posted
As the title says, this was an essay i wrote a while back.
Kush was Arabia/Mesopotamia not Africa
The word כּוּשׁ (Kuwsh, Kush or Cush) pronounced Koosh, appears 31 times in the Old Testament, while Cushan, 5 times, Cushi, 7 times and Cushim 8 times (cf. Strong's Concordance). Kush (Cush) is listed as the eldest son of Ham (Gen. x) and the father of Nimrod, whose kingdom was ''Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar'' (Gen. x. 10; ESV). These are all localities within Mesopotamia.
The first appearance of Kush (Gen. ii. 13) is also associated with the same geographical area, as the following verse states: ''And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates'' (Gen. ii. 14; ESV).
The Tigris and Euphrates do not flow into Africa and as Professor Alexander Winchell asserts:
''As long as we locate Kush in the heart of Africa, this passage is unintelligible; but when we seek for Kush in the Arabian peninsula, we apprehend at least a geographical relation to the rivers of Eden'' (Preadamites, p. 91).
The land of Havilah which is referenced in relation to a river (Pishon) which flowed from Eden has also been identified as a land within Arabia, the Hebrew scholar Samuel Driver in his commentary on Genesis notes: ''Havilah was ‘‘[m]ost probably a region in the NE, of Arabia'' (p. 29).
Kush (Cush) in Genesis therefore only appears situated in Mesopotamia or adjacent Arabia.
Table of Nations
In the Table of Nations (Gen. x) the descendants of Ham are also located acround the same Mesopotamian region. Gen. x. 6 for example states: ''The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan'' (NIV).
Since the Jews only though had a limited geographical knowledge, the Table of Nations only covers various localities restricted to a certain scope of ethnography.
The renowned scholar George Rawlinson has thus quite correctly noted with caution that ''we must only look to find in this [ethnographical table] an account of the nations with which the Jews at the date of its composition had some acquantance'' (Origin of Nations, p. 169).
In his work Pre-adamite, scholar Lester A. Hoyle also notes: ''...we reasonably conclude that the knowledge of the Israelites extended over but a very limited extent of the earth’s surface'' (p. 35).
No Negroids appear in the Bible
Paul Heinisch in his History of the Old Testament (1952) notes that the Jews had no knowledge of Negroids ('Blacks') and in regards to the ethnographic table (Gen. x) he clearly points out (p. 32):
''No reference is made to the Indians, Negroes, Mongolians, Malayans, Chinese, Japanese, etc. The author names only the peoples within his sphere of knowledge.''
Professor William F. Albright also sums up nicely: ''All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called ''White'' or ''Caucasian'' race...'' (cf. ''The Old Testament World'' cited in The Interpreter's Bible, George Arthur Buttrick, ed.).
Limited Scope of Biblical Ethnography
Nott and Gliddon in their Types of Mankind (pp. 482-502) show that Ham's descendants (Gen. x) are to be located within the Arabian or Mesopotamian (middle-eastern) region. The only exception being Mizraim, identified as Egypt and Phut as the Barbary Coast.
In recent literature it has been shown that the Jews had some trade links with Tarshish (Spain) and the further northern Atlantic (Cassiterides) and so it is probable they had a greater knowledge of the Mediterranean than the map shows. However the above map, remains highly accurate. The Jews only had knowledge of certian localities within North Africa (not Sub-Sahara Africa) and had very little if any knowledge of the eastern parts of Asia and Central or Northern Europe. It has been shown that the Jews had no such knowledge of territory below Egypt (North Africa) and only encountered, one race, from an ethnographic point of view, Caucasoids. In the Septuagint (LXX) Cush is often translated as Ethiopia, which has confused many into believing that Cush was the African Ethiopia (Aethiopia). However a quick glance at Biblical passages shows that the Cush of the Old Testament is Arabian, not African.
Cush/Ethiopia sat in Asia not Africa
''The word Cush, when put in scripture for a country or a people, is rendered Ethiopia or Ethiopians; but then this can be truly understood only of the Asiatic Ethiopia, or Arabia'' (Edward Wells, An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 100).
