posted
Now I'm not too familiar with the Bible nore am I really a religious person but I do believe in God. Anyway, I have been doing some online research on the Table of Nations. It says that Ham's son Cush who was the father of the Ethiopians had a descendant called Nimrod. It is said that he built Babylon. So wouldn't it be right to say that ancient Babylon was a black Ethiopian civilization? Before anyone thinks I'm crazy or acting like Clyde Winters or Marc Washington, just think a little about it.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say it makes sense to believe that Babylon was a black civilization because of the Table of Nations but immediately tack a caveat on it by saying you don't want to be connected to Clyde Winters nor Marc Washington because of your belief, just in case the Table of Nations is off base. Well you believe it *because* of what the Table of Nations said. What if someone later said it was a crackpot idea, even though it makes sense to you. What will you do then?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I mean is that the both of them are always posting crazy stuff about cultures that were obviously not black like Olmecs, Mayans, Dravidians, and Chinese. So I was just saying that I hoped anybody wouldn't think I was being like them for claiming Babylonians as black Africans.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Ebony Allen, good topic but don't you think you should move it to the Ancient Egypt side of the board? Anyways and "Kush" begat Nimrod and he became a mighty one upon the earth and the begining of his kingdom was in Shinnar.(Sumer?) Now if Ham/Kham was black and his sons Misr, Kush,Phut(Punt?)all located in Africa were blacks also,then Kush's son is responsible for the rise of Babylon,in the sense that Sumer was the insparation for the rise of Babylon.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ebony. First off, the ancient Dravidians were black as most Dravidian speakers today in India and even some 'Aryan' speakers are black! And there were blacks present among the Olmecs as anthropology shows an aboriginal black population in that region of the world as well.
Getting back to the topic, it is somewhat confusing but the Hebrews describe blacks not only in Africa but in Arabia and farther east in Asia as well. There was a Kush south of Egypt, an Arabian Kush and even an Eastern Kush of Iran to India. Though it's not impossible, I do find it a little farther fetched to believe the personage of Nimrod was from Kush south of Egypt but could be alot closer to the area that became Babylon either from Arabian Kush or Eastern Kush. Also the aboriginal peoples of Mesoptamia were black as well.
I suggest Takruri answer this question since he is more well versed in ancient Jewish scripture than I am.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Now I'm not too familiar with the Bible nore am I really a religious person but I do believe in God. Anyway, I have been doing some online research on the Table of Nations. It says that Ham's son Cush who was the father of the Ethiopians had a descendant called Nimrod. It is said that he built Babylon. So wouldn't it be right to say that ancient Babylon was a black Ethiopian civilization?
Correct- that is what Moses specifies in Genesis 10 as to the sons of Ham.
Ham- means 'hot' or 'multitude' or 'dark' in some translations
Cush- means 'black' - Ethiopia/Babylon area
Mizraim- means 'Egypt' - Nile Valley
Phut- means 'bow' - Libya, or Somalia area. Jeremiah 46:9- "let the mighty men go forth: Cush and Phut that handle the shield, and the Ludim that handle the bow." Isa 66:19 also refers to Pul or Put and Lud "that draw the bow." The 'Ludim' are descendants of Mizraim, although there is also another 'Lud' elsewhere of a different tribe under Shem.
Canaan- means 'trader' - Lebanon/Palestine. Moses pronounced no "curse on Ham" as alleged by later Jewish, Arab and white writers. He predicted that the Caanaanites would be overrun by the Hebrew ex-slaves from fugutives from Egypt and this is what happened.
The Biblical narrative is focused on moral and religious matters, and is focused on the Hebrew people and those they dealt with, and thus is not a general history of the Middle east or Africa. It is not concerned with king lists of Egypt or Mesopotamia, and what not. Nevertheless it does give some insight into some of the major populations that would interact in the Lebanon/Palestine area around the time of Moses and after.
All in all as far as 'civilization' goes, the above is not bad. If Moses is correct, those "dark" Hamites were responsible for the first large scale civilizations in Mesopotamia, and also Egypt and Cush.
Moses it could be said, called it like he saw it, and gave the brothers their due. Moses himself also married a black woman, a Cushite (Numbers 12). No doubt he would still be unwelcome in a lot of places, and among a lot of people who claim to believe his writings.
posted
I believe Moses was black which would mean all the Israelites were black. If he grew up as an Egyptian he would've had to have been.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't someone move this to the Ancient Egypt board since this is the wrong forum?
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
I default to just letting folk use a search engine to find my previous posts on Judaic topics or even better just let them run off with their imaginations to their heart's content. The explanation you gave was decent though I disagree about Nimrod but then how historical are Noah, Hham, Kush and Nimrod to start with.
I suggest using the Genesis account the same way one would use Apollodorus' Biblioteca to learn what these peoples felt about the world and the peoples in it.
BTW -- just like in your ancestral homeland, in India there are a people who are the 'blacks' to the 'browns.' Dravidians found another people already there where ever they went in India. But by my definition, yes, the Dravidians are a black people. Further, the far majority of Indians are blacks and most of them know it. In the Arab world Indians are blacks the same as African are blacks (in general).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ebony. First off, the ancient Dravidians were black as most Dravidian speakers today in India and even some 'Aryan' speakers are black! And there were blacks present among the Olmecs as anthropology shows an aboriginal black population in that region of the world as well.
Getting back to the topic, it is somewhat confusing but the Hebrews describe blacks not only in Africa but in Arabia and farther east in Asia as well. There was a Kush south of Egypt, an Arabian Kush and even an Eastern Kush of Iran to India. Though it's not impossible, I do find it a little farther fetched to believe the personage of Nimrod was from Kush south of Egypt but could be alot closer to the area that became Babylon either from Arabian Kush or Eastern Kush. Also the aboriginal peoples of Mesoptamia were black as well.
I suggest Takruri answer this question since he is more well versed in ancient Jewish scripture than I am.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic