posted 16 June 2004 03:57 PM            

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.

posted 16 June 2004 04:25 PM            

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.

posted 16 June 2004 06:33 PM            

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

posted 16 June 2004 07:09 PM            

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.

posted 16 June 2004 08:01 PM            

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.

---

posted 16 June 2004 09:30 PM            

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

posted 16 June 2004 10:18 PM            

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.

posted 17 June 2004 01:41 PM            

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...

posted 17 June 2004 08:11 PM            

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:

• "The Bible tells us that Moses belonged to a large group of Semitic settlers whose ancestors had arrived in Egypt from the land of Canaan. This rings very true for archaeological evidence shows that such groups of people from Canaan were settling in parts of the Eastern Delta from around the middle of Egypt's 12th Dynasty. Evidence has been unearthed, for example at Tell el-Dab'a in the Delta, that these newcomers were of mixed origin, including pastorial nomads like the Hebrews described in Genesis 47:1-11."

• "It should also be noted that the route chosen by the escaping Israelites, from Piramesse to Tjeku (biblical Succoth: Exodus 12:37) and eastwards, was precisely the same that was used by two escaping slaves of the late 13th century BC, as reported in Papyrus Anastasi V."

• "First century historian Josephus when he says that the Israelite exodus was, in fact, the exodus of the Hyksos peoples from Egypt. The Hyksos exodus has been determined as being in the reign of Ahmose I, which would therefore place the biblical exodus at just the right time for the biblical plagues to be coincident with the Tempest Stele."

• "The biblical plagues have a similar theme to that which has been translated from the Tempest Stele:
  ... a thick darkness, without the least light, spread itself over the Egyptians; whereby their sight being obstructed, and their breathing hindered by the thickness of the air ... under a terror least they be swallowed up by the dark cloud ... Hail was sent down from heaven, and such hail it was, as the climate of Egypt had never suffered before ... the hail broke down their boughs laden with fruit."

• "This brings us to the rather interesting translation of the Tempest Stele, which accords so well with the biblical account, indeed it appears to be a direct quotation from the Bible."

  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

posted 17 June 2004 10:56 PM            

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.

posted 18 June 2004 01:49 AM            

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).]

posted 18 June 2004 02:25 AM            

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.

posted 18 June 2004 03:11 AM            

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.

posted 18 June 2004 03:54 AM            

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?

posted 18 June 2004 04:07 AM            

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!

posted 18 June 2004 04:41 AM            

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!

posted 18 June 2004 05:43 AM            

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".

posted 18 June 2004 05:47 AM            

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

posted 18 June 2004 05:58 AM            

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.

posted 18 June 2004 06:03 AM            

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.

posted 18 June 2004 06:12 AM            

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.

---

posted 18 June 2004 06:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
[b]FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES

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

[/B]

---

posted 18 June 2004 06:29 AM            

All in fun, !! I have to get on the road,
Have a wonderful weekend!!

posted 18 June 2004 11:24 AM            

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.

posted 18 June 2004 03:48 PM            

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)

posted 18 June 2004 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

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!

posted 18 June 2004 09:12 PM            

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.

posted 20 June 2004 04:58 PM            

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.

---

posted 21 June 2004 03:02 PM            

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')