Why can't some people accept that the Israelites were black?

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

This is the only post of yours that I found with any substance, and I thought it interesting enough to respond to.

According to the Bible, the first humans would have been Middle Eastern. If we assume that Adam and Eve were the first humans (and most recognize that such a story is a myth, and the truth it presents is quite something else), then they must be placed in ancient Mesopotamia. An exact point can't be given; however, because of the labeling of the rivers, a general area can be given. That is in the Middle East.

If we take the Bible literally, we can also assume that everyone at this point was Middle Eastern. The reason this can be assumed is based on the story of Babel (or traditionally known as the story of the tower of Babel; however, the story really has nothing to do with the tower). As everyone is said to have been located in one place, in the Middle East, then we can assume that they would have been Middle Eastern.

As for Noah, he also is Middle Eastern. While it is not specifically said where he lived before the flood, he is placed in that area afterwards. Since the flood is a myth, it is right to assume that the authors of the Noah story in fact had in mind that Noah was Middle Eastern.

Now, considering that none of these stories were meant to be read literally, the Bible does not make a definite statement as to what skin color anyone really was. The reason being that it simply didn't matter.

The more you know.

Let me tell you something from the door , I careless what your think rather my post have any substance are not . Like I told you in my other post , I read a few of your post . I don't have time to play your Ego game you play with other's . Just so you know according to the bible rather you accept it or not , From Adam up the Noah they were people of color , It wasn't until Noah the new Adam did the European are spoken of . Until their a post asking where the European / Caucasian came from according to The Bible by using Chapter & Verse and not Story-line without scriptures I'll leave it alone . This is not an Attack on your person , It the feeling I get reading your post . I don't like being around Disagreeable-ness , Nor head game's

 

[fallingblood]

Let me tell you something from the door , I careless what your think rather my post have any substance are not . Like I told you in my other post , I read a few of your post . I don't have time to play your Ego game you play with other's . Just so you know according to the bible rather you accept it or not , From Adam up the Noah they were people of color , It wasn't until Noah the new Adam did the European are spoken of . Until their a post asking where the European / Caucasian came from according to The Bible by using Chapter & Verse and not Story-line without scriptures I'll leave it alone . This is not an Attack on your person , It the feeling I get reading your post . I don't like being around Disagreeable-ness , Nor head game's

Europeans are never mentioned. Not once. Middle Easterners are talked about. You really didn't refute what I said anyway, so I don't think I need to go any further, otherwise I will just be repeating myself.

But yes, Europeans are never mentioned.

 

[Ingledsva]

For the record, Out of Africa theory is now heavily disputed.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
Humanities African Origins Theory Challenged by New Findings
The death of the Out-of-Africa theory

Yep. As well as the fact that the original "Africans" probably weren't black.

It is thought that as Africa heated up and we needed more sweat glands - thereby shedding our hair - we were probably an in-between color.

Those that stayed got darker, darker eyes, wider nose, etc, to handle the raising heat. Those that moved shorter distances remained medium shades, and those moving north got lighter skin, and eyes, and narrower noses, to deal with cooler climates and less sun.

*

 

[fallingblood]

For the record, Out of Africa theory is now heavily disputed.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
Humanities African Origins Theory Challenged by New Findings
The death of the Out-of-Africa theory

Those sites don't show that it is heavily debated. It shows that some on the fringe have problems with it. The last link, for instance, shows little understanding of the theory. The "out of Africa" theory does not state that there was no interbreeding between modern humans and say Neanderthal. In fact, the "out of Africa" theory really doesn't say either way, as it wouldn't be involved in something that happened thousands of years later. Interbreeding between the two would have happened in Europe, and is generally accepted to be true. That says nothing about human origins in Africa though.

The sites you posted really are not a sign of anything but that some, and a minority at that, have other ideas, whether or not they are credible or not.

 

[Shermana]

I suppose this is best for another thread, but the first link is from an actual scientific study:

It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

Perhaps its "Fringe" for now, but we shall see where it stands within a few years.

From the second source:

ANU anthropologist Alan Thorne said that neither “Mungo Man’s” completely modern skeleton nor its DNA had any links with human ancestors from Africa found in other parts of the world.

Neither of them [the skeleton or DNA] show any evidence that they ever were in Africa,” Thorne told Reuters. “There’s modern humans in Australia that have nothing to do with Africa at all.” (ABCNews Jan 9, 2012)

We shall see how the "Majority consensus" deals with these findings. I see no reason to doubt the credibility of at least the first and second links.

 

[fallingblood]

We shall see how the "Majority consensus" deals with these findings. I see no reason to doubt the credibility of at least the first and second links.

I can't say much about the first link. It appears to be from an actual journal, and seems to be a scholarly article. I didn't read the actual article itself, as I don't feel a need to pay for it.

The second link though is clearly biased. It is one supporting creationism, and appears to reject "Darwin's theory." They don't appear to know what a scientific theory is, and they don't appear to realize that evolution isn't Darwin's theory. The idea of evolution preceded Darwin, and the view of natural selection was developed independently by another individual as well. And really, evolution doesn't rely on Darwin. So by calling it such, one can see a huge bias there, and a great amount of ignorance.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

The reality is he didn't exist, - however, - using the Bible - FallingBlood has already told you.

*

Your or fallingblood don't have any knowldge of anything , Anyone can make thing up , Or they can go to website find disagree -able things about any subject because its set that way . And those who disagree with yall . You Attack / Insult / belittle them . Children act this way and it's call bullying.

This speaks Volume of the fear you / him have of other's . The subject of this post has nothing to do with what you Believe / Accept , It's asking a question about the Israelites of the Scriptures / Bible . Whenever one trys to Sabotage another post just because they disagree with their Question / Subject / is a sure sign of insecurity on their behalf . It sad when one has to seek atention in a disagreeable way .

 

[fallingblood]

Your or fallingblood don't have any knowldge of anything , Anyone can make thing up , Or they can go to website find disagree -able things about any subject because its set that way . And those who disagree with yall . You Attack / Insult / belittle them . Children act this way and it's call bullying.

This speaks Volume of the fear you / him have of other's . The subject of this post has nothing to do with what you Believe / Accept , It's asking a question about the Israelites of the Scriptures / Bible . Whenever one trys to Sabotage another post just because they disagree with their Question / Subject / is a sure sign of insecurity on their behalf . It sad when one has to seek atention in a disagreeable way .

If I don't know anything, then please refute this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3500034-post234.html
Don't copy and paste something, as I won't read it. Actually refute it. Put your money with your mouth is.

 

[Asante]

I know I disagreed the OP they probably were some black Hebrews but I'm not trying to claim they were the majority.

Well do tell who are the majority?

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

If I don't know anything, then please refute this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3500034-post234.html
Don't copy and paste something, as I won't read it. Actually refute it. Put your money with your mouth is.

I did and I stand by my post rather you accept it or not , That cut and paste thing of your's is just another excuse of your . Your the one who cuting & pasting from some website . Not me . That why your reported me .I Told you before I read some of your post . It sad how some here let you get away with the things your post here . And what I find so Funny , Some here allow you to judge the things they post , As if your someone Special and your not . You have as of Yet Refuted anything I post . And that because you can't refute anything you have no knowldge of , According you the people of the scriptures didn't exist . So how can you prove something that doesn't Exist .

I'm not going to get into this backand forward thing , with you it's a waste of time . For those who have read my post know I have made my point rather they accept it or not . Also picking out certain part of my post doesn't change the Whole post .

 

[Asante]

So what degree was Ancient Egyptians Arab or Black

Oh no no..Arabs did not enter Northern Africa on a large scale until 700 A.D. (The Islamic Conquest). They are VERY late comers into the Nile Valley. Egypt of both the south and the north were black Africans and there is a irrefutable biological evidence which has confirmed that for decades now, and is even admitted to in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt:

"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons..."

"Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization."

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "

Sad as it may sound even authoritative sources such as this aren't enough for some folks to accept this fact. Interestingly I was able to obtain a preview of the results of a genetic study on Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptian remains that will be released sometimes before the end of the year. Those results showed that the ancient Egyptians were comprised of a mosaic of various lineages that are restricted to Sub Saharan Africa TODAY, but were clearly once prevalent in the Sahara (when it was fertile) and the Nile Valley (Northern Africa). The earliest Old Kingdom (and pre-dynastic) results showed them be of the Nilotic African type and directly followed with rulers of West/Central African lineage.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

What does it mean to be "black"

According to what ? And Who !

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

Oh no no..Arabs did not enter Northern Africa on a large scale until 700 A.D. (The Islamic Conquest). They are VERY late comers into the Nile Valley. Egypt of both the south and the north were black Africans and there is a irrefutable biological evidence which has confirmed that for decades now, and is even admitted to in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt:

Sad as it may sound even authoritative sources such as this aren't enough for some folks to accept this fact. Interestingly I was able to obtain a preview of the results of a genetic study on Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptian remains that will be released sometimes before the end of the year. Those results showed that the ancient Egyptians were comprised of a mosaic of various lineages that are restricted to Sub Saharan Africa TODAY, but were clearly once prevalent in the Sahara (when it was fertile) and the Nile Valley (Northern Africa). The earliest Old Kingdom (and pre-dynastic) results showed them be of the Nilotic African type and directly followed with rulers of West/Central African lineage.

If I may why are their So Many diffrent version of who are the original Egyptians . What are these Scholar covering up Hideing . One things is for sure Elizabeth Taylor not Cleopatra .

 

[Asante]

If I may why are their So Many diffrent version of who are the original Egyptians . What are these Scholar covering up Hideing . One things is for sure Elizabeth Taylor not Cleopatra .

Well now, as opposed to the last two centuries the research and conclusions are for the most part consistent, EVEN THOUGH the implications of this research is rarely to never reflected in popular culture (i.e white, mixed or Arab looking actors playing ancient Egyptians dominate the media) . The ancient Egyptians were originally a mosaic of various black African types who inhabited Northeastern Africa a little over 5,000 years ago. Early Western anthropologist blatantly lied about the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians, by designating those black Africans whom they overlapped with as "Caucasoid"/whitish/or just white. I have pictures from old books on Africans where Nilotic Africans (literally the blackest and oldest people on Earth) are described as having "European features". From those absurd and baseless early misclassifications racist lies were created and adopted by the mainstream as the truth, and this lie persist to this day.

Now even though the ridiculous "European" or "white" classification for the ancient Egyptians is generally rejected, conventional history and common sense is neglected when casting decisions are being made by folks at the National Geographic and the History Channel. Highly admixed modern Egyptians (mostly from the northern Egypt around the Delta) who are the product of the original black African Egyptians along with Hyksos, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks ect are shown as the authentic ancient Egyptians. This is not true and the truth has been apparent since the beginning of Egyptology in the late 18th century:

"All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says:

​

' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians
because, like them, they are black with woolly hair...
​

"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma(of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance)



"Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould."
M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83.​

Of course consistent contemporary peer reviewed research validates DeVolney's assessment of Egypt's population history:

"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

Well now, as opposed to the last two centuries the research and conclusions are for the most part consistent, EVEN THOUGH the implications of this research is rarely to never reflected in popular culture (i.e white, mixed or Arab looking ancient Egyptians dominate the media) . The ancient Egyptians were originally a mosaic of various black African types who inhabited Northeastern Africa a little over 5,000 years ago. Early Western anthropologist blatantly lied about the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians, by designating those black Africans whom they overlapped with as "Caucasoid"/whitish/or just white. I have pictures from old books on Africans where Nilotic Africans (literally the blackest and oldest people on Earth) are described as having "European features". From those absurd and baseless early misclassifications racist lies were created and adopted by the mainstream as the truth, and this lie persist to this day.

Now even though the ridiculous "European" or "white" classification for the ancient Egyptians is generally rejected, conventional history and common sense is neglected when casting decisions are being made by folks at the National Geographic and the History Channel. Highly admixed modern Egyptians (mostly from the northern Egypt around the Delta) who are the product of the original black African Egyptians along with Hyksos, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks ect are shown as the authentic ancient Egyptians. This is not true and the truth has been apparent since the beginning of Egyptology in the late 18th century:

Of course consistent contemporary peer reviewed research validates DeVolney's assessment of Egypt's population history:

I thankyou for your answer I agree with most of what your saying here , Thankyou again :clap

 

[Asante]

I thankyou for your answer I agree with most of what your saying here , Thankyou again :clap

No thank you for standing up for the truth against all these people on here. Continue the good fight.

 

[Shermana]

I can't say much about the first link. It appears to be from an actual journal, and seems to be a scholarly article. I didn't read the actual article itself, as I don't feel a need to pay for it.

The second link though is clearly biased. It is one supporting creationism, and appears to reject "Darwin's theory." They don't appear to know what a scientific theory is, and they don't appear to realize that evolution isn't Darwin's theory. The idea of evolution preceded Darwin, and the view of natural selection was developed independently by another individual as well. And really, evolution doesn't rely on Darwin. So by calling it such, one can see a huge bias there, and a great amount of ignorance.

The Second link is based on the work of Alan Thorne, who I see nothing indicating he was a Creationist. The implications of the site are different from the actual data its citing.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

No thank you for standing up for the truth against all these people on here. Continue the good fight.

Your most welcome you do the same Asante :yes:

 

[Curious George]

According to what ? And Who !

According to you. You are the person defining people as black, I am just trying to understand what you mean.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

According to you. You are the person defining people as black, I am just trying to understand what you mean.

If your speaking according to the bible I already explain it , Their are those here cliaming Yashu'a wasn't a black man according to the bible he was , checking my post . You can see how they're trying to get my post remove because they can't deal with the Truth / Fact's . Don't accept what I'm saying Research things foryouself . That if you really want to know , If not owell . One thing forsure its a reson why my post was remove , And it wasn't because I didn't post the Authors / Scholars name , Those who read it they had to have seen it , Truth doesn't set-well with some here . If it was nothing else it was conformation other wise it wouldn't have been removed .