posted
I absolutely abhor outrageous comments! One of them is the statement, usually made by extreme Afro-centrists, that King Solomon was Black!
King Solomon, if one reads the Bible for research, was not Black!
Jeez...it's why I dislike the term Afro-centrism, it's as ugly as Euro-centrism!
The Song of Songs is of course about the love affair between a Black woman and a White man. The first interracial love poem known to us? It's what, to me, gives this love song its poignancy...
We know that the woman explicitly states that she is Black, and here's where she describes her lover:
quote: I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of love. What is thy beloved more than another beloved, O thou fairest among women? what is thy beloved more than another beloved, that thou dost so charge us? My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.
That's the way it's written in the KJV anyway. A very beautiful, and very erotic poem it is...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Wally, that would depend on what one considers "white". As a native of the Levant, King Solomon's appearance would likely be distinct from the 'typical white' European look..
But all in all I agree that Solomon as with the rest of the ancient Israelis/Hebrews were NOT black. It's unfortunate that such claims are made by the 'Afrocentrics' who are no different from the 'Eurocentrics'.
Pseudo-crap is pseudo-crap and 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
O ok... now I understand... you are of the opinion that the Ancient Hebrews if they did exist were not black even though biblical if you believe in it; they describe themselves as being black.
King Solomon was described as being white... no... the actual meaning for the word white as being used in this sentence is:
'Tsach' which the Hebrew definition means:
dazzling, glowing, clear, bright
The same word 'Tsach' is used in Isaiah to mean...
Isa 18:4 For so the LORD said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear(i.e. Tsach) heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.
or in:
Isa 32:4 The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly(i.e Tsach).
Now if it was talking about the color white then the Hebrew word would have been 'Leban' which means "WHITE" as in color.
As far as the word 'rubby' it is translated as 'adon' which means 'red' which is the color of the Egyptians on the wall paintings. Here is the actual definitions:
If a horse is red.. or beans i.e. lentils is red then we call them or it a red horse or red beans, but if a horse is white and the lentils i.e. beans are white the we call them white beans or a white horse. LEBAN... i.e. white.
Thus the sentence should have been read or written as such...
Song Of Solomon 5:10 My beloved is "Dazzling" and "Reddish brown", the chiefest among ten thousand
or
My beloved is "Glowing" and "Reddish brown", the chiefest among ten thousand
or
My beloved is "Bright" and "Reddish brown", the chiefest among ten thousand.
The Egyptians were brighter then the Sudanese citizens of that time... They were a brick red color as was the SUPPOSED Hebrews who were often confused as Egyptians in the bible.
Example: Apostle Paul~
Acts 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
So when the color difference was made between the jet black African vs. The rubby i.e.reddish brown Africa, I don't think that it was intended for the word 'White i.e. Tsach' to be taken as 'White i.e. Leban'. In the rest of the scripture King Solomon was rocking his locks like the Jamacians and many others of African decent.
The Hebrews said this of themselves... when they were sick and going through trama... they they are burnt unto the ground or that they were dark unto the grown... dark red dirt or if in Egypt.. black dirt.
Lamentations 5:10 Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.
The Hebrew definition for black in this sentence is kam[ar] which is very close to the Egyptian Kam/Kem.. If the word black in Hebrew would have been Qadar.. that would have meant 'mourning' or if it was Cochereth thaw would have been 'pavement or a type of stone that is colored black. If Europeans became famished their skin would grow pale and not black. Africans and other black native in different areas and lands grow darker when sick.
Please do not take what I have written as for being and Afro-centric because I am far from that, but what appears to be facts as I know them, it was I will document. It doesn't mean that I'm right because in truth I'm learning from Wally, Djehuti, Supercar, Rasol, Ausar and many others on this forum the truth about the Egyptians and other cultures. It just that the Hebrews I have been studying for 15 years give or take and what I have found up to this point as you agree... Djehuti is that they are not white in the sence that Wally just described them... but I take it a step further because their own personal description in the bible if that is what you study... proclaims that they are reddish brown, just like the Egyptian... if they are not a sect of the true Egyptians.
P.S. I need a new laptop because my keys are sticking which is causing me to type errors... Please forgive.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^The Bible never described the Hebrews as 'black' so you are only fooling yourself if you think it did.
Of course the Hebrews were never described as 'white' and I don't think any ancient peoples were at that time save perhaps the Tamahu of Libya and Indo-Europeans.
The Near-East is a diverse place with populations consisting of black to lighter skinned elements. All evidence shows that the Hebrews were one of the lighter-skinned elements and were NOT black!
