This is topic Christ had hair like lamb's wool? in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002407

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
Afronuts never tire in their ability to display utter ignorance and lack of education. Many Afronuts appeal to scriptures like Rev1.14 to claim Jesus had wooly hair, thus was an African Negro. Well... Let us see what the bible passage says:


Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;


Of course to a semi-literate the verse appears to say Christ had wooly hair. However, the fact is that that is NOT what it is saying. Look again:

[...] hairs were white like wool.

This statement does not even require critical reading to understand it. The verse does not say "hairs were like wool." It says, "hairs were WHITE like wool." The author is comparing the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool. Obviously at that time wool was used as a metaphor to symbolize whiteness/purity, hence the comparison of the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
Doesn't matter. He was not white with blond hair and blue eyes. He was a person of color who would most definitely fit within the variation of colored people we call "Black." Besides, the lineage Jesus is marred with those of the black "Hamite women"[How many "cushite Wives and Canaanite wives do you spot your scripture?"]

How do 70 Hebrews who were not WHITE to begin with, travel into Negro Egypt, come out 400 years later as a "MIXED MULTITUDE" and not have any affinities with Blacks? "Jesus" MOST DEFINITELY had a "Jew Fro". THAT should give you some indication on why "Jews" has Afro's in the first place. Even today those that call themselves "Jews" are CONSIDERABLY mixed with Africans.









GO DIE !
 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
I am going to respond to each pt. you make just because I take pleasure in making a fool of an Afro-idiot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:
Doesn't matter.

---

quote:

---

He was not white with blond hair and blue eyes.

---

quote:

---

He was a person of color

---

quote:

---

who would most definitely fit within the variation of colored people we call "Black."

---

quote:

---

Besides, the lineage Jesus is marred with those of the black "Hamite women"[How many "cushite Wives and Canaanite wives do you spot your scripture?"

---

quote:

---

How do 70 Hebrews who were not WHITE

---

quote:

---

to begin with, travel into Negro Egypt,

---

quote:

---

come out 400 years later as a "MIXED MULTITUDE" and not have any affinities with Blacks?

---

quote:

---

"Jesus" MOST DEFINITELY had a "Jew Fro".

---

Prove it. Right about now, you are speaking out of your monkey a*s.
 

---

Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
Afronutslayer says,

''This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule.''

That portion of your dark African ''blood'' is eating you alive. Face it kid you will never be all the way white. It's too late for you. See your mommy and daddy about this one. You run so fast you can't help but run into objects along the way. White folks don't want you, some black folks don't either. Tis a pity to be struggling in never, never land ain't it. Tis a pity to not be able to recognize yourself ain't it. It's also a pity to know you have demons and don't know how to confront them. They eatin' you up boy.
 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
Listen fool, I embrace my blackness. I am as black as they come. You see, I have a problem with people who distort truth, just so they can sell a group a false sense of pride of self. I despise it with a passion. Why? because the belief in romanticizing a false past just to excuse and justify not being responsible has held back the progress of Black folk. Black folk are stagnate partly because of the pseudo history they are fed. You Afronuts on the board are enablers to the destruction of African Americans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman:
Afronutslayer says,

''This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule.''

That portion of your dark African ''blood'' is eating you alive. Face it kid you will never be all the way white. It's too late for you. See your mommy and daddy about this one. You run so fast you can't help but run into objects along the way. White folks don't want you, some black folks don't either. Tis a pity to be struggling in never, never land ain't it. Tis a pity to not be able to recognize yourself ain't it. It's also a pity to know you have demons and don't know how to confront them. They eatin' you up boy.

---

quote:

---

Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;

---

quote:

---

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
This quote

quote:

---

Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;

---

is a knock off of Daniel 7:9. but before examining
the Hebrew a careful analysis of even the English
version of the Revelations quote show two similes
given for the hair:
1 - wool
2 - snow.

If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers
to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By
using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just
color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow.
There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best
snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.


Now Daniel 7:9 has

quote:

---

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.

---

Notice white snow is in reference to garments whereas
the hair is simply "pure wool." The Revelations writer,
a Greek, didn't remain true to the Hebrew original. He
botched up by leaving out the garment and substituting
hair for the garment.

See, he used two similes for one item, both wool
and snow for the hair alone. Quite unnecessary.
Lamb's wool is white and, well, it's wooly.

The Hebrew writer sensibly uses two similes for
two items. Snow for garments and wool for hair.
Wool is perfect for an old man's grey nappy hair.

Maybe if the Greek hadn't reversed the order of
snow and wool he would've got himself on target.

---

 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Jaime Pretel you're as ignorant as ever
and also a coward who removes his profile
after being exposed as a paralegal instead
of the liar claiming a PhD in law (hah).
You're just a dance instructor.

You don't know the Hebrew word for wool.
You haven't proved/disproved anything.
Why do you think ulitrichous hair is called wooly?
Is it because it's white or because it's wooly?

You're not worth wasting my time.
All you can do is make ad hominens
placing you way way below my level
and on that of a little kid.

This is the last time I respond to
you unless you grow up and behave
like an adult in a discussion not
a child playing a silly game. Now
salsa your off-white mestizo ass
back south of the border where
you belong and quit sponging off
of government lay asides for the
USA blacks (that got your sorry
ass your paralegal certificate
in the first place).


Bottomline:
The Ancient of Days in Daniel has hair like
pure wool. As an old being the hair is white
in color and as the anthropomorphism of a
Judahite the hair is wooly in texture.


Fig 1 Three "chief elders" of the Judaean city Lachish bow before Sennacherib.
From James B. Pritchard's THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST VOL I net © 1997 al~Takruri

Wool, as on the above heads, therefore is the perfect simile.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
I'm completely neutral in this as I see evidence for both sides in this discussion. Because I want to learn more about this discussion I want to know what Al Takruri, Astenb and other people who believe in a largly black/dark skinned makeup of the hebrews.

quote:

---

Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.

Jeremiah 13:23

---

quote:

---

"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of kedar as the
curtains of Solomon."

Song of Solomon 1:5

---

quote:

---

Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin?
Jeremiah 13:23

---

quote:

---

According to Genesis, Cush's other sons were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecah, names identified by modern scholars with Arabian tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Cush

---

quote:

---

Josephus gives an account of the nation of Cush, son of Ham and grandson of Noah: "For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites." (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Cush

---

quote:

---

Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD." The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar Shinar.

---

quote:

---

Shinar is a broad designation applied to Mesopotamia, occurring eight times in the Hebrew Bible. In the Book of Genesis 10:10, the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom is said to have been "Babel, and Uruk, and Akkad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."

---

What then, was the approximate skin color of these Kushites from Shinear?



and



I do this so that it is clear to everybody what type of people are most likely meant whenever the name Cush/Ethiopians is mentioned in the bible.

Do you agree that the Cushite type looked like this Al Takruri?
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
^ My opinion: I think when they said "Cushite" they meant THESE cushites:


Biblical Cush is usually in reference to Sudan. Some Sudanese being VERY dark skinned can be "markedly different" from other Africans while Both Africans being "Black".

See the Egyptian stereotype as an example:

 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.

---

quote:

---

1.Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? 2.Can a leopard take away its spots?
Jeremiah 13:23

"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
1.as the tents of kedar
2.as the curtains of Solomon."
Song of Solomon 1:5

I saw
1.the tents of Cushan in distress
2.the dwellings of Midian in anguish.
Habakkuk 3:7

---

quote:

---

Revelation 1:10
On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
.
.
.
.
Revelation 1:14
His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.

---

Again, utilising the often used double metaphor:
His head and hair were
1.white like wool,
2.as white as snow,

Wheter he also saw a wool-like texture, I don't know, but its clear he isn't mentioning it, and neither does Daniel.

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;

Yes, like pure wool, but like what ASPECT of pure wool? He doesn't mention here what aspect is similar. Wool has many proporties, including color, texture, curliness, density, soft/hardness etc
For exemple:

I can say a child looks like his father, and you can assume I say that because they both have broad faces, but I didn't say that at all. I just made a statement without being specific
I could be talking about similar hair length
I could be talking about similarities in noses
But the fact is, you wouldn't know because I didn't mention the specifics.

What do you think of the above?
Again, I'm not looking for being right just trying to point some things out, I'm here to learn
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Oh if you can get Altakruri back here as he has excellent imformation pertaining to the most ancient Hebrew's self discription as being Black as a raven.


Justianian era decpition of Christ
feet the color of burnt brass (Rev. 1:14,15)
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

His head is purest gold; his hair is wavy and black as a raven. Song of Solomon 5:11

---

You mean this?

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
No not really Alt.T has his from a Hebrew source where all the children of Shem is blessed Black as a Raven..I am tempted to raid his post but I won't do that 'll just wait for him to show up..
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
One thing about the worldview of the ancient Hebrews Astenb, is that the hebrews thought of Arabia as the original home of black people.
According to the bible, humanity originated in Irak and the sons of Cush (all of them) moved to Arabia, none of them according to the bible went to Africa, they prolly believed that they migrated to Africa later.

So whenever you read in the bible Cush, you should think of Arabian blacks first instead of African blacks. The bible locates the homeland of Cush himself near the Eufrates when they describe the rivers that surrounded the garden of Eden before the flood:

quote:

---

The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.The gold of that land is exceptionally pure; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also found there.The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Genesis 2:11

---

quote:

---

Justianian era decpition of Christ
feet the color of burnt brass (Rev. 1:14,15)

---

The only thing I can make of that coin is a face with dotts as hair. I don't understand.. didn't Assyrians draw themselves with dotted hair?
Feet like brass..? hahaha that sounds funny as hell. I don't understand why they're talking about his feet if they try to demonstrate skin color, wouldn't they say face or something? The Greeks did call the Egyptians the black footed ones, but still. Do we as truth seekers rely on that alone? What about skeletal evidence?

By the way, speaking of face, have you seen that reconstruction of Jesus? They made a reconstruction of what Jesus could have looked like based on skulls from that time era.

This is what Came out:
Jesus reconstruction

What's even more interesting, is that this person could easily blend in with people from the Magreb. And that is EXACTLY what the Lachish Cranio do.

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
I have to admit, He DOES look like Kimbo Slice
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Well Kalonji I think that the garden of Eden is a much wider arc than you think it is. the so-called fertile cresent
The pishon could be in Arabia and the Gihon could be the white and blue Nile in Africa and the Tigris and Euphrates would off-course be in Iraq...note Gihon is still the Nile in some circles,also Kush and Misrim(Kemet) are brothers located in Africa,Havilah is a colony from Kush who may have settled people there from across African Kush.

 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
It is obvious you do not know anything about hebrew metaphoric writing and it is obvious I am wasting my time with you. Hebrew writers employed double equivalent sayings in the same verse to reinforce one message. This can be seen in quite a few passages. Here are some examples...

Psa 35:4 [1]Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: [2]let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.

Psa 35:5 [1]Let them be as chaff before the wind: [2]and let the angel of the LORD chase [them].


Psa 35:9 [1]And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: [2]it shall rejoice in his salvation.

Psa 35:18 [1]I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: [2]I will praise thee among much people.

There are literally THOUSANDS of passages with this technique of writing. But of course, you are too much of an ahole and proud to admit YOU JUST DID NOT KNOW. My advice to you, shut your da*n hole in matters you know not and especially when evidence is produced for you. Humble yourself Afrohole and learn to accept when you are wrong.

The hebrews used the hebraec word [se'r] for hair. It is the root word for the goat [sa'yr]. The hebrews correlated the two because they made an association between the hebrew hair and the fur of the goat. If you want to know the hair texture of the hebrew, look no further than the mountain goats found in Mt. [Seir].

You are getting schooled Afro-idiot. You should have kept your pot-mouth shut when I posted the passages demonstrating how the term "wool" is used as an idiom and not in the literal sense.

GAME OVER FOOL.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
This quote

quote:

---

Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;

---

is a knock off of Daniel 7:9. but before examining
the Hebrew a careful analysis of even the English
version of the Revelations quote show two similes
given for the hair:
1 - wool
2 - snow.

If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers
to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By
using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just
color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow.
There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best
snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.


Now Daniel 7:9 has

quote:

---

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.

---

Notice white snow is in reference to garments whereas
the hair is simply "pure wool." The Revelations writer,
a Greek, didn't remain true to the Hebrew original. He
botched up by leaving out the garment and substituting
hair for the garment.

See, he used two similes for one item, both wool
and snow for the hair alone. Quite unnecessary.
Lamb's wool is white and, well, it's wooly.

The Hebrew writer sensibly uses two similes for
two items. Snow for garments and wool for hair.
Wool is perfect for an old man's grey nappy hair.

Maybe if the Greek hadn't reversed the order of
snow and wool he would've got himself on target.

---

quote:

---

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah
Genesis 2:10-14

---

This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Well Kalonji that's only a Bibical quote..you have the hair like lambs wool and feet like brass
Probabaly looking not soo different from this gentileman above

biomet.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/1-2/159.pdf
 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
Kalonji,

When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked. At that point, I realized I was dealing with a bunch of mother fvckers who have a political agenda. Now, I treat them like pieces of sh*t, while I drop the right and exact info. For all I care, they can reject my info and kiss my Black a*s while they are at it. I know there are others who sincerely seek knowledge and will comb through the insults, and take in the good stuff.

My position now regarding certain Afrocentrists on the board - FVCK YOU.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Afronut slayer, I agree with you and others will prolly too if they study the fact that Hebrews used double metaphors all the time, and that this in no way implies that a one of them is wrong or dubious as I think is implied by Al Takruri.

But I think you go about it the wrong way, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride. You can take my advice or leave it but it is what it is.

Brada Anansi, I was actually wrong when I said that the rivers were surrounding Eden. There is one river that flows out of Eden, which then splits up in the four rivers. Sorry, my bad.

quote:

---

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah
Genesis 2:10-14

---

This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Kolonji don't buy his bull shi!t please just go over every last one of his post you will see what I mean plus he is a multiple poster,down right dishonest.

---

 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
If he/she would've put the data in a plot for everyone to see, we can bypass subjective terms like ''any clear divergence'' and more precisely pinpoint with whom they have affinities



you can clearly see that the Lachish and the Magreb crania are almost identical. Remember when Keita said (of the top of my head)''kerma and naqadda are barely distinquisable on the terretorial maps''? Well, the Magreb and the Lachish Crania cluster even more.



With that in mind, you can see the distance between Egypt on the Brace map even better. Look for marocco somewhere on the middle and just picture Lachish above it

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
The ancient Egyptian types Risdon was prolly speaking of were lower Egyptian E serie types. Which were used several times to white wash Egypt in cranial plots. Didn't Keita inform us that the E types included lybians and other foreigners who settled in the delta?

Btw, what exactly are the origins of the Lachish population? wheren't they a mixture of Egyptian peoples who settled there and natives, or was it just speculation?
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Afrontologic

quote:

---

Cry me a fvcking river. You threw the first punch so now It is on Afro-Clown. Every mistake you make you will be made to look the fool for it, as is demonstrated in your futile attempt to twist the meaning of rev1.14.

---

What's there to twist? Color o brass is the color o Brass... Ass!!.. hair of wool is hair of wool.

Kolonji they may well cluster with Margreb but who was the Military class in the area for hundreds of years begining with Pepy who brought to bere Troops from Wawat Mazoi Irithet and Yam to subgate the Lavent. These are all Upper Kemites or of Kush/Nahasu.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
The remains found at Lakish:The excavacation uncovered a mass of human bones,which was estamated to from the remains of fifteen hundred individuals..remains of 695 skulls were brought to London by the British expidition...curiously,the crania indicate a close resemblance to the population of Egypt at this time...the relationships found suggest that the population of the town in 700 B.C was entirely of Egyptian origin..they show further,that the population of lakish was probably derived from upper Egypt.James e Brunson:

You guys understand the significance of the above? followed by this statement by Pliny The Elder-Roman Naturalist....

That Syria was once the domain of Cepheus, an Ethiopian king,Tacitus wrote that the Romans beleived that the Jews originated in Ethiopia but fled the persecutions of the King. Strabo,even earlier,stressed that that people of Western Judea was Africiod:

But although the inhibatance are mixed up thus,the most accerdited reports in regards to the people of Jerusalem reperesents the ancestors of the present Judeans as they are called Egyptians.

Reposted from an earlier thread: Black women Hebrew Men.
 

---

Posted by Nehesy (Member # 17252) on :
 
Christ represented (left) :



 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
One thing about the worldview of the ancient Hebrews Astenb, is that the hebrews thought of Arabia as the original home of black people.
According to the bible, humanity originated in Irak and the sons of Cush (all of them) moved to Arabia, none of them according to the bible went to Africa, they prolly believed that they migrated to Africa later.

So whenever you read in the bible Cush, you should think of Arabian blacks first instead of African blacks. The bible locates the homeland of Cush himself near the Eufrates when they describe the rivers that surrounded the garden of Eden before the flood:

quote:

---

The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.The gold of that land is exceptionally pure; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also found there.The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Genesis 2:11

---

So according to the bible, the homeland of Cush himself is near the Eufrates and close to one of his many sons, Havilah. NOT in Africa.
I know this is myth, and all of humanity arose in the motherland, but we're using the bible to try to find out what the ancient Hebrews looked like don't we?

What do you think Brada?
Do you believe they were related to blacks more than lets say, surrounding semetic speakers?

Kalonji

---

That is all fine and dandy buy you know what.......In real life the Phylogenetic tree of Human DNA and the origin of ALL humans leading back to Africa will always over-ride what is in a religious the book.

UNTIL the fossils say otherwise:

I speak from the point of the Garden of Eden = East Africa.



The scientific "Bio-Historical Origin" {as Keita puts it} of certain people mentioned in the Hebrew/Greeks Scriptures shows them to be indigenous to Africa and not incomers from "Arabia." But then again "Cush" or "Ethiopia" may INCLUDE parts of that we NOW call "Arabia", in the past we KNOW they have.

Lamentation 4:8
"Their visage is blacker than a coal" - KJV
"Their appearance is blacker than soot" - NASB

Lamentations 5:10
"Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine." - KJV

I will not make an argument about "All "jews" being black" or anything like that but there is proof within the scripture that some Hebrews fit within the description of those that we call "Black" Many EARLY depictions of Hebrews show them not so different from "KUSHITES"



 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lets examine all the evidence assembled so far so we can all have a look at the evidence, and allow people to make up for themselves whether they believe
1.Jesus had tropical affinities
2.The Hebrews as a nation had tropical affinities

But before we do this, I think it's wise to evaluate what is hard evidence and what is not. I make a distinction between clues and clear, hard evidence like for example, skeletal evidence.

To me, coins, texts and other art are all clues and not evidence because of the following reasons
-Desriptions like all other artwork is subject to interpretation, not only on our end, but also on the creators end.
-The coins have been made well after the death of Jesus, 400 a.d.
-The coins and descriptions could also be the result of Romans reading from the same arguments Brada is using: that the scripture says that Jesus had hair like wool (without indicating what aspect of wool) and feet like brass. So you may be using it as ANOTHER piece of evidence, while it could be derrived from the same text you're reading from. I'm not saying this is the case, just saying it could be, since they, just like us had to rely on the bible for clues about the way Jesus looked
-Personal believes of people like Tacticus who are talking about the origin of the Hebrews. This is something that took place way before he and his people ever knew the Hebrews.
Furthermore, he doesn't say on what he is basing this belief, the types he's speaking of could just as well be remnants of the Natufians.

It wouldn't be honest if I didn't say that I too, have previously used arguments that fall within the ''clue'' category.
-The ''change his skin'' passage in Jeremia
-The ''I am black but comely'' passage in Songs of Solomon

Before we go on with counting and juxtapositioning all the evidence presented by both parties so far in one comment, do you agree with my viewpoint that personal believes and descriptions reflected in texts, art are susceptable to individual interpration and should therefore be viewed as ''clues'' instead of cold hard evidence?
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Both these issues have been dealt with in extenso.

The Israelites had a full range of skin colours as
is typical of Africans of the periphery and diaspora.

They also seem to display the "colour struck"
phenomena as evidenced by Miriam's comments
to Moses in relation to Zipporah (also covered
here previously).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I'm completely neutral in this as I see evidence for both sides in this discussion. Because I want to learn more about this discussion I want to know what Al Takruri, Astenb and other people who believe in a largly black/dark skinned makeup of the hebrews.

quote:

---

Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.

Jeremiah 13:23

---

quote:

---

"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of kedar as the
curtains of Solomon."

Song of Solomon 1:5

---

In my opinion, these passages imply that they had a markedly different skin color than the Hebrews. In the first exemple because they seem to use Africans as an exemple for darkness, which is weird if they themselves were black or dark skinned.

The second quote to me demonstrated that there may have been a tendency to look down on people with a dark skin tone. Or the person who wrote it might have felt that way. Why would there be a need to feel that way if females of Judah had the same or a slightly lighter colouring?

If the judah had brown skinned people, they probably had black skinned people too because no population has 100% the same colour. Why wouldn't she/he blend in nicely with the darker skinned people?
Another question is why would it be needed to give an exemple of an external source like a black tent somewhere in Arabia, if the majority of the Hebrew population was dark skinned like Africans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.

---

Al Takruri
What the authors intentions were will never be known to us so that is just your interpretation. You're actually wrong in assuming that because the author uses two metaphors for describing one thing, one of the metaphors must automatically refer to hair texture.

Just assuming this is unscientific and furthermore. I'ts actually Hebrew tradition to use two metaphors for the same thing as evidenced in:

quote:

---

1.Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? 2.Can a leopard take away its spots?
Jeremiah 13:23

"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
1.as the tents of kedar
2.as the curtains of Solomon."
Song of Solomon 1:5

I saw
1.the tents of Cushan in distress
2.the dwellings of Midian in anguish.
Habakkuk 3:7

---

Furthermore, the writer in revelations clearly says he recieved a vision, centuries after Daniel!! He was not copying off Daniel. He might have been, but then he would be lying. See for yourself:

quote:

---

Revelation 1:10
On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
.
.
.
.
Revelation 1:14
His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.

---

Again, utilising the often used double metaphor:
His head and hair were
1.white like wool,
2.as white as snow,

Wheter he also saw a wool-like texture, I don't know, but its clear he isn't mentioning it, and neither does Daniel.

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;

Yes, like pure wool, but like what ASPECT of pure wool? He doesn't mention here what aspect is similar. Wool has many proporties, including color, texture, curliness, density, soft/hardness etc
For exemple:

I can say a child looks like his father, and you can assume I say that because they both have broad faces, but I didn't say that at all. I just made a statement without being specific
I could be talking about similar hair length
I could be talking about similarities in noses
But the fact is, you wouldn't know because I didn't mention the specifics.

What do you think of the above?
Again, I'm not looking for being right just trying to point some things out, I'm here to learn

---

quote:

---

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.

---

quote:

---

His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;

---

code:

---

DANIEL                         REVELATIONS
as white snow (raiment)        white as snow (hairs)
pure wool (hair)               white like wool (hairs)  
fiery flames (throne)          flame of fire (eyes) 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow. There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.

---

Al Takruri
What the authors intentions were will never be known to us so that is just your interpretation. You're actually wrong in assuming that because the author uses two metaphors for describing one thing, one of the metaphors must automatically refer to hair texture.

Just assuming this is unscientific and furthermore. I'ts actually Hebrew tradition to use two metaphors for the same thing as evidenced in:

quote:

---

1.Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? 2.Can a leopard take away its spots?
Jeremiah 13:23

"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
1.as the tents of kedar
2.as the curtains of Solomon."
Song of Solomon 1:5

I saw
1.the tents of Cushan in distress
2.the dwellings of Midian in anguish.
Habakkuk 3:7

---

Furthermore, the writer in revelations clearly says he recieved a vision, centuries after Daniel!! He was not copying off Daniel. He might have been, but then he would be lying. See for yourself:

quote:

---

Revelation 1:10
On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
.
.
.
.
Revelation 1:14
His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.

---

Again, utilising the often used double metaphor:
His head and hair were
1.white like wool,
2.as white as snow,

Wheter he also saw a wool-like texture, I don't know, but its clear he isn't mentioning it, and neither does Daniel.

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;

Yes, like pure wool, but like what ASPECT of pure wool? He doesn't mention here what aspect is similar. Wool has many proporties, including color, texture, curliness, density, soft/hardness etc
For exemple:

I can say a child looks like his father, and you can assume I say that because they both have broad faces, but I didn't say that at all. I just made a statement without being specific
I could be talking about similar hair length
I could be talking about similarities in noses
But the fact is, you wouldn't know because I didn't mention the specifics.

What do you think of the above?
Again, I'm not looking for being right just trying to point some things out, I'm here to learn

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Oh if you can get Altakruri back here as he has excellent imformation pertaining to the most ancient Hebrew's self discription as being Black as a raven.


Justianian era decpition of Christ
feet the color of burnt brass (Rev. 1:14,15)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:



ahole
Afrohole

Afro-idiot.

FOOL.

---

Jaime

If you continue to use this type of language when
addressing me you will come to sorely regret it.
I warn you, for the sake of your livihood, don't
try me.

I can appreciate your attempts in discussing the
subject matter. You should note that the roots
of שְׂעַר and שָּׂעִיר are not the same. Also that Esau
who was hairy like a goat and came to inhabit Mt
Seir is the very antithesis of the Israelite.

Bottonline:
Assyrians depicted Judahites with lamb's wool not goat fur.

Fig 1 Three "chief elders" of the Judaean city Lachish bow before Sennacherib.
From James B. Pritchard's THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST VOL I net © 1997 al~Takruri
 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
Here is a simple example of this writing technique:


Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.


Are sins made of scarlet? Of course not! So why is the writer comparing sins to scarlet? If you keep reading you will see the technique used throughout the passage.

What you have in the passage are double equivalent statements, reinforcing one message.

[1] SINS LIKE SCARLET = THEY BE RED LIKE CRIMSON
[2] THEY SHALL BE WHITE AS SNOW = THEY SHALL BE AS WOOL

;SCARLET = RED LIKE CRIMSON
;WHITE AS SNOW = WOOL

The single message is sins will be cleansed. Sins are likened unto the color red, because red signifies uncleanliness. Sins will become wool, because wool is likened unto the color white by way of the comparison made with snow.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
I have no problem admitting my errors.
I have done so here more than once.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Kalonji,

When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked. At that point, I realized I was dealing with a bunch of mother fvckers who have a political agenda. Now, I treat them like pieces of sh*t, while I drop the right and exact info. For all I care, they can reject my info and kiss my Black a*s while they are at it. I know there are others who sincerely seek knowledge and will comb through the insults, and take in the good stuff.

My position now regarding certain Afrocentrists on the board - FVCK YOU.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Afronut slayer, I agree with you and others will prolly too if they study the fact that Hebrews used double metaphors all the time, and that this in no way implies that a one of them is wrong or dubious as I think is implied by Al Takruri.

But I think you go about it the wrong way, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride. You can take my advice or leave it but it is what it is.

Brada Anansi, I was actually wrong when I said that the rivers were surrounding Eden. There is one river that flows out of Eden, which then splits up in the four rivers. Sorry, my bad.

quote:

---

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah
Genesis 2:10-14

---

This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.

Kalonji

---

---

quote:

---

If you continue to use this type of language when
addressing me you will come to sorely regret it.
I warn you, for the sake of your livihood, don't
try me.

---

quote:

---

I can appreciate your attempts in discussing the
subject matter. You should note that the roots
of שְׂעַר and שָּׂעִיר are not the same.

---

quote:

---

Also that Esau who was hairy like a goat and came to inhabit Mt Seir is the very antithesis of the Israelite.

---

quote:

---

Bottonline: Assyrians depicted Judahites with lamb's wool not goat fur.

---

Bottom line my a*s. You provide a relief that depicts ysraelis with stylized hair. You have no proof the hair is kinky. That is you putting your Afronut case twist on the archeology. I can argue the hair is curled and what you are seeing are swirlings in the hair.

FVCK OFF WITH YOUR WEAK A*S FAKE KNOWLEDGE CLOWN.
 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
kalonji,

The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;

ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.
 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
Kalonji,

Anyone who tells you the description of a man with hair white like wool in revelation is based on Daniel's description is wrong. The earliest description of a man with hair white like wool is found in Hanowk's writing.


Cef'r h_Hanowk; XLVI (The Book of Enoch, Chap. 46]

"There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool..."

The above verse pre-dates Daniel's acct. by many centuries.
 

---

Posted by Afronut Slayer (Member # 16637) on :
 
Kalonji,

the description in Jeremiah regarding the AEthiopians and their skin was actually a derogation against them. Let us take a look...


Jer 13:23 Can the AEthiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.


In the passage the writer is making a correlation between evil and the skin [color] of the ethiopian (as well as the unclean animal - leopard). The writer is suggesting that just as it is impossible for the AEthiopian to change his skin (the implied meaning is color), so too those that are accustomed to doing evil cannot change their way.

if the writer was prejudiced towards DARK SKINNED people, what more proof does one need to determine the common skin tone of the hebrews? It was DEFINITELY LIGHTER than the cushites (AEthiopian).
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Kalonji Quote: "Before we go on with counting and juxtapositioning all the evidence presented by both parties so far in one comment, do you agree with my viewpoint that personal believes and descriptions reflected in texts, art are susceptable to individual interpration and should therefore be viewed as ''clues'' instead of cold hard evidence?"

I see you are at least trying to be objective, but your method is wanting.

A better "Rule of Thumb" is to "consider the source."
From that you can make a determination of the value of the evidence presented.

For example: many people "selectively" quote the Christian Bible (the New Testament).

But this is a book written almost 2,000 years after the fact! The New Testament was published in 1961 A.D.

The book that this "New Testament" is supposedly LOOSELY based upon, was the Greek Bible called the "Septuagint". The original version of this book was "Supposedly" written with the help of Hebrews - but that version was quickly rewritten. The first of the many versions of this book was written in 282 B.C. Problem is, all VERSIONS of this book have been lost for a long time.

Which of course Begs the question: HOW COULD SUCH A SUPPOSEDLY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN LOST!

The Protestant Bible in English - the King James Bible was first published in 1611 A.D.

The ONLY religious documents VERIFIABILITY written by Hebrews, are the "Dead Sea Scrolls".

The Dead Sea were found to contain tens of thousands of scroll fragments dating from app. 300 B.C. to 68 A.D. and representing an estimated eight hundred separate works.

The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a vast collection of Hebrew documents written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and encompassing many subjects and literary styles. They include manuscripts or fragments of every book in the Hebrew Bible except the Book of Esther, all of them created nearly one thousand years earlier than any previously known biblical manuscripts. The scrolls also contain the earliest existing biblical commentary on the Book of Habakkuk, and many other writings, among them religious works pertaining to Hebrew sects of the time.

The Dead Sea Scrolls offer unprecedented information about Hebrew religious and political life in Judea during the turbulent late Second Temple Period (200 B.C. to A.D. 70), a time of great corruption and conflict under Roman rule in Judea. Scholars estimate that the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden in A.D. 68, when Roman legions reached the Dead Sea during the emperor Vespasian's campaign to Jericho.

The discovery of the scrolls established that Hebrew culture was far richer and more diverse at this time, than scholars had previously believed. Three main groups of Hebrews were prominent during the late Second Temple Period: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Many other sects and political parties also flourished. This pluralism ended in 70 A.D, when six years after the start of the First Hebrew Rebellion, the Romans sieged Jerusalem, killing or enslaving half the Hebrew population and destroying Herod's Temple. The capitol fell to the Romans, and only the Judaism of the dominant Pharisees survived.

The scrolls also shed light on the time when Jesus and John the Baptist lived and early Christians began to organize. Specifically, they offer evidence that early Christian beliefs and practices had precedents in the Hebrew sects of the time. Sectarian scrolls tell of people who, like the early Christians, did not believe in the Temple worship of the Pharisees, people who had their own literature, their own rituals—including baptism—and their own beliefs, most significantly beliefs in a messiah, a divine judgment, and an apocalypse.

Three different scrolls depict a sacred meal of bread and wine. These similarities as well as parallels between the literary style of certain scrolls and that of the New Testament have led some scholars to claim that Jesus and John the Baptist were either part of, or strongly influenced by a sect at the Dead Sea. But no direct link has been established, and it is likely that similarities can be attributed to each being derived from a like strain of Judaism. Still, this debate has furthered speculation about the historical Jesus, such as the claim that he was a Zealot rather than a pacifist, a theory that does not fit with New Testament tradition but does fit with the history of this period (note: Jesus is NOT mentioned in the scrolls). And one of the most important discoveries in the scrolls has been the use of the name “Son of God” to refer to someone other than Jesus, implying a cultural use of the term that was not itself synonymous with God.


To summarize; What little that we know of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seems to conflict with traditional "White" interpretations of the Hebrew religions.

For this reason, the White Catholics and Jews/Khazars who have control of these documents, will NEVER allow us to read them.

BTW - The Assyrian depictions of Hebrews posted above, can be assumed to be accurate, simply because the Assyrians - unlike Whites - had no reason to do anything other than present an accurate depiction.


This wall painting, depicting the Healing of the Paralytic, is the earliest known representation of Jesus, dating from about 235 AD. The painting was found in 1921 on the left-hand wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria. It is now part of the Dura Europos collection at the Yale University Gallery of Fine Arts.




Looks like a Black guy to me!
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
"Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful,
Hham was blessed black like the raven,
and Yapheth was blessed white all over."

(PIRQE DE RIBBI ELI`EZER pereq 24)

The Hebrew word שְׁחוֹרָה sh*hhora (black)
is used for both Hham and Shem.


Every Friday night in ushering in the Shabbath
Jews of all colours sing Sh*horrah w*na`wa
(Black and Beautiful).

See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005001#000003
 

---

Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
 
"The Hebrew word שְׁחוֹרָה sh*hhora (black)
is used for both Hham and Shem. "

The hebrew word "Shachor" is not used to describe the hebrews. Anyone claiming this pseudo-bullish, must be forced to provide documentation.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Amos 9:7

quote:

---

Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?

---

quote:

---

For I am the LORD thy God, The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour; I have given Egypt as thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

---

quote:

---

In Hebrew, to this day, Cushi means a "black"-skinned person. The Israelites evidently had Cushites in their ranks. In the Bible Israelites named Cushi are Yehudi ben Kushi (Jer 36:14), Zephaniah ben Kushi (Zep 1:1) and Kush ben-Yemini (Psa 7:1). The Talmud even refers to Saul in Cushite terms.

Rabbinic midrash makes this all metaphorical though. The reasoning is that Cushi means outstanding. The Greeks thought of the Ethiopians as outstanding too. To them, the people with longest lifespan, the tallest height, the handsomest faces and the most pious actions were Ethiopians.

In light of the above Jer 13:23 can bear a new interpretation. Is there anything intrinsically wicked about Cushites or leopards? Cushites were salesmans of live leopards and leopard skins all over the ancient world. Who'd buy a spotless leopard skin? The spots are its beauty. The Cushites skin is his beauty.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

The prophet siezes on this common market connection to sound home his point. "Would the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? (No!) Then may you also do GOOD that are accustomed to do evil." Answering the question yes destroys the logical conlusion. Be steadfast in doing good and don't exchange it for evil. Be unchanging in doing good instead of flopping with the worthlessness of evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

quote:

---

In Hebrew, to this day, Cushi means a "black"-skinned person. The Israelites evidently had Cushites in their ranks. In the Bible Israelites named Cushi are Yehudi ben Kushi (Jer 36:14), Zephaniah ben Kushi (Zep 1:1) and Kush ben-Yemini (Psa 7:1). The Talmud even refers to Saul in Cushite terms.

Rabbinic midrash makes this all metaphorical though. The reasoning is that Cushi means outstanding. The Greeks thought of the Ethiopians as outstanding too. To them, the people with longest lifespan, the tallest height, the handsomest faces and the most pious actions were Ethiopians.

In light of the above Jer 13:23 can bear a new interpretation. Is there anything intrinsically wicked about Cushites or leopards? Cushites were salesmans of live leopards and leopard skins all over the ancient world. Who'd buy a spotless leopard skin? The spots are its beauty. The Cushites skin is his beauty.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

The prophet siezes on this common market connection to sound home his point. "Would the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? (No!) Then may you also do GOOD that are accustomed to do evil." Answering the question yes destroys the logical conlusion. Be steadfast in doing good and don't exchange it for evil. Be unchanging in doing good instead of flopping with the worthlessness of evil.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Kalonji,

Anyone who tells you the description of a man with hair white like wool in revelation is based on Daniel's description is wrong. The earliest description of a man with hair white like wool is found in Hanowk's writing.


Cef'r h_Hanowk; XLVI (The Book of Enoch, Chap. 46]

"There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool..."

The above verse pre-dates Daniel's acct. by many centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Kalonji,

Anyone who tells you the description of a man with hair white like wool in revelation is based on Daniel's description is wrong. The earliest description of a man with hair white like wool is found in Hanowk's writing.


Cef'r h_Hanowk; XLVI (The Book of Enoch, Chap. 46]

"There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool..."

The above verse pre-dates Daniel's acct. by many centuries.

---

quote:

---

The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;

ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.

---

quote:

---

show that that only certain black nations were
worth the same as Israel in their own self-view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Kalonji,

When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked. At that point, I realized I was dealing with a bunch of mother fvckers who have a political agenda. Now, I treat them like pieces of sh*t, while I drop the right and exact info. For all I care, they can reject my info and kiss my Black a*s while they are at it. I know there are others who sincerely seek knowledge and will comb through the insults, and take in the good stuff.

My position now regarding certain Afrocentrists on the board - FVCK YOU.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Afronut slayer, I agree with you and others will prolly too if they study the fact that Hebrews used double metaphors all the time, and that this in no way implies that a one of them is wrong or dubious as I think is implied by Al Takruri.

But I think you go about it the wrong way, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride. You can take my advice or leave it but it is what it is.

Brada Anansi, I was actually wrong when I said that the rivers were surrounding Eden. There is one river that flows out of Eden, which then splits up in the four rivers. Sorry, my bad.

quote:

---

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah
Genesis 2:10-14

---

This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.

Kalonji

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ebony Allen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Kalonji,

When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked. At that point, I realized I was dealing with a bunch of mother fvckers who have a political agenda. Now, I treat them like pieces of sh*t, while I drop the right and exact info. For all I care, they can reject my info and kiss my Black a*s while they are at it. I know there are others who sincerely seek knowledge and will comb through the insults, and take in the good stuff.

My position now regarding certain Afrocentrists on the board - FVCK YOU.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Afronut slayer, I agree with you and others will prolly too if they study the fact that Hebrews used double metaphors all the time, and that this in no way implies that a one of them is wrong or dubious as I think is implied by Al Takruri.

But I think you go about it the wrong way, if you make a big deal out of you being right, nobody is going to admit it, we all have our pride. You can take my advice or leave it but it is what it is.

Brada Anansi, I was actually wrong when I said that the rivers were surrounding Eden. There is one river that flows out of Eden, which then splits up in the four rivers. Sorry, my bad.

quote:

---

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah
Genesis 2:10-14

---

This puts the garden of Eden somewhere where the Persian golf is right now, beneath Sinear like I said earlier. The Persian golf was dried up around the neolitic era. Don't know exactly what and how but it's pretty well documented. I noticed you didn't respond to the reconstructed image of Jesus I provided and neither did you respond to my comment that in one of Keita's plots, the Lachish crania cluster with Magreb Crania and NOT with Egyptians.

Kalonji

---

---

If the Hebrews weren't black then how come the Egyptians who were black couldn't tell Moses wasn't really one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Kolonji before in another thread I warned folks of taken an absolutist position..the Hebrews lived in an area traversed by many people it is just possible that they take on the look of the folks nearest them like they do now..they may have started out looking acertain way and ended-up for the most part like something else. If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks..sag-gigga the black headed ones later to intermingle with first the Canaanite Blacks and Kemities..with introduction from south of Kemet of Kushtites who were stationed there for ever so a city could look like it was made up of almost entierly of Upper-Kemites add to the fact that lighter skinned folks joined in the mix and they themselves traveled far and wide adding a wide range of variety of folks to their numbers.

Hey thanks Altakruri for jumping back into the thread although I know you wanted to exit...respect.

---

quote:

---

If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates
not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.

---

quote:

---

Enoch never made Judean canon.
Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
What proof do you have the sagigi were African Blacks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Kolonji before in another thread I warned folks of taken an absolutist position..the Hebrews lived in an area traversed by many people it is just possible that they take on the look of the folks nearest them like they do now..they may have started out looking acertain way and ended-up for the most part like something else. If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

show that that only certain black nations were
worth the same as Israel in their own self-view.

---

I agree Al Takruri, but does this tell us anything about the color of the ancient Isrealites?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
What proof do you have the sagigi were African Blacks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Kolonji before in another thread I warned folks of taken an absolutist position..the Hebrews lived in an area traversed by many people it is just possible that they take on the look of the folks nearest them like they do now..they may have started out looking acertain way and ended-up for the most part like something else. If the pre Hebrews started out form UR-Sumer then they were the Asiatic type blacks..

---

He said they were Asicatic blacks, not African

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates
not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.

---

This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.

quote:

---

Enoch never made Judean canon.
Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.

---

It does not invalidate the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Recovering Afrocentrist - You are simply just another asshole who confuses his own beliefs for facts in the vein of Afroidiot, Dirk8, a few others; and now there is you.

You can guarantee nothing because you know nothing. You say many things, but not surprisingly, I see no evidence or supporting material. Yet as assholes like you often do, you decry others doing exactly the same thing that YOU do - rant and rave about things that you know nothing about, and with nothing to back it up - that is called hypocrisy!

BTW - ALL of the Indians that I know, call themselves Black, where did your fantasy come from?

Conclusion - just another know-nothing, trying to save the lies and bullsh1t of the White race, with more lies and Bullsh1t, asshole White Boy.

Welcome aboard - We just LOVE your kind here. In the REAL world, we could go to jail for what we do to your kind here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Anyone is free to for themselves research the body
of literature known as the Pseudopigrapha to see
if I erred.

Pseudopigrapha means "false authored writings."
Enoch (which has several editions ranging form
Abyssinian to Slavic) was first put to scroll
or parchment in the 2nd century BCE. The oldest
part of it only goes back another century.

Daniel is a book included in Hebrew canon as
part of Ketubiym (the Writings) as set of
scriptures following Nebi'iym (the Prophets)
and Torah (Five Books of Moses).

Daniel was supposedly redacted in the 2nd
century BCE. Redaction means it was spun
from already existing writings. Thus there
were written versions of Daniel older than
any of those of Enoch.

Both Daniel and Enoch were found at the
Qumran depository.

Daniel was written in Hebrew except for a
verse or two in Aramaic. The few scraps of
Enoch at Qumran were in Aramaic.

Daniel was for an audience who knew Hebrew
and were just beginning to make Aramaic their
vernacular. Enoch was for an audience whose
everyday language was Aramaic.

Knowing when Judahites/Judeans took on Aramaic
as their spoken non-sacred language tells us
which book precedes the other. It also hints
of the relative spiritual value of each book.

Anyway both Daniel and pseudo-Enoch both use
wool as a simile for the Ancient of Days' hair.
Does anyone doubt what is meant by wooly hair
or why the Greek word ulitrichous was once the
anthropological term descibing the hair of the
majority of African peoples and the peoples
former anhtropologists labeled Negroid and
Negrito (such as the bsae population of Susa)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates
not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.

---

This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.

quote:

---

Enoch never made Judean canon.
Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.

---

It does not invalidate the text.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Originally posted by Afrocentrist

Why don't you ask him what he means?

You might find that his definition of dark asiatic overlaps quite well with the way you call them. The label one places on something espescially, in these discussions where everyone has his own opinions, shouldn't be a big deal. Assuming everyone knows what is meant and as long as it isn't offensive or if there is a good reason not to use it like for exemple ''caucasian features'' and negro.


Kalonji

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
AlTakruri,

That is not how an academic approaches the research. Only a religious zealot would be taken by the word "Pseudipigrapha," a term that was not even in existence at the time of the book's writing.

Prior to the nicean council the Hanowk writings were widely circulated throughout different religious communities. The only reason it is now considered a false writing is because the church established itself as the central authority with power to decree what writings could or could not be canonized.

If you are an academic, you do not discard a piece of literature because some publishing company stamped the word "PSEUDIPIGRAPHA" on the front of the book.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Anyone is free to for themselves research the body
of literature known as the Pseudopigrapha to see
if I erred.

Pseudopigrapha means "false authored writings."
Enoch (which has several editions ranging form
Abyssinian to Slavic) was first put to scroll
or parchment in the 2nd century BCE. The oldest
part of it only goes back another century.

Daniel is a book included in Hebrew canon as
part of Ketubiym (the Writings) as set of
scriptures following Nebi'iym (the Prophets)
and Torah (Five Books of Moses).

Daniel was supposedly redacted in the 2nd
century BCE. Redaction means it was spun
from already existing writings. Thus there
were written versions of Daniel older than
any of those of Enoch.

Both Daniel and Enoch were found at the
Qumran depository.

Daniel was written in Hebrew except for a
verse or two in Aramaic. The few scraps of
Enoch at Qumran were in Aramaic.

Daniel was for an audience who knew Hebrew
and were just beginning to make Aramaic their
vernacular. Enoch was for an audience whose
everyday language was Aramaic.

Knowing when Judahites/Judeans took on Aramaic
as their spoken non-sacred language tells us
which book precedes the other. It also hints
of the relative spiritual value of each book.

Anyway both Daniel and pseudo-Enoch both use
wool as a simile for the Ancient of Days' hair.
Does anyone doubt what is meant by wooly hair
or why the Greek word ulitrichous was once the
anthropological term descibing the hair of the
majority of African peoples and the peoples
former anthropologists labeled Negroid and
Negrito (such as the bsae population of Susa)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates
not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.

---

This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.

quote:

---

Enoch never made Judean canon.
Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.

---

It does not invalidate the text.

---

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
No one has discarded anything. I am ranking the
relative usefulness of Enoch vs Daniel re the
hair of the Ancient of Days. Both use wool
and wooly is a decriptor for nappy/kinky hair.
If color alone was the objective some other
word other than wool would've been used for
hair. When uses wool in a simile applied to
hair one cannot escape conjuring images of
wooly hair to mind.

Late 2nd Temple era and Mishnaic era Jews paid
little if any attention to Enoch which is why
it survived in Christian circles.

When examining Judahite views of themselves
through their writings late Christian copies
or editions of Aramaic texts don't hold a
candle.

In fact it may be the very reason that your
quote from Enoch resembles Greek Revelations
more than Hebrew Daniel i.e., because your
quote is taken from a Christian book of Enoch
not from an Aramaic Enoch used by Qumran or
other Jewish sectarians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
AlTakruri,

That is not how an academic approaches the research. Only a religious zealot would be taken by the word "Pseudipigrapha," a term that was not even in existence at the time of the book's writing.

Prior to the nicean council the Hanowk writings were widely circulated throughout different religious communities. The only reason it is now considered a false writing is because the church established itself as the central authority with power to decree what writings could or could not be canonized.

If you are an academic, you do not discard a piece of literature because some publishing company stamped the word "PSEUDIPIGRAPHA" on the front of the book.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Anyone is free to for themselves research the body
of literature known as the Pseudopigrapha to see
if I erred.

Pseudopigrapha means "false authored writings."
Enoch (which has several editions ranging form
Abyssinian to Slavic) was first put to scroll
or parchment in the 2nd century BCE. The oldest
part of it only goes back another century.

Daniel is a book included in Hebrew canon as
part of Ketubiym (the Writings) as set of
scriptures following Nebi'iym (the Prophets)
and Torah (Five Books of Moses).

Daniel was supposedly redacted in the 2nd
century BCE. Redaction means it was spun
from already existing writings. Thus there
were written versions of Daniel older than
any of those of Enoch.

Both Daniel and Enoch were found at the
Qumran depository.

Daniel was written in Hebrew except for a
verse or two in Aramaic. The few scraps of
Enoch at Qumran were in Aramaic.

Daniel was for an audience who knew Hebrew
and were just beginning to make Aramaic their
vernacular. Enoch was for an audience whose
everyday language was Aramaic.

Knowing when Judahites/Judeans took on Aramaic
as their spoken non-sacred language tells us
which book precedes the other. It also hints
of the relative spiritual value of each book.

Anyway both Daniel and pseudo-Enoch both use
wool as a simile for the Ancient of Days' hair.
Does anyone doubt what is meant by wooly hair
or why the Greek word ulitrichous was once the
anthropological term descibing the hair of the
majority of African peoples and the peoples
former anthropologists labeled Negroid and
Negrito (such as the bsae population of Susa)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Enoch is Pseudopigraphal and thus post-dates
not pre-dates Daniel which is part of Tana"kh.

---

This is incorrect. The writings of Hanowk are survived by the scrolls of Qumran (dead sea scrolls) dating as far back as 200 BC. This also holds true for the book of Daniels, which means both sources of manuscript were in use during the 1st century BC in the Qumran community. Chronologically, Hanowk's writing occurred before Daniel. If you challenge that then you have a problem with the entire collection of hebrew writings. Afterall, the oldest surviving torah is what we have transmitted by the Mesoretes around 8 CE.

quote:

---

Enoch never made Judean canon.
Daniel made Hebrew scriptural canon.

---

It does not invalidate the text.

---

---

---

---

 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
My presentation is scholarly and has teaches a great
methodology.

I'm not going to go round and round forever on this.
If you insist in repeating yourself then I say go for
it tiger.

Since my goal is not to convince but to relay my point
I leave it for the readership to draw their own conclusions
as to whether the simile of wool does not apply to a
people who are depicted by their conquerer Sennacherib
to have wooly hair.
 

---

Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
 
Semitic/hebrew women



I mean come on already!
 

---

Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
 
More semites. you cannot ignore the facts.










 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Recovering Afrocentrist - All of the above are modern-day drawings - NOT the REAL things. What do you mean to indicate with them?
 

---

Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
 
Please sir indicate which ones are modern day drawings and provide the evidence to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Recovering Afrocentrist - All of the above are modern-day drawings - NOT the REAL things. What do you mean to indicate with them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

But before we can do this, we have to evaluate how valuable textual and artificial evidence are

I think we should also make a distinction about what it exactly is that we're discussing
1.Jesus's affinity with tropical Africans
2.The Lachis affinity with tropical Africans
3.The Hebrew affinity with tropical Africans

Because 1 can have tropical affinities without a need for 2 and 3 to have tropical affinities
2 can have tropical affinities without the need for 1 and 2 to have those traits
The exact same thing can be said about 3
If one says that 1 2 AND 3 have tropical affinities, just stating evidence for one of the three will not be enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Listen fool, I embrace my blackness. I am as black as they come. You see, I have a problem with people who distort truth, just so they can sell a group a false sense of pride of self. I despise it with a passion. Why? because the belief in romanticizing a false past just to excuse and justify not being responsible has held back the progress of Black folk. Black folk are stagnate partly because of the pseudo history they are fed. You Afronuts on the board are enablers to the destruction of African Americans.

If Afronut slayer is black I am a purple martian, he has tried to establish himself as black so that he can have credibility and an anchor in this discussion he has rightly interpreted that otherwise we would just label him as what he is a white bigot jolted into insecurity by the idea of a black civilization. Many Eurocentrics attempt the same maneuver and like most Whites they forget one key premise of White and Black cultural exchanges in America. The premise is that "We know you but you do not know us" So always remember

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman:
Afronutslayer says,

''This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule.''

That portion of your dark African ''blood'' is eating you alive. Face it kid you will never be all the way white. It's too late for you. See your mommy and daddy about this one. You run so fast you can't help but run into objects along the way. White folks don't want you, some black folks don't either. Tis a pity to be struggling in never, never land ain't it. Tis a pity to not be able to recognize yourself ain't it. It's also a pity to know you have demons and don't know how to confront them. They eatin' you up boy.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Listen fool, I embrace my blackness. I am as black as they come. You see, I have a problem with people who distort truth, just so they can sell a group a false sense of pride of self. I despise it with a passion. Why? because the belief in romanticizing a false past just to excuse and justify not being responsible has held back the progress of Black folk. Black folk are stagnate partly because of the pseudo history they are fed. You Afronuts on the board are enablers to the destruction of African Americans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman:
Afronutslayer says,

''This is typical of Afronuts who hold on to the unscientific "one drop" rule.''

That portion of your dark African ''blood'' is eating you alive. Face it kid you will never be all the way white. It's too late for you. See your mommy and daddy about this one. You run so fast you can't help but run into objects along the way. White folks don't want you, some black folks don't either. Tis a pity to be struggling in never, never land ain't it. Tis a pity to not be able to recognize yourself ain't it. It's also a pity to know you have demons and don't know how to confront them. They eatin' you up boy.

---

---

Never believe a Eurocentric when He tries to establish himself as Black. He only attempts this so as to anchor some credibility for his racist views. Never and I mean never fall for that attempt. Not only have you fallen for it but you then Alienate one of our own in the process, in this manner he has accomplished a double touche.

Afronut you may fool some but never the initiated in your game there is one premise that you have forgotten in Black, White relations in the states.

"We know you, but you DON'T know us".
 

---

Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
 
How is Havilah in Arabia?



The Nuzi map proves the existence of the 4 rivers chronicled in the “Holy Bible”.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
For the first item, i.e. "number 1", you'd have to rely on just biblical text, unless you have the actual remains of the person in question.

---

quote:

---

Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon

---

quote:

---

many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice.

---

quote:

---

with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by StTigray
Never believe a Eurocentric when He tries to establish himself as Black. He only attempts this so as to anchor some credibility for his racist views. Never and I mean never fall for that attempt. Not only have you fallen for it but you then Alienate one of our own in the process, in this manner he has accomplished a double touche.

Afronut you may fool some but never the initiated in your game there is one premise that you have forgotten in Black, White relations in the states.

"We know you, but you DON'T know us".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

Wouldn't you agree that without these crania that according to Keita, ''classify with Nubians and Egyptians'', Lachish wouldn't cluster with Egyptians at all, or at least severely less?

---

quote:

---

Why then, the Lachish crania is used to prove the tropical affinities the Hebrews had with Africans? If Keita seemingly agrees with:

quote:

---

Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon

---

---

quote:

---

Why is the Lachish crania even used in this discussion?

---

quote:

---

If they were contemporary migrants, why are Egyptian crania (in Lachish) used to make a case for Hebrews having affinities with actual middle nile residents? Doesn't make sense

---

quote:

---

According to Keita

quote:

---

many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice.

---

If I'm right in my interpretation, the Lachish crania supports a non African origin of the people from the Levant because of the following reasons

-Many of the crania in the Lachish cluster with Nubians and upper Egyptians
-Even when juxtaposed against Lachish, they still cluster with middle nile residents (upper Egypt and Nubians)

---

quote:

---

The Nuzi map proves the existence of the 4 rivers chronicled in the “Holy Bible”.

---

quote:

---

How is Havilah in Arabia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

I personally think people like him are needed to keep us in check.

---

quote:

---

do not play these semantic games and you will certainly not find these games played in academia. Afrocentrists love to use the word "Black" (an absolute term without any reference point) because it's a trojan horse to go in and hijack the history and culture. Why not just say "Dark Asiatiques?" We know there were ancient dark Asiatiques as well as light (of course this is relative).

---

This coming from a guy who wanted me to find him a Negro?


Black Asians..
And the people of Sumer did not minced words.. THEY CALLED THEMSELVES SAG-GIG-GA THE BLACK HEADED ONES But do I think the people above that I posted are biologically and culturally Africans??..NO!! other will disagree with me on that,Kolonji we are not of hive mind here we differ..sometimes strongly as you may take note on earlier posts. and if I were a betting man then the Sumerians may looked just like the pic Dana & Mike posted.

 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

The crania that do cluster with those in Egyptian samples, Kerma and Gabonese, should be seen as part of the variation of the Lachish population in question, and not separated. Unless one is suggesting that said crania are not those belonging to the Lachish populace(?). If so, what are specifics on this?

---

quote:

---

Don't know, but presumably to demonstrate that that region was not out of the reach of what some might call "blacks".

---

quote:

---

Not sure such a case is being made here for Hebrews.

---

quote:

---

However, one still needs to discern the relationship between Hebrews and Israelites; are they one and same?

---

quote:

---

More appropriately, it can serve as support for autochthonous Levantine variation that is distinct from that seen in the Nile Valley.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

The crania that do cluster with those in Egyptian samples, Kerma and Gabonese, should be seen as part of the variation of the Lachish population in question, and not separated. Unless one is suggesting that said crania are not those belonging to the Lachish populace(?). If so, what are specifics on this?

---

Doesn't variation implies that a population is capable of displaying traits that one might consider coming from external sources without a genetic input from an external source?

---

quote:

---

How then, is this concept of indigenious variation appyable to the lachish population, if one considers various Egyptian sources mentioning the existence of permanent Egyptian forts and buffers being deployed in that region since the expellng of the Hyksos?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Don't know, but presumably to demonstrate that that region was not out of the reach of what some might call "blacks".

---

Various African peoples have made it into the levant at various times. It is the linkage of any of those people, to the Hebrew population that concerns me. Now that we're talking about it, is there a theory offered in any previous discussions that pinpoints which one and when those migrants might have migrated out of the motherland? The exodus ofcourse not counting because it is argued that the Hebrews were black from the beginning, as visible in quotations of Tacticus and others quotes about Shem

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not sure such a case is being made here for Hebrews.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong
My interpretation of Al Takruri's and other posters standpoints is that they try to use the Lachish depictions as evidence for their claims that according to the bible, Hebrew/Jesus hair was in structure like wool.

---

quote:

---

And in order to support this beliefsystem, they try to use the Lachish crania, which virue of their tropical traits suggests that this populations hair structure was not only like wool, but that they (the hebrews) were also similar to middle nile Africans.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

However, one still needs to discern the relationship between Hebrews and Israelites; are they one and same?

---

I agree there are some distinctions to be made, however, to make sure we're talking about the same things, we should explain what we mean by Hebrew and Isrealites
Israelites can be meant as natives of the country israel, and if one uses this interpretation, Natufians and Canaanites can be included
Israelites can also be meant as the descendants of Israel (Jacob), who is also a Hebrew if one means with that word, a descendant of Eber

---

quote:

---

Why do you think despicable personalities are needed to "keep us in check"; are you suggesting the "us" here agree on everything, such that interjection is needed from elsewhere?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Why do you think despicable personalities are needed to "keep us in check"; are you suggesting the "us" here agree on everything, such that interjection is needed from elsewhere?

---

Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

As seen for example in the 50% 50% devidence in whites and blacks when O.J. was taken to court.
A natural tendency we all have is to try and protect our beliefs even if we know we're wrong.

---

quote:

---

Also the tendency to see the world not for what it is, but filtered trough our beliefs is a quality we all have.

---

quote:

---

The same keeping in check also happens in scientific environments so it may help us too when we get closer to the truth

The human mind just has this tendency and being aware of it can help you

With that being said, the diversity already present here can just like outside influence have this checking effect too.

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

Variation can include both one attributed to gene flow and natural selection/adaptation.

---

quote:

---

Remember, that Lachish crania classified into other crania as well, including the Gabonese sample; should we then infer that there were Gabonese folks amongst them, from this piece of information?

---

quote:

---

So, either an Exodus of some sort took place, explaining the sudden appearance of a socio-ethnic complex such Israelites in the Levant in the historic period, or they had been there all along; what do you figure is the case?

---

quote:

---

I'm the wrong person to be asking this question, since it should be directed to the posters in question, but from what I recalling from reading the exchanges, al Takruri was basing that on biblical linguistic grounds, as opposed to physical anthropological data grounded on skeletal remains.

---

quote:

---

Isrealites would be the folks who were locals of what was the ancient kingdom of Israel.

---

quote:

---

I'm asking if there is or isn't one, to be made between what is Hebrew and what is Israelite.

---

I don't think so. I think that the people who were in place by the time of the stateformation, wheter by conquest and coming from Egypt, or wheter by indigenious people deciding to settle down from a nomadic lifestyle, were the ones who wrote the bible. I haven't heard about other scenario's and I can't think of none either.

I however do suspect there may be a difference (perhaps ethnic, not physical) between the Jericho/canaanite population and the inhabitants of the much later kingdom of Israel. I suspect this because the stories in the bible, whoever wrote them, have all the evidence inbedded in them of the thought processes of a population who either before, or during the process of writing the bible had a nomadic lifestyle. A person of settled population can never, with such detail, describe the stories of the bible without having knowledge of a nomadic lifestyle. Just try to make up a detailed story about being in the desert for 40 years and you find yourself asking yourself all sorts of questions to prevent your story from sounding fake to someone who has lived that lifestyle. Kinda like gangsta rap really,

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
It's funny to me how for everything people say MysterySolver asks for evidence.

It's my opinion..!! nobody has to agree!!
sjeeesh

But no, al joking aside, let me give you an exemple of what I mean

Again, this is just an example, so don't come asking me for evidence MysterySolver..

Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right? But there is no data on their Mtdna, mayb its been updated now, but last time I checked it wasn't

What if lets say, tommorow a study comes out thats says 75% of their Mtdna is non African, would you tell me that is isn't something that would baffle a LOT of people here? Tell me that wouldn't shake things up
Add a littly persuasiveness to the arguments and that could in some peoples minds mean that African diversity isn't as large as previously maintained and that all populations with those kinda features who haven't been sampled yet could have similar frequencies of non african dna (Naqqada and Kerma for exemple) known for a large componant with elongated features.
Now, thats what I mean

Now, afterwards, some people with a more stable, resourcefull frame of mind could come in and still debunk them
But this is what I mean, when people learn to rely on a ruling consensus,
(for exemple the Tutsi having african diversity) They are more or less vulnerable to new research and paradymes
ESPECIALLY if it has been months and you wouldn't have fruitcakes like Dirk8, who've been praying for something like this for christmas. Just picture what would happen, nobody coming in and bringing in this new research

Ofcourse eventually one of the more resourcefull veterans with access to journals would come in evaluate the implications this has

this is what I mean with there is also diversity here that can update new paradymes

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Remember, that Lachish crania classified into other crania as well, including the Gabonese sample; should we then infer that there were Gabonese folks amongst them, from this piece of information?

---

The Gabonese phenotype seen in Lachish crania, in my opinion should be seen as belonging to a subset of middle nile populations. This phenotype has been in Egypt from the beginning as evidenced by Keita saying (of the top):
50% of Badari crania classify in the Gabon series. That they found this phenotype to me, is only logical especially if you take into account what was said earlier by Brada Anansi, that the Egyptian army consisted, more often than not, of darker middle nile populations who could have resembled the Badarians even more than other Egyptian regions, and thus it could easily be argued that they took this phenotype with them.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So, either an Exodus of some sort took place, explaining the sudden appearance of a socio-ethnic complex such Israelites in the Levant in the historic period, or they had been there all along; what do you figure is the case?

---

I've heard archeologists claim before that there is skeletal continuity and that because of this, there couldn't have been any large migration as implied by the humongus proportions of the biblical exodus.

---

quote:

---

The sudden changes in cultural complexes could just as well be explained by the nomadic Hyksos deciding to settle down, after having experienced the benefits of doing so in Egypt. They took a lot of cultural innovations with them when they entered Egypt so there is no doubt in my mind that these Hyksos nomads or other ones who were similar were capable of building what is now the heritage of the ancient kingdom of Israel. They were surrounded by Syria in the north, the Cretans to the east, The Egyptians in the south and the Sumerians in the east, and complexes like Jericho nearby. Whenever it was that the nomad ancestors of the ancient Israelites decided to settle down, they had all the resources these people innovated available to them, including primitive forms of monotheism.

---

quote:

---

Maybe if we gather more information about when the state formation occured exactly, we can pin point better what events or population movements could've sparked the sudden stateformation, and offer other altertives if the biblical exodus appears impossible.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm the wrong person to be asking this question, since it should be directed to the posters in question, but from what I recalling from reading the exchanges, al Takruri was basing that on biblical linguistic grounds, as opposed to physical anthropological data grounded on skeletal remains.

---

I was the one who brought in the skeletal data, because I've seen it used here before. Good lookin' out for that link you posted to that extra info. Sometimes the dots representing populations on plots can make you think they're homogenous. Whenever one takes an average of something like for exemple a population and turns into a simple dot on a plot, the data of the individual crania become invisible. This created the impression that they (Lachish) had few to none middle nile physical traits.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm asking if there is or isn't one, to be made between what is Hebrew and what is Israelite.

---

I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

I think that the people who were in place by the time of the stateformation, wheter by conquest and coming from Egypt, or wheter by indigenious people deciding to settle down from a nomadic lifestyle, were the ones who wrote the bible. I haven't heard about other scenario's and I can't think of none either.

---

quote:

---

I however do suspect there may be a difference (perhaps ethnic, not physical) between the Jericho/canaanite population and the inhabitants of the much later kingdom of Israel. I suspect this because the stories in the bible, whoever wrote them, have all the evidence inbedded in them of the thought processes of a population who either before, or during the process of writing the bible had a nomadic lifestyle. A person of settled population can never, with such detail, describe the stories of the bible without having knowledge of a nomadic lifestyle. Just try to make up a detailed story about being in the desert for 40 years and you find yourself asking yourself all sorts of questions to prevent your story from sounding fake to someone who has lived that lifestyle. Kinda like gangsta rap really,

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

I see contradictions in your position; first it seems that you are insinuating there is some sort of unison in thinking on this board, that we seem to hold some sort of view across the board, which I guess may or may not be scientifically or objectively supported (?), and then, you acknowledge there is indeed diversity of viewpoints; which is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

It's funny to me how for everything people say MysterySolver asks for evidence.

It's my opinion..!! nobody has to agree!!
sjeeesh

---

quote:

---

But no, al joking aside, let me give you an exemple of what I mean

Again, this is just an example, so don't come asking me for evidence MysterySolver..

Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right? But there is no data on their Mtdna, mayb its been updated now, but last time I checked it wasn't

---

quote:

---

What if lets say, tommorow a study comes out thats says 75% of their Mtdna is non African, would you tell me that is isn't something that would baffle a LOT of people here? Tell me that wouldn't shake things up

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

I went back to my post to see if I was contradicting myself and I wasn't:

sim·i·lar (sm-lr)
adj.
1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

Similar doesn't equate identical so one can belief something is similar without excluding variation. Why is this now Similar now all of a sudden equite Identical? Aren't you a supporter of the idea that Crania can be similar but still exibiting variation?

---

quote:

---

And now, all of a sudden when I use it, it means identical? hmm..

---

quote:

---

anyway, I don't even know why I'm defending myself, I know what I meant

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
But there is no data on their Mtdna, mayb its been updated now, but last time I checked it wasn't

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
What if lets say, tommorow a study comes out thats says 75% of their Mtdna is non African, would you tell me that is isn't something that would baffle a LOT of people here? Tell me that wouldn't shake things up

---

...and what happens when what you're saying has already shown to be false? What do you say then?

What happens when the Buba Clan Priestly class carrying Hg J at frequencies of 50% look like the following?


^^Why didn't this turn the Lemba who exhibit haplogroup J at high frequencies into individuals with supposedly non AFRICAN features....pray tell?
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
^Indeed, using Kalonji's rationale, said Hg J-carrying folks should be teeming with so-called "caucasoid" noses and other outdated typified characteristics attached to that label.

Takes me back...

According to our own anthropological examination (data not shown), the non-sub-Saharan haplogroups are not carried by "West Eurasian-like" individuals, as might be anticipated, but were rather detected in common "Fulani type" peoples. - Cerny et al. 2006

...said of Fulani sample.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 


LET US NOT FORGET, THAT CHRISTMAS IS REALLY ABOUT THE BLACK MAN DEPICTED BELOW.

In that vein, Merry Christmas to all.

This wall painting, depicting the Healing of the Paralytic, is the earliest known representation of Jesus, dating from about 235 AD. The painting was found in 1921 on the left-hand wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria. It is now part of the Dura Europos collection at the Yale University Gallery of Fine Arts.

(Kalonji for more info. you would have to contact Yale).




Kalonji - It seems like you are really trying, but your logic is still wanting.

A few things;

1)You seem to be suggesting that a White mans genetic classification has a true real-world meaning.

Except for Y-hg "R" being White, I don't know of any such DNA that is definitively "non-Black".


2)You see to be suggesting that there is a prototypical Black crania.

If so, please tell me what it looks like.


3)You also seem to believe that the Hebrews appeared out of thin air.

They did not, they were Anatolian's who have a history of their own.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Mindovermatter & Mike111

Look at what I've said in the introducing myself thread about features.

quote:

---

Makes sense Congoman,

You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.

Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!

Kalonji

---

I don't want to stay online too long because doing so may come off as rude, but when it's a little later I'll come back and it'll be hammertime. I see there has been some serious misquotations going on

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
 


Incised sarcophagus slab with the Adoration of the Magi from the Catacombs of Rome, 3rd century. Plaster cast with added colour
 

---

Posted by StTigray (Member # 16910) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by StTigray
Never believe a Eurocentric when He tries to establish himself as Black. He only attempts this so as to anchor some credibility for his racist views. Never and I mean never fall for that attempt. Not only have you fallen for it but you then Alienate one of our own in the process, in this manner he has accomplished a double touche.

Afronut you may fool some but never the initiated in your game there is one premise that you have forgotten in Black, White relations in the states.

"We know you, but you DON'T know us".

---

If you're talking about me, I wasn't convinced about him being African at all. Neither do I think it is important, as Djehutyhotep and King (if I'm right) aren't African neither. Even if he is white and racist, he can still have a good argument. I personally think people like him are needed to keep us in check.

They are quite useful actually
Whenever new research is being done they come here and try to ''debunk'' the ruling consensus here. Then (like you all usually do) you all kick their buts, so everyone, including those who aren't registered know about, and are constantly updated with their most recent venom and the subsequent butkicking provided here.

And that is why I am here, to learn more, aren't you? If you are, don't get swayed from your original goal, why you were here in the first place, which I hope, is to seek knowlegde.

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

@Mindovermatter & Mike111

Look at what I've said in the introducing myself thread about features.

quote:

---

Makes sense Congoman,

You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.

Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!

Kalonji

---

I don't want to stay online too long because doing so may come off as rude, but when it's a little later I'll come back and it'll be hammertime. I see there has been some serious misquotations going on

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by StTigray:

Kalonji

Yeah I do agree with you I think the presence of those like Afronut Slayer are a much needed inconvenience

Ive read your post on this thread and others and I agree with your view points, My main concern is that in recovering our history that we dont fall into the same sin that the whites perpetrated on us and that is claiming everything under the sun as our invention. BTW I am not talking about this thread.

---

quote:

---

just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

in which case, your rationale for the need for disruptive elements of the board to keep the rest "in check" has no logical basis to it. You may well find it funny, but it is from this premise that I questioned you, and all can see why it was worth it.

---

quote:

---

Crania taken as a collective can project certain "trends", but this doesn't imply that all individual crania will necessarily be similar to one another or at all levels. Crania examines "physical relationship" and in some cases, arguments have been made for "genealogical" inference from elements of cranium. I fail to see how that applies to *viewpoints* of people socializing in discussion board.

---

quote:

---

I fail to see how that applies to *viewpoints* of people socializing in discussion board.

---

quote:

---

Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical.

---

quote:

---

Ho do you propose people to have "similar beliefs" if there are variations in those beliefs? If there are variations, how do you explain that they "think in similar ways", and that "they more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?

---

quote:

---

sim•i•lar (sm-lr)
adj.
1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

---

quote:

---

By the use of the word "belief", you seem to be insinuating that viewpoints here are necessarily open to objectively unsubstantiated subjective opinionation, like say... your "opinions" of the nature of the range of viewpoints on the board?

---

quote:

---

be•lief
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

---

It hasn’t even occurred to you, that not only opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, but also facts, as a fact can also be believed. You seems to believe (fact by the way) that a belief is somehow of a lower quality than a fact.

quote:

---

Ps - How do you know the individuals who post here are "semi-isolated", on the account that they are posting here? This is the internet; people are known for posting in multiple social networks; I know, because I'm one of them, even in ones where I think my viewpoints may find hostile reception.

---

quote:

---

Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"? New material is posted here all the time that differs from the last, and they are critiqued all the same. Not everyone is going to be on the same page all the time. Some are more rigid in their thinking, others not so; some are quicker in learning, other's not so. So, again, unless put forward, I have seen no evidence to suggest that everyone agrees to some sort of "belief system", that I guess is not grounded on objective material backing(?)

---

quote:

---

People who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?

---

quote:

---

Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

to overcome the doubts of; persuade by argument or evidence; make feel sure
Again, does being convinced of something make us inflexible or flexible?

---

quote:

---

What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?

---

quote:

---

Notice, it is always certain *newbies* who keep helplessly crying to others about the urge for the entertaining of deceitful disruptive personalities; why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I’m saying that according to what anthropology teaches us, it isn’t impossible,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
yet three of you responded like it was impossible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
but it still confirms my opinion that:

quote:
people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

Are you implying that I or others on this board do not understand what anthropology "teaches us", if not then what are you saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

Right now...? Slow down, how about right now you provide evidence to suggest that any features associated with the elongated phenotype (Hiernaux) is non African in origin in the first place, can you?

---

quote:

---

You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.

Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?

---

quote:

---

Kalonji,

When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked.

---

quote:

---

If thinking in "similar ways", analyzing the available scientific data and coming to the most logical conclusion is leaving "us" more vulnerable then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?

---

Questions
1.Are you suggesting ANY scientific paper is in anyway absolute in its findings and unable to be refined?
2.Are you suggesting you're above such a new finding if that finding appears legit and above changing your current beliefs?

If the answer is yes to the above, then why are you maintaining that my original statement about the tendency of people who belief in something, whatever it is, can make them vulnerable, to new paradymes and research is false, and means I have ‘’screws loose’’ in my head?

If your answer to my two questions is yes, your understanding of science DOES seem to make you inflexible and vulnerable because you seem to be suggesting that current findings and what currently seems the most logical is the absolute truth.

By the way, if you continue your animosity towars me I will stop responding to you because as I have said before, I am here to learn. I could've just as easily respond back with similar name callings but I didn't because there is absolutly no reason to

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Kalonji..and I hesitate to respond for fear of looking like folks are ganging up on you but,pick any post Between Mike and Djhuti,Minder-over and Dr.Winters,myself and mike,the list goes on in any different combinations,DJ vs Bogle sometimes it's down right bloody..let's not forget some of the most veteran posters slug-fest,when someone post new info for sure..folks might be skeptical and begin picking away at but if the science is weighty they get over it example the Ba-lemba genitics...what tends to unite folks around here is random trolls with racist agenda..but funny enough not what to do about them..I commented before on an old post that trying to get people to make a unified stance against trolls or move to a new site..was like herding cats...
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
Brada-Anansi & King

Let us examine my original statement and see how my original statement is NOT in conflict/incompatible with what you're saying. This, I've tried to explain earlier but for some reason, no one seems to pick up on this

lets say on topic x

People like Mike111, Clyde may agree
People like Explorer, Knowledgeiskey may not agree

Lets say on topic y people cluster differently

People like Mike111, Explorer, agree
People like Knowledgeiskey, clyde disagree

How can this in any way, shape or form be incompitable with my original statement:

Just saying that people who have similar beliefs (for example any of the two clusters) and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

Isn't the statement ''people who have similar beliefs'' the equivalent of any of the two x/y clusters, whether or a cluster can also sometimes include everyone like on the topic of the ancient Egyptians and thus fully compatible with the idea that
-People who on one topic cluster may not cluster on another
-Isn't it so that ''new research and paradymes'' could be in the hands of any of the two clusters present on this forum, just as well as tools like Dirk8?

Kalonji
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

Explorer, you wanted evidence of my following statement?

---

quote:

---

Just notice:
1.Notice how Brada Anansi and you both had the same argument when I said the above.

---

quote:

---

2.AGAIN notice that when I post an example and state CLEARLY state I’m just using an example, by no means to be taken as something that I believe, AGAIN Knowledgeiskey, Mike111 and you all respond in the same manner and with similar content and arguments

---

quote:

---

3.Notice how you (Explorer) argued a couple of arguments before that not only evolution, but also geneflow can alter variation/heterogeneity and thus produce an altered phenotype. Why did the three of you act like it is impossible that non African geneflow could have caused Africsn elongated features ALONG with evolution?

---

quote:

---

4.Notice how StTigray who is hasn’t been here too long agrees with me...

---

quote:

---

I’m NOT saying Tutsi features actually were produced by this, not at all.

---

quote:

---

All opinions don’t have to be based on facts, are you serious?

---

quote:

---

It just totally went over your head that I mentioned that this ‘’checking’’ can also be done by the people of this forum, like for example Evergreen who not only keeps us updated about the pro African papers, but also the con African papers as he has done several times, most recently with the Fulani paper.

---

quote:

---

One could easily see that my definition of checking in this context I provided overlaps with and could also be interpreted as ‘’updating conflicting information’’.

---

quote:

---

AGAIN you try to claim for the second time, that I by saying similar mean that something is Identical. First you do this when I’m talking about similar beliefs, and now you do it AGAIN when I give an example to demonstrate that you of all people should know that something (read the words) can be SIMILAR while still displaying variation.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

By the use of the word "belief", you seem to be insinuating that viewpoints here are necessarily open to objectively unsubstantiated subjective opinionation, like say... your "opinions" of the nature of the range of viewpoints on the board?

---

Even more trying to come of smart while really showing you have a hard time grasping the full meaning behind my choice of words. First you fail to understand the meaning of similar, and now you’re implying that, by calling the viewpoints expressed here on this forum BELIEFS, I am somehow reducing their objectiveness per se.

quote:

---

be•lief


Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

---

It hasn’t even occurred to you, that not only opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, but also facts, as a fact can also be believed. You seems to believe (fact by the way) that a belief is somehow of a lower quality than a fact.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ps - How do you know the individuals who post here are "semi-isolated", on the account that they are posting here? This is the internet; people are known for posting in multiple social networks; I know, because I'm one of them, even in ones where I think my viewpoints may find hostile reception.

---

Why didn’t you quote me? You didn’t quote me because you can’t find me saying that individuals who post here are isolated. This is what I said.

quote:

---

Nope, just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

---

quote:

---

I said the location is isolated.

You may, or may not agree with me but don’t put words in my mouth.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"? New material is posted here all the time that differs from the last, and they are critiqued all the same. Not everyone is going to be on the same page all the time. Some are more rigid in their thinking, others not so; some are quicker in learning, other's not so. So, again, unless put forward, I have seen no evidence to suggest that everyone agrees to some sort of "belief system", that I guess is not grounded on objective material backing(?)

---

When you ask me a question about something I’ve said previously, you need to fully articulate what is said, so there is no confusion when people who might not have read my original statement, read your question.


My original statement

quote:

---

People who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

YOUR reconstructed question

quote:

---

What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?

---

-I did not say that people are inflexible as that would imply there is something wrong with them.

---

quote:

---

If you reconstruct my statement and feed it back in a question, quote me right, so people don’t get the wrong idea, especially since:

-You also changed my statement from people in general, to people from this forum, If you read my statement, it’s clear I’m not saying members of Egyptsearch are inflexible and invulnerable, so quote me well. A wrong quote like that could linger in people’s minds for months while I didn’t even say it

---

quote:

---

Can you now see what’s wrong with how Explorer formulates the question? Let me repeat it real quick

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What makes you think that people here are vulnerable and "inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?

---

Now the people on this forum don’t have to wonder whether I accused them of being inflexible because there is something wrong with them, as your reconstructed sentence might invoke in the readers mind. The invulnerable and inflexible part needs to be seen as: in regard with the human mind. Now, whether you agree with this or not it doesn’t matter, we can agree to disagree, you already know by now I didn’t say this out of thin air, I’ve given a explanation above on why I think beliefs can make people both inflexible and vulnerable

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Notice, it is always certain *newbies* who keep helplessly crying to others about the urge for the entertaining of deceitful disruptive personalities; why?

---

Notice, STtigray he unknowingly partly agreeing with me as he might be implying that there are some differences in thought patterns between people who are new/foreign and people who have been here a long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

Are you implying that I or others on this board do not understand what anthropology "teaches us", if not then what are you saying?

---

Give YOU examples for YOUR interpretation of my text?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Notice that you said earlier:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

Right now...? Slow down, how about right now you provide evidence to suggest that any features associated with the elongated phenotype (Hiernaux) is non African in origin in the first place, can you?

---

In response I told you what I've said earlier about features:

quote:

---

You know, sometimes I wonder how antropology would've looked differently if Africans were the ones who started the discipline. Elongated features would've been ascribed to africans, M, and E would have been African from the start. Afro Asiatic would have been given an African name, etc etc.

Just to think so called ''European'' features started to pop up in the mesolithic era, while elongated features were present in Africa twice as long before that. The audacity!!!

Kalonji

---

You were accusing me of believing elongated features are non-african just because I posted an example of what could happen. Instead of saying you was wrong in accusing me for saying elongated African features are non African you continues this animosity towards me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Notice:

quote:

---

then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?

---

Then notice something Afronut slayer said when I asked him why he was asking why he came at Al Takruri like he did.

quote:

---

Kalonji,

When I first came to this board, I came as a lamb. I really wanted to share knowledge with people I felt were going off. But I was viciously attacked.

---

Again, I don’t know how he came in this forum but you seem to be proving him right, by the way you talk to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Let me ask you a few questions about your understanding of anthopology and science in general. You said

quote:

---

If thinking in "similar ways", analyzing the available scientific data and coming to the most logical conclusion is leaving "us" more vulnerable then you must have a few screws loose in that head of yours, don't ya think?

---

Questions
1.Are you suggesting ANY scientific paper is in anyway absolute in its findings and unable to be refined?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
2.Are you suggesting you're above such a new finding if that finding appears legit and above changing your current beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
If the answer is yes to the above, then why are you maintaining that my original statement about the tendency of people who belief in something, whatever it is, can make them vulnerable, to new paradymes and research is false, and means I have ‘’screws loose’’ in my head?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
If your answer to my two questions is yes, your understanding of science DOES seem to make you inflexible and vulnerable because you seem to be suggesting that current findings and what currently seems the most logical is the absolute truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Explorer
This is your evidence that everyone on the board agrees with everything all the time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji
Notice how StTigray who is hasn’t been here too long agrees with me..

---

quote:

---

just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

quote:

---

Surely, you have something more solid, and that you were basing your unsubstantiated opinionated personal feelings on prior to people calling you out for said unsubstantiated claims, which you now run off with as "evidence" for your material-free personal feelings.

---

quote:

---

Tell me what is similar about the content of my follow up to your "example", to that of MikeIII and MindoverMatter. That aside, I know that MindoverMatter and I agreed with one another that your "example" was predicated on *underlying* assumption that was flawed; the onus is on you to show that is in fact not the case.

---

quote:

---

In order for you to show that "elongated features" is caused by "non-African" gene flow, you'll have to first establish that so-called "elongated features" is non-African to begin with. Can you?

---

quote:

---

If not, then it doesn't matter if ten, a thousand, or even a population of us call you out on the apparent flaw of your personal opinionated feelings; such undertaking would be warranted and grounded on objective thinking, which is why there is agreement in this case between the parties calling you out.

---

quote:

---

Or are you proposing that people shouldn't call you out, on the account of your accusing them of agreeing [rightfully so, unless proven by you otherwise] with one another

---

quote:

---

Should we then interpret this in the sense that you both "share similar dogma", that both of you are "therefore vulnerable to being inflexible to any findings that may obliterate your rigidly-held sectarian dogma", and therefore, both of you require deceitful disruptive personalities to keep "you in check"? LOL.

---

quote:

---

And we need deceitful, bigoted and reactionary elements to "update" everyone else? Aren't those very characteristics the anti-thesis of progress? If we have folks like Evergreen, as you put forth, posting new publications that come out, is this not then indicative of the normal operation of the board?

---

quote:

---

And I will ask you again: Elaborate on how you deem the people here have "similar beliefs", such that they are "vulnerable to being inflexible to any new discoveries and paradymes", to the point that deceitful reactionary personalities are necessary to keep the rest "in check". That is a rather serious charge you are making there.

---

quote:

---

What do you understand by similar "belief", because to me, that term is insinuating that there is unison in dogma that is not grounded on objective thinking, but to the whim or satisfaction of individual members' subjective personal feelings.

---

quote:

---

People who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways

---

quote:

---

With that being said, the diversity already present here can just like outside influence have this checking effect too.

---

quote:

---

I see contradictions in your position;

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

first it seems that you are insinuating there is some sort of unison in thinking on this board, that we seem to hold some sort of view across the board, which I guess may or may not be scientifically or objectively supported (?), and then, you acknowledge there is indeed diversity of viewpoints

---

quote:

---

It hasn’t even occurred to you, that not only opinions belong to the domain of beliefs, but also facts, as a fact can also be believed. You seems to believe (fact by the way) that a belief is somehow of a lower quality than a fact.

---

quote:

---

Not so fast buddy. You used the words in a particular context, that together project a certain impression to me, as noted above again. You are being asked to clarify it. Or are you having trouble grasping what the concept of "clarifying" means?

---

---

quote:

---

Just saying that people who have similar beliefs (for example any of the two clusters) and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

---

Explorer, from what part of this statement, do you extract an underlying insinuation that beliefs of people are opinion based per se? If these believes were in majority opinion based, they wouldn’t need changes in discoveries and paradymes to be debunked in the first place as we would have you, the ultimate evidence man .

quote:

---

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

---

quote:

---

Not so fast buddy. You used the words in a particular context, that together project a certain impression to me

---

quote:

---

Is this not a forum? Was this not your follow up to a question made of a comment you made about this board needing disruptive characters like Dirk, Afroslaynut, etc? Should this therefore not be understood as applying to this board? Who make up a forum; is it not individuals? If you are not implying that the very individuals who make up the social component of the forum are "semi-isolated", then what else would you be referring to; an empty forum--which btw--also happens to "think" [as you have used that word too]?

---

quote:

---

You can't even read what you just cited, and you are lecturing me on properly citing you? LOL.

---

Lol, my bad, what’s the count though? 1-10?

quote:

---

So, your comment was tacitly "including" this forum as the subject matter; for your sake, it would have to be the case, unless you are some off-tangent ranting lunatic. Furthermore, you did mention, "who operate in semi isolated places like forums";

---

quote:

---

Why would you say that, unless you are implying that the "social components"--meaning the individual posters of the board--are by extension, "isolated"? Should this be the case either way, your reasoning belies logic. This is the INTERNET. How does one stay "isolated" in the internet? Do you know how the internet works?

---

quote:

---

I'm beginning to think that reading is not your strong suit. I did write "certain" newbies, which greatly contrasts your blanket baseless statement.

---

quote:

---

greatly contrasts your blanket baseless statement.

---

quote:

---

From what I can discern, and I could be wrong here [I will not deny the possibility of that on this occasion], the longstanding posters [including myself] here do not see the need for disruptive deceitful reactionary clowns to "keep us in check", as if we need deceitful people to tell us what is presumably accurate, LOL. The logic of that notion itself makes me laugh.

---

quote:

---

then shoot away...I'm all ears?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
What makes you think that I or others say it was impossible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
What makes you think that I or others say it was impossible and wouldn't you be suggesting that we don't understand what anthropology teaches us but you do if as you say we think it's impossible, while you say it's possible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
My current "beliefs" come from analyzing available scientific data and coming to the best conclusion, if I do so, how would a new study totally overturn my view if my view is the consensus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
I said we analyze available scientific data and come to the most logical conclusion, when you do this your views don't become refined but enhanced as the future scientific data will most likely concur with an add more evidence on top of past discoveries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
My current "beliefs" come from analyzing available scientific data and coming to the best conclusion, if I do so, how would a new study totally overturn my view if my view is the consensus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
No, actually, the way you said "Right now, there is no evidence for a non african origin of nose and other elongated features in Tutsi's right?"
Notice how you specifically mentioned the Tutsis as if there is evidence for elongated features in other Africans but not the Tutsis understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
Which prompted me to ask you what evidence is there to suggest that any population in Africa with elongated features were due to a non African origin in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by knowledgeiskey:
Because as noted above you made a generalizing sweeping statement that "us" would be vulnerable, I say how so if not all of are on the same page and a lot of "us" take time to scrutinize the available data with an unbiased approach?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
Afronuts never tire in their ability to display utter ignorance and lack of education. Many Afronuts appeal to scriptures like Rev1.14 to claim Jesus had wooly hair, thus was an African Negro. Well... Let us see what the bible passage says:


Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;


Of course to a semi-literate the verse appears to say Christ had wooly hair. However, the fact is that that is NOT what it is saying. Look again:

[...] hairs were white like wool.

This statement does not even require critical reading to understand it. The verse does not say "hairs were like wool." It says, "hairs were WHITE like wool." The author is comparing the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool. Obviously at that time wool was used as a metaphor to symbolize whiteness/purity, hence the comparison of the whiteness of Christ' hair to wool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
This quote

quote:

---

Rev 1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;

---

is a knock off of Daniel 7:9. but before examining
the Hebrew a careful analysis of even the English
version of the Revelations quote show two similes
given for the hair:
1 - wool
2 - snow.

If just the color of whiteness were all that it refers
to then snow would have been sufficient alone. By
using wool the writer intentionally invokes not just
color but texture. There's no hair the texture of snow.
There is hair the texture of lamb's wool. At its best
snow can only reiterate the whiteness of lamb's wool.


Now Daniel 7:9 has

quote:

---

I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire.

---

Notice white snow is in reference to garments whereas
the hair is simply "pure wool." The Revelations writer,
a Greek, didn't remain true to the Hebrew original. He
botched up by leaving out the garment and substituting
hair for the garment.

See, he used two similes for one item, both wool
and snow for the hair alone. Quite unnecessary.
Lamb's wool is white and, well, it's wooly.

The Hebrew writer sensibly uses two similes for
two items. Snow for garments and wool for hair.
Wool is perfect for an old man's grey nappy hair.

Maybe if the Greek hadn't reversed the order of
snow and wool he would've got himself on target.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I'm completely neutral in this as I see evidence for both sides in this discussion. Because I want to learn more about this discussion I want to know what Al Takruri, Astenb and other people who believe in a largly black/dark skinned makeup of the hebrews.

quote:

---

Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.

Jeremiah 13:23

---

quote:

---

"I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of kedar as the
curtains of Solomon."

Song of Solomon 1:5

---

In my opinion, these passages imply that they had a markedly different skin color than the Hebrews. In the first exemple because they seem to use Africans as an exemple for darkness, which is weird if they themselves were black or dark skinned.

The second quote to me demonstrated that there may have been a tendency to look down on people with a dark skin tone. Or the person who wrote it might have felt that way. Why would there be a need to feel that way if females of Judah had the same or a slightly lighter colouring?

If the judah had brown skinned people, they probably had black skinned people too because no population has 100% the same colour. Why wouldn't she/he blend in nicely with the darker skinned people?
Another question is why would it be needed to give an exemple of an external source like a black tent somewhere in Arabia, if the majority of the Hebrew population was dark skinned like Africans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:
^ My opinion: I think when they said "Cushite" they meant THESE cushites:


Biblical Cush is usually in reference to Sudan. Some Sudanese being VERY dark skinned can be "markedly different" from other Africans while Both Africans being "Black".

See the Egyptian stereotype as an example:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

His head is purest gold; his hair is wavy and black as a raven. Song of Solomon 5:11

---

You mean this?

Kalonji

---

quote:

---

Yep, Revelations says "White like wool" and Daniel says "Pure like wool" which means white and pure means the same thing. I don't know why black people want Christ to have hair like a nappy African. I think Christ had good hair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
kalonji,

The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;

ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Betto Boo Boo

quote:

---

Yep, Revelations says "White like wool" and Daniel says "Pure like wool" which means white and pure means the same thing. I don't know why black people want Christ to have hair like a nappy African. I think Christ had good hair.

---

So a man of Semitic speaking back ground living in the Lavant at the age of about 30 or so during Roman rule had white hair. not impossible but highly unlikely

And what the hell is good hair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Amos 9:7

quote:

---

Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?

---

and

Isaiah 43:3

quote:

---

For I am the LORD thy God, The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour; I have given Egypt as thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

---

show that that only certain black nations were
worth the same as Israel in their own self-view.

A ransom is valuable not worthless.
The ransom is equal to the ransomed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
Well, I'll have to take it that your opinion is not grounded on fact, in which case, your rationale for the need for disruptive elements of the board to keep the rest "in check" has no logical basis to it.

---

quote:

---

I don't know why black people want Christ to have hair like a nappy African. I think Christ had good hair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

Doesn't the de-generalising statement: tend, coupled with the word similar, should even in your interpretation of my sentence which is that similar beliefs refers to this forum in its entirity, give enough room for diversity.

Especially when you note that even in this interpretation of yours, of my original sentence, you can't even deny that opinions in this forum with regards to the Africanity of AFRICANS, whether the topic is Tutsi, Egyptians, Fulani, Ethiopians, Somalians, Nubians, etc is not very Heterogenous if one excludes the likes Dirk8

The disagreements of the people ''in situ'' typically occur when the discussion is about populations outside of Africa
-Hebrews
-Olmecs
-Europians

etc

Deny that

Kalonji

---

These futile damage control excuses just have the inadvertent [on your part] accumulative effect of bringing out more deficits about you; for instance, you come out looking like you don't even understand what you YOURSELF writes. Picking one or a few words out of your comment, will not change the context of your comment, as cited unedited [by me]. It is clear to anyone who can read the letters a,b,c. It is not a matter of just charging folks with "similar beliefs" and "thinking alike", which in any case only further underlies your newbie status and lack of proper research, but you imply a "biased community", which is not driven by objective principals, and hence, their "inflexibility" to "sudden changes" in discoveries. Just to demonstrate the futility of your post, factually-- i.e. contrary to your opinionated personal feelings, disagreements occur on topics involving Africans as well, not just non-African entities as you dichotomize. In fact, an example of it is happening as we speak on the Egytology section; check out Charlie's thread. Bow out gracefully, while you can.

As for anguished piece of shyt, do me this favor: go clean out the sewer from yo mama's torn up ho pussy, and relax on the constant pimping after penis. You are irrelevant here.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
^ LOL jew b!tch you always fall for it!

BTW go clean out Dawidowtiz secondary sourced p!ssy you fell into. LOL
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
coalburner queen, I'll never fall for yo mama's overused nasty ****.hole. I guarantee you.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Go clean out that Jewess' secondary sourced p!ssy NOW b.tch!



 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
The good old days: anguished heap of shyt, getting a good plugging session...



...a bygone era! [Hence, the hysterical pimping after alpha males like The Explorer everywhere on ES.]

A sad story. Check it out from your nearest Blockbuster. LOL.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucy Dawidowicz:
Hey Ausarian, come back into my big secondary sourced p!ssy you fell into a while back.

---

LOL!
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
Alright, anguished heap of shyt, you win...i.e. making a fool out of ourselves. Let's get back on-topic, which also means you staying IRRELEVANT as ever.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
The only one who made a fool of himself is the Jewboy who fell into the p!ssy below. LOL



 

---

Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
 
The term ruddy is from the hebrew "admoni" and it means red (prime root - alef, dalet, mem) in color.

You can find the description of the three sons of Noah in the book of Hanowk 87-89 chp. (depending on which version you have).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
kalonji,

The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;

ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.

---

What scripture or passage this is written. I can't find anything describing Ham descendants as black; Shem descendants as some "ruddy" color whatever that is. I thought Ruddy meant manly or masculine...more like vigor or strong and healthy; Ruddy in the scripture is not being 'red' or red in color since no one is red or like red. If ruddy is indeed "red" then that means when the scriptures describes anyone or anything as 'ruddy' it is actually speaking of the color RED. And where is yafet written as being white or white-like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Good hair is anything that isn't nappy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
The term ruddy is from the hebrew "admoni" and it means red (prime root - alef, dalet, mem) in color.

You can find the description of the three sons of Noah in the book of Hanowk 87-89 chp. (depending on which version you have).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
kalonji,

The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;

ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.

---

What scripture or passage this is written. I can't find anything describing Ham descendants as black; Shem descendants as some "ruddy" color whatever that is. I thought Ruddy meant manly or masculine...more like vigor or strong and healthy; Ruddy in the scripture is not being 'red' or red in color since no one is red or like red. If ruddy is indeed "red" then that means when the scriptures describes anyone or anything as 'ruddy' it is actually speaking of the color RED. And where is yafet written as being white or white-like?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
NONSENSE fvck face. The word "ruddy" means strong and masculine or vigor. There is no one RED in color so the bible is not speaking of some red being. The bible describes Solomon as both White and Ruddy so are you going to make the argument that he was both white in color as well as red? There are no RED humans you fvcking idiot. The bible does not describe any color of Noah sons or Noah himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
Listen you white skank hoe! You are no different from the Afronutties. You want to white wash fvcking history. Ruddy (tawny or reddish brown complexion), as taken from an official dictionary site, is defined as follows:

rud⋅dy  /ˈrʌdi/ adjective, -di⋅er, -di⋅est, adverb
Use ruddy –adjective 1. of or having a fresh, healthy red color: a ruddy complexion.
2. red or reddish.
3. British Slang. damned: a ruddy fool.


You white racist piece of ****. Take your sorry skaliwag ass back to stormfront!


Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ruddy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
NONSENSE fvck face. The word "ruddy" means strong and masculine or vigor. There is no one RED in color so the bible is not speaking of some red being. The bible describes Solomon as both White and Ruddy so are you going to make the argument that he was both white in color as well as red? There are no RED humans you fvcking idiot. The bible does not describe any color of Noah sons or Noah himself.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
The term ruddy is from the hebrew "admoni" and it means red (prime root - alef, dalet, mem) in color.

You can find the description of the three sons of Noah in the book of Hanowk 87-89 chp. (depending on which version you have).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
kalonji,

The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;

ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.

---

What scripture or passage this is written. I can't find anything describing Ham descendants as black; Shem descendants as some "ruddy" color whatever that is. I thought Ruddy meant manly or masculine...more like vigor or strong and healthy; Ruddy in the scripture is not being 'red' or red in color since no one is red or like red. If ruddy is indeed "red" then that means when the scriptures describes anyone or anything as 'ruddy' it is actually speaking of the color RED. And where is yafet written as being white or white-like?

---

---

Sorry - but Hebrew was a Canaanite dialect and it was probably related to the word Adam or Ahh-dahhm meaning from the black earth or dark mud in semitic dialects.
Unfortunately for you early Semites were black and not inclined to referencing European related people. Most semitic dialects are located in the Horn of Africa.

The Idumaeans (Dumah) and Phoenicians i.e. Canaanites, for example, were and are the same people according to Strabo and Diodorus. They live along the coast of Arabia, including in their Eritraean Sea homeland.
 

---

Posted by facts (Member # 19596) on :
 
Adamah (land) derived from three stem root - Alef, dalet, mem; adam - ruddy, reddish. The word Adamah came to be to represent the reddish stone and clay of the city, Petra, the land of Edom (Idumea).

Petra

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

Sorry - but Hebrew was a Canaanite dialect and it was probably related to the word Adam or Ahh-dahhm meaning from the black earth or dark mud in semitic dialects.
Unfortunately for you early Semites were black and not inclined to referencing European related people. Most semitic dialects are located in the Horn of Africa.

The Idumaeans (Dumah) and Phoenicians i.e. Canaanites, for example, were and are the same people according to Strabo and Diodorus. They live along the coast of Arabia, including in their Eritraean Sea homeland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
Can you show the Hebraic word. And the passage you are referring at?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by facts:
Passage:

Hanowk 88.13 "One of the three cows was white, resembling that cow; one of them was red as blood; and one of them was black. And the white cow left them."

Hebrew word: Adomni (red).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
Can you show the Hebraic word. And the passage you are referring at?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist:
The term ruddy is from the hebrew "admoni" and it means red (prime root - alef, dalet, mem) in color.

You can find the description of the three sons of Noah in the book of Hanowk 87-89 chp. (depending on which version you have).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afronut Slayer:
kalonji,

The matter of skin color of the hebrews is cleared up in the writing of Hanowk (Enoch). He used three colors to describe the sons of Noah;

ham = black, shem = ruddy, and yafet = white.

---

What scripture or passage this is written. I can't find anything describing Ham descendants as black; Shem descendants as some "ruddy" color whatever that is. I thought Ruddy meant manly or masculine...more like vigor or strong and healthy; Ruddy in the scripture is not being 'red' or red in color since no one is red or like red. If ruddy is indeed "red" then that means when the scriptures describes anyone or anything as 'ruddy' it is actually speaking of the color RED. And where is yafet written as being white or white-like?

---

---

Sorry - but Hebrew was a Canaanite dialect and it was probably related to the word Adam or Ahh-dahhm meaning from the black earth or dark mud in semitic dialects.
Unfortunately for you early Semites were black and not inclined to referencing European related people. Most semitic dialects are located in the Horn of Africa.

The Idumaeans (Dumah) and Phoenicians i.e. Canaanites, for example, were and are the same people according to Strabo and Diodorus. They live along the coast of Arabia, including in their Eritraean Sea homeland.

---

Sure you've heard of the holy blood clot.


From Atom to Adam.








Have fun with this racist bigot cry me a river AshkeNazi.
 

---

Posted by brick (Member # 20331) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji(Swenet):

quote:

---

sim·i·lar (sm-lr)
adj.
1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

Similar doesn't equate identical so one can belief something is similar without excluding variation. Why is this now Similar now all of a sudden equite Identical? Aren't you a supporter of the idea that Crania can be similar but still exibiting variation? And now, all of a sudden when I use it, it means identical? hmm..


Kalonji

---

Egyptian child of africa by ivan van sertima
Section 3. Predynastic Egyptian Populations

---

Section 4. The Dynastic Period

quote:

---

[quote author=kalonji]Good read
Easy on the eyes too

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

I went back to my post to see if I was contradicting myself and I wasn't:

sim·i·lar (sm-lr)
adj.
1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

Similar doesn't equate identical so one can belief something is similar without excluding variation. Why is this now Similar now all of a sudden equite Identical? Aren't you a supporter of the idea that Crania can be similar but still exibiting variation?

---

Crania taken as a collective can project certain "trends", but this doesn't imply that all individual crania will necessarily be similar to one another or at all levels. Crania examines "physical relationship" and in some cases, arguments have been made for "genealogical" inference from elements of cranium. I fail to see how that applies to *viewpoints* of people socializing in discussion board.

quote:

---

And now, all of a sudden when I use it, it means identical? hmm..

---

Your words, your context; recap:

just saying that people who have similar beliefs and who operate in semi isolated places like forums tend to think in similar ways and are thus more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discovery's and paradymes.

Ho do you propose people to have "similar beliefs" if there are variations in those beliefs? If there are variations, how do you explain that they "think in similar ways", and that "they more vulnerable and inflexible when it comes to sudden changes in discoveries and paradymes"?

By the use of the word "belief", you seem to be insinuating that viewpoints here are necessarily open to objectively unsubstantiated subjective opinionation, like say... your "opinions" of the nature of the range of viewpoints on the board?

Ps - How do you know the individuals who post here are "semi-isolated", on the account that they are posting here? This is the internet; people are known for posting in multiple social networks; I know, because I'm one of them, even in ones where I think my viewpoints may find hostile reception.

quote:

---

anyway, I don't even know why I'm defending myself, I know what I meant

Kalonji

---

You are defending yourself, because you were questioned on a definitive assessment you made about the board, which needs to be substantiated, and YOU know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji(Swenet):
[QUOTE]


sim·i·lar (sm-lr)
adj.
1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

Similar doesn't equate identical so one can belief something is similar without excluding variation. Why is this now Similar now all of a sudden equite Identical? Aren't you a supporter of the idea that Crania can be similar but still exibiting variation? And now, all of a sudden when I use it, it means identical? hmm..


Kalonji

---

BYE.
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
οὐλόϑριξ


ulotrichous [juːˈlɒtrɪkəs]
adj
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) having woolly or curly hair

[from New Latin Ulotrichī (classification applied to humans having this type of hair), from Greek oulothrix, from oulos curly + thrix hair]
ulotrichy n

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ulotrichous

ulotrichous (juːˈlɒtrɪkəs )

Definitions
adjective

having woolly or curly hair

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ulotrichous


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ulotrichous


ulotrichous

Having curly hair.

Compare: leiotrichous.

Origin: G. Oulotrichos, curly haired, fr. Oulos, wooly, _ thrix (trich-), hair

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Ulotrichous






 

---

Posted by Men Kheper Ra (Member # 4547) on :
 
I've found myself debating on this same topic in different forums - yet I always to to reference the ancient people or authors who were around even in the late period of these so-called Yews.

Cornelius Tacitus wrote:

"As I am now to record the death-agony of a famous city, it seems appropriate to inform the reader of its origins. The Jews are said to have been refugees from the island of Crete who settled in the remotest corner of Libya in the days when, according to the story, Saturn was driven from his throne by the aggression of Jupiter. This is a deduction from the name 'Judaei' by which they became known: the word is to be regarded as a barbarous lengthening of 'Idaei', the name of the people dwelling around the famous Mount Ida in Crete. A few authorities hold that in the reign of Isis the surplus population of Egypt was evacuated to neighbouring lands under the leadership of Hierosolymus and Judas. Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king. There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyrians occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria. Others again find a famous ancestry for the Jews in the Solymi who are mentioned with respect in the epics of Homer: this tribe is supposed to have founded Jerusalem (4) and named it after themselves."

I find it interesting that they would be associated with Ethiopians or ancient Cretes who had to migrate away from home dude to invaders ...
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 
It says his HEAD was like white wool. In other words Jesus had a pale/white face. Its not describing his hair texture.
 

---

Posted by Men Kheper Ra (Member # 4547) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
It says his HEAD was like white wool. In other words Jesus had a pale/white face. Its not describing his hair texture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Men Kheper Ra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
It says his HEAD was like white wool. In other words Jesus had a pale/white face. Its not describing his hair texture.

---

My grandfather has wooly hair and his hair is as white as drawing paper. You do realize that you sound extremely ignorant with this post right?

---

Jesus is not described as wooly haired. He's described as having a white HEAD, meaning his facial skin.

Does your grandfather have white skin?
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Men Kheper Ra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
It says his HEAD was like white wool. In other words Jesus had a pale/white face. Its not describing his hair texture.

---

My grandfather has wooly hair and his hair is as white as drawing paper. You do realize that you sound extremely ignorant with this post right?

---

Jesus only lived to 33.



Revelation 1:14 (KJV)
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
 

---

Posted by Crush Black Lies (Member # 20324) on :
 
People just don't know how to read. Revelation describes a white face Jesus with White hair. The passage does not describe hair texture. It describes hair (and face) color, smdh.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
why would a 33 year old man have white hair?
 

---

Posted by Crush Black Lies (Member # 20324) on :
 
John saw a vision of Christ in his glory body.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
why would a 33 year old man have white hair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Men Kheper Ra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
It says his HEAD was like white wool. In other words Jesus had a pale/white face. Its not describing his hair texture.

---

My grandfather has wooly hair and his hair is as white as drawing paper. You do realize that you sound extremely ignorant with this post right?

---

Jesus only lived to 33.



Revelation 1:14 (KJV)
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

---

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.














Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

Whiteness is a glow like a halo. Glowing like the Sun!
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 
^ The passage is not describing hair texture. It describes jesus as having a white head (face).
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
lol at the above.





 

---

Posted by Men Kheper Ra (Member # 4547) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
People just don't know how to read. Revelation describes a white face Jesus with White hair. The passage does not describe hair texture. It describes hair (and face) color, smdh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:


Revelation 1:14 (KJV)
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.














Eye witness Flava Flav Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

Whiteness is a glow like a halo. Glowing like the Sun!

---

Troll Patty,

1) that Rasatman is about 50 years old

2) that man's skin is reddish brown, the brass you show is yellowish, more like this guy:

yellowish skin

3) the wool you show at the bottom does not resemble the hair above it

4) try again
 

---

Posted by Crush Black Lies (Member # 20324) on :
 
It is really sad that people cannot comprehend what they are reading. It reflects poorly on our nation's schools.

Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace...

First, the phrase is written in the past progressive, a significant point. John saw the feet of Christ, likened to brass, burning in fire. The significant point is the verb tense. John did not see the end result, a "burned" material, as argued by "Black Christ" polemics; anything burned according to them equates to black or dark.

Christ's feet according to the vision were fashioned after metal, and subjected to being purged in a furnace. The process of treating metals with heat is called annealing. And it serves to strengthen the metal by removing slags (impurities).

John saw Christ's feet burning. And because he likened the feet onto brass, one should understand the behavior of alloys --brass-- subjected to tempering.

But before we begin there, what is brass? An alloy composed of zinc and copper. In the original Greek scripture, the word is "chalkolibanon"; chalko (brass) + libanon, derived from the word laban or [WHITE]--the zinc whitens the alloy; the authors used libanon in place of zinc.

A stronger translation would read:

Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto white brass...

When metals are heat treated the first color to manifest is the glowing white. If the metal is retreated from the heat, a glowing red would be observed. What John saw was the feet of a man likened to glowing white metal.

John saw Christ's glory or light body which was fully white, from head to toe, with the exception of his eyes that glowed red.

John saw someone like this but with bloodshot red eyes:


 

---

Posted by Crush Black Lies (Member # 20324) on :
 
There is another school of thought that supposes this vision was of an apparition, which generally tend to appear ALL WHITE.
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 
^ Good overview. It also should be pointed out there were no Negroids in the Levant region (or if there were, they were a small mumber of slaves) so I don't see how Jesus could have been Black anyway. Simple geographical factors rules the afronuts out.
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 
Ancient mosaics of ancient galileans:





"DEY ARE MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURSSSSSS!" LOL
 

---

Posted by Crush Black Lies (Member # 20324) on :
 
^how do they explain the Galilean mosaics? LOL!!
 

---

Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
^how do they explain the Galilean mosaics? LOL!!

---

Those so-called galileans are Roman foreigners!

Here are the true Israelites:

Muurs!



Christ Pantocrator
Unknown Artist
6th century

St Catherine Monastery

Mount Sinai (South Sinai Governorate) EGYPT

Now, compare with the image of our Most Beloved Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie I:



http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/7th-century-image-of-the-christ-in-alexandrias-saint-catherines-monastery-egypt/

Now, are you gonna cry to me, are you gonna call me Dada ?
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll Patrol:


Revelation 1:14 (KJV)
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.














Eye witness Flava Flav Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

Whiteness is a glow like a halo. Glowing like the Sun! [

3) the wool you show at the bottom does not resemble the hair above it

4) try again

---

THE PURPOSE IS TO SHOW YOU WHAT WOOL LIKES LIKE FROM UP-CLOSE. DUMBASS!


THE LAMB OF GOD!









 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
look above^.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
It is really sad that people cannot comprehend what they are reading. It reflects poorly on our nation's schools.

Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace...

First, the phrase is written in the past progressive, a significant point. John saw the feet of Christ, likened to brass, burning in fire. The significant point is the verb tense. John did not see the end result, a "burned" material, as argued by "Black Christ" polemics; anything burned according to them equates to black or dark.

Christ's feet according to the vision were fashioned after metal, and subjected to being purged in a furnace. The process of treating metals with heat is called annealing. And it serves to strengthen the metal by removing slags (impurities).

John saw Christ's feet burning. And because he likened the feet onto brass, one should understand the behavior of alloys --brass-- subjected to tempering.

But before we begin there, what is brass? An alloy composed of zinc and copper. In the original Greek scripture, the word is "chalkolibanon"; chalko (brass) + libanon, derived from the word laban or [WHITE]--the zinc whitens the alloy; the authors used libanon in place of zinc.

A stronger translation would read:

Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto white brass...

When metals are heat treated the first color to manifest is the glowing white. If the metal is retreated from the heat, a glowing red would be observed. What John saw was the feet of a man likened to glowing white metal.

John saw Christ's glory or light body which was fully white, from head to toe, with the exception of his eyes that glowed red.

John saw someone like this but with bloodshot red eyes:

---

What the ha=ell is that thing above? The drawing of that imagination is not indigenous to the region. Believe me, an individual like that would have gotten skin cancer due to UV radiation! That individual does fit somewhere at the caucasus mountains, I can see that.


14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.


Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν Θυατείροις ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς [αὐτοῦ] ὡς φλόγα πυρὸς καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ·



And this is what scientist come up with.





Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:


THE LAMB OF GOD!

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

Icon of James, the Just, brother of Jesus
 

---

Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

Icon of James, the Just, brother of Jesus

---

Muurs!

Icon of Paul




St Barnabas




St Mark




St John Evangelist


 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:


THE LAMB OF GOD!

---

---

lol at this black woman impostor above. If you want to take on a wool hair battle, you are going to loose.


Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.


14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.


Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ ἐν Θυατείροις ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἔχων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς [αὐτοῦ] ὡς φλόγα πυρὸς καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ·
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IronLion:

Muurs!

Icon of Paul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

Icon of James, the Just, brother of Jesus

---

There is no letter J in Hebrew nor in Greek or Latin!lol





The Earliest Known Image of the Virgin Mary (Circa 150 CE)











 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
If you want to take on a wool hair battle, you are going to loose.

---

you would lose because both white and black people can have wool-like hair.
Justin Timberlake and Ozzy Osbourne's son both have naturally curly hair.
Because they straighten it artificially these days does not change that fact. You must think Mary J Blige has straight blond hair LOL


FACT: there are millions of people who naturally have hair like this

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
If you want to take on a wool hair battle, you are going to loose.

---

you would lose because both white and black people can have wool-like hair.
Justin Timberlake and Ozzy Osbourne's son both have naturally curly hair.
Because they straighten it artificially these days does not change that fact. You must think Mary J Blige has straight blond hair LOL


FACT: there are millions of people who naturally have hair like this

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

---

give the exact quote and source

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.

---

color is being discussed in all cases "white like wool"
"white as snow"
"fine brass" .

It did not say "hair like wool" it said "white like wool"

and what 33 year old man has white hair?

question: what do you think of this Jesus guy? are you down with his message or do you think he stole his stuff from the Egyptians?

---

The gay lord above was born in Luisiana. He like many other "whites" have (west) African ancestry. I many Luisiana.LOOOL


The (greek) Bible speaks in metaphors. So does the Torah.


The Yemeni Sephardic man below comes closest to the description.



He does not.




For your information, this subject has nothing to do with Mary J Blige. lol


Please explain genetics?lol



 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
curly hair + suntan = black

how can you have a stolen legacy if all the people who stole the legacy were black as well?
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness:


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness:


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

---

give the exact quote and source

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.

---

idiot that's the bible not Josephus

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:



FACT: there are millions of people who naturally have hair like this
The gay lord above was born in Luisiana. He like many other "whites" have (west) African ancestry. Many in Luisiana.LOOOL

---

So the fact that he was born in New Orleans proves he's part Wets African?

very scientific

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
curly hair + suntan = black

how can you have a stolen legacy if all the people who stole the legacy were black as well?

---

Stop with the idiocy. You have been schooled on this issue already in the Black Roman Thread.

The gene for curly hair, wooly hair, comes from Africa, and Africans are universally identified by their nappy hair, natty dreadlocks, Congo.

Albinos like you and Crushed Liar are known for straight dog/wolf/goat like hair. You know your "good hair" eh?

Why do you prefer to chase your tail?
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IronLion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
[qb] curly hair + suntan = black

how can you have a stolen legacy if all the people who stole the legacy were black as well?

---

Stop with the idiocy. You have been schooled on this issue already in the Black Roman Thread.

The gene for curly hair, wooly hair, comes from Africa, and Africans are universally identified by their nappy hair, natty dreadlocks, Congo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness:


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

Eye witness Flavius Josephus describes a man, referring at the individual Jesus/ Joshua Ben Pantera as: Short, dark skinned, with curly/ frizzy hair. And underdeveloped beard.

---

give the exact quote and source

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.

---

idiot that's the bible not Josephus

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:



FACT: there are millions of people who naturally have hair like this
The gay lord above was born in Luisiana. He like many other "whites" have (west) African ancestry. I many Luisiana.LOOOL

---

So the fact that he was born in New Orleans proves he's part West African?

very scientific

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

---

I guess you forgot the part about his hair being white

---

LOL this is one of the dumbest responses you've made up till now. But what is excepted of you? A DUMBASS! Let's figure this out, his hair will get grey, once. And his physical appearance fits the description as was seen by the eye witness Mr. Flavius.

Then based peer reviewed information, scientist did a computer rendering.





Hilarious.
 

---

Posted by Men Kheper Ra (Member # 4547) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
It is really sad that people cannot comprehend what they are reading. It reflects poorly on our nation's schools.

Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace...

First, the phrase is written in the past progressive, a significant point. John saw the feet of Christ, likened to brass, burning in fire. The significant point is the verb tense. John did not see the end result, a "burned" material, as argued by "Black Christ" polemics; anything burned according to them equates to black or dark.

Christ's feet according to the vision were fashioned after metal, and subjected to being purged in a furnace. The process of treating metals with heat is called annealing. And it serves to strengthen the metal by removing slags (impurities).

John saw Christ's feet burning. And because he likened the feet onto brass, one should understand the behavior of alloys --brass-- subjected to tempering.

But before we begin there, what is brass? An alloy composed of zinc and copper. In the original Greek scripture, the word is "chalkolibanon"; chalko (brass) + libanon, derived from the word laban or [WHITE]--the zinc whitens the alloy; the authors used libanon in place of zinc.

A stronger translation would read:

Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto white brass...

When metals are heat treated the first color to manifest is the glowing white. If the metal is retreated from the heat, a glowing red would be observed. What John saw was the feet of a man likened to glowing white metal.

John saw Christ's glory or light body which was fully white, from head to toe, with the exception of his eyes that glowed red.

John saw someone like this but with bloodshot red eyes:

---

You are more ignorant then what I gave you credit for so I owe you an apology for the misrepresentation.

First let me entertain your theory - This is what burnt fine brass looks like:



Finish entertaining ....

So basically are you trying to tell me that a man who supposedly had a vision was not seeing a vision as he described but seeing a reality as you describe?

Are you actually telling me that you believe the bible to be factual and should be read at face value? We can go on and on about what Jesus looked like even though he's a fictional character but that's not what concerns me here - what concerns me is the true ideology of racist.

There was a study conducted which showed that a racist IQ is actually lower then their counter populations.

So ... lets try a simple mathematical calculation here:

1.) John had a vision - he didn't see an actual event happening like ... hum.. someone was breaking into his house or something it was a vision/hallucination/dream if you will.

2.) Future events of fighting dragons and giant cities floating in the air - sounds like a harry potter/how to train a dragon movie. Then out of the air a giant star called warmwood is supposed to hit the earth - which hasn't happened and probably will never happen - is saw by John during his hallucination that you so willfully believe as being REALITY!!! (Fighting dragon - and sea monsters)

QUESTION: Did you guys play dungeons and dragons when you were kids or are you still playing it? Do you believe that you got sent an invitation to Hogwarts and your parents hid it from you trying to keep you from experiencing your magical powers?


so let see if 1+1= 2 or, if 1+0=1, 0+0=0.

So vision is not reality would equal = 0 and a so-called future events that hasn't happened and most likely will not happen equals = 0 - this would mathematically equal 0-reality and 0-supposed future event which gives us the sum total of 0 which is equivalent to B/S!!!

You people crack me up - this includes you AP - First you call the people of Canaan Negro slaves and you used it to justify your slavery against Africans in the Diaspora calling them Canaanites - and now you don't believe that there were black people in the Area.

If you believe in the bible then your dumbass surely must believe in the Hamite theory or are you selective to which part of the bible you believe in. If that is the case then Ham would have been placed in ancient Israel, Mesopotamia, Arabia - not in Africa dumbass. So then how could there not have been any black people in the area if you take the bible literally?

Even one of Jesus apostles were called black wasn't he? Of course! To say that black people were not in the area based on your bible is simple retarded!!!

Remember you cant call one part of the bible real and say the other was not to be taken literal.
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IronLion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
^how do they explain the Galilean mosaics? LOL!!

---

Those so-called galileans are Roman foreigners!

Here are the true Israelites:

Muurs!



Christ Pantocrator
Unknown Artist
6th century

St Catherine Monastery

Mount Sinai (South Sinai Governorate) EGYPT

Now, compare with the image of our Most Beloved Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie I:



http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/7th-century-image-of-the-christ-in-alexandrias-saint-catherines-monastery-egypt/

Now, are you gonna cry to me, are you gonna call me Dada ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The hilarious thing is that you keep talking about what Flavius Josephus and still cannot produce the quote.

You keep putting up a bible quote saying Jesus' hair was white, yet he only lived to age 33.

When will you stop failing?

you haven't realized yet the bible was not written by Josephus

very, very weak

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The hilarious thing is that you keep talking about what Flavius Josephus and still cannot produce the quote.

You keep putting up a bible quote saying Jesus' hair was white, yet he only lived to age 33.

When will you stop failing?

you haven't realized yet the bible was not written by Josephus

very, very weak

---

Flavious Josephus was an eye witness. The quote I gave is from top-scholars in theology.


The bible itself is METAPHORICAL!

It means collection of Books. Books gathered from all over the place and misinterpreted by Greeks. Then later on translated into Latin, from Latin into English and again misinterpreted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
Don't be foolish. Josephus was not an eye witness to Jesus as the latter died before he was born. Second, as Lioness corrected you, "Hair like wool" does not mean "Hair white like wool." Learn how to read, ok?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The hilarious thing is that you keep talking about what Flavius Josephus and still cannot produce the quote.

You keep putting up a bible quote saying Jesus' hair was white, yet he only lived to age 33.

When will you stop failing?

you haven't realized yet the bible was not written by Josephus

very, very weak

---

Flavious Josephus was an eye witness. The quote I gave is from top-scholars in theology.


The bible itself is METAPHORICAL!

It means collection of Books. Books gathered from all over the place and misinterpreted by Greeks. Then later on translated into Latin, from Latin into English and again misinterpreted.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
Don't be foolish. Josephus was not an eye witness to Jesus as the latter died before he was born. Second, as Lioness corrected you, "Hair like wool" does not mean "Hair white like wool." Learn how to read, ok?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The hilarious thing is that you keep talking about what Flavius Josephus and still cannot produce the quote.

You keep putting up a bible quote saying Jesus' hair was white, yet he only lived to age 33.

When will you stop failing?

you haven't realized yet the bible was not written by Josephus

very, very weak

---

Flavious Josephus was an eye witness. The quote I gave is from top-scholars in theology.


The bible itself is METAPHORICAL!

It means collection of Books. Books gathered from all over the place and misinterpreted by Greeks. Then later on translated into Latin, from Latin into English and again misinterpreted.

---

---

The thing here is, you are a dumb fascist, and from a theologist.

You need to stop your jokes!

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-s-skin-cancer-rate-second-highest-in-the-world-1.10250

---

 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
It's not a matter of enjoying, it's matter of a statistical FACT!!!!!

You do love FACTS, RIGHT???


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/skin-cancer-rates-jump-24-percent-in-2006-1.248111





Even with modern sun block, that's odd?


YOU CAME FROM RUSIA THEN GO AND DISCRIMINATE MY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE!? PUH!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
so let me get this straight, your response is to find joy in someone having skin cancer? You are worst than I thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
Don't be foolish. Josephus was not an eye witness to Jesus as the latter died before he was born. Second, as Lioness corrected you, "Hair like wool" does not mean "Hair white like wool." Learn how to read, ok?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The hilarious thing is that you keep talking about what Flavius Josephus and still cannot produce the quote.

You keep putting up a bible quote saying Jesus' hair was white, yet he only lived to age 33.

When will you stop failing?

you haven't realized yet the bible was not written by Josephus

very, very weak

---

Flavious Josephus was an eye witness. The quote I gave is from top-scholars in theology.


The bible itself is METAPHORICAL!

It means collection of Books. Books gathered from all over the place and misinterpreted by Greeks. Then later on translated into Latin, from Latin into English and again misinterpreted.

---

---

The thing here is, you are a dumb fascist, and from a theologist.

You need to stop your jokes!

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-s-skin-cancer-rate-second-highest-in-the-world-1.10250

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Men Kheper Ra:


First let me entertain your theory - This is what burnt fine brass looks like:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
It's not a matter of enjoying, it's matter of a statistical FACT!!!!!

You do love FACTS, RIGHT???


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/skin-cancer-rates-jump-24-percent-in-2006-1.248111





Even with modern sun block, that's odd?


YOU CAME FROM RUSIA THEN GO AND DISCRIMINATE MY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE!? PUH!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
so let me get this straight, your response is to find joy in someone having skin cancer? You are worst than I thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crush Black Lies:
Don't be foolish. Josephus was not an eye witness to Jesus as the latter died before he was born. Second, as Lioness corrected you, "Hair like wool" does not mean "Hair white like wool." Learn how to read, ok?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The hilarious thing is that you keep talking about what Flavius Josephus and still cannot produce the quote.

You keep putting up a bible quote saying Jesus' hair was white, yet he only lived to age 33.

When will you stop failing?

you haven't realized yet the bible was not written by Josephus

very, very weak

---

Flavious Josephus was an eye witness. The quote I gave is from top-scholars in theology.


The bible itself is METAPHORICAL!

It means collection of Books. Books gathered from all over the place and misinterpreted by Greeks. Then later on translated into Latin, from Latin into English and again misinterpreted.

---

---

The thing here is, you are a dumb fascist, and from a theologist.

You need to stop your jokes!

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-s-skin-cancer-rate-second-highest-in-the-world-1.10250

---

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Men Kheper Ra:


First let me entertain your theory - This is what burnt fine brass looks like:

---

LIE
this is a fake painted finish and is supposed to look like copper not brass

Here is the website it's from:

http://www.rusticlightingandfans.com/color_options.htm

they don't even have fake brass

---