quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:
First and foremost, No man here on earth could had slain 185,000 men in a single night with just a sword and spear. Therefore, the most plausible answer is God's angel. However, The Bible doesn't mentions the angel's name who slaughtered 185,000 Assyrians in one night. As for historic proof, The Assyrian King (Sennacherib) wouldn't documented such a humiliating defeat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Battle of Alesia Julius Cesar is reported to have killed 90.000 men in one battle and capturing 40.000
Battle of Cannae Hannibal forces killed almost 50,000,It could have been a combination of factors such as did they stampeded each other in a surprise move were Bowmen present in Taharka's forces we have no information on this particular Battle however but an army of mice nawing their way through the Bow strings of the Assyrian force seems farfetched unless they were stored in a sing room or place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ambition100:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:
First and foremost, No man here on earth could had slain 185,000 men in a single night with just a sword and spear. Therefore, the most plausible answer is God's angel. However, The Bible doesn't mentions the angel's name who slaughtered 185,000 Assyrians in one night. As for historic proof, The Assyrian King (Sennacherib) wouldn't documented such a humiliating defeat.

---

Thanks for your insight but Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia also known as Taharka, Pharaoh of Egypt commanded a powerful army that was equal to the might of the Assyrians and I am not saying that it was Tirhakah by himself but I am saying that it was Tirhakah and his Kushite Egyptian army that killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night.So in conclusion, I would say it was more likely the arrows, swords, spears and a bloody battle sparked by the Kushite army, that killed 185,000 Assyrians, Tirhakah was no chump but a powerful King of Egypt and Ethiopia, just keeping it realistic.

---

I guess one of God's angles coming down to earth and slaying 185,000 Assyrians soldiers in one night isn't realistic but King Tirhakah and his army is...? The Bible just states at 2 Kings 19:35, 36 that in one night an angle slain 185,000 Assyrians soldiers. Nowhere does it mentions it was King Tirhakah's doing.
 

---

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

Kufu I will refer you to this book
Aubin sets himself the task of explaining why the rout of Sennacherib's army, by an Egyptian force under Kushite (Nubian, and therefore black) command, has been largely overlooked by history. Basing his analysis on close readings of the relevant passages in the Bible and on extensive research into several centuries of scholarship, Aubin turns the denial of the African presence into a psycho-historical drama. His interpretation faces a number of obstacles. While the Bible records the very words of the Assyrian envoys as they demand Jerusalem's surrender, its authors say nothing about an Egyptian-Kushite force. They attributed the sudden decimation and decamping of Sennacherib's army to the miraculous intervention of Yahweh's angel. Archaelogical evidence for an Egyptian, which should have been found on a Kush monument or stele, was either lost or destroyed. (Another source of information - the Assyrian annals - often failed to record military embarrassments.) The elisions of the ancient records have made Aubin's thesis dependent on deductive reasoning.
http://www.aelaq.org/mrb/article.php?issue=9&article=202&cat=4

Take note this particular battle or incident involves Shabaka's forces Taharka's uncle not Taharaka himself.
 

---

Posted by Ambition100 (Member # 18854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ambition100:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:
First and foremost, No man here on earth could had slain 185,000 men in a single night with just a sword and spear. Therefore, the most plausible answer is God's angel. However, The Bible doesn't mentions the angel's name who slaughtered 185,000 Assyrians in one night. As for historic proof, The Assyrian King (Sennacherib) wouldn't documented such a humiliating defeat.

---

Thanks for your insight but Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia also known as Taharka, Pharaoh of Egypt commanded a powerful army that was equal to the might of the Assyrians and I am not saying that it was Tirhakah by himself but I am saying that it was Tirhakah and his Kushite Egyptian army that killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night.So in conclusion, I would say it was more likely the arrows, swords, spears and a bloody battle sparked by the Kushite army, that killed 185,000 Assyrians, Tirhakah was no chump but a powerful King of Egypt and Ethiopia, just keeping it realistic.

---

I guess one of God's angles coming down to earth and slaying 185,000 Assyrians soldiers in one night isn't realistic but King Tirhakah and his army is...? The Bible just states at 2 Kings 19:35, 36 that in one night an angle slain 185,000 Assyrians soldiers. Nowhere does it mentions it was King Tirhakah's doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

Kufu I will refer you to this book
Aubin sets himself the task of explaining why the rout of Sennacherib's army, by an Egyptian force under Kushite (Nubian, and therefore black) command, has been largely overlooked by history. Basing his analysis on close readings of the relevant passages in the Bible and on extensive research into several centuries of scholarship, Aubin turns the denial of the African presence into a psycho-historical drama. His interpretation faces a number of obstacles. While the Bible records the very words of the Assyrian envoys as they demand Jerusalem's surrender, its authors say nothing about an Egyptian-Kushite force. They attributed the sudden decimation and decamping of Sennacherib's army to the miraculous intervention of Yahweh's angel. Archaelogical evidence for an Egyptian, which should have been found on a Kush monument or stele, was either lost or destroyed. (Another source of information - the Assyrian annals - often failed to record military embarrassments.) The elisions of the ancient records have made Aubin's thesis dependent on deductive reasoning.
http://www.aelaq.org/mrb/article.php?issue=9&article=202&cat=4

Take note this particular battle or incident involves Shabaka's forces Taharka's uncle not Taharaka himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:
Thanks again for your insight but the Angel of the Lord can come in many forms and can also come in human form (Judges 13:16, Zechariah 4:1) and no were in the Bible it says anything about a angel with wings coming out the sky slaying 185,000 Assyrians but God used the might of Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, to SMITE the Assyrians and save Jerusalem, Tirhakah was the Lord's sent Angel, do you feel me.

---

quote:

---

I haven't read that book but I will soon and the reign of Shabaka was in 721-705 B.C.E and this battle took place in 701 B.C.E, so it couldn't have been Shabaka present at the battle, so maybe Shebitku, successor of Shabaka was the king in 701 B.C.E and Taharka was the commander of the forces but the Bible says Taharka was the present King.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ambition100:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:
Thanks again for your insight but the Angel of the Lord can come in many forms and can also come in human form (Judges 13:16, Zechariah 4:1) and no were in the Bible it says anything about a angel with wings coming out the sky slaying 185,000 Assyrians but God used the might of Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, to SMITE the Assyrians and save Jerusalem, Tirhakah was the Lord's sent Angel, do you feel me.

---

Now you're saying that King Tirhakah was one of the son's of God who came down from the heavens and took the form a human? What evidence do the Bible offer on this issue? 2 Kings 19:35 says: And it came about on that night that the angel of Jehovah proceeded to go out and strike down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When people rose up early in the morning, why, there all of them were dead carcasses.

There you have it directly from the Bible stating exactly so. If this was an result of battle between the Assyrians and Tirhakahs army, they would've awoken from the sound of the alarm warning of the attack of Tirhakahs invading army. But the fact that they woke up the following morning surprise to see hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers leaves one plausible answer, that God's angle struck them down dead while they were asleep.

Like I said earlier, this may be the reason why the King Sennacherib never documented this incindent because it was too humiliating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:

I'm going to tell you right here and right now that your belief that King Tirhakah's army invading the Assyrian camp and killing 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night is ludicrous. I'm not here saying that King Tirhakah did not at one time fight the Assyrian army but that incindent that involved 185,000 soldiers slain in one night was divine intervention not man's doing.

---

Well, historically we know that Taharqa fought the Assyrians in Israel while he was still a general. This is known from Egypto-Nubian and Assyrian accounts, not the Bible. Also, that 185,000 Assyrians were slain in one night seems like an exaggeration but if true, it's more likely that an army (Taharqa's army) or some kind of natural occurrence did it as opposed to divine intervention. I don't think the OP was being literal in his questioning, it was more like, "according to the Bible", what happened at so and so date, not 'what actually happened at so and so date'.
 

---

Posted by Khufu (Member # 17461) on :
 
[/QUOTE]Well, historically we know that Taharqa fought the Assyrians in Israel while he was still a general. This is known from Egypto-Nubian and Assyrian accounts, not the Bible. Also, that 185,000 Assyrians were slain in one night seems like an exaggeration but if true, it's more likely that an army or some kind of natural occurrence did it as opposed to divine intervention. I don't think the OP was being literally in his questioning, it was more like, "according to the Bible", what happened at so and so date, not 'what actually happened at so and so date'. [/QB][/QUOTE]


I would really like to know what natural occurrence could've taken out 185,000 healthy men in a single night! If you read 2 Kings 19: 35, that following morning people was surprise to have seen hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. Now, ask yourself, why would they been surprise if this was due to an invading army?
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
You guys are still thinking that spears arrows and swords could not acccount for the high numbers but I gave the examples of Julius Caesar vs the Gauls and Hannibal vs Romans unusual thought it maybe it's not unheard of.


Anglo_Pyramidologist I hope you are not our old troll Abaza of a thousand names but really Arabia??? iF Kush had anything to do with Arabia it was probably under some kind of colonial status but noo the "Ethiopia" being talked about was Kush south of Kemet where these Kings in question were buried at Kurru in the Sudan

 
Wall paintings in the tomb of King Tanwetamani show the ancient Kushite king (nephew of Taharqa) being led to his burial, wearing Kushite cap and ureaus (royal cobra), pictured on Tuesday, March 27, 2007. The tomb is part of the royal cemetery at El Kurru of which little is known. The earliest tombs date from the 9th century BC, it is thought that El Kurru was an early capital of Kush before moving to nearby Jebel Barkal. ..The ancient kingdom of Kush emerged around 2000 BC in the land of Nubia, what is today northern Sudan. At their height the Nubians ruled over ancient Egypt as the 25th Dynasty between 720 BC and 664 BC (known as the Black Pharaohs) and saw their borders reach to edges of Libya and Palestine. The Kushite kings saw themselves as guardians of Egyptian religion and tradition. They centered there kindgom on the Temple of Amun at Napata (modern day Jebel Barkal) and brought back the building of Pyramids in which to inter their kings - there are around 220 pyramids in Sudan, twice the number in Egypt. After Napata was sacked, by a resurgent Egypt, the capital was moved to Meroe where a more indigenous culture developed, Egyptian hieroglyphics made way for a cursive Meroitic script, yet to be deciphered. The Meroitic kingdom eventually fell into decline in the 3rd century AD with the arrival of Christianity.[/IMG]
http://andrewmcconnell.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Sudan-Kingdom-of-Kush/G0000j_tm5qFApvw/I0000c6.ZCPJIdgU
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 
The Kush or ethiopia of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament is located outside of Africa.

The Kush of Gen. 10: 8-12 sat in Mesopotamia and appears in Babylonian tablets as 'Kassu' - it is connected to the Kassites.

No connections to black africans.

Once again, blacks are just trying to claim something which was never theirs and its laughable that they think modern place names must always be those of the past (despite the fact there were many places called Kush or ethiopia outside of Africa).

The other ethiopia or kush was in Yemen. The historic kingdom of Sheba sat in southern Arabia (Yemen) not Africa.
 

---

Posted by Ambition100 (Member # 18854) on :
 
@Khufu

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
The Kush or ethiopia of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament is located outside of Africa.

The Kush of Gen. 10: 8-12 sat in Mesopotamia and appears in Babylonian tablets as 'Kassu' - it is connected to the Kassites.

No connections to black africans.

Once again, blacks are just trying to claim something which was never theirs and its laughable that they think modern place names must always be those of the past (despite the fact there were many places called Kush or ethiopia outside of Africa).

The other ethiopia or kush was in Yemen. The historic kingdom of Sheba sat in southern Arabia (Yemen) not Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khufu:


I would really like to know what natural occurrence could've taken out 185,000 healthy men in a single night! If you read 2 Kings 19: 35, that following morning people was surprise to have seen hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. Now, ask yourself, why would they been surprise if this was due to an invading army?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

You guys are still thinking that spears arrows and swords could not acccount for the high numbers but I gave the examples of Julius Caesar vs the Gauls and Hannibal vs Romans unusual thought it maybe it's not unheard of.

---

I'd never think that, I'm simply considering our historical source here (the Bible) and the propaganda that may have been involved with the account.
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 
I don't think you understand Biblical ethnography. The authors of the Old Testament had a very limited ethnographic knowledge.

In fact during the antideluvian history in Genesis, it only concerns a land surface area of a few hundred miles.

As the archaeologist Leonard Woolley summed up the extreme limited geographical knowledge of the early Mesopotamians:

‘‘… 400 miles long and 100 miles wide; but for the occupants of the valley that was the whole world’’ (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 31).

The flood of Genesis therefore covered the entire known 'world' at the time, but today since the whole planet has been mapped this surface area amounts to a tiny portion in mesopotamia.

You can easily reconstruct a map of this limited ancient near eastern geography by using Biblical references.

Although the geography increases over time of the Biblical writers, they had no knowledge of sub-sahara africa, nor america, polynesia, australia etc.

So basically in a nutshell - the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with blacks, nor eskimos etc. These races are not indigenous to the parts of Mesopotamia most of the early Old Testament was written in, nor did the writers encounter or communicate with them.

Oddly people today think 5,000 or so years ago there was great migration and mixing of different races. Yet the truth is the opposite. Races were homogenous and lived isolated in tribal socities. Even as late Roman times we have the writer Pliny the Elder noting that 'no one would believe a black african would exist, until they see one with their own eyes'. This is because to the ancient Romans and Greeks the Sub-Saharan africans looked so different, because of their isolation no one could work out why other races looked different.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^This is ignorant babble. No one here even mentioned "race" until you began trolling. As shown, you misrepresent your own passage so no one is to even take you seriously. Your blabber about "sub-Saharan" Africa makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the biblical account describes a territory bordering southern Egypt. No competent scholar has ever associated this "Cush" with Mesopotamia as this is the same "Kush" in modern Sudan that was also written about by the Egyptians and the Assyrians. Get over it.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Anglo-Pyramidologist great is your ignorance of the subject Kush is directly south of Kemet and that was the primary state baring that name the O.T authors knew very well where Kush lays it was after all one of the major players of their day.

Empire of Kush 700B.C
 
The land of Kush was located southeast of ancient Egypt, in what is known today as Sudan. The Egyptians called Kush Nubia, from the Egyptian word for gold, which was prevalent in the region. The Greeks and Romans called it Aethiopia, "land of the burned faces," because the people of Kush were black. The Kushites were seminomadic people who settled in the region as early as 4,000 B.C.E. One of the first large settlements in Kush was at Kerma. There, archeologists have discovered the remains of brilliantly painted tombs filled with gold, bronze, and ivory.


this is the area called Kush if this was not Kush then name the civilization immediately south of Kemet proper.
And for your information Africans made colonies outside the African continent Ethiopians according to the Greeks simply meant Blacks whether Asiatic or African.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

The land of Kush was located southeast of ancient Egypt, in what is known today as Sudan. The Egyptians called Kush Nubia, from the Egyptian word for gold

---

quote:

---

Then the Angel of the Lord said to Philip, Start out and go south to the road that leads down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: And behold, a man of Ethiopia, an Eunuch of great authority under Candace, Queen of E-thi-o’pi-ans, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem to worship.
Acts 8: 26-27

---

quote:

---

Although the geography increases over time of the Biblical writers, they had no knowledge of sub-sahara africa, nor america, polynesia, australia etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

While absolutely true that the sons of Cush were all imagined to have settled in Asia after the disembarkment of Noahs ark - more specifically, the Mesopotamian and Arabian areas.....Aside from that the fact that the Hebrews envisioned them as having settled in Southwest Asia, Cush was also applied to African entities.

---

quote:

---

Finally, there is yet one other Kushite people whose echo is found in the Bible: "Kush also begot Nimrod.... The mainstays of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Accad" (Gen 10:8--12). It is unlikely that this Kush, who is associated with the lands of Mesopotamia, is related to either an African or Arabian Kush. Most scholars feel, rather, that Nimrod Kush is associated with the Kassites (Kassu/Kussu in the cuneiform, Greek Kassaioi) of Mesopotamia who overthrew the first Babylonian dynasty in 1595 B.C.E. and ruled Babylon for the next 450 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
True Sundjata the Romans called it Nubia but never the Kemites that but I am struck by the raw ignorance of some in this day and age when so much information is at hand is like having a conversation with a flat Earther.

---

quote:

---

Is there an African primacy?

---

quote:

---

The African Cush is only more visible because it denoted a state, with recognizable and distinct traits such as the one I mentioned, and others such as that they lived in a land divided by a river, as you said, and that they made boats out of plants – which is still practiced by Africans today – per Jesaia (Isaiah 18). People have trouble accepting that blacks existed in South West Asia, associated with achievements that they perceive to be well above the standards of what black people can achieve, and being implicated in the lineage of biblical characters, so they prefer to just ‘’give’’ a select few passages to African that are consistent with a far away Nilotic Cush, and be done with it. Other passages, such as that Moses’ wife and her folk were described as a Cushites as well, are subject to all sorts of acrobatics, and the reason is obvious: her father is credited with teaching Moses the laws of Yahweh. We find such ‘’keep those blacks in Africa’’ attitudes in early anthropology as well, where they tried to deny that the Natufians who lived in the ‘’holy land’’ were blacks, and when they did admit that they were blacks, they said they were primitive cannibals

---

quote:

---

Geographic tells in the texts (Gen 2:10-14) are clear about Cushite lands around the Mesopotamian area, and that such peoples can’t be interpreted as being migrants from Africa to Southwest Asia, can be gleaned from the fact that we’re dealing with antediluvian times, and that some of the sons of Cush, and Cush himself, are associated with geographic areas in the referenced passages eg Havilah, Cush, are the same as Cush and his immediate descendants named elsewhere (Genesis 10:7).

---

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, how did Goldstein arrive at his conclusion regarding the Greek etymology of Cush as a word that denotes blackness? Kushi is used to this day as a derogatory term to refer to dark skinned people in Israel, meaning, that a Greek etymology for such associations is not needed. Is Goldstein arguing that it is simply a coincidence that skeletal anthropology and Greek accounts corroborate that those termed Cush in the bible were blacks?

---

quote:

---

Not that I wish to contribute to the "keep blacks in Africa" sentiment (even though my primary concern IS Africa and her contemporary diaspora), but even from the example you cited Moses' wife was from southern Egypt which bordered Cush. It is perfectly reasonable that his wife and her people were from Africa (in fact it is certain).

---

quote:

---

You are confusing polities. As shown above via Goldenberg, the Mesopotamian Kush is the land of the Kassites (the ebook can be found here, in this excellent book pack, btw). Even granting that this is somehow a different Mesopotamian Kush (requiring two different Kushite polities in Mesopotamia), as Ambition points out scholars have often confused African Kush with Sumerian Kish as well.

---

quote:

---

See pg 206. That may be a modern connotation as opposed to denotation since he also provides several examples where Kushi is used with respect to non-African polities in Yemen and Cochin (India). He attributes the earliest mistranslations to Origen and such was reinforced by the religious orthodoxy. This is similar to how the Talmud connotes Ham with "Blackness" when literally it denotes "hot/burnt". He provides other examples. For instance, Kushi was not in the ancient Hebrew term "shehorei ro'sh", meaning Black heads, so if this is correct, it would indeed be a connotation as opposed to denotation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
What cited example says she was from Egypt?
Why is it certain that Moses' wife and her people were from Africa?

---

quote:

---

^Nimrod couldn't have been a Kashite in the minds of the Hebrews, because people hadn't even dispersed back then according to the bible.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying I'm buying into biblical chronology, just saying that such interpretations have no textual basis. Since I'm not buying into biblical chronology, and Im sure you're not a proponant of biblical chronologgy, why would you even try to correlate the biblical account of the creation (yes, it says creation, not conquering) of Sumerian states with historical facts? This specific biblical account shows mythical characteristics (confusion of languages and disembarkment of Noahs ark), and is different from the other passages that we know we can correlate with historical fact, with more confidence.

Goldsteins reading of Kassites into the text is unsupported by anything brought to my attention so far, and most likely a remnant of the old notions I mentioned in my previous post, regarding academic esteem of the capacity of blacks.

---

quote:

---

He also goes on to talk about the unrelatedness of these Cushites to those in Africa and Arabia, but the very section he is basing his interpretation on says otherwise, ie ''Cush begat''.

We need to make a distinction here about what the Hebrews thought about ethnic groups vs correlating historical events with biblical accounts.

---

quote:

---

I will look into it.

---

quote:

---

Because Moses lived and spent nearly all of his life in Egypt, where he met her. You'd have to be the one to actually show that her and her people were NOT Cushites from Egypt, hence, show that her and her family migrated to Egypt from somewhere else (other than Sudan of course).

---

quote:

---

Back when? Granted you say you don't buy into the biblical chronology, to address the point still it must be emphasized that none of this is literal nor are these events dated with any chronological accuracy.

---

quote:

---

I find Goldenberg's explanation perfectly reasonable, as in the minds of the Hebrews, or anyone else for that matter, Kassu sounds very similar to Kushi.

---

quote:

---

I actually wasn't sure if you weren't confusing this historiography with creation myths and modern anthropology to argue for an actual presence of blacks in Mesopotamia (otherwise, I wouldn't understand your reasoning for invoking anthropology).

---

quote:

---

I cannot confirm what you have or have not read but certainly I've never read that Mesopotamian Kush and Nubia Kush ever described the same entity or genealogy.

---

quote:

---

What you propose is tricky, especially when trying to untangle what "the Hebrews thought" from a creation myth. Reading into this that the Hebrews thought the Mesopotamians were Black for example, has no support for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I think you misunderstand the story.
It is never said that he met her in Egypt
I suggest you read the relevant portions of the bible and contrast what your source, I believe Josephus, says with other material, in particular, available material about her people;
the Midianites.

---

quote:

---

The bible posits the kingdom of Nimrod pior to the confusion of languages, and the subsequent exodus of all mentioned sons of Noah.

---

quote:

---

How do any of the Kashites kings fit the characteristics of Nimrod? Do they fit the hunter archtype, survivor of a flood, rebellion to the sender of the flood, building of cities etc etc characteristics like the indigenous Sumerian hero Gilgamesh does? Nimrod was a widely known mythological character, and his existence as such precedes the Kassite invasion, and is supported independantly from the bible.

---

quote:

---

]Im not sure what you mean here, but yes, I do see a strong correlation between skeletal analysis of various peoples and the peoples that were desribed as Cushites and Aethiopians per Hebrews/Arabs/Assyrians and Greeks respectively. While I agree with what you said earlier when you paraphrased Keita, the correlation still stands.

---

quote:

---

Look no further than that Goldenberg quote you posted, where he quotes the bible. It is also directly implied by the fact that the Hebrews saw Noah as the most recent common ancestor of all people; there was no other Cushite patriarch to be talking about seperate lineages. The various people who were termed Cushite in the bible should therefore be seen as people who were imagined to be descendants of this Cushite patriarch.

---

quote:

---

This is also confirmed by later Arab writers who, equipped with a more extensive ethnographic writings compared to the ancient Hebrews, lumbed various Indian and Arabian peoples together as descendants of Cush because of their physical characteristics. In fact, Josephus does this as well.

'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.'

---

quote:

---

If you say it has no support, you'd have to explain why the biblical application of Cush to peoples matches Greek ascriptions of Aethiopians to various peoples, Asian and African.

---

quote:

---

You'd also have to explain why the Greeks translated the Hebrew Cush with ''Aethiopian'', if such a proposal is so unsupported.

---

quote:

---

You'd also have to explain why Arab writers continued to ascribe the term ''Cush'' to peoples that were known to be dark skinned.

---

quote:

---

When I said ''what the Hebrews thought'', I was specifically referring to our earlier discussion, regarding whether there is an African primacy whenever Cush is mentioned, and contrasting that part of the discussion with your subseuent invocation of Goldenbergs and others correlation of Nimrod with Kassites. The two discussions are inherently different, the former allows both parties to keep in mind that they are simply discussing how the Hebrews conceptualized things, and doesn't see their writings as right or wrong. Invocation of the latter inevitably leads to the exact opposite.

---

Invocation of the latter is necessary because it is the only way to understand what the Hebrews thought out side of their religious myths. The primary focus should not be the myths or even what the Hebrews necessarily thought, but the observations they made based on what they thought. We can't possibly know what they thought without context. So I presented you with a dilemma that you didn't seem to catch.

The Hebrews state that the land of Cush was in Mesopotamia but they also state the land of Cush bordered Egypt and was in Africa. The passage that you cited was a direct argument to suggest that Cush was considered a territory in Mesopotamia. But how can it be a bordered territory in Africa south of Egypt but also a territory in North Arabia (apparently it jumps borders)? Either there are two Cush' according to what the Hebrews "thought", or the writer was confusing one Cush with something else. I believe either way it goes against your argument. I commend you if you can find a way around that problem.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Kalonji. After you respond, can you summarize your argument (main points) in a paragraph or two, so I can get a better idea of what you're actually saying. I want to be sure I'm not confusing your argument for something else.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Where did the earliest branch of the Hebrews hail from? the Sumerian city of Ur correct? so the traditions of that culture as shown above would have been some what familiar to them keeping in mind Sumer was also a place of Black men. and Heroes and Hero gods of protection like Horus-Kemetic,Heracles-Greek,Nimrod-Sumerian have all the same attributes as mighty hunters who tame the wild. see Bernal..

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim.

Sinnar a city on the Nile does not make things easier especially when followed by Biblical statements like this
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^This passage was cited by Kalonji and Ethiopia indeed seems to be a mistranslation since the geography is Asian (it should read "the whole land of Cush"). A lot of this has been discussed before by alTakuri and others but I never bothered to join those discussions so we may be needlessly rehashing a lot of things. Looking back on the archives, the opinion seems to be that Kushi was indeed applied to Kush proper in the Nile Valley, but also dark-skinned people in general which is why I said that supported Kalonji's argument in part. I am only confused when he refers to these places as a continuum of the same entity, which is contradicted by passages we just went through concerning Taharqa, "King of Egypt and Cush". Cush was clearly thought of as a polity in the lower Nile valley, dark-skinned Arabian descendants of a mythical son of Noah (and/or Kassites) notwithstanding.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

How are you so convinced that Zipporah and the "Cushite" woman refers to the same person?

---

quote:

---

Not only are there Mesopotamian, South Arabian, and Nile Valley Kushites, but you are proposing that Cushites were also a polity and people in Israel proper.

---

quote:

---

All of the writers interpret Cush to be equivalent to "Ethiopia" and this is how it was translated in the Greek rendition as well. Josephus' need to associate the Cushite wife with Ethiopia testifies to what the Hebrews thought.

---

quote:

---

So why do you support the notion that Nimrod was a son of Kush who was a son of Noah? I don't get it?

---

quote:

---

These are myths. How long ago do you think the Hebrew scriptures were written? Before the Kassite invasion?

---

quote:

---

I'd like to see the data on this "correlation" because you cite Kushites in Midian, Mesopotamia, South Arabia, all the way to Nubia Kush. This sounds more and more like a Clyde Winters theory, sorry to say.

---

quote:

---

Goldenberg states succinctly that they were DIFFERENT entities. Looking to his work for support towards that end would be inappropriate. Nimrod isn't mentioned in Cush' lineage at Gen. 10:7. Why?

---

quote:

---

You can't use Arabic ethnography to put Hebrew ethnography into context.

---

quote:

---

Why you'd prefer Arab writers over Josephus, or pick and choose what you like from Josephus, is beyond me.

---

quote:

---

Aren't we only talking about Mesopotamia here? Wouldn't the Greeks have to describe Mesopotamians as melas for your position to hold water?

---

quote:

---

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware but the Greeks made a distinction between Aethiopians and eastern Aethiopians. They weren't considered the same people according to the Greeks.

---

quote:

---

No I wouldn't because it is only translated that way when referring to Cush in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Arabs are again, irrelevant to what the Hebrews thought.

---

quote:

---

Invocation of the latter is necessary because it is the only way to understand what the Hebrews thought out side of their religious myths.

---

quote:

---

Posted by me:
The bible posits the kingdom of Nimrod prior to the confusion of languages, and the subsequent exodus of all mentioned sons of Noah. The bible also says that the people after the flood settled Mesopotamia from the West, which directly undermines any Kassite migration. You'd have to ignore the bible to make it work, but then, if you're going to that, you're already doubting its accuracy, which makes any attempts by that same author to correlate it with historical events questionable, and inconsistent per that earlier commitment to question that text.
That would be like hanging your coat (historical event) to what you perceive to be a crippled hatstand (the myth)

---

quote:

---

Posted by me:
Another point that I'd like to make, is that it is not unthinkable that the Kassites themselves didn't apply that name to themselves because they viewed themselves as blacks, which is corroborated by Josephus, who says the various Cushite groups also called themselves Cushites.

Having said that, every available line of evidence, other than name similarity (which isn't even evidence) suggest these folks are different, and as I've alluded to earlier; the Kassite explanation is more likely a remnant of racist thinking that intended to keep blacks out of the ''civilized'' centers of Southwest Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
The Hebrews state that the land of Cush was in Mesopotamia but they also state the land of Cush bordered Egypt and was in Africa. The passage that you cited was a direct argument to suggest that Cush was considered a territory in Mesopotamia. But how can it be a bordered territory in Africa south of Egypt but also a territory in North Arabia (apparently it jumps borders)? Either there are two Kush' according to what the Hebrews "thought", or they are confusing one Kush with something else. I believe either way it goes against your argument. I commend you if you can find a way around that problem.[/b]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
^Kalonji. After you respond, can you summarize your argument (main points) in a paragraph or two, so I can get a better idea of what you're actually saying. I want to be sure I'm not confusing your argument for something else.

---

quote:

---

What I said, is that they were all deemed to have common ancestry in Cush, the son of Noah. I’ve never said anything about polities, some groups could and would have been tribes.

---

quote:

---

If you mean ‘’Ethiopia’’ as exclusively Africa, this is untrue, as everyone knows who has read Josephs identification of Cush’s sons.

---

quote:

---

This is why I told you to read the relevant portions of the bible; there is nothing contradictory in what I said. Noah and his first generation > flood > disembarkment of ark > settlement in the land of shinear from the west > Nimrod builds cities > the tower of Babel is erected > confusion of tongues > exodus of each patriarch to their respective lands that they Hebrews found them in.

---

quote:

---

That skeletal analysis of various peoples deemed Cushite in ancient times are closely related doesn’t mean that they were closely related genetically, which is where Clyde and I differ.

---

quote:

---

You want to know why? Because he is mentioned in Cush’s lineage in the next verse; Genesis 10:8. Note; if you’re going to imply that the Hebrews purposefully didn’t put Nimrod in Cush’s lineage, you’re directly undermining your earlier notion that the Hebrews confused Kassites with Cushites by mistake.

---

quote:

---

Josephus supports me, so I can’t have ulterior motives for not citing him. Like I said earlier, he traces all sons of Cush to Arabian groups, directly opposing any talks about unrelated lineages of African and Asian Cushites in the mind of the Hebrew.

---

quote:

---

“the Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa, divided by the Red Sea into Eastern and Western Asiatic and African.”
- Ephorus
‘’if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.”
- Strabo

---

quote:

---

That directly undermines your claim above that the Greeks recognized eastern and western Aethiopians, in Asia and Africa, respectively. What happened to this Greek recognition, when the Greek version of the bible was penned down, did it simply disappear?

The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies people of a markedly different skin color from the Israelites, probably an African people; also, the Septuagint uniformly translates Cush as Αἰθιοπία "Ethiopia."

---

quote:

---

Another point that I'd like to make, is that it is not unthinkable that the Kassites themselves didn't apply that name to themselves because they viewed themselves as blacks, which is corroborated by Josephus, who says the various Cushite groups also called themselves Cushites.

---

quote:

---

Having said that, every available line of evidence, other than name similarity (which isn't even evidence) suggest these folks are different, and as I've alluded to earlier; the Kassite explanation is more likely a remnant of racist thinking that intended to keep blacks out of the ''civilized'' centers of Southwest Asia.

---

quote:

---

It is not against my argument.
I have stated from the get go that this was because they were viewed as descendants of Cush. The Habbakuk passages that I cited shows that there was another land of Cush, so it doesn’t really matter how much ‘’Cushite’’ entities there are, there are plenty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
But Guys there is room for overlap for if Meluhha is indeed African Kush as suggested by the Assyrians the successor state to the Sumerian/Babylonians in regards to Taharka and non less than a chief god of Sumer lord Enki showed much favor to Meluhha as to go from Sumer immediately there to bless it with Blackmen and all kinds of goodies then the linking is perhaps more ancient than before ancestors of the Hebrews ever leave Sumer itself. And that brings into　question ancient migrations and contacts between the area of the Persian gulf and the Nile, keeping in mind that the immediate successors to the Sumerians were Semitic speakers from East Africa or nearby.

---

Thanks Brada. Def. Something to think about.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

This isn't true of course since the Midianites were Shemites.

---

quote:

---

Read Josephus closely. He claims that Moses married twice, traveling to Ethiopia and THEN to Midian. Your argument would rely on his locating some other Ethiopia IN Midian (the land of Shem).

---

quote:

---

^How else can a population of people be closely related as inferred through skeletal remains if not genetically? In what way were they related and how does this speak to African Cushites relation to non-Cushite Africans like the Egyptians? Did the Hebrews see a closer relationship between Nubia Kush and Nimrod Kush than with Nubia Kush and Mizraim?

---

quote:

---

Mind you, in answering this question I'm more concerned about the anthropology which shows all people referred to as Cushites to be related.

---

quote:

---

We went over Gen. 10:8, the point was to show that for some reason he is treated distinctly and my aim wasn't to imply that Nimrod was purposely omitted, my point has always been that the Hebrews were making sense of names and genealogies that already existed.

---

quote:

---

Josephus is the one who thought Zipporah was African based on her appellation so I'm not sure why you assume that Josephus all of a sudden supports you? I myself also told you that the sons of Cush, besides Sheba left for southern Arabia (Josephus agrees, calling the Queen of Sheba the "Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt").

---

quote:

---

Since when has Mesopotamia straddled the South Coast?

---

quote:

---

Strabo later describes the Southern Indians as "looking like Ethiopians". In the quote you provided, he doesn't even mention Asia

---

quote:

---

we should understand that Strabo described "Ethiopians" much further south beyond the capital of Meroe (no where "near Egypt")

---

quote:

---

You are also making a serious error by equating Greek Aethiopia with Hebrew Cushi, as one is only translated to represent the other when there is overlap and much of the time there isn't any.

---

quote:

---

This is not just a claim of mine, you'd have to take this up with Herodotus

---

quote:

---

Since when has Kassu meant the same thing as Cush etymologically? What gave you the idea that they named themselves according to a biblical passage that was written after they were already settled and established in 1595 BCE?

---

quote:

---

Racism is a strong charge. The whole idea of Goldenberg's book is to refute and explore the racist ideas associated with the curse of Ham,

---

quote:

---

It would be helpful to summarize what your position is. For instance, what is an entity here if not a polity/state/nation (?),

---

quote:

---

yet you have already claimed that Cush was associated with geography in Mesopotamia.

---

quote:

---

The contradiction is that it is associated with geography in Africa. Either the land of Cush represents people or geography, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

This is ignorant babble. No one here even mentioned "race" until you began trolling. As shown, you misrepresent your own passage so no one is to even take you seriously. Your blabber about "sub-Saharan" Africa makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the biblical account describes a territory bordering southern Egypt. No competent scholar has ever associated this "Cush" with Mesopotamia as this is the same "Kush" in modern Sudan that was also written about by the Egyptians and the Assyrians. Get over it.

---

LOL So now we have a Euronut trying to use the Bible as his evidence. Unfortunately for him his very own holy book debunks his claims and is replete with references to Africa and her influences on the 'Holy Land' including Egypt. For example, many Biblical scholars acknowledge that the 'Land of Ham' was a poetic reference to Egypt. However since Egypt or Mizraim was a son of Ham, and virtually all of Ham's sons except Canaan was located in Africa, it was more accurate to regard Africa in general as the 'Land of Ham'. And as posters have pointed out some of Cush's offspring colonized Arabia right next door specifically the Hejaz and Yemen.

I suggest you read this book:


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglophile_Pyramidiot:

Too many idiots in this thread who have never studied Biblical ethnography.

---

quote:

---

The authors of Genesis never knew of Sub-Sahara Africa and i highly doubt they did throughout the entire Old Testament. Saying they did is like claiming they knew of the eskimos or antarctica.

---

quote:

---

The pre-flood setting of Genesis only concerns a local geography in Mesopotamia. Then after the flood there is more geographic territory referenced (where Noah's descendants migrated), however this territory still never covered Sub-Sahara Africa, East Asia etc. And only a very small section of Europe was known in Genesis i.e Crete and the south Mediterranean. In later OT books this overtime increased, but nowhere did the authors know of sub-sahara africa, polynesia, australia etc.

---

quote:

---

There are no black africans in the Bible (not even in the new testament). The ethiopia or kush referred to in the OT sat in Mesopotamia or Arabia, its not the ethiopia in africa known today.

---

So I take it you don't consider Egyptians to be black Africans even though that is exactly what they are.












Also there was no Ethiopia in Mesopotamia only in Africa & Arabia which is right next door to Africa so it wouldn't be illogical to suggest a close relation now would there?

Arabians






 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:


Going by that logic, why not reason that Joshua, king David, Solomon, and Jesus are all Hamites because they had immediate maternal and paternal Hamite ancestry, as well as a little more distant Hamite ancestry, as many Egyptians partook in their exodus, according to the bible (Exodus 12:37-38). The only Shemite ancestry that is ascribed to the Midianite peoples, is that of their patriarch (Midian), and even that was only paternal. There are many generations between Abraham and Moses, and the Midianites settled in a region that was described several times in the bible, as well as Assyrian records (the latter even mention a decidedly African, and non-Abrahamic cultural trait ie, the presence of queens), as Cushite territory. It should be noted that by the time when Genesis, and thus the paternal account of Midian, was written, Abraham was already a distant memory. That is to say, that they would have been well aware that the Midianites were Cushites by the time they conceptualized Abrahamic paternal origins for the Midianites. Together with (Habakkuk 3:7), there is no other explanation other than that they were assigned to the lineage of Cush.

---

quote:

---

Yes, my argument relies on that; and it is supported by the evidence.
Midian is never described as the land of Shem, in fact, Midian is surrounded by Kushite territory to their West and their South, as well as their east, since the Medjay lived there.

---

quote:

---

If you mean in physical traits, I can give you the following: see Hannihari on Bronze age Iranians (1996), see Buxton and Rice on Sumerians, see Coon on his belief that the ancient Arabians would have been similar in appearance to Tutsi, see Mahmoud Y. El-Najjar, "An Anthropological Study of Skeletal Remains from Tomb A, Hili North", see ‘’The Anthropomorphic Content of the Rock Art, " in Journal of Oman Studies 2, 1976 Keith Preston.

A famous rock art scene in the mountains of Oman shows a towering
round-headed black/Africoid figure holding a mace next to a shorter man
with a hat and breastplate. There are several
other tall black men portrayed in the rock art in this article. I
haven't been able to see R. Jackli, The Rock Art of Oman, 1980, to
see if he gave them airplay or, by some oversight (!) ignored them.
I can't find my xerox of the text of this article, only the pictures,
to see with which culture in Oman this art may be associated. But
rock art is difficult to date, and these pictures might stand in
isolation were it not for the skeletal evidence.

^Portions directly quoted from my very first post and thread here on ES in 2009, too bad it got slept on.

---

quote:

---

Common skeletal traits do not necessarily reflect phylogenetic history.
You ask me questions that were already answered; I don’t see how the Hebrews could have been aware of particularly close biological relationships between Egyptians and other Nilotic peoples, other than those that are observable from the surface eg common cultural features. Is it not obvious that they couldn’t have conceived of significant biological differences between intra patriarchic groups, if they believed that everyone in their time had a common ancestor around 2500bc?

---

Then why are you trying to correlate paternal ancestry via Hebrew scripture with skeletal affinities in the archaeological record? Also, what does phylogenetic ancestry have to do with gene expression? I mentioned skeletons, not phylogenetic ancestry. Also, you may need to rephrase this. This comment for instance:

" I don’t see how the Hebrews could have been aware of particularly close biological relationships between Egyptians and other Nilotic peoples, other than those that are observable from the surface eg common cultural features."

Doesn't make any sense unfortunately, so a bit of clarity may be warranted. Obviously this came out wrong because you know that I know that you know what the Greeks have to say about this.

This is a VERY curious statement from you. How could they have been "aware" of close biological relations between African and Arabian Cushites if they knew none between Egyptians and Cushites? Even from your logic they descend from Ham.


Also, You should know we don't take kindly to coon around these parts. As for your incitations, I cannot follow them without a bibliography, you need links. I can't consider this evidence if I can't access the studies either. Haven't read these and can't access any of them from your post but I will say the hall mark studies I've seen on Sumerians affiliate them with Dravidians, as well as ancient Elamites from Iran.

http://www.antropologia.uw.edu.pl/SHA/sha-04-07.pdf

quote:

---

There is no evidence that the Hebrews thought that any son of Cush left Africa for Southern Arabia. If the people settled in Shinear after the flood, and we find Genesis (Genesis 2:10) ascribing Arabian/Mesopotamian lands to Cush and his sons, before any Shemites are even mentioned as inhabiting Arabia, there can be no other explanation than that Cush and his sons moved to Africa from Arabia, per the Hebrews. Another point that I left untouched the previous time you said that, is that Josephus doesn’t place Sheba in Africa. The queen you’re referring is Makeda, per the Abyssinnians, Bilqis per the Arabs, she is not Sheba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Sumer is not adjacent to the Persian gulf?

---

quote:

---

Why is that needed in that specific quote, when you admit above that he does that elsewhere?

---

quote:

---

That reading is not possible by any stretch of imagination.

---

quote:

---

Strabo’s ancients (eg Homer) did not confine Aethiopia to Africa. Some readings of early Greek thought even allow for certain portions of the Levant to be candidates for being a variant of Aethiopia. This is, of course, just another example of the correlation I have been noting here, specifically, Greek ascriptions of Aethiopians and Hebrew grouping of people in Cham (in this case, the Canaanites). But you won’t listen when I talk about a correlation between those termed Cush and Aethiopians, you’ll simply tell me how much I’m in error.

---

quote:

---

]I already dealt with this more than one time Your assertion that Cush was only translated as Aethiopia when the bible deals with the African variant of Cush is simply false, elsewhere I posted:

---

quote:

---

I know it isn’t a claim of yours
What I was saying, is that you admit that there are Eastern and Western Aethiopians per the Greeks, but the second you’re talking about a Greek translation of the bible, you say only the African variants of Cushites are translated as Aethiopians. Don’t you think that is a tad bit odd?

---

quote:

---

What made me think about that possibility is Hannihara (1996) and Homer (Greek) on Iranians, as well as Josephus on Cushites in general. I never even mentioned the bible. This is not needed, because Cushite is (as I said in that exact same portion) according to Josephus, applied to blacks by all men in Asia, as well as by themselves.

---

quote:

---

That is why I said it was likely a remnant of racist thinking, which is something I still stand by. Trying to take the Cush out of Sumer by equating it with the Kassites (who are perceived to be non-black), is a blatant disregard of Sumerian skeletal material, colored frescos they made of themselves, and the simple fact that the two events simply don’t gel. He also claims to separate Cushite lineages (African, Mesopotamian and Arab) on behalf of the Hebrews, when they never did such a thing. Furthermore, sympathizing with the African cause is no proof that one thinks of an African as equal to himself in mental capacity.

---

quote:

---

I’ve already addressed this as well:
What I said, is that they were all deemed to have common ancestry in Cush, the son of Noah. I’ve never said anything about polities, some groups could and would have been tribes.

---

quote:

---

Yes, and recent satellite imaging agree with that interpretation. Compare the biblical Gihon (Genesis 2:10-13) with Farouk el Baz, James Souer and Juris Zarins, who have identified it as most likely being the Karun river.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

This is ignorant babble. No one here even mentioned "race" until you began trolling. As shown, you misrepresent your own passage so no one is to even take you seriously. Your blabber about "sub-Saharan" Africa makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the biblical account describes a territory bordering southern Egypt. No competent scholar has ever associated this "Cush" with Mesopotamia as this is the same "Kush" in modern Sudan that was also written about by the Egyptians and the Assyrians. Get over it.

---

LOL So now we have a Euronut trying to use the Bible as his evidence. Unfortunately for him his very own holy book debunks his claims and is replete with references to Africa and her influences on the 'Holy Land' including Egypt. For example, many Biblical scholars acknowledge that the 'Land of Ham' was a poetic reference to Egypt. However since Egypt or Mizraim was a son of Ham, and virtually all of Ham's sons except Canaan was located in Africa, it was more accurate to regard Africa in general as the 'Land of Ham'. And as posters have pointed out some of Cush's offspring colonized Arabia right next door specifically the Hejaz and Yemen.

I suggest you read this book:

---

LOL! The prophetic words of Rasol: Next up, the Nordic origin of Bantu.. No longer seem so far fetched.

BTW, I doubt very seriously that this guy can even spell his own name, let alone read.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^ According to Goldberg there were 3 possibly 4 places named 'Kush'. The first is the African Kush south of Egypt, the second is Arabian Kush, the third is Levantine Kush, and the fourth is Mesopotamian Kush. The last which was actually Kish does not seem likely as Kish is the name of a single city-state and not an actual region. Also there has been no Israelite traditions of a 'Kush' in Mesopotamia. As for the Levantine Kush, as Takruri has pointed out there was never a designated 'land' of Kush per-say however there was an area in the southern Levant especially the Negev which stretched to northeastern Arabia or Sinai associated with Cushim i.e. black peoples. This area was Biblically known as Midian. Even today in that area there are black Sinai Arab tribes. Then you have the rest of Arabia namely the Hejaz along the Red Sea and the Yemen along Aden which is right across Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti, as well as Kush in the Sudan. Goldberg actually admits that Greek geographers included all of Africa east of the Nile up to the Red Sea coasts as 'Arabia' also to suggest a close relationship between early peoples of Arabia and those of Africa.

As for 'Aethiopia' you are correct that the earliest Greek use of the label applied to the Levant and referred to ancient Canaan.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^I still question whether or not "Cushim" is the Hebrew equivalent for 'Black' or 'Black people'. Goldenberg seems adamant that it isn't, citing "shehorim" instead. There IS a compelling argument though, as I alluded to earlier for relationships across the Red Sea. As for Kish, that was thrown out there on account of the OP's suggestion since Goldenberg seems content with associating the Mesopotamian reference with the Kassites (Kassu). He also echos the above concerning Midian claiming that Arabian Cushites (Cushim) may have assimilated among them. Would be great if alTakuri could chip in, even though I know he may feel as if this has been beaten to death (though what topic on here hasn't?).
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

It isn't supported by Josephus. It can't depend on that if you read what Josephus actually says (that Moses picked up a wife in Ethiopia before he left for Midian).

---

quote:

---

Then why are you trying to correlate paternal ancestry via Hebrew scripture with skeletal affinities in the archaeological record?

---

quote:

---

As for your incitations, I cannot follow them without a bibliography, you need links.

---

quote:

---

but I will say the hall mark studies I've seen on Sumerians affiliate them with Dravidians, as well as ancient Elamites from Iran.

---

quote:

---

After doubling back, you seem to take this for granted. Goldenberg cites the passage in Genesis 2:13 as referring to geography in Africa, especially due to the association with gold.

---

quote:

---

Irrelevant. He clearly mentions the southern coasts of Africa and Asia which obviously refers to the Red Sea

---

quote:

---

he doesn't mention Ethiopians in India. He correctly refers to them as Indians and notes their similarities AND differences with Ethiopians in Africa.

---

quote:

---

“that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge

---

quote:

---

Because in the quote that I'm referring to where he mentions Asia, he doesn't mention Ethiopians in India. He correctly refers to them as Indians and notes their similarities AND differences with Ethiopians in Africa.

---

quote:

---

You clearly took Strabo out of context as he did NOT mention Asia in the quote you provided, and he has indeed given wonderful descriptions of Ethiopians far south of Meroe (no where "Near Egypt").

---

quote:

---

You clearly took Strabo out of context as he did NOT mention Asia

---

quote:

---

I never even said that, I clearly associated descendants of Cush with Southern Arabia (except Sheba).

---

quote:

---

But you claimed that the greeks never made a distinction between the two when clearly they did and even noted physical differences. This was the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:
The Greeks and the Arabs were used to corroborate that those termed Cush were called Aethiopians as well. If the Greeks thought, in contradiction to the Hebrews, that some Aethiopians came not from Cush, but from Bruce Springsteen, that would be irrelevant to the correlation that I’m getting at here.

---

quote:

---

Hannihara and Homer are in no way compatible and I offer you to post a link to Hannihara or cite it properly with a title so I'll know where to look for it and confirm. I also offer you to quote Josephus to the effect that you just paraphrased him.

---

quote:

---

If you believe the Sumerians were African ..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I have made no comments on Josephus’ discourse about Moses' and hist fight with the Sudanese – which I consider to be unsupported rubbish – and doing all sorts of other things that I can’t correlate with other sources. This is why I never touched his 2nd wife account to begin with. The portion you’re responding to (mine) does not say anything about Moses’ wife, nor have I taken a position on his account, as far as I can remember.

---

quote:

---

It is a contradiction to note that the groups that the Hebrews grouped as Cushites had skeletal traits in common?

---

quote:

---

I haven’t read them either, I was hoping you could get access them. If not, never mind then. The point is, that these studies exist, which you apparently know as you said below:

Well then, then there wouldn’t have been a need for Kashites to account for ascriptions of Cush to Sumerians, as they would have been able to see for themselves what Sumerians looked like.

---

quote:

---

That is where you go wrong; you double back

---

quote:

---

but you keep going back to the same secondary source, only to come back with more material that fundamentally differs from my view of things regarding the issue. No African river congregates with the Tigris and Euphrates, as the Pishon and Gihon are supposed to do according to Genesis 2:10. When putting all clues together from the bible, one cannot come to any other conclusion than that Havilah was directly hugging Sumer, in the extreme northeastern corner of Arabia, and stretched along the Pishon, as the land of Havilah was supposed to have gold. Well, at the end of that crispy riverbed (Pishon) that was detected with satellites, there is a major gold mine (Mahd ahd Dhahab) that was mined in ancient times and still is. Your problem is that you have done no work in the area, and that you have no frame of reference to tell whether his claims are supported or unsupported. What you’re doing makes absolutely no sense. Instead of double checking whether the primary source, which is readily available, corroborates Goldenberg, you keep double checking his book, which is apparently riddled with non-sense where it concerns details on the locations of the lands of Cush.

---

quote:

---

Descriptions and images of African Kush, preserved in the Hebrew Bible, will give us a picture of how the land was perceived by the Jews of antiquity. In only a few places does the Bible describe aspects of the topography, resources, and geographical location of Nubia. Gen 2:13 refers to a river called Gihon, "that winds through the whole land of Kush". Some claim that Gihon is the Egyptian Giyon, which is the Amharic name for the waterfalls and springs in the Blue Nile.

---

quote:

---

Some scholars--both medieval and modern--would also see other biblical references to Kush as referring to the Kassites. Isa 18:1 is understood this way by Ibn Ezra. Gen 2:13 is so understood by Hidal, and, following him Adele Berlin see Kush in Zeph 3:10, Isa 18:1, and Gen 2:13 as referring to the Kassites. Ball notes a linguistic and theological relationship between Isa 18:1 and Zeph 3:8-13, and specifically relates the "rivers of Kush" to the Garden of Eden tradition

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
]If you think the southern coasts of the red sea equals ‘’all southern coasts of Asia’’, and that there are no other southern coasts in Asia, like those that are adjacent to the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the rest of the Indian ocean, go ahead then, I won’t stop you.

---

quote:

---

Seriously, why does that matter?
Some of the Arabian blacks – which you admit are Cushites and Aethiopians per the Ancient geographers - would have differed in that exact same manner from some Africans, ie language and hair, and now, you’re using those things as a counter argument?

---

quote:

---

Herodotus, Homer and other Greek authors called the Dravidians the Eastern Ethiopians or Eastern Æthiopians. Greek writers sometimes identified the Aethiopians of Egypt with the Eastern Aethiopians. Also the Egyptian and Indian geography were sometimes compared or identified: Arrian (vi. i.) mentions that the Indus River was thought by some ancient Greeks to be the source of the Nile.

[URL=http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Ethiopian?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Ethiopian&sa=Search#906 ]Webster dictionary[/URL]

^Wallis E Budge Cosigns that, and apparently, my reading of Ephorus regarding the inclusion of central Asian groups under the header ''Aethiopian'', as well:

---

quote:

---

“that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge

---

quote:

---

It seems you’re not reading things in context, because when he says that they ‘’**look** like Aethiopians’’ he is not saying that he did not view them as Aethiopians

---

quote:

---

or grouped with Aethiopians, he simply says they look like Aethiopians and that those in the North look like Egyptians, the same way one can say that South African boers look like Europeans without denying one thinks they should be grouped with Europeans.

---

quote:

---

What is not there in terms of Asia, is also not there in terms of other Nilotic peoples, but that didn’t stop you from going that direction. Its funny that you think Strabo was talking about Southern Sudanese, because he said ‘’no where near Egypt’’ but that you think he couldn’t have meant Asians as well, by that exact same ‘’no where near Egypt’’, as if ‘’no where near Egypt’’ eliminates Asia.

---

quote:

---

How can I take Strabo out of context, when I in fact place it into context by giving the example of Homer, along with Ephorus to show you what he meant with ‘’the meaning of the Ancients’’ ALONG with the fact that the Septuagint translates ALL Cushites – whether African or Asian - uniformly as Aethiopians? You provide no evidence, in fact, the portion of the text you’re focusing on (no where near Egypt) doesn’t exclude Asia, but for some strange reason, you apparently think it does. In addition to that, you’ve admitted that you’re aware of Herodotus’ belief that there were Eastern and Western Ethiopians. Instead of putting all four clues into a coherent picture, you shoot them down one by one with pure and simple denial. You even entertain the idea that Herodotus was a heretic, which is totally incongruent with history, since he was one of those ancients Strabo tacitly referred to, along with Homer and Ephorus. I would say, if anything, Strabo is a heretic because he was the latecomer, but that would be untrue because Strabo was well aware of what I’m saying, as well as what the ancients were saying. This is why he mentioned them and contrasted their accounts with those of his contemporaries in the first place. If not, the onus is on you to show that the amount of Aethiopian groups progressively shrunk from including all those along the Sudanese Nile, to only those near Egypt, with near Egypt meaning literally near Egypt’s border, as you presented it originally in your interpretation.

For the record, I see no indication, even when entertaining your interpretation, that ‘’near Egypt’’ should be taken as ‘’bordering Egypt’’ per se. Meroe would have been relatively near Egypt to the Greeks.

---

quote:

---

What does that have to do with my point that you said that Cush was only translated as Aethiopia in the Septuagint, only when it dealt with the African variant(s) of Cush?

---

quote:

---

Never said that.

---

quote:

---

The only reason why I invoked Arab and Greek ethnographers was:
The correlation being, of course, that those deemed Cush by Hebrews were deemed Aethiopians by Greeks. Your points of difference in hair and language makes no sense, because the regular translation of ''Aethiopian'' doesn't involve hair, but skin.

---

quote:

---

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/westasianafrican.jpg

Name of the study is in there as well^

"For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites."
-Josephus

---

quote:

---

I already answered that when I said I disagreed with Clyde. You can keep accusing me of that, but here are my actual words:

He also claims to separate Cushite lineages (African, Mesopotamian and Arab) on behalf of the Hebrews,

---

quote:

---

No?
Its common knowledge that Early Indians grouped with Nubians many times, Keita also dealt with that directly, refuting it on grounds that, even though demonstrated skeletally, its an unlikely relationship because its distant. See Hanihara’s dendogram in that link where early Iranians compare favorably, but are somewhat distant to the Bantu samples, per the length of the twigs.

---

quote:

---

You can also google the rest of his quotes regarding Keith, and how the latter likened his Sumerian material to some Pred Egyptian groups. Relationships with Western Desert groups are also noted.

---

quote:

---

LOL, what are you trying to say? That the biblical account ISN'T rubbish? Dude, none of this really happened. If you are Christian I hate to seem insensitive.

---

quote:

---

No but there's no reason to pair the two as if one relates to the other nor have you offered any evidence towards that end concerning said skeletal traits.

---

quote:

---

Equating phylogenetic ancestry with skeletal remains

---

quote:

---

charging racism at those who disagree,

---

quote:

---

citing studies you haven't read.

---

quote:

---

I simply put the information given by the experts into context based on RELIABLE criteria.

---

quote:

---

Gen 2:13 refers to a river called Gihon, "that winds through the whole land of Kush". Some claim that Gihon is the Egyptian Giyon, which is the Amharic namefor the waterfalls and springs in the Blue Nile.

---

quote:

---

Directly from the notes just to show that your views are not part of the orthodoxy:

---

quote:

---

Some scholars--both medieval and modern--would also see other biblical references to Kush as referring to the Kassites. Isa 18:1 is understood this way by Ibn Ezra. Gen 2:13 is so understood by Hidal, and, following him Adele Berlin see Kush in Zeph 3:10, Isa 18:1, and Gen 2:13 as referring to the Kassites. Ball notes a linguistic and theological relationship between Isa 18:1 and Zeph 3:8-13, and specifically relates the "rivers of Kush" to the Garden of Eden tradition

---

quote:

---

To dispute their opinions you should be able to do more than cite scripture but demonstrate some sort of analytical training.

---

quote:

---

Look at a map, this can ONLY describe the Red Sea! Invoking the Persian gulf is ludicrous.

---

quote:

---

Ephorus likewise shows us the opinion of the ancients respecting Ethiopia, in his Treatise on Europe. He says, 'If the whole celestial and terrestrial globe were divided into four parts, the Indians would possess that towards the east, the Ethiopians towards the south, the Kelts towards the west, and the Scythians towards the north.' He adds that Ethiopia is larger than Scythia; for, says he, it appears that the country of the Ethiopians extends from the rising to the setting of the sun in winter; and Scythia is opposite to it.

---

quote:

---

You've seen no support from your own cited sources since Strabo doesn't mention Asia

---

quote:

---

you claimed that the Greeks had no such concepts expressing distinct Ethiopian territories. Can you at least admit to your folly concerning THAT?

---

quote:

---

this is why whenever the post-1rst century writers see a reference to Aethiopia or Cush in the Bible, they associate it with Meroe Kush, hence Josephus' story about Moses' second wife.

---

quote:

---

Ah, but you did:

"That directly undermines your claim above that the Greeks recognized eastern and western Aethiopians, in Asia and Africa, respectively."

---

quote:

---

yet you argue in favor of an actual relationship and it is based on material that you haven't even read. I don't get it.

---

quote:

---

Will check it out later but the study is no longer relevant here since you haven't read it.

---

quote:

---

As for Josephus, I'm baffled as to what you're reading into these quotes. Here he is clearly saying that (……..)

---

quote:

---

You are right that Keita ruled out a relationship, yet you insist on one.

---

quote:

---

Also, what does phylogenetic ancestry have to do with gene expression?

---

quote:

---

That skeletal analysis of various peoples deemed Cushite in ancient times are closely related doesn’t mean that they were closely related genetically, which is where Clyde and I differ.

---

quote:

---

Equating phylogenetic ancestry with skeletal remains, going against consensus,

---

quote:

---

So now we are resurrecting the dynastic race theory?

---

quote:

---

Also, Egyptians are not Kushites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
What I was saying is that Josephus additions do not appear in the original myth, my statement had nothing to do with the truth factor of Josephus nor the bible (which is what you’re erroneously equating rubbish to).

---

quote:

---

^You’re just being high maintenance here. That blacks existed in Arabia and Mesopotamia is common ES knowledge.

---

quote:

---

You’ve even admitted that Keita recognized skeletal traits (not genetic, emphasizing that since you’ve proven to have a knack for misinterpreting me) in common with Nile Valley peoples and Indians.

---

quote:

---

Your whole case seems to be imploding by your own admission of what you already know (that the Sumerians grouped with Dravidians, and that Keita acknowledges skeletal similarities between Indians and Sudanese), making your requests for evidence highly suspect.

---

quote:

---

Equating phylogenetic ancestry with skeletal remains

---

quote:

---

There you go again, misrepresenting me

---

quote:

---

I read the conclusion, and it’s pretty conclusive, with ''early WA'' being her Iranian sample:

Early West Asians looked like Africans.
-Hanihara

End of discussion

---

quote:

---

You do? What is this then:
Gen 2:13 refers to a river called Gihon, "that winds through the whole land of Kush". Some claim that Gihon is the Egyptian Giyon, which is the Amharic namefor the waterfalls and springs in the Blue Nile. Apparently (and inconsistent with how you portray Goldenberg), he is not even decided on the matter, but is simply saying what some think.

---

quote:

---

^Appeal to authority fallacy

---

quote:

---

]It appears that (again) Goldenberg is merely citing what some scholars think

---

quote:

---

making your unrelenting adherence to the Kassite explanation, despite evidence to the contrary

---

quote:

---

as well as your own admission that the Sumerians looked like Elamites and Dravidians, highly suspect.

---

quote:

---

A comparison of Goldenbergs careful wording of what some scholars think, and your portrayal of him as personally committed to, and decided on the matter, shows you have an axe to grind for your African primacy of ‘’Aethiopia’’ and ‘’Cush’’ more than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Show me what these ‘’both medieval and modern’’ writers said, each one of them, and also show how they came to their conclusions. I’d like to see if you’ve followed what you request of others, eg ‘’you can’t use Hanihara, because you haven’t read it’’, and whether these primary sources are not simply related to changes in their thought, as you’ve exemplified earlier, regarding the extra biblical meaning ‘’Cham’’ acquired over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
^Moving the goal post fallacy

---

quote:

---

Lets look at some of Ephorus other quotations, quoted by Strabo:

---

quote:

---

Ephorus likewise shows us the opinion of the ancients respecting Ethiopia, in his Treatise on Europe. He says, 'If the whole celestial and terrestrial globe were divided into four parts, the Indians would possess that towards the east, the Ethiopians towards the south, the Kelts towards the west, and the Scythians towards the north.' He adds that Ethiopia is larger than Scythia; for, says he, it appears that the country of the Ethiopians extends from the rising to the setting of the sun in winter; and Scythia is opposite to it. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png

^Perceived territory of the Scythians, which is supposed to parallel most of Ethiopia in length from east to west, according to Ephorus, which means that all southern coasts of Asia, known to the Greeks, were implied in the ancient use of ‘’Aethiopia’’, and that it DID extend further than Arabia, and well into India, subsuming Elam and Sumer as I’ve maintained all along.

---

quote:

---

Clearly, you’re completely in the dark, and you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding Aethiopia when it’s not referred to as a single polity, but in an ethnic sense, as conceptualized by Strabo and his ancients.

---

quote:

---

No,

---

quote:

---

This makes no sense whatsoever, as you’ve already committed to the idea that Josephus places all sons of Cush in Arabia, and identifies them with contemporary Arabian tribes.

---

quote:

---

You keep saying ‘’With the exception of Sheba’’ and even that is utterly false, if as you say, you’re basing it on Josephus.

---

quote:

---

Josephus’ Makeda is not Sheba, as I’ve already pointed out to you. You’re also undermining your own interpretation of Strabo, since you’ve committed yourself to your earlier interpretation that Strabo’s contemporaries confined Aethiopians to ‘’those that dwell near (ie bordering) Egypt’’, and that Strabo’s ancients included the area around Meroe. Now you’re arguing the exact opposite.

---

quote:

---

I ALREADY TOLD YOU what that portion referred to, when it says ‘’**that** undermines your claim about Eastern and Western Aethiopians’’ and it referred the fact that you first maintained that the Greeks recognized Western and Eastern Ethiopians, and then you went on to say that the authors of the Septuagint translated Cush as Aethiopians, only when it referred to Western Ethiopians. The thing that was undermined (by your mention of Herodotus’ Eastern and Western Ethiopians) was your erroneous statement regarding the African primacy of Aethiopia in the Septuagint, not the existence of physical differences between Eastern and Western Aethiopians. Don’t take my word for it, go back to where I said that, and see which one of your words were highlighted when I said that.

---

quote:

---

]I already told you, when I gave you the names of the studies that you couldn’t find earlier, as well as throughout all my posts, that I was only talking about skeletal relationships, so I don’t know what you mean with ‘’actual relationship’’, but your inability to understand earlier admissions that I’m not talking about phylogenetic relationships, as well as that I disagree with Clyde, makes me highly suspicious of your usage of ‘’actual relationships’’ .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Never knew words in a paper can make themselves relevant to topics according to whether it is read by people or not. They either apply or they don’t. It is your task to refute or consent to whether the study, and what I understand from it, is supported, and if not, why. You asked me about where Hanihara implicated that skeletal relationship, and I supplied it. No backing off now.

---

quote:

---

I have no idea why your reformulation of that quote is detrimental to the purpose I used it for, as its still in there, intact. Neither am I sure what exactly you intended to change, but here again, your inconsistencies are obvious. You reformulate Josephus, and it didn’t even occur to you how detrimental your reformulation is to your case, as its saying what I’ve said all along (and what you’ve denied vehemently), regarding the correlation between those termed Cush, and those termed Aethiopian in Africa, as well as Asia.

---

quote:

---

I invite you to show me where I insisted on anything other than skeletal relationship.

---

quote:

---

^Moving the goalpost again.

---

quote:

---

That the Egyptians are not Kushites is irrelevant, considering that you are well aware of the fact that the distance between pred. Egyptians and the implied Sudanese groups are insignificant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

I still question whether or not "Cushim" is the Hebrew equivalent for 'Black' or 'Black people'. Goldenberg seems adamant that it isn't, citing "shehorim" instead. There IS a compelling argument though, as I alluded to earlier for relationships across the Red Sea. As for Kish, that was thrown out there on account of the OP's suggestion since Goldenberg seems content with associating the Mesopotamian reference with the Kassites (Kassu). He also echos the above concerning Midian claiming that Arabian Cushites (Cushim) may have assimilated among them. Would be great if alTakuri could chip in, even though I know he may feel as if this has been beaten to death (though what topic on here hasn't?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:

''For example, many Biblical scholars acknowledge that the 'Land of Ham' was a poetic reference to Egypt.''
=======

Right, the tip of North Africa (a segment of modern Egypt) was known. Nothing further. The Table of Nations (Gen. 10 & 11) makes this very clear that only a small portion of Hamites (descendants of Ham) ended up in Egypt and Libya (the top tip of North Africa). Not sub-sahara Africa which was never known or mapped.

Also note the Hamites only moved into Egypt (according to Genesis) during the post-flood. As i said prior to the flood the antideluvian patriarchs were confined to Mesopotamia, they had no knowledge of anywhere else. Note that Cain moves outside of this region, but scripture cannot name where he settled to the east - because even territory just outside mesopotamia was not even known.

---

quote:

---

''that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge''
=====

And just to point out Herodotus physically distinguished between the Eastern and Western Ethiopians.

The Eastern Ethiopians he wrote were straight haired. They clearly were not negro, and only the Eastern Ethiopia (Kush) appears in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I notice Goldberg in his book tends to contradict himself somewhat. He does mention how 'shehorim' could mean black while 'cushim' just means 'dark'. However, he seems reluctant to call Egyptians 'black' while he readily applies that label to Sub-Saharan Africans and Nubians who aren't even Sub-Saharan but live just a few miles away from Egypt. He even identified the word cush as meaning black before his shehorim conjecture.

---

quote:

---

So what? Yes, not genetic but **generic** ties. Huge difference.

---

quote:

---

I never admitted this, the citation I gave you indicates closest relationships with Dravidians among the Sumerians.

---

quote:

---

That you now distance yourself from it doesn't hide the fact that this is what you're doing, i.e, Hebrew myth being manifest in skeletal biology.

---

quote:

---

You wouldn't even know if said quote was from the paper or not, or which west Asians and how early.

---

quote:

---

How you feel I've portrayed Goldenberg is irrelevant to the cited material I've presented from the book,

---

quote:

---

Including what he thinks and what he claims the majority thinks. This is based on the methodological approach of **experts** in the field.

---

quote:

---

There is no evidence to support your myth of Nimrod leaving Noah's company for Mesopotamia after a global flood.

---

quote:

---

Which has nothing to do with Africans so how is that "suspect"?

---

quote:

---

That's too heavy a burden for me which is why I cited an expert who has already done years of research on the issue

---

quote:

---

Also, this is different, if for example you didn't have access to the Hannihara paper, but you found a paper from Keita making mention of the data and his assessment of the data agrees with yours, then I can't hold you to the burden of having read Hannihara since you've provided a reliable source who has already synthesized the data..

---

quote:

---

This isn't very good spin. I won't bite as a matter of fact. Clearly you misrepresented your quote.

---

quote:

---

Where did I cite JOSEPHUS on this for one and two, where does Josephus refer to any Asian polities as "Aethiopia"? Nowhere.

---

quote:

---

I don't so you are assuming too much. The Kebra Negast is quite clear on the issue of tradition here also.

---

quote:

---

We were not discussing the Septuagint, we were discussing testimony from classical Greek authors so this is disingenuous. Pretty much, you erred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
You'd also have to explain why the Greeks translated the Hebrew Cush with ''Aethiopian'', if such a proposal is so unsupported.

---

No I wouldn't because it is only translated that way when referring to Cush in Africa.

---

quote:

---

You claimed that you knew what the Hebrews thought.

---

quote:

---

You claimed what they thought was that the Cushites throughout Asia and Africa were related.

---

quote:

---

You then claimed that what they thought towards that end is confirmed by physical anthropology. This is an accurate recalling of your position

---

quote:

---

I can't refute that which I cannot verify.

---

quote:

---

My reformulation was a correct interpretation of the passage that you tried to corrupt or misinterpret. Clearly the only thing he is saying is that African Cushites have always been known as such by men in Asia

---

quote:

---

Trying to use an Egyptian proxy now, when earlier you claimed quite curiously that Hebrews couldn't have known of any relationship between Egyptians and Kushites outside of culture,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I don't know what you guys (Kalonji and Sundjata) are arguing about since I don't have time right now to follow all your posts. I will just respond as follows.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
I still question whether or not "Cushim" is the Hebrew equivalent for 'Black' or 'Black people'. Goldenberg seems adamant that it isn't, citing "shehorim" instead. There IS a compelling argument though, as I alluded to earlier for relationships across the Red Sea. As for Kish, that was thrown out there on account of the OP's suggestion since Goldenberg seems content with associating the Mesopotamian reference with the Kassites (Kassu). He also echos the above concerning Midian claiming that Arabian Cushites (Cushim) may have assimilated among them. Would be great if alTakuri could chip in, even though I know he may feel as if this has been beaten to death (though what topic on here hasn't?).

---

I notice Goldberg in his book tends to contradict himself somewhat. He does mention how 'shehorim' could mean black while 'cushim' just means 'dark'. However, he seems reluctant to call Egyptians 'black' while he readily applies that label to Sub-Saharan Africans and Nubians who aren't even Sub-Saharan but live just a few miles away from Egypt.

---

quote:

---

He even identified the word cush as meaning black before his shehorim conjecture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

I still question whether or not "Cushim" is the Hebrew equivalent for 'Black' or 'Black people'. Goldenberg seems adamant that it isn't, citing "shehorim" instead. There IS a compelling argument though, as I alluded to earlier for relationships across the Red Sea. As for Kish, that was thrown out there on account of the OP's suggestion since Goldenberg seems content with associating the Mesopotamian reference with the Kassites (Kassu). He also echos the above concerning Midian claiming that Arabian Cushites (Cushim) may have assimilated among them. Would be great if alTakuri could chip in, even though I know he may feel as if this has been beaten to death (though what topic on here hasn't?).

---

I notice Goldberg in his book tends to contradict himself somewhat. He does mention how 'shehorim' could mean black while 'cushim' just means 'dark'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

^Directly undermining claims about his so called expert status. How does one talk about ancient descriptions of peoples without cross referencing, or at least being informed by, scientific journals dealing with ancient remains? Did it ever occurred to him that moderns don't always look similar to Ancients in appearance? I believe herein lies his need to explain Cushite Nimrod in Sumeria away as not indigenous (he doesn't know Asian blacks lived there, which is confirmed by anthropology).

---

quote:

---

Do you remember what page/region he identified the Cush as meaning black?

EDIT:
never mind about the passage, I'll look it up later

---

quote:

---

Why do you think his claims on shehorim are conjecture?

---

quote:

---

As for the word 'Cushim' I'm only going by what the only knowledgeable Hebrew speaker here says-- Al Takruri. Speaking of which, I wish here was here to help set the record straight.

---

quote:

---

Of course Goldberg's book does have flaws for the very reason you pointed out in that he appears to be unaware of bio-anthropological findings.

---

quote:

---

AND that Arabia was viewed to be an extension of Cush.

---

quote:

---

Yes there were blacks in Mesopotamia, but as I've mentioned the Kush that begat Nimrod could hardly be the Sumerian city-state of Kish.

---

quote:

---

Also Nimrod is associated with the founding of Semitic city-states in the areas and is thus a Semitic speaker NOT a Sumerian.

---

quote:

---

First of all, 1000bc Hebrews could have no way of knowing what Predynastic Egyptians looked like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


Job 30:30
My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

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

..Only Black people turn "Blacker". Only Dark skinned people turn Black when there starved or deprived of nutrients.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Kalonji

quote:

---

First of all, 1000bc Hebrews could have no way of knowing what Predynastic Egyptians looked like.

---

Like I pointed out earlier we should be mindful of temporal bias after all the kings of Ta-Seti(3800 to 3100 B.C) had direct contacts with the Levant and beyond.

In addition to huge quantities of native pottery, the tombs were filled with
bottles, flasks, bowls, and large storage jars from Egypt - many inscribed with
hieroglyphs. There were also vessels from Syria-Palestine of a type that had
never been found in Egypt and that may have indicated a direct trade link
between Nubia and Asia.

These findings included five major groups:
1 - items probably from Sudan
2 - items very similar to a culture previously know as C-Group, which was found
in Nubia and in Egypt up to the New Kingdom (2300 - 1500 B.C.)
3 - Egyptian pottery, some of which had early forms of hieroglyphic writing
4 - items from the Levant (Syria and Palestine area)
5 - badly damaged objects of Egyptian and Sudanese origin.
http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/ancient/550/The-artifacts-speak-Ancient-Qustul-Ta-Seti-Egypt-s-Origin

Now if we add the fact of the Sumerian god Enki favoring the area they may well have been acquainted as to what those people looked like for us moderns predynastic may mean some vague distant era almost lost to history but for folks living at or closer to that era their memories might have been as vibrant as how we would view events of the past 500yrs or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

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

..Only Black people turn "Blacker". Only Dark skinned people turn Black when there starved or deprived of nutrients.

---

please put up supporting evidence [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
the lioness

I don't like posting pics of Jews from Germany that were treated like that.

All I will say is look it up...google it. White people do not turn Black when they are starved.

Also why did you post the rest of Job? The point was written in my post how does "PUTTING it in CONTEXT" change what was stated in Job? Please explain.

Peace [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

From previous discussions I can remember that he agrees with the notion that that is what Cushite people have in common; darkest skin, though not totally in agreement with me, since he subscribes to the notion that Shem, and some of his descendants (Hebrews) would have been dark, on par with Sudanese and Egyptians, via a Midrashic passage, and via the same Greeco-Roman accounts that you mentioned, wherein it is said that Aethiopians lived in the Syrio-Palestinian area.

---

quote:

---

Yep, I mean, isn't his field directly informed by biblical archaeology? How can one reap the fruits of biblical archaeology, and ignore its other siblings that reconstruct those ancient times as well?

---

quote:

---

What exactly do you mean here with that Arabia was an extension of Cush? The kingdom of Kush centered in ''Upper Nubia'', or Cush as a Patriarch?

---

quote:

---

Totally in agreement. That reading ignores skeletal anthropology, and is just another variant of the Kassite explanation, it that it refuses to look at if there could actually have been people in that area who were perceived as similar to Cushites elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

I don't know whether city states like Uruk, as early as they were built, were Semitic city states, so I can't effectively speak on that. I was more going along the lines of, that the mythological characteristics of Nimrod were indigenous, and that because the biblical authors borrowed that legacy of known Sumerian hero's (e.g. Gilgamesh, Etana etc), he simply acquired that tradition of being a hunter, rebel to the gods, and builder of cities. What do you think about that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

Job of course, was very likely perceived to be an Arabian Cushite, not an israelite, as were some of his assailants. Job is also seen as a nephew of Lokman, the Aethiopian sage. The 31st chapter in the Quran is named after Lokman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
Where is text evidence that says this is what happens when dark people are starved or deprived of nutrients?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I wish he was here to help set the record straight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
Would be great if alTakuri could chip in,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Goldenberg is no expert; he's just the Jew the lobby could find to counter the NOI's claim that the Talmud is anti-black

---

Have you ever tried checking in with the 2012 crowd, and the rest of the complot theorists? They seem to be your type.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

From previous discussions I can remember that he agrees with the notion that that is what Cushite people have in common; darkest skin, though not totally in agreement with me, since he subscribes to the notion that Shem, and some of his descendants (Hebrews) would have been dark, on par with Sudanese and Egyptians, via a Midrashic passage, and via the same Greeco-Roman accounts that you mentioned, wherein it is said that Aethiopians lived in the Syrio-Palestinian area.

---

Now that you mention it, you're right there seems to be contradiction in regards as to whether Hebrews considered themselves cushim or not. Even Goldberg's writings cite Midrashic passage of Hebrews describing the Egyptians as "dark" or "black" which means the Hebrews themselves were not.

quote:

---

Yep, I mean, isn't his field directly informed by biblical archaeology? How can one reap the fruits of biblical archaeology, and ignore its other siblings that reconstruct those ancient times as well?

---

I believe Goldberg may have cited archaeology here and there. I honestly don't remember. What I do know is that as a historian he relied heavily if not solely on texts. But you are right that any good historian worth his money should supplement his work with archaeology if not bio-anthropology.

quote:

---

What exactly do you mean here with that Arabia was an extension of Cush? The kingdom of Kush centered in ''Upper Nubia'', or Cush as a Patriarch?

---

Both. He writes of Kush as a kingdom, but he also writes of the patriarch Cush having descendants across the Red Sea in Arabia, which is further supported by historical writings from Greco-Romans. Thus he comes to the conclusion that there was no division between Africa and Arabia in ancient times as there is today. I find his view surprisingly progressive in terms of today's prevalent notion of Arabia means Asia only.

quote:

---

Totally in agreement. That reading ignores skeletal anthropology, and is just another variant of the Kassite explanation, it that it refuses to look at if there could actually have been people in that area who were perceived as similar to Cushites elsewhere.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

I don't know whether city states like Uruk, as early as they were built, were Semitic city states, so I can't effectively speak on that. I was more going along the lines of, that the mythological characteristics of Nimrod were indigenous, and that because the biblical authors borrowed that legacy of known Sumerian hero's (e.g. Gilgamesh, Etana etc), he simply acquired that tradition of being a hunter, rebel to the gods, and builder of cities. What do you think about that?

---

If the Biblical 'Erech' is the same as Uruk it would be the only city-state that is Sumerian since all others said to be founded by him were Semitic like Akkad, Calneh, Nineveh, etc. It's possible there was a merging of the older Sumerian traditions with the Semitic one into a legendary figure if such existed.

---