One of the many evidences for the Hebrews not being black was that the Hebrew word for black was cushi and if you recall in the Exodus, Moses was chastised for marrying a woman who is cushi or black!
I suggest you end this silly agenda of yours. The modern day population that best resembles what the ancient Hebrews/Israelites looked like is perhaps the Samaritans of rural Palestine. These were the only Jewish grouped that never left Israel as well as not intermarry with outsiders.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^That argument did not refute the previous post, not only the physical descritions, but the prohecies and culture described in the bible sounds very much like Africans. Read the books of Deutoronomy and Lamentations.
Posts: 16 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I would not call that little bit from Lamentations to be a substantiative description. The Hebrews lived in a desert environment and usually famines are caused by drought which is caused by extreme heat and lack of water. The description of "black" could be just a metaphor or exaggeration of the fact that their skins were burnt darker by the sun. The Greeks and others make similar descriptions of themselves during severe summer months.
What I wrote was far more accurate, and there are even much more detailed descriptions not only from the Hebrews but from their neigbhors as to their physical appearance.
As for certain cultural and prophetic similarities to other Africans, this is not really surprising considering that the Semitic tradition of the Hebrews and other peoples of the Middle East originated from Africa.
Here is a good book which sheds light to this connection:
Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots Of The Jewish, Christian & Muslim Religions
by Julian Baldick
You guys just have to face the FACTS that your agenda to paint everyone significant in history as 'black' is just as bad and ludicrous as Eurocentrics painting everyone historically important as white! *sigh* Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not necessarily, the "bit" in Lamentations is powerful, but as a whole that description especially in Deutoronomy, have me convinced.
Posts: 16 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL There is nothing "powerful" about it. The Greeks also used such descriptions for those who have been in the sun too long.
I hope you aren't one of thos misfits who claims to be one of the "original" Israelites because you are black!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^The Bible never described the Hebrews as 'black' so you are only fooling yourself if you think it did.
Of course the Hebrews were never described as 'white' and I don't think any ancient peoples were at that time save perhaps the Tamahu of Libya and Indo-Europeans.
The Near-East is a diverse place with populations consisting of black to lighter skinned elements. All evidence shows that the Hebrews were one of the lighter-skinned elements and were NOT black!
One of the many evidences for the Hebrews not being black was that the Hebrew word for black was cushi and if you recall in the Exodus, Moses was chastised for marrying a woman who is cushi or black!
I suggest you end this silly agenda of yours. The modern day population that best resembles what the ancient Hebrews/Israelites looked like is perhaps the Samaritans of rural Palestine. These were the only Jewish grouped that never left Israel as well as not intermarry with outsiders.
Ok I have no agenda whatsoever... I am simply discussing this with you. I have never once came at you in any form which implies that I would have an agenda...
Note: what you see in the land today is not what has always been in that region. The cushites as you called them rule and dwelt in the land you call Israel today, so it wasn't inhabited by a bunch of different people. The modern day Sameritans were moved into that land according to II Kings chapter 17. This is biblical and I'm not certain if it is historically correct.
The Hebrew word Kuwsh does in fact mean black, but it is not the only Hebrew word which means black. I used the scripture where it says without doubt "Our skin is black".
Lamentations 4:8 "Their visage is blacker than a coal..."
These scriptures are saying exactly what they are saying. I didn't write them, I'm only bringing them to your attention. II Kings chapter 17 states that the people living in Palistine and Samaria were placed there as the original Hebrews were moved out by the Assyerians i.e. Arabs. That is why you have Arab looking people living on the land.
Remember these are not my words but the words of the biblical scriptures. I also showed you have Paul was mistaken for and Egyptian... In order to be mistaken for an Egyptian then you have to look like one... You yourself wrote on many thread that you thought the Egyptians were black and if Paul was a Hebrew which was mistaken for and Egyptian... then how is he not black as well?
Once again... I have no agenda and If I'm wrong then proving me wrong will be extremely easy and I will accept being taught the correct way... but as it stands... The ancient Hebrews were in fact black as they scripturally identified themselves as...
For them to say... 'their visage was darker then coal...' says a lot. To say 'our skin is black... says a lot. Job 30:30 'My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.... I can keep going and going and it will be the same results.
THE HISTORIES Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian, 55-A.D. had this to say about the Hebrews...
"Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbors to seek a new dwelling-place."
Amos 7:9 states...
"Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?...
I mean... there have been so many changes to the bible that it is hard to phathom... yet a Roman historian verifies Amos claim of the Ethiopian origins. Please note once again... I didn't write these things, but I am simply posting them so that you can read it for yourself.
Once again, I have no agenda but that I want to learn. You gave the meaning of the Hebrew word Cush to mean black... but you didn't say anything about the reddish-brown comment from Song of Solomon 5:10 and other...
