quote: Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?
and
Isaiah 43:3
quote:For I am the LORD thy God, The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour; I have given Egypt as thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
show that that only certain black nations were worth the same as Israel in their own self-view.
A ransom is valuable not worthless. The ransom is equal to the ransomed.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: In Hebrew, to this day, Cushi means a "black"-skinned person. The Israelites evidently had Cushites in their ranks. In the Bible Israelites named Cushi are Yehudi ben Kushi (Jer 36:14), Zephaniah ben Kushi (Zep 1:1) and Kush ben-Yemini (Psa 7:1). The Talmud even refers to Saul in Cushite terms.
Rabbinic midrash makes this all metaphorical though. The reasoning is that Cushi means outstanding. The Greeks thought of the Ethiopians as outstanding too. To them, the people with longest lifespan, the tallest height, the handsomest faces and the most pious actions were Ethiopians.
In light of the above Jer 13:23 can bear a new interpretation. Is there anything intrinsically wicked about Cushites or leopards? Cushites were salesmans of live leopards and leopard skins all over the ancient world. Who'd buy a spotless leopard skin? The spots are its beauty. The Cushites skin is his beauty.
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
The prophet siezes on this common market connection to sound home his point. "Would the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? (No!) Then may you also do GOOD that are accustomed to do evil." Answering the question yes destroys the logical conlusion. Be steadfast in doing good and don't exchange it for evil. Be unchanging in doing good instead of flopping with the worthlessness of evil.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recovering Afrocentrist - is there a story behind the moniker?
Afroidiot (Afronut Slayer) - a little White boy claiming to be Black, says that he became an Afrocentric Slayer because of disenchantment with the discipline. He is unbalanced, so he probably attributes that to Afrocentrics too. Just wondering if you have a similar story.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are ridiculous. You have no methodology in your bible scholarship and I am really seeing how it is a waste of time discussing this with you. Obviously if you have an individual Ysraeli called "Cushi" it means he STOOD OUT; darker than usual. Also, you are being VERY deceptive. The verses you provide show individuals called "Cushi," so why are you trying to insinuate those were tribes?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote: In Hebrew, to this day, Cushi means a "black"-skinned person. The Israelites evidently had Cushites in their ranks. In the Bible Israelites named Cushi are Yehudi ben Kushi (Jer 36:14), Zephaniah ben Kushi (Zep 1:1) and Kush ben-Yemini (Psa 7:1). The Talmud even refers to Saul in Cushite terms.
Rabbinic midrash makes this all metaphorical though. The reasoning is that Cushi means outstanding. The Greeks thought of the Ethiopians as outstanding too. To them, the people with longest lifespan, the tallest height, the handsomest faces and the most pious actions were Ethiopians.
In light of the above Jer 13:23 can bear a new interpretation. Is there anything intrinsically wicked about Cushites or leopards? Cushites were salesmans of live leopards and leopard skins all over the ancient world. Who'd buy a spotless leopard skin? The spots are its beauty. The Cushites skin is his beauty.
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
The prophet siezes on this common market connection to sound home his point. "Would the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? (No!) Then may you also do GOOD that are accustomed to do evil." Answering the question yes destroys the logical conlusion. Be steadfast in doing good and don't exchange it for evil. Be unchanging in doing good instead of flopping with the worthlessness of evil.
posted
Recovering Afrocentrist is nothing more than a sock puppet troll of Afronut Slayer/Salassin/Chimu/Jaime Pretell.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.
Enoch never made Judean canon. Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.
Enoch was maybe written in the 3rd century BCE. Daniel was redacted maybe in the 3rd century BCE.
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Kalonji,
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.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.
Enoch never made Judean canon. Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.
Enoch was maybe written in the 3rd century BCE. Daniel was redacted maybe in the 3rd century BCE.
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: Kalonji,
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.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;
ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.
Yes Afronut Slayer, I agree with that interpretation. With ofcourse the exception that Elamites are asicatic black people
My intention is instead of letting this discussion transpire like essentially all discussions do, which is that both partys will become even more convinced of their own right. Why don't we (like I suggested before) make a compilation of all the available evidence pro and con an African origin of the Hebrews. Not only for us, but for the undercover lurkers and other people who prolly are confused about all the conflicting evidence
But before we can do this, we have to evaluate how valuable textual and artificial evidence are
I think we should also make a distinction about what it exactly is that we're discussing 1.Jesus's affinity with tropical Africans 2.The Lachis affinity with tropical Africans 3.The Hebrew affinity with tropical Africans
Because 1 can have tropical affinities without a need for 2 and 3 to have tropical affinities 2 can have tropical affinities without the need for 1 and 2 to have those traits The exact same thing can be said about 3 If one says that 1 2 AND 3 have tropical affinities, just stating evidence for one of the three will not be enough.
So again, I ask you Astenb, Al Takruri and Brada.. do you agree with the notes in my previous post?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: show that that only certain black nations were worth the same as Israel in their own self-view.
I agree Al Takruri, but does this tell us anything about the color of the ancient Isrealites?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
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
If the Hebrews weren't black then how come the Egyptians who were black couldn't tell Moses wasn't really one of them.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry but this is not even a logical question You try to take the Africanness of Egypt (which is correct) and try to match this fact with a story from the bible and assume that because the bible says they were slaves, Moses must have been black too, in order to be adopted by the royal family. Do you have any idea how preposterous that sounds?
First of all, you assume right of the bet that I believe in the story of Moses and the bible
Second, the Egyptians had plenty of asiatics immigrants who could rise to be elites. Lets for a moment assume the story is true. How can you extract from the story that the Egyptians even cared about his skin color? White or tanned skin color was NOT associated with being a slave in Egypt, so it wasn't like they could have seen he was a slave and refused to take care of him. And even if they DID know he was a slave, they still could've been charmed by him, and as a result take him in.. Your whole question and everything you assumed when you were asking it was flawed from the start
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, can you tell me more about the drawing you posted? What scene is depicted?
I still would have to say the same things I said about the coins, which is that, the christians around the time of the date you ascribed to that picture (200 ad) would have to rely on the same descriptions the bible provides This picture, along with all the other reconstructions of him, wheter on coins or paitings could be based on an interpretation of the bible itself and should therefore not be seen as new or extra evidence per se
posted
Kolonji before in another thread I warned folks of taken an absolutist position..the Hebrews lived in an area traversed by many people it is just possible that they take on the look of the folks nearest them like they do now..they may have started out looking acertain way and ended-up for the most part like something else. If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks..sag-gigga the black headed ones later to intermingle with first the Canaanite Blacks and Kemities..with introduction from south of Kemet of Kushtites who were stationed there for ever so a city could look like it was made up of almost entierly of Upper-Kemites add to the fact that lighter skinned folks joined in the mix and they themselves traveled far and wide adding a wide range of variety of folks to their numbers.
Hey thanks Altakruri for jumping back into the thread although I know you wanted to exit...respect.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, the egyptians were a melting pot. When Moses was on the scene, what was the prevailing phenotype of the egyptians? Were the hyksos in egypt at the time?
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
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
If the Hebrews weren't black then how come the Egyptians who were black couldn't tell Moses wasn't really one of them.
posted
What proof do you have the sagigi were African Blacks?
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Kolonji before in another thread I warned folks of taken an absolutist position..the Hebrews lived in an area traversed by many people it is just possible that they take on the look of the folks nearest them like they do now..they may have started out looking acertain way and ended-up for the most part like something else. If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks..sag-gigga the black headed ones later to intermingle with first the Canaanite Blacks and Kemities..with introduction from south of Kemet of Kushtites who were stationed there for ever so a city could look like it was made up of almost entierly of Upper-Kemites add to the fact that lighter skinned folks joined in the mix and they themselves traveled far and wide adding a wide range of variety of folks to their numbers.
Hey thanks Altakruri for jumping back into the thread although I know you wanted to exit...respect.
quote: If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks
Brada Anansi, I think you're mixing bible history with real history. I also think that you're viewing the way admixture happens in populations way too convenient to fit your theory. A population doesn't just become like their neighbours just because they live in the same area for a while. They may pick up some markers but you seem to suggest that they just became their neighbours wherever they went.
It basically says that there is skeletal contuinity in Israel and that the expeditions to and from Egypt and Sumer prolly never happened. It also says that rabbi's are slowly accepting that a literal view of the bible is becoming more and more problematic. Therefore, there is not much basis for your the possibility you offer. However, I'm still a bit on the neutral side when I hear these archeologists talk because there are still crucial spots they haven't and excavated yet, that could tell us volumes like for exemple the temple of salomon. Things that lay buried there can confirm or invalidate alot of events in the bible, but they can't excavate there because the muslims built a mosque on top of the ruins.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.
This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.
quote:Enoch never made Judean canon. Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.
It does not invalidate the text.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: What proof do you have the sagigi were African Blacks?
quote: Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Kolonji before in another thread I warned folks of taken an absolutist position..the Hebrews lived in an area traversed by many people it is just possible that they take on the look of the folks nearest them like they do now..they may have started out looking acertain way and ended-up for the most part like something else. If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks..
He said they were Asicatic blacks, not African
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I do not play these semantic games and you will certainly not find these games played in academia. Afrocentrists love to use the word "Black" (an absolute term without any reference point) because it's a trojan horse to go in and hijack the history and culture. Why not just say "Dark Asiatiques?" We know there were ancient dark Asiatiques as well as light (of course this is relative).
What is a "Black" Asiatique? By implication there would have to be a "White" Asiatique? Do you see what happens when you label an ethnique group "black" or "white"?
Here is the problem, which I have argued on the board before - the term "Black" as a contemporary term is used socially to denote African Negros of the sub saharan region. You would not see Indian Hindus being called "Black" today, even though their continent has the most dark skin people on the planet.
The point is when Afrocentrists say "Black asiatiques," it is a subtle way or a trojan horse to imply these people were African Negros. The label will NEVER be accepted in Academia, because Afrocentrists are attempting to reinvent the wheel without a consensus. "Black" is relegated to Sub Saharaners. If they want to argue some of these ancient people were Dark skin, use the term "Dark." I guarantee you, academia would accept it. However, I doubt they will since they have a political agenda and they need that trojan horse to black-wash history.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: What proof do you have the sagigi were African Blacks?
quote: Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Kolonji before in another thread I warned folks of taken an absolutist position..the Hebrews lived in an area traversed by many people it is just possible that they take on the look of the folks nearest them like they do now..they may have started out looking acertain way and ended-up for the most part like something else. If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks..
posted
My bad I thought you were using that passage like EbonyAllen used the story of Moses to prove his was black. Can't stand it when people think like that, I should come up with a name for those kind of arguments -The Nubians and the Egyptians fought often so therefore they were two different races -Moses was adopted by the royal family, so therefore he must have been black
Anyway, what do you think about the information in the URL and the general lack of evidence archeologist have found to validate the numerous and massive claims made in the bible? I know a lack of evidence isn't evidence that somethings lacking, but damn, some things in the bible were just plain impossible. For exemple, people originating in Irak, or al humans having a common ancestor 2500bc as the bible suggests with the story of Noach. Do you see the events in bible as historical events?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recovering Afrocentrist - You are simply just another asshole who confuses his own beliefs for facts in the vein of Afroidiot, Dirk8, a few others; and now there is you.
You can guarantee nothing because you know nothing. You say many things, but not surprisingly, I see no evidence or supporting material. Yet as assholes like you often do, you decry others doing exactly the same thing that YOU do - rant and rave about things that you know nothing about, and with nothing to back it up - that is called hypocrisy!
BTW - ALL of the Indians that I know, call themselves Black, where did your fantasy come from?
Conclusion - just another know-nothing, trying to save the lies and bullsh1t of the White race, with more lies and Bullsh1t, asshole White Boy.
Welcome aboard - We just LOVE your kind here. In the REAL world, we could go to jail for what we do to your kind here.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone is free to for themselves research the body of literature known as the Pseudopigrapha to see if I erred.
Pseudopigrapha means "false authored writings." Enoch (which has several editions ranging form Abyssinian to Slavic) was first put to scroll or parchment in the 2nd century BCE. The oldest part of it only goes back another century.
Daniel is a book included in Hebrew canon as part of Ketubiym (the Writings), the set of scriptures following Nebi'iym (the Prophets) and Torah (Five Books of Moses).
Daniel was supposedly redacted in the 2nd century BCE. Redaction means it was spun from already existing writings. Thus there were written versions of Daniel older than any of those of Enoch.
Both Daniel and Enoch were found at the Qumran depository.
Daniel was written in Hebrew except for a verse or two in Aramaic. The few scraps of Enoch at Qumran were in Aramaic.
Daniel was for an audience who knew Hebrew and were just beginning to make Aramaic their vernacular. Enoch was for an audience whose everyday language was Aramaic.
Knowing when Judahites/Judeans took on Aramaic as their spoken non-sacred language tells us which book precedes the other. It also hints of the relative spiritual value of each book.
Anyway both Daniel and pseudo-Enoch both use wool as a simile for the Ancient of Days' hair. Does anyone doubt what is meant by wooly hair or why the Greek word ulitrichous was once the anthropological term descibing the hair of the majority of African peoples and the peoples former anhtropologists labeled Negroid and Negrito (such as the bsae population of Susa)?
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.
This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.
quote:Enoch never made Judean canon. Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.
It does not invalidate the text.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
If an indian says he has black skin, that is fine. You would find this kind of description even within white cultures. Black would be relative within that culture. Are you saying Indians define their race as "Black?"
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Recovering Afrocentrist - You are simply just another asshole who confuses his own beliefs for facts in the vein of Afroidiot, Dirk8, a few others; and now there is you.
You can guarantee nothing because you know nothing. You say many things, but not surprisingly, I see no evidence or supporting material. Yet as assholes like you often do, you decry others doing exactly the same thing that YOU do - rant and rave about things that you know nothing about, and with nothing to back it up - that is called hypocrisy!
BTW - ALL of the Indians that I know, call themselves Black, where did your fantasy come from?
Conclusion - just another know-nothing, trying to save the lies and bullsh1t of the White race, with more lies and Bullsh1t, asshole White Boy.
Welcome aboard - We just LOVE your kind here. In the REAL world, we could go to jail for what we do to your kind here.
That is not how an academic approaches the research. Only a religious zealot would be taken by the word "Pseudipigrapha," a term that was not even in existence at the time of the book's writing.
Prior to the nicean council the Hanowk writings were widely circulated throughout different religious communities. The only reason it is now considered a false writing is because the church established itself as the central authority with power to decree what writings could or could not be canonized.
If you are an academic, you do not discard a piece of literature because some publishing company stamped the word "PSEUDIPIGRAPHA" on the front of the book.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Anyone is free to for themselves research the body of literature known as the Pseudopigrapha to see if I erred.
Pseudopigrapha means "false authored writings." Enoch (which has several editions ranging form Abyssinian to Slavic) was first put to scroll or parchment in the 2nd century BCE. The oldest part of it only goes back another century.
Daniel is a book included in Hebrew canon as part of Ketubiym (the Writings) as set of scriptures following Nebi'iym (the Prophets) and Torah (Five Books of Moses).
Daniel was supposedly redacted in the 2nd century BCE. Redaction means it was spun from already existing writings. Thus there were written versions of Daniel older than any of those of Enoch.
Both Daniel and Enoch were found at the Qumran depository.
Daniel was written in Hebrew except for a verse or two in Aramaic. The few scraps of Enoch at Qumran were in Aramaic.
Daniel was for an audience who knew Hebrew and were just beginning to make Aramaic their vernacular. Enoch was for an audience whose everyday language was Aramaic.
Knowing when Judahites/Judeans took on Aramaic as their spoken non-sacred language tells us which book precedes the other. It also hints of the relative spiritual value of each book.
Anyway both Daniel and pseudo-Enoch both use wool as a simile for the Ancient of Days' hair. Does anyone doubt what is meant by wooly hair or why the Greek word ulitrichous was once the anthropological term descibing the hair of the majority of African peoples and the peoples former anhtropologists labeled Negroid and Negrito (such as the bsae population of Susa)?
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.
This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.
quote:Enoch never made Judean canon. Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.
You might find that his definition of dark asiatic overlaps quite well with the way you call them. The label one places on something espescially, in these discussions where everyone has his own opinions, shouldn't be a big deal. Assuming everyone knows what is meant and as long as it isn't offensive or if there is a good reason not to use it like for exemple ''caucasian features'' and negro.
posted
I did not bother asking because I went through this before with the board members. I even created a thread specifically addressing the term "Black" and how it is used.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Originally posted by Afrocentrist
Why don't you ask him what he means?
You might find that his definition of dark asiatic overlaps quite well with the way you call them. The label one places on something espescially, in these discussions where everyone has his own opinions, shouldn't be a big deal. Assuming everyone knows what is meant and as long as it isn't offensive or if there is a good reason not to use it like for exemple ''caucasian features'' and negro.
posted
No one has discarded anything. I am ranking the relative usefulness of Enoch vs Daniel re the hair of the Ancient of Days. Both use wool and wooly is a decriptor for nappy/kinky hair. If color alone was the objective some other word other than wool would've been used for hair. When uses wool in a simile applied to hair one cannot escape conjuring images of wooly hair to mind.
Late 2nd Temple era and Mishnaic era Jews paid little if any attention to Enoch which is why it survived in Christian circles.
When examining Judahite views of themselves through their writings late Christian copies or editions of Aramaic texts don't hold a candle.
In fact it may be the very reason that your quote from Enoch resembles Greek Revelations more than Hebrew Daniel i.e., because your quote is taken from a Christian book of Enoch not from an Aramaic Enoch used by Qumran or other Jewish sectarians.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: AlTakruri,
That is not how an academic approaches the research. Only a religious zealot would be taken by the word "Pseudipigrapha," a term that was not even in existence at the time of the book's writing.
Prior to the nicean council the Hanowk writings were widely circulated throughout different religious communities. The only reason it is now considered a false writing is because the church established itself as the central authority with power to decree what writings could or could not be canonized.
If you are an academic, you do not discard a piece of literature because some publishing company stamped the word "PSEUDIPIGRAPHA" on the front of the book.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Anyone is free to for themselves research the body of literature known as the Pseudopigrapha to see if I erred.
Pseudopigrapha means "false authored writings." Enoch (which has several editions ranging form Abyssinian to Slavic) was first put to scroll or parchment in the 2nd century BCE. The oldest part of it only goes back another century.
Daniel is a book included in Hebrew canon as part of Ketubiym (the Writings) as set of scriptures following Nebi'iym (the Prophets) and Torah (Five Books of Moses).
Daniel was supposedly redacted in the 2nd century BCE. Redaction means it was spun from already existing writings. Thus there were written versions of Daniel older than any of those of Enoch.
Both Daniel and Enoch were found at the Qumran depository.
Daniel was written in Hebrew except for a verse or two in Aramaic. The few scraps of Enoch at Qumran were in Aramaic.
Daniel was for an audience who knew Hebrew and were just beginning to make Aramaic their vernacular. Enoch was for an audience whose everyday language was Aramaic.
Knowing when Judahites/Judeans took on Aramaic as their spoken non-sacred language tells us which book precedes the other. It also hints of the relative spiritual value of each book.
Anyway both Daniel and pseudo-Enoch both use wool as a simile for the Ancient of Days' hair. Does anyone doubt what is meant by wooly hair or why the Greek word ulitrichous was once the anthropological term descibing the hair of the majority of African peoples and the peoples former anthropologists labeled Negroid and Negrito (such as the bsae population of Susa)?
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.
This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.
quote:Enoch never made Judean canon. Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.
It does not invalidate the text.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word "white" is the english rendering for the spiritual principle of pureness. In the hebrew, the comparison is made to wool to convey purity; both of his garment and hair. Let me show you something...
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;
The verse is not meant to be interpreted literally. It is metaphoric and it employs idioms. If we were to use your line of reason, then his FACE would also be made of wool. Did not you notice that not only is his hair being compared to the [whiteness] of wool, but his entire HEAD. Are you going to switch up in your interpretation of the passage: one minute you will interpret the comparison of hair with the wool to mean texture, but the face/head means something else? THERE IS NO METHODOLOGY TO YOUR SCHOLARSHIP. It is whimsical.
I provided you with actual precedence of the use of the 'wool' idiom. I showed you wool is likened to snow. Yet you ignore it and act like the verses in daniel and revelations are written in a vacuum. I will try one more time. Here is a passage many centuries prior to John and Daniel's writing where [wool] is used as an idiom in the language:
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.
If you choose to ignore the above verse then that is on you.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: No one has discarded anything. I am ranking the relative usefulness of Enoch vs Daniel re the hair of the Ancient of Days. Both use wool and wooly is a decriptor for nappy/kinky hair. If color alone was the objective some other word other than wool would've been used for hair. When uses wool in a simile applied to hair one cannot escape conjuring images of wooly hair to mind.
Late 2nd Temple era and Mishnaic era Jews paid little if any attention to Enoch which is why it survived in Christian circles.
When examining Judahite views of themselves through their writings late Christian copies or editions of Aramaic texts don't hold a candle.
In fact it may be the very reason that your quote from Enoch resembles Greek Revelations more than Hebrew Daniel i.e., because your quote is taken from a Christian book of Enoch not from an Aramaic Enoch used by Qumran or other Jewish sectarians.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: AlTakruri,
That is not how an academic approaches the research. Only a religious zealot would be taken by the word "Pseudipigrapha," a term that was not even in existence at the time of the book's writing.
Prior to the nicean council the Hanowk writings were widely circulated throughout different religious communities. The only reason it is now considered a false writing is because the church established itself as the central authority with power to decree what writings could or could not be canonized.
If you are an academic, you do not discard a piece of literature because some publishing company stamped the word "PSEUDIPIGRAPHA" on the front of the book.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Anyone is free to for themselves research the body of literature known as the Pseudopigrapha to see if I erred.
Pseudopigrapha means "false authored writings." Enoch (which has several editions ranging form Abyssinian to Slavic) was first put to scroll or parchment in the 2nd century BCE. The oldest part of it only goes back another century.
Daniel is a book included in Hebrew canon as part of Ketubiym (the Writings) as set of scriptures following Nebi'iym (the Prophets) and Torah (Five Books of Moses).
Daniel was supposedly redacted in the 2nd century BCE. Redaction means it was spun from already existing writings. Thus there were written versions of Daniel older than any of those of Enoch.
Both Daniel and Enoch were found at the Qumran depository.
Daniel was written in Hebrew except for a verse or two in Aramaic. The few scraps of Enoch at Qumran were in Aramaic.
Daniel was for an audience who knew Hebrew and were just beginning to make Aramaic their vernacular. Enoch was for an audience whose everyday language was Aramaic.
Knowing when Judahites/Judeans took on Aramaic as their spoken non-sacred language tells us which book precedes the other. It also hints of the relative spiritual value of each book.
Anyway both Daniel and pseudo-Enoch both use wool as a simile for the Ancient of Days' hair. Does anyone doubt what is meant by wooly hair or why the Greek word ulitrichous was once the anthropological term descibing the hair of the majority of African peoples and the peoples former anthropologists labeled Negroid and Negrito (such as the bsae population of Susa)?
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.
This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.
quote:Enoch never made Judean canon. Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.
posted
My presentation is scholarly and has teaches a great methodology.
I'm not going to go round and round forever on this. If you insist in repeating yourself then I say go for it tiger.
Since my goal is not to convince but to relay my point I leave it for the readership to draw their own conclusions as to whether the simile of wool does not apply to a people who are depicted by their conquerer Sennacherib to have wooly hair.
posted
Recovering Afrocentrist - All of the above are modern-day drawings - NOT the REAL things. What do you mean to indicate with them?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please sir indicate which ones are modern day drawings and provide the evidence to it.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Recovering Afrocentrist - All of the above are modern-day drawings - NOT the REAL things. What do you mean to indicate with them?
But before we can do this, we have to evaluate how valuable textual and artificial evidence are
I think we should also make a distinction about what it exactly is that we're discussing 1.Jesus's affinity with tropical Africans 2.The Lachis affinity with tropical Africans 3.The Hebrew affinity with tropical Africans
Because 1 can have tropical affinities without a need for 2 and 3 to have tropical affinities 2 can have tropical affinities without the need for 1 and 2 to have those traits The exact same thing can be said about 3 If one says that 1 2 AND 3 have tropical affinities, just stating evidence for one of the three will not be enough.
For the first item, i.e. "number 1", you'd have to rely on just biblical text, unless you have the actual remains of the person in question.
Number 3 requires further questions. Do Hebrews = Israelites? Biblical text uses as its basis, the legends of the latter, which itself was modified upon the emergence of the latter in the Levant.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: 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.
If Afronut slayer is black I am a purple martian, he has tried to establish himself as black so that he can have credibility and an anchor in this discussion he has rightly interpreted that otherwise we would just label him as what he is a white bigot jolted into insecurity by the idea of a black civilization. Many Eurocentrics attempt the same maneuver and like most Whites they forget one key premise of White and Black cultural exchanges in America. The premise is that "We know you but you do not know us" So always remember
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.
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: 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.
Never believe a Eurocentric when He tries to establish himself as Black. He only attempts this so as to anchor some credibility for his racist views. Never and I mean never fall for that attempt. Not only have you fallen for it but you then Alienate one of our own in the process, in this manner he has accomplished a double touche.
Afronut you may fool some but never the initiated in your game there is one premise that you have forgotten in Black, White relations in the states.
"We know you, but you DON'T know us".
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mystery Solver: For the first item, i.e. "number 1", you'd have to rely on just biblical text, unless you have the actual remains of the person in question.
I agree, thats why I wanted to make a compilation of all the texts referring to Jesus's physical features and evaluate them. I haven't seen one person responding to this request. I think its too bad we let the focus of the discussions sway to predictable directions, instead of trying to reach a consensus or something close to it. We make it an issue whether or not Enoch has been accepted, what ofcourse doesn't matter in the slightest, not in this discussion.
A biblical book is accepted or rejected on religious grounds, not because they suspected the author made a false statement about the origin of the people it describes. Therefore, rejected on reliious grounds or not, the book may still give useful insights about the affinities of the population it describes.
It reminds me of the discussion you had with Clyde who was falsely claiming that the whole Williams paper was discredited, because Keita disagreed about one aspect of his Williams claims.
Wouldn't you agree that without these crania that according to Keita, ''classify with Nubians and Egyptians'', Lachish wouldn't cluster with Egyptians at all, or at least severely less?
Why then, the Lachish crania is used to prove the tropical affinities the Hebrews had with Africans? If Keita seemingly agrees with:
quote: Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon
Why is the Lachish crania even used in this discussion? If they were contemporary migrants, why are Egyptian crania (in Lachish) used to make a case for Hebrews having affinities with actual middle nile residents? Doesn't make sense
According to Keita
quote: many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice.
If I'm right in my interpretation, the Lachish crania supports a non African origin of the people from the Levant because of the following reasons -Many of the crania in the Lachish cluster with Nubians and upper Egyptians -Even when juxtaposed against Lachish, they still cluster with middle nile residents (upper Egypt and Nubians)
If the indigenious population of the levant of that time period (without any contemporary middle nile migration) had tropical traits similar to the Egyptians/somalians/Beja, wouldn't the Nubian/upper Egyptian component of Lachish have a hell of a harder time to be ''recognized'' out of the crania from their Levantine brothers? We wouldn't expect them to be as easely distinguished from other leventines as Keita implies when he says:
quote: with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice
Would we not expect to see a smooth gradual transition from fully Nubians in Africa, towards fully Eurasian types outside the levant?
That is the reason why I said we must figure out what it is we're discussing here, because apparently, the Lachish crania don't speak for hebrew crania as a whole. And therefore, shouldn't be used as if they do.
Do you agree Mystery Solver?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by StTigray Never believe a Eurocentric when He tries to establish himself as Black. He only attempts this so as to anchor some credibility for his racist views. Never and I mean never fall for that attempt. Not only have you fallen for it but you then Alienate one of our own in the process, in this manner he has accomplished a double touche.
Afronut you may fool some but never the initiated in your game there is one premise that you have forgotten in Black, White relations in the states.
"We know you, but you DON'T know us".
If you're talking about me, I wasn't convinced about him being African at all. Neither do I think it is important, as Djehutyhotep and King (if I'm right) aren't African neither. Even if he is white and racist, he can still have a good argument. I personally think people like him are needed to keep us in check.
They are quite useful actually Whenever new research is being done they come here and try to ''debunk'' the ruling consensus here. Then (like you all usually do) you all kick their buts, so everyone, including those who aren't registered know about, and are constantly updated with their most recent venom and the subsequent butkicking provided here.
And that is why I am here, to learn more, aren't you? If you are, don't get swayed from your original goal, why you were here in the first place, which I hope, is to seek knowlegde.
Wouldn't you agree that without these crania that according to Keita, ''classify with Nubians and Egyptians'', Lachish wouldn't cluster with Egyptians at all, or at least severely less?
The crania that do cluster with those in Egyptian samples, Kerma and Gabonese, should be seen as part of the variation of the Lachish population in question, and not separated. Unless one is suggesting that said crania are not those belonging to the Lachish populace(?). If so, what are specifics on this?
quote: Why then, the Lachish crania is used to prove the tropical affinities the Hebrews had with Africans? If Keita seemingly agrees with:
quote: Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon
The presence of "Egyptian" element in Lachish crania is discerned from historical record of contact contemporaneous to the age of the Lachish specimens in question, and patterns of affinity.
quote:Why is the Lachish crania even used in this discussion?
Don't know, but presumably to demonstrate that that region was not out of the reach of what some might call "blacks".
quote: If they were contemporary migrants, why are Egyptian crania (in Lachish) used to make a case for Hebrews having affinities with actual middle nile residents? Doesn't make sense
Not sure such a case is being made here for Hebrews. However, one still needs to discern the relationship between Hebrews and Israelites; are they one and same? The biblical accounts derive from the legends of the Israelites, who are claimed to have arrived from the Nile Valley prior to either "re-settling" [biblical version] themselves in the Levant or as Nile Valley emigrants settling themselves for the first time in the Levant, integrating into surrounding autochthonous Levantine populations and then developing their identity as Israelites in the region [scientific application of research by analysts like G. Greenberg].
quote:According to Keita
quote: many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice.
If I'm right in my interpretation, the Lachish crania supports a non African origin of the people from the Levant because of the following reasons
-Many of the crania in the Lachish cluster with Nubians and upper Egyptians -Even when juxtaposed against Lachish, they still cluster with middle nile residents (upper Egypt and Nubians)
More appropriately, it can serve as support for autochthonous Levantine variation that is distinct from that seen in the Nile Valley. The Nile Valley serves as only a subset of African variation.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Nuzi map proves the existence of the 4 rivers chronicled in the “Holy Bible”.
i can extract from your argument that you're not even up to date about the nature of this discussion, as no one disputed the existence of these rivers.
Also, can you tell me, what is a Nuzi map? If the Nuzi map is that map you've just posted, I'm not even going to respond because that map doesn't demonstrate the location of the 4 ancient rivers, it merely demonstrates their (the makers) interpretation of the location of the sons of Noach.
quote: How is Havilah in Arabia?
Why do you want me to respond to that map, if you yourself don't even present arguments why it should be seen as the correct interpretation? You're just gonna post a map and ask me that question? Hahahaha
I personally think people like him are needed to keep us in check.
Why do you think despicable personalities are needed to "keep us in check"; are you suggesting the "us" here agree on everything, such that interjection is needed from elsewhere?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: do not play these semantic games and you will certainly not find these games played in academia. Afrocentrists love to use the word "Black" (an absolute term without any reference point) because it's a trojan horse to go in and hijack the history and culture. Why not just say "Dark Asiatiques?" We know there were ancient dark Asiatiques as well as light (of course this is relative).
This coming from a guy who wanted me to find him a Negro? Black Asians.. And the people of Sumer did not minced words.. THEY CALLED THEMSELVES SAG-GIG-GA THE BLACK HEADED ONES But do I think the people above that I posted are biologically and culturally Africans??..NO!! other will disagree with me on that,Kolonji we are not of hive mind here we differ..sometimes strongly as you may take note on earlier posts. and if I were a betting man then the Sumerians may looked just like the pic Dana & Mike posted. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: The crania that do cluster with those in Egyptian samples, Kerma and Gabonese, should be seen as part of the variation of the Lachish population in question, and not separated. Unless one is suggesting that said crania are not those belonging to the Lachish populace(?). If so, what are specifics on this?
Doesn't variation implies that a population is capable of displaying traits that one might consider coming from external sources without a genetic input from an external source?
How then, is this concept of indigenious variation appyable to the lachish population, if one considers various Egyptian sources mentioning the existence of permanent Egyptian forts and buffers being deployed in that region since the expellng of the Hyksos?
quote: Don't know, but presumably to demonstrate that that region was not out of the reach of what some might call "blacks".
Various African peoples have made it into the levant at various times. It is the linkage of any of those people, to the Hebrew population that concerns me. Now that we're talking about it, is there a theory offered in any previous discussions that pinpoints which one and when those migrants might have migrated out of the motherland? The exodus ofcourse not counting because it is argued that the Hebrews were black from the beginning, as visible in quotations of Tacticus and others quotes about Shem
quote: Not sure such a case is being made here for Hebrews.
Correct me if I'm wrong My interpretation of Al Takruri's and other posters standpoints is that they try to use the Lachish depictions as evidence for their claims that according to the bible, Hebrew/Jesus hair was in structure like wool. And in order to support this beliefsystem, they try to use the Lachish crania, which virue of their tropical traits suggests that this populations hair structure was not only like wool, but that they (the hebrews) were also similar to middle nile Africans.
quote: However, one still needs to discern the relationship between Hebrews and Israelites; are they one and same?
I agree there are some distinctions to be made, however, to make sure we're talking about the same things, we should explain what we mean by Hebrew and Isrealites Israelites can be meant as natives of the country israel, and if one uses this interpretation, Natufians and Canaanites can be included Israelites can also be meant as the descendants of Israel (Jacob), who is also a Hebrew if one means with that word, a descendant of Eber
quote: More appropriately, it can serve as support for autochthonous Levantine variation that is distinct from that seen in the Nile Valley.
Exactly!! Good lookin' out for being objective and careful! Not to say ofcourse that everyone who argues for African affinity aren't
quote: The crania that do cluster with those in Egyptian samples, Kerma and Gabonese, should be seen as part of the variation of the Lachish population in question, and not separated. Unless one is suggesting that said crania are not those belonging to the Lachish populace(?). If so, what are specifics on this?
Doesn't variation implies that a population is capable of displaying traits that one might consider coming from external sources without a genetic input from an external source?
Variation can include both one attributed to gene flow and natural selection/adaptation.
quote: How then, is this concept of indigenious variation appyable to the lachish population, if one considers various Egyptian sources mentioning the existence of permanent Egyptian forts and buffers being deployed in that region since the expellng of the Hyksos?
Like I said, what is estimated, is that there is an Egyptian-"Nubian" element to this, since both cranial affinity and historic contacts lend support to such prospect. Remember, that Lachish crania classified into other crania as well, including the Gabonese sample; should we then infer that there were Gabonese folks amongst them, from this piece of information?
quote:
quote: Don't know, but presumably to demonstrate that that region was not out of the reach of what some might call "blacks".
Various African peoples have made it into the levant at various times. It is the linkage of any of those people, to the Hebrew population that concerns me. Now that we're talking about it, is there a theory offered in any previous discussions that pinpoints which one and when those migrants might have migrated out of the motherland? The exodus ofcourse not counting because it is argued that the Hebrews were black from the beginning, as visible in quotations of Tacticus and others quotes about Shem
Well, Israelite historical traditions is intertwined with various "biblical" ones, well, because the bible derives from Israelite traditions. So, either an Exodus of some sort took place, explaining the sudden appearance of a socio-ethnic complex such as the Israelites in the Levant in the historic period, or they had been there all along; what do you figure is the case?
quote:
quote: Not sure such a case is being made here for Hebrews.
Correct me if I'm wrong My interpretation of Al Takruri's and other posters standpoints is that they try to use the Lachish depictions as evidence for their claims that according to the bible, Hebrew/Jesus hair was in structure like wool.
I'm the wrong person to be asking this question, since it should be directed to the posters in question, but from what I recall from reading the exchanges, al Takruri was basing that on biblical linguistic grounds, as opposed to physical anthropological data grounded on skeletal remains.
quote: And in order to support this beliefsystem, they try to use the Lachish crania, which virue of their tropical traits suggests that this populations hair structure was not only like wool, but that they (the hebrews) were also similar to middle nile Africans.
I'd have to re-read the exchanges to verify if this is what was in effect done, but from my immediate recollection, al Takruri for instance, was working with linguistic examination of Biblical text.
quote:
quote: However, one still needs to discern the relationship between Hebrews and Israelites; are they one and same?
I agree there are some distinctions to be made, however, to make sure we're talking about the same things, we should explain what we mean by Hebrew and Isrealites Israelites can be meant as natives of the country israel, and if one uses this interpretation, Natufians and Canaanites can be included Israelites can also be meant as the descendants of Israel (Jacob), who is also a Hebrew if one means with that word, a descendant of Eber
Isrealites would be the folks who were locals of what was the ancient kingdom of Israel. How the Natufians and Canaanites in general figure into that, is something I'd like to learn more about. And I have not made any distinction yet; I'm asking if there is or isn't one, to be made between what is Hebrew and what is Israelite.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do you think despicable personalities are needed to "keep us in check"; are you suggesting the "us" here agree on everything, such that interjection is needed from elsewhere?
Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
As seen for example in the 50% 50% devidence in whites and blacks when O.J. was taken to court. A natural tendency we all have is to try and protect our beliefs even if we know we're wrong. Also the tendency to see the world not for what it is, but filtered trough our beliefs is a quality we all have.
The same keeping in check also happens in scientific environments so it may help us too when we get closer to the truth
The human mind just has this tendency and being aware of it can help you
With that being said, the diversity already present here can just like outside influence have this checking effect too.
quote: Why do you think despicable personalities are needed to "keep us in check"; are you suggesting the "us" here agree on everything, such that interjection is needed from elsewhere?
Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.
You say no, but isn't saying "people who have similar beliefs" suggesting that there is some unison in viewpoints, i.e. no range of varying viewpoints?
What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"? New material is posted here all the time that differs from the last, and they are critiqued all the same. Not everyone is going to be on the same page all the time. Some are more rigid in their thinking, others not so; some are quicker in learning, other's not so. So, again, unless put forward, I have seen no evidence to suggest that everyone agrees to some sort of "belief system", that I guess is not grounded on objective material backing(?)
quote:
As seen for example in the 50% 50% devidence in whites and blacks when O.J. was taken to court. A natural tendency we all have is to try and protect our beliefs even if we know we're wrong.
How does the O.J. Simpson court case apply to this board.
quote: Also the tendency to see the world not for what it is, but filtered trough our beliefs is a quality we all have.
Again, it seems that you are engaging here in your own subjective assessment of the reality of the situation here...unless you are prepared to support it materially.
quote:The same keeping in check also happens in scientific environments so it may help us too when we get closer to the truth
The human mind just has this tendency and being aware of it can help you
With that being said, the diversity already present here can just like outside influence have this checking effect too.
Kalonji
I see contradictions in your position; first it seems that you are insinuating there is some sort of unison in thinking on this board, that we seem to hold some sort of view across the board, which I guess may or may not be scientifically or objectively supported (?), and then, you acknowledge there is indeed diversity of viewpoints; which is it? And if it is the latter, why do we need disruptive personalities to keep "us" in check?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| 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. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic