JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
The simple fact is that if they were black "manna" would mean what it is, instead of what is it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why can't some people accept that the Israelites were black?
- Thread starter The Sparda
- Start date
jtartar
Well-Known Member
The Sparda,
Probably the reason that most people do not accept the idea that Israelites were black is, because they were NOT black!!!
If you will look in the Bible in the 9th & 10th chapters of Genesis, you will find that Ham was the father of Canaan, whom Noah cursed so as to be the slave of his brothers, Gen 9:22-27. Gen 10:15-20 show who the descendents of Canaan were, they were not black.
The black people came through Cush, another son of Ham. This is proven by Cush's descendents, all mentioned at Gen 10:6-14. History has proven that these were the black race. The Bible does not say that Cush should be slaves of anyone as the Bible does Canaan.
So many people have such a hard time accepting the fact that the Israelites were indeed a black race of people. Most people don't have a real grasp of history, relying on what they learned in grade school. Let me give you all a quick glance. White people are the descendants of Esau. Esau and his family relocated in the north, where Japheth resided. Do you ever wonder why Japheth is rarely mentioned in the book? Because his chapters were removed. Japheth is said to have been "enlarged" and dwell in the tents of Shem. I don't think that term "enlarged" is the correct translation, because I know history. The correct term should have been "Usurped"! Esau went about killing off Japheth and Esau assumed his identity. Do you ever wonder why ancient art depicted the ancient Greeks and Minoans as black? Do you ever wonder why there are so many black aritfacts in the European church? History of black leaders in European countries. Here's your answer. Esau slew the kings of the Earth and they're still doing it! It was in one of the books that were removed. I apologize that I cannot tell you which one but the info is out there. Esau took the place of the people of Japheth in their land and it was mentioned that Esau's origin was wiped clean from their memory, so they have no recollection of who or where they were before taking the place of Japheth. They've done the same with Shem. That's why you see the white Arabs and Jews, and why the "middle east" looks the way it does. There will be many people to call me stupid and ignorant, but when you do you only show your hand of your own ignorance. Read. Look for truth. It's out there.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
If I read this same thing about anything modern I'd be thinking "conspiracy theory" and walking away. Why in the WORLD would I believe you without you posting any evidence whatsoever and only telling us to "READ" and look for truth?
Since you've obviously "read" and "looked for truth" why not share it, if you have any evidence?
Also your pre-emptive complaint about being called ignorant doesn't mean anything other than you're used to being called ignorant.. that might be because there's a reason, but I won't know until you provide sources and debate can occur.
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
No, I haven't been called that at all. I just know the routine. This is actually my first ever post on the subject. I already apologized for not providing proof, though I did tell you where I found it. It's in the apocrypha. Even if I post it, though, most of you will fight it and refuse to acknowledge whats right in front of you. This knowledge is there for those who want to know.
I know this seems hard to believe, especially if you are Edom. I have no problem with that. But at the very least, I've provided something for you to chew on so that perhaps you will check into that. I haven't seen it anywhere else so I'm sure that may be a bit unbelievable to most.
Last edited:
You're one of those who will never accept the truth anyway.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
So you don't post it and no one believes you? Clearly that's more effective.
And which apocrypha do you mean? The Catholic Church's deuterocanonical books? Protocanonical? Other omitted texts?
You're going to have to be far more specific and actually provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise this is just like me claiming that the lizard people run the government. I mean I'd prove it, but you would just call me crazy showing how crazy you are. The truth is out there for the people who want to see it.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
you do realize, i hope, that Esau and Japheth are not of the same story, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I'll see what I can find. I almost want to say Jasher was one of them. Give me a few...
So I've found a video on Youtube but I cannot post it here yet because I have to have 15 or most posts.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I had to separate this to help myself more than to explain what might be wrong with this.
Japheth did move north into Europe but the Edomites did not. Their territory was from the Siani pennisula to Eliat to the the southern tip of the Dead Sea.
Not too sure if you have your facts mixed up here or what.
Japheth was the proginator of the Europian race, as the bible goes. While Esau was a decendant of Shem, or Shemite, who where the Arab nations(this included Jews) and Ham, who was the father of the Hamite or African nations.
I would like to see this book as well
Esau is of Shem. Then the Edomites would not exist because he killed himself off.
If Shem and Japheth are, or were, being killed off, it would only make sense to blame it on Ham.
But that would be just silly
I hope you're able to see the video link I posted. And please watch all 3 parts. It'll explain everything. I promise. I once thought Japheth was the progenitor of the white race as well when I argued against whites being Esau.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Ok, you could have at least summarized, I"m going to through this in detail:
So here's how this video starts:
Javan son of Japheth is traditionally considered the ancestor of the Greek people by the Hebrews. Javan became the Hebrew name for Greece/Ionia. His sons are not associated with Greece, but with Cyprus and other outlying areas. Japheth is a son of Noah for anyone not keeping track of such things.
Javan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He next claims that Kittim, Javan's son, is called "Rome" today. Now,that CAN be true, but it appears to be more connected with Cyprus - although Romans, Macedonians and Assyrians would have been connected with the Kittim. So that statement is not terribly accurate.
The Japhethic race is generally considered to be "white" because of the traditional descendants of his line covering the relevant countries. Now this is awfully speculative, but here's wiki's breakdown of what various scholars have associated with Japheth's sons/grandons
The guy mentions that there are two schools of thought about the Japhethic tribes - one is that they were never conquered and the other is that Esau conquered them. Now on the tribe of Esau - he's considered the be the father of the Edomites. Wiki again tells me that Edom's hanging around the south of the Dead Sea.
He then appears to misunderstand a sentence that indicates there were BOTH primitive tribes as well as Egyptians and Phoenicians. In the next non-underlined or read sentence you can see that the Phoenicians were not considered primitive (and I think anyone who took Western History would agree.) (I'm at 4:14)
He then reads a sentence (missing a line, that bugged me) that shows that Greek and Roman languages have words for black people and other dark skinned people.
His next sentence pretty much repeats this and seems to clarify that "Ethiopian" does actually MEAN something in particular looking at physical characteristics. The author states that you have to look at the archaeological evidence to understand what this would mean. The next sentence states simply that art can be more useful than text sometimes because it shows physical characteristics. His interpretation is a bit off as that doesn't appear to be the author's point, but moving on. About 8 minutes here.
He next talks about Memnon
Wikipedia cites the same author and summarizes as so:
The video guy ignores this point and jumps straight to a depiction of Memnon as Ethiopian AND says "This is Japheth" with ZERO connection between the two. Then says "This is Javan" without ever actually supporting with any evidence that Javan really WAS the ancestor of the Greek people or the Ethiopian people. There's no indication from the evidence presented that these were the original inhabitants of Greece. Particularly since Aetheopia was typically considered antyhing south of Egypt. And that Kush was translated into Aetheopia in Greek.
So here's the deal, in this first video alone, he presents some things and just assumes the dots connect. There's no evidence that Javan actually IS the ancestor of the Greeks we know. There's no evidence that Javan is the ancestor of Memnon. Memnon himself appears to have been associated with Ethiopia later on following literary accounts and was not originally represented in art as black, despite the video ignoring this information from the source he's reading and jumping straight to art depicting him as black.
Watching this first video I'm not even a little convinced that Greeks are black or that Israelites were either. I'll watch the next one though.
Thus far no further mention of Esau or Edom.
Me Myself
Back to my username
This.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Starts off with a picture of art containing an African and a Crocodile in Italy. He says "Italy's wrong, remember Kittim?" Which doesn't make much sense to me. It's also fairly clear to me that the art was made/found in Italy. This alone doesn't say much about the people existing there, only that they saw black people and crocodiles. Anyone know if there are crocodiles in Italy? Regardless the specific location is Apulia which is on the Mediterraenean and surely had a lot of travel on the sea ports. So again, this says nothing about the original inhabitants, just about the presence of black people at the time.
Ok, so about a minute in he states "What color are these greeks" on an urn. "This is why it's called the DARK AGE of Greece." Sorry, no:
This is the same reason the Medieval Dark Ages are considered to be "Dark".
Again, he attempts to connect Javan with no evidence.
He shows a greek pitcher (a kantheros) that has both a black and white woman's head on it from Tarquinia - a western coastal city in what is now Italy. He states that the black woman is moving out and the white woman is moving in. There's no evidence to support that that he provides.
Now we go to Thera - known as Santorini or Thira today. He describes murals found with an African/Libyan element to them. This was ~1600 BCE - at some point BEFORE the volcano that went boom much like Pompeii. Not only is this FAR before the time that he was previously discussing - like 1000 years earlier, this is also not actually in Greece. He then states that he's proving that when the Edomites come in they're killing the sons of Japheth. Again, no proof yet.
As an aside, there are certainly indications that migration moved both from Africa to Thira and back, much as there are all over the Mediterranean Sea.
He also conflates something here stating that the Greeks called everyone dark skinned African - not true, they called everyone who was dark skinned Ethiopian with specific distinguishing words. The book is what uses the word African in this instance, not the ancient Greeks. (about 3 minutes)
"Lets look at Japheth" he says as he shows the mural in the book. "What happened to these black people that lived in Greece?" Again, we're talking about Thira and we're talking about a place where a volcano erupted. That is probably what happened to this island's population.
"These were the original Greeks" Not really no. We wouldn't call Phoenicians in Greece "Greeks" or Egyptians in Greece "Greeks" We've gotten better about calling the Greeks in Egypt "Egyptians" right? So lets not pretend. He goes on and shows multiple pieces of artwork from the time pre-volcano. Now some of the dates on the volcano thing don't line up and that appears to be because it's taken us until recently to get the date right. Even if, hypothetically these people were on the island AFTER the volcano, we're still about 1000 years prior to the time he was discussing before.
Here's the whole article on the Mycaenans during the time period this discusses (1600 - 1100 ish) Mycenaean Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Odds are you'll see art that represents a variety of races as we'd recognize them today. Pylos is mentioned as well and it's a picture of an African priest. Ok, so what? We know there are African/black people in this area at this time. It's not a secret and certainly not a conspiracy. "These are Javan's sons" No. Evidence.
... Then he claims a conspiracy. About what is allowed out by the 'white man'. No sir, that's as far back as we have found any sort of records. This is saying, outright, that there have been contact across and around the entire area throughout history and he decides to consider THAT a conspiracy? "They couldn't hide the dark skinned people that were there already" he says. That's not at ALL what was said by the book. (seven minutes.)
And with that, I'm done. He's at best viewing history through a tinted and warped lens. He's at worst willfully distoring what the very sources he's reading are saying.
He provides no actual connection to Javan, no actual indication that Memnon was Ethiopian originally or that if he were that his soldiers were the natives of Greece that everyone has tried to hide up until now.
History is frequently biased, absolutely. However in books specifically fighting that bias, they're not saying anything close to what this man is saying. Western Civ has often whitewashed Greece and that's not true either, but stating that Greeks were black because they're sons of Javan has no basis in evidence even as provided by the man doing these very videos.
Ok, so about a minute in he states "What color are these greeks" on an urn. "This is why it's called the DARK AGE of Greece." Sorry, no:
Greek Dark Ages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the same reason the Medieval Dark Ages are considered to be "Dark".
Again, he attempts to connect Javan with no evidence.
He shows a greek pitcher (a kantheros) that has both a black and white woman's head on it from Tarquinia - a western coastal city in what is now Italy. He states that the black woman is moving out and the white woman is moving in. There's no evidence to support that that he provides.
Now we go to Thera - known as Santorini or Thira today. He describes murals found with an African/Libyan element to them. This was ~1600 BCE - at some point BEFORE the volcano that went boom much like Pompeii. Not only is this FAR before the time that he was previously discussing - like 1000 years earlier, this is also not actually in Greece. He then states that he's proving that when the Edomites come in they're killing the sons of Japheth. Again, no proof yet.
As an aside, there are certainly indications that migration moved both from Africa to Thira and back, much as there are all over the Mediterranean Sea.
He also conflates something here stating that the Greeks called everyone dark skinned African - not true, they called everyone who was dark skinned Ethiopian with specific distinguishing words. The book is what uses the word African in this instance, not the ancient Greeks. (about 3 minutes)
"Lets look at Japheth" he says as he shows the mural in the book. "What happened to these black people that lived in Greece?" Again, we're talking about Thira and we're talking about a place where a volcano erupted. That is probably what happened to this island's population.
"These were the original Greeks" Not really no. We wouldn't call Phoenicians in Greece "Greeks" or Egyptians in Greece "Greeks" We've gotten better about calling the Greeks in Egypt "Egyptians" right? So lets not pretend. He goes on and shows multiple pieces of artwork from the time pre-volcano. Now some of the dates on the volcano thing don't line up and that appears to be because it's taken us until recently to get the date right. Even if, hypothetically these people were on the island AFTER the volcano, we're still about 1000 years prior to the time he was discussing before.
Here's the whole article on the Mycaenans during the time period this discusses (1600 - 1100 ish) Mycenaean Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Odds are you'll see art that represents a variety of races as we'd recognize them today. Pylos is mentioned as well and it's a picture of an African priest. Ok, so what? We know there are African/black people in this area at this time. It's not a secret and certainly not a conspiracy. "These are Javan's sons" No. Evidence.
... Then he claims a conspiracy. About what is allowed out by the 'white man'. No sir, that's as far back as we have found any sort of records. This is saying, outright, that there have been contact across and around the entire area throughout history and he decides to consider THAT a conspiracy? "They couldn't hide the dark skinned people that were there already" he says. That's not at ALL what was said by the book. (seven minutes.)
And with that, I'm done. He's at best viewing history through a tinted and warped lens. He's at worst willfully distoring what the very sources he's reading are saying.
He provides no actual connection to Javan, no actual indication that Memnon was Ethiopian originally or that if he were that his soldiers were the natives of Greece that everyone has tried to hide up until now.
History is frequently biased, absolutely. However in books specifically fighting that bias, they're not saying anything close to what this man is saying. Western Civ has often whitewashed Greece and that's not true either, but stating that Greeks were black because they're sons of Javan has no basis in evidence even as provided by the man doing these very videos.