So then my question to you is... do you believe that the ancient population of modern Israel looks the same as it did 2500 years ago?
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am most definitely not one of those, in fact i dont even consider myself an Israelite or Hebrew or whatever, but is it necessary to insult people that do believe that? the truth is the truth!
Posts: 16 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti... I for one do not believe that everyone praised person in history was black and that all accomplishments were of black origins.
I'm only given to you what was written... nothing more and nothing less. I haven't given you my opinion but given you what I've read historically and biblically.
If you ask me I beleive that the Hebrews were of Egyptian origins or were the popes i.e. priest of the Egyptians. Now that's my personal opinion.
Yet I'm still doing research on this...
P.S. I definitely agree with you Djehuti that the traditions of the ancient Hebrews were in fact of African origins.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^You're right about one thing, the TRUTH is the TRUTH. And I think it wrong and silly to rely in wishful thinking and false notions of grandeur. This is what whites have been doing for centuries and blacks need not do the same.
You can deny reality all you want by imagining the ancient Hebrews to be black and discounting their most direct descendants, the Samaritans as not being true descendants all you want. This board gets a lot of DENIERS so it's nothing new. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm only looking for an answer to these questions... Everything else I don't to much care about because this website is not about the Hebrews... (until it is proven that they were a sect of Egyptians).
These were the questions that I wanted answer in particular...
"These scriptures are saying exactly what they are saying. I didn't write them, I'm only bringing them to your attention. II Kings chapter 17 states that the people living in Palistine and Samaria were placed there as the original Hebrews were moved out by the Assyerians i.e. Arabs. That is why you have Arab looking people living on the land. Can you prove that this didn't happen in history according to the bible?
Remember these are not my words but the words of the biblical scriptures. I also showed you how Paul was mistaken for and Egyptian (Acts 21:36-39)... In order to be mistaken for an Egyptian then you have to look like one... You yourself wrote on many thread that you thought the Egyptians were black and if Paul was a Hebrew which was mistaken for and Egyptian... then how is he not black as well?"
Thanks...
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am simply going to reiterate that looking into the Nile Valley, Egypt, concerning the origins of the Isrealites, isn't a farfetched fantasy of some Afrocentric nut; it is what makes sense!
2. Scripture implies that the Hebrew were not distinct in appearance from the Egyptians.
3. Therefore the Hebrew like the Egyptians were Black.
By the same token groups like the White Supremacist religious sect, Christian Identity, use scripture to rationalize the belief that the Hebrew were White.
They use the logic that the term ruddy, which means reddish, must refer to redness of the skin, as in blushing. And since White people are so pale in complexion they naturally blush more visibly than any group.
Thus according to them anyone described as ruddy (such as Solomon and David) must be White as ruddy describes the flush of White complexioned skin.
The go so far as to use the etymology of the word Adam which means "red" or "ruddy" as evidence that Adam and Eve were the first White man and woman.
Ofcourse, they also believe that Cain's wife was the descendant of a pre-Adamic race. That these pre-Adamites were non-Whites who were among the beasts of the field God created before man and that modern Jews are descendants of a sexual encounter between Eve and Satan, in the form of a serpent.
I found this page which gives an alternative opinion on the nature of the term ruddy to be interesting.
Theologians who make racial issues out of the Bible typically do so under the concepts of "lighter than" or "darker than" respectively.
Any evidence in scripture that could support a group being dark complexioned can be interpreted to mean that they must be Black in whatever sense you are using the term Black and likewise descriptions used to imply a light skintone can support the conclusions that a biblical group were White.
This verse is the most direct verse I have seen to imply anything about a group's skin color:
quote: Can the Ethiopian [a] change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
(Jeremiah 13:23 NIV)
Footnotes: Hebrew Cushite (probably a person from the upper Nile region)
This verse refers explictly to skin color.
And as the author is referring to a specific group stating they cannot change their skin it implies that the author of the text and the audience he is speaking to differ in complexion from the Ethiopian, a considerably dark-skinned people ( regardless of which Ethiopian or Cushite they are referring to).
That is ofcourse not evidence that every Isrealite at any given time did not have the complexion or features of an Ethiopian but rather that such appearance was in the minority.
As far as Solomon is concerned I agree with Djehuti that he was likely of the same complexion as other indegenious Levantine people, of a tanned skintone like many of the same people there today.
Different from a White European and a Black African.
The Ancient Egyptians made a clear contrast between themselves and people from the Levant but also the difference in complexion between the extremely pale-skinned Tamahou (the group wearing the feathers) and the people from the Levant is also evident.
Asiatics migrating into Egypt
Ramses III Book of Gates Mural
As far as the Queen of Sheba's description of Solomon in the song of Solom is concerned she does in the King James Version use the terms white and ruddy to describe Solomon.
One of the few other people described as ruddy in the Bible is none other than King David.
quote: He looked David over and saw that he was only a boy, ruddy and handsome, and he despised him. (1 Samuel 17:42 NIV)
This makes it obvious that ruddy, in this situation as something to do with his complexion.
Could it mean rosy faced?
Possibly.
It could also mean red all over, as in well tanned.
Some people have even interpreted the word ruddy to mean ginger as in being red-haired.
The Song of Solomon does not support this description of ruddy for Solomon:
quote:His head is purest gold; his hair is wavy and black as a raven.
(Song of Solomon 5:11 NIV)
It is important to remember that much of the Bible is written in parables and metaphors.
Having hair that is "black as a raven" suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that Solomon had jet black hair.
Other physical descriptions are not so concrete.
The Queen of Sheba also describes his lips as being like like lilies dripping with myrrh.
Having arms made of gold.
Legs being like pillars of marble (possibly meaning they are strong).
And is body is described as being like polished ivory decorated with saphires.
In any case, where the King James Version says that Solomon was White the New International Version says he is radiant. It is clear that the translators did not interpret white to mean his skin color.
The NIV of the Bible also replaces "black but comely" for the Queen of Sheba's description of herself with "dark yet lovely" so in that instance they support her describing herself as dark complexioned.
So its up in the air on whether or not Solomon is described as light-skinned.
I believe that the two figues looked much like this illustration of them:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^You're right about one thing, the TRUTH is the TRUTH. And I think it wrong and silly to rely in wishful thinking and false notions of grandeur. This is what whites have been doing for centuries and blacks need not do the same.
You can deny reality all you want by imagining the ancient Hebrews to be black and discounting their most direct descendants, the Samaritans as not being true descendants all you want. This board gets a lot of DENIERS so it's nothing new.
Djehuti, I too am weary of the Afrocentric bias perpetuated by many on this board, but your most recent comments are far to close to appeals to ridicule than valid attempts at a rebuttle.
RU2religious has given very sound evidence for his opinions on the biological makeup of the Ancient Hebrew.
They are infact described as black in the text he says they are, there are more words for black in Hebrew than Kushi, the term ruddy has been likened to reddish-brown.
However none of this proves that the Hebrew where a brown-skinned people like the Egyptians.
As far as Paulbeing confused for an Egyptian bare in mind RU2religious that he lived well into the Greco-Roman era where there were many settlements of various Asiatic (including Jews) and European people into Egypt.
By Paul's time the appearance of an Egyptian would have varied far more greatly than that it would during the Dynastic era.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots Of The Jewish, Christian & Muslim Religions
by Julian Baldick
I've heard of this book before. Great title, what a hilarious homage to Bernal's book.
Has anyone here read it?
Is it any good?
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Remember these are not my words but the words of the biblical scriptures. I also showed you how Paul was mistaken for and Egyptian (Acts 21:36-39)... In order to be mistaken for an Egyptian then you have to look like one... You yourself wrote on many thread that you thought the Egyptians were black and if Paul was a Hebrew which was mistaken for and Egyptian... then how is he not black as well?"
Thanks...
Peace!~
That would depend what one means by 'Egyptian'. Surely there were plenty of Asiatic communities in Egypt during that time who were nationally Egyptian.
But you might have a point there although that still doesn't explain why the Egyptians themselves portrayed Hebrews and other Asiatics differently from themselves as nonblack.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Numbers 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, "Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?" And the LORD heard it.
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the surface of the earth. And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house.WIth him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle, and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow, and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous
This supports Djehuti's point that the Hebrews were neither black nor white.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: This supports Djehuti's point that the Hebrews were neither black nor white.
If you read the Biblical Hebrew Israelites page they dispute this by saying that Miriam's objection to Moses's marriage was due to cultural difference and not race.
quote: In the book of Numbers, chapter 12 verse 1, Moses' sister and brother, Miriam and Aaron spoke out against him because he married an Ethiopian woman, (not because she was black skinned, but because she was of another culture / Nation, read Acts 10:28:) their behavior angered Yah. Verse 10 says, He TURNED MIRIAM LEPROUS, WHITE AS SNOW. Once again if Miriam, who was a Hebrew, was white to begin with, what would have been the curse of turning a white skinned person white? Yah was angry with her, he showed his anger by turning her white with leprosy. If she was already white, why not turn her Jet Black?