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This issue was addressed many times before. The Biblical place names or 'sons' of Kush lay on both sides of the Red Sea and Greek authors extend Arabia to African lands east of the Nile. And YES blacks are indigenous to Arabia and are closely related to Africans on the other side of the Red Sea. This was explained by Biblical scholars such as David Goldenberg in his book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as others.
As for the Greeks, you lost that argument when you first showed up in this forum. The Greeks specifically described the Egyptians and Aethiopians (even those in Asia) as BLACK.
Your idiotic threads are nothing more than a symptom of death throes. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anglo-Buffoon said: As the title says, this was an essay i wrote a while back.
^^Your little "essay" also appears on a racist website called "Aryan archaeology," a site filled with the usual crock of bogus claims, deceptions and distortions, that among other things, argues for a laughable "Nordic Egypt." Your "essay" is no different. Let's take a look shall we..
Your little "essay" also appears on a racist website called "Aryan archaeology," a site filled with the usual crock of bogus claims, deceptions and distortions. Your "essay" is no different. Let's take a look shall we..
1- Debunk 1: Your strawman dodge- Kush in the "heart" of Africa - is bogus. Few people familiar with the literature say Kush was in Central Africa. Your "point" on this is an obvious strawman.
You reference one "Alexander Winchel" and his "PreAdamite" book: "Professor WInchell" is a writer circa 1878 who argued that negroes "could not possibly" have descended from Adam and therefore must be some mysterious "Preadamite" "stock". Yaaaaahhhhhhhhh... Uh huh....... The Buffoon says::
..The Tigris and Euphrates do not flow into Africa and as Professor Alexander Winchell asserts: ''As long as we locate Kush in the heart of Africa, this passage is unintelligible;
^^^Ooooohhhhh, sounds conclusive, except that neither the Biblical narrative nor any intelligent person knowing their Bible would say the Tigris and Euphrates flow into Africa. WInchell's 1878 (real current there folks) "point" is a strawman, almost no one argues for.
2- Debunk 2: You claim that Jews "had no knowledge of Negroids" and that "No reference is made to the Indians, Negroes, Mongolians, Malayans, Chinese, Japanese, etc."
But guess what dummy? No reference is made to Europeans either, nor to "Caucasoids" nor to "white people." Hence, using your own addled logic, the reader of your essay must conclude that there are no "white people," "EUropeans" or "Caucasoids" either. Your touted "Biblical textual proof" is not only "negro free" but "Caucasoid, white and European free as well.
3- Debunk 3: if as you claim the JEws had limited knowledge of other peoples, then how could they encounter "Caucasoids" who are not even mentioned as such in the Biblical text.
qUOTE: The Jews only had knowledge of certian localities within North Africa (not Sub-Sahara Africa) and had very little if any knowledge of the eastern parts of Asia and Central or Northern Europe. It has been shown that the Jews had no such knowledge of territory below Egypt..
Here again is where your "essay" falls part. You say there aint no "negroes" in the Bible because "negroes" are not specifically mentioned. But you seem not to realize that "white people" or "Caucasoids' are not mentioned either. Hence they don't exist, using your own logic.. WHere do the words "Caucasoid" or "white people" or appear in the many translations of the Bible? Do tell.. we'll wait... **crickets chirpping**
ANd since your Jews had no knowledge of "Swedids", then there are no Swedes either using your own retarded "logic.".
4- debunk 4 - really "current" refereces The Buffoon says:: [i''The word Cush, when put in scripture for a country or a people, is rendered Ethiopia or Ethiopians; but then this can be truly understood only of the Asiatic Ethiopia, or Arabia'' (Edward Wells, An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 100). [/i]
You are using Edward Wells 1819 as your reference? Wow! how current! lol And few intelligent people reading the Biblical narrative would fail to note that Cushites would cover both Africa AND Arabia. This is what modern scholars say as Djehuti shows- David GOldenberg's The CUrse of Ham. SO take your 1919 reference and stuff it.
5- Debunk 5- Since neither NEgroids, Caucasoids or "Mongolodis" are mentioned specificlaly in the Bible text, then the Bible must be "people free." The Buffoon says: - QUOTE:
Professor William F. Albright also sums up nicely: ''All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called ''White'' or ''Caucasian'' race...'' (cf. ''The Old Testament World'' cited in The Interpreter's Bible, George Arthur Buttrick, ed.).
^^But earlier Buffoon, you argued there were no "negroes" in the Bible because "negroes" were not mentioned. How then can you quote and support a writer who argues for non-existent "Caucasoids" and "white people" as well? If the Bible is "negro-free" based on your logic, then it is also "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" free". The conclusion from all this is that your "essay" is both "purpose free" and "logic free".
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your idiotic threads are nothing more than a symptom of death throes
Yes, and his desperate private e-mail to me yesterday asking not to post anything more about him once his political ambitions became known. if you're reading this anglo, take it from me that once you put your head above the parapet and attempt to go mainstream, your comments on this forum and elsewhere will follow you wherever you go.
BTW is it Roehampton or Royal Holloway?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[quote]You reference one "Alexander Winchel" and his "PreAdamite" book: "Professor WInchell" is a writer circa 1878 who argued that negroes "could not possibly" have descended from Adam and therefore must be some mysterious "Preadamite" "stock". Yaaaaahhhhhhhhh... Uh huh.......
Why the hostility to this? Are you saying you believe all races sprung from Adam around 6,000 years ago? Winchell was not a proponent of a supernatural creation, he was a believer in evolution and in fact was kicked out of a university post he held for this. Back in the 1870's of course Biblical fundamentalism was still a major opposition to evolution, yet Winchell fought against it. Professor Winchell was one of the greatest scientists of his time.
Winchell was arguing for monogenist preadamism, not polgenist preadamism. He believed that all the races shared an archaic ancestor through evolution, but that the 'Adamites' were a branch who had diverged in isolation in more recent historical times. His 'Adamites' are synonymous with the Mediterranid or Mediterranoid division of the Caucasoid race, with their cradle in Western Asia (the Garden of Eden).
Lets take a look at his evolutionary race tree
So the Caucasoid stem is: Archaic Homo (Preaustralians/First Man), Australoids, pre-dravids - Dravidians which branched into the Mediterranid division (Adamites). Not saying i personally agree with this precise model, but you get the idea.
quote: But guess what dummy? No reference is made to Europeans either,
lol. There are Europeans in the Table of Nations. An example being Javan (Greece). In Daniel, Javan is called the ''King of Greece'', so this is not even disputed.
South-east Europe was known to the Jews when they wrote Genesis. Central Europe and Scandinavia however were never known.
quote:nor to "Caucasoids" nor to "white people." Hence, using your own addled logic, the reader of your essay must conclude that there are no "white people," "EUropeans" or "Caucasoids" either. Your touted "Biblical textual proof" is not only "negro free" but "Caucasoid, white and European free as well.
Why are you so dumb? The Hebrews themselves are Caucasoid, as are the populations that surrounded them (Assyrians, Babylonians etcetc). They also knew the Greeks and Cimmerians who were Caucasoid. Don't play dumb. Are you going to reply that the Jews or Assyrians etc were now ''Black''. lmao. Everyone knows they weren't.
Sub-Saharan Africans however they never knew. So there are no Negroids in the Bible. The Bible only deals with one race - Caucasoids, because of the limited ethnography.
''All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called ''White'' or ''Caucasian'' race...'' - Professor William F. Albright
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Your links fail to show the horrible genocide against Nordids in Egypt. QUOTE by Anglo-Buffoon:
these Nordids in Egypt were exterminated, through genocide. Diodorus Siculus for example notes that the ancient egyptians started rounding up ''Sethites'' with red hair (and pale skin) and burning them"
Anglo-Buffoon said: As the title says, this was an essay i wrote a while back.
^^Your little "essay" also appears on a racist website called "Aryan archaeology," a site filled with the usual crock of bogus claims, deceptions and distortions, that among other things, argues for a laughable "Nordic Egypt." Your "essay" is no different. Let's take a look shall we..
Your little "essay" also appears on a racist website called "Aryan archaeology," a site filled with the usual crock of bogus claims, deceptions and distortions. Your "essay" is no different. Let's take a look shall we..
1- Debunk 1: Your strawman dodge- Kush in the "heart" of Africa - is bogus. Few people familiar with the literature say Kush was in Central Africa. Your "point" on this is an obvious strawman.
You reference one "Alexander Winchel" and his "PreAdamite" book: "Professor WInchell" is a writer circa 1878 who argued that negroes "could not possibly" have descended from Adam and therefore must be some mysterious "Preadamite" "stock". Yaaaaahhhhhhhhh... Uh huh....... The Buffoon says::
..The Tigris and Euphrates do not flow into Africa and as Professor Alexander Winchell asserts: ''As long as we locate Kush in the heart of Africa, this passage is unintelligible;
^^^Ooooohhhhh, sounds conclusive, except that neither the Biblical narrative nor any intelligent person knowing their Bible would say the Tigris and Euphrates flow into Africa. WInchell's 1878 (real current there folks) "point" is a strawman, almost no one argues for.
2- Debunk 2: You claim that Jews "had no knowledge of Negroids" and that "No reference is made to the Indians, Negroes, Mongolians, Malayans, Chinese, Japanese, etc."
But guess what dummy? No reference is made to Europeans either, nor to "Caucasoids" nor to "white people." Hence, using your own addled logic, the reader of your essay must conclude that there are no "white people," "EUropeans" or "Caucasoids" either. Your touted "Biblical textual proof" is not only "negro free" but "Caucasoid, white and European free as well.
3- Debunk 3: if as you claim the JEws had limited knowledge of other peoples, then how could they encounter "Caucasoids" who are not even mentioned as such in the Biblical text.
qUOTE: The Jews only had knowledge of certian localities within North Africa (not Sub-Sahara Africa) and had very little if any knowledge of the eastern parts of Asia and Central or Northern Europe. It has been shown that the Jews had no such knowledge of territory below Egypt..
Here again is where your "essay" falls part. You say there aint no "negroes" in the Bible because "negroes" are not specifically mentioned. But you seem not to realize that "white people" or "Caucasoids' are not mentioned either. Hence they don't exist, using your own logic.. WHere do the words "Caucasoid" or "white people" or appear in the many translations of the Bible? Do tell.. we'll wait... **crickets chirpping**
ANd since your Jews had no knowledge of "Swedids", then there are no Swedes either using your own retarded "logic.".
4- debunk 4 - really "current" refereces The Buffoon says:: [i''The word Cush, when put in scripture for a country or a people, is rendered Ethiopia or Ethiopians; but then this can be truly understood only of the Asiatic Ethiopia, or Arabia'' (Edward Wells, An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 100). [/i]
You are using Edward Wells 1819 as your reference? Wow! how current! lol And few intelligent people reading the Biblical narrative would fail to note that Cushites would cover both Africa AND Arabia. This is what modern scholars say as Djehuti shows- David GOldenberg's The CUrse of Ham. SO take your 1919 reference and stuff it.
5- Debunk 5- Since neither NEgroids, Caucasoids or "Mongolodis" are mentioned specificlaly in the Bible text, then the Bible must be "people free." The Buffoon says: - QUOTE:
Professor William F. Albright also sums up nicely: ''All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called ''White'' or ''Caucasian'' race...'' (cf. ''The Old Testament World'' cited in The Interpreter's Bible, George Arthur Buttrick, ed.).
^^But earlier Buffoon, you argued there were no "negroes" in the Bible because "negroes" were not mentioned. How then can you quote and support a writer who argues for non-existent "Caucasoids" and "white people" as well? If the Bible is "negro-free" based on your logic, then it is also "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" free". The conclusion from all this is that your "essay" is both "purpose free" and "logic free".
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why oh why does this Anglo Prime Idiot create these threads as if he is proving some point or somehow "educating" us?! LMAO
All he does is get debunked, debased, and humiliated each and every time by knowledgeable people.
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: Your idiotic threads are nothing more than a symptom of death throes
Yes, and his desperate private e-mail to me yesterday asking not to post anything more about him once his political ambitions became known. if you're reading this anglo, take it from me that once you put your head above the parapet and attempt to go mainstream, your comments on this forum and elsewhere will follow you wherever you go.
BTW is it Roehampton or Royal Holloway?
Are you serious?! So the guy has plans to be a politician?? Why is this not so surprising when I think about it? Is it me, or does it seem like all people who go into political careers are crazy with the worst politicians being psychopaths. I pray for England's sake this fool does not run. What party will he join? The Nazi party?? LOLPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Is it me, or does it seem like all people who go into political careers are crazy with the worst politicians being psychopaths.
You've just noticed now? Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No, I've noticed that a long while back but I am just now making it known on this forum.
Obviously the Anglo-Idiot has no other career option despite his 'studies' or alleged degrees. He can't become a bio-anthropologist because he relies on debunked outdated crap and refuses to accept valid findings. He can't become a professor on 'Classics' because he denies and/or distorts Greco-Roman writings. So what else does he have left? LOLPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cush extended from east Africa to Asia. Cush in Africa were most likely the regions that make up Sudan and parts of Eritrea, Ethiopia (only portions) today. Cush in the bible extended past Saudi Arabia. Cush in the bible went as far as modern day Iraq and Iran (portions of the land).
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see if something is black or african in origin anglo goes in the opposite direction something like what is happening to obama if the republican originally make a proposal for an idea to to fix the economy it's an good idea, but if obama supports the same idea originally proposed by the republicans this means it sucks and you are socialist scum.
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: As the title says, this was an essay i wrote a while back.
Kush was Arabia/Mesopotamia not Africa
The word כּוּשׁ (Kuwsh, Kush or Cush) pronounced Koosh, appears 31 times in the Old Testament, while Cushan, 5 times, Cushi, 7 times and Cushim 8 times (cf. Strong's Concordance). Kush (Cush) is listed as the eldest son of Ham (Gen. x) and the father of Nimrod, whose kingdom was ''Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar'' (Gen. x. 10; ESV). These are all localities within Mesopotamia.
The first appearance of Kush (Gen. ii. 13) is also associated with the same geographical area, as the following verse states: ''And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates'' (Gen. ii. 14; ESV).
The Tigris and Euphrates do not flow into Africa and as Professor Alexander Winchell asserts:
''As long as we locate Kush in the heart of Africa, this passage is unintelligible; but when we seek for Kush in the Arabian peninsula, we apprehend at least a geographical relation to the rivers of Eden'' (Preadamites, p. 91).
The land of Havilah which is referenced in relation to a river (Pishon) which flowed from Eden has also been identified as a land within Arabia, the Hebrew scholar Samuel Driver in his commentary on Genesis notes: ''Havilah was ‘‘[m]ost probably a region in the NE, of Arabia'' (p. 29).
Kush (Cush) in Genesis therefore only appears situated in Mesopotamia or adjacent Arabia.
Table of Nations
In the Table of Nations (Gen. x) the descendants of Ham are also located acround the same Mesopotamian region. Gen. x. 6 for example states: ''The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan'' (NIV).
Since the Jews only though had a limited geographical knowledge, the Table of Nations only covers various localities restricted to a certain scope of ethnography.
The renowned scholar George Rawlinson has thus quite correctly noted with caution that ''we must only look to find in this [ethnographical table] an account of the nations with which the Jews at the date of its composition had some acquantance'' (Origin of Nations, p. 169).
In his work Pre-adamite, scholar Lester A. Hoyle also notes: ''...we reasonably conclude that the knowledge of the Israelites extended over but a very limited extent of the earth’s surface'' (p. 35).
No Negroids appear in the Bible
Paul Heinisch in his History of the Old Testament (1952) notes that the Jews had no knowledge of Negroids ('Blacks') and in regards to the ethnographic table (Gen. x) he clearly points out (p. 32):
''No reference is made to the Indians, Negroes, Mongolians, Malayans, Chinese, Japanese, etc. The author names only the peoples within his sphere of knowledge.''
Professor William F. Albright also sums up nicely: ''All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called ''White'' or ''Caucasian'' race...'' (cf. ''The Old Testament World'' cited in The Interpreter's Bible, George Arthur Buttrick, ed.).
Limited Scope of Biblical Ethnography
Nott and Gliddon in their Types of Mankind (pp. 482-502) show that Ham's descendants (Gen. x) are to be located within the Arabian or Mesopotamian (middle-eastern) region. The only exception being Mizraim, identified as Egypt and Phut as the Barbary Coast.
In recent literature it has been shown that the Jews had some trade links with Tarshish (Spain) and the further northern Atlantic (Cassiterides) and so it is probable they had a greater knowledge of the Mediterranean than the map shows. However the above map, remains highly accurate. The Jews only had knowledge of certian localities within North Africa (not Sub-Sahara Africa) and had very little if any knowledge of the eastern parts of Asia and Central or Northern Europe. It has been shown that the Jews had no such knowledge of territory below Egypt (North Africa) and only encountered, one race, from an ethnographic point of view, Caucasoids. In the Septuagint (LXX) Cush is often translated as Ethiopia, which has confused many into believing that Cush was the African Ethiopia (Aethiopia). However a quick glance at Biblical passages shows that the Cush of the Old Testament is Arabian, not African.
Cush/Ethiopia sat in Asia not Africa
''The word Cush, when put in scripture for a country or a people, is rendered Ethiopia or Ethiopians; but then this can be truly understood only of the Asiatic Ethiopia, or Arabia'' (Edward Wells, An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 100).
Jealous Neanderdummy - thank you for pointing out where black people inhabited in ancient times.
“Whether original Arabian Kushite tribes migrated into eastern Africa and gave their name to the land, or African Kushites migrated into Arabia, in the biblical view the peoples on either side of the Red Sea WERE REGARDED AS OF THE SAME KUSHITE STOCK.” P. 19 2005 The Curse of Ham David Goldenberg
These are the people that wrote the Bible which you distorted and wrote yourselves into and no Neanderdummy or ancestors of Neanderdummies are mentioned in Genesis or Exodus. The second half of the Bible - yes.
The Jews that had not mixed with whites and blond and red-haired Jews that emigrated in later times to North AFrica were "as black as Negroes" in Wargla and other places. They all had Abyssinian features according to Charles L. Brace 1862 p. 185 the races of the Old World. "They were as dark as the black Jews of Abyssinia..." (ibid.)
The Jews of Arabia were the same and in particular the Kohanim of Khaibar are described as "people whose color is closer to black than any other" color by Ludovico Bartema an Italian of the 16th century.
Early Rabbis of Israel make Shem black.
You lose.
Tell us Neanderdummy - why do you want to be us so bad. I think we already know the answer but why don't you explain. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goths, Teutons, Slavs, Rhoxalani, Budini, Franks, Allemani, Lochlanders and other "Scythians"
Those are your people Neanderdummy, why aren't you interested in celebrating their heritage “Now the Vandals, dwelling about the Maeotic Lake [the Sea of Azov], since they were pressed by hunger, moved to the country of the Germans, who are now called Franks, and the river Rhine, associating with themselves the Alans, a Gothic people … Thus the Libyans were visited with every form of misfortune."
Your people - THE SCYTHIANS, and the polar bears... As the song goes "so happy together... "
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: Why the hostility to this? Are you saying you believe all races sprung from Adam around 6,000 years ago? Winchell was not a proponent of a supernatural creation, he was a believer in evolution and in fact was kicked out of a university post he held for this. Back in the 1870's of course Biblical fundamentalism was still a major opposition to evolution, yet Winchell fought against it. Professor Winchell was one of the greatest scientists of his time.
Winchell was arguing for monogenist preadamism, not polgenist preadamism. He believed that all the races shared an archaic ancestor through evolution, but that the 'Adamites' were a branch who had diverged in isolation in more recent historical times. His 'Adamites' are synonymous with the Mediterranid or Mediterranoid division of the Caucasoid race, with their cradle in Western Asia (the Garden of Eden).
Lets take a look at his evolutionary race tree
So the Caucasoid stem is: Archaic Homo (Preaustralians/First Man), Australoids, pre-dravids - Dravidians which branched into the Mediterranid division (Adamites). Not saying i personally agree with this precise model, but you get the idea...
ROTFLMAOH
And why do we guys bother to argue with the likes of him again??! Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its a lost cause. We don't aim to convince but to smash, and as the main objective, get the hard data out there so all on the web can access it. The ES sources and database is more credible than any other, including Wikipedia. and people can verify for themselves in an open forum with full references without having them removed by racist moles. That type of censorship is an utter failure.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: As the title says, this was an essay i wrote a while back.
Kush was Arabia/Mesopotamia not Africa
The word כּוּשׁ (Kuwsh, Kush or Cush) pronounced Koosh, appears 31 times in the Old Testament, while Cushan, 5 times, Cushi, 7 times and Cushim 8 times (cf. Strong's Concordance). Kush (Cush) is listed as the eldest son of Ham (Gen. x) and the father of Nimrod, whose kingdom was ''Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar'' (Gen. x. 10; ESV). These are all localities within Mesopotamia.
The first appearance of Kush (Gen. ii. 13) is also associated with the same geographical area, as the following verse states: ''And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates'' (Gen. ii. 14; ESV).
The Tigris and Euphrates do not flow into Africa and as Professor Alexander Winchell asserts:
''As long as we locate Kush in the heart of Africa, this passage is unintelligible; but when we seek for Kush in the Arabian peninsula, we apprehend at least a geographical relation to the rivers of Eden'' (Preadamites, p. 91).
The land of Havilah which is referenced in relation to a river (Pishon) which flowed from Eden has also been identified as a land within Arabia, the Hebrew scholar Samuel Driver in his commentary on Genesis notes: ''Havilah was ‘‘[m]ost probably a region in the NE, of Arabia'' (p. 29).
Kush (Cush) in Genesis therefore only appears situated in Mesopotamia or adjacent Arabia.
Table of Nations
In the Table of Nations (Gen. x) the descendants of Ham are also located acround the same Mesopotamian region. Gen. x. 6 for example states: ''The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan'' (NIV).
Since the Jews only though had a limited geographical knowledge, the Table of Nations only covers various localities restricted to a certain scope of ethnography.
The renowned scholar George Rawlinson has thus quite correctly noted with caution that ''we must only look to find in this [ethnographical table] an account of the nations with which the Jews at the date of its composition had some acquantance'' (Origin of Nations, p. 169).
In his work Pre-adamite, scholar Lester A. Hoyle also notes: ''...we reasonably conclude that the knowledge of the Israelites extended over but a very limited extent of the earth’s surface'' (p. 35).
No Negroids appear in the Bible
Paul Heinisch in his History of the Old Testament (1952) notes that the Jews had no knowledge of Negroids ('Blacks') and in regards to the ethnographic table (Gen. x) he clearly points out (p. 32):
''No reference is made to the Indians, Negroes, Mongolians, Malayans, Chinese, Japanese, etc. The author names only the peoples within his sphere of knowledge.''
Professor William F. Albright also sums up nicely: ''All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called ''White'' or ''Caucasian'' race...'' (cf. ''The Old Testament World'' cited in The Interpreter's Bible, George Arthur Buttrick, ed.).
Limited Scope of Biblical Ethnography
Nott and Gliddon in their Types of Mankind (pp. 482-502) show that Ham's descendants (Gen. x) are to be located within the Arabian or Mesopotamian (middle-eastern) region. The only exception being Mizraim, identified as Egypt and Phut as the Barbary Coast.
In recent literature it has been shown that the Jews had some trade links with Tarshish (Spain) and the further northern Atlantic (Cassiterides) and so it is probable they had a greater knowledge of the Mediterranean than the map shows. However the above map, remains highly accurate. The Jews only had knowledge of certian localities within North Africa (not Sub-Sahara Africa) and had very little if any knowledge of the eastern parts of Asia and Central or Northern Europe. It has been shown that the Jews had no such knowledge of territory below Egypt (North Africa) and only encountered, one race, from an ethnographic point of view, Caucasoids. In the Septuagint (LXX) Cush is often translated as Ethiopia, which has confused many into believing that Cush was the African Ethiopia (Aethiopia). However a quick glance at Biblical passages shows that the Cush of the Old Testament is Arabian, not African.
Cush/Ethiopia sat in Asia not Africa
''The word Cush, when put in scripture for a country or a people, is rendered Ethiopia or Ethiopians; but then this can be truly understood only of the Asiatic Ethiopia, or Arabia'' (Edward Wells, An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 100).
This is what bothers me about people like yourself - you claim that there is no biblical proof for this and that - but did Abraham and his people know black people - of course they were in Egypt and ancient Sumeria ... I wont debate you on these issues because you have had your ass handed to you on several occasions.
Biblical reading: Did Abraham and Sara see black people even if you don't believe the ancient Egyptians were black? Of course.
Genesis 13:1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.
South as you like to put it is Sub-Saharan Africa as you like to put it and O yeah - it was ancient Ethiopia, Ta Seti, etc ...
Why are you so contempt with looking foolish? Don't you call anything south of Egypt Sub Saharan Africa? lol ... so that's b/s - they've seen blacks and if the myth is true then Abraham was born around and grew up around black folks... dumbass
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bet Evil Euro, Horemheb, and some of the other stormfront posters - look at you in pure disgust. When you grab the bible and treat it like its factual history and then someone else comes alone and make you look foolish using the same book; geezzzz ... ruff day there mate. Ultimately it must be embarrassing for you - what comeback do you have for Genesis 13:1? Search the internet - look and keep looking - it will not change what it says.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Modern Madinat Yisrael is in AFRICA. It is completely on the African Plate.
The Bible covers the whole world and all people are mentioned.
Sinim = Chine Phut = Fulani = Negro
The Biblical Cushites were the Nilotics; very tall and very Black.
Adam and Eve were Africans.
Beside this read the Zohar, Genesis Rabbah, book of Jubilees and commentaries of several rabbis.
God, Ha Shem, El Gadol, Elohim HaZedeq loves Africa he created it and the whole world and everyone in it.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL If one wants to disprove that Egyptians were not black or worse yet, that there were no blacks in the Bible, such is a lost cause!
Biblical scholars have made it very clear since Europeans first accepted Christianity that blacks were very much present in Biblical lands.
Rabbi Yuda ben Simon in a Midrashic text: Abraham says to his wife Sarah, "Now we are about to enter a place (Egypt) of ugly and black people"
In a Midrash: "The black people will come out of Egypt, Kush will stretch its hands to God"
Church Father Theodore of Mopsuestia says above the Shulamite bride in the 'Song of Songs': "She was black like all the Egyptians and Ethiopians."
Church Father Origen Adamantius says of the Egyptians: "They are the discolored (black) posterity of Ham"
Some of these Jewish and Christian theologians were racist while others were not, but one clear and undeniable fact, is that they ALL acknowledged that black were very much known and in fact prominent in Biblical times.
One thing the Anglo-Idiot seems to forget or is just totally oblivious of, is that long before 'Hamite' meant extremely dark or black skinned 'Caucasian', it simply meant black person. And all scholars agree that while Hamites as black people were indeed present in the Levant and especially Arabia, Biblical writers poetically called **AFRICA** 'Land of Ham', and not Arabia! It was because Hamites referred to blacks in general that the Anglo-Idiot's people-- the English and other European slavers used the excuse of enslaving Africans the notion of 'Ham's Curse'. It was only after Euros began rediscovering the "wonders" and "glories" that were ancient Egypt, that Euro scholars changed the definition of 'Hamite' into very dark or black-skinned members of the Caucasian race! In other words, they flip-flop and contradict themselves just to maintain the lie that is white supremacy. Pretty much the exact same thing the Anglo-Idiot does. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptians were black people genetically similar to current Africans living in Southern Africa, African Great Lakes region and Tropical West Africa (in that order).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I just read the ridiculous post below!
Printer-friendly view of this topic