...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egypt and the Bible
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo: [b]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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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. [/b][/QUOTE] Indeed, very true! [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3