Miriaim was a black women, and Yah showed his displeasure with her, by changing her skin color from black to white. This was so Powerful that it shocked her brother Aaron.
When it is up to your own interpretation scripture becomes very flexible.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: This supports Djehuti's point that the Hebrews were neither black nor white.
If you read the Biblical Hebrew Israelites page they dispute this by saying that Miriam's objection to Moses's marriage was due to cultural difference and not race.
quote: In the book of Numbers, chapter 12 verse 1, Moses' sister and brother, Miriam and Aaron spoke out against him because he married an Ethiopian woman, (not because she was black skinned, but because she was of another culture / Nation, read Acts 10:28:) their behavior angered Yah. Verse 10 says, He TURNED MIRIAM LEPROUS, WHITE AS SNOW. Once again if Miriam, who was a Hebrew, was white to begin with, what would have been the curse of turning a white skinned person white? Yah was angry with her, he showed his anger by turning her white with leprosy. If she was already white, why not turn her Jet Black?
Miriaim was a black women, and Yah showed his displeasure with her, by changing her skin color from black to white. This was so Powerful that it shocked her brother Aaron.
When it is up to your own interpretation scripture becomes very flexible.
I agree they may not have liked her becuase they thought she was below them (class superiority...not racial). But I'm re-thinking my beliefs on the Ancient Israelites...I no longer believe that.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as anyone uses analysis and interpretations from other than the Hebrew source material, that one will remain in error and confusion in understanding Hebrew texts and word meanings.
I've pointed out numerous times that Shiyr haShirym (Song of Songs) isn't about Solomon and Maqeda. That relationship appears elsewhere in TaNaKh. Song of Songs is primarily about a Shulamiyth and her unnamed Shepherd Lover. The Royal Figure in the poem wanted her in his harem but failed to acquire her because she remained steadfast in love with her shepherd.
The clear ruddy complexioned guy isn't Solomon, it's the shepherd. There are millions of clear ruddy complexioned Afrikans whose cheeks can show a blush whether from emotion or cold weather.
Nor is it uncommon for one black person to call another black person red, redboy, redbone, red nigger, red monkey, etc. not only in the Americas but on the continent too.
posted
It should be noted that most translations of the Bible use the term "Ethiopian" as a description of Moses's wife, even though ethnically she was a Midianite!
Why? Because 'Ethiopian' was the Greek word for 'black' or 'burnt face'. The original Hebrew description of Moses's wife was cushi meaning the same thing--black.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^You're right about one thing, the TRUTH is the TRUTH. And I think it wrong and silly to rely in wishful thinking and false notions of grandeur. This is what whites have been doing for centuries and blacks need not do the same.
You can deny reality all you want by imagining the ancient Hebrews to be black and discounting their most direct descendants, the Samaritans as not being true descendants all you want. This board gets a lot of DENIERS so it's nothing new.
Djehuti, I too am weary of the Afrocentric bias perpetuated by many on this board, but your most recent comments are far to close to appeals to ridicule than valid attempts at a rebuttle.
RU2religious has given very sound evidence for his opinions on the biological makeup of the Ancient Hebrew.
They are infact described as black in the text he says they are, there are more words for black in Hebrew than Kushi, the term ruddy has been likened to reddish-brown.
However none of this proves that the Hebrew where a brown-skinned people like the Egyptians.
As far as Paulbeing confused for an Egyptian bare in mind RU2religious that he lived well into the Greco-Roman era where there were many settlements of various Asiatic (including Jews) and European people into Egypt.
By Paul's time the appearance of an Egyptian would have varied far more greatly than that it would during the Dynastic era.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots Of The Jewish, Christian & Muslim Religions
by Julian Baldick
I've heard of this book before. Great title, what a hilarious homage to Bernal's book.
Has anyone here read it?
Is it any good?
Mansa Musa I agree with you totally on that fact that Paul, like Yashua/Jesus if really existed lived in Egypt and during that time Egypt had already been watered down many people. The was my argument before I came to my current conclusion. What drives me to still believe that the Israelites were black but for better terminology reddish-brown skinned people is that the same thing happened on many occassion in the Old Testament.
Paul and Jesus are new testament people, but when there was a famine in the land the Israelites lived in, the went to Egypt to buy some groceries. The brothers that tried to kill Joseph.. their younger brother but somehow according to biblical so-called history he became a visor in Egypt.
When the brothers came to Egypt they meet with the brother that they tried to kill, not knowing that he was one of them... They thought he was and Egypt and that is what they told their father when asked about the brother that was required of them.
Or
When Jacob died... They went to bury Jacob (all of the Israelites and some of the Egyptians)him and they were mistaken for Egyptians as the people standing near by said "this is a grievious day for the Egyptian"... They didn't say this is a greivious day for the Hebrews.
How do you know not recognize a modern Middle-eastern from the Ancient Egyptians? If his brothers i.e. Hebrews looked like the people living there now, it seems likely that they would have recognized first that Joseph (being like them... hebrew) didn't look like the Egyptians of that time which were clearly brick red/brown...
And then they would have placed his facial features together and call him ach...
It is true that you cannot call the ancient Hebrews black based off of biblical text but who ruled the surrounding areas in the time of the ancient Hebrew.... It was the Egyptian... Cushites , Canaanites and so forth... These people didn't and don't look like the modern Middle-Easterns..
As far as that scripture which you drop about the Ethiopian changing his strips. I'm in the process of uploading my ancient bibles from 1538 which was before the king james version and I promise you... you will be suprised what it actually say verses the kjv and the niv. lol...
We have to remember that European slavery started in 1444... the king james was written 1604/1611... so it will only be natural that certain features would have been removed...
It is always fun speaking with the knowledgeable one...
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Mansa Musa: If you read the Biblical Hebrew Israelites page they dispute this by saying that Miriam's objection to Moses's marriage was due to cultural difference and not race.
Mansa I concede that this is also a plausible explanation. However that would mean Jehovah's mode of punishing Miriam was arbitrary and not reflecting her infraction. If on the other hand Miriam and Aaron were indeed expressing hostility to Moses's wife's color then you could see that the punishment (making Miriam leprous white) also had a bit of poetic justice built into it.
quote:Once again if Miriam, who was a Hebrew, was white to begin with, what would have been the curse of turning a white skinned person white?
I don't think the Hebrews were white as the typical northern European. I would imagine that they were a people who ranged in color from olive to brown. Look at where they came from originally:
quote: Nehemiah 9:7: Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
Consider also the complement to the portion of Song of Solomon Wally quoted above:
quote:Dark 'am' I, and comely, daughters of Jerusalem, As tents of Kedar, as curtains of Solomon
(Young's Literal Translation).
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hebrew word Kush (K-W-SH, כוש) doesn't mean black as in the color black. No thing can be kush. Only a person or a nationality can be a Kushi and Kush can only be a nation or people. Kush is a personal name used as an ancestral ethnonymic applied to all very dark skinned individuals and nations.
Shehhor (שחור) is the Hebrew word most often used for the color black.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Numbers 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, "Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?" And the LORD heard it.
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the surface of the earth. And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house.WIth him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle, and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow, and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous
This supports Djehuti's point that the Hebrews were neither black nor white.
Please remember that their wasn't color racism back in those days. It was a cultural bias thing going on... so that doesn't really prove that point. Ethiopians had a different culture then what the Hebrews had created for them selfs so the two cultures were not compatible. The ancients were very fantical about their belief about god, and Mariam didn't want her brother being turned out by... the Ethiopians...
Note: have anyone noticed the closeness n the Hebrew spelling of Moses sister Miriam and the Egyptian name Mizraim...
Please also read the rest of those scriptures that were present as they go...
Numbers 12:11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. Numbers 12:12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.
The ancient Egyptians considered the color white to be of death... and the Hebrews believed the color white to be a curse... if she turned white and she was only half consumed then that means she wasn't the actual color of white but closer then anyone in that region.
There is a story that is intersting in the book of kings about a guy who took money and he wasn't supposed to... he was cursed and turned white as snow and his generations were to be white as snow forever more... Now I haven't seen an albino nation yet... unless the white as snow was a European type of white... Now I know I sound like an afrocentric but I will show you that these are not my words but they are actually in the bible...
I will sum the scriptures up to only two...
II Kings chapter 5:26 And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants? 5:27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.
Once again, I haven't seen a full nation of albinos as was the curse of this dude who seeds.. i.e. children and all of their generations were cursed to. So when she was cursed did she turn the color of European white or ...???
Once agian I didn't write it but I was arguing with someone on ezboard... about the ancient hebrews seemed a little racist toward europeans according to the scriptures... it like why does white have to be a curse??
It seem bias to me, thus I don't believe the story. I am simply writing the argument and thus if you can destroy it Djehuti then that is fine... if not then that means its something to consider..
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mireyam never objected to Moshe's marriage. She was chastising Moses because she thought he was colour struck. Miriam was in sympathy with Ssipporah because Moses quit sleeping with her in order to be ritually ready to receive direct communication from the Eternal.
Miriam noted that she and Aharon were both also prophets and slept with their respective spouses so why couldn't Moses sleep with Zipporah.
The Eternal ended the sibling rivalry by calling simultaneously to all three at night. Moses answered immediately but Miriam and Aaron had to be called again at their tents because they were washing up from being in congress with their respective spouses. After the second call the Eternal explains that unlike other prophets who receive prophecy through dreams or visions, Moses receives direct "mouth to ear" direct prophecy.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: As long as anyone uses analysis and interpretations from other than the Hebrew source material, that one will remain in error and confusion in understanding Hebrew texts and word meanings.
I've pointed out numerous times that Shiyr haShirym (Song of Songs) isn't about Solomon and Maqeda. That relationship appears elsewhere in TaNaKh. Song of Songs is primarily about a Shulamiyth and her unnamed Shepherd Lover. The Royal Figure in the poem wanted her in his harem but failed to acquire her because she remained steadfast in love with her shepherd.
The clear ruddy complexioned guy isn't Solomon, it's the shepherd. There are millions of clear ruddy complexioned Afrikans whose cheeks can show a blush whether from emotion or cold weather.
Nor is it uncommon for one black person to call another black person red, redboy, redbone, red nigger, red monkey, etc. not only in the Americas but on the continent too.
very interesting indeed....
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
so what is your interpretation on the nahaam curse.
Secondly, why was she turned white... that is my question... why does the curse have to be white...
It seems as though the ancient Hebrews had a problem with white skin... it almost seems as though they were racist to a certain degree... (My actual opinion).
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biblical era Hebrews didn't self-identify with the light skin nations. A Hebrew text attributed a 1st century CE authoritative figure says
quote: Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.
PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a
Geography distinguished Shemite blacks from Hhamite blacks. Shem's portion was the east Med coast and to the east and south east. Hham's portion was the south med coast and to the south and east.
We find Sheba and Dedan showing up in the lineage of both Hham and Shem.
code:
Ham -> Cush -> Ra`amah -> Sheba and Dedan
Shem --> `Eber -> Joktan -> Sheba
Abraham -> Jokshan -> Sheba and Dedan Abraham -> Midian
The Midianite descendents of Shem are as black as Kushites and even some Israelites are black enough that they are called Kushi.
TaNaKh names four Israelites as Kushi.
1). Yehudi ben Kushi (Jeremiah 36:14) 2). Zephaniah ben Kushi (Zephaniah 1:1) 3). Kush ben-Yemini (Psalm 7:1)
That last one is Sha'ul haMelekh (King Saul).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can the Ethiopian [a] change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
(Jeremiah 13:23 NIV)
Here is a version of that same scriptures from the bishops bible...dated 1568A.D. this bible is older then the kjv...
Jeremiah 13:23 May a man of Inde chaunge his skinne, and the cat of the mountayne her spottes? so, may ye that be exercised in euyll, do good?
OR The Geneva of 1587 AD...
Jeremiah 13:23 Can the blacke More change his skin? or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do euill.
These scriptures set a different tone to the newer versions of the scripture. The more ancient scriptures did not say Ethiopian, but words such as inde and black more which seems to be a newer addition as well.
Why would the ancient church paint and create black madonnas which still exist in their churches and not create jesus as a European. Michelangelo painted his cousin as Jesus before the kjv, bishops, and the geneva... so this could have had an influence to his paintings.
Ethiopians was written to represent all shades of black to reddish brown... Was this scripture talking about Sudanic Africans, or was it talking about West Africans? What type of Africans were this scripture talking about? Was the scripture implying that the moors were darker then they were... it seems to me that it was. Now according to the Bishops bible, was inde implying darker then? maybe...
I don't see anything about this scripture that confirms the Inde or moors as being darker or lighter for that matter.
But to use that scriptures as a form of confirming the Israelites were lighter... is still based on personal theories... There is nothing that suggest this was the case... What we do know is that the Ethiopian wasn't the ancient word of choice, thus Ethiopian should not be taken into consideration on this note...
I just had to drop the difference in scriptures...
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1 - Na'aman was striken with biblical leprosy, which in humans was very similar to vitiligo. For him it was congenital, passing on the trait for white skin and blonde hair onto his descendants.
2 - Ssara`ath (biblical leprosy) does make the skin snow white in many cases. Why? I don't know. Even today most Sepharade, Maghrebi, Mashreqi, and Mizrahhi Jews, many of whom are indistinquisable from white people, won't eat fish at the same meal with milk products for fear of contracting ssara`ath. Is there more to it than white? Running off at the mouth is considered the main reason for catching biblical leprosy in the skin and Miriam got hers exactly for that reason.
3 - The Hebrews and the later Judaeans weren't anti-white. They didn't avoid marrying whites. They didn't discriminate against whites. When examining whites (Ashkenazim, "Germans") for tokens of biblical leprosy they judged them leniently, less they be declared congenital biblical lepers right from jump.
On the otherhand they judged Judaeans and Kushites by the same colour standard when examining light spots on the skin to see if they were biblically leprous. Eventually the legal code on biblical leprosy developed a test skin patch the average colour of 4th century CE Judaeans (neither Germanic white nor Sudani black but intermediate). That way neither Germans were dismissed as lepers nor Kushim easily made into lepers (since a light spot on black skin appears brighter than a similar such spot on brown skin).
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: so what is your interpretation on the nahaam curse.
Secondly, why was she turned white... that is my question... why does the curse have to be white...
It seems as though the ancient Hebrews had a problem with white skin... it almost seems as though they were racist to a certain degree... (My actual opinion).
Peace!~
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Below is a post I made on another forum regarding this topic. I have a 3-CD set dealing with this information and the particular track which contains the information on solomon, sheba and menelik can be downloaded for free from my website. The direct address is:
Solomon, Sheba, and Menelik are fictional characters. The basis of the story is taken from that of Ausar, Auset and Heru in Their stellar aspect.
The abode of Ausar in the sky is called "Sah" in Kamit. This is the Orion constellation. Hence Ausar is called "Ausar-Sah". Yet, Ausar also has a title, "Heri Meht". (hri mht, in the metutu/glyphs). Heri means "he who is above; chief; leader; king". Meht means "north; northern territory". Heri Meht thus means "King or Chief of the Northern Territory". North Kamit was sacred to Ausar as the place where He was resurrected and made His entrance into the Heavenly realm (Sah/Orion) to function as a God in Nature.
"Heri" (Hri) was corrupted into Hori, Holi, Sholi (the aspirated 'h' was sometimes corrupted from 'h' into 'sh'), Soli, and Sol. (There was no 'l' in ancient Kamit, only a rolling 'r'. The 'l' came later with the greeks). "Meht" was corrupted into Met, Meh, and Men. "Herimeht" was thus corrupted into Horimeht, Holimeht, Sholimeht, Sholimen and Solimen/Suliman/Solomon.
Auset takes up residence in the star system Sapadet (spd.t), often called 'Sirius'. The root word "Sapad" (Spd) means 'to provide'. Auset is thus called "The Great Provider". She is the Queen of the star system Sapadet, and is therefore known as the Queen of Sapad.t, or Sapad, which was corrupted into Shabat, Shabad, Shaba, and Saba (Sheba).
Auset, as the Queen of Sapadet (Sheba) also has the title "Rekhit" (Re****) meaning "wise one" in the language of Kamit. Rekhit was corrupted into "Lekhit" by the whites. The masculine form "Rekh" was corrupted into "Lekh".
When the constellations Ausar-Sah (Osiris-Orion/Heri Meht/Solomon) and Auset Sapadet (Isis-Sirius/Queen of Sapadet/Shaba/Sheba) unite in the sky, they occasion the appearance of a star called Heru am Tuat or Heru am Spdt (Horus in Sothis). This is the stellar Heru, son of Ausar and Auset. As Auset is called "Rekhit" (Lekhit), this Heru is called the "son of Rekhit (Lekhit)---son of the wise one".
The term "per or pera" means "product of, offspring of" in the language of Kamit. "Pera Rekhit" thus means, "offspring of Rekhit--- offspring of the Wise one".
"per and pera" meaning "offspring" were corrupted into "ben and bena and ibn" meaning "son/offspring" in hebrew and arabic. In the Kebra Negast, you'll find that Menelik is defined as "son of the wise one"-- -"bayna lekhim". This is a corruption of the Kamau "pera rekhit". Hence the derivatives---pena lekhit, bena lekhit, bena lekhim, bena lekh, mena lik, menelik.
The story of the Queen of the South (Auset Sapadet/Sirius) going north to meet the King in the North (Heri Meht/King of the Northern territory) and returning south pregnant with the "son of the wise one/menelik" is none other than a corruption of the story of Ausar, Auset and Heru in the sky. We can watch this episode unfold yearly simply by looking up into the heavens.
Of course, there was no ark of the covenant, as Moses and Aaron are also fictional characters. See #7850 (moses' egyptian name) on this forum for more info. on that.
Ma asomdwoee-Hetep, Ra Nehem
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
The track mentioned above takes a little less than 3 minutes to download. The track itself is about 36 minutes and starts off dealing with the reality that jesus (yeshua and yeshua ben pandira) are absolutely fictional characters who never existed at all.
posted
^ Does this mean the Cruxifiction by the Romans of the religous leader known as Jesus among the Jews never happened?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic