quote:rasol wrote: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia July 27, 2007 (ENA) - President Girma Woldegiorgis has seen off on Thursday the scout legion of the Ethiopian Scout Association (ESA) that left for London to take part at the 21st World Scout Jamboree.
During a ceremony held at the National Palace, the President handed over the the Ethiopian flag, scout and Black Lion logo for the scout team named ‘Black Lion Legion’ after the Black Lion Army of the Ethiopian national military force during the imperial regime.
If you ask the average Ethiopian who he or she is? They will reply either Oromo, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Harari etc. never "black". At the end some might say just Ethiopian (but not all). The name of some scout team does not represent the identity of Ethiopians.
Tiqur Anbessa or "Black Lion" was the name of an Arbegna (Patriot) Resistance group against the Italian Occupation. It wasn't named by foreigners.
Who said it was named by foreigners? Or are are you trying to tell me that Ethiopians identify as "black"?
The latter, but obviously only for some, the more cosmopolitan especially.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lol. I don't even bother rebuking Yonis, since his anti Black posturings are contrived and essentially fake.
quote:Tiqur Anbessa or "Black Lion" was the name of an Arbegna (Patriot) Resistance group against the Italian Occupation. It wasn't named by foreigners.
^ It was named by Ethiopians who were proud to be Black.
Some of us can relate, others cannot.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ethiopian Dude: I was looking at the sumerian dictionary online today and i was so amazed at how many words we (semetic)ethiopians have that have the same meaning and sound as the sumerians. This has proven to me beyound a shadow of a doubt that the sumerians.... the first civilized people were ethiopians.... i will give some examples below....
ancient sumerian Ethiopian semetic 1.SU (him) 1. ESU (him) 2.MINU (what) 2. MIN (what) 3.MANNU (who) 3. MANNEW (who) 4.SIKARU (beer) 4. SIKARU ( drunk) 5.Kalbi (DOG) 5. KALBI (dog) 6.SALAMU (to become black) 6. SALEMU (become Black
i will write more...
I would state biblically speaking, if you MOVE "The Garden of Eden" out of the "Middle East" and into current day "Ethiopia" to match what we now know scientifically then things make much more sense when you study these ancients of East Africa and South West Asia.
From everything that I have seen, it would seem as if people that LOOK just like North East Africans (Egyptians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, Somali, etc)inhabited South West Asia / The Arab Peninsula for a long time, along with others of course. I cannot answer the question if these people were "African" But they looked like the people on the opposite coast. A parallel example would be the Native people of the South Pacific. We now know they are not "Africans" from a DNA standpoint but they will fit an African Phenotype, even a narrow African Phenotype. So there are twin arguments that need to be addressed. I have been to Dubai and Yemen and after spending a few months in East Africa I would state that many People in the Mid East look like diluted East Africans, that is just my opinion of course. Arab Egyptians look like diluted East Africans to me too, again this is only an opinion.
Also when it comes to Ethiopia vs. Abyssinia, some of the points you made are correct. But again, we know there were similar populations on both sides of the Red Sea. Im pretty sure this has been documented. I think you are making the argument based on the Idea that these people were totally separate groups. This is how white people make distinctions on "Nubians" fighting "Egyptians" not realizing that both were still "Africans" and from that standpoint it really doesnt matter. This is to say: I don't think that Africa looses anything because 'Abyssinia' stole the name 'Ethiopia' from......Ethiopia. And even then when dealing with Ethnic groups and genetics I believe that 'Ethiopia and "Ethiopia" had a lot in common....So again the question comes to "What does Africa loose?" Does Africa loose anything because Ghana is named after Ancient Ghana? Or Northern Somalia called "Puntland" or the country "Benin" when coincidentally there was a Kingom of Benin in current day Nigeria. I dont think so. In my opinion the location of the Garden of Eden needs to be changed. Scientifically the bible can make sense. Scientifically It makes more sense for Adam and Eve to be East African, not Middle Eastern. The history of WHY the Garden of Eden is even in the Middle East is steeped in racism and old ideas that we have simply "Ran with"
That's just my opinion of course, and I am in now way an expert. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is really no such thing as a "Semetic" language. It is really made up. I do agree that the first inhabitants of the Middle East were majority of Ethiopian (Cush) descent. The Egypt descent was mainly in modern day Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Israel, and Syria areas. The so-called "Shemetic" language was spoken by even "Ham" descendants. After all, they were brothers and sprout from the same branch. I don't understand why people rather say it is "semetic" rather than "hamitic". It was really neither.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't know where the "Garden of Eden" was at. We must keep in mind that the Garden was located East of Eden. We know from that that Eden was a place. Exactly what was it? Was it Earth itself, or a region occupying earth? Whatever it was, it was the garden that was place "East" of it. I do believe "Eden" did cover the so-called Middle East even though I can't prove it. I also believe it covered parts of the Indian sub-continent even until central so-called Africa. I still can't prove it not even from biblical perspective. I just know that the Garden was not Eden itself but was located East in Eden.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moreover, languages and tongues do not remain static neither are they exclusive or solely restricted to the original speakers.
In the US of A, more likely than not, you will find representatives of every nationality, tribe and tongue of people on earth who are either native or near native speakers of a largely Yaphetic (Indo-European) language known as American English.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
The origin, ethnicity, culture and history of a people cannot be explained in terms of their biology. All the DNA or genetic data/datum purports to explain is the biological makeup of person or people in a specific stream of time.
In addition, the problem with the 'Out of Africa' theory as an account of the origin of humankind is that the the so called myths/legends, oral and written chronicles of the indigenous inabitants of the African continent indicate that they originate from a land in present day south-west Asia; not present day Africa!
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: The so called 'Garden of Eden' has no relation to Kush or Sumer.
Are you talking to me? I already know this. My statement is for those who is confuse about the "placement" of the Garden of Eden. I was pointing out that the "Garden" is not necessarily "Eden" but a "garden" that "belongs" to Eden. I'm glad you pointed it out. Because the "Garden of Eden" has no relations to Iraq, neither.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was never an "Out-of-Africa" migration. People was separated and nations was formed from Asia. I keep telling people that Black people always been in Asia. I don't know why people want to believe this out-of-Africa myth so bad.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: Moreover, languages and tongues do not remain static neither are they exclusive or solely restricted to the original speakers.
In the US of A, more likely than not, you will find representatives of every nationality, tribe and tongue of people on earth who are either native or near native speakers of a largely Yaphetic (Indo-European) language known as American English.
Sorry but American English did not derive from Indo-European.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
One should be careful not to equate the former Hamites of the old school anthropology-linguists and the Semites of the current linguists with the the b*nei Hham and b*nei Shem of Hebrew record. They are by no means the same.
K*na'an (Canaan) is the prime example. Canaan was a son of Hham. Yet the Israelites who set down the TaNaKH (so-called "Old Testament") say the Hebrew language is the language of Canaan. The Israelite see themselves as Shem's lineage yet they spoke Canaanitic, a language of Hham's lineage.
Current linguists rank Canaanitic and its related languages in the Semitic phylum but Canaanites were of Hham's lineage not Shem's.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: There is really no such thing as a "Semetic" language. It is really made up. I do agree that the first inhabitants of the Middle East were majority of Ethiopian (Cush) descent. The Egypt descent was mainly in modern day Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Israel, and Syria areas. The so-called "Shemetic" language was spoken by even "Ham" descendants. After all, they were brothers and sprout from the same branch. I don't understand why people rather say it is "semetic" rather than "hamitic". It was really neither.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a real good article dealing with the shem, semitic people and how they were sem priest (so-called Hamites) which can be found throughout all of Africa. African Semite Priest!
According to historical documents, Menes/Narmer was the first to unite Upper & Lower Kemet, while the biblical Nimrod the son of Cush was proclaimed to do the same (Tower of Babel). I'm not a linguist but I see some similarities in the names and attributes.
Narmer = Nrm-r Nimrod = Nmr-d
Narmer united all of Kmt while Nimrod did the same for Babylon/Mesopotamia. Narmer was a warrior king just like Nimrod which is very close to the Ethiopian/Cush Memnon/Mmn-n.
Once again, the list goes on but it makes one wonder being that the bible or Septuagint was translated in Kmt. This story of Nimrod could be no other then Narmer of Kmt & Memnon of Cush which possibly became one story based on Thothmoses III take over of Syria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Armenia, Abyssinia and City of the Gold Miners/Nubia.
Nimrod was the king of Babylon which was formally known as Mesopotamia. If Nimrod was an Cushite biblically and Narmer was an Cushite historically then it seems safe to say that Mesopotamia was once ruled by Ethiopians.
Note: Abraham came from Mesopotamia/Ur of Sumer and not Ur of the Chaldees. If he really existed he would have been a 'Zaggi' i.e. 'black headed ones', thus this story would have ultimately came from him; the Ethiopian.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
You make some interesting points in the post above. We know that Mesopotamia was ruled by Kushites, but I don't believe that Nimrod and Narmar are one and the same. Let's not forget that the first rulers of Sumer were known as the kings of Kish.
Memnon appears during the Trojan war so he appears much later than either Nimrod or Narmar.
Moreover, we must not forget that as noted by Takruri, the whole idae of who was Shemitic or Hamitic is quite amorphous.
You can read about the Kushites in Asia in my book:
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: I read a real good article dealing with the shem, semitic people and how they were sem priest (so-called Hamites) which can be found throughout all of Africa. African Semite Priest!
According to historical documents, Menes/Narmer was the first to unite Upper & Lower Kemet, while the biblical Nimrod the son of Cush was proclaimed to do the same (Tower of Babel). I'm not a linguist but I see some similarities in the names and attributes.
Narmer = Nrm-r Nimrod = Nmr-d
Narmer united all of Kmt while Nimrod did the same for Babylon/Mesopotamia. Narmer was a warrior king just like Nimrod which is very close to the Ethiopian/Cush Memnon/Mmn-n.
Once again, the list goes on but it makes one wonder being that the bible or Septuagint was translated in Kmt. This story of Nimrod could be no other then Narmer of Kmt & Memnon of Cush which possibly became one story based on Thothmoses III take over of Syria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Armenia, Abyssinia and City of the Gold Miners/Nubia.
Nimrod was the king of Babylon which was formally known as Mesopotamia. If Nimrod was an Cushite biblically and Narmer was an Cushite historically then it seems safe to say that Mesopotamia was once ruled by Ethiopians.
Note: Abraham came from Mesopotamia/Ur of Sumer and not Ur of the Chaldees. If he really existed he would have been a 'Zaggi' i.e. 'black headed ones', thus this story would have ultimately came from him; the Ethiopian.
^(thumbs up on the Nimrod/Narmer comparison, never noted that)
And this is what I mean, when you get down to the nitty gritty it would seem as if both populations were the same. It really would not matter if they started IN North East Africa or South West Asia.....They seem to be the same people.
Now lets take it one step further and analyze the old school notion of "White Hamites." or "Black Caucasians" This actually gets really important. These so called "White Hamites" and "Black Caucasians" according to old and not so old theories were in North East Africa and South West Asia. Of course we can see today that what the racist Euro-centrists called "White Hamites" and "Black Caucasians" of yesterday are just the Elongated North East Africans of today. We NOW know those features are indigenous. Replacing that old term with what we know now of Modern North East Africans that would still place them on BOTH sides of the Red Sea. Using an old "Hamitic Theory" of the establishment of Ancient Egypt would still show people that looked "North East Africans" coming over and Establishing Egypt. (I do not believe this theory to be true)
Using bible myth, HAM was thought to be the "Father of all Blacks" this was put forth and then they took it back when we see that Egypt (Mizraim) comes from Ham. The racists tossed the Hamite label then took it back to lay claim to Egypt. If you take that literally, as the OP states that still places the Father and his immediate soms on BOTH sides of the Red Sea.
To Betty: In cases like these, YES we would love to get to the truth regarding the "Out of Africa Theory" But as far as Black People are concerned i don't think we loose anything if the original people are placed in the Horn or N.W. Asia....That is because according to all the Myth they were the same population on both sides. It sort of like Oromo in Ethiopia and Oromo in Kenya arguing over exactly WHO is Oromo. In the past people have try to separate Africa with "Sub-Saharan" Africa as if their was a force-field keeping one part of the population below a certain part. I do not think we should do this when it comes to East Africa and S.W. Asia, we are acting as if their is a barrier that people did not cross when we know they crossed it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why people keep saying that Abraham came from "Ur of Chaldees". It is biblical true that Abraham called Mesopotamia his country, but there is no evidence that Abraham was from Ur of Chaldees. It has no biblical foundation.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Astenb, first of all there is no biblical myth that HAM is father of all blacks. That is a man-made myth. The bible do not speak of HAM being father of no "black" race. I just don't believe in the Out-of-Africa theory because the bible contradicts it. I also don't believe in HAM as the black race, Jaspheth as the white race, and Shem of the "whatever" race because the bible contradicts it. I just don't understand why people want to try so hard to convince the world that in order for you to be black you "must" come from Africa. This is not true. The same phenotype you find in Africa today was spreaded throughout Asia during early mankind history even until today. Blacks has always been in Asia and many groups never came from Africa.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: To Astenb, first of all there is no biblical myth that HAM is father of all blacks. That is a man-made myth. The bible do not speak of HAM being father of no "black" race. I just don't believe in the Out-of-Africa theory because the bible contradicts it. I also don't believe in HAM as the black race, Jaspheth as the white race, and Shem of the "whatever" race because the bible contradicts it. I just don't understand why people want to try so hard to convince the world that in order for you to be black you "must" come from Africa. This is not true. The same phenotype you find in Africa today was spreaded throughout Asia during early mankind history even until today. Blacks has always been in Asia and many groups never came from Africa.
Well i cant really get far into the bible but what I can say is when it comes to black people coming from HAM that may not be a biblical myth but is IS an Oral tradition. This would be the SAME type of oral tradition that traces some Africans back to South West Asia. Oral tradition = Man Made Myth. Myths DONT have to be true or false, they simply are what they are. From a bible perspective I dont see any discrepancies with all Black people coming from HAM. And using my example of what we know of "White Hamites" who were not really white, it only reinforces this man made myth. (people that looked just like N.E. Africans lived on both sides) Judaic texts as well as Muslim commentary also state that Ham is the Father of "Africans" The bible sometimes calls Egypt the "Land of Ham"
But people mainly support the Out of Africa theory because of the physical evidence. That is where everything is found. That's is where the oldest languages and people are. That is where the most diversity is. Yes Blacks have always been in Asia and they are still there. Most of them though are in Africa.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bettyboo and astenb - This is not really a good venue to argue the Bible or Biblical myth or whatever. It is NOT sufficient here to just say you don't agree, or to make claims of the top of your head. If you have an assertion fine, but please have the courtesy to say WHY, and offer some Proof.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: I read a real good article dealing with the shem, semitic people and how they were sem priest (so-called Hamites) which can be found throughout all of Africa. African Semite Priest!
According to historical documents, Menes/Narmer was the first to unite Upper & Lower Kemet, while the biblical Nimrod the son of Cush was proclaimed to do the same (Tower of Babel). I'm not a linguist but I see some similarities in the names and attributes.
Narmer = Nrm-r Nimrod = Nmr-d
Narmer united all of Kmt while Nimrod did the same for Babylon/Mesopotamia. Narmer was a warrior king just like Nimrod which is very close to the Ethiopian/Cush Memnon/Mmn-n.
Once again, the list goes on but it makes one wonder being that the bible or Septuagint was translated in Kmt. This story of Nimrod could be no other then Narmer of Kmt & Memnon of Cush which possibly became one story based on Thothmoses III take over of Syria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Armenia, Abyssinia and City of the Gold Miners/Nubia.
Nimrod was the king of Babylon which was formally known as Mesopotamia. If Nimrod was an Cushite biblically and Narmer was an Cushite historically then it seems safe to say that Mesopotamia was once ruled by Ethiopians.
Note: Abraham came from Mesopotamia/Ur of Sumer and not Ur of the Chaldees. If he really existed he would have been a 'Zaggi' i.e. 'black headed ones', thus this story would have ultimately came from him; the Ethiopian.
Good work. I don't believe Sumerians were black and I believe 'sag.gi.ga' black headed ones referred to the dichotomy of black hair of western Asians and blonde hair of Gutians.
I do think it is possible the ruling powers of the Nile Valley did have the power military wise and the stake economically to rule those lands though.
And yes Narmer was a unifer, warrior, and father which would mean in Biblical(language) makes him an "ADAM"[the first]. He is also a "MOSES"(Horus/Aries) by expelling(or leading) people out of a land which would mean astrologically(Greek/Roman) he is a [Scorpio]. If you look at the Narmer pallete it has two headed dragons which corresponds to the Greek/Roman "Libra-Scorpio"(remember the Romans seperated Libra from Scorpio due to precession and added Leo to make 12 months rather than 10).
Nimrod means "a twisting" which could only mean a "twisting of blood lines". Shemetic and Hamitic lines being twisted together. In the Sumerian story LEGEND OF ETANA you can see that Etana corresponds with SHEM and is *playing*(which means **** in those times lol) in the Aviary with the Serpent(notice north Egypt is the Serpent and South Egypt is the Horus/Eagle *wink*)because Etana needs a "SHUMU" which means *name* and it meams the same in Hebrew - Shem means name/heir/royal(Upper Egypt-Ta SHEMau)!
