with the Tigris. But any river having the characteristic described in the etymology can be descibed as Hiddekel. Rather in the same way you now say Cush elsewhere in the Bible mainly refers to a Sudani polity (having previously said it mostly refers to places in SW Asia) but in Genesis it refers a different territory Muller says Hiddekel in Genesis 2 refers to a different river to the one mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. The difference is he is backing up what is clearly a secondary interpretation with a whole book of evidence. Where's your book?
(Muller's philososphy is that primary interpretations should be used unless there is compelling evidence to adopt a secondary interpretation).
Swenet said: "Posting Greek sources that speculate that the Euphrates could have been the Nile is contradicted by the biblical passages that locate it East of Israel".
Goredema's response: Muller does not say anywhere that Hiddekel in the Bible always refers to a river in Ethiopia. He says it refers to the Tigris but that in Genesis 2 it does NOT. So verses outside of Genesis 2 which clearly identify Hiddekel as the Tigris do not contradict this. The Greek source was quoted by Muller to show that in antiquity the rivers were thought by some to be connected to the Nile and this might explain why the rivers would be mentioned along with Gihon and Pison of Cush and Havilah. The Bible DOES NOT CONTRADICT these sources. At least not for those who understood Muller's arguements.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goredema said: "I notice you did not include a reference for your assertion about Cush mainly referring to SW Asia".
To which Swenet responded: "You can start with Genesis 2:10. If the land of Cush itself was encircled by a river that, like the three other rivers, passed through Eden, the land of Cush that is being referred to, had to be in Asia, don’t you think? There is no river in Northeast Africa that encircles Northern Sudan, which connects to land (Eden) which in turn connects with West Asian rivers".
Goredema's response: I meant a quote to show that "most instances of Cush refer to SW Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates" which is what you initially said. Presumably you meant in "most instances" in the Bible. That, of course, would be wrong. I provided a quote for the primary interpretation of Cush but you did not for your assertion. Now let's revisit your statement in detail: It's interesting that you have not identified this land of Cush in Asia with it's river. Muller has identified the regions and rivers in the places he talks about and they are still there. What about your rivers? The rivers in the Sudan-Ethiopia region are all connected to each other as part of one drainage system and can still be seen today.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet said: "You know what, never mind my Strabo quote. I didn’t read it properly,"
Goredema's response: I don't find that difficult to believe at all. It compromises your whole point that scholars of Strabo's day were confusing Ethiopia south of Egypt with places in SW Asia specifically on the point of the origins of humanity.
Swenet said: "...and so I missed that Diodorus was talking about the Euphrates, rather than the Cushite associated Pishon or Gihon rivers".
Goredema's response: You didn't read that properly either which is a shame because your certainly not lacking in intelligence. Diodorus does not mention the Euphrates at all in this connection. He was talking about the origins of humanity in the more southern parts of Ethiopia. You might want to check out how Muller actually uses this in context. And this can be done for free at amazon.com. The free preview goes as far as this part. The connection is Diodorus says "Ethiopia" for the origins of humanity and calls the Ethiopians autocthones or "sprung from the soil" a clear parallel to Adam being "formed of the dust" of the ground".
Swenet said: "Just a thought: wouldn’t you need biblical passages to demonstrate where the Hebrews themselves placed a river they wrote about? What good is Diodorus’ hearsay, in matters that involve Hebrew views of the lands around them?"
Goredema's response: Clever suggestion. There are Biblical passages Muller uses to support the location of Cush, Havilah and to a certain degree Asshur. The rivers themselves were not objects of familiarity to the Hebrews but the nations were known to them. In other words they had heard of the nations but were not familiar with the geography except what they had kept in their traditions. Diodorus' hearsay has parallels with the Biblical story. That's the point. As I said, the East African origin of humanity must have been known in educated circles during antiquity.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet said: "No proof, only conjecture. First off, Genesis 2:10 doesn’t detail which Havilah is being mentioned, which renders any attempt to associate it with either lineage questionable".
Goredema's response: Partly true. It doesn't say which Havilah but let's use common sense. The first two river-counterparts (rather like Haddakel and Parat are counterparts) are in the lands of Cush and Havilah. The lands are named after eponymous ancestors of nations which later resided on those lands. Cush is the father of Havilah in Genesis 10:7. Is there any other Havilah in the Bible who is related to a Cush. Remember the related eponymous ancestors of Genesis tend to be neighbouring countries. Anyway my point is wherever you choose to locate Cush the Havilah of Pison is more likely to be the Cushite one than the Joktanite one (Shemitic).
Swenet said: "Secondly, the bible never says there is such a thing as an African Havilah; the same evidence would be consistent with both Havilahs being in Arabia. Muller’s desire to arbitrarily place one in Arabia and one in Africa, simply because there are two patriarchs with the same name highlights his bias".
Goredema's response: Partly right. The Bible does not use the term "African Havilah" but then it never uses the term "Africa" either. The descendants of Ham are all African with the exception of Canaan which is a small strip of land just next to Africa. Josephus identifies Cush, Mizraim and Phut with Ethiopia (Cush), Egypt and Libya. This is one reason to equate Ham with Africa. The second reason is the etymology of the word Ham meaning "heat" or "hot". The only landmass of Asia, Africa and Europe known in antiquity which is hot in all known parts is Africa.
The occurrence of Hametic tribes being put in Semetic lineages (or the other way around) is not unique; we see the same thing happening in the bible with Midian, Babylon and other Sumerian city-states. The what or why’s are irrelevant, the point is, nobody in his right mind would seek a Sudani location for Mesopotamian city states, or Midian, just because they sometimes appear to be associated with different lineages. Regardless of the equivocality 'Havilah' in Gen 2:10, Josephus identified him and all the other sons of Cush with Arabian tribes that were well known in his time".
Goredema's response: Funny you should say that because I wrote a whole essay in When We Ruled by Robin Walker about the Sumerians having come from Sub-Saharan Africa using linguistic evidence so there's your "Cushite" connection. Cush=African, Ham=African.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
For the most part IMO any evidence put forth toward Africa trumps that of Asia because Africa has the scientific basis of origin when religion and mythology is set aside.
My personal hypothesis has always been: The Garden was IN/OF Eden............Eden itself was not fully a garden. "Eden" may encompass regions on both side of the Red Sea. The place where Humans originate was on the Africa side as noted by Fossil/Genetic/Linguistic evidence.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti said: "Though I should point out that several scholars like Rawlinson and others have stated the original Hebrew homeland and thus 'Eden' was located in our direction of 'east' indeed and located the garden either in Iran or Pakistan".
Goredema's response: mmmmm...who should I go with? Rawlinson and his few lines of speculation or Muller and his WHOLE BOOK!!!!
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goredema: Swenet: "Whenever Cush is mentioned as a polity in the bible, or as a military aid of Israel, it often refers Sudani entities, but nothing points to Abyssinians or Somali’s". Goredema's response: I have never said Cush in the Bible refers to Somalis or Abyssinians. The quote refers to "Nubia" and "Nilotic Sudan" and it is this JHOM quote that you are responding to. So where did you get Somalis and Abyssinians from? In Genesis 2 Cush is not Eden but is in the region of Eden. You mention a red herring.
Well, the JHOM quote you posted mentions, among others, the Blue Nile, as a possible candidate of the Cushite associated Pishon and Gihon rivers, doesn’t it? Where does the blue Nile lead to, if not Abyssinia?
quote:Originally posted by Goredema: Sewnet: "Cush is not used to denote a centralized polity in Genesis 2:10". Goredema's response: The only reason these lands are mentioned is to give the reader some idea of where the rivers were using nations known to the Hebrews in the 7th century BC when Genesis was written. Cush was known to the whole world at that time so I have no reason not to believe Genesis was referring to Cush in Sudan. The fact that there was no polity called Cush during the time of Adam in the Genesis story is irrelevant.
I don’t think you understand what I meant when I said ‘’Cush is not used to denote a centralized polity in Genesis 2:10’’. What I meant was, that the connotations of female rulers (see Acts 8:27), male rulers (see 2 Kings 19:9) and Nilotic traits are markers that allow us to recognize biblical authors were talking about African Cushites, rather than the often tribal and/or nomadic Asian Cushites who are simply associated with pieces of land.
quote:Goredema says: Let me remind you. Look below.
Swenet said previously: "and the fact that most instances of ''Cush'' refer (South)West Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates,"
Goredema now: After reading this I responded by using the JHOM quote from Mullers book to show that the primary use of Cush in the Bible is for an African nation and that your words are FALSE.
In support of my position that most of the unequivocal references to Cushite groups are references to Asian entities, I cite the following passages:
quote:There's nowhere in Genesis 2 where Shur is mentioned. You're ASSUMING that the land of Havilah mentioned in connection with the Ishmaelites in Genesis 25:18 is the same one as that of Genesis 2. Muller says this Havilah is more likely to be named after Havilah, one of the thirteen sons of Joktan who dwelt in Arabia given in Genesis 26:30. By mentioning Shur you have introduced something that is not in the Genesis 2 narrative.
After doing some research, it appears that neither Joktan nor his sons lived near Mesopotamia, which precludes the Joktan associated Havilah from being mentioned in Genesis 25:18. In other words, there is no African Havilah (unless you know of a third one); both are already accounted for. The Cushite Havilah was in Northeastern Arabia, the Semitic Havilah was in Southern Arabia (Genesis 10:29-30).
quote:He anticipated you. He obviously saw you coming from a mile off.
Well, then I hope he has a rebuttal for the fact that the Joktanites were restricted to Southern Arabia, according to indigenous Arab traditions, as well as biblical sources.
quote:Rather in the same way you now say Cush elsewhere in the Bible mainly refers to a Sudani polity (having previously said it mostly refers to places in SW Asia)
It would be most interesting to see you back that non-existent quote up.
quote: Goredema's response: As I've already said Hiddekel is a descriptive etymology. Josephus gives an etymology of the river and links it with the Tigris. But any river having the characteristic described in the etymology can be descibed as Hiddekel.
If there is no attestation of it being applied to another river, it doesn’t matter that it can be applied to other rivers. It’s like saying ‘Iron Mike’ can be applied to any boxer who goes by the name of Mike. Yeah, that very well may be, but there is no boxer other than Mike Tyson with that name. The question is, where is it attested in the bible that the Hebrews applied that name to a river other than the Tigris? If there is no such attestation, Muller is engaging in senseless speculation. Not only that, he'd also be willfully ignoring the passages that locate to the East of Israel, right where it fits with other passages that say those rivers were to the east as well. If I'm not mistaken, you've dodged the specific issue of Eden being referred to as an Eastern region in the bible. I'd be interesting to see you reconcile the biblical Eastern location of Eden with Mullers proposal, which is, in fact, Southern.
quote:It compromises your whole point that scholars of Strabo's day were confusing Ethiopia south of Egypt with places in SW Asia specifically on the point of the origins of humanity.
You erroneously said that earlier, but I let it go back then. Now you say it again. I never said that scholars contemporary with Strabo confused African regions with South Asian regions. I said that they were applying the word ‘Aethiopia’ in a limited fashion (i.e., related polities in Sudan), making their use of that word unsuitable for comparison with the biblical variant, ‘Cushite’, which didn’t undergo such a restriction in OT biblical times. Hence, to the unsuspecting reader, your late Greek references to Aethiopians, might seem interchangeable with the biblical ‘Cush’, when it isn’t.
quote:Goredema's response: You didn't read that properly either which is a shame because your certainly not lacking in intelligence. Diodorus does not mention the Euphrates at all in this connection.
I simply accidentally mixed up your Pausanias quote with Diodorus' quote.
quote:Swenet said: "Posting Greek sources that speculate that the Euphrates could have been the Nile is contradicted by the biblical passages that locate it East of Israel".
The Greek source was quoted by Muller to show that in antiquity the rivers were thought by some to be connected to the Nile and this might explain why the rivers would be mentioned along with Gihon and Pison of Cush and Havilah. The Bible DOES NOT CONTRADICT these sources. At least not for those who understood Muller's arguements.
So I take it, all Muller has is weak assumptions and speculations? The authors of Genesis were not contemporary with Pausanias and his hearsay, and, for all I know, they weren’t even in contact with the populations who subscribed to that belief, assuming that belief even existed back then. You still haven’t explained how a fundamentally inaccurate speculation in the ear of a much later Greek can serve as a model for identifying the location of a river in a much more ancient biblical text. The Hebrews were familiar with both the Nile and the Euphrates, and never hinted in their texts of conceiving both rivers as manifestations of the same underlying river. Am I the only one who sees there is something horribly wrong and unscholarly about the way this Pausanias quote is used by Muller?
quote:I meant a quote to show that "most instances of Cush refer to SW Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates" which is what you initially said. Presumably you meant in "most instances" in the Bible. That, of course, would be wrong. I provided a quote for the primary interpretation of Cush but you did not for your assertion. Now let's revisit your statement in detail
The difference is, I have actually studied the bible, while you’re relying on others to do something which you can test for yourself. Citing JHOM is meaningless, as there are various scholars who have positioned themselves at either extreme, and everywhere along the spectrum of a strictly African identification, or a strictly Asian identification of biblical references to Cush(ites). Some people take the strictly African position simply because, in their mind, the only alternative is that Africans were dominating West Asian regions, which means they’ll have to go through the discomfort of adjusting their views about black potency. Anyway, I gladly await your counter post with biblical passages that have clues within them that collectively suggest that most of the references to Cushites were references to Africans.
quote:Goredema's response: Clever suggestion. There are Biblical passages Muller uses to support the location of Cush, Havilah and to a certain degree Asshur. The rivers themselves were not objects of familiarity to the Hebrews but the nations were known to them. In other words they had heard of the nations but were not familiar with the geography except what they had kept in their traditions. Diodorus' hearsay has parallels with the Biblical story. That's the point. As I said, the East African origin of humanity must have been known in educated circles during antiquity.
I don’t mean to be the party pooper here, but I don’t think the Greeks ever said that East Africans were the origin of humanity. I’d have to revisit their texts, but from memory, they restricted their ‘original man’ comments to the inhabitants of one Sudanese polity, not to East Africans in general. I also don’t think they believed the whole world descended from them (and neither did Diodorus, judging from your own quote), but I’m always open to being proven wrong. The idea that the modern notion that humans originated in Africa, was retained in cultures for 200.000 years sounds bizarre to me (don’t mean to offend), especially since the jury is not even out yet on the exact African location where modern humans arose (I believe Southern Africa is still a contender). In ancient historic times, when people had writing to assist them, people could barely retain accurate information about some of their recent ancestors, how would they retain 200.000 years of knowledge orally? I don’t think there was ever a point in time where people knew this modern revelation. Not even the first humans would have been aware of it; assuming they even had the cognition to process the idea. The presence of the still extant and flourishing archaic human populations from which they evolved precludes that scenario.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Swenet have you read the book?
For the most part IMO any evidence put forth toward Africa trumps that of Asia because Africa has the scientific basis of origin when religion and mythology is set aside.
My personal hypothesis has always been: The Garden was IN/OF Eden............Eden itself was not fully a garden. "Eden" may encompass regions on both side of the Red Sea. The place where Humans originate was on the Africa side as noted by Fossil/Genetic/Linguistic evidence.
Kind of surprising you of all people would say this. Do you really think there is a connection with the biblical Eden and science, that you'd argue that the wealth of evidence for the latter confirms/vindicates the narrative of the former (correct me if I misunderstood your position)?
As I've said earlier on this forum, I subscribe to the idea that Eden was the portion of land which is now below sea level, directly Southeast of utmost Southern Sumer, where the Euphrates and the Tigris conjoin, and flow into the Persian Gulf. This is the junction that the bible describes when it says there was a river that parted into four heads.
I just mentioned two of them, the two remaining rivers are the Kuwait river, and the last one is the Karun river:
The Gihon river, which encircles the Cush, according to the bible, is Elam, where we know blacks predominated. The Pishon river, which flowed through Havilah, is exactly where the bible says Havilah should be in Genesis 25:18
-opposite of Egypt -sandwiched inbetween Shur and Assyria -Sharing their region with the Ishmaelites
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goredema: Djehuti said: "Though I should point out that several scholars like Rawlinson and others have stated the original Hebrew homeland and thus 'Eden' was located in our direction of 'east' indeed and located the garden either in Iran or Pakistan".
Goredema's response: mmmmm...who should I go with? Rawlinson and his few lines of speculation or Muller and his WHOLE BOOK!!!!
Hey, I'm not suggesting Rawlinson is right. In fact there are various inaccuracies in his work, I'm just saying there are different theories as to the location of Eden as the Israelites conceived it. There are many scholars who suggest that the whole story of Eden was ethnocentric in that it made the first human populations before the 'Great Flood' an ancestral people of the Hebrews or Israelites themselves, while others think the myth reflects a distant ancestral population for all humans in general. The point is science has proven humankind's origins in Africa. As to what the Bible says in this regard is again a matter of interpretation.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Kind of surprising you of all people would say this. Do you really think there is a connection with the biblical Eden and science, that you'd argue that the wealth of evidence for the latter confirms/vindicates the narrative of the former (correct me if I misunderstood your position)?
As I've said earlier on this forum, I subscribe to the idea that Eden was the portion of land which is now below sea level, directly Southeast of utmost Southern Sumer, where the Euphrates and the Tigris conjoin, and flow into the Persian Gulf. This is the junction that the bible describes when it says there was a river that parted into four heads.
I just mentioned two of them, the two remaining rivers are the Kuwait river, and the last one is the Karun river:
I agree with Swenet. This is assuming that Eden and modern Aden are the same area even if the words are cognate. Again this all goes back to my previous post as to whether the Biblical origins reflect some remote distant memory of actual human origins in Africa OR are based on older myths on memories of something else entirely.
As per Swenet's map above, there is a prevailing theory that the Eden myth of the Israelites is actually based on a Sumerian myth, specifically the Sumerian myth of Dilmun. Dilmun is said to be a garden paradise where the first humans were created though the land was described as an island and many equate Dilmun to modern Bahrain. And of course there are headwaters of ancient rivers that once existed but were swallowed up by the Gulf as Swenet's map points out.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As per Swenet's map above, there is a prevailing theory that the Eden myth of the Israelites is actually based on a Sumerian myth, specifically the Sumerian myth of Dilmun. Dilmun is said to be a garden paradise where the first humans were created though the land was described as an island and many equate Dilmun to modern Bahrain. And of course there are headwaters of ancient rivers that once existed but were swallowed up by the Gulf as Swenet's map points out.
Yes, indeed. It is, of course, one of the many stories they 'borrowed' from Mesopotamia.
This is another obstacle for Muller; if the Garden of Eden was imagined to be in an African setting, why do the various stories in which it features, survive only in West Asia?
And no, Egypt's 'Gods land' is not a variant of this story. 'Gods land' wasn't even a single place.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Goredema - No I am not finished with the book. I have been reading it during my commute and have been off work.
@ Swenet - I see your argument but you dont seem to be arguing based on what the author has written in the book. I will not say if it is right or wrong but the author addresses much of what we know as far as the rivers are concerned. At times he refers back to Hebrew to support parts of his argument. To sum it up the author is saying the rivers named cannot be so because of points A, B and C...and also if we refer to original language and extra Hebrew text the rivers can be interpreted differently.
As far as if I believe the info. Well I think science supports the African origin of Humanity, I believe that. Based on Genetic diversity as well as simple phylogeny. Any historical book that talks about the origin of ALL Humanity must be talking about Africa. NOW, if we want to say the biblical story is not about ALL humanity but just that in the middle east told in somewhat of a "Bubble" that basically starts with the onset of farming (Adam getting kicked out)then that is a different story all together. Like other creations stories around the world. In that scenario, it then makes sense that Cain is givin a Mark to identify him to others.
But even in your scenario the Garden encompasses modern day Bahrain, Qatar and parts of Saudi Arabia on the map. These are 3 separate places but the place where they actually make Adam from Dirt is only one place. Likewise if anywhere in the bible Eden has an association with the Nile then Eden can be large....on both sides of the Red Sea. Science tells us which side the humans where created. Even then, the Biblical story is also similar to an even older story where the Egyptian god of the Nile's Origin makes man from clay on a potters wheel...in African no less.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Swenet - I see your argument but you dont seem to be arguing based on what the author has written in the book. I will not say if it is right or wrong but the author addresses much of what we know as far as the rivers are concerned. At times he refers back to Hebrew to support parts of his argument. To sum it up the author is saying the rivers named cannot be so because of points A, B and C...and also if we refer to original language and extra Hebrew text the rivers can be interpreted differently.
Perhaps I should have read the book, because now that I've been exposed to some of the arguments, I feel even more turned off and less motivated to do it. I've had my share of books that were based off 'if you read it like this, you can interpret it differently' or 'if you read it like this, it fits better with this evidence'.
This book isn't unique. Kamal Salibi rewrote much of the bible by identifying much of the biblical place names with Arabian place names. From what I've seen, he does an even better job than Muller, where the strength of his arguments, and the extensiveness of his research are concerned. David Rohl's major revisionist 'new chronology' is also much more extensive and scholarly in tone.
In the end though, every single one of them turn out to be just revisionist book/theory, unable to withstand the whips of scientific scrutiny, and the same holds true for 99% of all the other revisionst books, some of which (the more amateurish ones) made it to ES.
We've had the The Hebrews were Egyptian royals by Ahmed Osman We've had the Predynastic Egyptians were from Medja We've had the Predynastic Egyptians came from Akele Guzay (Eritrea)
I'm at the point where I believe almost any historic document is basically a gold mine for revisionist researchers, because there is so much room for (re)interpretation. You say you work with lawyers, well, you should be familiar with the idea that the equivocal nature events/forensic 'evidence' allows for reinterpretation. This doesn't mean those reinterpretations are correct.
quote:Any historical book that talks about the origin of ALL Humanity must be talking about Africa.
So then I was right in my interpretation of what you were saying. Science vindicates and explains religious texts backwards, meaning, that whatever we believe is scientifically correct today, is then interpreted to mean the ancients believed it, because the themes (in this case, the location of the original man) are related.
You should reread my post and map. It doesn't say Eden was in three places.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti said: "Hey, I'm not suggesting Rawlinson is right. In fact there are various inaccuracies in his work, I'm just saying there are different theories as to the location of Eden as the Israelites conceived it".
Goredema's response: The Honourable Gert Muller would appear to have anticipated this too. Check out this quote from Science Meets The Bible, Introduction: "In other words there may be many opinions on an issue but this does not mean all the opinions should be considered equal. Some are backed by evidence and some are not. Of those opinions backed by evidence there will be one backed by more or better quality evidence than the others."
And that's why I rate this book so highly. Because he anticipated people's responses to his work. The fact that I can answer critics using the book is most convenient.
Djehuti said: "There are many scholars who suggest that the whole story of Eden was ethnocentric"
Goredema's response: I cannot see any nation coming up with a Genesis account that is NOT ethnocentric. I would not wait for a scholar to tell me that.
Djehuti's response: "...in that it made the first human populations before the 'Great Flood' an ancestral people of the Hebrews or Israelites themselves, while others think the myth reflects a distant ancestral population for all humans in general. The point is science has proven humankind's origins in Africa. As to what the Bible says in this regard is again a matter of interpretation".
Goredema's response: And here's the FIRST book to argue that the location of Eden was in Africa and that there is a link between this story from Genesis and the findings of science. And people who present themselves as Africans (but here who knows) and their response is luke warm. How strange?
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet said: "Perhaps I should have read the book, because now that I've been exposed to some of the arguments, I feel even more turned off and less motivated to do it".
Goredema's response: Then don't read it. It's not for people who "already know" nor is it for people who habitually misinterpret what they do read (remember Strabo and Diodorus?) What I would suggest is that you put the reference to where you're getting your information from and then WE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK can compare the two and judge who is right.
Swenet said: "I've had my share of books that were based off 'if you read it like this, you can interpret it differently' or 'if you read it like this, it fits better with this evidence'. This book isn't unique".
Goredema's response: How do you know the book is not unique if you haven't read it? The first book to place the Grden of Eden in East Africa, or indeed anywhere in Black Africa, is not unique? That's VERY POOR.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way Swenet. I gave several responses to ONE of your posts because I was answering YOUR EVERY WORD in that post. I don't want anyone saying I avoided the tough points. I also wanted to make sure that when you respond you address all of my concerns. The other thing is long posts can be so very boring.
As for every one else I think we've seen enough of both positions to see who we agree with. Djehuti agrees with Swenet but neither of tham has debunked a single point made by Muller that I have presented. I suppose there are also deeper issues raised by Muller's work and the threat that many so-called Afrocentrists feel when presented by a work that argues Cush was African and NOT Arabian.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet said: "Some people take the strictly African position simply because, in their mind, the only alternative is that Africans were dominating West Asian regions, which means they’ll have to go through the discomfort of adjusting their views about black potency. Anyway, I gladly await your counter post with biblical passages that have clues within them that collectively suggest that most of the references to Cushites were references to Africans".
Goredema's response: I don't know what's worse! The problem you have identified above, which I do not doubt, or the reverse problem of not being able to accept an African identity because one's beloved ancient Black Asians APPEAR to be in danger of evaporating. You're supposed to take the truth wherever it leads. I say APPEAR because Muller meantions in passing, eastward movements across the Red Sea. The most reasonable interpretation of that is East Africans moving across the Red Sea to Arabia and therefore some Arabians and presumably other SW Asians were of East African ancestry. I have no problem with this fact but I'm not prepared to distort logic in order to prove it.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goredema said: " As I said, the East African origin of humanity must have been known in educated circles during antiquity".
"I don’t mean to be the party pooper here, but I don’t think the Greeks ever said that East Africans were the origin of humanity".
Goredema's response: The phrase "East African origin of humanity" means humanity originated in East Africa. It does not mean todays East Africans are necessarily the origin of humanity. These are the kinds of mistakes that litter the work of so-called Afrocentrists and prevent a REAL African history from taking shape with potent evidence and the interpretation thereof.
