...
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 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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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).[/QUOTE] 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".[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] 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).] [/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