In later lore they say "Ceramis" is the TRUE father of Nimrod which corresponds to "cush" in the Bible but the step father is really SHEM/Etana. With all the inbreeding going on in the Royal families they are having a hard time procreating so other blood lines have to have children for them while they still have a "royal vestige by being raised by the royals".
Now these as I have told you in other threads are Archetypes they aren't real people, but historically people played the ROLES of the Biblical characters written 200 bce. So pinpointing only ONE Nimrod is not a good move, but multiple Nimrods in history are.
Narmer, Sahure, Pepi, Sargon, Narmer Huni, Shesonq were all "strikers" and Nimrods in history. Try corresponding Narmer with "ENMERKER" in Sumerian king's list. But the specific Nimrod in the Bible when it speaks of the Tower of Babel I would have to go with PEPI which I feel means "The builder/Great builder".
Also do you see how "KISH" in Sumeria is so close to "KUSH" in Africa KS/CS written with out vowels?
Elamites are of Kish and listed as the Sons of SHEM in the Bible. En.me.barage.si was a king of Kish and his son was "AGA" which was a contemporary of Gilgamesh in the Gilgamesh Epic. Do you see the comparison of the word AGA with Horus-(AHA) in Egypt hmmmmmm lol. Now if Narmer is the son of Horus-Aha which was just as popular in Egypt based on the Archeology before Narmer I can see the Biblical order of HAM to CUSH to NIMROD.
Now here is where it gets deep lol. It says that Kish was defeated and kingship was taken to URUK and the first ruler of Uruk was Mesh.ki.ang.gasher of "ETANA" and his son was "ENMERKER/Nimrod" who was the grandosn of "UTU" yet En.shag.KUSH.ana was the ruler of the 2nd Dynasty of Uruk and enabled EANN(ATUM) to conquer the whole land!!!
I find it inviting that KUSH exists in the name of the first king of the 2nd dynasty of URUK and (ATUM) an Egyptian word which corresponds the ADAM in the Bible to exist in the conquerer of the whole land after his rule WHILE ANNEXING KISH of the ELAMITES hmmmm.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
Nor is Hham simply the root of continental Africans alone because we find not only Canaanites in Arabian plate lands but also some Kushites too.
Additionally, certainly the Five Books of Moses are as African a topic as any other. The Israelites claim they received it in Africa on the Sinai peninsula of Egypt. And the remainder of the Hebrew Scriptures (so-called "Old Testament") are based on and are a sequel to the Torah.
TaNaKH is set of documents and can be analysed the same way we do the Book of Gates or The Book of Coming Forth or The Wisdom of Amenenope(sp) or any other ancient world text.
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: To Astenb, first of all there is no biblical myth that HAM is father of all blacks. That is a man-made myth. The bible do not speak of HAM being father of no "black" race. I just don't believe in the Out-of-Africa theory because the bible contradicts it. I also don't believe in HAM as the black race, Jaspheth as the white race, and Shem of the "whatever" race because the bible contradicts it. I just don't understand why people want to try so hard to convince the world that in order for you to be black you "must" come from Africa. This is not true. The same phenotype you find in Africa today was spreaded throughout Asia during early mankind history even until today. Blacks has always been in Asia and many groups never came from Africa.
Well i cant really get far into the bible but what I can say is when it comes to black people coming from HAM that may not be a biblical myth but is IS an Oral tradition. This would be the SAME type of oral tradition that traces some Africans back to South West Asia. Oral tradition = Man Made Myth. Myths DONT have to be true or false, they simply are what they are. From a bible perspective I dont see any discrepancies with all Black people coming from HAM. And using my example of what we know of "White Hamites" who were not really white, it only reinforces this man made myth. (people that looked just like N.E. Africans lived on both sides) Judaic texts as well as Muslim commentary also state that Ham is the Father of "Africans" The bible sometimes calls Egypt the "Land of Ham"
But people mainly support the Out of Africa theory because of the physical evidence. That is where everything is found. That's is where the oldest languages and people are. That is where the most diversity is. Yes Blacks have always been in Asia and they are still there. Most of them though are in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Bettyboo and astenb - This is not really a good venue to argue the Bible or Biblical myth or whatever. It is NOT sufficient here to just say you don't agree, or to make claims of the top of your head. If you have an assertion fine, but please have the courtesy to say WHY, and offer some Proof.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: R U 2Religious
You make some interesting points in the post above. We know that Mesopotamia was ruled by Kushites, but I don't believe that Nimrod and Narmar are one and the same. Let's not forget that the first rulers of Sumer were known as the kings of Kish.
for some reason, this forum wasn't working to well yesterday or I would have responded a lot sooner.
What I was saying is that there are similarities that cannot be overlooked when confronted with biblical mythologies and Kemetic history.
Example would be: Hebrews supposedly translated their scripts in Kemet. So why wouldn't the Hebrews plagiarize the Kemetic documents? There hasn't been found to date the original Hebraic text in Kemet from which the Hebrew scriptures were supposedly translated. Thus it is imperative to extract the origins of the Hebrew mythology from Kemetic text.
I also used Memnon as a comparison acknowledging the fact that Grecian history is fairly new but the same can be said of Hebrew histories which cannot be date previous to the Septuagint (250 bc), despite jewish claim. Nimrod and Memnon is fairly new but what is true for both people who created these stories (Grecian & Hebrews)is that they both studied in Kemet.
Thus these stories seem to be based on the parent story of Narmer/Menes.
Narmer Nimrod
Menes Memnon
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Nor is Hham simply the root of continental Africans alone because we find not only Canaanites in Arabian plate lands but also some Kushites too.
Additionally, certainly the Five Books of Moses are as African a topic as any other. The Israelites claim they received it in Africa on the Sinai peninsula of Egypt. And the remainder of the Hebrew Scriptures (so-called "Old Testament") are based on and are a sequel to the Torah.
TaNaKH is set of documents and can be analysed the same way we do the Book of Gates or The Book of Coming Forth or The Wisdom of Amenenope(sp) or any other ancient world text.
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: To Astenb, first of all there is no biblical myth that HAM is father of all blacks. That is a man-made myth. The bible do not speak of HAM being father of no "black" race. I just don't believe in the Out-of-Africa theory because the bible contradicts it. I also don't believe in HAM as the black race, Jaspheth as the white race, and Shem of the "whatever" race because the bible contradicts it. I just don't understand why people want to try so hard to convince the world that in order for you to be black you "must" come from Africa. This is not true. The same phenotype you find in Africa today was spreaded throughout Asia during early mankind history even until today. Blacks has always been in Asia and many groups never came from Africa.
Well i cant really get far into the bible but what I can say is when it comes to black people coming from HAM that may not be a biblical myth but is IS an Oral tradition. This would be the SAME type of oral tradition that traces some Africans back to South West Asia. Oral tradition = Man Made Myth. Myths DONT have to be true or false, they simply are what they are. From a bible perspective I dont see any discrepancies with all Black people coming from HAM. And using my example of what we know of "White Hamites" who were not really white, it only reinforces this man made myth. (people that looked just like N.E. Africans lived on both sides) Judaic texts as well as Muslim commentary also state that Ham is the Father of "Africans" The bible sometimes calls Egypt the "Land of Ham"
But people mainly support the Out of Africa theory because of the physical evidence. That is where everything is found. That's is where the oldest languages and people are. That is where the most diversity is. Yes Blacks have always been in Asia and they are still there. Most of them though are in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Bettyboo and astenb - This is not really a good venue to argue the Bible or Biblical myth or whatever. It is NOT sufficient here to just say you don't agree, or to make claims of the top of your head. If you have an assertion fine, but please have the courtesy to say WHY, and offer some Proof.
^excellent post!
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
"And yes Narmer was a unifer, warrior, and father which would mean in Biblical(language) makes him an "ADAM"[the first]. He is also a "MOSES"(Horus/Aries) by expelling(or leading) people out of a land which would mean astrologically(Greek/Roman) he is a [Scorpio]. If you look at the Narmer pallete it has two headed dragons which corresponds to the Greek/Roman "Libra-Scorpio"(remember the Romans seperated Libra from Scorpio due to precession and added Leo to make 12 months rather than 10)."
This is where I think I've miscommunicated my point ... I'm not saying that Nimrod was supposed to be the "ADAM"[the First], but he was supposed to be the father of the Babylonian civilization. The Sumerian civilization is not to be mistaken for Babylonian which existed before the Babylonian conquest. Nimrod was simply one of the first Cushites that were mentioned in The Torah/Old Testament and what he supposedly did was what Narmer did in Kemet.
Secondly, the association of the Scorpio and Libra with the two headed dragon doesn't necessarily represent additional signs, yet based on modern terminologies used by astrologers, this assessment seems illogical being that he thrived in the time of Gemini, which represents the two heads/people.
Wolofi wrote:
" In later lore they say "Ceramis" is the TRUE father of Nimrod which corresponds to "cush" in the Bible but the step father is really SHEM/Etana. With all the inbreeding going on in the Royal families they are having a hard time procreating so other blood lines have to have children for them while they still have a "royal vestige by being raised by the royals"."
This also deals with mythology, but yes I have read the so-called books of Jasher which mentions Terah the father of Abraham is supposedly a prince of Nimrod which would usually mean that he was a son of his. This eradicates the very myth of a Ham and Shem people as being a separate people. Nimrod the Cushite and Terah the Shemite??? How can Terah be a prince of Nimrod, being a Shemite???
It can't happen if the scriptures are to be taken literal. Thus Shem/Sham[an] was an ancient African order.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Blacks who founded the Historic civilizations in Mesopotamia came from the Proto-Sahara.
William Leo Hansberry gives a great discussion of the evidence of African Kushites ruling in Asia and Africa. Some ancient scholars noted that the first rulers of Elam were of Kushite ( Kerma ? ) origin. According to Strabo, the first Elamite colony at Susa was founded by Tithnus, a King of Kush. Strabo in Book 15, Chapter 3728 wrote that in fact it is claimed that Susa was founded by Tithonus Memnon's father, and his citadel bore the name Memnonium. The Susians are also called Cissians. Aeschylus, calls Memnon's mother Cissia.
These ancient Proto-Saharans as noted in earlier chapters were called Kushites.The Greco-Roman writers made it clear that there were two Kushite empires one in Asia and the other group in the area we call the Sudan,Nubia, and parts of southern Egypt. The Greek writer Homer alluded to the two Kushite empires, when he wrote "a race divided, whom the sloping rays; the rising and the setting sun surveys". The Greek traveler/historian Herodutus claimed that he derived this information from the Egyptians.
The Asian Proto-Saharans were also called Kushites or Ethiopians. The term Ethiopian comes from two Greek terms: Ethios 'burnt' and ops 'face', as a result Ethiopian means the 'burnt faces'. Herodutus and Homer, described these Ethiopians as "the most just of men;the favorites of the gods". The classical literature makes it clear that the region from Egypt to India was called by the name Ethiopia.
For example, the Elamites called themselves KHATAM, and their capital Susa:KUSSI. In addition, the Kassites, who occupied the central part of the Zagros mountains were called KASHSHU. The Kushana, who helped invent the Meroitic writing, formerly occupied Chinese Turkistan (Xinjiang) and the Gansu province of China.
The Kushites in Asia, as in Africa were known for their skill as bowmen :Steu , the name of the people of Ta-Seti.
The decipherer of the cuneiform writing of Mesopotamia, Rawlingson, said Puntites and Kushites were established in Asia. He found mention of Kushiya and Puntiya in the inscriptions of Darius. He also made it clear that the name Kush was also applied to southern Persia, India, Elam, Arabia, and Colchis (a part of southern Russia/Turkistan) in ancient times.
. The Armenians made it clear that the ancients called Persia, Media,Elam , Aria, and the entire area between the Tigris and Indus rivers Kush.Bardesones, writing in his Book of the Laws of Countries, in the 2nd Century said that the "Bactrians who we called Qushani (or Kushans)".The Armenians, called the earlier Parthian: Kushan and acknowledged their connection with them. Homer, Herodotus, and the Roman scholar Strabo called southern Persia AETHIOPIA. The Greeks and Romans called the country east of Kerma: Kusan.
From Iran the Kushites used the natural entry point into China along the path running from the Zagros to the Altai mountains, and the Dzunganian gate. There is archaeological evidence indicating that farming communities village sites were established along this path of similar origin, which date back to 3500 BC. The archaeological data indicate that this agricultural economy spread from west to east.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who was it that wrote or stated, "If it wasn't for the Bible (Hebrew & Christian Aramaic-Greek Scriptures) Blacks would have been written out of history"?
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
" In later lore they say "Ceramis" is the TRUE father of Nimrod which corresponds to "cush" in the Bible but the step father is really SHEM/Etana. With all the inbreeding going on in the Royal families they are having a hard time procreating so other blood lines have to have children for them while they still have a "royal vestige by being raised by the royals"."
This also deals with mythology, but yes I have read the so-called books of Jasher which mentions Terah the father of Abraham is supposedly a prince of Nimrod which would usually mean that he was a son of his. This eradicates the very myth of a Ham and Shem people as being a separate people. Nimrod the Cushite and Terah the Shemite??? How can Terah be a prince of Nimrod, being a Shemite???
It can't happen if the scriptures are to be taken literal. Thus Shem/Sham[an] was an ancient African order.
Are you agreeing with or disagreeing with what I said lol?
quote: Wolofi wrote:
"And yes Narmer was a unifer, warrior, and father which would mean in Biblical(language) makes him an "ADAM"[the first]. He is also a "MOSES"(Horus/Aries) by expelling(or leading) people out of a land which would mean astrologically(Greek/Roman) he is a [Scorpio]. If you look at the Narmer pallete it has two headed dragons which corresponds to the Greek/Roman "Libra-Scorpio"(remember the Romans seperated Libra from Scorpio due to precession and added Leo to make 12 months rather than 10)."
This is where I think I've miscommunicated my point ... I'm not saying that Nimrod was supposed to be the "ADAM"[the First], but he was supposed to be the father of the Babylonian civilization. The Sumerian civilization is not to be mistaken for Babylonian which existed before the Babylonian conquest. Nimrod was simply one of the first Cushites that were mentioned in The Torah/Old Testament and what he supposedly did was what Narmer did in Kemet.
Secondly, the association of the Scorpio and Libra with the two headed dragon doesn't necessarily represent additional signs, yet based on modern terminologies used by astrologers, this assessment seems illogical being that he thrived in the time of Gemini, which represents the two heads/people.
Narmer lived during the time of TAURUS and I don't think you are understanding the Archetypes - they represent a type/nature they have nothing to do with whether or not the said person lives during a certain time. Narmer being a Scorpio-Libra type has nothing to do with when he lived. And YES any unifier or starter of anything in Biblical context is an ADAM that is the whole point.
Sargon is the so called JEWS Adam!
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
Do you see the Bull heads on the top representing the AGE of Taurus? They were all over the place in Egypt pre and proto-dynastic times
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: To Astenb, first of all there is no biblical myth that HAM is father of all blacks. That is a man-made myth. The bible do not speak of HAM being father of no "black" race. I just don't believe in the Out-of-Africa theory because the bible contradicts it. I also don't believe in HAM as the black race, Jaspheth as the white race, and Shem of the "whatever" race because the bible contradicts it. I just don't understand why people want to try so hard to convince the world that in order for you to be black you "must" come from Africa. This is not true. The same phenotype you find in Africa today was spreaded throughout Asia during early mankind history even until today. Blacks has always been in Asia and many groups never came from Africa.
Well i cant really get far into the bible but what I can say is when it comes to black people coming from HAM that may not be a biblical myth but is IS an Oral tradition. This would be the SAME type of oral tradition that traces some Africans back to South West Asia. Oral tradition = Man Made Myth. Myths DONT have to be true or false, they simply are what they are. From a bible perspective I dont see any discrepancies with all Black people coming from HAM. And using my example of what we know of "White Hamites" who were not really white, it only reinforces this man made myth. (people that looked just like N.E. Africans lived on both sides) Judaic texts as well as Muslim commentary also state that Ham is the Father of "Africans" The bible sometimes calls Egypt the "Land of Ham"
But people mainly support the Out of Africa theory because of the physical evidence. That is where everything is found. That's is where the oldest languages and people are. That is where the most diversity is. Yes Blacks have always been in Asia and they are still there. Most of them though are in Africa.
There is no Biblical Myth. Egypt was the "Land of HAM". Mezraim descended from HAM. My point is that Ham descendants wasn't only found in East Africa. Answer this question, If Ham is believed to be black what was his brothers who had the same parents?
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Bettyboo and astenb - This is not really a good venue to argue the Bible or Biblical myth or whatever. It is NOT sufficient here to just say you don't agree, or to make claims of the top of your head. If you have an assertion fine, but please have the courtesy to say WHY, and offer some Proof.
We are not discussing any Biblical myth. It is very sufficient for me to say I don't agree and I gave my reasons. I never made claims from the top of my head. There was never an "Out-of-Africa" journey. It never happened. There is no biblical foundation that Abraham is from the Ur of Chaldees. That is not a claim, but hardcore fact. There is no Out-of-Africa history according to the bible. That is not a claim, but hardcore fact. The bible never spoke of Ham being father of the "black" race, Jaspheth father of the "white" race, and Shem father of "whatever" race. That is not a claim, but a hardcore fact.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jo Nongowa - Blacks WERE written out of history. The ONLY Hebrew scriptures in existence, are the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are NOT available to the public.
Can't think of many civilizations who did not revere the Bull for its virility, power, and ferocity.
Wolofi wrote: Sargon is the so called JEWS Adam!
While I see your point, to extend it out, that would mean that ALL previous Semitic Kings from Nubia, Egypt, Canaan, etc. were also Adams of the Hebrews. But since there is no indication that Amorites thought of themselves as being the same as the other Semitic speaking people of the region. It would probably be better to stick to the Hebrew linage, which would make Hammurabi their Adam.
Can anyone suggest a way to dispute some of the assertions above, without questioning the veracity of the Bible? I can't, so I am put in the position of having to let it go, rather than possibly doing harm to another's beliefs, or at the very least, greatly offending someones beliefs. THAT IS WHY THIS IS NOT A GOOD VENUE FOR SUCH DISCOURSE. For those who want to discuss religion, there is nothing stopping you from starting a new thread about religion.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not about religion. This is about a set of ancient documents and what can be gleaned from them as relevant to the subject matter at hand under discussion.
posted
Clyde - I have a bone to pick with you. Several times you have referred to these people (picture below), as Caucasian Gutians. There are many problems with that. Firstly; the Sumerians described them (Gutians) as quote: "They are not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the land Gutian people who know no inhibitions, With human intelligence but canine instinct and monkey's features" Nowhere do they suggest a different race.
Additionally, historically the first Caucasian people to enter the area, that I know about, are the Scythians, and the Parthian's. Of these, the only ones to stay, and become civilized, are the Parthians. But they don't look anything like the people above. (Picture below).
And finally; I notice something very interesting when these figures are presented in a Museum: under provenance, it is ALWAYS listed as UNKNOWN. Since we already know that the Turks and Europeans are very fond of presenting bogus artifacts to bolster their claims of presence in places OTHER than their true place of the Eurasian Plains. I would suggest great caution in accepting their say so. Don't forget, they also tell us that this is a Sumerian.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jo Nongowa - Blacks WERE written out of history. The ONLY Hebrew scriptures in existence, are the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are NOT available to the public.
Can't think of many civilizations who did not revere the Bull for its virility, power, and ferocity.
Wolofi wrote: Sargon is the so called JEWS Adam!
While I see your point, to extend it out, that would mean that ALL previous Semitic Kings from Nubia, Egypt, Canaan, etc. were also Adams of the Hebrews. But since there is no indication that Amorites thought of themselves as being the same as the other Semitic speaking people of the region. It would probably be better to stick to the Hebrew linage, which would make Hammurabi their Adam.
Can anyone suggest a way to dispute some of the assertions above, without questioning the veracity of the Bible? I can't, so I am put in the position of having to let it go, rather than possibly doing harm to another's beliefs, or at the very least, greatly offending someones beliefs. THAT IS WHY THIS IS NOT A GOOD VENUE FOR SUCH DISCOURSE. For those who want to discuss religion, there is nothing stopping you from starting a new thread about religion.
^Is this directed towards me. No one in here is discussing "religion". I have yet hear anyone say anything about religion (Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc...). We are discussing history and I choose to give my facts with the "history" the bible teach. Why is it okay for people to use their so-called science to discuss history, but others can't use written history (the Bible)? I know for a fact that Ham descendants, as recorded in the Bible, was disperse throughout East & North Africa and Asia, particularly the "Middle East". This whole Semetic language do not exist.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^I thought that I clearly told you why. That is, in order for me to disprove what you say, I must dispute that which is written in the Bible. I would rather not do that, not because I can't, but because I would rather not interfere with another persons beliefs. And I must tell you, that it is very foolish to engage in a history discussion using the Bible as a source. Your Preacher or Priest would surly tell you not to do so.
The Bible represents Dogma; that is a belief system where all the adherents agree that is what they believe. It does not require proof, because there is none. The system is based on belief. This board is however a venue for scientific discussion, here proof is indeed required, and our sources are scientific papers, artifacts, analysis and our own judgments, which are always open to debate.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Elamites called Susa: Khuz < Kus . The Sumerians called Susa: Kushshi.
The Kassites were chief rulers of Iran. The principal Kassite god was Kashshu, which was also the name they called themselves.
William Leo Hansberry, African History Notebook, Volume 2 noted that:
In Persia the old Negroid element seems indeed to have been sufficiently powerful to maintain the overlord of the land. For the Negritic strain is clearly evident in statuary depicting members of the royal family ruling in the second millenium B.C.
Hundreds of years later, when Xerxes invaded Greece, the type was well represented in the Persian army. In the remote mountain regions bordering on Persia and Baluchistan, there is to be found at the present time a Negroid element which bears a remarkable resemblance to the type represented on the ancient mounments. Hence the Negritic or Ethiopian type has proved persistent in this area, and in ancient times it seems to have constituted numerically and socially an important factor in the population" p.52 .
These ancient Proto-Saharans were called Kushites.The Greco-Roman writers made it clear that there were two Kushite empires one in Asia and the other group in the area we call the Sudan,Nubia,and parts of southern Egypt. The Greek writer Homer alluded to the two Kushite empires, when he wrote "a race divided, whom the sloping rays; the rising and the setting sun surveys". The Greek traveler/historian Herodutus claimed that he derived this information from the Egyptians.
The Asian Proto-Saharans were also called Kushites or Ethiopians. The term Ethiopian comes from two Greek terms: Ethios 'burnt' and ops 'face', as a result Ethiopian means the 'burnt faces'. Herodutus and Homer, described these Ethiopians as "the most just of men;the favorites of the gods". The classical literature makes it clear that the region from Egypt to India was called by the name Ethiopia.
For example, the Elamites called themselves KHATAM, and their capital Susa:KUSSI. In addition, the Kassites, who occupied the central part of the Zagros mountains were called KASHSHU. The Kushana, who helped invent the Meroitic writing, formerly occupied Chinese Turkistan? /Xinjiang and the Gansu province of China.
The Kushites in Asia, as in Africa were known for their skill as bowmen :Steu , the name of the people of Ta-Seti.
The decipherer of the cuneiform writing of Mesopotamia, Rawlingson, said Puntites and Kushites were established in Asia. He found mention of Kushiya and Puntiya in the inscriptions of Darius. He also made it clear that the name Kush was also applied to southern Persia, India, Elam, Arabia, and Colchis a part of southern Russia/Turkistan in ancient times.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I do not class the Gutians as Caucasian. These people are the ancestors of the contemporary Arab people found in the Middle East today.
In the textbooks they pass on pictures from Lagash as examples of Sumerian people. These people were not Sumerians, they wore different clothes and had a different handshake.
Gutian
.
Sumerian
Note how the garmet worn by the Sumerian goes over the shoulder. The garmet of the Gutians usually goes around the waist.
The different handshake probly signified the cult associations the different groups belonged too.
.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Clyde - I have a bone to pick with you. Several times you have referred to these people (picture below), as Caucasian Gutians. There are many problems with that. Firstly; the Sumerians described them (Gutians) as quote: "They are not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the land Gutian people who know no inhibitions, With human intelligence but canine instinct and monkey's features" Nowhere do they suggest a different race.
Additionally, historically the first Caucasian people to enter the area, that I know about, are the Scythians, and the Parthian's. Of these, the only ones to stay, and become civilized, are the Parthians. But they don't look anything like the people above. (Picture below).
And finally; I notice something very interesting when these figures are presented in a Museum: under provenance, it is ALWAYS listed as UNKNOWN. Since we already know that the Turks and Europeans are very fond of presenting bogus artifacts to bolster their claims of presence in places OTHER than their true place of the Eurasian Plains. I would suggest great caution in accepting their say so. Don't forget, they also tell us that this is a Sumerian.
quote: This is not about religion. This is about a set of ancient documents and what can be gleaned from them as relevant to the subject matter at hand under discussion.
What's so complicated about alT's comment? I mean, what does it have to do with religion or a belief system?
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^I thought that I clearly told you why. That is, in order for me to disprove what you say, I must dispute that which is written in the Bible. I would rather not do that, not because I can't, but because I would rather not interfere with another persons beliefs. And I must tell you, that it is very foolish to engage in a history discussion using the Bible as a source. Your Preacher or Priest would surly tell you not to do so.
The Bible represents Dogma; that is a belief system where all the adherents agree that is what they believe. It does not require proof, because there is none. The system is based on belief. This board is however a venue for scientific discussion, here proof is indeed required, and our sources are scientific papers, artifacts, analysis and our own judgments, which are always open to debate.
You can dispute what is written in the Bible. What is wrong with interefering in someone belief? If you can disprove, why don't you. The Bible is always open to debates and can be judge by someone own judgement. No one is preventing anyone from doing that and people do it all the time. I don't understand what is stopping you from proving the bible wrong. It is not foolish to engage in history, if the Bible prove what is being discussed. That is what you are failing to grasp. My preacher (I don't have a priest)wouldn't tell me not to use the Bible to prove and disprove. I can speak where the Bible speak and keep silent where the Bible is silent. You are failing to grasp that. Science itself represents "dogma". You science believers jump back and forth from the Bible to Science if you feel it can prove your belief. Like I said, there was never an Out-of-Africa journey, Blacks always been in Asia, Semetic language is made-up, and there is no evidence or biblical foundation that Abraham came from the Ur of the Chaldees.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
“there is no evidence or biblical foundation that Abraham came from the Ur of the Chaldees.”
Genesis 11:31 (King James Version) (Plus all other versions that I checked).
And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: “there is no evidence or biblical foundation that Abraham came from the Ur of the Chaldees.”
Genesis 11:31 (King James Version) (Plus all other versions that I checked).
And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Okay, where is the evidence that Abraham is from the Ur of Chaldees. The only thing that that scripture prove is that Abraham left from the Ur of the Chaldees and headed for Canaan.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Nobody said anything about him being from Ur. Everybody knows that he was a laid-off autoworker from Detroit who was trying to get to China, so he could get a job in the booming auto business there. But foolish Terah booked the trip with some shady Phoenicians, who left them high and dry in Sumer. That's why they were headed to Canaan (Phoenicians are from the northern part of that country - modern Lebanon), They were planning to go to the company's head office and demand their money back - or else. (Nobody messes with a Nigg*r from Detroit).
But before going to Canaan, they decided to lookup some relatives in Haran (this is like Northeastern Syria, later called Arum - Hebrews are originally from there). So they go there and hang for a while, but old man Terah dies there, so they hit the road. That's where the Bible picks up again.
Then, at the call of God. Abram, with his wife, Sarai, and Lot, and the rest of his belongings, went into the Land of Canaan, amongst other places to Sichem and Bethel, where he built altars to the Lord: A famine breaking out in Canaan, Abram journeyed southward to Egypt, and when he had entered the land, fearing that he would be killed on account of his wife, Sarai, he bade her say she was his sister. The report of Sarai's beauty was brought to the Pharaoh, and he took her into his harem, and honored Abram on account of her. Later, however finding out that she was Abram's wife, he sent her away unharmed, and, upbraiding Abram for what he had done, he dismissed him from Egypt.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: K*na'an (Canaan) is the prime example. Canaan was a son of Hham. Yet the Israelites who set down the TaNaKH (so-called "Old Testament") say the Hebrew language is the language of Canaan. The Israelite see themselves as Shem's lineage yet they spoke Canaanitic, a language of Hham's lineage.
Current linguists rank Canaanitic and its related languages in the Semitic phylum but Canaanites were of Hham's lineage not Shem's.
"Ham" and "Shem" never existed, therefore, they cannot have lineages. Figures in fairy-tales do not procreate...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic