posted
Afronuts never tire in their ability to display utter ignorance and lack of education. Many Afronuts appeal to scriptures like Rev1.14 to claim Jesus had wooly hair, thus was an African Negro. Well... Let us see what the bible passage says:
Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
Of course to a semi-literate the verse appears to say Christ had wooly hair. However, the fact is that that is NOT what it is saying. Look again:
[...] hairs were white like wool.
This statement does not even require critical reading to understand it. The verse does not say "hairs were like wool." It says, "hairs were WHITE like wool." The author is comparing the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool. Obviously at that time wool was used as a metaphor to symbolize whiteness/purity, hence the comparison of the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool.
Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't matter. He was not white with blond hair and blue eyes. He was a person of color who would most definitely fit within the variation of colored people we call "Black." Besides, the lineage Jesus is marred with those of the black "Hamite women"[How many "cushite Wives and Canaanite wives do you spot your scripture?"]
How do 70 Hebrews who were not WHITE to begin with, travel into Negro Egypt, come out 400 years later as a "MIXED MULTITUDE" and not have any affinities with Blacks? "Jesus" MOST DEFINITELY had a "Jew Fro". THAT should give you some indication on why "Jews" has Afro's in the first place. Even today those that call themselves "Jews" are CONSIDERABLY mixed with Africans.
GO DIE !
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going to respond to each pt. you make just because I take pleasure in making a fool of an Afro-idiot.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Doesn't matter.
Since when does poor or incorrect scholarship not matter? This is proof that Afrocentrists could care less about right and exact information.
quote: He was not white with blond hair and blue eyes.
What is the point of bringing this up? I don't recall anywhere in this thread where I speak of a "white jesus." This is another display of the Afronut resorting to strawman tactics to deflect attention away from their gross errors in scholarship.
quote: He was a person of color
It is common knowledge he is a man of color. But of course you bringing this up in the thread is indicative of the lengths Afronuts will go to to obfuscate issues.
quote: who would most definitely fit within the variation of colored people we call "Black."
That is incorrect. Especially when you consider the fact you OFFER no evidence to back that assertion up.
quote: Besides, the lineage Jesus is marred with those of the black "Hamite women"[How many "cushite Wives and Canaanite wives do you spot your scripture?"
Within Jesus' ancestral line, you may find a handful of foreign relatives. Is that enough to claim him anything other than a shemtite. This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule. It is their trojan horse for hijacking a people's history.
quote: How do 70 Hebrews who were not WHITE
Once again, the Afrofool resorts to the strawman in hopes of confusing the issue. This thread does not examine any "white Jesus," so why is this Afrofool mentioning one?
quote: to begin with, travel into Negro Egypt,
Come out of Negro Egypt? During what dynasty did the hebrews enter Egypt? What stock of people were the majority during their sojourn in the land of egypt?
quote: come out 400 years later as a "MIXED MULTITUDE" and not have any affinities with Blacks?
When you answer the question - during what dynasty did the hebrews enter egypt and what racial stock were the majority of the egyptians during that period, then can we address your question here.
quote: "Jesus" MOST DEFINITELY had a "Jew Fro".
Prove it. Right about now, you are speaking out of your monkey a*s.
Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
''This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule.''
That portion of your dark African ''blood'' is eating you alive. Face it kid you will never be all the way white. It's too late for you. See your mommy and daddy about this one. You run so fast you can't help but run into objects along the way. White folks don't want you, some black folks don't either. Tis a pity to be struggling in never, never land ain't it. Tis a pity to not be able to recognize yourself ain't it. It's also a pity to know you have demons and don't know how to confront them. They eatin' you up boy.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen fool, I embrace my blackness. I am as black as they come. You see, I have a problem with people who distort truth, just so they can sell a group a false sense of pride of self. I despise it with a passion. Why? because the belief in romanticizing a false past just to excuse and justify not being responsible has held back the progress of Black folk. Black folk are stagnate partly because of the pseudo history they are fed. You Afronuts on the board are enablers to the destruction of African Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Afronutslayer says,
''This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule.''
That portion of your dark African ''blood'' is eating you alive. Face it kid you will never be all the way white. It's too late for you. See your mommy and daddy about this one. You run so fast you can't help but run into objects along the way. White folks don't want you, some black folks don't either. Tis a pity to be struggling in never, never land ain't it. Tis a pity to not be able to recognize yourself ain't it. It's also a pity to know you have demons and don't know how to confront them. They eatin' you up boy.
quote: Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
is a knock off of Daniel 7:9. but before examining the Hebrew a careful analysis of even the English version of the Revelations quote show two similes given for the hair: 1 - wool 2 - snow.
If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.
Now Daniel 7:9 has
quote: I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.
Notice white snow is in reference to garments whereas the hair is simply "pure wool." The Revelations writer, a Greek, didn't remain true to the Hebrew original. He botched up by leaving out the garment and substituting hair for the garment.
See, he used two similes for one item, both wool and snow for the hair alone. Quite unnecessary. Lamb's wool is white and, well, it's wooly.
The Hebrew writer sensibly uses two similes for two items. Snow for garments and wool for hair. Wool is perfect for an old man's grey nappy hair.
Maybe if the Greek hadn't reversed the order of snow and wool he would've got himself on target.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afronut slayer: ''You see, I have a problem with people who distort truth, just so they can sell a group a false sense of pride of self. I despise it with a passion.''
No, you don't have a problem with ''distortion,'' you have a problem with this: 'onedrop rule'; that's why you said this: ''This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule. It is their trojan horse for hijacking a people's history.''
P.S. No need to address me just the post addressing your ''wool.''
P.P.S. Don't forget, it's okay to be you; just don't get to close to anyone else in being you; those demons might try to jump ship.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try but next time consult the original text. First off... the english is in no way conveying hair texture, not by any syntax of the language. This is you imposing incorrect reading of the passage on to the passage. The verse is quite clear. It states, "hair were WHITE like wool." If you atleast had an english proficiency the level of secondary school, you'd see that the comparison is being made between "white" and "wool." But of course I expect nothing short of ignorance when it comes to Afrocentricity.
Now... The passage in daniel is also written in similar fashion. The comparison is being made between the Hair and purity found in wool, hence "hair as the PURE wool."
You see, this is really elementary hebraec knowledge. At least elementary to those familiar with hebrew IDIOMS.
How is "wool" used in the language of the hebrews?
Here is precedence -
Psa 147:16 He giveth snow like wool: he scattereth the hoarfrost like ashes.
footnote: wool is compared to snow, hence the description found in revelation, "head white like wool, as white as snow."
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
footnote: Wool is likened unto having the effect of snow.
Eze 27:18 Damascus [was] thy merchant in the multitude of the wares of thy making, for the multitude of all riches; in the wine of Helbon, and white wool.
footnote: wool is known for its purity (white).
You are out of your league AfroClown.
GAME OVER. YOU LOSE FOOL.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This quote
quote: Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
is a knock off of Daniel 7:9. but before examining the Hebrew a careful analysis of even the English version of the Revelations quote show two similes given for the hair: 1 - wool 2 - snow.
If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.
Now Daniel 7:9 has
quote: I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.
Notice white snow is in reference to garments whereas the hair is simply "pure wool." The Revelations writer, a Greek, didn't remain true to the Hebrew original. He botched up by leaving out the garment and substituting hair for the garment.
See, he used two similes for one item, both wool and snow for the hair alone. Quite unnecessary. Lamb's wool is white and, well, it's wooly.
The Hebrew writer sensibly uses two similes for two items. Snow for garments and wool for hair. Wool is perfect for an old man's grey nappy hair.
Maybe if the Greek hadn't reversed the order of snow and wool he would've got himself on target.
posted
Jaime Pretel you're as ignorant as ever and also a coward who removes his profile after being exposed as a paralegal instead of the liar claiming a PhD in law (hah). You're just a dance instructor.
You don't know the Hebrew word for wool. You haven't proved/disproved anything. Why do you think ulitrichous hair is called wooly? Is it because it's white or because it's wooly?
You're not worth wasting my time. All you can do is make ad hominens placing you way way below my level and on that of a little kid.
This is the last time I respond to you unless you grow up and behave like an adult in a discussion not a child playing a silly game. Now salsa your off-white mestizo ass back south of the border where you belong and quit sponging off of government lay asides for the USA blacks (that got your sorry ass your paralegal certificate in the first place).
Bottomline: The Ancient of Days in Daniel has hair like pure wool. As an old being the hair is white in color and as the anthropomorphism of a Judahite the hair is wooly in texture.
Wool, as on the above heads, therefore is the perfect simile.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm completely neutral in this as I see evidence for both sides in this discussion. Because I want to learn more about this discussion I want to know what Al Takruri, Astenb and other people who believe in a largly black/dark skinned makeup of the hebrews.
quote: Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.
Jeremiah 13:23
quote: "I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of kedar as the curtains of Solomon."
Song of Solomon 1:5
In my opinion, these passages imply that they had a markedly different skin color than the Hebrews. In the first exemple because they seem to use Africans as an exemple for darkness, which is weird if they themselves were black or dark skinned.
The second quote to me demonstrated that there may have been a tendency to look down on people with a dark skin tone. Or the person who wrote it might have felt that way. Why would there be a need to feel that way if females of Judah had the same or a slightly lighter colouring?
If the judah had brown skinned people, they probably had black skinned people too because no population has 100% the same colour. Why wouldn't she/he blend in nicely with the darker skinned people? Another question is why would it be needed to give an exemple of an external source like a black tent somewhere in Arabia, if the majority of the Hebrew population was dark skinned like Africans?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Jeremiah 13:23
What skin colouration do the Hebrews ascribe to the Kushite/Cushite?
If we search in the scriptures where the Kushite lived according to the bible, we may find out what skin coloration is meant when they say can a Cushite change his skin.
The Kushite is more often than not found in Arabia and Mesapotamia.
quote: According to Genesis, Cush's other sons were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecah, names identified by modern scholars with Arabian tribes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Cush
quote: Josephus gives an account of the nation of Cush, son of Ham and grandson of Noah: "For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites." (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Cush
Do we have color pictures of some of those Cushites from THAT time period? Yes we have, but lets first locate the precise location of these Cushites!!
quote: Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD." The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar Shinar.
Where was Shinear?
quote: Shinar is a broad designation applied to Mesopotamia, occurring eight times in the Hebrew Bible. In the Book of Genesis 10:10, the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom is said to have been "Babel, and Uruk, and Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."
What then, was the approximate skin color of these Kushites from Shinear?
and
I do this so that it is clear to everybody what type of people are most likely meant whenever the name Cush/Ethiopians is mentioned in the bible.
Do you agree that the Cushite type looked like this Al Takruri?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ My opinion: I think when they said "Cushite" they meant THESE cushites:
Biblical Cush is usually in reference to Sudan. Some Sudanese being VERY dark skinned can be "markedly different" from other Africans while Both Africans being "Black".
See the Egyptian stereotype as an example: Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.
Al Takruri What the authors intentions were will never be known to us so that is just your interpretation. You're actually wrong in assuming that because the author uses two metaphors for describing one thing, one of the metaphors must automatically refer to hair texture.
Just assuming this is unscientific and furthermore. I'ts actually Hebrew tradition to use two metaphors for the same thing as evidenced in:
quote: 1.Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? 2.Can a leopard take away its spots? Jeremiah 13:23
"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, 1.as the tents of kedar 2.as the curtains of Solomon." Song of Solomon 1:5
I saw 1.the tents of Cushan in distress 2.the dwellings of Midian in anguish. Habakkuk 3:7
Furthermore, the writer in revelations clearly says he recieved a vision, centuries after Daniel!! He was not copying off Daniel. He might have been, but then he would be lying. See for yourself:
quote: Revelation 1:10 On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea." . . . . Revelation 1:14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
Again, utilising the often used double metaphor: His head and hair were 1.white like wool, 2.as white as snow,
Wheter he also saw a wool-like texture, I don't know, but its clear he isn't mentioning it, and neither does Daniel.
I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;
Yes, like pure wool, but like what ASPECT of pure wool? He doesn't mention here what aspect is similar. Wool has many proporties, including color, texture, curliness, density, soft/hardness etc For exemple:
I can say a child looks like his father, and you can assume I say that because they both have broad faces, but I didn't say that at all. I just made a statement without being specific I could be talking about similar hair length I could be talking about similarities in noses But the fact is, you wouldn't know because I didn't mention the specifics.
What do you think of the above? Again, I'm not looking for being right just trying to point some things out, I'm here to learn
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh if you can get Altakruri back here as he has excellent imformation pertaining to the most ancient Hebrew's self discription as being Black as a raven.
Justianian era decpition of Christ feet the color of burnt brass (Rev. 1:14,15)
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No not really Alt.T has his from a Hebrew source where all the children of Shem is blessed Black as a Raven..I am tempted to raid his post but I won't do that 'll just wait for him to show up.. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing about the worldview of the ancient Hebrews Astenb, is that the hebrews thought of Arabia as the original home of black people. According to the bible, humanity originated in Irak and the sons of Cush (all of them) moved to Arabia, none of them according to the bible went to Africa, they prolly believed that they migrated to Africa later.
So whenever you read in the bible Cush, you should think of Arabian blacks first instead of African blacks. The bible locates the homeland of Cush himself near the Eufrates when they describe the rivers that surrounded the garden of Eden before the flood:
quote: The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.The gold of that land is exceptionally pure; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also found there.The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. Genesis 2:11
So according to the bible, the homeland of Cush himself is near the Eufrates and close to one of his many sons, Havilah. NOT in Africa. I know this is myth, and all of humanity arose in the motherland, but we're using the bible to try to find out what the ancient Hebrews looked like don't we?
What do you think Brada? Do you believe they were related to blacks more than lets say, surrounding semetic speakers?
posted
Oops, didn't see that coin you just posted..
quote: Justianian era decpition of Christ feet the color of burnt brass (Rev. 1:14,15)
The only thing I can make of that coin is a face with dotts as hair. I don't understand.. didn't Assyrians draw themselves with dotted hair? Feet like brass..? hahaha that sounds funny as hell. I don't understand why they're talking about his feet if they try to demonstrate skin color, wouldn't they say face or something? The Greeks did call the Egyptians the black footed ones, but still. Do we as truth seekers rely on that alone? What about skeletal evidence?
By the way, speaking of face, have you seen that reconstruction of Jesus? They made a reconstruction of what Jesus could have looked like based on skulls from that time era.
posted
Well Kalonji I think that the garden of Eden is a much wider arc than you think it is. the so-called fertile cresent The pishon could be in Arabia and the Gihon could be the white and blue Nile in Africa and the Tigris and Euphrates would off-course be in Iraq...note Gihon is still the Nile in some circles,also Kush and Misrim(Kemet) are brothers located in Africa,Havilah is a colony from Kush who may have settled people there from across African Kush. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is obvious you do not know anything about hebrew metaphoric writing and it is obvious I am wasting my time with you. Hebrew writers employed double equivalent sayings in the same verse to reinforce one message. This can be seen in quite a few passages. Here are some examples...
Psa 35:4 [1]Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: [2]let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.
Psa 35:5 [1]Let them be as chaff before the wind: [2]and let the angel of the LORD chase [them].
Psa 35:9 [1]And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: [2]it shall rejoice in his salvation.
Psa 35:18 [1]I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: [2]I will praise thee among much people.
There are literally THOUSANDS of passages with this technique of writing. But of course, you are too much of an ahole and proud to admit YOU JUST DID NOT KNOW. My advice to you, shut your da*n hole in matters you know not and especially when evidence is produced for you. Humble yourself Afrohole and learn to accept when you are wrong.
The hebrews used the hebraec word [se'r] for hair. It is the root word for the goat [sa'yr]. The hebrews correlated the two because they made an association between the hebrew hair and the fur of the goat. If you want to know the hair texture of the hebrew, look no further than the mountain goats found in Mt. [Seir].
You are getting schooled Afro-idiot. You should have kept your pot-mouth shut when I posted the passages demonstrating how the term "wool" is used as an idiom and not in the literal sense.
GAME OVER FOOL.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This quote
quote: Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
is a knock off of Daniel 7:9. but before examining the Hebrew a careful analysis of even the English version of the Revelations quote show two similes given for the hair: 1 - wool 2 - snow.
If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.
Now Daniel 7:9 has
quote: I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.
Notice white snow is in reference to garments whereas the hair is simply "pure wool." The Revelations writer, a Greek, didn't remain true to the Hebrew original. He botched up by leaving out the garment and substituting hair for the garment.
See, he used two similes for one item, both wool and snow for the hair alone. Quite unnecessary. Lamb's wool is white and, well, it's wooly.
The Hebrew writer sensibly uses two similes for two items. Snow for garments and wool for hair. Wool is perfect for an old man's grey nappy hair.
Maybe if the Greek hadn't reversed the order of snow and wool he would've got himself on target.
posted
Afronut slayer, I agree with you and others will prolly too if they study the fact that Hebrews used double metaphors all the time, and that this in no way implies that a one of them is wrong or dubious as I think is implied by Al Takruri.
But I think you go about it the wrong way, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride. You can take my advice or leave it but it is what it is.
Brada Anansi, I was actually wrong when I said that the rivers were surrounding Eden. There is one river that flows out of Eden, which then splits up in the four rivers. Sorry, my bad.
quote: A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah Genesis 2:10-14
This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.
posted
Well Kalonji that's only a Bibical quote..you have the hair like lambs wool and feet like brass Probabaly looking not soo different from this gentileman above biomet.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/1-2/159.pdf
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked. At that point, I realized I was dealing with a bunch of mother fvckers who have a political agenda. Now, I treat them like pieces of sh*t, while I drop the right and exact info. For all I care, they can reject my info and kiss my Black a*s while they are at it. I know there are others who sincerely seek knowledge and will comb through the insults, and take in the good stuff.
My position now regarding certain Afrocentrists on the board - FVCK YOU.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Afronut slayer, I agree with you and others will prolly too if they study the fact that Hebrews used double metaphors all the time, and that this in no way implies that a one of them is wrong or dubious as I think is implied by Al Takruri.
But I think you go about it the wrong way, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride. You can take my advice or leave it but it is what it is.
Brada Anansi, I was actually wrong when I said that the rivers were surrounding Eden. There is one river that flows out of Eden, which then splits up in the four rivers. Sorry, my bad.
quote: A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah Genesis 2:10-14
This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.
posted
I didn't respond because I was looking-up some awnsers plus I-am not exactly fast on the computer..but the Image posted was just that an image but apart from the complexion not really different from the Beja man,posted above,and he is exactly the type that lives in Upper Egypt and Sudan.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kolonji don't buy his bull shi!t please just go over every last one of his post you will see what I mean plus he is a multiple poster,down right dishonest.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cry me a fvcking river. You threw the first punch so now It is on Afro-Clown. Every mistake you make you will be made to look the fool for it, as is demonstrated in your futile attempt to twist the meaning of rev1.14.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Kolonji don't buy his bull shi!t please just go over every last one of his post you will see what I mean plus he is a multiple poster,down right dishonest.
posted
If he/she would've put the data in a plot for everyone to see, we can bypass subjective terms like ''any clear divergence'' and more precisely pinpoint with whom they have affinities
you can clearly see that the Lachish and the Magreb crania are almost identical. Remember when Keita said (of the top of my head)''kerma and naqadda are barely distinquisable on the terretorial maps''? Well, the Magreb and the Lachish Crania cluster even more.
With that in mind, you can see the distance between Egypt on the Brace map even better. Look for marocco somewhere on the middle and just picture Lachish above it
posted
The ancient Egyptian types Risdon was prolly speaking of were lower Egyptian E serie types. Which were used several times to white wash Egypt in cranial plots. Didn't Keita inform us that the E types included lybians and other foreigners who settled in the delta?
Btw, what exactly are the origins of the Lachish population? wheren't they a mixture of Egyptian peoples who settled there and natives, or was it just speculation?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cry me a fvcking river. You threw the first punch so now It is on Afro-Clown. Every mistake you make you will be made to look the fool for it, as is demonstrated in your futile attempt to twist the meaning of rev1.14.
What's there to twist? Color o brass is the color o Brass... Ass!!.. hair of wool is hair of wool. Kolonji they may well cluster with Margreb but who was the Military class in the area for hundreds of years begining with Pepy who brought to bere Troops from Wawat Mazoi Irithet and Yam to subgate the Lavent. These are all Upper Kemites or of Kush/Nahasu.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The remains found at Lakish:The excavacation uncovered a mass of human bones,which was estamated to from the remains of fifteen hundred individuals..remains of 695 skulls were brought to London by the British expidition...curiously,the crania indicate a close resemblance to the population of Egypt at this time...the relationships found suggest that the population of the town in 700 B.C was entirely of Egyptian origin..they show further,that the population of lakish was probably derived from upper Egypt.James e Brunson:
You guys understand the significance of the above? followed by this statement by Pliny The Elder-Roman Naturalist....
That Syria was once the domain of Cepheus, an Ethiopian king,Tacitus wrote that the Romans beleived that the Jews originated in Ethiopia but fled the persecutions of the King. Strabo,even earlier,stressed that that people of Western Judea was Africiod:
But although the inhibatance are mixed up thus,the most accerdited reports in regards to the people of Jerusalem reperesents the ancestors of the present Judeans as they are called Egyptians.
Reposted from an earlier thread: Black women Hebrew Men.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The wise man knows he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all Posts: 70 | From: Paris / France | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: One thing about the worldview of the ancient Hebrews Astenb, is that the hebrews thought of Arabia as the original home of black people. According to the bible, humanity originated in Irak and the sons of Cush (all of them) moved to Arabia, none of them according to the bible went to Africa, they prolly believed that they migrated to Africa later.
So whenever you read in the bible Cush, you should think of Arabian blacks first instead of African blacks. The bible locates the homeland of Cush himself near the Eufrates when they describe the rivers that surrounded the garden of Eden before the flood:
quote: The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.The gold of that land is exceptionally pure; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also found there.The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. Genesis 2:11
So according to the bible, the homeland of Cush himself is near the Eufrates and close to one of his many sons, Havilah. NOT in Africa. I know this is myth, and all of humanity arose in the motherland, but we're using the bible to try to find out what the ancient Hebrews looked like don't we?
What do you think Brada? Do you believe they were related to blacks more than lets say, surrounding semetic speakers?
Kalonji
That is all fine and dandy buy you know what.......In real life the Phylogenetic tree of Human DNA and the origin of ALL humans leading back to Africa will always over-ride what is in a religious the book.
UNTIL the fossils say otherwise:
I speak from the point of the Garden of Eden = East Africa.
The scientific "Bio-Historical Origin" {as Keita puts it} of certain people mentioned in the Hebrew/Greeks Scriptures shows them to be indigenous to Africa and not incomers from "Arabia." But then again "Cush" or "Ethiopia" may INCLUDE parts of that we NOW call "Arabia", in the past we KNOW they have.
Lamentation 4:8 "Their visage is blacker than a coal" - KJV "Their appearance is blacker than soot" - NASB
Lamentations 5:10 "Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine." - KJV
I will not make an argument about "All "jews" being black" or anything like that but there is proof within the scripture that some Hebrews fit within the description of those that we call "Black" Many EARLY depictions of Hebrews show them not so different from "KUSHITES" Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets examine all the evidence assembled so far so we can all have a look at the evidence, and allow people to make up for themselves whether they believe 1.Jesus had tropical affinities 2.The Hebrews as a nation had tropical affinities
But before we do this, I think it's wise to evaluate what is hard evidence and what is not. I make a distinction between clues and clear, hard evidence like for example, skeletal evidence.
To me, coins, texts and other art are all clues and not evidence because of the following reasons -Desriptions like all other artwork is subject to interpretation, not only on our end, but also on the creators end. -The coins have been made well after the death of Jesus, 400 a.d. -The coins and descriptions could also be the result of Romans reading from the same arguments Brada is using: that the scripture says that Jesus had hair like wool (without indicating what aspect of wool) and feet like brass. So you may be using it as ANOTHER piece of evidence, while it could be derrived from the same text you're reading from. I'm not saying this is the case, just saying it could be, since they, just like us had to rely on the bible for clues about the way Jesus looked -Personal believes of people like Tacticus who are talking about the origin of the Hebrews. This is something that took place way before he and his people ever knew the Hebrews. Furthermore, he doesn't say on what he is basing this belief, the types he's speaking of could just as well be remnants of the Natufians.
It wouldn't be honest if I didn't say that I too, have previously used arguments that fall within the ''clue'' category. -The ''change his skin'' passage in Jeremia -The ''I am black but comely'' passage in Songs of Solomon
Before we go on with counting and juxtapositioning all the evidence presented by both parties so far in one comment, do you agree with my viewpoint that personal believes and descriptions reflected in texts, art are susceptable to individual interpration and should therefore be viewed as ''clues'' instead of cold hard evidence?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both these issues have been dealt with in extenso.
The Israelites had a full range of skin colours as is typical of Africans of the periphery and diaspora.
They also seem to display the "colour struck" phenomena as evidenced by Miriam's comments to Moses in relation to Zipporah (also covered here previously).
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I'm completely neutral in this as I see evidence for both sides in this discussion. Because I want to learn more about this discussion I want to know what Al Takruri, Astenb and other people who believe in a largly black/dark skinned makeup of the hebrews.
quote: Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.
Jeremiah 13:23
quote: "I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of kedar as the curtains of Solomon."
Song of Solomon 1:5
In my opinion, these passages imply that they had a markedly different skin color than the Hebrews. In the first exemple because they seem to use Africans as an exemple for darkness, which is weird if they themselves were black or dark skinned.
