quote:Originally posted by kresge:
I have not read this book, but with what is given here, I have some linguistic and philological concerns.
Firstly, I believe that European languages belong to one family group (Indo-European) and Hebrew another (Semitic).
I've read this book, and others on linguistics associating West/East African(Nile Valley origins) and Biblical as well as Greek and Latin.... There are some who think that the 'semetic' linguistic language grouping is nothing but a racist term created and used byt the Western Education system to disguise and remove the African base/link to the so-called Semetic speaking peoples, they have re-termed it Afro-semetic designating it's origin. I'm refferencing Cheik Anti Diop and Dr. Ben.
quote:Secondly, why is the comparison being done with the Latinized form of these names instead of the Hebrew.
Good question. The author doesn't adress it...of course.
quote:Why is he trying to associate the Bible with Ghana/Akan. There is ample evidence that shows the East African influence in the Biblical tradition as one would expect. Coptic, Ethiopic, are also Semitic languages, there is the geographical proximity, direct references to East African peoples, etc. The Ghanaian connection seems a bit of a reach.
Becuase, once again we have a person of West African heritage(much like Africans born in the Amerkkkas so often do) that wants to validate the fact they are dealing with the X-tian/Biblical tradition and not their OWN, by associating it with their direct ancestors traditions, when there is little, to know, association.
quote:Also, what I know of the myths of the Akan are quite different than those of the Near East/North East Africa. One would think that linguistic and philological connections would be associated with social, cultural connections.
He actually does try to associate cultural connections. But what is missing is the association of cultural similarities that are similar all over Africa in general. And since the Hebrew plagerisms were directly copied from East African mythos...then yes...of course there are similarities.
This author doesn't deal with the Nile Valley civilizations and the similarities with the much earlier mythos of the Ausar/Osiris, Auset/Isis, Heru/Horus mythos nad the Biblical. IMO he doesn't do this , not because he is ignorant of the Nile Valley origins to Judaism and X-tianity, but because he does not want to deal with the fact that the possible cultural similarities between Akan/Asante and other West African(Yoruba) ect. cultures and the Hebrew one is a Nile Valley pre-Biblical one.
He still must validate his beliefs by associating them with the Bible...rather that dealing with the African origins of the Bible....IMO this is doing the readers a great disservice...I wonder who paid him to skip the Nile Valley/KMT/Egypt-Sudan-Ethiopian(Ta Merry/Ta Seti) and Great Lakes region pre-Biblical connection altogether. It was so glaringly obvious an ommission. It makes him suspect IMO.
Here is some food for thought. The word Amose is actually Moshe/Mose...
If you look into Egyptian linguistics. Amos/Moses/Mose/Moshe is a commen name of several Pharopahs...Notice how all the Egyptian Pharoahs in the Helio Bibleo have no name...Yet Moses was "Learned in all the ways of Egypt".
'He'(I don't think he existed) came up with 'his' religion in the Hebrew mythos only after being raised and educated in Egypt...
Is that a coincidence?
I think you should check out this books.
African Origins of the Major "Western Religions"
By Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan
Published by Black Classic Press (1970)
I think you will like it.