quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.
A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.
B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.
C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.
The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?
E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...
F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:
Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.
Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN
Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY
Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY
Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY
Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY
Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society
UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley
Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.
A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible and the first book of Moses.
B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to read and write.
C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.
The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
This is not an OPINION, this is a concrete fact!
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?
E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...
F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:
Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there is both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.
Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN
Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY
Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY
Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY
Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY
Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society
UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley
Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates
[/B][/QUOTE]
My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.
You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 05 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 05 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]
My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 05 June 2004).]
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not hopeless, you're just blind full of extreme Afrocentrism to blackwash everyone under Ham's line and you're shortsighted also for limiting blacks only to the line of Ham. I urge you to look at the names under Ham, Japeth, and Shem and see how they correspond to places names of nations. The Table of Nations isn't about races, its about nations.
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]
My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 05 June 2004).]
[/B][/QUOTE]
here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.
Now do you see why I said you are blind?
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.
Now do you see why I said you are blind?
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.
Now do you see why I said you are blind?
Who is Usman dan Fodio
What is 'Sabon Gari'
Answer these and we'll continue our debate...
If not viewable click here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/images/maps/Otest/world.jpg
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races
It clearly "does" in this map.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to "modern races."
This is the primary source of your confusion as I've seen also when Thought was debating you, that you keep approaching "ancient" times from a "modern" view. As Wally has so clearly pointed out that he's a "modern" American, does that mean that he represents the same people in "Ancient" America.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.
This is the second source of your confusion, time and time again you keep approaching this subject from a linguistic standpoint, but since we're using a Biblical standpoint here, AFTER the nations/races were defined let me quote:
Genesis 11:1 "And the whole earth was of "one" language, and of "one" speech.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
I'm not hopeless, you're just blind full of extreme Afrocentrism
You say "Afrocentism" as if its a bad word. I embrace the word, and encourage more Wallys and Thoughts to take center stage.
* raising my fist
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.
Now do you see why I said you are blind?
I told you myself in another post that phut could very well be Punt, you're not educating me brother because I know these things.
quote:
You seem to want a debate, which I relish. Canaan, according to the christian bible, and the Torah, was a place originally inhabited by the descendants of Ham. (It's not that important to me but you seem to want to debate who these peoples were.)
We know from history that Semitic peoples, and they are a race, conquered this land and colonized it. The Phoenicians, who came out of Canaan, spoke a Semitic language.
No, you don't read the Bible do you, and if you do you didn't understand it. There is no Semitic race, that term is purely linguistic, not racial Wally. You're debating me using pseudo-science and racial categories that do not exist. If you carefully read the Canaan curse, all it is saying is that eventually Shems descnedants will eventually rule in the land Canaan owns, which correlated to the Jews having their Promised Land.
So what you're saying is according to the Bible Canaanites were originally black people who were overran and conquered by a "Semitic" race and mixing has nearly bleached them out or there was full population replacement, correct? Please provide archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence for this.
quote:
The Sudan today, if I still am in control of my faculties, is a Black African country, where the ruling class speaks Arabic, a Semitic langauge par excellance, the Sudanese ruling class is not Semitic.
Poor example, the Sudanese ruling class are heavily mixed with Arab, though they still show a black phenotype and there are many Sudanese who still speak pre-Arabic languages there. And Arabs didn't replace the native African population like you're trying to asert for Canaan. Quite simple and plain, the Table of Nations does not=Table of Races
quote:
The Amharic and Geez languages of Ethiopia are Semitic languages, the Amhara are not a Semitic people.
So are you saying Middle Easterners spread Semitic languages into Ethiopia? There is no evidence for this. At the moment linguists cannot pinpoint where Semitic languages were first spoken. Ethiopian Amharics are "Semitic", linguistically.
quote:
I am an African American, I speak American, a language derived from English. I am not an Englishman.
No such language as "American", what pseudo-science. American English is pretty much the same as British English except that American English has received many loan words from other languages, most of which are NOT American in origin.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
No such language as "American", what pseudo-science. American English is pretty much the same as British English except that American English has received many loan words from other languages, most of which are NOT American in origin.
b) I am an American, and our language is American. I know this, and it has nothing to do with any science. This will probably throw you, but the people of Mexico speak Mexican, not Spanish.
c)Here is a sample reference regarding peoples inhabiting the "linguistic" areas of your "Table of Nations"; namely Syria:
The name Syri seems to have extended of old from Babylonia to the gulf of Issus, and from the gulf of Issus to the Euxine (Strabo, p.737). Strabo also says that even in his time both the Cappadocian peoples, both those who were situated about the Taurus and those on the Euxine, were called Leucosyri or White Syrians, as if there were also some Syrians who were black; and these black or dark Syrians are those who are east of the Amanus. (See also Strabo, p.542.) The name Syria, and Assyria, which often means the same in the Greek writers, was the name by which the country along the Pontus and east of the Halys was first known to the Greeks, and it was not forgotten (Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, ii.948,964; Dionys. Perieg. v.772, and the comment of Eustathius).
c) You say that the Sudanese are heavily mixed with the Arabs, do you mean with their language or with their race?
d) I have not only read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc., but I have also studied them.
e)Semitic is like Semi or half way between two conditions. The Semitic languages are half way between the Black languages and peoples of Africa and that of the White languages and peoples of Asia (for you, Europe, because I'm sure you think that Europe is a continent.)
And I have no doubt that you will respond with more silliness...It's fun after all.
PS: I have from the beginning been opposed to the label of "Afrocentrism" because it can, as you have so admirably demonstrated, be used as a subterfuge to deny the validity of sound, logical, and irrefutable knowledge of facts. It is used to imply a bias.
later...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 08 June 2004).]
I remember reading the Histories by Herodotuss and some of the relgious practices he mentions of the Egyptians, I can see in all three of those religions.
i.e.
Herodotus quotes of the Egyptians "They are religious to excess, far beyond any other race of men"
Could the Hebrews have really been a religious sect of Egypt, led by their General Moses, as Sigmund Freud has suggested? I'm curious to what others think.
I believe another thread was started in comparison of Abrahmic faiths with AE religion. In those thread it was noted the AE had a concept of judgment of the dead much like Islam and Christainty. You had to live in accordance to moral inorder to reach the blessed East aka the Field of Reeds. A place of Paradise where one is excempt from taxes. If you didn't fall in cordance to the morals of Maat then you went into a firey abyss.
What I want to know if this "ritual" in Egypt had a "religious" aspect to it, in that anyone considered uncircumcised was considered "unclean" thus "unholy".
And also do you think its a mere coincidence
that the Christian belief of Jesus being "immaculately conceived" by the Holy spirit, is similar to how Isis conceived Horus (by her dead Husband's spirit).
Originally posted by Ausur
A place of Paradise where one is excempt from taxes. If you didn't fall in cordance to the morals of Maat then you went into a firey abyss.
Wow, I never knew that came from Egypt too!
Since the concept of monotheism itself came from Egypt, in my opinion most of the world owe their religious origins to the AE's. Actually when you think of it, the whole ideal of "Creationism" seems to come from them.
I'm gonna do some more research of AE religious practices, I'm sure I can find a lot more related to what we're doing now.
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.
Now do you see why I said you are blind?
Who is Usman dan Fodio
What is 'Sabon Gari'
Answer these and we'll continue our debate...
[/B][/QUOTE]
------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley
My point was that the circumcision ritual in Kmt was different from in Semetic soceities. Acording to Herodotus they may have adapted the pratice,but they preformed it on small children at birth and the Egyptians praticed it as a coming of age ritual.
Many pharoahs from the 18th dyansty are not circumcised,but most priestly class in Kmt traditionall were circumcised as a way of rital purity. You could not be uncircumcised and become a priest,so it was required of all priestly class Egyptians.
Here's a scene from a tomb showing the circumcision rite:
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 09 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 09 June 2004).]
Shem:
The eldest son of Noah, from whom the Jews, as well as the Semitic ("Shemitic") nations in general have descended. When giving the names of Noah's three sons, Shem is always mentioned first (Genesis 9:18; 10:1, etc.); and though "the elder" in "Shem the brother of Japheth the elder" (Genesis 10:21 margin) is explained as referring to Shem, this is not the rendering of Onkelos. His five sons peopled the greater part of West Asia's finest tracts, from Elam on the East to the Mediterranean on the West. Though generally regarded as meaning "dusky" (compare the Assyr-Babylonian samu--also Ham--possibly = "black," Japheth, "fair"), it is considered possible that Shem may be the usual Hebrew word for "name" (shem), given him because he was the firstborn--a parallel to the Assyr-Babylonian usage, in which "son," "name" (sumu) are synonyms (W. A. Inscriptions, V, plural 23, 11,29-32abc).
2. Ham as a Nationality:
The name given, in Psalms 105:23,17; 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. As Shem means "dusky," or the like, and Japheth "fair," it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former.
1. Etymologies of Japheth:
This name, in Genesis 9:27, seems to be explained by the phrase "may God make wide (yapht, the American Standard Revised Version "enlarge") for Japheth," where yapht and Japheth are represented by the same consonants, but with different vowel-points. The root of yapht is pathach, "to make wide." This etymology, however, is not universally accepted, as the word-play is so obvious, and the association of Japheth with Shem ("dark") and Ham ("black") suggests a name on similar lines--either gentilic, or descriptive of race. Japheth has therefore been explained as meaning "fair," from yaphah, the non-Sem and non-Hamitic races known to the Jews being all more or less whiteskinned. The Targum of Onkelos agrees with the English Versions of the Bible, but that of Jonathan has "God shall beautify Japheth," as though from yaphah.
--So wouldn't you agree that what the author is saying is pretty common sense, given the evidence? It's like the fact that the following terms do not contradict one another:
a)the French nation
b)the French nationality
c)the French people
d)the French race
e)Frenchman
The "table of nations" represented nations, peoples, languages, as well as races...
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Where's your reference to that Wally. Is this a personal opinion or one validate with AE writings themselves. AE required all priests be circumcised,and usually youths were circumcised at maturity. Never heard what you mentioned in my readings. Tell me how you come with such a conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
The "table of nations" represented nations, peoples, languages, as well as races...
You're a quote from a 1915 sorce to edify me? That source was written at the height of the Hamitic-Semitic Hypothesis, no way that proves the Table of nations was a table of Races and languages. Canaanites were Semitic speakers and were a distinct racial type from blacks, the Egyptians have re3presenations of what Cananites looked like. Elamites are listed in Sem's line but they are NOT Semitic speakers. So unless you can prove canaaites were blacks originally who were overran by another racial type to the point they were totally mixed out your argument ios baseless.
This was already proven to you in another post. I think its understood, that during the "Exodus" from Egypt, the Hebrews settled in the land of Cannaan- along with Moses and his brother Aaron.
To identify the priestly lineage to Aaron, geneticists have determined the CMH (Cohen Modal Haplotype) in the Y chromosomes. This is the signature of Jewish lineage.
Time and Time again it has been proven that this CMH occurs in a higher frequency amongst the Buba (the oldest clan of the Lemba tribe) than the Sephardic, and the Ashkenazi Jews who also claim to be descendants of Moses/Aaron.
And if you would simply use your basic common sense you would clearly see that if someone has a HIGHER frequency of the gene, then they could not have inheritted the trait from someone with a LOWER frequency of the gene.(Hence the argument that some white Jew travelled to South Africa to inter-mix with this tribe would result in them having a LOWER frequency-so that argument is useless, before you even think about bringing that up again)
Fact is the only jews with a HIGHER frequency than the Buba clan are the Bene Israel of India.
Hence the Bene Israel and the Buba are MORE LIKELY THE ORIGINAL DESCENDANTS OF ISRAEL.
And not to mention, that this study has only been done on the Jewish population, not to mention those that may have converted to Christianity or Islam which would be the major portion of the original Hebrews/Cannanites.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
The male circumcision rite still occurs in modern Egypt with a big celebration. I can only image that there must have been such a celebration in the past like there is today. Rural Egyptians still pratice this circumsion rite. Mummies of Ahmose was found uncircumcised.
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 11 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]So unless you can prove canaaites were blacks originally who were overran by another racial type to the point they were totally mixed out your argument ios baseless.This was already proven to you in another post. I think its understood, that during the "Exodus" from Egypt, the Hebrews settled in the land of Cannaan- along with Moses and his brother Aaron.
[/B][/QUOTE]
No it hasn't been proven to me already, the bioanthropological information does not indicate the presence of a large black population inhabiting the area called Canaan. If they were there there would be tons on sketeal remains that resemble Africans but they do not. The Bible isn't always useful for historic information to be taken as fact. As Moslems we are taught to accept to Hebrew Torah but looking back historically I have seen no evidence of most of what the Bible says. using your logic, the world is only a little over 6,000 years old, do you believe it?
The area that the israelites inherited did not include all of canaanite land, even the new testament mentions Tyre and Sidon, these were canaanite/Phoenician cities.
And I think you need to read the full text of those genetic studies studies on the Lemba for they do not give the same conclusion that you do. Lemba have 'Semitic' mixture(paternally) along with that Modal Haplotype you keep harping on, but lack any mixture('semitic') maternally. The buba clan mention about a people coming from shinar to Africa, but their genetic profile is pure African maternally and significantly (Semitic(what kind of term is that?). Do you see what I'm getting at? It makes no sense to say the originally Canaanites were all black for the Modal haplotype is only carried in the preiestly caste(Levites), not everyone.
I agree with S. Mohammed. There just isn't enough evidence to support the idea that the original Canaanites were negroid. However, many nomadic tribes have inhabited Canaan at one point or another so the people there have always been ethnically diverse.
As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictions.
Probably the reason that racists have associated Ham from the bible with black people is because of the Jewish version of the bible which gives more description of Ham's appearance. According to the Jewish books, God cursed Ham and his children by giving him a 'deformed' appearance. His lips became fuller and his nose wider. In the past, racists have ran with the Ham story and used it to justify enslaving blacks.
I take anything from the bible with a grain of salt. It has been wrong before and we must remember that it was written centuries after Genesis, and Exodus were to have taken place.
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
Truth be told, there was another land called Cush located in modern day Iraq but the Nubians are referred to as Cushites on several occasions in the bible. Phut could have been modern day Libya or it could have been the area around modern day Somalia referred to by the ancient Egyptians as Punt.
Correct!
quote:
I agree with S. Mohammed. There just isn't enough evidence to support the idea that the original Canaanites were negroid. However, many nomadic tribes have inhabited Canaan at one point or another so the people there have always been ethnically diverse.
The nomadic peoples who still inhabit these lands, though in small numbers; are the Bedouin, and though they are dark-skinned they are not tropicaal African looking in phenotype. Nomadic Bedouin almost never mixed and focus on their lineage. Therefore its not out of place to conclude that the original inhabitants looked like Bedouins.
Wally's argument is based on the old 'Hamatic-Semitic' hypothesis and he's putting an Afrocentric twist on to blackwash people. The Talbe of Nations wasn't about Races, it was about describing familes and clans and the areas they would settle. The language part of his argument is refuted because the ancients who wrote that Table were not linguists and they had no breakdown of Hamitic and Semitic linguistically, they simple broke it down according to the descendants. Phoenician Canaanite is a Senitic language and though it is closely related to Hebrew, it is not the same. There is no evidence to suggest that Hebrew or Araamic is the closest to Proto-Semitic, so its ludicrous to argue that Canann was populated by Hamitic speaking people who were overran by Semitic speaking people(Jews) who imposed there language on them. The Phoenicians had a writing system long before the Hebrews(Jews) did and the language they wrote in was a Semitic language, not a Hamitic one.
Using the Bible to make a scientific argument is fruitless indeed.
quote:
As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictions.
Probably the reason that racists have associated Ham from the bible with black people is because of the Jewish version of the bible which gives more description of Ham's appearance. According to the Jewish books, God cursed Ham and his children by giving him a 'deformed' appearance. His lips became fuller and his nose wider. In the past, racists have ran with the Ham story and used it to justify enslaving blacks.
which is why I can't understand why wally and homeylu are using pseudo-sciece founded by racists to justify their argument.
quote:
I take anything from the bible with a grain of salt. It has been wrong before and we must remember that it was written centuries after Genesis, and Exodus were to have taken place.
Indeed, very true!
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] No such language as "American", what pseudo-science. American English is pretty much the same as British English except that American English has received many loan words from other languages, most of which are NOT American in origin.
I most certainly already did, although I don't see why I had to answer this.
quote:
I am an American, and our language is American. I know this, and it has nothing to do with any science. This will probably throw you, but the people of Mexico speak Mexican, not Spanish.
Americans speak a dialect of English called 'American' English. The only difference is that 'American' English has been influence by more words from people who have migrated to 'America'. The same with Spanish, Mexicans speak a dialect of Spanish, but the language is still Spanish and a Mexican could go to Spain and largely understand Castilian and Andalusian Spanish as well as be understood. There is no language called 'mexican', quit making up things.
quote:
c)Here is a sample reference regarding peoples inhabiting the "linguistic" areas of your "Table of Nations"; namely Syria:
The name Syri seems to have extended of old from Babylonia to the gulf of Issus, and from the gulf of Issus to the Euxine (Strabo, p.737). Strabo also says that even in his time both the Cappadocian peoples, both those who were situated about the Taurus and those on the Euxine, were called Leucosyri or White Syrians, as if there were also some Syrians who were black; and these black or dark Syrians are those who are east of the Amanus. (See also Strabo, p.542.) The name Syria, and Assyria, which often means the same in the Greek writers, was the name by which the country along the Pontus and east of the Halys was first known to the Greeks, and it was not forgotten (Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, ii.948,964; Dionys. Perieg. v.772, and the comment of Eustathius).
Those dark syrians are more than likely Bedouin and not blacks. If you go to syria today the population is mostly white looking but you will find small numbers of nomadic Bedouin and Bedouin have not mixed extensively with other people. Just because they say there are white or 'leuco' syrians doesn't imply there were black Syrians, although there may have ben small numbers, smaller than the Bedouin, of blacks living there. Your ambition is causing you to see black people where none are there.
quote:
c) You say that the Sudanese are heavily mixed with the Arabs, do you mean with their language or with their race?
The sudanese upperclass of those who identify as 'Arabs' are mixed with Semitic Arab blood, the upperclasses that is, but most are phenotypically black. Most of those who identify as 'Sudanese Arabs' have little to no Arab blood, except for the upperclasses, the same with North Africans who claim they are Arabs. both groups have only a token amount of Arab blood.
quote:
d) I have not only read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc., but I have also studied them.
So have I too!
quote:
e)Semitic is like Semi or half way between two conditions. The Semitic languages are half way between the Black languages and peoples of Africa and that of the White languages and peoples of Asia (for you, Europe, because I'm sure you think that Europe is a continent.)
Pure pseudo-science Wally. Languages termed 'Semitic' are named so because of their relationship to Hebrew the jewish language. The study of semitic languages started out with Hebrew and when linguists found those languages that were very closely related to Hebrew they simply named them Semitic languages. And who's to say these early speakers of Semitic languages were white? Semitic has nothing to do with being halfway between white and black, thats pure pseudo-science you're employing.
quote:
And I have no doubt that you will respond with more silliness...It's fun after all.
Wally, listen you are corect about alot of things concerning the egyptians in terms of culture and anthropology, but as far as linguistics and history you get a F-. saying semitic has something to do with being halfway between white and black languages is pure silliness. Semitic and Hamitic has nothing to do with whites and blacks or race at all for that matter. You can find blacks in both Shem's and Ham's line. Furthermore, mixing the Bible's history with science is incongruent, especially how you and homeylu is doing. Canaanites were NOT blacks originally who were overun by 'white' Semitic peoples, there is no evidence for this and using the Bible and Ham's and Shem's descendants to prove this is silliness. Not all hamites were the same race and ditto for Semites.
quote:
PS: I have from the beginning been opposed to the label of "Afrocentrism" because it can, as you have so admirably demonstrated, be used as a subterfuge to deny the validity of sound, logical, and irrefutable knowledge of facts. It is used to imply a bias.
Nothing you have said thus far is irrefutable, believe me, though I like your persistence and determination. 
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
Have the Jews themselves ever been homogeneous? DNA studies are showing that they have always mixed with the local people in the places that they inhabited even after Talmudic law forbade interbreeding with non-Jews.
No, Jews aren't homogeneous, but they have a low amount of sub-Saharan ancetry, I'm talking about Middle Eastern Jews, not Ethiopian and Lemba. The burden of proof is still on wally to prove that canaanites were originally blacks who were totally replaced by non-black Semites.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
No, Jews aren't homogeneous, but they have a low amount of sub-Saharan ancetry, I'm talking about Middle Eastern Jews, not Ethiopian and Lemba.
Thought Writes:
As far as I am aware Jews and Arabs share in a gene pool that originated in East Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
No, Jews aren't homogeneous, but they have a low amount of sub-Saharan ancetry, I'm talking about Middle Eastern Jews, not Ethiopian and Lemba. The burden of proof is still on wally to prove that canaanites were originally blacks who were totally replaced by non-black Semites.
It's absurd considering the lack of evidence that Canaan was mostly negroid at one time however even European Jews show DNA from negroid people above the Sahara like such as the Nubians.
I like Greenberg's theory that the Hebrews have origins in Africa rather than the Middle East. They were a mix of mostly Asiatic but also, Indo-European, and Nubian slaves in Egypt and in their 'exodus' from Egypt they spent decades in the Sinai peninsula living amongst Shasu bedouins and fighting Ramses II's armies. After Sinai they moved on to Canaan...
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
It's absurd considering the lack of evidence that Canaan was mostly negroid at one time however even European Jews show DNA from negroid people above the Sahara like such as the Nubians.I like Greenberg's theory that the Hebrews have origins in Africa rather than the Middle East. They were a mix of mostly Asiatic but also, Indo-European, and Nubian slaves in Egypt and in their 'exodus' from Egypt they spent decades in the Sinai peninsula living amongst Shasu bedouins and fighting Ramses II's armies. After Sinai they moved on to Canaan...
Well there are dashes of sub-Saharan DNA in Middle Easterners. As I quoted before the Palestinians have 15% sub-Saharan mtDNA. It varies according to which population you're speaking of. It is generally higher and even substanial in places like Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In Syrians and Lebanese, it is very low to negligible. The best ones to test would be the Bedouin, who are darker skinned and relatively unmixed. That would at least provide a baseline to go off of.
European jews do show some trace of sub-Saharan ancestry but it is too, very low to negligible. It could very well b from Nubians, that I am unable to elaborate on.
If blacks were indeed the original inhabitants of Canaan, there would be some hard evidence in the way of anthropology and as far as I know there isn't enough evidence to support the notion of an indigenous black population in Caanan. Wally should best stick to Egypt and Africa and quit trying to use the Bible to prove his theories.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:As far as I am aware Jews and Arabs share in a gene pool that originated in East Africa.
Arabs and Jews have low levels of sub-saharan ancestry. When I say 'sub-Saharan' I'm also talking about East Africans too. The only arabs that significant amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry are the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula, like Yemen and Oman and part of this is due to the slave trade. I've seen the study you're referring to and it says it traces the origin of Afro-asiatic languages to east Africa from studying mtDNA. You cannot mix genetics and linguistics together, just as I pointed out with Cavalli-Sforza and his studies. Afro-asiatic speakers encompass a broad variety of racial types. We don't even need genetics to confirm that Afro-asiatic languages originated in East Africa. All one has to do is look at the diversity of Afro-asiatic in Africa vs that of Asia.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
using your logic, the world is only a little over 6,000 years old, do you believe it?
You've NEVER been able to effectively use my logic in any of your post, so I'd appreciate it if you would just stick to your own twisted logic. Thanks.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba have 'Semitic' mixture(paternally) along with that Modal Haplotype you keep harping on, but lack any mixture('semitic') maternally
Every last one of the jewish groups in these studies 'LACK THIS MIXTURE MATERNALLY'
Quote from study:
"We have analyzed the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from each of nine geographically separated Jewish groups, eight non-Jewish host populations, and an Israeli Arab/Palestinian population...The results suggest that most Jewish communities were founded by relatively few women,that the founding process was independent in different geographic areas http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v70n6/013504/brief/013504.abstract.html
Originally posted by neo*geo
As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictionsand you honestly believe that "negroid" and "caucosoid" are NOT racist classifications. Give me a break please.
Originally posted by neo*geo
I take anything from the bible with a grain of salt. It has been wrong before and we must remember that it was written centuries after Genesis, and Exodus were to have taken place.
The Bible was translated and deciphered from original Hebrew and Greek text, just as the Hieroglyphics were from original Egyptian text. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Hieroglyphics much much older than Hebrew text, do we need to also take those translations with a grain of salt. I mean did Champollion not translate this text some 200 years after the Bible was translated in English? Was it not thousands of years after these events took place?
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
The only arabs that significant amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry are the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula, like Yemen and Oman and part of this is due to the slave trade
As usual, you're always on a different timeline. The Islamic-African slve trade did not began until 700 a.d. and has absolutely nothing to do with the Lemba tribe I've referred to. The study conducted on them and the Jews trace a common ancestor 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, NOT 1500 years ago. 3,000-5,000 years ago is right in line with the time frame of the Exodus. Now here we are thousands of years later, and the Lemba still posess a "significant" amount of this gene. I honestly dont see what you mean by proving a significant amount of Blacks were in this small mass of land called Canaan since its preposterous to even imagine the entire continent of Africa in originated there. And our common sense tells us that the world's population was significantly smaller 3,000 years ago.
I mean why are you comparing the sub-saharan origin of the modern Palestinian, when I'm clearly using the Middle Eastern origin of the Lemba they dont relate.(That's like me trying to prove the sub-saharan origin of a Black American, and you trying to prove the American origin of a Black African, do you realize how backwards you appear). Bottomline, I'm showing that Blacks had origins in Palestine, not that Palestinian had origins in Africa!!!
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
The Bible was translated and deciphered from original Hebrew and Greek text, just as the Hieroglyphics were from original Egyptian text.
This is true but once again you misunderstand my point. Not a single book from the bible was written until nearly 1000 years after the Exodus is believed to have occured. All the history of the Hebrews was passed orally until they decided to write it down. Oral histories are not very accurate and it's not all that improbable that they filled in the gaps in their oral history with stories from Egypt, or Babylon. Compare the epic of Gilgamesh to Noah and the Ark.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Hieroglyphics much much older than Hebrew text, do we need to also take those translations with a grain of salt.
For the most part, no. There is always the question of whether the events recorded in hieroglpyphs are accurate or just symbolic but usually they were written relatively shortly after the events happend. With most of the bible we have people who weren't even alive to witness events writing about them.
I could honestly go on and on, but you like many others have taken the position to "dismiss the Bible, until proven true" rather than the position of the "faithful" who choose to accept it as true, until is has been "proven false".
And last but not least who are we to dismiss Biblical claims, when over half of what is considered "scientific evidence" is nothing more than "theories" that only last until the next "theory" disproves it. Yet scientist like Darwin has been proven wrong, while the most recent discoveries of oldest Human remains were found in none other than Ethiopia/Cush-where the Bible places the Garden of Eve. Did these anthropologist that decided to dig in the area know something we didnt know?
Something that make me say, hmmmmm.
Its all in the interpretation and the translations.
I dont want to get into a religious debate because they are much more inconclusive than racial debates, so I'll leave it with: you believe as you wish, and others will believe as they wish. Whose to say whose wrong or right, I mean really, is the glass half full, or half empty?
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]If they were there there would be tons on sketeal remains that resemble Africans but they do not.
Keep in mind that whenever you hear me speak of Black people I'm talking about "Skin color",
Skin color alone does not make a person black, as there are no people with 'black' skin, just deep brown skin. There is no evidence that the earliest people of Canaan had black skin, keep dreaming with your theories.
quote:
as I personally don't see how skeletons alone can determine a black race, especially since some Ethiopians and Khoisans have been labeled "caucosoid"
So-called 'Caucasoid' traits in Ethiopians aren't even 'Caucasoid' at all. The notion that Ethiopians are 'caucasoid' is just pseudo-science and that notion has been long debunked, so use debunked theories to prove a point. The people who lived in the area called Ethiopia today had ancestors who had so called 'Caucasoid' features long before Europeans or western Asians even evolved them. Since a small group in east Africa migrated out to colonize the rest of the world, there is no surprise that those out of Africa migrants share certain anthropological traits with east Africans. Your point is moot here. And khoisan were never considered as Caucasoids, people once mistakenly labelled them as mongloids, which of course isn't true either.
[qquote]Originally posted by S. Mohammad
using your logic, the world is only a little over 6,000 years old, do you believe it?
You've NEVER been able to effectively use my logic in any of your post, so I'd appreciate it if you would just stick to your own twisted logic. Thanks.[/quote]
You logic makes no sense whatsoever, thats why I worded my reply the way I did.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba have 'Semitic' mixture(paternally) along with that Modal Haplotype you keep harping on, but lack any mixture('semitic') maternally
Every last one of the jewish groups in these studies 'LACK THIS MIXTURE MATERNALLY'
Are you saying Middle easterner Jews aren't maternally 'Semitic'? Please provide evidence. The Lemba Buba Clan, not all Lemba possess the modal haplotype and not all Lemba are Jews, did you read the study carefully or did you selectively decide to have amnesia when you read certain parts? since Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba.
quote:
Quote from study:
"We have analyzed the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from each of nine geographically separated Jewish groups, eight non-Jewish host populations, and an Israeli Arab/Palestinian population...The results suggest that most Jewish communities were founded by relatively few women,that the founding process was independent in different geographic areas http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v70n6/013504/brief/013504.abs tract.html
All that is saying is that Jewish males mixed in with different populations
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo
As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictionsand you honestly believe that "negroid" and "caucosoid" are NOT racist classifications. Give me a break please.
Negroid and caucasoid make no sense unless you believe populations developed independently with non-overlapping traits. re-read what I said about Ethiopians again
Originally posted by neo*geo
I take anything from the bible with a grain of salt. It has been wrong before and we must remember that it was written centuries after Genesis, and Exodus were to have taken place.
The Bible was translated and deciphered from original Hebrew and Greek text, just as the Hieroglyphics were from original Egyptian text. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Hieroglyphics much much older than Hebrew text, do we need to also take those translations with a grain of salt. I mean did Champollion not translate this text some 200 years after the Bible was translated in English? Was it not thousands of years after these events took place?
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
The only arabs that significant amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry are the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula, like Yemen and Oman and part of this is due to the slave trade
As usual, you're always on a different timeline. The Islamic-African slve trade did not began until 700 a.d. and has absolutely nothing to do with the Lemba tribe I've referred to. The study conducted on them and the Jews trace a common ancestor 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, NOT 1500 years ago. 3,000-5,000 years ago is right in line with the time frame of the Exodus. Now here we are thousands of years later, and the Lemba still posess a "significant" amount of this gene. I honestly dont see what you mean by proving a significant amount of Blacks were in this small mass of land called Canaan since its preposterous to even imagine the entire continent of Africa in originated there. And our common sense tells us that the world's population was significantly smaller 3,000 years ago.
I mean why are you comparing the sub-saharan origin of the modern Palestinian, when I'm clearly using the Middle Eastern origin of the Lemba they dont relate.(That's like me trying to prove the sub-saharan origin of a Black American, and you trying to prove the American origin of a Black African, do you realize how backwards you appear). Bottomline, I'm showing that Blacks had origins in Palestine, not that Palestinian had origins in Africa!!![/B][/QUOTE]
Are you saying that blacks had there origin in Palestine? now i know you have no logic
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
You logic makes no sense whatsoever, thats why I worded my reply the way I did
Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying Middle easterner Jews aren't maternally 'Semitic'? These Jews have relocated to this area from all over the world and have mixed with local populations everywhere they settled. That is why the study concluded: THERE IS NO HAPLOTYPE CONSISTENT WITH A COMMON ORIGIN OF FEMALE JEWS, "Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish groups with any confidence"
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
All that is saying is that Jewish males mixed in with different populations
Exactly!!, now about that Lemba maternal admixture again...The Bantu wouldnt happen to have been a "different population" would they?...smh
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying that blacks had there origin in Palestine? now i know you have no logic Please view my second response, in fact, let me re-quote it: "Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven"
As my post clearly states its preposterous to even imagine the entire continent of Africa originated there
Do I need to define "preposterous" for you?
If I can prove just 1 tribe was there, which I have, this proves blacks were in Canaan.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba
And those "semitic" males were obviously the Black paternal ancestors of the Buba Clan. Which proves Blacks were in Canaan.
(You're slowly catching on)
Further excerpts from the study conclude:
"The people closest to the Jews from a genetic point of view may be the Kurds, according to results of a new study at the Hebrew University. Scientists who participated in the research said the findings seem to indicate both peoples had common ancestors who lived in the northern half of the fertile crescent, where northern Iraq and Turkey are today. Some of them, it is assumed, wandered south in pre-historic times and settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=96990
My,my,my, is this not consistent with the Biblical account of Abraham from the land of Ur (Modern Iraq) wondering south to the land of Canaan. Genesis 11:31
And for the record: The Lemba don't have this Iraqi/Turkish admixture, so their ancestors must have ALREADY BEEN IN CANAAN!!
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Do I need to define "preposterous" for you?
If I can prove just 1 tribe was there, which I have, this proves blacks were in Canaan.
If you're only out to prove that blacks lived inCanaan, fine, no one can argue with that but if you're trying to prove the Canaanites were black you better have some damn good sources...
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba
And those "semitic" males were obviously the Black paternal ancestors of the Buba Clan. Which proves Blacks were in Canaan.
(You're slowly catching on)Further excerpts from the study conclude:
"The people closest to the Jews from a genetic point of view may be the Kurds, according to results of a new study at the Hebrew University. Scientists who participated in the research said the findings seem to indicate both peoples had common ancestors who lived in the northern half of the fertile crescent, where northern Iraq and Turkey are today. Some of them, it is assumed, wandered south in pre-historic times and settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=96990My,my,my, is this not consistent with the Biblical account of Abraham from the land of Ur (Modern Iraq) wondering south to the land of Canaan. Genesis 11:31
And for the record: The Lemba don't have this Iraqi/Turkish admixture, so their ancestors must have ALREADY BEEN IN CANAAN!!
[/B]
Your arguments are completely flawed because you're relying too much on inconclusive and non-scientific information. Do you take the Bible literally? I hope not because it's not meant to be taken literally. Many things mentioned in the Bible are inconsistant with archaeology and history.
I have a lot of problems with making conclusions based on DNA results. DNA is not a reliable substitute for anthropological evidence. For example, your link above says Jews and Kurds have a common ancestry yet you yourself admit that Jews have mixed with indigenous populations wherever they roamed. Based on this fact, half of the people in the Western world could share a common ancestry with Jews. Due to the fact that Jews have been extremly migrant over the past few millenia and have a pretty diverse cocktail of genotypes and phenotypes, I think it's impossible to trace their origins based on DNA alone.
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.
Canaan was situated at the confluence of the two major continents of Africa and Asia. It has been a territory that has been disputed by diverse peoples from its inception. Today, it is being contested by Palestinians and Israelis. The christian bible (bible means a library or collection of books, and is an important historical reference source) tells us that the original inhabitants were the descendants of Ham (ie, Africans). This can be placed to at least 7000 bc where there is evidence of neolithic settlements. It subsequently fell under the control of the Amorites, the Israelites, the Philistines, and the Phoenicians. Consequently, there is no such absolute as a "Canaanite." Is there anything about this that you don't understand?
A) I also asked you to define the Hausa term "Sabon Gari" and you merely told me what I already knew, that it's where non-Hausa Africans lived in Hausaland. My own understanding is that it literally means "strangers quarters" which I think helps corroborate my interpretation of the Egyptian word "Nahas" to mean "strangers, or barbarians" and is an African convention of one African people labeling other Africans.
B) Usman Dan Fodio created the Fulani empire.
Rather you believe in evolution or creation is up to you, but most evolution theories are based on just that "theories", until proven as scientific facts. And many of those can also be deemed inconclusive, since there is ALWAYS disagreement between how evidence is interpreted by different scientists.
Originally posted by neo*geo
DNA is not a reliable substitute for anthropological evidence.
This makes absolutely no sense, since anthropologist rely heavily on DNA samples extracted from skeletons, and further there are 3 areas of anthropology, Genetic Anthropolgy, Physical Anthropology, and Cultural Anthropology, and each area study human origins from different angles. So DNA is not a substitute for Anthropology, its a part of anthropology.
Originally posted by Neo*Geo
Due to the fact that Jews have been extremly migrant over the past few millenia and have a pretty diverse cocktail of genotypes and phenotypes, I think it's impossible to trace their origins based on DNA alone.
This is the most absurd statement that you've made yet. Do you think a skeleton could tell you if a person is Jewish, of course not. DNA so far has been the ONLY reliable source to distinguish Jewish populations from non-jewish populations, as the CMH gene that I have been referring to all this time, is not found in all the populations they settled among. DNA is one of the most reliable sources in the scientific community in identifying people.
Its like our biological fingerprints.
I.e. I'm a descendant of an African slave, and thanks to DNA evidence, not only can I trace my roots to Africa, but I can trace my roots to the specific tribe my ancestors belonged to. Now could any PHYSICAL anthropology accomplish that? I doubt it, for it would only "box" me in as another "negroid" from the hundreds of tribes found in Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally osted by Neo*geo
[b]If you're only out to prove that blacks lived inCanaan, fine, no one can argue with that but if you're trying to prove the Canaanites were black you better have some damn good sources
These sources are based on historical accounts of people that were living during those periods, and written on scrolls. As Wally just pointed out, the Bible is a collection of books, some of the accounts can be interpreted literally, some not. [/B]
So are you or are you not trying to conclude the Canaanites were black? And what sources support your argument?
As I pointed out, much of the bible was written long after certain events were supposed to have happened. How was a Jewish scholar in the 8th century BC supposed to give an accurate description of what the world was like 1-6000 years earlier with only oral history?
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:So DNA is not a substitute for Anthropology, its a part of anthropology.
Exactly. It's not the only part of anthropology and no scientific conclusion should rely on DNA alone.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Neo*Geo
[b]Due to the fact that Jews have been extremly migrant over the past few millenia and have a pretty diverse cocktail of genotypes and phenotypes, I think it's impossible to trace their origins based on DNA alone.
This is the most absurd statement that you've made yet. Do you think a skeleton could tell you if a person is Jewish, of course not. DNA so far has been the ONLY reliable source to distinguish Jewish populations from non-jewish populations, as the CMH gene that I have been referring to all this time, is not found in all the populations they settled among. [/B]
This is a false misconception because the gene is also carried in non-Jewish Arabs. It isnt exclusive to Jews.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
DNA is one of the most reliable sources in the scientific community in identifying people.
Its like our biological fingerprints.
I agree but DNA, history, and the bible don't mix well. You can't always use DNA to draw large scale historical conclusions. Now short scale conclusions may be made like family and tribal relationships, or individual genetic ancestry.
First and for most I agree with most of what you have brought to the table up to this point but then there are something that Mohommad has brought that brings out questions.
I myself am an ""African American so when I ask this question I'm asking trying to learn.
I have heard of a Semetic race but know that Semetic is a modern day creation of a word. The word Shem is the correct word or is it?
From my understanding the ancient Israelites didn't use such vowels as 'E' or 'O' which left room for only 'I' and 'A'. If this is true (as I said I'm still learning) then that would render the name Shem to Sham. This word can also be translated to mean to different words such as 'Ham' taking away the S or 'Shama' adding the A.
The point and question that I'm asking is did someone add the name Shem to the bible when in fact the name shem could have been Sham, knowing that the ancient Hebrews didn't use vowels like 'E'?
Secondly, thoughout the couse of Hebrew history they were amongst the Egyptians starting with Arabham who came from the city of Ur (there was no such city named Ur in the time of Abraham so the correct would be Sumer 'the blackheaded people'). From that point Abraham lived with the Egyptians pretty much his whole life.
When you start talking about color I kind of have to asked what is the difference between a Shamite and a Hamite when talking about skin-color? I believe that the ancient Ishmaelites were extremely dark people but got involved in the race mixing with the Grecians and other people alike.
Example the ancient Elamites were black as they come and in many cases its still the same way. The ancient Persians which is supposed to be of the Shamite group was another black people which heritage have been conquored and taken over by white men, giving the illusion that ancient persians were white.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Immortals1.jpg
I'm not the best writer in the world as you can see but I do question what is the diffence between the colors of the Shamites and the Hamites in general? Where thy the Hebrews and Egyptians the same people as Moses is sometimes considered to be Akhenaton(en) or simply put are there part of the bible that have been tampered with by the racist white groups?
------------------
"No man ever became wise by chance".
Seneca
quote:
Originally posted by RU2religious:
This is my first time posting on this site but I do have a question for you Wally.First and for most I agree with most of what you have brought to the table up to this point but then there are something that Mohommad has brought that brings out questions.
I myself am an ""African American so when I ask this question I'm asking trying to learn.
I have heard of a Semetic race but know that Semetic is a modern day creation of a word. The word Shem is the correct word or is it?
From my understanding the ancient Israelites didn't use such vowels as 'E' or 'O' which left room for only 'I' and 'A'. If this is true (as I said I'm still learning) then that would render the name Shem to Sham. This word can also be translated to mean to different words such as 'Ham' taking away the S or 'Shama' adding the A.
The point and question that I'm asking is did someone add the name Shem to the bible when in fact the name shem could have been Sham, knowing that the ancient Hebrews didn't use vowels like 'E'?
Secondly, thoughout the couse of Hebrew history they were amongst the Egyptians starting with Arabham who came from the city of Ur (there was no such city named Ur in the time of Abraham so the correct would be Sumer 'the blackheaded people'). From that point Abraham lived with the Egyptians pretty much his whole life.
When you start talking about color I kind of have to asked what is the difference between a Shamite and a Hamite when talking about skin-color? I believe that the ancient Ishmaelites were extremely dark people but got involved in the race mixing with the Grecians and other people alike.
Example the ancient Elamites were black as they come and in many cases its still the same way. The ancient Persians which is supposed to be of the Shamite group was another black people which heritage have been conquored and taken over by white men, giving the illusion that ancient persians were white.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Immortals1.jpgI'm not the best writer in the world as you can see but I do question what is the diffence between the colors of the Shamites and the Hamites in general? Where thy the Hebrews and Egyptians the same people as Moses is sometimes considered to be Akhenaton(en) or simply put are there part of the bible that have been tampered with by the racist white groups?
I almost forgot that they are performing these DNA test based off of the blood of these European Jews. That is a terrible thing to do when these European jews are converts to a religion. What this DNA test simply proves is that some of these Jews have African Blood but it doesn't prove that they are the Israelites of the bible.
Author Keostler gave a comprehensive background these people proclaiming to be Israelites when they have no genetic connection to the ancient Israelites.
These current day white Jews are conquers and have proclaimed this land as their own but they are Turks in ancestry from The Khazar Empire. 95% of the modern day jews have no like what so ever to ancient Israelites.
http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/
In conclusion, the DNA testing has no real value when comparing these modern day jews to ancient Israelites. This Turks are claiming to be Judahites when they have no blood that even resembles Israelites. They are more German then Hitler. I'm not anti-Semeitic as they would say but I do know that they are claim a heritage which isn't there and testing people based of of Caucasian blood.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Well there are dashes of sub-Saharan DNA in Middle Easterners. As I quoted before the Palestinians have 15% sub-Saharan mtDNA. It varies according to which population you're speaking of. It is generally higher and even substanial in places like Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In Syrians and Lebanese, it is very low to negligible. The best ones to test would be the Bedouin, who are darker skinned and relatively unmixed. That would at least provide a baseline to go off of.European jews do show some trace of sub-Saharan ancestry but it is too, very low to negligible. It could very well b from Nubians, that I am unable to elaborate on.
If blacks were indeed the original inhabitants of Canaan, there would be some hard evidence in the way of anthropology and as far as I know there isn't enough evidence to support the notion of an indigenous black population in Caanan. Wally should best stick to Egypt and Africa and quit trying to use the Bible to prove his theories.
DNA coming from these white Europeans have nothing to do with then ancient Israelites. Secondly, why have you placed black people in this small box? Are we only to have on form of DNA? Are we only to have big lips, broad nose, curly hair?
You need to wake up and small the coffee because I'm a black man and don't have any of the features that is described above. Skeletons that doesn't hold black features. That is the most ignorant thing that I thinkk I have ever heard. If you not from America, you need to look at the blacks over here because millions of us do not carry "" African features but we have the skin color. How can you tell what skin color a man is if his skull have no skin on it? The shape of it? LOL man you need some serious help.
[This message has been edited by RU2religious (edited 14 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Arabs and Jews have low levels of sub-saharan ancestry. When I say 'sub-Saharan' I'm also talking about East Africans too. The only arabs that significant amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry are the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula, like Yemen and Oman and part of this is due to the slave trade. I've seen the study you're referring to and it says it traces the origin of Afro-asiatic languages to east Africa from studying mtDNA. You cannot mix genetics and linguistics together, just as I pointed out with Cavalli-Sforza and his studies. Afro-asiatic speakers encompass a broad variety of racial types. We don't even need genetics to confirm that Afro-asiatic languages originated in East Africa. All one has to do is look at the diversity of Afro-asiatic in Africa vs that of Asia.
There you have Mohammad, they get there black DNA from Sub-Sahara Africans. Question? Wasn't the land of Canaan inhabited by the Ethiopian Nubians? YES!
Secondly, you have grossly exaggerated (6,000 years before the events have happened) your time frames.
The time calculated for Moses writing the Old Testament is 1400 B.C.
The time calculated for the Exodus is 1450 b.c.
The time claculated for Abraham coming down to Canaan is 1875 BC (only 400 years earlier).
What other "major" events happened prior to that, in the Book of Genesis, besides an attempt at explaining when Adam and Eve were "created" and the "flood" which only the first 6 chapters of 50, in Genesis was dedicated to. This author obviously didnt dedicate a lot of time to these event, and definitely didnt give a specific date unless you consider the verse "In the beginning" to suggest the world was created 6,000 years ago. And if you're referring to quotes like "Adam lived 800 years and begat....and Seth lived 800 years and begat...." I dont think a living soul takes those accounts "literally".
And remember Moses was an Egyptian prince, surely he was literate. The old testament was translated into Aramaic is 400 BC and Greek in 200 BC, and has been the most translated book in the History of Man ever since. The oldest "surviving" text were written 800 BC, found on silver tablets, remember much of the text was destroyed during the Jewish persecution.
And to answer your question again, I dont take every single verse of the Bible literally, as it wasnt meant to be taken literally, but being the great great grandchild of a slave that founded one of the oldest African American churches in Augusta Georgia, coming from a long line of ministers "I dont take it with a grain of salt either."
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
This is a false misconception because the gene is also carried in non-Jewish Arabs
I think its common knowledge that Islam is one of the youngest religions, and most of those Muslim Arabs are descendants of Jewish converts. The study did conclude that these Palestinian Arabs and the Jews are "genetic" cousins. After all, aren't they both descendants of Abraham? (Ishmael/Israel)
Originally Posted by RU2religious
From my understanding the ancient Israelites didn't use such vowels as 'E' or 'O' which left room for only 'I' and 'A'
The ancient Hebrews didnt use "vowels" at all. Vowels were later added in Greek translations.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Wally
[b]As anyone who is following this, it is hopeless isn't it?
LMBAOOriginally posted by S. Mohammad
I'm not hopeless, you're just blind full of extreme Afrocentrism
You say "Afrocentism" as if its a bad word. I embrace the word, and encourage more Wallys and Thoughts to take center stage.* raising my fist
[/B]
Unlike you and Wally, I agree with much of what thought says and he doesn't too much disagree with what I say. On the other hand, using sources from the early 20th century certainly doesn't help neither one of your cases.(wally and you)
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]Skin color alone does not make a person black, as there are no people with 'black' skin, just deep brown skin
LMAO, silliness, like Wally said, I dont think I need to respond to this.
Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social. furthermore you're trying to tell me what is black, a person who is born of two African parents(Father Hausa-Fulani, mother Kanuri)? Like i said you lack logic.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
You logic makes no sense whatsoever, thats why I worded my reply the way I did
Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven.
lets look at your logic, black people to you=people with black skin, is your skin black literally? You're a moron!
quote:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying Middle easterner Jews aren't maternally 'Semitic'? These Jews have relocated to this area from all over the world and have mixed with local populations everywhere they settled. That is why the study concluded: THERE IS NO HAPLOTYPE CONSISTENT WITH A COMMON ORIGIN OF FEMALE JEWS, "Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish groups with any confidence"
There is no maternally jewish haplotype because the only so-called 'jewish' gene is the CMH, which is shared by not only jews but non-jewish Arabs. I asked you are you saying that Middle Eastern jews non-SEMITIC in ancestry, this has nothing to do with Jewish genes.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
All that is saying is that Jewish males mixed in with different populations
Exactly!!, now about that Lemba maternal admixture again...The Bantu wouldnt happen to have been a "different population" would they?...smh
The evidence indicates that a population carrying the CMH as well as Semitic genes mixed with the Lemba, it does not prove what color or race the people are as you cannot attach a race to genes. genotype and phenotype are two diffierent things.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying that blacks had there origin in Palestine? now i know you have no logic Please view my second response, in fact, let me re-quote it: "Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven"
Answer the question and quit trolling.
quote:
As my post clearly states its preposterous to even imagine the entire continent of Africa originated there
Do I need to define "preposterous" for you?
If I can prove just 1 tribe was there, which I have, this proves blacks were in Canaan.
The CMH does not prove blacks were in Canaan. maybe there were blacks in Canaan but it does not prove that Canaanites were originally black. There were crania found in Egypt's Lower Nile Delta with red hair, does that make AE white or Nordic originally? NO
quote:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba
And those "semitic" males were obviously the Black paternal ancestors of the Buba Clan. Which proves Blacks were in Canaan.
(You're slowly catching on)
You cannot read studies. The DNA study said Lemba have significant Semitic mixture which could have come from both Arab Muslims and
Jews, but the CMH showed a higher frequency in the Buba clan. When it comes to Semitic mixture geneticists cannot distinguish between Jews and Arabs and the CMH haplotype isn't limited only to Jews, so you have no proven that those who spread the CMh were black.
Further excerpts from the study conclude:
"The people closest to the Jews from a genetic point of view may be the Kurds, according to results of a new study at the Hebrew University. Scientists who participated in the research said the findings seem to indicate both peoples had common ancestors who lived in the northern half of the fertile crescent, where northern Iraq and Turkey are today. Some of them, it is assumed, wandered south in pre-historic times and settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=96990
My,my,my, is this not consistent with the Biblical account of Abraham from the land of Ur (Modern Iraq) wondering south to the land of Canaan. Genesis 11:31[/quote]
Only one problem with that, when Abraham wandered south there was no such thing as Judaism, much less even a priestly caste of Levi. The priestly caste wasn't determined until after Moses took charge to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt into the promised land. Now since the CMH is representative of the priestly caste, what does Abraham wandering south has anything to do with what you just said? Levites only married Levites to preserve the priestly caste and there were not Levites when Abraham wandered south. I told you lack logic.
And for the record: The Lemba don't have this Iraqi/Turkish admixture, so their ancestors must have ALREADY BEEN IN CANAAN!!
[/B][/QUOTE]
quote:
Originally posted by RU2religious:
There you have Mohammad, they get there black DNA from Sub-Sahara Africans. Question? Wasn't the land of Canaan inhabited by the Ethiopian Nubians? YES!
No, prove it.
quote:
. There were crania found in Egypt's Lower Nile Delta with red hair, does that make AE white or Nordic originally? NO
Never heard this. What time period do this date to? Are you aware that salt in the sands of the Sahara can also turn hair certain colors. Certain archaeological conditions also turn hair certain colors. You are aware of this right?
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Never heard this. What time period do this date to? Are you aware that salt in the sands of the Sahara can also turn hair certain colors. Certain archaeological conditions also turn hair certain colors. You are aware of this right?
Late dynastic, probably of foreign origin.
Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social. furthermore you're trying to tell me what is black, a person who is born of two African parents(Father Hausa-Fulani, mother Kanuri)? Like i said you lack logic.
I am somewhat confused here by the way people try to define what being black means. For instance, in various posts, I hear people speaking of the phenotypical aspect, and then I hear others say it has more to do with 'social' branding. Which one is it? Could it be both? S. Mohammad, you said that Colin Powell isn't black but he indentifies as such. It's true that by skin color alone, he couldn't be considered black, but phenotypically, he still has features which one would associate with a negro. But then others might say that they look black, but they don't have the stereotypical negro features, in which case they are identified by their skin color and/or kinky hair. This then leaves us with lighter skin ones, who claim they don't have the negro features as well, but are nevertheless identified as being black. In this case, it would be social like you said, but they still might have some negro features, but in subtle ways. Example, they might still have that somewhat kinky haire, which is different from the full caucasian type of straight hair. The bottom line is that it's got be a combination of both the social branding and the phenotype.
Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social. furthermore you're trying to tell me what is black, a person who is born of two African parents(Father Hausa-Fulani, mother Kanuri)? Like i said you lack logic.
I am somewhat confused here by the way people try to define what being black means. For instance, in various posts, I hear people speaking of the phenotypical aspect, and then I hear others say it has more to do with 'social' branding. Which one is it? Could it be both? S. Mohammad, you said that Colin Powell isn't black but he indentifies as such. It's true that by skin color alone, he couldn't be considered black, but phenotypically, he still has features which one would associate with a negro. But then others might say that they look black, but they don't have the stereotypical negro features, in which case they are identified by their skin color and/or kinky hair. This then leaves us with lighter skin ones, who claim they don't have the negro features as well, but are nevertheless identified as being black. In this case, it would be social like you said, but they still might have some negro features, but in subtle ways. Example, they might still have that somewhat kinky haire, which is different from the full caucasian type of straight hair. The bottom line is that it's got be a combination of both the social branding and the phenotype.
Have you been reading the posts here??? Yes, my comment had nothing much do with the subject, but it seems to me that race is always injected to it. Each time, the word 'black' is used in the comments made here, someone is trying to define it one way or the other. That is the reason I made the earlier comment.
quote:
Originally posted by RU2religious:
This is my first time posting on this site but I do have a question for you Wally.
First and for most I agree with most of what you have brought to the table up to this point but then there are something that Mohommad has brought that brings out questions.
I myself am an ""African American so when I ask this question I'm asking trying to learn.
I have heard of a Semetic race but know that Semetic is a modern day creation of a word. The word Shem is the correct word or is it?
From my understanding the ancient Israelites didn't use such vowels as 'E' or 'O' which left room for only 'I' and 'A'. If this is true (as I said I'm still learning) then that would render the name Shem to Sham. This word can also be translated to mean to different words such as 'Ham' taking away the S or 'Shama' adding the A.
The point and question that I'm asking is did someone add the name Shem to the bible when in fact the name shem could have been Sham, knowing that the ancient Hebrews didn't use vowels like 'E'?
Shem is a correct word. (I also might add incidentally that "Shem" in Ancient Egyptian means "little, small, weak.") The word "Shemite" eventually became "Semite"
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
Ausur, why does Wally keep making new accounts?
Firt of all when I say "Black" I dont mean it literally- so dont be ridiculous!!
Just as I dont think "white" people are literally white, Just as their complexions and features vary, so do ours.
Since you're obviusly new in here, you may not have read other posts in other Forums that I myself, agree with you that the whole concept of race is a social one, so when I hear people say things like caucasoid, negroid, blah blah blah, to try to "theorize" that the AE were not the same people as other Sub-saharan Africans, I am more inclined to inject "skin color" into the argument to show that they're not the same people as the Germans, other North Europeans either!
From an earlier post I wrote:
"Afica has thousands of tribes which separate themselves amongst cultural lines and not complexion lines.......Please get out of the racist habit of trying to box all Africans into one complexion, one hair texture/color, and one Nose size, lip size etc.. The Egyptians were clearly showing the diversity of the African race, then ,as we are today!"
So like S. Mohammad, when you clearly dont understand someone's logic, don't comment on it, just because you "assumed" I meant Black literally, damn sure doesnt mean I did!!!
You may also want to view my post on the AAPA's current position on race.
This is just a piece of it:
"These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines"
And what does this have to do with Egypt you may ask? Too many times, even up to the present---we see scientist continuously trying to separate the Marvelous contributions of the Egyptian society, from the rest of Black (sub-sahara) Africa...and I personally won't stand for it!!
Scientific theory of Evolution:
The dominant evolutionary theory maintains that humans originated in Africa, and the earth was gradually populated by these AFRICAN peoples. These routes were primarily through the Arabian peninsula and also by way of CANAAN. If one accepts this theory, then the first inhabitants of Canaan had to be African! (This is not rocket science here.)
And trust me folks, DNA cannot be used to correctly identify a specific racial group.
Question - Is it possible to tell the race of a person from their DNA?
No - Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, says that there
is no evidence so far that would distinguish DNA from one race as opposed to
any other.
Ellen S. Mayo
=========================================================
NO! There are more individual differences between people of the same race,
than there are differences between the races. These discoveries more than
any other, should show that race is (was) just an environmental adaptation,
and that we truly are all one species.
vanhoeck
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 15 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo:
[b]Ausur, why does Wally keep making new accounts?
[/B][/QUOTE]
It's obvious that you and homey are the same. you always manage to post around the same time and you write similar...
Browse through all the posts on AE, and you will notice that the subjects on "race" are always the hottest.
Controversy makes for good debates, and nothing more controversial than race, religion, or sex.
So it appears to me that until "race" is injected into these discussions, they die out more quickly.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Supercar
[b]Yes, my comment had nothing much do with the subject, but it seems to me that race is always injected to it.Browse through all the posts on AE, and you will notice that the subjects on "race" are always the hottest.
Controversy makes for good debates, and nothing more controversial than race, religion, or sex.
So it appears to me that until "race" is injected into these discussions, they die out more quickly.[/B]
it's the hottest topic because you keep making race-baiting posts WALLY...
I can assure you that although I am a fan of Wally's thought process and definitely his website-probably would have created one similar myself, and we're both fans of Diop, we are NOT the same person.
Wally, I assume is a male, I am a female, and I'm sure anyone can see that our IP addresses indicate that we live in different parts of the US. Wally and I have never even communicated outside of this post.
There are other posters like "Thought" whose idealism I share, but hopefully you will NEVER confuse me with S. Mohammad-LOL.
and definitely not Horembh! (making a frown face)
I'm sure Ausur the moderator can assure you that Wally and I have 2 very distinct IP addresses.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
And further in this particular post people like S. Mohammad are trying to "theorize" Blacks right out of Biblical History. Seems to me the only people he could ever claim as Black with confidence are the Nubians/Cushites/Ethiopians
Idiot, you're making clais base on assumption. Ethiopiansas mentiondnthe Bibl has othing do with day Ethiopia, its talking about Nubia. You havenver proven Canaanites were black, you jumped into th whole LembaJew argument, whn it has nothing to do with whether Phoenicians were black. Ancient Egyptians certainly depicted how Syro-Palestinian looked and they didn't look black at all. As I've said and I'll say again, the Table of Nations refers to Nations not races or language. The writer of the book of Genesis wasn't a linguist, how would he know what language are what? Case in point are Elamite and the languages of the Nubians. Ela is mentioned under Shem, but Elamite is NOT a Semitic language. Cush(Nubia) is mentioned under Ham's line but Nubians speak Nilo-Saharan languages. You know very little about this, and whe have I ever said that Nubians(Cushites) were the only blacks in the Bible? Earth to 'homeylu', told you earlier in another post that it is dumb to liit black people to just the line of Ham for it falls right in with earlier racist thinking(Curse of Ham)
quote:
and time and time again he argues, the only way these people could have left sub-sahara Africa is if they were "slaves".
Do not put words in my mouth you idiot! I said the Arab Slave Trade is one reason why Middle Easterners have low levels of sub-Saharan ancestry and more often than not, that ancestry is maternal, although more studies utilizing paternal sub-Saharan ancestry need to be done. Were there black warrior who werwe in these places? Yes, but mostly from Egypt. There ere both Black Egyptian as well as Nubia soldiers in Egyptian armies so it is possible. If you're going to quote me, quote my exact words you troll.
quote:
Like its impossible to imagine these Blacks described in ancient times as "warriors" and "kings and queens" could have conquered and settled outside the continent in areas like Canaan and other areas outside of Africa
Prove it! I said egyptians did conquer parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, but that is certainly no proof that Canaanites were originally black. The evidence isn't there tha large numbers of Africans settled there, and yu have certainly presented none, except for trying to use the Bible as some irrefutable source.
quote:
but at the same time its not difficult to imagine that whites could come from as far as Turkey and conquer the land that borders Black Egypt.
How idiotic, Turks were never originally white. o to Turkey today and you will not see many white looking Turks. And it is fact that Turks did conquer lands, even Egypt(Ottoman Empire) thats historical fact supported by records. Ancient was an African civilization with darker more tropical African looking people in the south, intermediates in Middle Egypt and coastal African with sme intermediates in the North, not a whole lot different than what it is today. All the people were Africans biologically and AE origins lie in the heavily tropical African south.
quote:
How preposterous is that? All I keep hearing from him is that these slaves are the only Africans that contibuted to the Arabian gene pool. Not the warriors or Black Conquerors.
Idiot, dear idiot, I said that sub-Saharan DNA found in Arabs is partly due to the Arab Slave Trade and that is a reality. Aksumites also conquered Yemen and mixed in with Yemenis, those are about the only two routes i know plus the Zanj kingdom which was a kingdom founded by SLAVES who revolted and won. Those are all historical facts, i don't need to go talking about mythological Black warriors and blackwashing people to put blacks in the Middle East as rulers, that is preposterous.
quote:
And that he would have the balls to suggest that Wally and I are "black-washed" when He is clearly "white-washed" in his mode of thought.
Ausar and even Thought can tell you without question that I am certainly NOT 'whitewashed' in my mode of thought. In fact if you look in Richardpoe.com forum, I'm there debating a self-profssed Berber who says North Africans are white. I'm keeping her from whitewashing you idiot.
quote:
Have you ever heard ANY of the so-called "Afrocentrist" attempt to "diminish" contributions the white race contibuted to society-never, all I see is them "maximizing" the contributions Blacks made.
And this is what Wally and myself have a problem with![/b]
If contribution are going to be maximized by Afrocentrists it needs to be groundedin science and objectivity, not racial agenda, for it does more harm than good. Thats why I cannot stand Clyde Winers's with his 'Black Shang in China, Black Greeks, and Black Indians, sam with Runoko Rashidi and his Black Dalits. It takes away and does more harm to Afrocentrism than good and thats what you and Wally are doing by trying to claim that Canaanites were originally black. There is so too much in Africa, in particular west and central Africa and the Sahara that hasn't been studie, to want to go off and worry about whether Canaanites were blacks or blacks in India and China. Thats not 'African' centered at all and is just as absurd as white Europeans claiming a 'white' Aryan invasion of India and Nordic Egyptians in Egypt
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 15 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
quote:
S. Mohammad, you said that Colin Powell isn't black but he indentifies as such. It's true that by skin color alone, he couldn't be considered black, but phenotypically, he still has features which one would associate with a negro. But then others might say that they look black, but they don't have the stereotypical negro features, in which case they are identified by their skin color and/or kinky hair. This then leaves us with lighter skin ones, who claim they don't have the negro features as well, but are nevertheless identified as being black. In this case, it would be social like you said, but they still might have some negro features, but in subtle ways. Example, they might still have that somewhat kinky haire, which is different from the full caucasian type of straight hair. The bottom line is that it's got be a combination of both the social branding and the phenotype
Wrong, I was pointing that homeylu's criteria for blackness(she said blacks are those with black skin) was idiotic. In America and elsewhere even blackness is socil not biological, thats why I said using her criteria for blackness Colin Powell and Walter White aren't black. Of course these two men were/are self indentified black men, but I'm 100% sure that if homeylu would have saw Walter White in person she would be calling him a white man and not a black man, that is if he didn't mention his black ancestry.
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.
A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.
B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.
C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.
The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?
E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...
F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:
Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.
Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN
Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY
Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY
Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY
Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY
Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society
UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley
Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]
Raahubaat = Greeting .. Akhay Atha Antuk = How Are You ... Renee Kalun = My Name Is , OsirisEl ... Just Wondering If We Can Share Some Egiptian Knowledge Together ?
And if your best defense is the resort to name calling as usual, its a clear indication of your own insecurities, as I do not have to call anyone in here an idiot to make my arguments!!!
Name calling is quite juvenile S. Mohammad, only people not secure with their intellectual abilities resort to this mode of argument. And you have surely exemplified your insecurities. And for the record, my parents didnt raise any idiots, thats why I can not be brain-washed by "The Man".
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Come on people let's try to keep things civil instead of the ad hominem attacks. The topic is starting to get off the course of AE civlization,culture,and religon. Maybe we will be arguing forever over the same topic about wheater Caanites are black or not. Can somebody please mention another topic besides ethnicity of people in antiquity.
I agree with you, race is playing to big a part in these threads, thats why I said this can be discussed onthe board I set aside. I'm suck and tired on race being injected into everything. The topic was originall about African languages and whether Wolof was more related to AE than Chadic languages.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
And further S.Mohammad, a person that has identified himself as a true African, and when personal insults posted against Africans by people like Horembh have come up, has he ever responded to this by calling him "idiot".Name calling is quite juvenile S. Mohammad, only people not secure with their intellectual abilities resort to this mode of argument. And you have surely exemplified your insecurities. And for the record, my parents didnt raise any idiots, thats why I can not be brain-washed by "The Man".
I'm far from being insecure,I'm just not going to let Afrocentrism be soiled by false claims. I'm very African centered but I use objective sources without bias from journals, not the Bible, Koran nor racial ideology.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
S. Mohammad like I said you have never sucessfully used by logic, and dont try to do it here. I have never used the term Black in the literal sense, you are the one that said Colin Powell was not Black, I consider him Black, so you're the one with the ilogical mode of thinking.And if your best defense is the resort to name calling as usual, its a clear indication of your own insecurities, as I do not have to call anyone in here an idiot to make my arguments!!!
I never said Powell wasn't black, I said he wasn't using your definition,ie, "being black skinned."
quote:
Originally posted by OsirisEl222:
E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...
The biological data does not match the Biblical accounts. If you look on a map and see where the kingdom of Israel was located, they took the land of Jebus(Jebusites) from whence Jerusalem comes from, but even still they don't correspond to any of the Phoenician territories. Biologically this area does not indicate that people possessing affinities, STRONG affinities to black populations exist. You don't see any evidence of it in art or archaelogy. Biblical accounts cannot be taken as fact everytime.
Ditto to the response posted by Wally
"The dominant evolutionary theory maintains that humans originated in Africa, and the earth was gradually populated by these AFRICAN peoples. These routes were primarily through the Arabian peninsula and also by way of CANAAN. If one accepts this theory, then the first inhabitants of Canaan had to be African! (This is not rocket science here.)"
Originally posted by S.Mohammad
I'm suck and tired on race being injected into everything
As if you're not in the middle of all of these arguments on race. The only reason you made that argument about the Wolof language is to try to discredit C. Diop, an Afrocentric thinker. Your quote "but what I found interesting is that it broke down and went in depth about Diop's proposed relationship between Wolof and Ancient Egyptian."
And then Thought responded
One of the problems across the board is the fact that there are not enough African and pan-African scholars researching these issues
And then Ozzy's response was
In particular I was looking for support, of which almost all advocates for the word Kemmau and its supposed root Kem (Black)
So neither myself, nor Wally originally changed your language topic to a racial discussion, we simply participated in a discussion that was already ensuing!
Even before 3000 B.C.E., West Semitic tribal groups speaking variations of the Canaanite tongue inhabited much of what is now the modern Middle East. Many settled in the Syria-Canaan lands of Ancient Palestine. Early Mesopotamian documents refer to both nomadic shepherds and to traders. One such group, the Habiru {or Hapiru} migrated into Palestine perhaps as early as 2000 B.C.E. from northern Mesopotamia; later elements from among them formed the ancient Hebrews. As they entered Ancient Palestine, the Phoenicians in the north and the Philistines in the south occupied definite areas. "Phoenicia" is the Greek translation of "Canaan,"--the land of purple merchants," referring perhaps to the dye they used to colour cloth. Indeed, it is from the time of Canaan that Bethlehem is believed to have derived its name, Bethlehem - Beit Lahem in Arabic ("The house of Lahman - a Canaanite God").
The Canaanites, were a Semitic people speaking a language remarkably close to Hebrew. They were farmers, some were nomads, but they were also civilized. They used the great Mesopotamian cities as their model and had built modest imitations of them. They had also learned military technology and tactics from the Mesopotamians, as well as law. Thus when the Hebrews arrived at Canaan, they began the long, painful, and disappointing process of settling the land, but being uncivilized, tribal, and nomadic, they faced a formidable enemy. Even the accounts of this period in the Hebrew bible, the books of Joshua and Judges paint a pretty dreary picture of the occupation. They are eventually driven from the coastal plains and forced to settle in the central hill country and a few places in the Jordan River valley. They also faced another looming enemy, the Philistines, who overwhelmed everyone in their path. They had chariots and iron weapons and few could stand against these new technologies.
Thus it was that the Hebrews found themselves living in the worst areas of Canaan, spread thinly across the entire region, with the balance of power constantly shifting as local kingdoms would grab and then lose territory, finding themselves first under one and then another master.
http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/may02_index.php?l=1
- The original Hebrews were not black. Despite possible mixing with Nubians during the Kushite period(Nubian mercenaries are said to have been hired by Jewish rulers and Pharoah Taharqa had an alliance with the Jews) most Jews show common genetic origins with Arabs. If anything, they looked like the Bedouins who live in the Sinai and Jordan today...
- The people who inhabited Canaan before the Jews were mostly a mix of bedouin and indo-European semitic language speaking people. There were certainly some blacks in ancient Canaan but for the most part, the Canaanites weren't black...
Originally posted by neo*geo
If anything, they looked like the Bedouins who live in the Sinai and Jordan today
Most scholars with credentials higher than yours will argue that the Bedouins are descendants of Ishmail-the son Abraham conceived with his Black Egyptian concubine.(why so many are dark skinned, as 2 whites cannot produce dark pigmentation-any scientist will confirm this).
Originally posted by Neo*geo
There were certainly some blacks in ancient Canaan but for the most part, the Canaanites weren't black
Blacks in ancient Canaan, but Cannanites were not Black........Just wanted to repeat this for emphasis
No need to refute this argument, as it refutes itself.
Lets see....so there are Blacks in Haiti, but you know what, Haitians are not Black-sounds ridiculous
This is folklore and not historical record. The original Arabs come from Yemen and claim to desend from Himyarites. We have no proof there was ever a person named Hagar or Abraham.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Sorry this is far from "concluded"
Originally posted by neo*geo
[b]most Jews show common genetic origins with Arabs.
Jews show a genetic origins with the East Indian Jews (Bene Israel) and African Lemba as well (Buba Clan). So dont think your argument will be concluded based on this.[/B]
How could Jews have origins with the Lemba? DNA confirms their own oral history which is that they originated from Yemeni Jews. in fact, all of the exiled jewish populations can be traced back to the Levant and share genes with Arabs.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by neo*geo
[b]If anything, they looked like the Bedouins who live in the Sinai and Jordan today
Most scholars with credentials higher than yours will argue that the Bedouins are descendants of Ishmail-the son Abraham conceived with his Black Egyptian concubine.(why so many are dark skinned, as 2 whites cannot produce dark pigmentation-any scientist will confirm this).[/B]
Name the anthropologists that support the Bible's version of how the Arabs and Jews originated. Anyone who claims the bedouins are descended from Abraham is not a scholar of anything other than the bible.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Neo*geo
[b]There were certainly some blacks in ancient Canaan but for the most part, the Canaanites weren't black
Blacks in ancient Canaan, but Cannanites were not Black........Just wanted to repeat this for emphasis
No need to refute this argument, as it refutes itself.Lets see....so there are Blacks in Haiti, but you know what, Haitians are not Black-sounds ridiculous
[/B]
No, my point is that unlike, Haiti which is 90% black, Canaan wasn't ethnically homogeneous. There were many different tribes in Canaan, few of which were black.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Supercar
[b]Using your logic, African-Americans, most of them aren't black because they lack black skin. Your logic is beginining to borderline on stupidity. 'blackness' is social and not biological, how else would people like Walter White and Colin Powell identify as black? Its social.Firt of all when I say "Black" I dont mean it literally- so dont be ridiculous!!
Just as I dont think "white" people are literally white, Just as their complexions and features vary, so do ours.
Since you're obviusly new in here, you may not have read other posts in other Forums that I myself, agree with you that the whole concept of race is a social one, so when I hear people say things like caucasoid, negroid, blah blah blah, to try to "theorize" that the AE were not the same people as other Sub-saharan Africans, I am more inclined to inject "skin color" into the argument to show that they're not the same people as the Germans, other North Europeans either!
From an earlier post I wrote:
"Afica has thousands of tribes which separate themselves amongst cultural lines and not complexion lines.......Please get out of the racist habit of trying to box all Africans into one complexion, one hair texture/color, and one Nose size, lip size etc.. The Egyptians were clearly showing the diversity of the African race, then ,as we are today!"So like S. Mohammad, when you clearly dont understand someone's logic, don't comment on it, just because you "assumed" I meant Black literally, damn sure doesnt mean I did!!!
You may also want to view my post on the AAPA's current position on race.
This is just a piece of it:
"These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines"And what does this have to do with Egypt you may ask? Too many times, even up to the present---we see scientist continuously trying to separate the Marvelous contributions of the Egyptian society, from the rest of Black (sub-sahara) Africa...and I personally won't stand for it!![/B]
You misquoted me. It was S. Mohammed's quote you are reading. I put in your earlier quote, along with S. Mohammed's in order to make my comment. I may be new, but trust me when I say that I know what is being talked about.
The CMH marker has Palestinian origins, NOT Yemen origins. The Lemba never concluded Yemen origins exclusively, according to the Center for Genetic Anthropology "They claim descent from Jews who came to Africa from "Sena." "Sena" is variously identified by them as Sanaa in Yemen, Judea, Egypt, or Ethiopia" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10677325&dopt=Abstract
The CMH gene originate 3,000 years ago according to Scientists and Biblical Scholars who associate it with Aaron the first jewish Priest (And I can personally care less is you feel Aaron is an imaginary Biblical character- fact is the gene originated from a particular man-call him what you want to)
I dont know how elementary I can make this for you all after several attempts, but here we go again:
The CMH is supposedly the "signature marker" for jewry, more prevalent in the priestly castes. The priestly castes for the Sephardic and Ashkenazi jews is called "Kohen", for the Lemba Jews its called "Buba".
Now broken down to how this gene is dispersed amongst these 3 groups of jews is the following:
CMH gene for priestly caste
1. Sephardic jews (56%)
2. Lemba Jews (Buba) (53%)
3. Ashkenazi Jews (45%)
For NON-priestly class (general jewish population)
1.Sephardic Jews (3%)
2. Ashkenazi Jews (3%)
3. Lemba Jews (9%)
Conclusion- the Lemba jews have more of this CMH than the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews combined. Therefore it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that either of these Jews could have contributed to the Lemba population. And Obvious that the Lemba Jews are 3 times more likely to be a descendant(genetically linked) of Aaron, than either one of these groups.
Now you can come up with all the theories you wish, but the numbers speak for themselves!
Originally posted by Supercar
It was S. Mohammed's quote you are reading.
* Should have known from the "silly" logic
Originally posted by Supercar
S. Mohammad, you said that Colin Powell isn't black but he indentifies as such.
Trust me most of his responses contain more "passion" than "logic". So desperate in trying to prove me wrong, most of the time he "imagines" what he thinks is my logic, so that his argument is actually with some imaginary Homeylu, whose logic is really his own twisted logic.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Neo*Geo
[b]How could Jews have origins with the Lemba? DNA confirms their own oral history which is that they originated from Yemeni JewsThe CMH marker has Palestinian origins, NOT Yemen origins. The Lemba never concluded Yemen origins exclusively, according to the Center for Genetic Anthropology "They claim descent from Jews who came to Africa from "Sena." "Sena" is variously identified by them as Sanaa in Yemen, Judea, Egypt, or Ethiopia" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list _uids=10677325&dopt=Abstract
The problem is that there is no city named Sena is Judea and they many different places for its origin, the probable being that of Yemen. Although it has Palestinian origins it is exclusive to Jews only it is also found in Arabs. There is a place in Yemennamed Sena.
quote:
The CMH gene originate 3,000 years ago according to Scientists and Biblical Scholars who associate it with Aaron the first jewish Priest (And I can personally care less is you feel Aaron is an imaginary Biblical character- fact is the gene originated from a particular man-call him what you want to)
CMH may have originated 3000 years ago but it doesn't mean the Lemba had the gene 3000 years ago. embas speak a Bantu language ad bantu languages wre still dispersing at this time. You cant ignore that historical fact.
quote:
The CMH is supposedly the "signature marker" for jewry, more prevalent in the priestly castes. The priestly castes for the Sephardic and Ashkenazi jews is called "Kohen", for the Lemba Jews its called "Buba".
Incorrect, CMH is a signature of the priestly case period, not Jewry as geneticists cannot distinguish between Arab Semitic and 'Jewish Semitic' mixture. Lemba have a high amount of Semitic admixure but overall among all Lemba CMH is not present in all, meaning themajority of their Semitic mixtue came from Semitic people who did not have the CMH gene
quote:
CMH gene for priestly caste
1. Sephardic jews (56%)
2. Lemba Jews (Buba) (53%)
3. Ashkenazi Jews (45%)For NON-priestly class (general jewish population)
1.Sephardic Jews (3%)
2. Ashkenazi Jews (3%)
3. Lemba Jews (9%)Conclusion- the Lemba jews have more of this CMH than the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews combined.
Wrong, combine Ashenazi and Sephardic priestly castes and you have more than the Lemba.
quote:
Therefore it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that either of these Jews could have contributed to the Lemba population.
Wrong, you didn't read that genetic study did you? It said the Lemba have upwards of 67% Semitic admixture in their Y-Chromosones and Lemba are mostly African in origin, not Semitic. Unlike Middle eastern Jews Lemba do have a specific maternal origin that is African. So evidence looks more likely that Yemenis males mixed with Bantu females. Yemeni Jews have very low amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry, les than any other Yemen groups. In fact sub-Saharan ancestry was preferential in Arabs not Jews, thats how in another study they were able to distinguish between the two. The fact remains that even if a an ofshoot of Levites migrated int Africa, they were not black
To top it off, you still haven't refuted the linguistic and historical evidence regarding Canaanites, that they were not originally Hamitic speaking peoples. They were Semitic speakers and their language and writing script, which preceded that of any Hebrew or Jew influenced some languages and the first writing script in Europe. They were speaking Semitic languages long before there was any nation or kingdom called Israel, so the theory that Canaanites were black Hamitic speaking peoples who bcame Semitic speakers by being conquered, washed out and overran by "white" Jews(these people were dark Bedouin types, not lily white people) is false and has no foundation. Even after the kingdm of Israel was established, Phoenicians(Cananites) were still speaking their original Semitic tongue.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 16 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.
A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.
B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.
C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.
The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?
E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...
F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:
Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.
Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN
Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY
Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY
Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY
Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY
Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society
UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley
Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]
Where Did The Word < Amiyn > Come From Which They Usally End Suwratul Faatiha , They Will Have To Say It Came From The Aramic / Hebrew Word
< Awmane > Meaning '' To Have Faith '' This Is Where < Amiyn = Amen , '' Mu'minun ... Mu'minaati ... El Mu'min Etc . One Of Allah's Attributes ( 6th ) Was Stolen From , Which In Turn Was Stolen From The Great Egyptian Deity
' Amun . Amun Or Amen Combined With The Sun God < Ra > Was Represented As A Human With A Ram's Head Or A Ram Wearing A Triple Crown Or A Goose . Amen Was Known As The
A ) . God Of Life And Reproduction ( Fertility )
B ) . King Of The Gods
C ) . Patron Deity Of The Pharaohs
D ) . And Identified With The Sun God '' Re '' As Amon - Re Or Amon Ra . The Greeks Identified Their God Zeus With Amun Ra . Amun Was Also Called Jupiter By The Roman And Latins .
A Quote From A Book , Entitled Final Reformation . 1986 By Christ Koster , Question The Use Of Amen Of Amenin ( Which Is Still The Same Word ) .
( By Ending Our Prayers With Amen Instead Of Amenin One Could Very Well Ask ; Have We Been Misled To Invoke The Name Of The Egyptian Sun Deity At The End Of Our Prayers ? ...
This Would Apply To Jews , Christians And Muslims < Who Always Hideing Their TRUE Teaching > You Are All Guilty Of Paganism , Which You Consider Wrong !!!!!! And Doesn't It Say In Quraan 72 ; 18 , Wa - Anna - Al - Masaajida - Lil - Lahi - Falaa - Tad'uuw - Ma'a - Allahi - Ahadaan , Which Means '' And Surely The Masaajid , Places Of Prostration '' Are For Him , The Source ' Allah ' Alone ; So Don't Call Out To Anyone ( In Conjunction ) With Allah . '' < ALLAH ALONE NOT THE GREAT EGYPTIAN DEITY AMUN OR AMIYN !!!
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.
A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.
B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.
C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.
The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?
E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...
F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:
Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.
Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN
Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY
Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY
Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY
Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY
Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society
UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley
Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]
Where Did The Caucasoids Come From? Let's Set the Record Straight
Let me give you the facts. The White Man originated from a curse that was placed on Ham's Fourth Son Canaan <Aramaic Meaning Lowlander> Genesis 9:18 the Aramic/Hebrew word used for curse in Genesis 9:25 is the root word Awrar which means to curse, curse Be He Canaan was cursed because his father Ham looked upon his father's Noah's nakedness. The story goes as follows. In Genesis 9:22 after The Ark rested on Mount Ararat, Noah planted a vineyard Genesis 9:21. Noah was one of the first farms and because the flood destroyed all life from the face of the earth, the condition of his family was very critical. They had consumed all of their food supply and were on the brink of starvation. So Noah began to plant seed and harvest the land in hope that it would provide food for then. Noah reaped the grapes. He planted and made wine and drink it in Genesis 9:21-24 .. Note: The Hebrew Word for Nakedness in Genesis 9:22 is Ervah <er - vaw> under the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #06172. And it means shameful, or nakedness as opposed to the word Ayrom <Ay-rome> under the Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #05903 which is simply used for Nakedness or Bareness. Therefore, this could read "Ham looked upon his father's shame and told his two brothers without. Since Ham just had an argument with this wife Haliyma and was in a weak state. It made it easy for the devil <Azaazil> to take over him. Used him, and possess him. So while in his father's tent, Ham mocked his father's Nakedness or as the Hebrew states Shame - Genesis 9:22 common for them to get confused between nakedness Ervah Shameful and nakedness Ayrom Bareness. Almost all Christian ministers can only depend on the English Translation of the Bible. The King James Version of the Bible or the newer version of the Bible that are even worse transition taking you further and further from the original meaning of the Words. This was purposed done so that they won't see the right translation and the Whites that are calling themselves Jews today won't help them. And the Story continues in Genesis 9:24. Now reading this verse without knowing the Hebrew Language one would believe that Noah's younger son is Ham. However, when you look at the Hebrew word for younger, the word there is Qaton Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #06996 and means Lesser. As in less in quality unimportant, insignificant. And doesn't mean younger as in age. The same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 1:16 and we see in that verse the Hebrews word being used is also Qaton and means Lesser. As in less in quality or lesser light. It does not mean in Age or Younger as in the word Tsawowr Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #06810 which means youngest, little or small one. Why am I pointing this out to you? To show you how easy it is to misinterpret the verse is actually saying if you don't take the time to study the Original Languages that the Scripture were written in. Now Ham was not Noah's youngest son because the order in Genesis 5:32 where Noah's sons are first mentioned states: and Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth in that order. That would make Japheth the youngest one of the three sons because, Not Ham. The problem comes in because those who cannot translate the Hebrew can't see Genesis 9:24 ....This is not talking about Young in Age and most definitely is not talking about Ham, which has been misused for decades by Gentitles Caucasians who wish to convince you that the Hamites were cursed to become black - skinned because there was no way of getting around the fact that Ham became the Father of Egipt. But not merely Egipt because the Bible calls Egipt Mizraim. Ham is Sudan. A word meaning Black or the two blacks and includes all of North Central Africa which can bee seen on any Map of Africa today. There were many great Empire stretch from Egipt to Morocco, all the way down to Ethiopia and around which back then also included Arabia And the Sinil Peninsula. According to the Bible, an Empire stretched from the White Nile and the Blue Nile all the way to the Tigris Euphrates Valley Genesis 2:11. With these facts being known the early Caucasian Gentiles trying to find a place for themselves in the Bible and after intensive research finding that the curse on Canaan was Leprosy and was in fact the White Race. They shifted the curse to Ham as it states before, the Jehovah Witnesses admit this in their book titled Did Man Get Here by Creation or Evolution on page 407. It states that the "Black Race From Cush, not due to Curse on Canaan, whose descendants were white they are telling you right there that Canaan and the Canaanites were not The Nubians/Black or Negroes, but rather The Caucasians. In The Teachers Bible Commentary written by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs Copyright 1972 A.D. published by Broadman & Holman Publishers, located in Nashville, Tenn. This book which is registered with the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 75-189505, on page 21 Second Column it states and I Quote Nubians/Negro/Blacks are NOT Descendants of Canaan, who was white, but are descendents from Ham, the curse was not predicated upon all Ham's descendants, but only upon the canaanites, please note that the 25 contributing Editors of this commentary are all Caucasians, thus they all agree with the contents of this book. (This has nothing to do with Racism I'm only Quoting from Books Authored by Caucasians) The curse of Canaan is on the Canaanite Race. Not the Nubians/Blacks/Negroes Race. The Editors of The Teacher Bible Commentary are as follows.
Donald F. Ackland, Author and formal editor, Nashville, Tenn, Deuteronomy through Malachi
J.P. Allen, Radio and Television Commission (SBC) Forth Worth, Texas, John
James E. Carter, First Baptist Church, Natchitoches Louisana, Isaiah 1-39
Robert L. Cate, First Baptist Church, Aiken, South Carolina Levitcus
William B. Cobble, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Kansas, MIssiouri, Revelation
Wayne Dehoney, Walnut St. Baptist Church, Louisville, Kentucky, Acts
Russell H. Dilday, Jr. Second - Ponce De Leon Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, Esther through Psalms 41,
W.C.Fields, Executive Committe, Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, Tenn, Galatians through James
Fred L. Fisher - Gollen Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Mill Valley, California, Romans through 2nd Corinthians
Clyde T. Francisco, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, Genesis
J. Loe Green, Southern Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminiary - Wake Forest, North Carolina, Jeremiah and Lamentations.
Herschel H. HObbs, First Captist Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Editor, New Testament
J. Hardee Kennedy , New Orlean Baptist Theological Seminary , New Orleans , Louisiana , Psalms 42 - 150
Landrum P. Leaveil, First Baptist Church, Wichita Falls, Texas, Mark
Peter McLeod, First Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, Isaiah 40-66
H. Franklin Pashall, First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tenn Editor, Old Testament
Ben F. Philbeck, Carson-Newman Collage, Jefferson City, Tenn, Joshua through 1 Samuel
Billy E. Simmons, East Texas Baptist College, Marshall, Texas, 1 Chronicles through Nehmiah
Jerry Falwell, D.D.D. Litt. L.L.D.D.D. Tenn Temple Theological Seminary; D. Litt California Graduate School of Theology, L.I.D. Central University (Seoul, Korea)
Wayne A. Brindle, B.A. Th. M.Th. D.B.A. Kansas University; Th. M. Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary
Carl J. Diemer, B.S.M. Div. Th. D.B.S. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; M Div. Th. D. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Edward G . Dobson , B.A.M.A.D.D.Ed.DB.A.M.A.Bob.Jones University ; D.D. California . Graduate School . Of Theology Ed.D. University Of . Viginia ,
Paul R. Fink , B.A. M.E.d.Th.M.Th.D.B.A.Columbia Bible College ; M.E.d.University Of Southern California , Th.M.Th.D.Dallas.Theological. Seminary .
James A. Freerksen, B.A. M.D.iv, Th. M. Th. D.B.A. Pilsbury, Baptist College, M.Div. Th. M. Central Baptist Theological Seminary; Th D Grace Theological Seminary
Edward E. Hindson, B.A.M.A. Th. M. Th. D.D. Min D. Litt, Et. Phil, Fiba. B.A. William Tyndale College; M.A. Trinity Graduate School of Theology D. Min. Westminister Theological Seminary; D. Litt, Et. Phil University of South Africa Fellow of The International Biographical Association (Cambridge England
Daniel R. Mitchell B.A.B.D. Th. M.S.T.M. Th B. A. Washingtion Bible College; B.D. Th. M. Captial Bible Seminary; S.T.M. Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary
Richard D. Patterson, A.B.M. Div. Th. M.A. Ph. D.A.B. Wheaton College, M. Div. Los Angeles Baptist Serminary Th.M.Talbot.Theological Seminary.M.A.Ph.H.University Of California . At Los Angeles ( UNCLA )
Ronald C . Sauer , B.A.Th , M.Ph.D. B.A.. Mississippi College . Th .M.Dallas Theological Seminary Ph.D.University Of Manchester ( England )
Stephen R. Schrader, B.S.M. Div. Th. M. Th. D. B.S. Evansville University M. Div. Th. M. Th. D. Grace Theological Seminary.
Elmer L. Towns, B.A. Th. M. M. R.R. D. Min. B.B. Northwestern College; M.A. Southern Methodist University; Th. M. Dallas Theological Seminary; M.R.E. Garrett Theological Seminary; D. Min. Fuller Theological Seminary.
Robert W. Yarbrough, B.A.M. A. Ph.D. B. A. Southwest Baptist College; M.A. Wheaton College Graduate School; D. University of Aberdeen (Scotland)
Jerry Falwell .. William Franklin ... “Billy Graham - Ruth Bell Graham...”
The wife of Billy Graham - Anne Graham Lotz - the daughter of Billy Graham
John Hagee, and Robert H. Schuller, They all agree that the Curse of Canaan is on the White Race because they all appear within the Nelson Catalog. Even some of their wives and children are inside the Book. Thus we see that they obviously Condone what is written in the Nelson Version of The King James Bible.
Another bible that share this same point is the Zondervan N.A.S.B. (New American Standard Bible) Study Bible on page 17
Within the Commentary in Reference to Genesis 9:25 it states Noah's Prophecy Cannot be Used to Justify the Enslavement of Black. Since those cursed here were Canaanites. Who Were CAUCASIAN this bible was edited by General Editor. Another bible that share this same point is the Zondervan N.A.S.B. (New American Standard Bible) Study Bible on page 17
Within the Commentary in Reference to Genesis 9:25 it states Noah's Prophecy Cannot be Used to Justify the Enslavement of Black. Since those cursed here were Canaanites. Who Were CAUCASIAN this bible was edited by General Editor.
Ronald Youngblood <> Genesis
Ronald Youngbloom and Walter C. Kaiser Jr. <>Exodus
R. Laired Harris and Ronald Youngblook <>Leviticus
Ronald B. Allen and Kenneth L. Barker <>Number
Earl S. Kalland and Kenneth L. Barker <>Deuteronomy
Arthur Lewis<>Joshua
John J. Davis and Herbert Woldf <>Judge
Marvin E. Wilson and John H. Stek <>Ruth
J. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Samuel
. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Kings
Robert Dillard <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronaldd Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillardd <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronald Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillard and Edward Yamauchi <>Esther
Elmer B. Smick and Ronald Youngblood <>Job
John H. Stek<>Psalms
Herbert Wolf <>Proverbs
Derek Kiner<>Ecclesiates
John H. Stek <> Song of Solomon
. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Kings
Robert Dillard <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronaldd Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillardd <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronald Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillard and Edward Yamauchi <>Esther
Elmer B. Smick and Ronald Youngblood <>Job
John H. Stek<>Psalms
Herbert Wolf <>Proverbs
Derek Kiner<>Ecclesiates
John H. Stek <> Song of Solomon
Herbert Wolf and JOhn H. Stek<>Isaiah
RonaldYoungblood <> Jereiah
Roanld Youngblood <>Jeremiah & Lamentations
Mark Hilmer<>Ezekiel
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Ronald Youngblood <>Daniel
Jack P Lewis Hosea
Jack P. Lewis <> Joel
Allen R. Millard and John H. Stek <>Amos
John M. Zinkand <>Obadiah
Marvin R. Wilson and John H. Stek <>Jonah
Allen A. MacRae Thomas E. McComiskey <>Micah
G. Herbert Livingston and Kenneth L. Barker <>Nahum
Ronald K. Harrison and William C. Williams <>Habakkuk
Ronald K. Harrison <> Zephaniah
Herbert Wolf <>Haggai
Kenneth L. Barker and Larry L. Walker <>Zechariah
Herbert Wolf and JOhn H. Stek <>Malachi
Ralph Earle and Wlater W. Wessel <>Matthew
Walter W. Wessel and William L. Lane <>Mark
Lewis Foster <> Luke & Acts
Leon Morris <>John
Lewis Foster <> Acts
Walter W. Wessel<>Romans
W. Harold Mare <>1Corinthians
Robert Mounce<>Galatians
Walter L. Liefeld <>Ephesians
Richard B. Gaffin Jr. <>Phillippians
Gerald F. Hawthorne and Wilber B. Wallis <>Colossianss
Leon Morris <>1.2. Thessalonians
Wlater W. Wesseel and Geroge W. Knight III <>1.2. Timothy
D. Edmond Herbert <>Titus
John Werner <>Philemon
Philip E. Hughes and Donald W. Burdick <>Hebrews
Donald W. Burdick <>James
Donald W. Burden and John H. Skilton 1.2. Peter and Jude
Donald W. Burdick <>1.2.3. John
Robert Mounce <>Revelation
So you See what I'm Saying is Definitely not Racism because they are saying this themselves. Right from the horses mouth. The white man has The Curse of Canaan Not Nubians/Blacks. Who are Indeed the trut and only pure seed of the Tribe of Judah.William Franklin "Billy" Graham, and American Evangelist who conducted revivals all over the World, Ruth Bell Graham The Wife of Billy Graham ....
Anne Graham Lotz the Daughter of Billy Graham
John Hagee The Founder and Pastor of the 17,000 member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Taxas .Jerry Falwell A Baptist Telvision Evangelist and Head of the Moral Majority
Pat Robertson The Founder and Chairman Of the Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. Robert H. Schuller The Founder and Senior Minister of the Famed Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California...Take a lQQk at the Book entitled The Bible and Race written by T.B.Maston Copyright 1959 A.D. Registered with the Library of Congress Catalong Number 59-5858 Published by Broadman Press which may be the same press that published The Teachers Bible Commentary by H. Franklin Paschall which was published by Broadman & Holman Publishers, Located in Nashville, Tennessee. Which is the same location of the Broadman Press. In the Book The Bible and Race on Page 122 it states: It is generally agreed that the Canaanites Descendant of Canaan. Were Nubian/Black. In the Main they moved into Asia Minor and at least as far East as the Tigris And Euphrates Valley. Other descendants of Ham went south into Africa.
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
CMH may have originated 3000 years ago but it doesn't mean the Lemba had the gene 3000 years ago
This statement is too absurd to respond to.
The Lemba did not ORIGINATE in South Africa!
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Wrong, you didn't read that genetic study did you? It said the Lemba have upwards of 67% Semitic admixture in their Y-Chromosones and Lemba are mostly African in origin, not Semitic.
If the admixture is 67%, which is more than 50%, then they would be MOSTLY semitic...smh
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Unlike Middle eastern Jews Lemba do have a specific maternal origin that is African.
As I pointed out before the maternal origins of Jews is Not localized, some have maternal origins in the Middle East, some in Eastern Europe, some
India, and some in Central Europe, AND 90% OF THE JEWS WORLDWIDE ARE ASHKENAZI, WITH "MATERNAL" ORIGINS IN EASTERN EUROPE-NOT THE MIDDLE EAST!!!
"Preliminary studies indicate that Jewish populations in eastern Europe and Yemen have maternal origins that contain much more non-Israelite ancestry than their paternal origins. Despite this admixture with other groups, the Jewish Judean people ultimately began their existence in an area within or nearby Kurdistan, prior to migrating southwest to Israel." http://www.barzan.com/kevin_brook.htm
SO OBVIOUSLY THE LEMBA ARE NOT THE ONLY JEWS THAT MIXED WITH LOCAL POPULATIONS!!
Which is why the Y chromosomes is more effective in determining a common origins, because OBVIOUSLY the mtDNA is INCONCLUSIVE of a maternal origin.
And you keep bringing up the Jews close relations with Middle Eastern Arabs, which is exagerated, because they are not genetically related to EVERY ARAB IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
"With their closer relationship to Jews, the Palestinian Arabs are distinctive from other Arab groups, such as Syrians, Lebanese, Saudis, and Iraqis, who have less of a connection to Jews."
So your argument is pointless. As I dont disagree that the Lemba male mixed with local popuations, all of the Jewish males mixed with local populations. The Lemba themselves have claimed they were FOUNDED BY MOSTLY MEN and where is Your evidence to prove these male founders were White?????
When the white males have less of the CMH gene than the Lemba in general, and the SAME amount for the priestly caste.
Further the study indicates
the majority of today's Jews have paternal ancestry from the northeastern Mediterranean region
And according to the Bible, "northeastern mediterranean" is where this "mythical" character Abraham came from before settling in Canaan!!!
And if you need help with geography, Canaan is in "SOUTH WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN", so as I said before, just because there are Jews and Palestinians there now, damn sure doesnt mean they were ALWAYS there since ancient times. The genes tell the true story.
And you really need to get your time frames together, because Abraham supposedly settled in Canaan over 4,000 years ago, according to Hebrew historians, he came from the land of UR, which s modern day Iraq, which is in Northern Mediterranean. So rather any of you choose to believe the Bible characters or not, Scientists have confirmed that the Jewish genetics originated in Northern Mediterranean before relocating to Israel. And in Israel, they obviously mixed with the Blacks that were already there which explains how the gene transferred to the Lemba. "Let us take their daughters, and them take our daughters," which should explain why the Palestinians have "maternal" African admixture, and the Lemba have a "paternal" semitic admixture. Because Abrahams sons, were marrying canaanite women.
I have contributed some non-race related topics that nobody seems to have contributed to. Why is that the people who know so much about the racial affinities of ancient people yet know nothing about their cultural achiievements?
quote:
Originally posted by Osiris II:
This racial argument seems to go on and on! There is absolutely no conclusion--no one is able to prove, without any question, that their theory is correct. I thought this board was for discussion concerning ancient Egypt--its culture, its monuments and its achievements...
To which Ausar responded...
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
You are right Osiris II. I have mentioned earlier that nobody contributes to messages that are non-race related. Nobody including the people who claim they know much about Egyptology .
I have contributed some non-race related topics that nobody seems to have contributed to. Why is that the people who know so much about the racial affinities of ancient people yet know nothing about their cultural achievements?
Ta_Seti primarily consists of Africans, Africans of the Diaspora, and others who share a genuine interest in the civilizations of the ancient Nile Valley. A current discussion is about the authenticity of the Berlin bust of Nefertiti, it is reasoned and intelligent, and refreshingly devoid of emotional outbursts from those who overtly or covertly support the "old view" of Egypt, and want to yell RACE even when it is a salient part of the current discourse. I was informed by one individual from this forum that those who held these views have "left" the forum, and thus, there are no distractions from the topics at hand.
Examples of other topics are:
Ancient Egypt - The Light of the World
Which was the first generation of Africa
Archaeologists have unearthed a 5,000-year-old necropolis
Because of the demographics of the Ta_Seti forum, there is no need to constantly remind people of the ethnicity of the population of the ancient Nile valley. They pretty much already know, and they form their understandings of the other facets of Egyptian history and culture based upon this important piece of knowledge...
Now, no one has disagreed that the Egyptians were Hamites, the argument is whether the original Canaanites were Hamites prior to being colonized by the "Hebrew" Shemites. Now we have presented maps, genetic evidence, and Historical Biblical Evidence to support this argument. Wally even went so far as to establish evolutionary evidence of the migrations out of Africa. Now some continue to argue based on nothing but Liguistics, that this is not the case. But this particular person could never establish a valid timeline. As history has shown how the languages intermix as a result of colonization and intermingling. What may have once been primarily Hamitic, eventually becomes Hamo-semitic (afro-asiatic) and the like.
There is existing evidence that Canaan was controlled by the Ancient Egyptians prior to the Hebrew settlement. And if the Ancient Egyptians are primarily Black, the the Ancent Cannanites must have also been Black.
Now many of you question whether Moses or even Abraham existed, oral history and Ancient artifacts show that they do. There are vasts amounts of written documents that show writings similar to the commandments of Moses found in Egypt.
1.Genetic evidence has established a Hebrew forefather that originated in Ancient Ur, who could be none other than Abraham (What the Hebrews called him).
2.Scientific evidence shows that there was in fact a Mass Exodus from Egypt. And for that to occur, they would have had to been led by a military General- who could be none other than what the Hebrews call "moses".
3. This general must have established laws (commandments) that these Hebrews should follow, before "rescuing them". Now they were in Egypt for 500 years, and its pretty well know how religious Egyptians were, so many of their practices could have been adopted from Egytpian customs already established.
4. Now Moses,(the law giver) had to also eliminate the enemies of the promised land-the Canaanites, before they settled there. Now either they forced them out, or they intermingled with them, or more likely a combination of the 2.
5. Now for these Canaanites to be conquered, they must have been smaller in number, or militarily weaker than the Hebrews
6. Being over-powered they obviously adopted the Hebrew customs, incuding their language.
Now we are talking over 3,000 years ago
So just like Egypt, this land has also been invaded by several different nations
1. After the death of King Solomon, it was split into 2 kingdoms before the invasions.
2. The Persion invasions
3. The Greek invasions
4. The Syrian invasions
5. The Roman invasions
And finally just like Egypt- the Arab invasions.
Therefore, whenever I hear people try to make arguments based on how the population is made up today, they need to be reminded, that just like the Egyptians, there were successive invasion of Palestine. And we're talking over 3,000 years of different nationalities, intermingling, as apparent in the genetic make-up.
So it is my opinion based on facts and observations, that Ancient Canaan was nothing but an extension of Egypt.
I know that Egyptians were set up as garrisons in some parts of Palestine,however,none of these people were numerous enough to leave mass populations. Egyptians themselves were very weary of being buried in foregin lands as in the case of the stories of Sabni and Sinhue. Both these accounts deal with how these Egyptians were forced back into their homeland to be buried alongside the Nile.
Egyptians sometimes allowed local people to run their own territories while extracting tribute from them. This was most likley the case with Palestine or other parts. Even in Nubia most of the viceroys of Kush were native Kushites,but sometimes they were Egyptian.
The Africaness of the Egyptians does not rely on Hebrew folklore,but on current archaeological and anthropological studies. We don't need the Bible[Torah] to justify the blackness or Africaness of the ancient Egyptians.
Could you show me where in traditional circles the pressence of Abraham is accepted by most academics. Present evidence please.
From reading the biblical story of Abraham we discover that Abraham loans his sister/wife to the pharoah. She gives the unidentifiable pharoah some veneral diease. Know tell me also why Abraham treats an Egyptian princess,Hagar,like total trash. Even Yaweah condems the poor Egyptian women. Such a close connection to people who won't even accept an Egyptian women.
But since you want "hard core archaeological" evidence that Moses was capable of writing the Bible (the only argument that he couldnt have written the Bible presented in scientific circles was the claim that writing had not been invented at the time.)
Evidence 1
Code of Hammarubi(dated 2250 BC- 4000 lines)
-excavated by Frenceh archaeologist, M. de Morgan in 1902,He is the Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 who helped to capture Sodom and from whom Abraham wrested the spoils of battle.
Evidence 2
Tel Armana Tablets-(dated 1450BC)300 tablets of Baked clay-written in a Babylonian language (Abraham was 'called out of Babylon')The tablets show that Palestine was a province of Egypt and had been for a long time a province of Babylon. They were written when Hebrews were captives in Egypt and show that Palestine was in a greatly disturbed condition at the time. These letters refer to the Canaanites and their enemies, the Hebrews. They refer to the city of Jerusalem which name was not until the finding of these tablets known to be in use at that early date.
Evidence 3
The Moabite stone (dated 850BC) found near the Dead Sea "read just like a book out of Kings"
Evidence 4
Ramses II- Pharoah at the time of the Hebrew slavery in Egypt (The city of Pithom has been discovered, the actual storehouse built by the Hebrew slaves has been found, the lower portions made of brick containing straw and the upper portions made of brick without straw. Pithom is mentioned in Exodus 1:11, where we read, "Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Ramses." Later we read that the Israelites were commanded to furnish their own straw for the bricks they made. "Therefore go now and work; for no straw shall be given you, yet you shall deliver the quota of bricks." Exodus 5:18. Thus the ruins show that the Bible account is correct.0
Evidence 5
Tomb of Schechem in Palestine (mummy discovered buried like Ancient Egyptians) said to be the tomb of Joseph.
Evidence 6
Record of the Hitites
"The skeptics once claimed that no such nation as the Hittites ever existed since they were mentioned only in the Bible. They felt that the Hittites were only an imaginary race of people. Records of Egypt and Assyria have now been found which show that the Hittites for nearly seven centuries occupied Northern Syria and Southern Asia Minor and were one of the greatest nations on the earth at that time. Many ruins of Hittite buildings have been found"
Archaeology has never found anything that contradicted the Bible. It has found many things that agree with the Bible!!
And like I said before, whether you choose to all him Abraham or not, GENETIC EVIDENCE SHOW THE JEWS THAT SETTLE IN PALESTINE HAVE A PATERNAL ORIGIN IN THE ANCIENT LAND OF UR!!! How many times do I have to repeat this.
Now had the genetics traced their origins to lets say...JAPAN..then I'd have to agree with you that the Biblical account of Abraham is nothing but folklore, but HARDCORE evidence coincides with this "folklore".
The Lemba oral tradition of their semetic origins was once considered "folklore", guess biologist has proven their accounts too!!
And no we don't need the Bible to prove our Blackness, please point out where I ever claimed this. My only claim was that the Table of Nations and the Table of races were essentially the same thing.
You dont have to ever have freaking believe one single word in the Bible Ausar, it doesnt make me one bit of difference. But you and other skeptics have yet to prove the Bible wrong. As the most zealously religious people that live by the Bible today, don't take every single word of the more than 2,000 pages of the Bible litteraly anyway!!! Hell if this was the case, every Christian on earth could justify having concubines.
Oppression of Black people have been done by Jews, Christians, Hindus,Buddhist, and Muslims!
If people want to have their lives guided by divine wisdom, who the hell are Scientists to tell them they shouldnt do so until these Scientists can prove that God really exists!
If they believe they can die and go to hell, or die and come back in the form of a cow. I sure as hell am not the one to tell them its impossible, because I'll be damned if I'm a living witness to testify.
I consider myself a very open-minded person and have not be known to judge anyone by what they believe, and be damned if anyone would judge me.
Peace
I have some problems with your evidence that does not seem to correlate with the AE belief:
1. The Tell-Amarna Tablets talk of a person named Hibiru. Are you suggesting that the Hibiru were the people in question?
2. Kemetians[Egyptians] never allowed foreginers to build temples. To do this was basphemous to the Kemetian belief system. We have written texts by Kemetians themselves saying that Asiatics of any kind could not invade the sanctuaries of creation,which is what the temple represented.
3. What secular Egyptian text can you double check that proves mass enslavement of Hebrews in the Delta? Around the time of Mereptah there was a stela called the Israelite stela by Sir Flinders Petrie that mentions the nation of Israel. No where does any texts say anything about slaves. Kemetians[Egyptians] keep track of just about every occupant within Egypt for tax purposes. By the reign of Rameses II there had already been loads of Asiatics in the Delta living side by side with Egyptians. I believe earlier texts from the First Intermediate talk about the Asiatic foreginers.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Evidence 1
Code of Hammarubi(dated 2250 BC- 4000 lines)
-excavated by Frenceh archaeologist, M. de Morgan in 1902,He is the Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 who helped to capture Sodom and from whom Abraham wrested the spoils of battle.
Source please...
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Evidence 2
Tel Armana Tablets-(dated 1450BC)300 tablets of Baked clay-written in a Babylonian language (Abraham was 'called out of Babylon')The tablets show that Palestine was a province of Egypt and had been for a long time a province of Babylon. They were written when Hebrews were captives in Egypt and show that Palestine was in a greatly disturbed condition at the time. These letters refer to the Canaanites and their enemies, the Hebrews. They refer to the city of Jerusalem which name was not until the finding of these tablets known to be in use at that early date.
Source please.... this is complete nonesense. If you believe the hebrews were in Egypt when these tablets were written, then it couldn't have been the hebrews causing problems in Canaan. So where were they? In Egypt or Canaan?
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Evidence 3
The Moabite stone (dated 850BC) found near the Dead Sea "read just like a book out of Kings"
Source please....
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Evidence 4
Ramses II- Pharoah at the time of the Hebrew slavery in Egypt (The city of Pithom has been discovered, the actual storehouse built by the Hebrew slaves has been found, the lower portions made of brick containing straw and the upper portions made of brick without straw. Pithom is mentioned in Exodus 1:11, where we read, "Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Ramses." Later we read that the Israelites were commanded to furnish their own straw for the bricks they made. "Therefore go now and work; for no straw shall be given you, yet you shall deliver the quota of bricks." Exodus 5:18. Thus the ruins show that the Bible account is correct.0
Source please... The bible never mentions the name of the Pharoah at the time of the Exodus nor does it give an accurate description of locations in Egypt where the hebrews were supposedly enslaved. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt or that the Exodus ever happened. If it did, the Egyptians and none of their rivals bothered not to document it.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Evidence 5
Tomb of Schechem in Palestine (mummy discovered buried like Ancient Egyptians) said to be the tomb of Joseph.
Source please...
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Archaeology has never found anything that contradicted the Bible. It has found many things that agree with the Bible!!
This is a lie. The biggest one being the Exodus. All archaeological records and historical timelines don't fit the Bible's version of it. The only Semitic people that roamed the Sinai at the time the Exodus was supposed to have happened were bedouins called 'Shasu' by the Egyptians...
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
You dont have to ever have freaking believe one single word in the Bible Ausar, it doesnt make me one bit of difference. But you and other skeptics have yet to prove the Bible wrong.
The Bible is right about many things but to take it literally or as unquestionable history is stretching its value. Remember that it was originally written by Jews and for Jews so there is bias and exaggerating on the part of the authors. There may very well have been an Exodus but if it was as major as described in the bible, there would be some written or archaeological record of it. David, Moses, and Abraham may have never existed. I agree with Ausur. You should read Israel Finklestein for a different perspective. Bible fanatics hate him because he compares the bible to archaeological records and to a degree minimizes the 'greatness' of ancient Judea.
And I also enjoy "building' with people more so than arguing with them. But I admit I can be a little fiesty at time. LOL
But nothing better than challenging eachother in a learning type environment.
Now to respond to your questions.
Originally posted by Ausar
The Tell-Amarna Tablets talk of a person named Hibiru. Are you suggesting that the Hibiru were the people in question?
The Hibiru and the Hebrews are supposedly the same people.
Kemetians[Egyptians] never allowed foreginers to build temples.
Which is why I believe the Hebrews adopted a lot of Egyptian religious beliefs, and not the other way around. Even Herodotus states that most nations that practice circumcision claim it was taken from the Egyptians (with the exception of the Ethiopians/Nubians/Cushites- who I believe are all the same people, called by different names.)
What secular Egyptian text can you double check that proves mass enslavement of Hebrews in the Delta?I believe the Hibiru is the same thing as the Hebrews.
Kemetians[Egyptians] never allowed foreginers to build temples.
Which is why I believe the Hebrews adopted a lot of Egyptian religious customs.
What secular Egyptian text can you double check that proves mass enslavement of Hebrews in the Delta?
Secondary Sources:
The Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, by Ernest Frerichs and Chronoloy of the Bible: Dr.Aardsma, these are ones I've read, you can read them and form your own opinion, as I am not here to debate the entire Bible with you or anyone else.
Originally posted by Ausar:
My only problem is we should never use the bible as a strict reference without cross referening other secular text written from the ancient neast east around the same period. Again the thread is about the Bible, I am not using it as a "strict" reference point if that is what you are suggesting. And anything that I did point out from the Bible sections that I "referenced" was followed by scientific evidence from other sources.
Furthermore, where if not the Bible do you think this whole concept of Hamitic, Semitic,...comes from that the entire scientific community has become accustomed to identifying "language groups" if not from the Biblical account of Noah's 3 sons. Has the scientific community not labeled this common female ancestor "Eve", have you never heard them speak of the "daughters of Eve." I mean don't sit here and act like science and the Bible has never overlapped.
I dont take everything from any one particular source at face value and that includes anthropological findings. Hell I could find a piece of pottery myself, and come up with some logical story behind it, and call it a "theory".
This world we live in is infinite and inconclusive, there will always be new discoveries, new ideas, evolutions and revolutions.
Many of us have the tendency to confuse facts with theories.
In the example above
1.The pottery is a piece of physical evidence that exists as a "fact"
2. How I interpret and explain this pottery is a "theory"
Is the glass of water half full or half empty is a perfect example of how facts can be interpreted from different angles.
Now some may agree with the person that says its half empty, others may agree with the person that says it half full. Who is correct?
Inconcusive
Understand I have an open mind also and I am open to learning new ideas. I am not affilated with any religious belief system. Not really a practioner,but just a student of my ancestor's history.
I will read the books when I get a chance to do so. Understand when I mentioned textual information I meant from ancient Kmt[Egypt]. What papyri,ostraca source,or tomb writting corresponds with the Exodous? I just mentioned the Mereptah stela does mention Israel but leaves us mystified.
Could the so-called Exodus have occured in other region instead of Egypt?
1- Hebrew (Hebru), like Hindu, are Ancient Egyptian words used to identify these two respective peoples. I'm not sure if they invented these terms or merely used the terms that these peoples used to identify themselves.
2- Ancient Egypt never created an economic system based on human slavery. The so-called "slaves" of Ancient Egypt were captives of war, which the Pharaoh put to work on his building projects - (Of course this is a form of slavery but in the prisoner of war sense and not the economical sense as it was practiced in Greece and Rome for example.)
There are accounts of times, however, when the Egyptians were greatly concerned about the increasing populations of the foreign settlements in the Delta region which resulted in a certain Ancient Egyptian xenophobia. Considering this and Ikhnaton's revolutionary restoration of monotheism to the state and the counter-revolution against this movement, it is extremely likely that the legend of the Exodus has a solid basis in history. Could Moses (and there is some who believe that there were more than one "Moses") have been an "Ikhnatonist?"
The bible is a valuable historical document and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
3- With my last statement in mind, how about the story of Joseph and his brothers, who came to Egypt, and Joseph becoming a favorite of the Pharaoh and is thus given Pharaoh's daughter as his wife -- a handful of foreign shepherds, whose leader marries an Egyptian princess; Is this not the bible's way of defining the lineage of the Hebrews as being partially descended from the Egyptians?
Then there's Jacob,who comes to Egypt a little later with the "sons of Israel", all the Israelites that existed in the world, all 70 of them, remained in Egypt for 430 years, then numbering 2 to 3 million, they leave! You think they may have looked a little Egyptian?
All of this is bible legends and folklore, of course, but like the legend of Osiris and Isis, its basis is historical fact...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 17 June 2004).]
Originally posted by neo*geo
You should read Israel Finklestein for a different perspective
One source! Is this the best you can do????
Originally posted by Neo*Geo
The Bible is right about many things but to take it literally or as unquestionable history is stretching its value.
Has anyone in this thread including myself or Wally said we take it "literally" or that it was "unquestionable"..is your argument against an imaginary person?
Originally posted by Neo*Geo
"there is no evidence that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt or that the Exodus ever happened"......"There may very well have been an Exodus "
Contradicting yourself again I see.
Originally posted by neo*geo
there would be some written or archaeological record of it.
If the code of Hammarubi, the tel armana tablets, and the Moabite stone are not archaelogical records, I dont know what to make of it.
But if you want some additional "archaelogical" sources, you may want to start with:
Bruins, H.J. and J. van der Plicht. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature 382: 213-214.
Renfrew, C. 1996. Kings, tree rings and the Old World. Nature 381:733-734.
Kuniholm, P. I., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Newton, M., Latini, C. E., and Bruce, M. J. 1996. Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC Nature 381:780-783.
Friedrich, W.L., P. Wagner, and H. Tauber. 1990. Thera and the Aegean World III Thera Foundation, London, UK.
(Don't ask me to mail them to you)-*wink
Originally posted by Wally
The so-called "slaves" of Ancient Egypt were captives of war, which the Pharaoh put to work on his building projects
Exactly!! And there is significant evidence depicting nomadic captives of war like this one here (of course there were Nubian captives as well)
http://www.africawithin.com/tour/egypt/abusimbel/abusimbel24.jpg
As I stated before I DO NOT TAKE EVERY SINGLE WORLD IN THE BIBLE LITERALLY and definitely not word for word, but it is a historical account of events that have taken place throughout history, and archaelogical evidence does not refute these events. While Biblical Scholars and Scientist both agree that there is significant conflicts with specific "time-lines" there is also significant evidence that the events did take place. (I dont think radiocarbon dating was around during Biblical times.) So the several authors of the Bible could have easily conflicted with time-frames.(You dont even have to go to scientist, as several scriptures themselves conficlicts with others) And the final Bible as we read it today was put together by several translators most notably the Bishops that attended the First Council of Nicaea that were the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.
Nevertheless, considering the conflicts in timeframes it has also been argued by an earlier Jewish Historian, Josephus, that the Hebrews of Moses were actually the Hyskos and dicoveries after his time have asserted that this was extremely possible considering:
Tempest Stele Then his Majesty began ... to provide them with silver, with gold, with copper, with oil, and of every bolt [of cloth] that could be desired. Then his majesty made himself comfortable inside the palace.
Bible scripture This is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, silver, and brass [copper]. And cloth of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen ... oil for the light, spices for anointing oil and for sweet incense ... and let them make a [palace] sanctuary that I may dwell among them
coincidence???
"A summary of the events leading up to the exodus is perhaps required at this point. We know, from both the historical and biblical records, that the people of Egypt thought that the gods were angry during this period; clearly, both the Tempest Stele and the Bible talk of great storms deluging the otherwise arid lands of Egypt. We also know that there were tensions between the Theban pharaohs and the Hyksos pharaohs, and likewise between the Egyptian pharaoh and the Israelites; both records again speak of political / religious tensions between the two parties involved. Furthermore, we know that both the Hyksos and the Israelites were thrown out of Egypt and that both these events involved a battle with the Egyptian army. Finally, both the entire Hyksos and the entire Israelites population embarked on an exodus towards Palestine, the Egyptian historian Manetho even indicating that the destination of the Hyksos refugees was Jerusalem."
According to the Bible, the Israelites wanted to leave Egypt, but the (Theban) pharaoh would not let them go. I think the Bible is nearly correct in this, but that the true situation was not that the (Theban) pharaoh would not let them go, but that the he would not agree to their terms. Thus the Israelites go back to the pharaoh time and time again asking if he will agree; he accedes at last, but only after there were a number of national calamities (plagues), including deaths among the Egyptian people.
The third century BC Egyptian historian Manetho: "The [Theban] pharaoh attacked the walls [of Avaris] with an army of 480,000 men, and endeavoured to reduce [the Hyksos] to submission by siege. Despairing of achieving his object, he concluded a TREATY under which they were all to evacuate Egypt and go whither they would unmolested. Upon these terms no fewer than 240,000 families with their possessions, left Egypt and traversed the deserts to Syria [later explained as being Jerusalem]."
Bible "Bible: Speak now in the ears of the [Israelites], and let every man borrow of his neighbour [the Egyptians] ... jewels of silver and jewels of gold. And the Lord gave the [Israelites] favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they Œlent¹ them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.
They [the Egyptians] also honoured the Hebrews with gifts; some in order to get them to depart quickly, and others on account of their neighbourhood and the friendship they had with them.
And we do hundreds of thousands of Hyskos were driven out of Egypt after more than a century of fighting. Hencefore, there was an EXODUS FROM EGYPT
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
How about typing any of these findings into a search engine, as there are numerous "sources" out there.
Oh sure, only an idiot would believe every source that comes up on a search engine. I could just as easily find sources to prove aliens built the pyramids.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by neo*geo
[b]You should read Israel Finklestein for a different perspective
One source! Is this the best you can do????[/B]
There are many others. There is a whole movement in archaeology to debunk the bible. Finklestien has given a more thorough explanation as what inaccuracies are in the bible than anyone else out there.
"The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah."" From Amazon.com
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Neo*Geo
[b]"there is no evidence that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt or that the Exodus ever happened"......"There may very well have been an Exodus "
Contradicting yourself again I see.[/B]
There is no evidence that the Exodus happened however I leave open the possibility that it could have happened. Abscense of evidence doesn't always mean something never happened.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by neo*geo
[b]there would be some written or archaeological record of it.
If the code of Hammarubi, the tel armana tablets, and the Moabite stone are not archaelogical records, I dont know what to make of it.[/B]
Yes, those are historical records but the Hammurabi Code, and tel Amarna tablets make no mention of Israel or the Hebrews. The Egyptians make no mention of Israel until the 19th dynasty after Ramses II's death.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
As I stated before I DO NOT TAKE EVERY SINGLE WORLD IN THE BIBLE LITERALLY and definitely not word for word, but it is a historical account of events that have taken place throughout history, and archaelogical evidence does not refute these events.
There is plenty to refute the Exodus and biblical accounts of how the Earth was formed and humans were created. The biggest problem with the Exodus is the Egyptians themselves. They make no mention in their history of hebrew slaves, or plagues, or the parting of the Red Sea.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
And we do hundreds of thousands of Hyskos were driven out of Egypt after more than a century of fighting. Hencefore, there was an EXODUS FROM EGYPT
If you believe the Hyksos were the hebrews then you are ADMITTING that the bible is wrong. The bible never says that the Israelites ruled Egypt as the Hyksos did. This information would be too important to leave out. This is pure speculation and it isn't consistent with the bible's timeline or description of the Exodus. Plus, the Hyksos were forced out, they didn't leave voluntarily.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Ausur that can all be discussed, all Wally and I were establishing was the fact that the Hamitic Races were typically Black races, From the color coded Map I presented its difficult to argue that. No one has disagreed that Egypt, Nubia, Punt were primarily a Black race, what was left to be established, based on this Map, was the land of Canaan (modern day Palestine). So a particular individual who has presented no scientific facts argues that the Table of Nations is based on "nations" and not "races", which is only partially true, as it was based on a combination of the 2. Wally showed how the "mural of races" was similar to the Table of Nations. Now with Moses growing up in Egypt, he would have been aware that during this time, it appeared that certain races ruled certain Nations. The Ancient Egyptians were aware of this as well. Which is why you find these Murals in several tombs.
There was no Table of races by the Egyptians, and they never termed that scene by such a name. Furthermore the Egyptians painted themselves lighter than Nubians so will you say Nubians and Egyptia are different colors yet different races? Libyans are paited very light but we know not al Libyans are light colored and in fact there were two types of Libyans. You need to read some sources on skin color convention in Egyptian paintings.
You is the one who hs preseted no evidence that Cananites wereoriginally Hamitic speaking black people, you have prsented nothing in the way of cold hard facts, just the simplistic "The Bible says this so it has to be true". The linguistic evidence I posed earlier still stands, that there were already Semitic speaking people who a Canaanite tongue before any Hebrews overran the territory, thatfact you have nt disputed. Thefact that Canaanite/Palestinian peoples were already writig in this tongue before the Hebrews came doesn't help your case, or des it reinforce anything that is said in the Bible. You have shown no evidence in the way of geneics either. Not every Hmte was black or a black race, you and Wally are just regurgitating long debunked theories as most of both your theories about Hamites come from old sources and peoplelike James Henry Breasted, who was a racist. You hav shown nothing scientifically nd the Bible isn't scientific. Please quit dreaming.
quote:
Now, no one has disagreed that the Egyptians were Hamites, the argument is whether the original Canaanites were Hamites prior to being colonized by the "Hebrew" Shemites. Now we have presented maps, genetic evidence, and Historical Biblical Evidence to support this argument. Wally even went so far as to establish evolutionary evidence of the migrations out of Africa.
You have established nothing. Please that Canaanites were originally 'Hamtes'(Blacks), the evidence certainly isn't there. All humans descendfrom out of Africa migrants so that is no proof that Canaanites were originally black. Linguistically you haven't prove it. Genetically you hven't proven it. The Bible itself has never stated all hamites were black. Historical evidece indicates Canaanites were already speakng their Canaanite tongue before Hebrews and Hebrews were not the first Semitic speaking peoples.
quote:
Now some continue to argue based on nothing but Liguistics, that this is not the case. But this particular person could never establish a valid timeline. As history has shown how the languages intermix as a result of colonization and intermingling. What may have once been primarily Hamitic, eventually becomes Hamo-semitic (afro-asiatic) and the like.
Wrong, Semitic languages aren't necessarily a mix of languages and there is no Hamitic language, Afro-Asiaic is a better term. There are six brances of Afro-Asiatic of which Semitic is just ONE Branch itself, the others do not form a close genetic unit like Semitic does, so it is preposterous to refer to one branch as Semitic and the other hamitic based on some Bible terms. Canaanites never spk a 'hamitic' language and you haveshown no evidence to prove it. Furthermore of all the branche of Afro-Asiatic spoken, Semitic is the only one spoken outside of Africa, the others are spoken exclusivelyin Africa. emitic languagesare very closely related whereas the so-called 'hamitic' languages are not(There is no Hamitic branch), therefore it is unlikely that those who speak Semitic languages outside of Africa eve spoke non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages that became Hamito-Semitic. You have no knowledg or conception about these languages, just ludicrous theories.
There is existing evidence that Canaan was controlled by the Ancient Egyptians prior to the Hebrew settlement. And if the Ancient Egyptians are primarily Black, the the Ancent Cannanites must have also been Black.
quote:
Now many of you question whether Moses or even Abraham existed, oral history and Ancient artifacts show that they do. There are vasts amounts of written documents that show writings similar to the commandments of Moses found in Egypt.
Proof? The only writings come from Jewish and Christian tradition.
quote:
1.Genetic evidence has established a Hebrew forefather that originated in Ancient Ur, who could be none other than Abraham (What the Hebrews called him).
Proof? geneticists do not make that claim, they only say certain haplotypes or haplogroups originated within certain geographical areas. This fiel of study iscalled phylogeography. There is no proof it started with anyone called Abraham.
quote:
2.Scientific evidence shows that there was in fact a Mass Exodus from Egypt. And for that to occur, they would have had to been led by a military General- who could be none other than what the Hebrews call "moses".
What 'scientific' evidence? Most o what you been quotig comes from the Bible, not scoentific evidence. Please show this evidence.
quote:
3. This general must have established laws (commandments) that these Hebrews should follow, before "rescuing them". Now they were in Egypt for 500 years, and its pretty well know how religious Egyptians were, so many of their practices could have been adopted from Egytpian customs already established.
Now you're contradicting yourself. On one han you're saying Biblical accounts are supported by science but then you're going against it. The Bible says the Hebrews derived their religion from God, not egyptian practices, so what is it going be, you ca't play both sides of the coin. The only time Hebrews could have left would have ben during Akhenaton's reign, since he was the only Egyptian ruler who practicd monotheism and the first in the world to d so. After he died, the whole practice died out.
quote:
4. Now Moses,(the law giver) had to also eliminate the enemies of the promised land-the Canaanites, before they settled there. Now either they forced them out, or they intermingled with them, or more likely a combination of the
Wrong, read YOUR Bible. Moses never the law giver never made it inside canaan or to Canaan, it is said God let him see this land from afar off then moses died. The bible says the Israelites were specifically forbidden to marry the daughtrs of Canaan becaue Goddid not want th Jews to go after the gods and idols of Canannites.
quote:
5. Now for these Canaanites to be conquered, they must have been smaller in number, or militarily weaker than the Hebrews
6. Being over-powered they obviously adopted the Hebrew customs, incuding their language.
Wrong again, Canaanite and Hebrew are close. but Canaanites were already speaking their Semitic tognue BEFORE any contact with the Israelites period, so no, Canaanites did NOT adopt the language of the Hebrews and there is no evidence for this. Keep dreaming and making up these preposterous theories. And canaanites were not culturally Hebrew or Jewish at all, there is no cultural or archaeological evidence to support this.
quote:
Now we are talking over 3,000 years ago
And there is no evidence of any f this, so the time period is a non-factor.
quote:
Therefore, whenever I hear people try to make arguments based on how the population is made up today, they need to be reminded, that just like the Egyptians, there were successive invasion of Palestine. And we're talking over 3,000 years of different nationalities, intermingling, as apparent in the genetic make-up.
Who made any assumption using todays inhabitants? I focused specifically on the ancient inhabitants.The evidence still stands that Canaanites were not originally black or hamitic speaking, cased closed, because even after years of intermingling with other people you haven't proven that the original people there were black nor hamitic speaking people overran by non-black Semitic speaking people.
quote:
So it is my opinion based on facts and observations, that Ancient Canaan was nothing but an extension of Egypt.
You wish it was!
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 18 June 2004).]
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 18 June 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
I quoted scriptures only because the thread is about Ancient Egypt and the Bible, and in some cases the Bible can be used as a reference point, other cases, scriptures are way too ambigous. I read the Bible probably in the same way I read other ancient Books by authors like Herodotus and Hippocrates, etc. from a Scholarly standpoint, I dont take everything I read as gospel. I just love to read!
Yeah, but none of what you read from the bible is supported
quote:
Originally posted by Ausar
The Tell-Amarna Tablets talk of a person named Hibiru. Are you suggesting that the Hibiru were the people in question?
The Hibiru and the Hebrews are supposedly the same people.
quote:
Kemetians[Egyptians] never allowed foreginers to build temples.
Which is why I believe the Hebrews adopted a lot of Egyptian religious beliefs, and not the other way around.
You're contradicting yourself again. The Bible doesn't say Hebrews got their religion from Egyptians and egyptian texts doesn't mention anything about Israelites in Egypt as slaves. israelites might have adopted egyptian customs through diffusion, but not as a direct result of a whole nation of Israelites living in Egypt as slaves. In the Bible God even told the Israelites to never follow the ways and rligions of other nations.
quote:
What secular Egyptian text can you double check that proves mass enslavement of Hebrews in the Delta?I believe the Hibiru is the same thing as the Hebrews.
Proof?
quote:
Kemetians[Egyptians] never allowed foreginers to build temples.
Which is why I believe the Hebrews adopted a lot of Egyptian religious customs.
Thats all goodand dandy, but Egyptians were not practioneers of monotheism, save for Akhenaton.
What secular Egyptian text can you double check that proves mass enslavement of Hebrews in the Delta?
Secondary Sources:
The Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, by Ernest Frerichs and Chronoloy of the Bible: Dr.Aardsma, these are ones I've read, you can read them and form your own opinion, as I am not here to debate the entire Bible with you or anyone else.
quote:
Furthermore, where if not the Bible do you think this whole concept of Hamitic, Semitic,...comes from that the entire scientific community has become accustomed to identifying "language groups" if not from the Biblical account of Noah's 3 sons. Has the scientific community not labeled this common female ancestor "Eve", have you never heard them speak of the "daughters of Eve." I mean don't sit here and act like science and the Bible has never overlapped.
You're mixing the Bible with science now. Thelanguages known as Afro-Asiatic are no more Semitic or Hamitic anything, they're just a bunch of languages genetically related to one another irregardless of the names attached to them. There are many speakers of Afro-Asiatic who have never heard of a Ham or Shem so the Bible nor any of the Herbrew legend has any significance to this language group.
Those 'daughters of Eve' have nothing to do with a Biblical Eve historically at al, they're just using it as an analogy. The daughters of Eve are referring to mitochondrial DNA, not actual daughters of anyone.
S. Mohamad, the reason I've never refuted your language argument "which is all you have" is because its irrelevant in ths discussion. A language spoken by people don't determine their race, as English is spoken by amost every race of man on earth. So what's the point of arguing linguistics when we're talking race.
Scientist today all agree that race as a continuum today is the same as it has always been. So eliminitating "experts" and dealing with the common person. If you asked anyone what's the race of the people that rule Europe, they would more than likely say "white", and conversely for West Africa, they would more than likely say "Black". As the common person is not an "expert" on the hundreds of racial classifications that exist in the scientific community. As I seriously doubt a common response would be that "they are Indo-Euopean Caucosoids with the Y chromosome..." Get the point!!
In the Histories, Herodotus described the Egyptians as Black People, would he be incorrect for not referring to them as an "Eastern Mediterranean Caucosoid People, that spoke a language derived from the Afro-Asiatic group.????" yet this is your logic. You are using modern developed terms that were not used by the Ancients themselves to formulate your arguments. I use the Bible as a historical guideline, not as an alternative to a scientific journal.
The Egyptians depicted in "The Mural of Races"-whether it was called as such by them or not 3 distinct racial groups. The artists never considered themselves "anthropologists", but common observers of what was "apparent" to them.
Now without getting so technical even if Shem, Ham, Japheth, or even Noah for that matter didnt exist in reality or even if they did: These labels are nothing more than how the Hebrews viewed their world at that time, by 3 apparently different races of people that ruled certain Nations. Hence the Nations that were 'apparently' ruled by Blacks were Hamites..and so forth.
Ham, Shem, and Japheth could be considered the major categories of races apparent to the Hebrews, and their "sons" could be none other than the nations they ruled. Wally has already showed you how "Ham" meant Black, Shem "dusky" or brown, and Japheth meant "fair" or "white" in Hebrew.
Even though Egypt consisted of various complexions of people, eyewitness accounts of most Ancient authors would describe the Egyptians as Black, the Arabs as Yellow, and the Greeks as white.
If anything you're the simple-minded ones, that think Blacks stopped right at the border of Egypt (southern Egypt-or most of you) and didnt settle anywhere else in Ancient times, and what more conventient area of migration without having to cross major seas..other than the Arabian Peninsula.
You seriously need to do some research if you don't think that Canaanites were ruled by the Egyptians who were considered Black by the ancients.
And further if the all the Hebrews told was "folklore" why not just say Noah had 50 sons, and divided up 50 nations. I dont think these 3 "mythical" characters had no siginificance if not the apparent 3 racial categories known to them at the time. Its obviously not some arbitrary number. And trust me when I say the Table of Nations was also about the Table of Races.
And for the record, we can argue back and forth on this topic a year from now, and my opinion will not change..Just so you know.
I'm leaving town for a week, and probably wont have access to the internet, but nevertheless, my position remains the same: the original Canaanites were Black.
Originally posted by S. Mohamad
There are many speakers of Afro-Asiatic who have never heard of a Ham or Shem
But the Hebrews knew the term "Afro-asiatic" when they were writing the Bible right?
ROFLOL !! 
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
The archaeological evidence correspond with Biblical accounts. If anyone is taking the Bible literal to make their arguments its both Neo*geo and S. Mohamad. Since your arguments are alway based on literal accounts-"Prove this person existed" "prove that person existed" both of you are trying to be way too technical.
If archaeological accounts correspond to biblical account please provide acrhaeological evidence thatther was ever an Exodus of Jews from Egypt. The literal accounts are what matters because theyare documented. There is no documented account of an Exodus from Egypt.
quote:
S. Mohamad, the reason I've never refuted your language argument "which is all you have" is because its irrelevant in ths discussion. A language spoken by people don't determine their race, as English is spoken by amost every race of man on earth. So what's the point of arguing linguistics when we're talking race.
It this discussion it does hold relevance because you said ALL Hamites were black people who spoke Hamitic languages. In fact you ent as fr to say that Canaanites were black Hamitic speaking people who wre conquered by Israelites and that Canaanites adopted the language of the Israelites, something we know that did not happen, linguistically speaking. You haven't shown the slightest bit of proof that Canaanites were originally black, you simply tried to use the old 'since ham qwas black, all hamites were black' argument. Nothing in science backs this up.
[s]Scientist today all agree that race as a continuum today is the same as it has always been. So eliminitating "experts" and dealing with the common person. If you asked anyone what's the race of the people that rule Europe, they would more than likely say "white", and conversely for West Africa, they would more than likely say "Black". As the common person is not an "expert" on the hundreds of racial classifications that exist in the scientific community. As I seriously doubt a common response would be that "they are Indo-Euopean Caucosoids with the Y chromosome..." Get the point!![/s]
A bunch of jargon insigificant to this discussion
quote:
In the Histories, Herodotus described the Egyptians as Black People, would he be incorrect for not referring to them as an "Eastern Mediterranean Caucosoid People, that spoke a language derived from the Afro-Asiatic group.????" yet this is your logic.
My logi isn't that and when have I ever referred to Egyptins as Eastern Mediterranean Caucasoids?
quote:
The Egyptians depicted in "The Mural of Races"-whether it was called as such by them or not 3 distinct racial groups. The artists never considered themselves "anthropologists", but common observers of what was "apparent" to them.
This had nothing to do with race. The Egyptians painted themselves in a variety of colors, yet you refer to Egyptians as a black population without acknowledging that at various times Egyptians painted themselves different colors. There is no mural of races.
quote:
Ham, Shem, and Japheth could be considered the major categories of races apparent to the Hebrews, and their "sons" could be none other than the nations they ruled. Wally has already showed you how "Ham" meant Black, Shem "dusky" or brown, and Japheth meant "fair" or "white" in Hebrew.
They were not considered as races by ebrews, they were talking about families nd nations and where these people would settle, it had nothing to do with race. Wally has sown noting, he simply copied verbatim the interpretations of others.
quote:
Even though Egypt consisted of various complexions of people, eyewitness accounts of most Ancient authors would describe the Egyptians as Black, the Arabs as Yellow, and the Greeks as white.
Arabs as YELLOW?????? This is pure nonsense, the purest Arabs are ot yellow, have you seen those very dark Bedouins and southern Arabs in Yemen and Oman? They are FAR, VERY FAR from being yellow, please find one eyewitness account that describes Arabs as yellow. Arabs are supposed to be Semites and since ou quoted Wally(LOL) as saying he proved Sem meant 'dusky' how the hell are YELLOW and dusky the same? I have heard all kind of meaning of what Sem means from 'semi'(your words, meaning in between black and white) now it means dusky? Make up your minds and quit dancing around the issue.
quote:
If anything you're the simple-minded ones, that think Blacks stopped right at the border of Egypt (southern Egypt-or most of you) and didnt settle anywhere else in Ancient times
You're full of it now, really. When have I ever said blacks stoppe at the border of Egypt, as in southern Egypt? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said they didn't settle anyplace else,I said if they di it needs to be documented with cold hard facts and evidence, noneof which you have shown. Therewere some blacks in other lands, but not to the extent that they partially or fully replaed foreign populations.
quote:
You seriously need to do some research if you don't think that Canaanites were ruled by the Egyptians who were considered Black by the ancients.
And your point being? what does thishave to do with Canaanites being originally black or not(They were NOT)? The Egyptias never settled in large enough numbers to change the racial compstion of the Canaanites and Egyptian rule was mostly tributary, they exactly payment in theform of some kind of trade items. In the case of the Phoenicians, they used the Phoenicians(Canaanites) as sea merchants to opbtain materials. Richard Poe in his book Black spark, White Fire covers this very well.
Overall you haven't proven anything!
Please explain the evidence?
Quote #1 by S. Mohammad:
And if the Ancient Egyptians are primarily Black, the the Ancent Cannanites must have also been Black.
Quote #2 by S. Mohammad:
Who made any assumption using todays inhabitants? I focused specifically on the ancient inhabitants.The evidence still stands that Canaanites were not originally black or hamitic speaking, cased closed, because even after years of intermingling with other people you haven't proven that the original people there were black nor hamitic speaking people overran by non-black Semitic speaking people.
I'm confused here. Unless there was a typing error in your original quote (quote #1), it appears as though you were saying that the Canaanites were black. But then from the second quote (quote #2), it appears that you were questioning or refuting Homeylu's statement that Canaanites were originally black.
Quote by Homeylu:
2.Scientific evidence shows that there was in fact a Mass Exodus from Egypt. And for that to occur, they would have had to been led by a military General- who could be none other than what the Hebrews call "moses".
Quote by S. Mohammad:
What 'scientific' evidence? Most o what you been quotig comes from the Bible, not scoentific evidence. Please show this evidence.
I agree with S. Mohammad here. What evidence shows that Moses existed, other than the so-called tablets. Did he really exist or perhaps a metaphor like Homeylu suggested? I am aware of two interpretations of Moses, one from Rome, and the other from Egypt. The following images show you the 'black' Moses from Egypt, and to the right the 'white' Moses by Michelangelo:
Unfortunately, I don't know when the Egyptian statue of Moses was made. But the Egyptian Moses statue was that of a 'black' man, and that of Michelangelo was obviously a 'white' man. Interesting!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 June 2004).]
my hypothesis:"And for that to occur, they would have had to been led by a military General- who could be none other than what the Hebrews call "moses".
Don't get it twisted, as all facts can interpreted with hypothesis.
A little Play
Homeylu- according to the Spanish the sky is blue
S. Mohammad- Prove it! Where are your sources, they were talking about the sky, not the color of the sky
Homeylu-they name their gods after colors, and their sky gods name is Azule
S. Mohamad- There is no scientific evidence that Azul ever existed, where is your proof that gods existed, you haven’t proved anything!
Homeylu-Well in their language azul means blue, so they must have been referring to the color of the sky, and not just the sky itself when they named their god by this name. I mean why didn’t they just name the god Cieloly or something along those lines, I mean all their other gods correspond with colors
S. Mohammad- Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Dear idiot, the Spanish spoke a language derived from the Latin language group, and there are several other languages derived from this group, like French, and the French have never heard of a god name Azule, so again you haven’t proved anything!
Homeylu-ROFLOL, you’re pointless
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Fact:"Scientific evidence shows that there was in fact a Mass Exodus from Egypt"my hypothesis:"And for that to occur, they would have had to been led by a military General- who could be none other than what the Hebrews call "moses".
Don't get it twisted, as all facts can interpreted with hypothesis.
Don't get me wrong, I am not ruling out the possibility of an exodus. I am simply saying that there is nothing to suggest as evidence, like Ausar and S. Mohammad have pointed out, that Moses existed. I am not also stating that he didn't exist. But if he did, it is odd that the Egyptians didn't take notice of someone they considered problematic for mobilizing the 'slaves' who were supposed to be working on their building projects. The least the Egyptian could have done, was to communicate this in their writings or through other artifacts.
Which is why although one fact may exist, several hypothesis and theories may exist that conflict one another. For example there are conflicting theories over the fact that modern man exist. Creation vs Evolution, and even within the scientific community, there is Out of Africa vs Multi-regional.
So don't allow facts to be confused with theories, as most of what's introduced in these threads are "theories" and just that. Facts cannot be argued, but trust me when I tell you, theories are forever changing.
Don't ever let anyone convince you that they are correct based on "theories", and that includes myself.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Oh, and Supercat, last I checked in the scientific community all you need was 1 piece of evidence to show a "fact", "hypothesis" can be formed based on that fact, and typically more evidence introduced to test the hypothesis before a "theory" is formulated.Which is why although one fact may exist, several hypothesis and theories may exist that conflict one another. For example there are conflicting theories over the fact that modern man exist. Creation vs Evolution, and even within the scientific community, there is Out of Africa vs Multi-regional.
So don't allow facts to be confused with theories, as most of what's introduced in these threads are "theories" and just that. Facts cannot be argued, but trust me when I tell you, theories are forever changing.
Don't ever let anyone convince you that they are correct based on "theories", and that includes myself.
I agree with what you just said. But then, they (authors) will have to update their theories or come up with new ones, because it doesn't add up, in light of what I said earlier about the Egyptian side of the story.
The Greeks mention a person name Rhamsinitus, but this name could be found no where in Egyptian texts simply because the Egyptians obviously called him by a different name, Raamses. The same could be said for Moses (if he exists), and just because the evidence hasn't been "discovered" doesnt mean it doesn't exist. New evidence is continously being discovered in Egypt all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
[b]FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSESA little Play
Homeylu- according to the Spanish the sky is blue
S. Mohammad- Prove it! Where are your sources, they were talking about the sky, not the color of the sky
Homeylu-they name their gods after colors, and their sky gods name is Azule
S. Mohamad- There is no scientific evidence that Azul ever existed, where is your proof that gods existed, you haven’t proved anything!
Homeylu-Well in their language azul means blue, so they must have been referring to the color of the sky, and not just the sky itself when they named their god by this name. I mean why didn’t they just name the god Cieloly or something along those lines, I mean all their other gods correspond with colors
S. Mohammad- Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Dear idiot, the Spanish spoke a language derived from the Latin language group, and there are several other languages derived from this group, like French, and the French have never heard of a god name Azule, so again you haven’t proved anything!
Homeylu-ROFLOL, you’re pointless[/B]
Now that's hilarious!
All in fun, !! I have to get on the road,
Have a wonderful weekend!!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 18 June 2004).]
Most of the Kemetians did not believe in idols like people think,but the ntr[gods] were probabaly actually long departed ancestors than spanned back to the pre-dyanstic era.
In reality you montheism existed well before Akenaten and was found in the writtings of Ptahhotep. The text dates back either to the fifth dyansty or to the 12th dynasty. The definition of one creator deity is expressed within the text,so I would not call Kemetians polytheist.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
This had nothing to do with race. The Egyptians painted themselves in a variety of colors, yet you refer to Egyptians as a black population without acknowledging that at various times Egyptians painted themselves different colors. There is no mural of races.
A) On my website I give a simplified explanation of Ancient Egyptian colors and what they signify in Egyptian iconography. I'll let you find it...
B) As several notable Egyptologists have discovered and described these documents as ethnographic representations and labeled them "Table of Nations"; they are very real indeed. It was I who reasoned that since they are ethnographic documents and are in fact Ancient Egyptian murals; they would more appropriately be labeled "Murals of the Races." An example of one is on my homepage, I'll let you look that up also...
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Most of the Kemetians did not believe in idols like people think,but the ntr[gods] were probably actually long departed ancestors than spanned back to the pre-dyanstic era...
In reality you montheism existed well before Akenaten and was found in the writings of Ptahhotep. The text dates back either to the fifth dynasty or to the 12th dynasty. The definition of one creator deity is expressed within the text,so I would not call Kemetians polytheist.
---- Here's some extras from the Ancient Egyptian language that some may find relevant:
Greece.................Weinin (from light or window?)
Greeks..................Hanebu (?_lords)
Asia......................Sett
Asiatic...................Oamu (ie, nomads)
India......................Hindu
Coastal Libyans......Lebu
Sudanese Libyans...Techenu
Israelites.................Israel
Arabia....................Aribi; Deshret
Canaan..................Kanaan Omu
Ethiopia.................Ethaush; Ethosh (frontier;boundary;border)
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 18 June 2004).]
quote:by Wally:
Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]
This had nothing to do with race. The Egyptians painted themselves in a variety of colors, yet you refer to Egyptians as a black population without acknowledging that at various times Egyptians painted themselves different colors. There is no mural of races.
Wally, can you once again give the address of your website, because I want to get info on your explanation of AE colors. I have come across an AE website bearing the same name as yours, but I cannot be certain we are talking about the same website.
Quote by Wally:
B) As several notable Egyptologists have discovered and described these documents as ethnographic representations and labeled them "Table of Nations"; they are very real indeed. It was I who reasoned that since they are ethnographic documents and are in fact Ancient Egyptian murals; they would more appropriately be labeled "Murals of the Races." An example of one is on my homepage, I'll let you look that up also...
Don't mean to be a pain, but once again, if you can kindly provide me with the address of that homepage, I'd appreciate that.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
[b] Most of the Kemetians did not believe in idols like people think,but the ntr[gods] were probably actually long departed ancestors than spanned back to the pre-dyanstic era...
In reality you montheism existed well before Akenaten and was found in the writings of Ptahhotep. The text dates back either to the fifth dynasty or to the 12th dynasty. The definition of one creator deity is expressed within the text,so I would not call Kemetians polytheist.Quote by Wally:
Exactly, and this is precisely the point that I keep harping on; we need to be vigilant and to constantly rectify distortions of African history.
Ikhnaton did not invent monotheism but merely restored it since it had been submerged by a host of cults during the unfolding of Ancient Egyptian history. I also believe that monotheism in the ancient Nile valley predates even dynastic Egypt.
Right on Wally, I also have issues about the distortion of African history. That is why I opened up a new thread called "How to stop whitewash of AE history and other myths regarding this ancient culture?". when I opened this thread, I was hoping that all facets of AE history would be discussed, not just the racial part it, but also religious practices, art and the science of AE civilization. We have to understand that AE myths don't just stop at race or religion, it goes beyond that!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 18 June 2004).]
quote:
Greece.................Weinin (from light or window?
Where did you get this from? How did you interpret this to mean Greece?
quote:
Greeks..................Hanebu (?_lords)
errr....No,Haunebu meant the Islands beyond the mist and was applied both to the Cretans and Greeks.
quote:
Asiatic...................Oamu (ie, nomads)
No,Egyptians had many names for nomadic desert people everything from Bedu to Shansu to Namu. Aamu was a generic term that reffered to most foregin Asiatic people. This also included sedentary populations.
''Coastal Libyans......Lebu''
Lebu could mean either Tehennu or Tamhou. Another term was Meshwesh that also included both Tehennu and Tamhou.
''Arabia....................Aribi; Deshret''
Arab is not an ancient Kemetic word. It's a term that means to wander or move around reffering to nomadic bedouin tribes across the so-called Middle East. Desert means red land reffering to the non-fertile red part of the country of Egypt.
''
''Ethiopia.................Ethaush; Ethosh (frontier;boundary;border)''
No equivalent Coptic word for this ezist. Show me a Sahidic or Boharic Coptic term for the so-called word you are using. Ethiopia comes from the Greek term burnt face people or Aethiopies.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
No,Egyptians had many names for nomadic desert people everything from Bedu to Shansu to Namu. Aamu was a generic term that reffered to most foregin Asiatic people. This also included sedentary populations.
''Coastal Libyans......Lebu''Lebu could mean either Tehennu or Tamhou. Another term was Meshwesh that also included both Tehennu and Tamhou.
''Arabia....................Aribi; Deshret''
Arab is not an ancient Kemetic word. It's a term that means to wander or move around reffering to nomadic bedouin tribes across the so-called Middle East. Desert means red land reffering to the non-fertile red part of the country of Egypt.
''''Ethiopia.................Ethaush; Ethosh (frontier;boundary;border)''
No equivalent Coptic word for this ezist. Show me a Sahidic or Boharic Coptic term for the so-called word you are using. Ethiopia comes from the Greek term burnt face people or Aethiopies.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
No,Egyptians had many names for nomadic desert people everything from Bedu to Shansu to Namu. Aamu was a generic term that reffered to most foregin Asiatic people. This also included sedentary populations.''Coastal Libyans......Lebu''
Lebu could mean either Tehennu or Tamhou. Another term was Meshwesh that also included both Tehennu and Tamhou.''Arabia....................Aribi; Deshret''
Arab is not an ancient Kemetic word. It's a term that means to wander or move around reffering to nomadic bedouin tribes across the so-called Middle East. Desert means red land reffering to the non-fertile red part of the country of Egypt.''
''Ethiopia.................Ethaush; Ethosh (frontier;boundary;border)''No equivalent Coptic word for this ezist. Show me a Sahidic or Boharic Coptic term for the so-called word you are using. Ethiopia comes from the Greek term burnt face people or Aethiopies.
Libya/Libyans
842a - Tehnu: Libyans
859a - Thehnu: Libyans
855a - Themehu: Libyans (an ethnic term meaning "red ones" ; see for example, 837a Temeh for "a kind of ochre" which is red or yellow; I have also pointed out that it also refers to "hematite" which also connotes red)
1010a - Rebu/Lebu: Libyans (Diop compares this to the Lebou, a Wolof ethnic group who live along the coast of Senegal and who are fishermen; from this I extrapolated that 'Lebu' referred to people living along the coast as contrasted with the next term below :)
1060a - Thehenu: a Sudani country; part of Libya
1057b - Tehnu: Libya
Arabia
948a - Arbin, Aribi: Arabia
1062b - Teshert: the Eastern Desert and Arabia (see 889b, the adjective Tsr is used to form such words as 'terrible', 'horrible', 'blood', 'gore', 'devil', and 'the wicked gods who were associated with Set.'
Asia/Asiatics
1037a - Seth-t :(2) Asia
111a - Aam: an Asiatic, a nomad of the Eastern Desert
111a - Aamu: Shepherd, nomad, etc.
111b - Aamit: an Asiatic woman
India
1012b - Hentui (Hendui): India; Copt. Hentou
Greece/Greeks
156a - Uinn: Greece, Greek; Copt. ouoein/ouoini = light/window
463b - Hanebu: a very ancient name of the inhabitants of the Mediterranean, later the Ionians (ie, Greeks); Copt. Oueinin
Ethiopia
I have saved the best for last. I stumbled upon this information while looking for something else. It was the first concrete evidence of which I had long believed that the word 'Ethiopia' did not originate with the Greeks, but in Africa itself.
The following excert is from the "Dictionary of the Bible"; pp741-42; Little, Brown, and Company, 1863 (which proves my point that you can find real jewels of information in the old texts.)
It is found under the definition of Ham:
"Kem (Egypt), which we believe to be the Egyptian equivalent of Ham, and which, as an adjective signifies 'black,' probably implying warmth as well as blackness. If the Hebrew and Egyptian words be the same, Ham must mean the swarthy or sun-burnt, like
Aithiops which has been derived from the Coptic name of Ethiopia, ETHWSH,
but which we should be inclined to trace to THOSH, 'a boundary,' unless the Sahidic ETCHWSH may be derived from Keesh (Cush)."
819b - taush-t:borders, boundaries
820b - tash:boundary, frontier; Copt. tosh
852a - thash: boundary, frontier
(ie, Kush becomes Ekush and Thosh becomes Ethosh)
(although it hardly changes the fundamental analysis of the author, he was probably unaware of :)
531a,b - Kham:burning hot; heat; fire; fever; Copt. Khem; Khmom (also compare; khem in Wolof: 'burnt to black')
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 21 June 2004).]