The second quote to me demonstrated that there may have been a tendency to look down on people with a dark skin tone. Or the person who wrote it might have felt that way. Why would there be a need to feel that way if females of Judah had the same or a slightly lighter colouring?
If the judah had brown skinned people, they probably had black skinned people too because no population has 100% the same colour. Why wouldn't she/he blend in nicely with the darker skinned people? Another question is why would it be needed to give an exemple of an external source like a black tent somewhere in Arabia, if the majority of the Hebrew population was dark skinned like Africans?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you see in the Ethiopian/leopard metaphor that skin/spots are a 2:2 relation not a 2:1 relation strengthening my stance not weakening it. Raiment/hair & snow/wool is 2:2 (Hebrew) whereas hair/wool&snow is 2:1 (Greek).
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.
Al Takruri What the authors intentions were will never be known to us so that is just your interpretation. You're actually wrong in assuming that because the author uses two metaphors for describing one thing, one of the metaphors must automatically refer to hair texture.
Just assuming this is unscientific and furthermore. I'ts actually Hebrew tradition to use two metaphors for the same thing as evidenced in:
quote: 1.Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? 2.Can a leopard take away its spots? Jeremiah 13:23
"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, 1.as the tents of kedar 2.as the curtains of Solomon." Song of Solomon 1:5
I saw 1.the tents of Cushan in distress 2.the dwellings of Midian in anguish. Habakkuk 3:7
Furthermore, the writer in revelations clearly says he recieved a vision, centuries after Daniel!! He was not copying off Daniel. He might have been, but then he would be lying. See for yourself:
quote: Revelation 1:10 On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea." . . . . Revelation 1:14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
Again, utilising the often used double metaphor: His head and hair were 1.white like wool, 2.as white as snow,
Wheter he also saw a wool-like texture, I don't know, but its clear he isn't mentioning it, and neither does Daniel.
I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;
Yes, like pure wool, but like what ASPECT of pure wool? He doesn't mention here what aspect is similar. Wool has many proporties, including color, texture, curliness, density, soft/hardness etc For exemple:
I can say a child looks like his father, and you can assume I say that because they both have broad faces, but I didn't say that at all. I just made a statement without being specific I could be talking about similar hair length I could be talking about similarities in noses But the fact is, you wouldn't know because I didn't mention the specifics.
What do you think of the above? Again, I'm not looking for being right just trying to point some things out, I'm here to learn
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.
Revelations
quote:His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
code:
DANIEL REVELATIONS as white snow (raiment) white as snow (hairs) pure wool (hair) white like wool (hairs) fiery flames (throne) flame of fire (eyes)
Again compare the specific Daniel and Revelations quotes and see snow, wool, and fire in they both. And the both of them make reference to their most revered being (deity).
The borrowing is over obvious.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.
Al Takruri What the authors intentions were will never be known to us so that is just your interpretation. You're actually wrong in assuming that because the author uses two metaphors for describing one thing, one of the metaphors must automatically refer to hair texture.
Just assuming this is unscientific and furthermore. I'ts actually Hebrew tradition to use two metaphors for the same thing as evidenced in:
quote: 1.Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? 2.Can a leopard take away its spots? Jeremiah 13:23
"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, 1.as the tents of kedar 2.as the curtains of Solomon." Song of Solomon 1:5
I saw 1.the tents of Cushan in distress 2.the dwellings of Midian in anguish. Habakkuk 3:7
Furthermore, the writer in revelations clearly says he recieved a vision, centuries after Daniel!! He was not copying off Daniel. He might have been, but then he would be lying. See for yourself:
quote: Revelation 1:10 On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea." . . . . Revelation 1:14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
Again, utilising the often used double metaphor: His head and hair were 1.white like wool, 2.as white as snow,
Wheter he also saw a wool-like texture, I don't know, but its clear he isn't mentioning it, and neither does Daniel.
I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;
Yes, like pure wool, but like what ASPECT of pure wool? He doesn't mention here what aspect is similar. Wool has many proporties, including color, texture, curliness, density, soft/hardness etc For exemple:
I can say a child looks like his father, and you can assume I say that because they both have broad faces, but I didn't say that at all. I just made a statement without being specific I could be talking about similar hair length I could be talking about similarities in noses But the fact is, you wouldn't know because I didn't mention the specifics.
What do you think of the above? Again, I'm not looking for being right just trying to point some things out, I'm here to learn
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, but well actually, Hham is blessed with raven blackness while Shem is blessed black and beautiful per the Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Oh if you can get Altakruri back here as he has excellent imformation pertaining to the most ancient Hebrew's self discription as being Black as a raven.
Justianian era decpition of Christ feet the color of burnt brass (Rev. 1:14,15)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They say "Ignorance is bliss," but I believe that does not hold true all the time.
If I say, "Her lips are like red apples" what is being compared? Is her lips described as being made of apples or are they described by the color of red apples? Do you see the logic in writing? It is this writing technique that is used by ancient hebrew writers.
There is actual precedence in hebraec scripture that illustrates this writing technique.
Here is Daniel's acct. of the ancient of days:
Dan 7:9 ¶ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire.
Now only the ignorant would say hair is being described as the texture of wool, because the ignorant IGNORES the structure of the entire passage.
Prior to describing the hair of the ancient of days, his garment is described. Take a look:
[...] whose garment was white as snow...
Of course the ignorant does not realize the same rule he applies to interpreting the description of the hair, has to be applied to the description of the garment. Why? to retain consistency in verse syntax. The ignorant's rule would render the passage as saying that the ancient of days' garment is made of the substance of snow. Do you see how ignorant the ignorant sounds in his exegesis?
Obviously the writer is not saying the garment is made of snow. The writer is comparing the color of the garment to that of snow (white). It is this rule or syntax that must be applied THROUGHOUT the passage to maintain a consistent logic in the entire passage.
The writer uses a technique of describing color by making a comparison between the object of description and an object known for a perculiar trait. Thusly, we have the substance snow that is known for its whiteness, which is used to describe the whiteness of the garment. In addition, we have the substance wool that is also known for its whiteness (purity), which is used to describe the purity or whiteness of the hair.
Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
If you continue to use this type of language when addressing me you will come to sorely regret it. I warn you, for the sake of your livihood, don't try me.
I can appreciate your attempts in discussing the subject matter. You should note that the roots of שְׂעַר and שָּׂעִיר are not the same. Also that Esau who was hairy like a goat and came to inhabit Mt Seir is the very antithesis of the Israelite.
posted
Here is a simple example of this writing technique:
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Are sins made of scarlet? Of course not! So why is the writer comparing sins to scarlet? If you keep reading you will see the technique used throughout the passage.
What you have in the passage are double equivalent statements, reinforcing one message.
[1] SINS LIKE SCARLET = THEY BE RED LIKE CRIMSON [2] THEY SHALL BE WHITE AS SNOW = THEY SHALL BE AS WOOL
;SCARLET = RED LIKE CRIMSON ;WHITE AS SNOW = WOOL
The single message is sins will be cleansed. Sins are likened unto the color red, because red signifies uncleanliness. Sins will become wool, because wool is likened unto the color white by way of the comparison made with snow.
-------------------- A recovering Afronut Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never attacked you, viciously or any other way. You immediately resorted to name calling when responding to me and I returned the disfavor.
Your point of view is no more correct than any others. Even the so-called professionals and experts disagree in their interpretations.
I have always called for disagreement without being disagreeable on these forums.
Get over your hurt, mature, and learn to talk to people the way they talk to you instead of like a bigot lumping all into one.
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Kalonji,
When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked. At that point, I realized I was dealing with a bunch of mother fvckers who have a political agenda. Now, I treat them like pieces of sh*t, while I drop the right and exact info. For all I care, they can reject my info and kiss my Black a*s while they are at it. I know there are others who sincerely seek knowledge and will comb through the insults, and take in the good stuff.
My position now regarding certain Afrocentrists on the board - FVCK YOU.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Afronut slayer, I agree with you and others will prolly too if they study the fact that Hebrews used double metaphors all the time, and that this in no way implies that a one of them is wrong or dubious as I think is implied by Al Takruri.
But I think you go about it the wrong way, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride. You can take my advice or leave it but it is what it is.
Brada Anansi, I was actually wrong when I said that the rivers were surrounding Eden. There is one river that flows out of Eden, which then splits up in the four rivers. Sorry, my bad.
quote: A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah Genesis 2:10-14
This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.
Kalonji
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you continue to use this type of language when addressing me you will come to sorely regret it. I warn you, for the sake of your livihood, don't try me.
I would like to greet you with a warm FVCK OFF PIECE OF ****! Yea clown, you should have never came at me side ways when I first came to the board. Had you dealt with me with respect, it would have begotten respect. But since you wanted to jump on the bandwagon of pouncing on me, I shall do likewise and return the favor. FVCK YOU AFROSCUM. Anytime, anyplace.
quote: I can appreciate your attempts in discussing the subject matter. You should note that the roots of שְׂעַר and שָּׂעִיר are not the same.
Watch you get schooled (again)...
The word for hair in hebrew is [se'r]. The word for goat is [sa'yr]. Both words share the three-stem prime root [shin, ain, resh]. Mt. Seir also shares the same three-stem prime root. At this point, I wont even provide the scholarship. I want you to continue making an Afro-a*s of yourself, so that I can then provide the scholarship and make you look the fool.
quote:Also that Esau who was hairy like a goat and came to inhabit Mt Seir is the very antithesis of the Israelite.
You really DON'T know anything about hebrew history and culture. Esav was Ya'qov's TWIN. Uh oh! The only difference between the twins was Esav had MUCH MORE HAIR.
quote: Bottonline: Assyrians depicted Judahites with lamb's wool not goat fur.
Bottom line my a*s. You provide a relief that depicts ysraelis with stylized hair. You have no proof the hair is kinky. That is you putting your Afronut case twist on the archeology. I can argue the hair is curled and what you are seeing are swirlings in the hair.
FVCK OFF WITH YOUR WEAK A*S FAKE KNOWLEDGE CLOWN.
Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
Anyone who tells you the description of a man with hair white like wool in revelation is based on Daniel's description is wrong. The earliest description of a man with hair white like wool is found in Hanowk's writing.
Cef'r h_Hanowk; XLVI (The Book of Enoch, Chap. 46]
"There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool..."
The above verse pre-dates Daniel's acct. by many centuries.
-------------------- A recovering Afronut Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
the description in Jeremiah regarding the AEthiopians and their skin was actually a derogation against them. Let us take a look...
Jer 13:23 Can the AEthiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
In the passage the writer is making a correlation between evil and the skin [color] of the ethiopian (as well as the unclean animal - leopard). The writer is suggesting that just as it is impossible for the AEthiopian to change his skin (the implied meaning is color), so too those that are accustomed to doing evil cannot change their way.
if the writer was prejudiced towards DARK SKINNED people, what more proof does one need to determine the common skin tone of the hebrews? It was DEFINITELY LIGHTER than the cushites (AEthiopian).
Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kalonji Quote: "Before we go on with counting and juxtapositioning all the evidence presented by both parties so far in one comment, do you agree with my viewpoint that personal believes and descriptions reflected in texts, art are susceptable to individual interpration and should therefore be viewed as ''clues'' instead of cold hard evidence?"
I see you are at least trying to be objective, but your method is wanting.
A better "Rule of Thumb" is to "consider the source." From that you can make a determination of the value of the evidence presented.
For example: many people "selectively" quote the Christian Bible (the New Testament).
But this is a book written almost 2,000 years after the fact! The New Testament was published in 1961 A.D.
The book that this "New Testament" is supposedly LOOSELY based upon, was the Greek Bible called the "Septuagint". The original version of this book was "Supposedly" written with the help of Hebrews - but that version was quickly rewritten. The first of the many versions of this book was written in 282 B.C. Problem is, all VERSIONS of this book have been lost for a long time.
Which of course Begs the question: HOW COULD SUCH A SUPPOSEDLY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN LOST!
The Protestant Bible in English - the King James Bible was first published in 1611 A.D.
The ONLY religious documents VERIFIABILITY written by Hebrews, are the "Dead Sea Scrolls".
The Dead Sea were found to contain tens of thousands of scroll fragments dating from app. 300 B.C. to 68 A.D. and representing an estimated eight hundred separate works.
The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a vast collection of Hebrew documents written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and encompassing many subjects and literary styles. They include manuscripts or fragments of every book in the Hebrew Bible except the Book of Esther, all of them created nearly one thousand years earlier than any previously known biblical manuscripts. The scrolls also contain the earliest existing biblical commentary on the Book of Habakkuk, and many other writings, among them religious works pertaining to Hebrew sects of the time.
The Dead Sea Scrolls offer unprecedented information about Hebrew religious and political life in Judea during the turbulent late Second Temple Period (200 B.C. to A.D. 70), a time of great corruption and conflict under Roman rule in Judea. Scholars estimate that the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden in A.D. 68, when Roman legions reached the Dead Sea during the emperor Vespasian's campaign to Jericho.
The discovery of the scrolls established that Hebrew culture was far richer and more diverse at this time, than scholars had previously believed. Three main groups of Hebrews were prominent during the late Second Temple Period: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Many other sects and political parties also flourished. This pluralism ended in 70 A.D, when six years after the start of the First Hebrew Rebellion, the Romans sieged Jerusalem, killing or enslaving half the Hebrew population and destroying Herod's Temple. The capitol fell to the Romans, and only the Judaism of the dominant Pharisees survived.
The scrolls also shed light on the time when Jesus and John the Baptist lived and early Christians began to organize. Specifically, they offer evidence that early Christian beliefs and practices had precedents in the Hebrew sects of the time. Sectarian scrolls tell of people who, like the early Christians, did not believe in the Temple worship of the Pharisees, people who had their own literature, their own rituals—including baptism—and their own beliefs, most significantly beliefs in a messiah, a divine judgment, and an apocalypse.
Three different scrolls depict a sacred meal of bread and wine. These similarities as well as parallels between the literary style of certain scrolls and that of the New Testament have led some scholars to claim that Jesus and John the Baptist were either part of, or strongly influenced by a sect at the Dead Sea. But no direct link has been established, and it is likely that similarities can be attributed to each being derived from a like strain of Judaism. Still, this debate has furthered speculation about the historical Jesus, such as the claim that he was a Zealot rather than a pacifist, a theory that does not fit with New Testament tradition but does fit with the history of this period (note: Jesus is NOT mentioned in the scrolls). And one of the most important discoveries in the scrolls has been the use of the name “Son of God” to refer to someone other than Jesus, implying a cultural use of the term that was not itself synonymous with God.
To summarize; What little that we know of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seems to conflict with traditional "White" interpretations of the Hebrew religions.
For this reason, the White Catholics and Jews/Khazars who have control of these documents, will NEVER allow us to read them.
BTW - The Assyrian depictions of Hebrews posted above, can be assumed to be accurate, simply because the Assyrians - unlike Whites - had no reason to do anything other than present an accurate depiction.
This wall painting, depicting the Healing of the Paralytic, is the earliest known representation of Jesus, dating from about 235 AD. The painting was found in 1921 on the left-hand wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria. It is now part of the Dura Europos collection at the Yale University Gallery of Fine Arts.
Looks like a Black guy to me!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
You run so fast you can't help but run into objects along the way. White folks don't want you, some black folks don't either. Tis a pity to be struggling in never, never land ain't it. Tis a pity to not be able to recognize yourself ain't it. It's also a pity to know you have demons and don't know how to confront them. They eatin' you up boy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic