posted 05 June 2004 06:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.

---

A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible and also the first book of Moses.

B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to both read and write.

C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example,probably because they were unaware of their existence.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This confusion is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.

The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
Any "Egyptologist" would confirm this fact.
D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?

E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...

F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:

Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there are both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.

Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN

Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY

Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY

Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY

Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY

Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society

UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley

Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 05 June 2004).]

posted 05 June 2004 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.

---

A) The so-called "Table of Nations" appears first in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible and the first book of Moses.

B) Moses, according to the biblical legend was a prince of Egypt. This means that he was a part of the privileged few in Ancient Egypt that received a formal education. (Yes, they had schools in Ancient Egypt, and they required an attendance of 20+ years!) Moses was able to write these books because he was able to read and write.

C) According to the Ancient Egyptian ethnographic system, there existed THREE known racial groups; Black, Semitic, and White. They didn't invent races, they delineated them.
They did not document Sino-Asians, such as the Chinese or Japanese, for example.
There is a confusion here because when people view these ethnographic documents, they see four groups. This is caused by the fact that few understand the Ancient Egyptian language and ideology.

The Ancient Egyptians, while illustrating and documenting that they belonged to the Black race, considered themselves Rt_n n Rmt:
Rt = Men
_n = us, we
n = above, over, etc.,
Rmt = Man, Mankind
It literally means, "We men above Mankind"
This is not an OPINION, this is a concrete fact!

D) So to Moses, there were three great divisions of the human race. Thus, the legend of Moses has it that Noah had three sons. Why not six or just one?

E) The sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth represented the three racial groups and the nations which they engendered.
((Ham - (in both Egyptian and Hebrew) means hot; the etymology is Khem or burnt black, etc.))
Ham's nations (the Black nations) were Egypt, Kush, Put/Punt(east Africa) and Canaan(Palestine).
And how did Canaan, a Black nation become a Semitic nation? It's called conquest. Which is exactly what occurred. And keep in mind that the Bible is replete with people predicting things long before it actually came to pass! It's called writing with the provision of hindsight:
"And they (the sons of Judah upon entering Canaan) found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old." ( I Chronicles 4:40
Do you think perhaps that's why the Biblical legend places a curse on Canaan?
The "sons of Judah" surely did conquer and colonize Canaan, the homeland of the Phoenicians...

F) African history is both fascinating and also habit forming, because the more information you discover the more you want to dig further. Here's my recommended starter list:

Abrams, Harry N.
- A history of art in Africa, Harry N. Abrams, NY
Note that there is both Bush(crude) and classical (Benin, Yoruba, Asante) African art forms.

Breasted, James Henry
- A history of Egypt: from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, Simon publications, TN

Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir
- The book of the dead; the papyrus of Ani in the British museum, Dover, NY
- Egyptian language: easy lessons in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dover, NY
- Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, Dover, NY

Diop, Cheikh Anta
- The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Lawrence Hill, NY
- Civilization or barbarism: an authentic anthropology, Lawrence Hill, NY

Herodotus
- The Histories,book 2, Oxford, NY

Kebra Nagast (Ethiopian bible)
- St. Martin's Press, NY

Maspero, Gaston
- History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. The Grolier Society

UNESCO
- General history of Africa, vol.2, University of California-Berkeley

Volney, Constantin-Francois
- Meditation on the revolutions of empires, ECA associates

[/B][/QUOTE]

My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.

You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.

posted 05 June 2004 06:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.

You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 05 June 2004).]

---

posted 06 June 2004 07:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]
My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.

You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 05 June 2004).]

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not hopeless, you're just blind full of extreme Afrocentrism to blackwash everyone under Ham's line and you're shortsighted also for limiting blacks only to the line of Ham. I urge you to look at the names under Ham, Japeth, and Shem and see how they correspond to places names of nations. The Table of Nations isn't about races, its about nations.

posted 06 June 2004 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b]
My. my, my, you're not helping me out. First, there is no "Semitic" race and why should blacks be restricted to the line of Ham only? If you look at Ham's line not all of his descendants correspond to black races, only Cush does. Cush's son, Nimrod has his territories in Levantine/Eastern Mediterranean area. Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races. Egyptians simply painted foreigners as they saw them as a general representation. They painted Libyans, some, as blond and white skinned, we know that all Libyans aren't that color. And Egyptians did paint themselves as lighter than Nubians, but not all Egyptians were lighter than Nubians.

You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 05 June 2004).]

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.

Now do you see why I said you are blind?

posted 07 June 2004 04:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.

Now do you see why I said you are blind?

---

posted 07 June 2004 04:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.

Now do you see why I said you are blind?

---

Who is Usman dan Fodio
What is 'Sabon Gari'

Answer these and we'll continue our debate...

posted 07 June 2004 10:56 PM            

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Moses didn't divide these into race, look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to modern races
It clearly "does" in this map.

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
look again at the Table of Nations, most of those DO NOT rigidly correspond to "modern races."
This is the primary source of your confusion as I've seen also when Thought was debating you, that you keep approaching "ancient" times from a "modern" view. As Wally has so clearly pointed out that he's a "modern" American, does that mean that he represents the same people in "Ancient" America.

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.
This is the second source of your confusion, time and time again you keep approaching this subject from a linguistic standpoint, but since we're using a Biblical standpoint here, AFTER the nations/races were defined let me quote:

posted 07 June 2004 11:11 PM            

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
I'm not hopeless, you're just blind full of extreme Afrocentrism
You say "Afrocentism" as if its a bad word. I embrace the word, and encourage more Wallys and Thoughts to take center stage.

* raising my fist

posted 08 June 2004 12:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.

Now do you see why I said you are blind?

---

I told you myself in another post that phut could very well be Punt, you're not educating me brother because I know these things.

quote:

---

You seem to want a debate, which I relish. Canaan, according to the christian bible, and the Torah, was a place originally inhabited by the descendants of Ham. (It's not that important to me but you seem to want to debate who these peoples were.)
We know from history that Semitic peoples, and they are a race, conquered this land and colonized it. The Phoenicians, who came out of Canaan, spoke a Semitic language.

---

No, you don't read the Bible do you, and if you do you didn't understand it. There is no Semitic race, that term is purely linguistic, not racial Wally. You're debating me using pseudo-science and racial categories that do not exist. If you carefully read the Canaan curse, all it is saying is that eventually Shems descnedants will eventually rule in the land Canaan owns, which correlated to the Jews having their Promised Land.

So what you're saying is according to the Bible Canaanites were originally black people who were overran and conquered by a "Semitic" race and mixing has nearly bleached them out or there was full population replacement, correct? Please provide archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence for this.

quote:

---

The Sudan today, if I still am in control of my faculties, is a Black African country, where the ruling class speaks Arabic, a Semitic langauge par excellance, the Sudanese ruling class is not Semitic.

---

Poor example, the Sudanese ruling class are heavily mixed with Arab, though they still show a black phenotype and there are many Sudanese who still speak pre-Arabic languages there. And Arabs didn't replace the native African population like you're trying to asert for Canaan. Quite simple and plain, the Table of Nations does not=Table of Races

quote:

---

The Amharic and Geez languages of Ethiopia are Semitic languages, the Amhara are not a Semitic people.

---

So are you saying Middle Easterners spread Semitic languages into Ethiopia? There is no evidence for this. At the moment linguists cannot pinpoint where Semitic languages were first spoken. Ethiopian Amharics are "Semitic", linguistically.

quote:

---

I am an African American, I speak American, a language derived from English. I am not an Englishman.

---

posted 08 June 2004 09:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
No such language as "American", what pseudo-science. American English is pretty much the same as British English except that American English has received many loan words from other languages, most of which are NOT American in origin.

---

b) I am an American, and our language is American. I know this, and it has nothing to do with any science. This will probably throw you, but the people of Mexico speak Mexican, not Spanish.

c)Here is a sample reference regarding peoples inhabiting the "linguistic" areas of your "Table of Nations"; namely Syria:
The name Syri seems to have extended of old from Babylonia to the gulf of Issus, and from the gulf of Issus to the Euxine (Strabo, p.737). Strabo also says that even in his time both the Cappadocian peoples, both those who were situated about the Taurus and those on the Euxine, were called Leucosyri or White Syrians, as if there were also some Syrians who were black; and these black or dark Syrians are those who are east of the Amanus. (See also Strabo, p.542.) The name Syria, and Assyria, which often means the same in the Greek writers, was the name by which the country along the Pontus and east of the Halys was first known to the Greeks, and it was not forgotten (Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, ii.948,964; Dionys. Perieg. v.772, and the comment of Eustathius).

c) You say that the Sudanese are heavily mixed with the Arabs, do you mean with their language or with their race?

d) I have not only read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc., but I have also studied them.

e)Semitic is like Semi or half way between two conditions. The Semitic languages are half way between the Black languages and peoples of Africa and that of the White languages and peoples of Asia (for you, Europe, because I'm sure you think that Europe is a continent.)
And I have no doubt that you will respond with more silliness...It's fun after all.

PS: I have from the beginning been opposed to the label of "Afrocentrism" because it can, as you have so admirably demonstrated, be used as a subterfuge to deny the validity of sound, logical, and irrefutable knowledge of facts. It is used to imply a bias.

later...

posted 09 June 2004 04:10 PM            

I remember reading the Histories by Herodotuss and some of the relgious practices he mentions of the Egyptians, I can see in all three of those religions.

i.e.
Herodotus quotes of the Egyptians "They are religious to excess, far beyond any other race of men"

• They practiced circumcision
  
• They practiced embalming
  
• The pig is regarded as a uncean animal
  
• The priest wash before entering the temple
  
• They make animal sacrifices
  
• They had the first trinity "known"(Isis,Horus,Osiris)
  
• The first "known" Madonna (Isis,Horus)
  
• The male animals were used for sacrifice (later practiced by the Hebrews)
  
• They did not converse with women in sacred places
  

Could the Hebrews have really been a religious sect of Egypt, led by their General Moses, as Sigmund Freud has suggested? I'm curious to what others think.

posted 09 June 2004 05:16 PM            

I believe another thread was started in comparison of Abrahmic faiths with AE religion. In those thread it was noted the AE had a concept of judgment of the dead much like Islam and Christainty. You had to live in accordance to moral inorder to reach the blessed East aka the Field of Reeds. A place of Paradise where one is excempt from taxes. If you didn't fall in cordance to the morals of Maat then you went into a firey abyss.

posted 09 June 2004 09:19 PM            

What I want to know if this "ritual" in Egypt had a "religious" aspect to it, in that anyone considered uncircumcised was considered "unclean" thus "unholy".

And also do you think its a mere coincidence
that the Christian belief of Jesus being "immaculately conceived" by the Holy spirit, is similar to how Isis conceived Horus (by her dead Husband's spirit).

Originally posted by Ausur

A place of Paradise where one is excempt from taxes. If you didn't fall in cordance to the morals of Maat then you went into a firey abyss.
Wow, I never knew that came from Egypt too!

Since the concept of monotheism itself came from Egypt, in my opinion most of the world owe their religious origins to the AE's. Actually when you think of it, the whole ideal of "Creationism" seems to come from them.

posted 09 June 2004 10:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] here is a map wally, now see for yourself where some of these place names are located.

Now do you see why I said you are blind?

---

Who is Usman dan Fodio
What is 'Sabon Gari'

Answer these and we'll continue our debate...

[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 09 June 2004 10:21 PM            

My point was that the circumcision ritual in Kmt was different from in Semetic soceities. Acording to Herodotus they may have adapted the pratice,but they preformed it on small children at birth and the Egyptians praticed it as a coming of age ritual.

Many pharoahs from the 18th dyansty are not circumcised,but most priestly class in Kmt traditionall were circumcised as a way of rital purity. You could not be uncircumcised and become a priest,so it was required of all priestly class Egyptians.

Here's a scene from a tomb showing the circumcision rite:

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 09 June 2004).]

posted 10 June 2004 03:55 PM            

Shem:

The eldest son of Noah, from whom the Jews, as well as the Semitic ("Shemitic") nations in general have descended. When giving the names of Noah's three sons, Shem is always mentioned first (Genesis 9:18; 10:1, etc.); and though "the elder" in "Shem the brother of Japheth the elder" (Genesis 10:21 margin) is explained as referring to Shem, this is not the rendering of Onkelos. His five sons peopled the greater part of West Asia's finest tracts, from Elam on the East to the Mediterranean on the West. Though generally regarded as meaning "dusky" (compare the Assyr-Babylonian samu--also Ham--possibly = "black," Japheth, "fair"), it is considered possible that Shem may be the usual Hebrew word for "name" (shem), given him because he was the firstborn--a parallel to the Assyr-Babylonian usage, in which "son," "name" (sumu) are synonyms (W. A. Inscriptions, V, plural 23, 11,29-32abc).

2. Ham as a Nationality:

The name given, in Psalms 105:23,17; 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. As Shem means "dusky," or the like, and Japheth "fair," it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former.

1. Etymologies of Japheth:

This name, in Genesis 9:27, seems to be explained by the phrase "may God make wide (yapht, the American Standard Revised Version "enlarge") for Japheth," where yapht and Japheth are represented by the same consonants, but with different vowel-points. The root of yapht is pathach, "to make wide." This etymology, however, is not universally accepted, as the word-play is so obvious, and the association of Japheth with Shem ("dark") and Ham ("black") suggests a name on similar lines--either gentilic, or descriptive of race. Japheth has therefore been explained as meaning "fair," from yaphah, the non-Sem and non-Hamitic races known to the Jews being all more or less whiteskinned. The Targum of Onkelos agrees with the English Versions of the Bible, but that of Jonathan has "God shall beautify Japheth," as though from yaphah.

--So wouldn't you agree that what the author is saying is pretty common sense, given the evidence? It's like the fact that the following terms do not contradict one another:
a)the French nation
b)the French nationality
c)the French people
d)the French race
e)Frenchman
The "table of nations" represented nations, peoples, languages, as well as races...

posted 10 June 2004 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Where's your reference to that Wally. Is this a personal opinion or one validate with AE writings themselves. AE required all priests be circumcised,and usually youths were circumcised at maturity. Never heard what you mentioned in my readings. Tell me how you come with such a conclusion.

---

posted 11 June 2004 01:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
The "table of nations" represented nations, peoples, languages, as well as races...

---

posted 11 June 2004 11:54 AM            

This was already proven to you in another post. I think its understood, that during the "Exodus" from Egypt, the Hebrews settled in the land of Cannaan- along with Moses and his brother Aaron.

To identify the priestly lineage to Aaron, geneticists have determined the CMH (Cohen Modal Haplotype) in the Y chromosomes. This is the signature of Jewish lineage.

Time and Time again it has been proven that this CMH occurs in a higher frequency amongst the Buba (the oldest clan of the Lemba tribe) than the Sephardic, and the Ashkenazi Jews who also claim to be descendants of Moses/Aaron.

And if you would simply use your basic common sense you would clearly see that if someone has a HIGHER frequency of the gene, then they could not have inheritted the trait from someone with a LOWER frequency of the gene.(Hence the argument that some white Jew travelled to South Africa to inter-mix with this tribe would result in them having a LOWER frequency-so that argument is useless, before you even think about bringing that up again)

Fact is the only jews with a HIGHER frequency than the Buba clan are the Bene Israel of India.

Hence the Bene Israel and the Buba are MORE LIKELY THE ORIGINAL DESCENDANTS OF ISRAEL.

And not to mention, that this study has only been done on the Jewish population, not to mention those that may have converted to Christianity or Islam which would be the major portion of the original Hebrews/Cannanites.

posted 11 June 2004 01:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
The male circumcision rite still occurs in modern Egypt with a big celebration. I can only image that there must have been such a celebration in the past like there is today. Rural Egyptians still pratice this circumsion rite. Mummies of Ahmose was found uncircumcised.

---

posted 12 June 2004 01:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]So unless you can prove canaaites were blacks originally who were overran by another racial type to the point they were totally mixed out your argument ios baseless.

This was already proven to you in another post. I think its understood, that during the "Exodus" from Egypt, the Hebrews settled in the land of Cannaan- along with Moses and his brother Aaron.

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

No it hasn't been proven to me already, the bioanthropological information does not indicate the presence of a large black population inhabiting the area called Canaan. If they were there there would be tons on sketeal remains that resemble Africans but they do not. The Bible isn't always useful for historic information to be taken as fact. As Moslems we are taught to accept to Hebrew Torah but looking back historically I have seen no evidence of most of what the Bible says. using your logic, the world is only a little over 6,000 years old, do you believe it?

The area that the israelites inherited did not include all of canaanite land, even the new testament mentions Tyre and Sidon, these were canaanite/Phoenician cities.

And I think you need to read the full text of those genetic studies studies on the Lemba for they do not give the same conclusion that you do. Lemba have 'Semitic' mixture(paternally) along with that Modal Haplotype you keep harping on, but lack any mixture('semitic') maternally. The buba clan mention about a people coming from shinar to Africa, but their genetic profile is pure African maternally and significantly (Semitic(what kind of term is that?). Do you see what I'm getting at? It makes no sense to say the originally Canaanites were all black for the Modal haplotype is only carried in the preiestly caste(Levites), not everyone.

posted 12 June 2004 08:20 AM            

I agree with S. Mohammed. There just isn't enough evidence to support the idea that the original Canaanites were negroid. However, many nomadic tribes have inhabited Canaan at one point or another so the people there have always been ethnically diverse.

As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictions.
Probably the reason that racists have associated Ham from the bible with black people is because of the Jewish version of the bible which gives more description of Ham's appearance. According to the Jewish books, God cursed Ham and his children by giving him a 'deformed' appearance. His lips became fuller and his nose wider. In the past, racists have ran with the Ham story and used it to justify enslaving blacks.

posted 13 June 2004 03:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Truth be told, there was another land called Cush located in modern day Iraq but the Nubians are referred to as Cushites on several occasions in the bible. Phut could have been modern day Libya or it could have been the area around modern day Somalia referred to by the ancient Egyptians as Punt.

---

Correct!

quote:

---

I agree with S. Mohammed. There just isn't enough evidence to support the idea that the original Canaanites were negroid. However, many nomadic tribes have inhabited Canaan at one point or another so the people there have always been ethnically diverse.

---

The nomadic peoples who still inhabit these lands, though in small numbers; are the Bedouin, and though they are dark-skinned they are not tropicaal African looking in phenotype. Nomadic Bedouin almost never mixed and focus on their lineage. Therefore its not out of place to conclude that the original inhabitants looked like Bedouins.

Wally's argument is based on the old 'Hamatic-Semitic' hypothesis and he's putting an Afrocentric twist on to blackwash people. The Talbe of Nations wasn't about Races, it was about describing familes and clans and the areas they would settle. The language part of his argument is refuted because the ancients who wrote that Table were not linguists and they had no breakdown of Hamitic and Semitic linguistically, they simple broke it down according to the descendants. Phoenician Canaanite is a Senitic language and though it is closely related to Hebrew, it is not the same. There is no evidence to suggest that Hebrew or Araamic is the closest to Proto-Semitic, so its ludicrous to argue that Canann was populated by Hamitic speaking people who were overran by Semitic speaking people(Jews) who imposed there language on them. The Phoenicians had a writing system long before the Hebrews(Jews) did and the language they wrote in was a Semitic language, not a Hamitic one.

Using the Bible to make a scientific argument is fruitless indeed.

quote:

---

As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictions.
Probably the reason that racists have associated Ham from the bible with black people is because of the Jewish version of the bible which gives more description of Ham's appearance. According to the Jewish books, God cursed Ham and his children by giving him a 'deformed' appearance. His lips became fuller and his nose wider. In the past, racists have ran with the Ham story and used it to justify enslaving blacks.

---

which is why I can't understand why wally and homeylu are using pseudo-sciece founded by racists to justify their argument.

quote:

---

I take anything from the bible with a grain of salt. It has been wrong before and we must remember that it was written centuries after Genesis, and Exodus were to have taken place.

---

Indeed, very true!

posted 13 June 2004 05:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] No such language as "American", what pseudo-science. American English is pretty much the same as British English except that American English has received many loan words from other languages, most of which are NOT American in origin.

---

I most certainly already did, although I don't see why I had to answer this.

quote:

---

I am an American, and our language is American. I know this, and it has nothing to do with any science. This will probably throw you, but the people of Mexico speak Mexican, not Spanish.

---

Americans speak a dialect of English called 'American' English. The only difference is that 'American' English has been influence by more words from people who have migrated to 'America'. The same with Spanish, Mexicans speak a dialect of Spanish, but the language is still Spanish and a Mexican could go to Spain and largely understand Castilian and Andalusian Spanish as well as be understood. There is no language called 'mexican', quit making up things.

quote:

---

c)Here is a sample reference regarding peoples inhabiting the "linguistic" areas of your "Table of Nations"; namely Syria:
The name Syri seems to have extended of old from Babylonia to the gulf of Issus, and from the gulf of Issus to the Euxine (Strabo, p.737). Strabo also says that even in his time both the Cappadocian peoples, both those who were situated about the Taurus and those on the Euxine, were called Leucosyri or White Syrians, as if there were also some Syrians who were black; and these black or dark Syrians are those who are east of the Amanus. (See also Strabo, p.542.) The name Syria, and Assyria, which often means the same in the Greek writers, was the name by which the country along the Pontus and east of the Halys was first known to the Greeks, and it was not forgotten (Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, ii.948,964; Dionys. Perieg. v.772, and the comment of Eustathius).

---

Those dark syrians are more than likely Bedouin and not blacks. If you go to syria today the population is mostly white looking but you will find small numbers of nomadic Bedouin and Bedouin have not mixed extensively with other people. Just because they say there are white or 'leuco' syrians doesn't imply there were black Syrians, although there may have ben small numbers, smaller than the Bedouin, of blacks living there. Your ambition is causing you to see black people where none are there.

quote:

---

c) You say that the Sudanese are heavily mixed with the Arabs, do you mean with their language or with their race?

---

The sudanese upperclass of those who identify as 'Arabs' are mixed with Semitic Arab blood, the upperclasses that is, but most are phenotypically black. Most of those who identify as 'Sudanese Arabs' have little to no Arab blood, except for the upperclasses, the same with North Africans who claim they are Arabs. both groups have only a token amount of Arab blood.

quote:

---

d) I have not only read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc., but I have also studied them.

---

So have I too!

quote:

---

e)Semitic is like Semi or half way between two conditions. The Semitic languages are half way between the Black languages and peoples of Africa and that of the White languages and peoples of Asia (for you, Europe, because I'm sure you think that Europe is a continent.)

---

Pure pseudo-science Wally. Languages termed 'Semitic' are named so because of their relationship to Hebrew the jewish language. The study of semitic languages started out with Hebrew and when linguists found those languages that were very closely related to Hebrew they simply named them Semitic languages. And who's to say these early speakers of Semitic languages were white? Semitic has nothing to do with being halfway between white and black, thats pure pseudo-science you're employing.

quote:

---

And I have no doubt that you will respond with more silliness...It's fun after all.

---

Wally, listen you are corect about alot of things concerning the egyptians in terms of culture and anthropology, but as far as linguistics and history you get a F-. saying semitic has something to do with being halfway between white and black languages is pure silliness. Semitic and Hamitic has nothing to do with whites and blacks or race at all for that matter. You can find blacks in both Shem's and Ham's line. Furthermore, mixing the Bible's history with science is incongruent, especially how you and homeylu is doing. Canaanites were NOT blacks originally who were overun by 'white' Semitic peoples, there is no evidence for this and using the Bible and Ham's and Shem's descendants to prove this is silliness. Not all hamites were the same race and ditto for Semites.

quote:

---

PS: I have from the beginning been opposed to the label of "Afrocentrism" because it can, as you have so admirably demonstrated, be used as a subterfuge to deny the validity of sound, logical, and irrefutable knowledge of facts. It is used to imply a bias.

---

Nothing you have said thus far is irrefutable, believe me, though I like your persistence and determination.

posted 13 June 2004 12:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Have the Jews themselves ever been homogeneous? DNA studies are showing that they have always mixed with the local people in the places that they inhabited even after Talmudic law forbade interbreeding with non-Jews.

---

No, Jews aren't homogeneous, but they have a low amount of sub-Saharan ancetry, I'm talking about Middle Eastern Jews, not Ethiopian and Lemba. The burden of proof is still on wally to prove that canaanites were originally blacks who were totally replaced by non-black Semites.

posted 13 June 2004 12:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
No, Jews aren't homogeneous, but they have a low amount of sub-Saharan ancetry, I'm talking about Middle Eastern Jews, not Ethiopian and Lemba.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 13 June 2004 01:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
No, Jews aren't homogeneous, but they have a low amount of sub-Saharan ancetry, I'm talking about Middle Eastern Jews, not Ethiopian and Lemba. The burden of proof is still on wally to prove that canaanites were originally blacks who were totally replaced by non-black Semites.

---

It's absurd considering the lack of evidence that Canaan was mostly negroid at one time however even European Jews show DNA from negroid people above the Sahara like such as the Nubians.

I like Greenberg's theory that the Hebrews have origins in Africa rather than the Middle East. They were a mix of mostly Asiatic but also, Indo-European, and Nubian slaves in Egypt and in their 'exodus' from Egypt they spent decades in the Sinai peninsula living amongst Shasu bedouins and fighting Ramses II's armies. After Sinai they moved on to Canaan...

posted 13 June 2004 02:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
It's absurd considering the lack of evidence that Canaan was mostly negroid at one time however even European Jews show DNA from negroid people above the Sahara like such as the Nubians.

I like Greenberg's theory that the Hebrews have origins in Africa rather than the Middle East. They were a mix of mostly Asiatic but also, Indo-European, and Nubian slaves in Egypt and in their 'exodus' from Egypt they spent decades in the Sinai peninsula living amongst Shasu bedouins and fighting Ramses II's armies. After Sinai they moved on to Canaan...

---

Well there are dashes of sub-Saharan DNA in Middle Easterners. As I quoted before the Palestinians have 15% sub-Saharan mtDNA. It varies according to which population you're speaking of. It is generally higher and even substanial in places like Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In Syrians and Lebanese, it is very low to negligible. The best ones to test would be the Bedouin, who are darker skinned and relatively unmixed. That would at least provide a baseline to go off of.

European jews do show some trace of sub-Saharan ancestry but it is too, very low to negligible. It could very well b from Nubians, that I am unable to elaborate on.

If blacks were indeed the original inhabitants of Canaan, there would be some hard evidence in the way of anthropology and as far as I know there isn't enough evidence to support the notion of an indigenous black population in Caanan. Wally should best stick to Egypt and Africa and quit trying to use the Bible to prove his theories.

posted 13 June 2004 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

As far as I am aware Jews and Arabs share in a gene pool that originated in East Africa.

---

Arabs and Jews have low levels of sub-saharan ancestry. When I say 'sub-Saharan' I'm also talking about East Africans too. The only arabs that significant amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry are the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula, like Yemen and Oman and part of this is due to the slave trade. I've seen the study you're referring to and it says it traces the origin of Afro-asiatic languages to east Africa from studying mtDNA. You cannot mix genetics and linguistics together, just as I pointed out with Cavalli-Sforza and his studies. Afro-asiatic speakers encompass a broad variety of racial types. We don't even need genetics to confirm that Afro-asiatic languages originated in East Africa. All one has to do is look at the diversity of Afro-asiatic in Africa vs that of Asia.

posted 13 June 2004 08:29 PM            

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
using your logic, the world is only a little over 6,000 years old, do you believe it?
You've NEVER been able to effectively use my logic in any of your post, so I'd appreciate it if you would just stick to your own twisted logic. Thanks.

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba have 'Semitic' mixture(paternally) along with that Modal Haplotype you keep harping on, but lack any mixture('semitic') maternally
Every last one of the jewish groups in these studies 'LACK THIS MIXTURE MATERNALLY'

Quote from study:
"We have analyzed the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from each of nine geographically separated Jewish groups, eight non-Jewish host populations, and an Israeli Arab/Palestinian population...The results suggest that most Jewish communities were founded by relatively few women,that the founding process was independent in different geographic areas http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v70n6/013504/brief/013504.abstract.html

Originally posted by neo*geo
As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictionsand you honestly believe that "negroid" and "caucosoid" are NOT racist classifications. Give me a break please.

Originally posted by neo*geo
I take anything from the bible with a grain of salt. It has been wrong before and we must remember that it was written centuries after Genesis, and Exodus were to have taken place.
The Bible was translated and deciphered from original Hebrew and Greek text, just as the Hieroglyphics were from original Egyptian text. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Hieroglyphics much much older than Hebrew text, do we need to also take those translations with a grain of salt. I mean did Champollion not translate this text some 200 years after the Bible was translated in English? Was it not thousands of years after these events took place?

posted 13 June 2004 11:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
The Bible was translated and deciphered from original Hebrew and Greek text, just as the Hieroglyphics were from original Egyptian text.

---

This is true but once again you misunderstand my point. Not a single book from the bible was written until nearly 1000 years after the Exodus is believed to have occured. All the history of the Hebrews was passed orally until they decided to write it down. Oral histories are not very accurate and it's not all that improbable that they filled in the gaps in their oral history with stories from Egypt, or Babylon. Compare the epic of Gilgamesh to Noah and the Ark.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Hieroglyphics much much older than Hebrew text, do we need to also take those translations with a grain of salt.

---

posted 14 June 2004 01:13 AM            

I could honestly go on and on, but you like many others have taken the position to "dismiss the Bible, until proven true" rather than the position of the "faithful" who choose to accept it as true, until is has been "proven false".

And last but not least who are we to dismiss Biblical claims, when over half of what is considered "scientific evidence" is nothing more than "theories" that only last until the next "theory" disproves it. Yet scientist like Darwin has been proven wrong, while the most recent discoveries of oldest Human remains were found in none other than Ethiopia/Cush-where the Bible places the Garden of Eve. Did these anthropologist that decided to dig in the area know something we didnt know?
Something that make me say, hmmmmm.

Its all in the interpretation and the translations.

posted 14 June 2004 05:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]If they were there there would be tons on sketeal remains that resemble Africans but they do not.
Keep in mind that whenever you hear me speak of Black people I'm talking about "Skin color",

---

Skin color alone does not make a person black, as there are no people with 'black' skin, just deep brown skin. There is no evidence that the earliest people of Canaan had black skin, keep dreaming with your theories.

quote:

---

as I personally don't see how skeletons alone can determine a black race, especially since some Ethiopians and Khoisans have been labeled "caucosoid"

---

So-called 'Caucasoid' traits in Ethiopians aren't even 'Caucasoid' at all. The notion that Ethiopians are 'caucasoid' is just pseudo-science and that notion has been long debunked, so use debunked theories to prove a point. The people who lived in the area called Ethiopia today had ancestors who had so called 'Caucasoid' features long before Europeans or western Asians even evolved them. Since a small group in east Africa migrated out to colonize the rest of the world, there is no surprise that those out of Africa migrants share certain anthropological traits with east Africans. Your point is moot here. And khoisan were never considered as Caucasoids, people once mistakenly labelled them as mongloids, which of course isn't true either.

[qquote]Originally posted by S. Mohammad
using your logic, the world is only a little over 6,000 years old, do you believe it?
You've NEVER been able to effectively use my logic in any of your post, so I'd appreciate it if you would just stick to your own twisted logic. Thanks.[/quote]

You logic makes no sense whatsoever, thats why I worded my reply the way I did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba have 'Semitic' mixture(paternally) along with that Modal Haplotype you keep harping on, but lack any mixture('semitic') maternally
Every last one of the jewish groups in these studies 'LACK THIS MIXTURE MATERNALLY'

---

Are you saying Middle easterner Jews aren't maternally 'Semitic'? Please provide evidence. The Lemba Buba Clan, not all Lemba possess the modal haplotype and not all Lemba are Jews, did you read the study carefully or did you selectively decide to have amnesia when you read certain parts? since Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba.

quote:

---

Quote from study:
"We have analyzed the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from each of nine geographically separated Jewish groups, eight non-Jewish host populations, and an Israeli Arab/Palestinian population...The results suggest that most Jewish communities were founded by relatively few women,that the founding process was independent in different geographic areas http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v70n6/013504/brief/013504.abs tract.html

---

All that is saying is that Jewish males mixed in with different populations

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo
As far as Semitic and Hamitic peoples go, we need to let go of these racist classifictionsand you honestly believe that "negroid" and "caucosoid" are NOT racist classifications. Give me a break please.

---

Negroid and caucasoid make no sense unless you believe populations developed independently with non-overlapping traits. re-read what I said about Ethiopians again

Originally posted by neo*geo
I take anything from the bible with a grain of salt. It has been wrong before and we must remember that it was written centuries after Genesis, and Exodus were to have taken place.
The Bible was translated and deciphered from original Hebrew and Greek text, just as the Hieroglyphics were from original Egyptian text. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Hieroglyphics much much older than Hebrew text, do we need to also take those translations with a grain of salt. I mean did Champollion not translate this text some 200 years after the Bible was translated in English? Was it not thousands of years after these events took place?

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
The only arabs that significant amounts of sub-Saharan ancestry are the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula, like Yemen and Oman and part of this is due to the slave trade
As usual, you're always on a different timeline. The Islamic-African slve trade did not began until 700 a.d. and has absolutely nothing to do with the Lemba tribe I've referred to. The study conducted on them and the Jews trace a common ancestor 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, NOT 1500 years ago. 3,000-5,000 years ago is right in line with the time frame of the Exodus. Now here we are thousands of years later, and the Lemba still posess a "significant" amount of this gene. I honestly dont see what you mean by proving a significant amount of Blacks were in this small mass of land called Canaan since its preposterous to even imagine the entire continent of Africa in originated there. And our common sense tells us that the world's population was significantly smaller 3,000 years ago.
I mean why are you comparing the sub-saharan origin of the modern Palestinian, when I'm clearly using the Middle Eastern origin of the Lemba they dont relate.(That's like me trying to prove the sub-saharan origin of a Black American, and you trying to prove the American origin of a Black African, do you realize how backwards you appear). Bottomline, I'm showing that Blacks had origins in Palestine, not that Palestinian had origins in Africa!!![/B][/QUOTE]

Are you saying that blacks had there origin in Palestine? now i know you have no logic

posted 14 June 2004 09:03 AM            

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
You logic makes no sense whatsoever, thats why I worded my reply the way I did
Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven.

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying Middle easterner Jews aren't maternally 'Semitic'? These Jews have relocated to this area from all over the world and have mixed with local populations everywhere they settled. That is why the study concluded: THERE IS NO HAPLOTYPE CONSISTENT WITH A COMMON ORIGIN OF FEMALE JEWS, "Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish groups with any confidence"

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
All that is saying is that Jewish males mixed in with different populations
Exactly!!, now about that Lemba maternal admixture again...The Bantu wouldnt happen to have been a "different population" would they?...smh

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Are you saying that blacks had there origin in Palestine? now i know you have no logic Please view my second response, in fact, let me re-quote it: "Actually its your obvious inability to comprehend ANY logic, as you always have proven"

As my post clearly states its preposterous to even imagine the entire continent of Africa originated there
Do I need to define "preposterous" for you?
If I can prove just 1 tribe was there, which I have, this proves blacks were in Canaan.

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba
And those "semitic" males were obviously the Black paternal ancestors of the Buba Clan. Which proves Blacks were in Canaan.
(You're slowly catching on)

Further excerpts from the study conclude:
"The people closest to the Jews from a genetic point of view may be the Kurds, according to results of a new study at the Hebrew University. Scientists who participated in the research said the findings seem to indicate both peoples had common ancestors who lived in the northern half of the fertile crescent, where northern Iraq and Turkey are today. Some of them, it is assumed, wandered south in pre-historic times and settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=96990

My,my,my, is this not consistent with the Biblical account of Abraham from the land of Ur (Modern Iraq) wondering south to the land of Canaan. Genesis 11:31

And for the record: The Lemba don't have this Iraqi/Turkish admixture, so their ancestors must have ALREADY BEEN IN CANAAN!!

posted 14 June 2004 10:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Do I need to define "preposterous" for you?
If I can prove just 1 tribe was there, which I have, this proves blacks were in Canaan.

---

If you're only out to prove that blacks lived inCanaan, fine, no one can argue with that but if you're trying to prove the Canaanites were black you better have some damn good sources...

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]Lemba are maternally African but have significant semitic paternal ancestry the correct observation is that 'semitic' males mixed with Lemba
And those "semitic" males were obviously the Black paternal ancestors of the Buba Clan. Which proves Blacks were in Canaan.
(You're slowly catching on)

Further excerpts from the study conclude:
"The people closest to the Jews from a genetic point of view may be the Kurds, according to results of a new study at the Hebrew University. Scientists who participated in the research said the findings seem to indicate both peoples had common ancestors who lived in the northern half of the fertile crescent, where northern Iraq and Turkey are today. Some of them, it is assumed, wandered south in pre-historic times and settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=96990

My,my,my, is this not consistent with the Biblical account of Abraham from the land of Ur (Modern Iraq) wondering south to the land of Canaan. Genesis 11:31

And for the record: The Lemba don't have this Iraqi/Turkish admixture, so their ancestors must have ALREADY BEEN IN CANAAN!!

[/B]

---

Your arguments are completely flawed because you're relying too much on inconclusive and non-scientific information. Do you take the Bible literally? I hope not because it's not meant to be taken literally. Many things mentioned in the Bible are inconsistant with archaeology and history.

I have a lot of problems with making conclusions based on DNA results. DNA is not a reliable substitute for anthropological evidence. For example, your link above says Jews and Kurds have a common ancestry yet you yourself admit that Jews have mixed with indigenous populations wherever they roamed. Based on this fact, half of the people in the Western world could share a common ancestry with Jews. Due to the fact that Jews have been extremly migrant over the past few millenia and have a pretty diverse cocktail of genotypes and phenotypes, I think it's impossible to trace their origins based on DNA alone.

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 June 2004).]

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 June 2004).]

posted 14 June 2004 01:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

You still have not proven that Canaanites were black. Some of those dubbed as Asiatics and Semitic were of Syro-Palestinian origin(Canaanites, Phoenicians). These people were Semitic speakers, not Hamitic speakers.

---

Canaan was situated at the confluence of the two major continents of Africa and Asia. It has been a territory that has been disputed by diverse peoples from its inception. Today, it is being contested by Palestinians and Israelis. The christian bible (bible means a library or collection of books, and is an important historical reference source) tells us that the original inhabitants were the descendants of Ham (ie, Africans). This can be placed to at least 7000 bc where there is evidence of neolithic settlements. It subsequently fell under the control of the Amorites, the Israelites, the Philistines, and the Phoenicians. Consequently, there is no such absolute as a "Canaanite." Is there anything about this that you don't understand?

A) I also asked you to define the Hausa term "Sabon Gari" and you merely told me what I already knew, that it's where non-Hausa Africans lived in Hausaland. My own understanding is that it literally means "strangers quarters" which I think helps corroborate my interpretation of the Egyptian word "Nahas" to mean "strangers, or barbarians" and is an African convention of one African people labeling other Africans.

posted 14 June 2004 04:18 PM            

Rather you believe in evolution or creation is up to you, but most evolution theories are based on just that "theories", until proven as scientific facts. And many of those can also be deemed inconclusive, since there is ALWAYS disagreement between how evidence is interpreted by different scientists.

Originally posted by neo*geo
DNA is not a reliable substitute for anthropological evidence.
This makes absolutely no sense, since anthropologist rely heavily on DNA samples extracted from skeletons, and further there are 3 areas of anthropology, Genetic Anthropolgy, Physical Anthropology, and Cultural Anthropology, and each area study human origins from different angles. So DNA is not a substitute for Anthropology, its a part of anthropology.

Originally posted by Neo*Geo
Due to the fact that Jews have been extremly migrant over the past few millenia and have a pretty diverse cocktail of genotypes and phenotypes, I think it's impossible to trace their origins based on DNA alone.
This is the most absurd statement that you've made yet. Do you think a skeleton could tell you if a person is Jewish, of course not. DNA so far has been the ONLY reliable source to distinguish Jewish populations from non-jewish populations, as the CMH gene that I have been referring to all this time, is not found in all the populations they settled among. DNA is one of the most reliable sources in the scientific community in identifying people.
Its like our biological fingerprints.

posted 14 June 2004 04:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally osted by Neo*geo
[b]If you're only out to prove that blacks lived inCanaan, fine, no one can argue with that but if you're trying to prove the Canaanites were black you better have some damn good sources
These sources are based on historical accounts of people that were living during those periods, and written on scrolls. As Wally just pointed out, the Bible is a collection of books, some of the accounts can be interpreted literally, some not. [/B]

---

So are you or are you not trying to conclude the Canaanites were black? And what sources support your argument?

As I pointed out, much of the bible was written long after certain events were supposed to have happened. How was a Jewish scholar in the 8th century BC supposed to give an accurate description of what the world was like 1-6000 years earlier with only oral history?

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

So DNA is not a substitute for Anthropology, its a part of anthropology.

---

Exactly. It's not the only part of anthropology and no scientific conclusion should rely on DNA alone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Originally posted by Neo*Geo
[b]Due to the fact that Jews have been extremly migrant over the past few millenia and have a pretty diverse cocktail of genotypes and phenotypes, I think it's impossible to trace their origins based on DNA alone.
This is the most absurd statement that you've made yet. Do you think a skeleton could tell you if a person is Jewish, of course not. DNA so far has been the ONLY reliable source to distinguish Jewish populations from non-jewish populations, as the CMH gene that I have been referring to all this time, is not found in all the populations they settled among. [/B]

---

This is a false misconception because the gene is also carried in non-Jewish Arabs. It isnt exclusive to Jews.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

DNA is one of the most reliable sources in the scientific community in identifying people.
Its like our biological fingerprints.

---

I agree but DNA, history, and the bible don't mix well. You can't always use DNA to draw large scale historical conclusions. Now short scale conclusions may be made like family and tribal relationships, or individual genetic ancestry.

posted 14 June 2004 08:44 PM            

First and for most I agree with most of what you have brought to the table up to this point but then there are something that Mohommad has brought that brings out questions.

I myself am an ""African American so when I ask this question I'm asking trying to learn.

I have heard of a Semetic race but know that Semetic is a modern day creation of a word. The word Shem is the correct word or is it?

From my understanding the ancient Israelites didn't use such vowels as 'E' or 'O' which left room for only 'I' and 'A'. If this is true (as I said I'm still learning) then that would render the name Shem to Sham. This word can also be translated to mean to different words such as 'Ham' taking away the S or 'Shama' adding the A.

The point and question that I'm asking is did someone add the name Shem to the bible when in fact the name shem could have been Sham, knowing that the ancient Hebrews didn't use vowels like 'E'?

Secondly, thoughout the couse of Hebrew history they were amongst the Egyptians starting with Arabham who came from the city of Ur (there was no such city named Ur in the time of Abraham so the correct would be Sumer 'the blackheaded people'). From that point Abraham lived with the Egyptians pretty much his whole life.

When you start talking about color I kind of have to asked what is the difference between a Shamite and a Hamite when talking about skin-color? I believe that the ancient Ishmaelites were extremely dark people but got involved in the race mixing with the Grecians and other people alike.

Example the ancient Elamites were black as they come and in many cases its still the same way. The ancient Persians which is supposed to be of the Shamite group was another black people which heritage have been conquored and taken over by white men, giving the illusion that ancient persians were white.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Immortals1.jpg

I'm not the best writer in the world as you can see but I do question what is the diffence between the colors of the Shamites and the Hamites in general? Where thy the Hebrews and Egyptians the same people as Moses is sometimes considered to be Akhenaton(en) or simply put are there part of the bible that have been tampered with by the racist white groups?

------------------
"No man ever became wise by chance".

posted 14 June 2004 08:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RU2religious:
This is my first time posting on this site but I do have a question for you Wally.

First and for most I agree with most of what you have brought to the table up to this point but then there are something that Mohommad has brought that brings out questions.

I myself am an ""African American so when I ask this question I'm asking trying to learn.

I have heard of a Semetic race but know that Semetic is a modern day creation of a word. The word Shem is the correct word or is it?

From my understanding the ancient Israelites didn't use such vowels as 'E' or 'O' which left room for only 'I' and 'A'. If this is true (as I said I'm still learning) then that would render the name Shem to Sham. This word can also be translated to mean to different words such as 'Ham' taking away the S or 'Shama' adding the A.

The point and question that I'm asking is did someone add the name Shem to the bible when in fact the name shem could have been Sham, knowing that the ancient Hebrews didn't use vowels like 'E'?

Secondly, thoughout the couse of Hebrew history they were amongst the Egyptians starting with Arabham who came from the city of Ur (there was no such city named Ur in the time of Abraham so the correct would be Sumer 'the blackheaded people'). From that point Abraham lived with the Egyptians pretty much his whole life.

When you start talking about color I kind of have to asked what is the difference between a Shamite and a Hamite when talking about skin-color? I believe that the ancient Ishmaelites were extremely dark people but got involved in the race mixing with the Grecians and other people alike.

Example the ancient Elamites were black as they come and in many cases its still the same way. The ancient Persians which is supposed to be of the Shamite group was another black people which heritage have been conquored and taken over by white men, giving the illusion that ancient persians were white.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Immortals1.jpg

I'm not the best writer in the world as you can see but I do question what is the diffence between the colors of the Shamites and the Hamites in general? Where thy the Hebrews and Egyptians the same people as Moses is sometimes considered to be Akhenaton(en) or simply put are there part of the bible that have been tampered with by the racist white groups?

---

I almost forgot that they are performing these DNA test based off of the blood of these European Jews. That is a terrible thing to do when these European jews are converts to a religion. What this DNA test simply proves is that some of these Jews have African Blood but it doesn't prove that they are the Israelites of the bible.

Author Keostler gave a comprehensive background these people proclaiming to be Israelites when they have no genetic connection to the ancient Israelites.

These current day white Jews are conquers and have proclaimed this land as their own but they are Turks in ancestry from The Khazar Empire. 95% of the modern day jews have no like what so ever to ancient Israelites.

http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/

posted 14 June 2004 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Well there are dashes of sub-Saharan DNA in Middle Easterners. As I quoted before the Palestinians have 15% sub-Saharan mtDNA. It varies according to which population you're speaking of. It is generally higher and even substanial in places like Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In Syrians and Lebanese, it is very low to negligible. The best ones to test would be the Bedouin, who are darker skinned and relatively unmixed. That would at least provide a baseline to go off of.

European jews do show some trace of sub-Saharan ancestry but it is too, very low to negligible. It could very well b from Nubians, that I am unable to elaborate on.

If blacks were indeed the original inhabitants of Canaan, there would be some hard evidence in the way of anthropology and as far as I know there isn't enough evidence to support the notion of an indigenous black population in Caanan. Wally should best stick to Egypt and Africa and quit trying to use the Bible to prove his theories.

---

DNA coming from these white Europeans have nothing to do with then ancient Israelites. Secondly, why have you placed black people in this small box? Are we only to have on form of DNA? Are we only to have big lips, broad nose, curly hair?

You need to wake up and small the coffee because I'm a black man and don't have any of the features that is described above. Skeletons that doesn't hold black features. That is the most ignorant thing that I thinkk I have ever heard. If you not from America, you need to look at the blacks over here because millions of us do not carry "" African features but we have the skin color. How can you tell what skin color a man is if his skull have no skin on it? The shape of it? LOL man you need some serious help.