Swenet says: "I’d have to revisit their texts, but from memory, they restricted their ‘original man’ comments to the inhabitants of one Sudanese polity, not to East Africans in general".
Goredema's response: Actually the Diodorus reference seems to be indicating an East African location near the eqautor. This is what I took from the reference to "noonday sun". Much further south than the "polity" (as you like to say) of Cush. Again when you go deeper you see more than the mere "Afrocentric" (and there's no such thing) interpretation.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet said: "In support of my position that most of the unequivocal references to Cushite groups are references to Asian entities, I cite the following passages: Habakkuk 3:7 Judges 3:8 Job 1:15 Job 6:19 2 Chronicles 21:16 Job 28:19 Genesis 10:8-10 Genesis 2:11 Genesis 2:13 Ezekiel 27:21-23"
Goredema's response: Below is a quote from a book
"The 'other biblical associations' include Habakkuk 3:7 [hehehe] which says: 'I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble'. Midian was the Old Testament name for the north-western corner of Arabia. Easton's Bible dictionary says of the term Cushan: 'Probably a poetic or prolonged name of the land of Cush, the Arabian Cush (Hab 3:7).' It is not clear why Midian was called "Cushan" in poetic context, an apparent long form of the name "Cush". In Numbers 12:1 the Midianite wife of Moses was called an Ethiopian (Cushite). This supports the idea that "Cushan" was a form of the name Cush. The Septuagint translators were probably influenced by the notion of a second "Cush" to equate it etymologically with "Ethiopia" because there was also a second "Ethiopia". It has been suggested that the Midianites were of African appearance but, as we have already seen, there is no evidence for the term having any direct colour connotations. Perhaps Midian was called "Cushan" because the inhabitants had a specific resemblance to this particular African group rather than a general African resemblance. This may be imagined in the same way that a particular ethnic group in the Mediterranean might look "Scandinavian" or a particular ethnic group in East Africa may look "South African" in contrast to other local ethnic groups. It should also be remembered that the Midianites were descended from Shem not Ham. It appears to be evidence that African appearance was not thought to be confined to the descendants of Ham in Old Testament times. The primary association, however, of the Biblical Cush was with "Nilotic Sudan".
Quote taken from Science Meets The Bible: The Garden of Eden Discovered In East Africa, Chapter 2: The Lands Outside Eden by the Honourable and Anticipating Gert Muller, Pomegranate Publishers, 2011.
So Muller has already taken into account that there were other people called Cushites (and uses the Midianites as an example) but they were not descended from Cush (the ancient Cush of Sudan), the brother of Mizraim [Egypt] and the son of Ham [Africa]. It is this Cush (ancient Cush of Sudan) who was the father of Havilah. And Cush and Havilah being mentioned together in Genesis 2 as lands outside Eden implies that Eden was where? The logic is impeccable. Swenet why is it that EVERYTIME you introduce a concept to undermine Muller it turns out Muller has anticipated you and dealt with the issue?
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Perhaps I should have read the book, because now that I've been exposed to some of the arguments, I feel even more turned off and less motivated to do it. I've had my share of books that were based off 'if you read it like this, you can interpret it differently' or 'if you read it like this, it fits better with this evidence'.
This book isn't unique. Kamal Salibi rewrote much of the bible by identifying much of the biblical place names with Arabian place names. From what I've seen, he does an even better job than Muller, where the strength of his arguments, and the extensiveness of his research are concerned. David Rohl's major revisionist 'new chronology' is also much more extensive and scholarly in tone.
In the end though, every single one of them turn out to be just revisionist book/theory, unable to withstand the whips of scientific scrutiny, and the same holds true for 99% of all the other revisionst books, some of which (the more amateurish ones) made it to ES.
We've had the The Hebrews were Egyptian royals by Ahmed Osman We've had the Predynastic Egyptians were from Medja We've had the Predynastic Egyptians came from Akele Guzay (Eritrea)
I'm at the point where I believe almost any historic document is basically a gold mine for revisionist researchers, because there is so much room for (re)interpretation. You say you work with lawyers, well, you should be familiar with the idea that the equivocal nature events/forensic 'evidence' allows for reinterpretation. This doesn't mean those reinterpretations are correct.
quote:Any historical book that talks about the origin of ALL Humanity must be talking about Africa.
So then I was right in my interpretation of what you were saying. Science vindicates and explains religious texts backwards, meaning, that whatever we believe is scientifically correct today, is then interpreted to mean the ancients believed it, because the themes (in this case, the location of the original man) are related.
You should reread my post and map. It doesn't say Eden was in three places.
LOL Swenet, I couldn't have said it better myself.
BTW, when I wrote Rawlinson, I actually meant Rohl! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Good to see I'm not the only one who sees it for what it is.
quote:Then don't read it. It's not for people who "already know" nor is it for people who habitually misinterpret what they do read (remember Strabo and Diodorus?)
I believe I just told you I simply mixed their names up (last time I checked, that’s not misinterpreting something). But please, feel free to show me where I habitually misinterpreted what you said.
quote:What I would suggest is that you put the reference to where you're getting your information from and then WE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK can compare the two and judge who is right.
Let’s face it; you’re not in it to find out who is right; if you were, you wouldn’t be standing here, telling me none of Muller’s positions have been refuted, while strangely leaving the actual refutations untouched (didn't adress the new information regarding Joktan's location, didn't adress the fact that the bible itself locates Eden East of Israel, etc etc).
quote: Goredema's response: How do you know the book is not unique if you haven't read it? The first book to place the Grden of Eden in East Africa, or indeed anywhere in Black Africa, is not unique? That's VERY POOR.
I didn’t just say Muller’s book wasn’t unique; I said it within a certain context (i.e., that Muller is not the only one taking liberties with history, based on how things can be interpreted). But if you want to take it there, then I can tell you his book isn’t unique in placing the Garden of Eden in East Africa, either.
quote:By the way Swenet. I gave several responses to ONE of your posts because I was answering YOUR EVERY WORD in that post. I don't want anyone saying I avoided the tough points. I also wanted to make sure that when you respond you address all of my concerns.
I don’t know why you’re bringing this up, but if you’re doing it because I didn’t answer your last two replies, it’s because I don’t want to come across as though I’m being disagreeable, and disagreeing with everything you say (even though I did disagree with most of the things you said in those last two replies). You seem content with always taking the easy way out (which can, for instance, be seen in your total lack of motivation to see Muller’s book for the revisionist speculation that it is, and your habit of ignoring and not addressing the some of the evidence I put in front of you).
It may not be obvious to you, but to someone who’s been familiar with the material for years, its glaringly obvious. When confronted with my response that Cushites were associated with various Mesopotamian localities, you try to write that argument off by saying they were Sub Saharan Africans, which is utterly false.
That it is utterly false is not even the point though; the point is, that even if it were true, it would still be irrelevant to the topic at hand; namely, that Cushites were primarily associated with Asia, in the minds of biblical authors.
quote:As for every one else I think we've seen enough of both positions to see who we agree with. Djehuti agrees with Swenet but neither of tham has debunked a single point made by Muller that I have presented.
False. Recap:
*Muller: The Northeast Arabian Havilah was of the Semetic branch (not true, according to the biblical passage I cited, which says the Semetic Havilah was restricted to Southern Arabia).
*Muller: There was an African Havilah (false).
*Muller: The primary association, however, of the Biblical Cush was with "Nilotic Sudan". (not true, according the biblical passages I cited).
*Muller: Eden was to the South of Israel (false, as the bible clearly says it was East of Israel).
*Muller: All sons of Cush were conceived of as living in Africa (false, as I’ve earlier, going by Josephus)
*Muller: The story of Eden is related to African (Egyptian) stories. (false, as its clearly related to Mesopotamian Dilmun stories)
quote:I suppose there are also deeper issues raised by Muller's work and the threat that many so-called Afrocentrists feel when presented by a work that argues Cush was African and NOT Arabian.
This is hollow rhetoric, and you know it. It’s precisely why you neglected to comment on the portions of my previous post that pertain to this specific topic. In particular, the biblical passages, which you so eagerly wanted, only to never discuss them when I backed up my claim. The others being the Josephus’ identification of Cushite groups with Arabian tribes, and the fact that it has been demonstrated that the Northeast Arabian ''land of Havilah'', was indeed Cushite territory (rather than Jokantite).
quote: I don't know what's worse! The problem you have identified above, which I do not doubt, or the reverse problem of not being able to accept an African identity because one's beloved ancient Black Asians APPEAR to be in danger of evaporating. You're supposed to take the truth wherever it leads.
I have no interest in childish bickering. You said my position that Cushites referred mainly to Asian groups was FALSE. I backed my statement up with actual references. It is supposed to be your turn now to outdo me with posting more instances of Cushites in African settings, but all I see is empty rhetoric and silly whining. Stop whining, let your arguments do the talking.
quote:Goredema's response: Actually the Diodorus reference seems to be indicating an East African location near the eqautor. This is what I took from the reference to "noonday sun". Much further south than the "polity" (as you like to say) of Cush.
I don’t know what he meant with the term, but after looking it up, it appears I was wrong; Diodorus doesn’t exclusively refer to a single Sudanese polity, as the text clearly indicates Ethiopians further South are also implied. This would make your earlier statement regarding the general East African origin of the first man, in the mind of the Greeks, correct.
quote:So Muller has already taken into account that there were other people called Cushites (and uses the Midianites as an example) but they were not descended from Cush (the ancient Cush of Sudan), the brother of Mizraim [Egypt] and the son of Ham [Africa]. It is this Cush (ancient Cush of Sudan) who was the father of Havilah. And Cush and Havilah being mentioned together in Genesis 2 as lands outside Eden implies that Eden was where? The logic is impeccable. Swenet why is it that EVERYTIME you introduce a concept to undermine Muller it turns out Muller has anticipated you and dealt with the issue?
You keep talking about Muller anticipating people, obviously because have no scholarly frame of reference, where this specific Cushite topic is concerned. There are only a few biblical passages that deal with Cush, and so, any book that deals with Cushites, tends to feature the most popular ones. All books that deal with Cush generally mention the passages you’ve quoted Muller on throughout this thread. For some reason (probably because you’re compensating for what Muller lacks in hard evidence) this is strangely rendered in your mind as Muller being some sort of mastermind, capable of anticipating every argument. I posted ten instances of Cushites, and only one deals with Midianites (granted, some of them we’ve already discussed, but most of them we haven’t), yet you find it in you to reply to them all, by posting a silly argument that has nothing to do with the topic at hand (i.e., that Muller mentioned Habakkuk 3:7 doesn’t take away anything from the fact that it is just another example of Asian Cushites). No doubt, your silence on the other 6-7 not yet discussed references shows he didn’t anticipate me at all, and is either lying about Cush being mainly African, or is simply uninformed (don’t know which is worse). In addition, when Cush is mentioned in the African context, all we see is the same monarchy, i.e., Napata/Meroe. When Cush is mentioned in the Asian context, we see all sorts of tribes and regions being associated with Cush and his descendants. In science, the regions with the most diversity of a population specific trait are seen as the most probable regions of origin. Enough said.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goredema says now: With all these exchanges, claims and counter claims it pays to go back to see how this started in the first place and see what we can learn. I posted a product description, available at Amazon.com, of a book that I first noticed late last year. The book had a life changing impact on me and I went evangelist on it. A little discussion started with two other Egyptsearch users but then you came into the discussion with the following comment:
Swenet said then: "Of course, there is always wiggling room to ignore the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the fact that most instances of ''Cush'' refer (South)West Asian regions close to the Tigris and Euphrates, because technically, the Horn is East of Israel, just like New York is technically East of Costa Rica, and how Europe is technically North of South America".
Goredema says: You had the option of posing this as a question: "Did the book take the Tigris-Euphrates river into account...? But you chose to put it as a statement. It's important to make this observation because it gives the impression you had a closed attitude to the book. The implication of your post was that the book had avoided difficult issues like the Tigris-Euphrates rivers, Cush mainly referring to Asian groups, and the fact that Eden was described as "eastward". I responded with a quote from amazon.com discussions, coming from the book, which showed that the author had not ignored the Tigris-Euphrates rivers because the quote mentioned the rivers and Eden being located "eastward". You responded by saying:
Swenet said then: "None of your sources are Hebrew sources. The time when the biblical concept of Cush was similar to the Greek concept of Aethiopia was long gone in the time of Diodorus and Pausanias, who mostly knew of Aethiopia in the restricted, Sudani sense: quote:"if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." -Strabo
Goredema says now: I notice a failure to acknowledge that your initial implication was wrong. He had addressed the issue and, even if it was not to your satisfaction, you cannot fairly imply that the book IGNORED it. This only furthers the impression that you had already made your mind up when you came across the product description of the book. I think the relevance of these non-Hebrew sources are obvious BUT you are entitled not to accept the sources for not being Hebrew. You then, however went on to say:
Swenet said then: "Strabo knew that, by his time, the concept 'Aethiopian' had shifted to almost exclusively refer to localities in Sudan, which is where we get these rather forced explanations of Genesis 2:10 being a description of a locality somewhere along the Nile".
Goredema says now: I challenged you on this point by saying Strabo had read the 'ancients' like Homer who knew the broader concept of Ethiopia because he cited Homer as a source and that Diodorus and Pausanias, as history/geography scholars would have probably read both. You responded by saying:
Swenet then said: "You know what, never mind my Strabo quote. I didn’t read it properly, and so I missed that Diodorus was talking about the Euphrates, rather than the Cushite associated Pishon or Gihon rivers".
Goredema now says: That is surely your arguement about Diodorus' concept of Ethiopia being too restricted gone up in smoke. The Strabo quote did not quite mean what you had said it meant. You later said that you meant 'Pausanias' instead of 'Diodorus'. Ok so let's read it amended.
"I didn't read it properly, and so I missed that Pausanias was talking about the Euphrates, rather than the Cushite associated Pishon and Gihon rivers."
Still doesn't make any sense. What has Strabo's quote got to do with Pausanias mentioning the Euphrates?
Goredema said then: "In other words Muller has already taken your arguement into account. I notice you did not include a reference for your assertion about Cush mainly referring to SW Asia".
Swenet then said: "In support of my position that most of the unequivocal references to Cushite groups are references to Asian entities, I cite the following passages: Habakkuk 3:7 Judges 3:8 Job 1:15 Job 6:19 2 Chronicles 21:16 Job 28:19 Genesis 10:8-10 Genesis 2:11 Genesis 2:13 Ezekiel 27:21-23"
Goredema now says: I gave you a quote, something any reader could see in front of them with a citation should they want to know more. You gave me references but without the quotes. I wondered whether it would be worth the effort checking them out. Would they say what you claimed they said or would it be another "I didn't read Strabo properly"? It didn't look hopeful, which is why I hadn't initially answered. I also noticed Genesis 2:11 and 13 the arguement of which seemed tautological. Muller dealt with Habbakuk 3 referring to the Midianites. He says there are Asian Cushites but these Midianites are descended from Abraham and Keturah, not from Cush so this does not serve to place Cush, the son of Ham, in Asia. You then said:
Swenet said then: "I posted ten instances of Cushites, and only one deals with Midianites (granted, some of them we’ve already discussed, but most of them we haven’t), yet you find it in you to reply to them all, by posting a silly argument that has nothing to do with the topic at hand (i.e., that Muller mentioned Habakkuk 3:7 doesn’t take away anything from the fact that it is just another example of Asian Cushites)".
Goredema says now: This seems like a good point until you take into account the statement you are responding to which is below:
Goredema said then: "So Muller has already taken into account that there were other people called Cushites (and uses the Midianites as an example) but they were not descended from Cush (the ancient Cush of Sudan), the brother of Mizraim [Egypt] and the son of Ham [Africa]. It is this Cush (ancient Cush of Sudan) who was the father of Havilah. And Cush and Havilah being mentioned together in Genesis 2 as lands outside Eden implies that Eden was where? The logic is impeccable".
Goredema says now: It doesn't matter that the Midianites are an example of Asian Cushites because Muller's arguement was NEVER that there were no Asian Cushites as he mentions them. His arguement was that these Cushites were NOT descended from Cush, brother of Egypt and son of Ham. He is the African Cush. Once you realise this you also realise that it doesn't matter how many examples you give of different Asian ethnic groups who also happen to have the appellation "Cushite". It doesn't make any difference UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THAT THEY GOT THIS NAME BECAUSE OF DESCENT FROM CUSH, SON OF HAM. You have mistaken being called "Cushite" with actual descent from Cush, son of Ham. I have declared but now I quote from Genesis 25:13 which says (which Muller also uses in Science Meets the Bible) to show that the Midianites are not descended from Cush, son of Ham:
"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And Jokshan begat Sheba and Dedan."
Goredema continues now: And Abraham in Genesis is descended, as the whole world knows, from Shem. Midian is the ancestor of the Midianites. These "Cushites" are descended from Shem and located in the northwest corner of Arabia. So yes Muller anticipated the arguement of "Asian Cushites means that Cush, son of Ham was in Asia" when in reality they had nothing to do with each other. Muller provides his own rationale for why these groups may have been called "Cushite" which I have already mentioned. A person who has lived in Africa would understand this point. There are different noticeable looks in different parts of Africa (although not all Africans in that part will necessarily have this look). The Midianites may have had a specific "Nilote" look which other Africans would not necessarily have had.
Swenet went on to say: "No doubt, your silence on the other 6-7 not yet discussed references shows he didn’t anticipate me at all, and is either lying about Cush being mainly African, or is simply uninformed (don’t know which is worse)".
Goredema says now: Some people are very touchy about having the word "lying" applied to them. I myself am more laid back about being called a "liar" (so long as the accuser states their case most clearly) and Muller is not here to defend himself so I have to ask you why do you think he is lying? What could he have to gain? It's not about whether there were Black people in Asia because he himself mentions Africans crossing the Red Sea and the Midianites having a "Cushite" look. So what would he have to gain? As for the other 6 or 7 "not yet discussed references" I will deal with now and I will quote them:
Judges 3:8 "Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim [meaning "Cushite of double wickedness"] king of Mesopotamia: and the children of Israel served him eight years."
Goredema continues: Some Bibles use the term "Aram-Naharain" instead of "Mesopotamia". It means in Hebrew "Aram of the Two Rivers" so we could say it's the northern end of Mesopotamia which is Greek for "Between the Two Rivers". The terms are related but we are talking about northern Mesopotamia because of the Aram ("Highland"). The Aramaeans are descended from Shem but we have already seen other Shemites being referred to as Cushites [the Midianites]. Abraham is believed by SOME to be from this region, Aram-Naharain (as opposed to Ur). Below is a quote from the Jewish Encyclopaedia under "Aram-Naharaim":
"A region somewhat ill-defined, mentioned six times in the Bible. In the title of Ps. lx., and in I Chron. xix. 6, it is used for the region beyond the Euphrates (compare II Sam. x. 16). It is stated in Judges iii. 8, 10, that the king of Aram-Naharaim invaded Palestine. Gen. xxiv. 10 calls the region of Haran, Aram-Naharaim (compare Gen. xxviii. 10); while Deut. xxiii. 5 calls Pethor, the home of Balaam, a city of Aram-Naharaim". http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1701-aram-naharaim
"The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram". Genesis10:21
Goredema continues: So this in no way associates it with Cush, the son of Ham. In other words Judges 3, 8 changes NOTHING. Job 1:15 does NOT mention the term "Cushites" but "Sabeans". These people could be descended from either Sheba, son of Joktan (Shemitic) (Genesis 10:28), Sheba, son of Jokshan (Shemitic) (Genesis 25:13) or Sheba, son of Raamah, son of Cush (Genesis 10:7). Both the descendants of Joktan and Jokshan are DEFINITELY associated with Arabia. Muller would say any Arabian Sheba would be from the Shemitic descended Shebas and he is being consistent. The Sheba from Cush would be from the African side of the Red Sea. Even if one rejects Muller's reading nobody can present Job 1:15 as a reference to the descendants of Cush, son of Ham, in Arabia. And as for Job 6:19 it says: "The troops of Tema looked, the companies of Sheba waited for them." Again no mention of "Cushite". Jeremiah 25:13 ("Dedan, Tema and Buz...And all the kings of Arabia") suggests this is an Arabian Sheba and there are two Shemitic Shebas whose brothers are KNOWN TO BE ARABIAN. Hardly evidence that Cush, son of Ham was Asiatic. I'll cut this short by saying the fact that Midianites and Aramaeans were sometimes referred to as "Cushites" has nothing to do with a descent from Cush, son of Ham who is the eponymous ancestor of the famous nation of Cush (Nilotic Sudan). We know this because their ancestry is given as Shemitic in both cases without room for interpretation and without a clear alternative genealogy being given elsewhere. Had you read Science Meets the Bible you would know this.
Swenet also said: "In addition, when Cush is mentioned in the African context, all we see is the same monarchy, i.e., Napata/Meroe. When Cush is mentioned in the Asian context, we see all sorts of tribes and regions being associated with Cush and his descendants".
Goredema now says: Well let's see. African Cush was a nation in the sense that the US was a nation, although not on quite the same scale. There were different ethnic groups within this nation of Cush. When you take that into account the fact that Aramaeans and Midianites were called "Cushite" in some contexts (but was not their national name) means little. Their descent is not from Cush, son of Ham. A hundred peoples being called "Cushite" in Asia would not change that fact. And this Cush, brother of Egypt, and Phut, two African brothers and one Asia-nearest-to-Africa brother was the father of Havilah. So once again when we read of a Havilah and Cush near each other we conclude it is Cush, son of Ham and Havilah, son of Cush being referred to. This is a reasonable conclusion based on the textual evidence of the Old Testament.
Swenet also said: "In science, the regions with the most diversity of a population specific trait are seen as the most probable regions of origin. Enough said".
Goredema now says: Science has to be applied properly in order for it to work. The "specific trait" you speak of, the name "Cush", is found in one group because it carries the name primarily, whereas in the Asiatic groups it is a second name and they have no descent from that Cush. The scientific equivalent would be several groups having one phenotype and a second group having the same phenotype but resulting from a different genotype. The several groups in a particlar place with one phenotype cannot be said to be the origin of the group that has the same phenotype but a different genotype. Science applied properly.
There is another post coming dealing with Joctan being confined to southern Arabia and, Shemitic and Hamitic tribes being allegedly given alternate ancestries.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goredema said then: "There's nowhere in Genesis 2 where Shur is mentioned. You're ASSUMING that the land of Havilah mentioned in connection with the Ishmaelites in Genesis 25:18 is the same one as that of Genesis 2. Muller says this Havilah is more likely to be named after Havilah, one of the thirteen sons of Joktan who dwelt in Arabia given in Genesis 26:30. By mentioning Shur you have introduced something that is not in the Genesis 2 narrative".
Swenet then said: "After doing some research, it appears that neither Joktan nor his sons lived near Mesopotamia, which precludes the Joktan associated Havilah from being mentioned in Genesis 25:18. In other words, there is no African Havilah (unless you know of a third one); both are already accounted for. The Cushite Havilah was in Northeastern Arabia, the Semitic Havilah was in Southern Arabia (Genesis 10:29-30)".
Goredema says now: According to Arabian tradition the Joktanites ARRIVED in Southern Arabia FROM FURTHER NORTH. No Arabian tradition I am aware of says that they ORIGINATED there. I am familiar with those traditions after years of research. In Genesis 10:26-30 (and NOT Genesis 26:30, MY MISTAKE) they dwelt from "Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east." There is no conclusive identification (although some suggestions) of these places in Genesis, other Biblical books or the many commentaries on them. Perhaps it was from there (Havilah) that they moved to Southern Arabia so Havilah in Gen. 25:18 which was in northeastern Arabia ("And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt as thou goest unto toward Assyria") does not exclude Joktanite Havilah. This can be perfectly illustrated with the only other people mentioned in connection with Havilah and Shur, who are the Amelekites (Samuel 15:7), who we know to have been in NORTHERN ARABIA. And yet we read in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica of Arabian traditions of the Amalekites ending up in Southern Arabia:
"The notices occurring in Arabian writers, which speak of Amalekites as spread over various more southern portions of Arabia, may probably be referred to the period subsequent to their expulsion from their northern seats by the Israelites and other enemies. The Benu-Kerker, who dwell around Mecca, are by some referred to this stock ; the same is true of the Benu-Amila, who, before migrating northwards into Syria, dwelt in Yemen".
9th Edition of Encyclopedia Britannica - free ninth edition online encyclopedia Britannica » Volume 1 [A - ANA]: Alvarez to Yetolia
Goredema continues now: In other words there can be a tradition of a people located northerly and then they end up in a southerly location (and therefore in the traditions of the surrounding peoples). In any case these people were nomadic so far-flung locations across time are not unexpected.
Goredema also said then: "He anticipated you. He obviously saw you coming from a mile off".
Swenet then said: "Well, then I hope he has a rebuttal for the fact that the Joktanites were restricted to Southern Arabia, according to indigenous Arab traditions, as well as biblical sources".
Goredema now says: I hope what is above is rebuttal enough.
Swenet also said: "The occurrence of Hametic tribes being put in Semetic lineages (or the other way around) is not unique; "
Goredema says now: It is an ASSUMPTION that these tribes are Hamitic based on the mentioning of the appellation "Cushite". As already stated, there are other potential reasons why tribes might carry that as a "surname". To class a group as Hamitic you need to find a Biblical genealogy giving Ham as an ancestor. Without that Muller's arguement makes more sense.
Swenet also continued:"...we see the same thing happening in the bible with Midian, Babylon and other Sumerian city-states".
Goredema says now: Really? Midian is NOT given a Hamitic genealogy anywhere in Genesis or elsewhere in the Bible. You are welcome to prove me wrong. Babylon is a place. It is given Nimrod, son of Cush as a founder, yes. We cannot speak of Babylon having a Shemitic genealogy in the Bible because no Shemitic founder is ever given for Babylon. By "Sumerian city-states" you are presumably referring to "Erech, Accad and Calneh in the land of Shinar". Again, like Babel, they are given a Cushite founder. My explanation for this is that the Sumerians made their way into Mesopotamia by way of East Africa and were originally an African people. That is consistent with Muller's interpretation. The linguistic evidence for this can be found in the last chapter of the book When We Ruled by Robin Walker, Every Generation Media, 2006.
Swenet also said: "The what or why’s are irrelevant, the point is, nobody in his right mind would seek a Sudani location for Mesopotamian city states, or Midian, just because they sometimes appear to be associated with different lineages".
Goredema says now: The whats and whys, to those that pay them attention, will reveal the picture I outline above. Nobody has to give southern Mesopotamian city-states a Sudanese location.
Swenet also said: "Regardless of the equivocality 'Havilah' in Gen 2:10, Josephus identified him and all the other sons of Cush with Arabian tribes that were well known in his time".
Goredema says now: That's NOT true. Josephus locates the eldest of the sons of Cush in Africa including the crucial Havilah. This is what Muller says of Josephus on the sons of Cush (in anticipation of Josephus being miscited):
"Josephus described the children of the four sons of Ham but we shall limit ourselves to those of Cush: 'The children of these [four] were these: Sabas who founded the Sabeans; Evilas who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens; they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus settled the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of Western Ethiopians and left them his name, as did Saba to the Sabeans...' The first 'Sabas' is obviously intended to be Seba. Havilah is obviously 'Evila'. Sabtah is 'Sabathes'. Sabtechah is 'Sabactas' and Ragmus is clearly Raamah who we are told by both Genesis and Josephus had two sons, here called 'Judadas' and 'Sabas'. It is not difficult to guess which one is 'Sheba' and which 'Dedan'. The Judadeans (Dedanites) are specifically identified as a nation of Africans. The term 'Western Ethiopia' is a reference to the ancient concept of a 'Western' and an 'Eastern' Ethiopia first mentioned by the Greek poet Homer. According to Strabo one interpretation of this held 'Western Ethiopia' to be the Nile region south of Aswan while 'Eastern Ethiopia' was located in Asia. Strabo also tells us of another interpretation which held the former to be the country west of the Nile south of Aswan while the latter was the country east of the Nile south of Aswan. Whichever be the case 'Western Ethiopia' in all likelihood refers to a Nilotic region and certainly to an African region." extract from Chapter 2:The Lands Outside Eden, in, Science Meets The Bible: The Garden of Eden Discovered In East Africa by Gert Muller, Pomegranate Publishers, 2011
Goredema also says: Josephus also gives the capital of Ethiopia (which he says Moses invaded with an Egyptian army) as Saba. When Josephus speaks of "Sabeans" I would connect it with this capital. It makes perfect sense for the eldest son (Seba) to represent the capital of the kingdom of Cush. Havilah Josephus equates with the Getuli, a people of Saharan Africa. Josephus equated Sabtah with the Astaborans after the Astaboras river near Meroe. This is said to be the modern Atbara river which flows into Sudan from Ethiopia. The Ragmeans and Sabactens are said to be Arabian by Bible commentaries but I'm not sure whether Josephus gives details. Dedan was definitely seen by Josephus as African. So it is NOT true that Havilah and all the other sons of Cush are "identified as Arabian tribes that were well known in his time".
Swenet also said: "I don’t know what he meant with the term, but after looking it up, it appears I was wrong; Diodorus doesn’t exclusively refer to a single Sudanese polity, as the text clearly indicates Ethiopians further South are also implied. This would make your earlier statement regarding the general East African origin of the first man, in the mind of the Greeks, correct".
Goredema says now: Praise where praise is due. You can admit when, on the balance of evidence, you are wrong. Hamidullalilah! Muller's thesis is essentially that the Greek intelligentsia knew about the East African origins and that the Hebrew intelligentsia knew this too. So did the Egyptian intelligentsia. I will leave you to guess who could be the origins of this information. Before we move on to "the east" we should try to reach some consensus on the above. It is not without reason that I found reading the book a life-changing experience.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good discussion full of facts, but a warning to Goredema.Beware of beating drums to stones.There are people who have been fed so much eurocentric rubbish that whatever truth they are provided,will always deny the facts.Sweetnet has not even read the book,and has no wish to do so lest it exposes his ignorance.
I will definitely buy this book.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The implication of your post was that the book had avoided difficult issues like the Tigris-Euphrates rivers
Of course, the implication of you using the phrase ‘the implication’ (rather than saying ‘you said Muller ignored difficult issues’), is that you know you really have no basis for you allegations, as usual. Nowhere in that post did I even mention Muller, or his book; I simply posted a biblical passage which – when examined in context – excludes the Horn from being a candidate for Eden. I then made the prediction that Muller fanatics would come up with silly rebuttals.
quote: I responded with a quote from amazon.com discussions, coming from the book, which showed that the author had not ignored the Tigris-Euphrates rivers because the quote mentioned the rivers and Eden being located "eastward".
So, let me get this right. Muller addressed the ‘Eastward’ reference, because he featured in his book the only biblical text that gives clues about the location of Eden, in which ‘Eastward’ just happens to appear? ‘Eastward’ is relative, which means that – when taken out of its context – you could willfully place it anywhere (wiggling room, remember?), as long as you place it East of some location. But according to you, the simple act of not sweeping Genesis 2:8 under the rug when discussing Genesis 2:10-14, means he addressed the ‘Eastward’ reference?
quote:I notice a failure to acknowledge that your initial implication was wrong.
That’s the difference between us; you expect pats on the back (in this case, for being dead wrong), I expect demonstrations of what you claim to be fact.
quote:This only furthers the impression that you had already made your mind up when you came across the product description of the book.
Yes, totally true. Nothing new, or out of the ordinary though in this forum, or any other science related forums for that matter.
quote:I think the relevance of these non-Hebrew sources are obvious BUT you are entitled not to accept the sources for not being Hebrew.
This is not just about your sources not being Hebrew. The manner in which your Pausanias quote is used is flat-out bizarre. No self-respecting scholar would use population specific ideas as reflective or informative of the beliefs of other people, who existed ~8 centuries earlier. It’s like saying New Kingdom era Ancient Egyptians must have believed Babylon was where all humans dispersed, because some Hebrews believed this was the case, 8 centuries later.
quote:"I didn't read it properly, and so I missed that Pausanias was talking about the Euphrates, rather than the Cushite associated Pishon and Gihon rivers."
Still doesn't make any sense. What has Strabo's quote got to do with Pausanias mentioning the Euphrates?
You mean, it’s too hard to figure out for yourself that Pausanias’ speculators could have been coming up with those far-fetched stories, because they had a hard time seeing the two Aethiopian/Cushite dominated regions mentioned in Genesis 2:10-14 as strictly Asian? Read the Strabo quote, then read the Pausanias quote again; they’re still there. If you weren’t so busy with falsely accusing me of shifting positions/habitually misinterpreting (or whatever you think mixing up the names of Pausanius and Diodorus means), you wouldn’t have all this imaginary baggage confusing you.
quote:Muller dealt with Habbakuk 3 referring to the Midianites. He says there are Asian Cushites but these Midianites are descended from Abraham and Keturah, not from Cush so this does not serve to place Cush, the son of Ham, in Asia.
This is irrelevant. Habakkuk 3:7 denotes lineage, while them being originally fathered by Abraham doesn’t (can’t draw inferences from a one time event); it only marks their ethno genesis in the Hebrew mind. There is no biblical attestation of groups being referred to as Cushite, in the absence of Cushite lineages. Mullers explanation that they were called such, simply because of their appearance, falls flat. Had they not had ancestry from black African or Asian groups (i.e., Hamites), they wouldn’t have appeared different from Israelites to begin with (both descended from Abraham, remember). If Muller concedes they looked like blacks on the other side of the red sea, non-Abrahamic lineages have to account for that.
quote:Goredema says now: It doesn't matter that the Midianites are an example of Asian Cushites because Muller's arguement was NEVER that there were no Asian Cushites as he mentions them. His arguement was that these Cushites were NOT descended from Cush, brother of Egypt and son of Ham.
Muller is obviously horribly confused and deprived of familiarity with biblical and other ancient texts. Right next to the very first references to the sons of Cush, is mentioned Nimrod, who is described as building some of the most important cities in Ancient Mesopotamia. This is also the very first passage that assigns regions to Cushites. The Hebrews obviously conceived of Nimrod and Cushites as Asian in origin (none of the Noah’s descendants had dispersed from Babylon yet), just give it up already. The bible provides no basis for restricting descendants of Cush to regions below Egypt. Even JHOM’s official position (Muller’s source) on the matter, is in clear contradiction of Muller’s bizarre position that Asian Cushites were not thought of as being descendants of Cush.
quote:Goredema continues: So this in no way associates it with Cush, the son of Ham. In other words Judges 3, 8 changes NOTHING.
You simply changed the location over which this Cushite king reigned, from Mesopotamia, to Northern Mesopotamia. What is your point? Muller’s idea of Shemite Cushites can only be applied to Midianites, not to other Asian Cushites whose Semite ethnogenesis is never given.
quote:Job 1:15 does NOT mention the term "Cushites" but "Sabeans". And as for Job 6:19 it says: "The troops of Tema looked, the companies of Sheba waited for them." Again no mention of "Cushite".
Fair enough, next.
quote:I'll cut this short by saying
What happened? I thought you said you was going to reply to all of the not yet discussed references? You only discussed two, and you and I both know why; no more wiggling room to invoke Joktan and Jokshan when it comes to the rest of the references to Asian Cushites.
quote:We know this because their ancestry is given as Shemitic in both cases without room for interpretation
No, the ancestry of their patriarch is given as partly Semite, BIG difference. What happened to Ismaelites was obviously the same as what happened to their closest relatives (in both geography and lineage). See Genesis 21:21. This explanation is much more in line with the available (extra) biblical information about the Midianites.
quote:African Cush was a nation in the sense that the US was a nation, although not on quite the same scale. There were different ethnic groups within this nation of Cush.
Prove that the Hebrews thought of Nilotic Cushites as belonging to different ethnic groups. Don’t confuse Hebrew thought for what may or may not have existed in the historic kingdom of Kush.
quote:When you take that into account the fact that Aramaeans and Midianites were called "Cushite" in some contexts (but was not their national name) means little.
Arameans were never called Cushites, and Midianites were always called Cushites (never Semites), the ancestry of Midian himself notwithstanding. Your case falls flat, every single time. You try to invoke non-existent Cushite Arameans, because you try to make a case for the assertion that ‘Cushite’, when applied to a population, was seen as a frivolous ascription, that could be applied to any Semitic group, for a variety of reasons, but your argument leads to a dead end, because Aram-Naharaim refers to a region, not a population. Recap: you have no evidence for Aramean Cushites, and Midianite ‘Cushite features’ would have had to come from somewhere, and this source is obviously what is responsible for their association with Cushites. You know your case is crumbling, and hence, why you suddenly stopped addressing the biblical references when you ran out of opportunities to invoke the possibility of Joktan & Jokshan for the remaining 4, 5 references to Asian Cushites.
quote:So once again when we read of a Havilah and Cush near each other we conclude it is Cush, son of Ham and Havilah, son of Cush being referred to. This is a reasonable conclusion based on the textual evidence of the Old Testament.
Exactly. Which is why, when we read of the Cushite Havilah being in Northeast Arabia, and the Semitic Havilah being restricted to Southern Arabia, we know the bible intended Gihon to be flowing through a region which was inhabited by nearby West Asian Cushites. Daniel lived in Mesopotamia, and he referred to standing next to the Tigris/Hiddikel river (Daniel 10:4), and Revelations mentions the Euphrates as associated with Eastern kings (Revelation 16:12). In return, what do you bring to the table? ‘Muller says the rivers can be interpreted differently’, but you bring no actual biblical examples that demonstrate that these interpretations were a part of Hebrew thought (which makes the interpretations random and unsupported). As it turns out, even JHOM isn’t supporting Muller where his stance on the African location of Gihon and Pishon are concerned (they were merely speculating). Case closed.
quote:The scientific equivalent would be several groups having one phenotype and a second group having the same phenotype but resulting from a different genotype.
In the mind of the biblical authors, all post deluge populations would have been more or less genetically indistinguishable, because of recent ancestry through Noah. Most of the differing ancestries would’ve come by way of the four women who accompanied them. This being the case, there is no way for Midianites to acquire Cushite looks, without having absorbed Cushite lineages.
quote: There is no conclusive identification (although some suggestions) of these places in Genesis, other Biblical books or the many commentaries on them.
I’m not going to play silly obfuscation games. It suffices to say that regardless of the inconclusiveness of their exact location, it isn’t in Northeastern Arabia. The bible says that in order to reach Ophir, Northern nations had travel through the Red Sea (1 Kings 9:26-28), which is fundamentally inconsistent with the Northeastern Arabian Havilah.
quote:This can be perfectly illustrated with the only other people mentioned in connection with Havilah and Shur, who are the Amelekites (Samuel 15:7), who we know to have been in NORTHERN ARABIA. And yet we read in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica of Arabian traditions of the Amalekites ending up in Southern Arabia:
You’re comparing apples with oranges. Genesis is a single book, which was composed within a certain time frame, and in that exact same book, the region where Joktanites lived is confined to a region, which is distinct from the Northeastern Arabian region where the bible says the Pishon flowed. Throughout multiple books, and thus Israelite history, the region of the Northeastern Arabian Havilah, the region of Joktanites and the region of Amalekites remained stable. I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, or what relevance it has to the topic under discussion.
quote:Again, like Babel, they are given a Cushite founder. My explanation for this is that the Sumerians made their way into Mesopotamia by way of East Africa and were originally an African people.
Your confusing the reality of the situation here. We’re discussing Hebrew ideas and ethnography. Your idea of Mesopotamian population affinity has no bearing on whether the Hebrews believed the Mesopotamian and Arabian Cushites were descended from Ham.
quote:My explanation for this is that the Sumerians made their way into Mesopotamia by way of East Africa and were originally an African people. That is consistent with Muller's interpretation.
Well, your explanation is unsupported when it comes to biblical tradition, as Nimrods kingdom was perceived (by biblical authors) to predate the exodus of all Noah’s offspring, following the myth of language confusion. There was no such thing as ‘East Africans’ following the deluge.
quote:That's NOT true. Josephus locates the eldest of the sons of Cush in Africa including the crucial Havilah.
And then you cite the Josephus text in question, and go on to contradict his own words. Only Dedan (who was not a direct son of Cush), was identified by Josephus as being Western. Josephus clearly is in support of my position that the epicenter of the descendants of Noah is in West Asia, as he says regarding Nimrod:
-but Nimrod, the son of Chus, stayed and tyrannized at Babylon.
Which shows he thought of the other Cushites as having spread out from the region around Mesopotamia, rather than Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Mind you guys, that Keturah's lineage was never specified. Some scholars think she may have been Hamitic (probably from the line of Canaan?) due to later non-scriptural descriptions of tribes descended from Keturah as being black. There are others who suggest Keturah was the same person as Hagar who was Egyptian. Either way the matriarch was a black personage. Whether African or Asiatic of course is up to debate though I fail to see what this has to do with Eden.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti said:"^ Mind you guys, that Keturah's lineage was never specified".
Goredema says now: Keturah's lineage is irrelevant to the question of whether the Midianites were considered Hamitic or Shemitic in descent. Why? Because Hebrew genealogy is patriarchal. I would have thought that was obvious. That is why the two tribes of Israel from Joseph, as opposed to Jacob, which had an Egyptian mother would be classed as Shemitic.
Djehuti said: "Some scholars think she may have been Hamitic (probably from the line of Canaan?) due to later non-scriptural descriptions of tribes descended from Keturah as being black".
Goredema says: What makes you think that if someone is Black they have to be Cushite or Hamite. Muller's whole point is that Black appearance was not confined to the descendants of Ham.
Djehuti said: "There are others who suggest Keturah was the same person as Hagar who was Egyptian. Either way the matriarch was a black personage. Whether African or Asiatic of course is up to debate though I fail to see what this has to do with Eden".
Goredema says: Try following the arguement.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mentu said: "Good discussion full of facts, but a warning to Goredema.Beware of beating drums to stones.There are people who have been fed so much eurocentric rubbish that whatever truth they are provided,will always deny the facts.Sweetnet has not even read the book,and has no wish to do so lest it exposes his ignorance.
I will definitely buy this book".
Goredema says: I guess enough information has been posted for people to decide which one of us: 1) Has the stronger arguements 2) Is avoiding issues 3) Would make a better representative for the African cause when going up against the establishment.
By the way Mentu not all the people who present themselves as Africans here are necessarily so. I witnessed an arguement between two White Supremacists and two Afrocentrists. The Afrocentrists were presenting arguements that had some faults but that is certainly NOT to say the White Supremacists were any better. They were much worse. Two people presenting themselves as African ladies waded in to criticise the Afrocentrists while saying nothing about the White Supremacists in the same discussion. Now, on balance, does this remind you of Black behaviour or White behaviour. I can prove who I am. Many of these others can't.
Posts: 176 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic