Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
They make this distinction themselves, and so do the Africans they distinguish themselves from. It's hard for us to see this when we are outside the African fishbowl, but honestly, the Ethiopian/Somali ect. people don't have much of a better attitude towards their fellow Africans than the Northern Sudanese and Janjaweed you mentioned... The Northern Sudanese are just the most recent epoch of Asiatic admixture and subsequent patriarchal cultural proclivity, but it's been happenning for millenia. The Ethiopian and Somali people CLEARLY identify with their patrilineal culture/worldview.


You are confusing the 'Ethiopian Hebrews' with the Arabic admixed Ethiopians and Sudanese who's hatred for Africans we are all familar with.


No I'm not. The Beta Israel are of the same admixed phenotype as their Arab and Orthodox X-ian brethren... They do not look like the Oromo, the indigenous Nilots that are the makority in Ethiopia, and that scientists have proven are the people the Asiatics mixed with creating the other populations of Ethiopia.

[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\WDYNCLAJ[/IMG]


I believe we are talking about two different time lines here, maybe this will help clarify....The Beta Israel are admixed with Arabs along with their Orthodox X-ian brethren because when Ethiopia was invaded by Arabs (particularly in the 6th century A.D. with the spread of Islam) The Arab invaders intermixed with MANY Ethiopians including the ones who considered themselves to be Hebrew. Some Beta believe that as expressed in the Kebra Nagast they are descended from King Solomon which dates back to 950 B.C. over 1500 years before the Arab invasions.

The whole reason this belief system of the Beta Israel came about was because it's based on their historic record of Queen Makeda'si.e., the Queen of Sheba's interaction with King Solomon. Which also happens to be recorded in the Bible (you know the book you keep blowing off as a fairytale with no accurate historical accounts in it) They believe That Queen Makeda after hearing of Solomon's vast wisdom and wealth wanted to see it for herself. Upon meeting him she was so impressed that she declared "From this moment I will not worship the sun, but will worship the Creator of the sun, the God of Israel."[i] They also believe that she had a son with Solomon by the name of [i]Menelik who allegelly brought the Ark of the covenant with him back to Ethiopia.

Other Beta Israel accounts of how they became Hebrews state that they are descendants of the tribe of Dan (one of the twelve tribes of Israel) who settled in Ethiopia after leaving Israel. There are other accounts as well....what they all have in common is that NONE describe becoming Hebrews because of some "Asiatic Invasion".

The original Ethiopians during the time of the Kingdom of Kush were BLACK just like the ancient Hebrews...the "admixture" that you are referring to came MUCH later most notably during the Arab invasions of the 6th century A.D. as I mentioned...this is the reason why they look mixed with 'Asiatic peoples' with lighter skin and curly hair today...as you mentioned.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Moreover, you seem to be describing patriarchal cultural proclivity as something intrinsically bad what's up with that?...


Cuz it is... particuarly when it comes to religious doctrine. Any spiritual system/religion that demonizes, demotes, or removes the devine/sacred feminine is imbalanced. I'll have to direct you to other threads where this has been discussed because it deserves a seperate convo...


Not all societies with a patriarchal cultural and spiritual proclivity demonizes or removes the feminine. I believe you are extrapolating only the most extreme examples of patriarchal cultures (such as radical Islamist/Talaban /Sharia law type regimes)onto the concept patriarchy itself.

In many patriarchal societies women had prominent roles and I can prove this... although I agree that this should be discussed in a separtate conversation.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
when it's not. The reason things are the way they are in eastern Africa is because the Arabic invaders and enslavers (Solely Men) allowed the children they produced with African women to be free. So of course they are going side with them over their mothers people....similar to how many mulatto AA's chose to identify with the dominate white culture here.


That's part of it, but their were many invasions prior to the Arabs. That's historic fact.


No one is disputing that but were those prior invaders Semites? By the way the Arabs are ONLY 'Semitic' because they come from the Abrahamic line of Ismael who was BLACK The ancient Arabs were too... but only changed due to the "Asiatic admixture" that you keep referring to. Although they kept the original Semetic culture just what the Ashkenazi Jews did with Hebrew culture.

Besides as I said above the question is with respect to TIME FRAME did Africans develop the Semitic culture FIRST which was later only hijacked by Ashkenazis and Asiatics who currently call themselves "Jews" and "Arabs". Or did the Ashkenazis and Asiatics develop these cultures independent of Africans and then turn around and impose it on Africans. If you believe that the Africans were the first civilized people then there should be no question that the answer is the former.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The 'Semetic' Beta Israel, like other Semetic and more recently Arabized Africans are the product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners... It is OBVIOUS in their appearance, and in their attitudes towards other Africans...

This is incorrect how can the 'Semetic Beta Israel' be a product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners when both Arabs and Asians mutated from the Prototypical Black of which the FIRST Semite (Shem) who was one.



You are literalizing Biblical myth, so you can see where we would not agree on this. This is simply not accurate. The Beta Israel admit to their admixture with no problem... Inf act, they and most Ethiopians 'brag' about it, and use it as a differentiating marker from other Bantu and Nilotic Africans. Dr. Ben has spoken to this, and I have witnessed it firts hand. The Beta Israel ware called Falasha because of their religion, not phenotype/ethnicity.[/QUOTE]

Let me clarify...The Beta Israel I was referring to in this answer were the ORIGINAL ones. Those Ethiopians who FIRST began to identify as Hebrew they were BLACK and not 'admixed'. Of course the Beta Israel of today are admixed just like many of their Ethiopian brethren due to Arab invasions POST their initial Hebrew tradition. Of course the admixed Beta Israel of TODAY will 'brag' about their admixture today...Because they live under the opressors standards it's no different than the negroes that 'play up' the fact they 'mixed' right here in the states.

Regarding this "literalizing Biblical myth" accusation you keep throwing out...how can you write off Biblical history as purely myth yet quote Dr. Ben (if it's indeed the same Dr. Ben I think you are talking about) who not only acknowledges people from the Bible actually existed... but that they were also BLACK...Like he did with Moses in this excerpt....


As we look back into the history of the Holy Bible, or "HOLY SCRIPTURE AS WRITTEN BY GOD INSPIRED SCRIBES," we seem to forget that all of the BIBLES we use were the works of various writers, both men and women; but mostly men. And that all of the WORKS or BOOKS were compiled into what is today our various VERSIONS of "HOLY BIBLES" or "HOLY SCROLLS." We have also failed to realize that the BIBLES we use today are the result of a period of hundreds of REVISIONS and TRANSLATIONS that cover approximately two thousand four-hundred and ninety-five [2,495] years—from ca. 700 B.C. [BCE] to 1973 A.D. [CE]. Yet all in this period was preceded by much more earlier fundamentals created and developed by indigenous African People. These later on became the basic teachings of Judaism, and then Christianity. For even Moses, the father of the OLD TESTAMENT, was an African who used much of the ancient teachings of his fellow Africans of the Nile River [BLUE and WHITE] and Great Lakes regions Mysteries System of Northeast and Central-East Africa he allegedly passed down to other African Jews that converted them into what later became the PENTATEUCH or OLD TESTAMENT [Five Books Of Moses or Holy Torah].
The very first "BIBLE" or "SCROLL" on record produced by man, with regards to paying honour and divine respect to a "CREATOR OF ALL MANKIND," was that of the African People of the Nile Valley and Great Lakes regions of Central, East and Northeast Africa. They were no different than the Africans we see today in the Harlems and Timbuctoos of the entire world we erroneously call: "NEGROES, COLORED FOLKS" and "BLACK PEOPLE" today. It was called by its African creators and developers...


http://www.africawithin.com/jo...bible_chronology.htm

More on this later...

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
If you don't believe the proof that I provided that shows that 'Semite' is derived from Shem...because you deem it to be 'mythology' then where praytell do you reckon semites hail from?


Earlier invasions from Asia... You seem to only be referencing the Arab invasion, as if the Hyksos and Persians were never invaders at a much earlier epoch... I believe I already explained this in my last post below...


The 'Semetic' African and their myths/culture(Kemetic Root, patriarchal twist from their raping daddies), comes on the scene post Asiatic invasion. Of course they are still phenotypically African(in todays worldview), but the patriarchal monotheistic religion that was birthed by the Habiru, isn't the same type of panentheistic, nature based 'spiritual system' you see in the rest of Africa.


I keep referencing the Arab invasion because they are the only invaders considered to be 'Semitic' and that's what matters within the context of this discussion. I asked you before if you were sure here.....

quote:
Are you sure about this? because the last time I checked king [i]Akhenaten introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa long before any "Asiatic invasion"[/i].


You responded by saying "yes" but you never addressed what I said regarding Akhenaten introducing a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa. This means it was HOMEGROWN and not the result of an "Asiatic Invasion"....Moreover, you posted this link....

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Uhhmmm, the Hyksos? Expelled by Amose 100 yeears after Akenaten's rule(fact), 'Exodus' by Moses... 100 years after Ankenaten's rule. The mythical 'twist' making the Hyksos invaders the Hebrew victims.... hhhmmmm...


Which had NOTHING to do with what I said about Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa....Furthermore, you try to claim that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were the same people when it can easily be proven they were NOT...Even your claim that the Hyksos "invaded" Egypt is dubious and I will post an excerpt from the link YOU posted to back me up....

Was there a Hyksos invasion?

Invasion is probably the wrong word. Manetho's account of the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt describes it as an armed invasion by a horde of foreign barbarians who met little resistance and who subdued the country by military force. A better explanatio is that after the explosion of thera c 1621 BC the number of Mycenean and Minoan refugees increased dramatically. With them came their trading partners, various proto sea peoples who were loosely organized at the level of gene, oinkos and phratre and really incapable of any organized warfare beyond the level of family, crew or tribe. With them came a number of traders, professionals, including professional warriors looking to work for the Egyptians as mercenaries, skilled craftsmen, laborers, accountants, agricultural workers and horsemen.



The main account of this alleged "invasion" came from Manetho's who was a historian who lived during the Ptolemaic era, ca. 3rd century BC over 1300 years after the fact. There is also a good chance that he may have even been of Greek ancestry instead of Egyptian. Yet you are holding his account up to be "historic fact" while dismissing Biblical writting as fairytales.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Literalizing ANYONE'S myth destroys not just the function/purpose of the myth, it makes people literalists idiots and dumbs down the population, creating religious fenaticism, and people who can't think symbolically. Instead of learning the lesson a myth is treaching, be it essoteric, or astrotheological symbolism ect. They go on 'faith' that bush's burned, mwn can live in the stomache of whales, godesses turn into birds, and babies don't 'have to' come from a an egg and sperm...


Are you suggesting that any historic records that contains what some consider 'myths' renders it completely void of any factual events whatsoever?


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I agree, and why is it that only a certain people's myth is historically literalized? You honestly don't find this much outside of the big three Semetic/Abrahamic crowd(and those in the mystic traditions don't literalize).

Would you like to see more of Egypts myth's literalized?...honestly, I think many already are.


I'm not sure why you asked this question. No, I would like to see NO cultures myths literalized... Cuz their function is not to be 'history'... They serve many other wonderful purposes. Please point out a spiritual myth of the Kamau that is taught as literal history in the KeMeTic spiritual teachings... All the practitioners I know despise literalism and historization. Plus KMT kept great historical records seperate from mythos. [/QUOTE]

I asked rhetorically partially because many of the myths of Ancient Egypt have already been recycled and are in heavy rotation...For example the whole christian literalized story about 'Jesus' and 'Mary' is just a rehash of the Egytpian story of Horace, Isis and Osiris. which further underscores my point that African's inspired the worlds religions and not the other way around.

quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I'll put it this way....

"And if one does not INVOCATE from their sacred lips an acknowledgment of the feminine divine how can you say concretely that there is balance?"

Patriarchal god concepts demonize, demote, and/or remove the devine feminine... That is a reflection of patriarchal culture because as Dr. Ben says, "Religion is the deification of culture." You don't see the AMSSIVE difference in cultures who have goddesses and those that onle have 1 exclusively male god? Venerating Expansion(male energy) with no contraction to counter balance it(female energy)... the perfect cultural recipe for empire.


Oh really?, so only Monotheic culures who have male gods created empires? That's funny because the last time I checked most of the ancient worlds empires were formed by civilizations who had 'goddeses' to such as the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Because the Semite is the offspring of the Asian male and the African women. They 1st Hebrew were the Asiatic Hyksos invaders who later were expelled from KeMiT after they had intermixed with the Africans for awhile, borrowing some of their myths to create their 'new' religion, but keeping the invaders cultural proclivity.


From what historical reference are you drawing this statement? cite a credible verifiable source of information to support your claim

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Already did. I guess you don't agree with Dr. Ben and other Afro-centric scholars that Biblical scribes INVENTED Hebrew history. I don't overstand why you think it is accurate or logical to base any historical fact on Biblical(read mythical) psuedo lineages.


What you have commited here is a logical fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority' agrument....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ...

Saying something is true just because Dr. Ben said so is not good enough....As I said before unless you can cite a source that is as ancient and detailed as the Biblical account that also has as much corroborating and circumstanstial evidence. I can only deem these statements as conjecture which gives me no reason to disregard the Biblical account.

If you cannot cite your OWN sources then cite the good doctors sources (which may still be the Bible if like I said it's the same Dr)...but simply saying "because he said so" is not good enough.




quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Have you read this book?


101 Myths of the Bible:How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History

I read throught it and many books like it...

quote:
By the way since we have hi jacked this topic (like these false Jews have done our Hebrew culture) I'm going to leave you with a couple reference books that will help break this down further for you. You should first read "The Hebrew Heritage of Black Africa" by Moses Farrar & Steven Jacobs then read "The Truth About Black Biblical Hebrew Israelites" by Ella J. Hughley.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Been there done that. Literalists they are.


Does this mean you've read the books? because if so you would know that they base most of their research on showing the correlations between current African tribes and the Hebrews....such as the fact that many practices and words in the Ashanti culture are strikingly simlar to Hebrew.

For example the word Obayifo means "witch" and is derived from Obayen and the name for God is pronounced Yame similar to Hebrew Yawe. They show ultimately that the Hebrew were actually the parent stock from which the Ashanti emerged.


quote:
This will help you broaden your perspective a little more about this. I know you mean well which is why I feel compelled to share this information plus I know that there are those reading this thread that are highly interested in this subject. Although, like I said this may not be the thread to do it so either I will touch on this in my other thread or I may create a new one on this topic. You are welcome to continue this discussion with me at that point although I would prefer if you read the books first if you don't mind.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I'd have to review them... but I won't cuz it's literalism. I won't deal with literalism period. I suggest you read the book I provided. I will make a list of others.


Mighty courteous of you to write off the books I refered you to as "literalism" without even having seen them...Yet you want me to read the book you suggested with the promise of more to come...
"In a world where lies have become accepted as fact..The truth when finally heard burns like a flame of fire" "It is irrational to want that which is not God's will, so attune thyself with thy inner Nature and live happily."
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
I believe we are talking about two different time lines here, maybe this will help clarify....


No we are not.

quote:
The Beta Israel are admixed with Arabs along with their Orthodox X-ian brethren because when Ethiopia was invaded by Arabs (particularly in the 6th century A.D. with the spread of Islam) The Arab invaders intermixed with MANY Ethiopians including the ones who considered themselves to be Hebrew.


Yes...

quote:
Some Beta believe that as expressed in the Kebra Nagast they are descended from King Solomon which dates back to 950 B.C. over 1500 years before the Arab invasions.


Actually, that's Ethiopians in general.

quote:
The whole reason this belief system of the Beta Israel came about was because it's based on their historic record of Queen Makeda'si.e., the Queen of Sheba's interaction with King Solomon.


I'm beyond familiar with this, it's also in the Qur'an. Did you know most scholars see this as an allegorical tale representing the introduction of patriarchy into Africa? The historical Queens of Ethiopia(Candaces) were replaced by the Kingship from the Solomonic lines(in the allegory).

quote:
Which also happens to be recorded in the Bible (you know the book you keep blowing off as a fairytale with no accurate historical accounts in it)


Like I stated. It's also in the Qur'an, where Sheba is a goat footed demon... Just because myths/legends surrounding ancestors(a common theme among Africasn and any/all cultures who deify ancestors) show up in more than one Abrahamic writ, doesn't mean they are supposed to be historicized. That is not the PURPOSE that stories like this serve.

quote:
They believe That Queen Makeda after hearing of Solomon's vast wisdom and wealth wanted to see it for herself. Upon meeting him she was so impressed that she declared "From this moment I will not worship the sun, but will worship the Creator of the sun, the God of Israel." They also believe that she had a son with Solomon by the name of Menelik who allegelly brought the Ark of the covenant with him back to Ethiopia.


I know all about this... Honestly, you may want to skim through this section to be a little better aware of the base I'm coming from. I don't want you to waste my or your time arguing subject matter already discussed to death on here...

quote:
Other Beta Israel accounts of how they became Hebrews state that they are descendants of the tribe of Dan (one of the twelve tribes of Israel) who settled in Ethiopia after leaving Israel.


Do you realize that the 12 tribes of Israel are an allegory to the 12 signs of the Zodiac?

quote:
There are other accounts as well....what they all have in common is that NONE describe becoming Hebrews because of some "Asiatic Invasion".


You do realize that Ethiopians depict the Hebrews and X-ians that came to 'bring' said religions as non-African? I know some personally, and have seen the old textiles and drawings, and they describe their modern phenotype as being a result of Solomon's admixture, in other words, they do not think of Solomon as phenotypically African. Not that I completely agree with this or take it as literal history. I'm just relaying the info...

The Hyksos, that were expelled from KMT after being in KMT for hundreds of years and multiplying would have taken on an African pheontype while retaining some Asiatic cultural proclivity... Which is what I was referring to as the origin of the Habiru, so really, all the above history is neither here nor there when it comes to what we have been discussing...

quote:
The original Ethiopians during the time of the Kingdom of Kush were BLACK just like the ancient Hebrews...the "admixture" that you are referring to came MUCH later most notably during the Arab invasions of the 6th century A.D. as I mentioned...this is the reason why they look mixed with 'Asiatic peoples' with lighter skin and curly hair today...as you mentioned.


Now your are confusing times... Kush(Medewi/Meroe & Aksum) wasn't Hebrew prior to the where King Solomon 'converted' Queen Sheba... The writings on the Tekenu/Oblisks at the height of this empire are pre-Judaic and "pagan"(traditional). So what does this have to do with the Hebrews being Black?


quote:

In many patriarchal societies women had prominent roles and I can prove this... although I agree that this should be discussed in a separtate conversation.


Yes, just like Amerikkka... is that supposed to indicate spiritual/cultural 'balance'?

quote:
No one is disputing that but were those prior invaders Semites?


I'm stating that the Hyksos combined with the Africans of KMT is the origin of 'the Semite'.

quote:
By the way the Arabs are ONLY 'Semitic' because they come from the Abrahamic line of Ismael who was BLACK The ancient Arabs were too...


'Semetic' is a linguistic classification.

quote:
but only changed due to the "Asiatic admixture" that you keep referring to. Although they kept the original Semetic culture just what the Ashkenazi Jews did with Hebrew culture.


The Semetic culture isn't 'original'. That's my point. It's late on the scene and as I showed in my past posts, it coincides simultaneously(and supposedly coincidentally) with the Hyksos invasion and expulsion.

quote:
Besides as I said above the question is with respect to TIME FRAME did Africans develop the Semitic culture FIRST which was later only hijacked by Ashkenazis and Asiatics who currently call themselves "Jews" and "Arabs".


Semetic culture is the result of Hyksos coming into Africa(KMT) Intermixing with the Africans, taking one some of the KeMeTic myths and culture, while retaining Asiatic cultural proclivity. Then they were expelled into Canaan.

quote:
Or did the Ashkenazis and Asiatics develop these cultures independent of Africans and then turn around and impose it on Africans. If you believe that the Africans were the first civilized people then there should be no question that the answer is the former.


The Askenazi's aren't even part of what we are talking about. The Khazar empire that converted to Judaism is their origin. Abrahamic religious 'origin' has nothing to do with them, and 'civilized' has nothing to do with Abrahamic religion or monotheism. Is there a reason you aren't dealing with the KeMeTic base that the Hebrew religion is obviously based on(but varies from in such telling and overt ways)?

quote:
Let me clarify...The Beta Israel I was referring to in this answer were the ORIGINAL ones. Those Ethiopians who FIRST began to identify as Hebrew they were BLACK and not 'admixed'.


Are you sure that is what 'they' claim? I understand that from our Afro-centric scholars and studying the Kebra negast ect. sometimes there is a disconnect between what we project upon a people and what they actually believe. Like I stated, the Ethiopians in general say that their phenotypoe is a result of 'Asiatic' Solomonic admixture as well as the Arab invasion. They do not depict Solomon as an African in some of their oldest art.

Also, what were they before they were Hebrew? ANd why do we not deal with that? There is an obvious reason why we focus on the Abrahamic/Semetic stuff... Particualrly when it wasn't the dominant theme during what is deamed as the 'height' of that area...

quote:
Of course the Beta Israel of today are admixed just like many of their Ethiopian brethren due to Arab invasions POST their initial Hebrew tradition.


They weren't initially 'Hebrew', that came much later.

quote:
Of course the admixed Beta Israel of TODAY will 'brag' about their admixture today...Because they live under the opressors standards it's no different than the negroes that 'play up' the fact they 'mixed' right here in the states.


It is different, because their own old art portrays Solomon as 'different' and Asiatic in appearance, and this was long before the current world order.

quote:
Regarding this "literalizing Biblical myth" accusation you keep throwing out...how can you write off Biblical history as purely myth yet quote Dr. Ben (if it's indeed the same Dr. Ben I think you are talking about) who not only acknowledges people from the Bible actually existed... but that they were also BLACK...Like he did with Moses in this excerpt....


Dr. Ben renounces his Hebrew 'identity', and says it's a late on the scene newcomer religion that suppresses the devine feminine. He has developed since he wrote many of his books.

quote:
As we look back into the history of the Holy Bible, or "HOLY SCRIPTURE AS WRITTEN BY GOD INSPIRED SCRIBES," we seem to forget that all of the BIBLES we use were the works of various writers,


And the Helio Biblio(sun book) is an Astrotheological literary hybrid of many cultures pre-existing myths which were not presented as historical record by the people who originated them, so what gives?

Much of the 'Hebrew history' you are literalizing was invented and based on KeMeTic myth and history, check the 101 myths of the Bible book for clarity on this...

quote:
both men and women; but mostly men. And that all of the WORKS or BOOKS were compiled into what is today our various VERSIONS of "HOLY BIBLES" or "HOLY SCROLLS." We have also failed to realize that the BIBLES we use today are the result of a period of hundreds of REVISIONS and TRANSLATIONS that cover approximately two thousand four-hundred and ninety-five [2,495] years—from ca. 700 B.C. [BCE] to 1973 A.D. [CE].


Nah, nobody is failing to realize that it's been edited, revised, and mistranslated for centuries for different political purposes... I'm just trying to figure out why anyone who knows this would take anything in it literally.

quote:
Yet all in this period was preceded by much more earlier fundamentals created and developed by indigenous African People. These later on became the basic teachings of Judaism, and then Christianity.


Nobody is arguing that the Ausar/Auset/Heru, Tehuti, ect. and other fundamentals are African. I have a question for you... The way the borrowed stories of the helio biblio were written and compiled in some of it's oldest forms, the Hebrew culture seems to demonize the woman, and have no Goddess' present... yet the cultures it is based on have no issue the devine feminine... I find that interesting... Why the 'change'?

Did you read the book I referenced... 101 Myths of the Bible? I highly suggest it. Until you do, you really won't know what I'm talking about. BTW, why is 'Holy script' given a precidence over oral culture? Hmmmm...

quote:
For even Moses, the father of the OLD TESTAMENT, was an African who used much of the ancient teachings of his fellow Africans of the Nile River [BLUE and WHITE] and Great Lakes regions Mysteries System of Northeast and Central-East Africa


Moses/Moshe/Musa is a commen pharonic title, so which one was Moses? I gave you a clue earlier...The fictional Moses myth in the helio biblio was patterned after the Tehuti(essence/energy/consciousness of wisdom and knowledge) myth.

quote:
he allegedly passed down to other African Jews that converted them into what later became the PENTATEUCH or OLD TESTAMENT [Five Books Of Moses or Holy Torah].
The very first "BIBLE" or "SCROLL" on record produced by man, with regards to paying honour and divine respect to a "CREATOR OF ALL MANKIND," was that of the African People of the Nile Valley and Great Lakes regions of Central, East and Northeast Africa. They were no different than the Africans we see today in the Harlems and Timbuctoos of the entire world we erroneously call: "NEGROES, COLORED FOLKS" and "BLACK PEOPLE" today. It was called by its African creators and developers...


I realize that these are Ben's words, but like I stated, he has developed certain ideologies he did not have during the writings of "Blackman of the Nile and his Fmaily" and "We the Black Jews", I realize you may be unfamiliar with this aspect of him, but some of the questions I posed to you above, were the ones he has answered... We are supposed to grow on the foundations our ancestors laid down, not remain stagnent in academic dogma.

quote:
More on this later...


No need. Read all his books. You have been imparting no new information. I was once at the same ideological stage that you are currently.

quote:
I keep referencing the Arab invasion because they are the only invaders considered to be 'Semitic' and that's what matters within the context of this discussion. I asked you before if you were sure here.....


I dealt with theis earlier. You aren't dealing with the brith of the Semetic culture... How it 'developed and came on the scene'... Do you think it just magically appeared? That for no apparent reason the KeMeTic base was turned into a Goddessless monotheism, exlusively venerating only one Canaanite power of nature that symbolized War and Volcanoes? What happenned to the other powers of nature in KMT and Canaan? Where did this monotheism spring from? Why was the femenine demoted, masked, or demonized(if not completely removed)?

quote:
quote:
Are you sure about this? because the last time I checked king [i]Akhenaten introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa long before any "Asiatic invasion"[/i].


You responded by saying "yes" but you never addressed what I said regarding Akhenaten introducing a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa. This means it was HOMEGROWN and not the result of an "Asiatic Invasion"....Moreover, you posted this link....


The hyksos were already there... Per Dr. Ben, Ankenaten's wife was also Asiatic.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Uhhmmm, the Hyksos? Expelled by Amose 100 yeears after Akenaten's rule(fact), 'Exodus' by Moses... 100 years after Ankenaten's rule. The mythical 'twist' making the Hyksos invaders the Hebrew victims.... hhhmmmm...


Which had NOTHING to do with what I said about Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa...


Why not, cuz you say it doesn't?

quote:
Furthermore, you try to claim that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were the same people when it can easily be proven they were NOT...


Nope, I said the Hebrews are a result of the Hyksos intermixing with the Kamau...

quote:
Even your claim that the Hyksos "invaded" Egypt is dubious and I will post an excerpt from the link YOU posted to back me up....


Rally, Dr. Ben and many others have documented it QUITE well. In their(the Kamau) own stella, the Hyksos are DRAWN and referred to as Asiatic foreigners who usurped the crown...

quote:
Invasion is probably the wrong word. Manetho's account of the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt describes it as an armed invasion by a horde of foreign barbarians who met little resistance and who subdued the country by military force. A better explanatio is that after the explosion of thera c 1621 BC the number of Mycenean and Minoan refugees increased dramatically. With them came their trading partners, various proto sea peoples who were loosely organized at the level of gene, oinkos and phratre and really incapable of any organized warfare beyond the level of family, crew or tribe. With them came a number of traders, professionals, including professional warriors looking to work for the Egyptians as mercenaries, skilled craftsmen, laborers, accountants, agricultural workers and horsemen.

The main account of this alleged "invasion" came from Manetho's who was a historian who lived during the Ptolemaic era, ca. 3rd century BC over 1300 years after the fact. There is also a good chance that he may have even been of Greek ancestry instead of Egyptian. Yet you are holding his account up to be "historic fact" while dismissing Biblical writting as fairytales.


Euro-historical twist(not surprising on wiki)... I thought you would have scene right through that like anyone who has ever studied our great master teachers about KMT. Have you read Dr. Ben? He supports my premise...

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Literalizing ANYONE'S myth destroys not just the function/purpose of the myth, it makes people literalists idiots and dumbs down the population, creating religious fenaticism, and people who can't think symbolically. Instead of learning the lesson a myth is treaching, be it essoteric, or astrotheological symbolism ect. They go on 'faith' that bush's burned, mwn can live in the stomache of whales, godesses turn into birds, and babies don't 'have to' come from a an egg and sperm...


Are you suggesting that any historic records that contains what some consider 'myths' renders it completely void of any factual events whatsoever?
[/quote]

I'm saying that the entire purpose of myth isn't to support history, they serve an entirely different function, and to historicize them is folly.

quote:
I asked rhetorically partially because many of the myths of Ancient Egypt have already been recycled and are in heavy rotation...


Hence the original and the latter version AREN'T HISTORY... How can you take an something written as an allegory of natural phenomenen(internal or external) and use it's latter 'version' as history? That doesn't make sense...

quote:
For example the whole christian literalized story about 'Jesus' and 'Mary' is just a rehash of the Egytpian story of Horace, Isis and Osiris.


Actually that's Ausar, Auset, and Heru...

quote:
Which further underscores my point that African's inspired the worlds religions and not the other way around.


It also further underscores my point that taking borrowed myths as literal history is folly. That's what the X-ians did. Borrow an allegory of the procession of the SUN(not son) and literalized it. You did know that the Ausarian 'mystery' is an astrotheological myth/allegory that has been anthropomorphized right? So how could it simultaneously be history? You gotta pick one or the other... It can symbolize the assent and ressurection of the Sun, which also can be symbolic of the path to enlightenment, or it's the literal history of ALL the 16 crucified saviors... It can't be both. That's not logical.

quote:
Oh really?, so only Monotheic culures who have male gods created empires? That's funny because the last time I checked most of the ancient worlds empires were formed by civilizations who had 'goddeses' to such as the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans.


The Abrahamic cultures are the most successful at empire building for a reason. The others you mentioned above are Asiatic and patriarchal no?

quote:
From what historical reference are you drawing this statement? cite a credible verifiable source of information to support your claim


Dr. Ben is one, I'll have to look in my books to remember exactly what other references I have.. This may take a while... This is a lot of info I read about 10 years ago...

While I'm at it, can you use something besides the Bible or other related and even more recently written/compiled 'Holy' scripts to verify Noah(or was that Ut-Napishtim from the Gilgamesh epic) was a historical figure... and Moses, ect?

quote:
What you have commited here is a logical fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority' agrument....


But you just quoted (old) Dr. Ben, and keep quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, logical fallacy indeed.


quote:
Saying something is true just because Dr. Ben said so is not good enough....


Then why did you do it? With Dr. Ben AND the Bible, of all things...

quote:
As I said before unless you can cite a source that is as ancient and detailed as the Biblical account that also has as much corroborating and circumstanstial evidence. I can only deem these statements as conjecture which gives me no reason to disregard the Biblical account.


So do you apply this to your own, "The Bible and it's offshoots prove the Bible" logic? You claim to be be fully aware of the KeMeTic origins of the Bible, they clearly prove that myths of the Bible pre-existed are just that, myths. They cannot be literal history of a later Hebre people, borrowed from earlier accounts of other cultures... that doesn't make sense. Please explain how literalism works 'simultaneously' with these admitted FACTS.

quote:
If you cannot cite your OWN sources then cite the good doctors sources (which may still be the Bible if like I said it's the same Dr)...but simply saying "because he said so" is not good enough.


I mentioned 2 above, and the "African Origins of Major Western Religions" is another... He sights the papyrus of Ani/Anu(and so do I). You said you are familiar with the Ausarian mysteries and African origins of Judaism/Islam/X-ianity, so you should be familiar with what disqualifies Hebrew myth as historical. You should also be somewhat familiar with KeMeTic shistory then also. It is also virtually impossible to study one and skip the other...

I also like Geral Massey's: "Ancient Egypt the Light of the World", and "Natural Genesis".

quote:
I read through it and many books like it...


So then how can you disreguard the Egyptian history and myths that were obviously turned into 'invented' Hebrew history(a.k.a plagerized and turned into another people's literal history that happened at another time in another place) That book layed them right next to each other on opposite pages for comparrison, there is little no wiggle room whatsoever. BTW, there aren't many books like it...

quote:
Does this mean you've read the books? because if so you would know that they base most of their research on showing the correlations between current African tribes and the Hebrews....such as the fact that many practices and words in the Ashanti culture are strikingly simlar to Hebrew.


Yep, been there done that. My studies have come to a different conclusion, that KMT is the middle man, not the Hebrew. The people of West Africa have oral traditions that Nile Valley preists migrated to West and Central Africa(in one of the many African migrations) including the Yoruba, which is the path I follow, hence the similarities... The Hebrew borrowed from the KeMeTic, hence the similarities... The Semite was not 'the origin' of said practices in West Africa. This is part of the Semetic paradigm we need to free ourselves from. Those authors were linking themselves to the 'latter' version of the African/KeMeTic orignial, why would choose that over the obvious and more likely African/Nile valley one?

quote:
For example the word Obayifo means "witch" and is derived from Obayen and the name for God is pronounced Yame similar to Hebrew Yawe. They show ultimately that the Hebrew were actually the parent stock from which the Ashanti emerged.


God is actually Nyame in Asante/Akan(Twi). Similar the the Eastern Bantu word Nyame for meat/flesh. Like I said, been there don't that. There is also a referrence about the breastplate of the Asante preist being similar to the Hebrew's because of the 12 markings(supposedly the twelve tribes)... That number sequence is repeated all over the world in myth and symbolism that predates the existance of Hebrewism because of the twelve signs of the zodiac. That number sequence is found worldwide because all ancient people's studied nature. There did not have to be contact for this number sequence to be present in most spiritual scineces/cultures... Literalizing astrotheology proves nothing about Hebrew roots/contact. Linguistic similarities can be explained through the Kamau and different African migrations(Dr. Ben has a wonderful chart in one of his books showing the Metu Neter base for the Hebrew writings), the ONLY reason people skip the Nile Valley connection/contact that the very people they supposedly 'studied' refer to in oral tradition, and jump to the Hebrew, is because they want to link us to what the 'dominant' culture venerates the most. Why would one choose to focus on memorex rather than the original? Rather odd don'tcha think?

The Guan language is the basis for the Akan/Asante(Twi) and is older than the trans-Saharan trade that would have brought any Semites to the region of West Africa.

I found it fascinatingly ridiculous that the Asante/Akan spiritual sciences, so dominated by priestesses, is dealt with in this manner. Sometimes people use academics to skip past the obvious for purposes unecessary cultural validation... and it makes certain conclusions almost laughable and quite sad when coming from Africans.

We have our own cosmologies that have developed independent(and prior to) the Abrahamic ones. We do not need to associate ourselves with the step child for validation.

quote:
Mighty courteous of you to write off the books I refered you to as "literalism" without even having seen them...Yet you want me to read the book you suggested with the promise of more to come...


Why are you assuming I haven't seen/read them, when I told you I have? Is it because I don't agree with them perhaps? I've read BEYOND them... I'm waiting for your comentary on the books I mentioned "101 myths of the Bible" and Massey's works. Your literalism and historization doesn't reflect that you have been exposed to this info. sck

Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World By Gerald Massey

The natural genesis: or second part of A book of the beginnings By Gerald Massey
Last edited {1}
If we are going continue this quite interesting conversation a few adjustments are going to need to be made...Since we are discussing a topic with history that spans over THOUSANDS of years and is laced with various nuances. I feel that we need to condense this discussion down to it's core points...because the longer our replys to each other get the harder it will be to remain focused on the issue. We run the risk of veering off track into whats nothing more than a contest of spirtual interpretations that will lead us no where. Besides, I want to only focus on addressing those valid points that you made without sifting through the numerous typos, mispellings, misquotes and syntax errors that I noticed in your last post. I know this doesn't reflect your true intellectual ability but has more to do with the challenge of responding to every point I'm making using this format.

So moving forward I will focus on making sure I'm hitting the crux of what you are saying... However, if at any point you feel I've overlooked or not properly addressed a point that you've made I will be glad to revisit it...I just request that you do the same in return.

Having said that I will now address those key points of your last post....



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
I believe we are talking about two different time lines here, maybe this will help clarify....


No we are not.

quote:
The Beta Israel are admixed with Arabs along with their Orthodox X-ian brethren because when Ethiopia was invaded by Arabs (particularly in the 6th century A.D. with the spread of Islam) The Arab invaders intermixed with MANY Ethiopians including the ones who considered themselves to be Hebrew.


Yes...

quote:
Some Beta believe that as expressed in the Kebra Nagast they are descended from King Solomon which dates back to 950 B.C. over 1500 years before the Arab invasions.


Actually, that's Ethiopians in general.


I'm aware of that... but we are talking about the Beta specifically right here are we not?....So lets stay focused shall we?.. this was a redundant clarification which sole purpose can only be to feign that you were "correcting me"....thus trying to create the appearance that you know more about Ethiopia. I actually noticed a few of these in your replys but more on this later....

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
The whole reason this belief system of the Beta Israel came about was because it's based on their historic record of Queen Makeda'si.e., the Queen of Sheba's interaction with King Solomon.


I'm familiar with this, it's also in the Qur'an. Did you know most scholars see this as an allegorical tale representing the introduction of patriarchy into Africa? The historical Queens of Ethiopia were replaced by the Kingship from the Solomonic lines.


I'm sure you were familar with this but that wasn't the issue...The point was that it is a belief that the Beta adopted for THEMSELVES and it was NOT imposed on them by "Asiatic invaders" in the way you keep claiming how Africans became Semitic.

By the way who were these "historical Queens of Ethiopia" The only Queen I'm aware of is the "Queen of Sheba" and from the research I've seen even she ascended to the throne because she was the daughter of a King. So what proof do you have that Ethiopia was a "Queendom" instead of a KIngdom prior to the Solomonic lines? I'm not saying that there were no Queens in Ethiopia prior to the Queen of Sheba but I'm just curious about what your sources are.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Which also happens to be recorded in the Bible (you know the book you keep blowing off as a fairytale with no accurate historical accounts in it)


Like I stated. It's also in the Qur'an, Where Sheba is a goat footed demon... Just because myths/legends surrounding ancestors(a common African theme) show up in more than one place doesn't mean they are supposed to be historicized. That is not the PURPOSE that stories like this serve.


Through out history actually people that existed were later depicted as monsters, demons etc and legends grew up around them. Look at "Vlad the Impaler" an actual king of Romania who later on became "Dracula" a blood sucking vampire. Following your logic we should not believe that "Vlad the Impaler" ever existed since "Dracula" is a myth.

Besides, if you do believe that there was ever a "Queen of Sheba" (which it appears that you do based on your assertion about "historical Queens of Ethiopia"). and the Bible also mentions her existence shouldn't that give the Bible some credibilty as a historic record and not just a 'book of fables and fairytales'? Whats more you keep trying to depict the ancients (particularly those who wrote the Bible) as nothing more than tellers of myths/legends... as if they were incapable of seeing an event and simply making a record of it.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Other Beta Israel accounts of how they became Hebrews state that they are descendants of the tribe of Dan (one of the twelve tribes of Israel) who settled in Ethiopia after leaving Israel.


DO you realize that the 12 tribes of Israel are an allegory to the 12 signs of the Zodiac?


What is your proof of this? Is it really impossible that a Hebrew by the name of Jacob/Israel could produce twelve sons?..Why should this be explained away as allegory? it's not even supernatural....Heck I got an great uncle that had 13 kids... we all know of instances like this especially among Black folk.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
There are other accounts as well....what they all have in common is that NONE describe becoming Hebrews because of some "Asiatic Invasion".


You do realize that Ethipopians depict the Hebrews and X-ians that came to bring said religions as non-African? I know some personally and have seent he old textiles and drawings, and they describe their modern phenotype as being a result of Solomon's admixture, in other words, they do not think of Solomon as phenotypically African. Not that I completely agreew with this or take it as literal history.


Tell me how "old" these depictions are? do you have any examples? By the way, according to their belief "non-Africans" did not bring said religion ETHIOPIAN Hebrews did. Besides, what I don't get is how can you on the one hand even cite the fact MODERN Ethiopians feel their phenotype is the result of 'Solomon's admixture'.... While at the same time you are dismissing the Biblical record of his existence as pure fiction? Doesn't it stand to reason that if either one of our positions is correct vis-a-vis mine which says Solomon was Black.... and yours that says he 'didn't exist'. Render their claim that his admixture created their modern mixed phenotype null and void? So that means their modern phenotype would have to be from a different source...I say it is from the Arab invaders what say you?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Just as an FYI, Hyksos that were expelled from KMT after being there for hundreds of years and lutiplying would have taken on an African pheontype while retaining some Asiatic cultural proclivity... WHich is what I was referring to as the origin of the Habiru, so really, all the above history is neither here nore there when it comes to what we have been discussing...


First of all lets get some things straight the Hyksos did not stay in KMT for "hundreds of years" they ruled for about 108 years which is barely a blip on Egypts long history. They did not "invade" Egypt per se in any way more then say the Mexicans are "invading" the U.S. The Hyksos came to Egypt looking for work because Egypt was the place to be at the time. Sure there may have been some skirmishes as they arose to power but they gained power in Egypt by political means also.

Egypt was simply too strong to have been completely overrun by a ragtag group of Asiatic people by pure force of arms as depicted in Manetho's account which by the way came 1300 years later. One good indicator of how strong Egypt still was is how easily and quick it ridded itself of them once they wore out their welcome.




quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
The original Ethiopians during the time of the Kingdom of Kush were BLACK just like the ancient Hebrews...the "admixture" that you are referring to came MUCH later most notably during the Arab invasions of the 6th century A.D. as I mentioned...this is the reason why they look mixed with 'Asiatic peoples' with lighter skin and curly hair today...as you mentioned.


Now your are confusing times... Kush wasn't Hebrew prior to the where King Solomon 'converted' Queen Sheba... The writings on the Tekenu/Oblisks at the height of this empire are pre-Judaic and "pagan"(traditional). So what does this have to do with the Hebrews being Black?


I'm not confusing times at all I was merely citing Kush as a point of reference to indicate that the people ancient Ethiopia and Kush were Black with no admixture. I'm well aware Kush wasn't Hebrew and that's not what I said. The point I'm making is that the Prototypical family stock of the Cushites and Semites is the same and that stock was Black. The fact that they developed into different cultural traditions one being Ethiopian and the other being Hebrew doesn't change this.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
No one is disputing that but were those prior invaders Semites?


I'm stating that the Hyksos combination with Africans of KMT is the origin of 'the Semite'


What historic reference are you citing that supports this claim?.... I have an explanation of the origin of Semite...I'm going to repost the one I shared with Raptor....

"The word "Semitic" is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21), or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite
What source can you post that has a preponderance of evidence that will render this one moot and convince any unbiased observer that your reference is correct and mine is wrong?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
By the way the Arabs are ONLY 'Semitic' because they come from the Abrahamic line of Ismael who was BLACK The ancient Arabs were too...


Semetic is a linguistic classification.


Sure it is...but clearly it's not limited to that...*Redundant Clarification #2*


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
but only changed due to the "Asiatic admixture" that you keep referring to. Although they kept the original Semetic culture just what the Ashkenazi Jews did with Hebrew culture.


The Semetic culture isn't 'original'. That's my point. It's late on the scene and as I showed in my past posts, it coincides simultaneously(and supposedly coincidentally) at the same time as the Hyksos invasion and expulsion.


I'm talking about the culture being 'original' in the context of the when the Asiatic and Ashkenazi 'Jews' highjacked it (not in absolute terms) they were NOT Semetic originally they BECAME Semetic after taking it over from the Black Semites that practiced it first...I hope you are clear about what I was saying now.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Or did the Ashkenazis and Asiatics develop these cultures independent of Africans and then turn around and impose it on Africans. If you believe that the Africans were the first civilized people then there should be no question that the answer is the former.

The Askenazi's aren't even part of what we are talking about. The Khazar empire that converted to Judaism is their origin. Abrahamic religion has nothing to do with them, and 'civilized' has nothing to do with Abrahamic religion or monotheism. Is there a reason you aren't dealing with the KeMeTic base that the Hebrew religion is obviously is based on(but varies from)?


Apparently, I need to clarify when I'm merely making an example...I only brought up the Askenazis to illustrate my point that you can have a foriegn people adopt a culture that's not even theirs and be labled as Semetic when they are not. I'm not dealing with the KeMeTic influence on the Hebrews because that would be preaching to the choir. I feel my time would be better spent helping people understand that like KEMETIC culture SEMETIC culture is a product of Africa.

The fact that it was highjacked away from us just like Egyptian culture was... is no reason for us to join in and claim that it's "foreign"...To me that's tantamount to crediting Asians with Kemetic culture just because today the world believes it.




quote:
Regarding this "literalizing Biblical myth" accusation you keep throwing out...how can you write off Biblical history as purely myth yet quote Dr. Ben (if it's indeed the same Dr. Ben I think you are talking about) who not only acknowledges people from the Bible actually existed... but that they were also BLACK...Like he did with Moses in this excerpt....




quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Did you read the book I referenced... 101 Myths of the Bible? I highly suggest it. Until you do, you really won't know what I'm talking about. BTW, why is 'Holy script' given a precidence over oral culture? Hmmmm...


Yep I read it over and I view it the same way you might view a european "Egyptologist" stating that ancient Egyptian writtig are purely myth with no historic value....to your latter question because things written down normally are better retained than memory.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
For even Moses, the father of the OLD TESTAMENT, was an African who used much of the ancient teachings of his fellow Africans of the Nile River [BLUE and WHITE] and Great Lakes regions Mysteries System of Northeast and Central-East Africa


Moshe is a commen pharonic title, so which one was Moses? I gave you a clue earlier...



Phaoroh is a title not Moshe/Moses...you have it backwards

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
he allegedly passed down to other African Jews that converted them into what later became the PENTATEUCH or OLD TESTAMENT [Five Books Of Moses or Holy Torah].
The very first "BIBLE" or "SCROLL" on record produced by man, with regards to paying honour and divine respect to a "CREATOR OF ALL MANKIND," was that of the African People of the Nile Valley and Great Lakes regions of Central, East and Northeast Africa. They were no different than the Africans we see today in the Harlems and Timbuctoos of the entire world we erroneously call: "NEGROES, COLORED FOLKS" and "BLACK PEOPLE" today. It was called by its African creators and developers...[/i]


I realize that these ar Ben's words, but like I stated he has developed certain ideologies he did not have during the writings of 'BlackMan of the Nile and his Fmaily" and "We the Black Jews", I realize you may be unfamiliar with this aspect of him, but some of the questions I posed to you above, were the ones he has answered... We are supposed to grow on the foundations our ancestors laid down, not remain stagnent in achedemic dogma.


"Developed" or flipflopped in order to broaden his appeal? Now I'm not knocking the hustle but it seems odd to me that he could make such a fundamental shift in his teaching such as this. I can understand a few changes in ones beliefs here and there but based on what you are saying he's completely abandoned his core believe system that he's taught for decades...does that mean he was teaching falsehood all those years? If so how can anyone have "faith" that he won't flipflop again? I mean that's the equivalent of a devout Christian becoming an Atheist or aMullah flipping the script and deciding he's gonna become a Catholic Priest.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
More on this later...


No need. REad all his books. You have been imparting no new information. I was once at the same ideological stage that you are currently.


"New information" is not always the best information especially when it comes to a revisionist perspective of history...Oh and by the way let's not get into any more of this contrived and feigned attempt to place yourself in a 'advanced' role by claiming you were " was once at the same ideological stage that I'm in. You should've read enough of my other posts to know that I'm not the one to try to pull petty little head games like that on. Besides whether or not you have a keener insight on this issue than me remains to be seen but thus far I see no indication of this.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:
Are you sure about this? because the last time I checked king Akhenaten introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa long before any "Asiatic invasion".


You responded by saying "yes" but you never addressed what I said regarding Akhenaten introducing a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa. This means it was HOMEGROWN and not the result of an "Asiatic Invasion"....Moreover, you posted this link....



quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Uhhmmm, the Hyksos? Expelled by Amose 100 yeears after Akenaten's rule(fact), 'Exodus' by Moses... 100 years after Ankenaten's rule. The mythical 'twist' making the Hyksos invaders the Hebrew victims.... hhhmmmm...


Which had NOTHING to do with what I said about Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa...


Why not, cuz you say it doesn't?


Nope, because it simply doesn't..and anyone can see this...If it does have something to do with Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa...I would love for you to show me.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The hyksos were already there... Per Dr. Ben Ankenaten's wife was Asiatic.


Oshun, If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this we have to maintain a certain level of intellectual honesty... Clearly, I have you dead to rights on the point about Akhenaten being the one who introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa anyone with two eyes and a few working brain cells can see that. However, you can't acknowledge this because to do so COMPLETELY DESTROYS your entire premise that patriarchal monotheistic religion is a 'Asiatic import' to Africa. So what do you do? you try to throw "Akhenaten's wife" under the chariot by saying "Per Dr. Ben" she was "Asiatic"....as if that negates anything. Lets look at the facts "Akhenaten's wife" as you so discretely put it had a name...Nefertiti and she was EGYPTIAN/AFRICAN and not "Asiatic" as we all know. Furthermore the hyksos did not even gain power until about 300 years after Akhenaten's rule so how could they be in a position to impose monotheism on Egypt?...Akhenanten imposed it on THEM and there is a ton of evidence to back me up....where is yours besides what thus saith Dr. Ben?


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Even your claim that the Hyksos "invaded" Egypt is dubious and I will post an excerpt from the link YOU posted to back me up....[/b]


Rally, Dr. Ben documented it WUITE well. In their own stella the Hyksos are DRAWN and referred to as Asiatic foreigners...


Does this mean they "invaded" though? nevermind I'll just repost an exerpt from the link YOU provided once again....

Invasion is probably the wrong word. Manetho's account of the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt describes it as an armed invasion by a horde of foreign barbarians who met little resistance and who subdued the country by military force. A better explanatio is that after the explosion of thera c 1621 BC the number of Mycenean and Minoan refugees increased dramatically. With them came their trading partners, various proto sea peoples who were loosely organized at the level of gene, oinkos and phratre and really incapable of any organized warfare beyond the level of family, crew or tribe. With them came a number of traders, professionals, including professional warriors looking to work for the Egyptians as mercenaries, skilled craftsmen, laborers, accountants, agricultural workers and horsemen.

The main account of this alleged "invasion" came from Manetho's[i] who was a historian who lived during the Ptolemaic era, ca. 3rd century BC over 1300 years after the fact. There is also a good chance that he may have even been of Greek ancestry instead of Egyptian. Yet you are holding his account up to be "historic fact" while dismissing Biblical writting as fairytales.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Euro-historical twist(not surprising on wiki)... I thought you would have scene right through that like anyone who has ever studied our great master teachers about KMT. Have you read Dr. Ben? He supports my premise...


Hold up wait a minute...I post excerpt from the wiki link that YOU provided now all of a sudden it's "Euro-historical twist" hilarious.... Oshun is this really you or are you letting EP log in under your screen name?


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
For example the whole christian literalized story about 'Jesus' and 'Mary' is just a rehash of the Egytpian story of Horace, Isis and Osiris.


Actually that's Ausar auset and Heru...


Redundant "correction" # 4...Oshun aside from our different spiritual beliefs we are normally on the same page when it comes to socio-economic issues. So I'm really not trying to embarass you but I think it's only right to inform you that Horace, Isis and Osiris are the EXACT SAME dieties as the ones you called yourself correcting me on...In fact if you search for 'Heru' then Horus will come up. The fact that you felt the need to correct me on this shows that you didn't know this... which is sad for someone who deems herself knowledgeable about KMT. It's compounded further by the fact that you've even chose Auset as a screen name.
Yeah, I know you may comeback and say something like you you were just trying to be more "authentic" or something....However the fact remains that this was a "correction" that should not have been made.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Oh really?, so only Monotheic culures who have male gods created empires? That's funny because the last time I checked most of the ancient worlds empires were formed by civilizations who had 'goddeses' to such as the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans.


The Abrahamic cultures are the most successful at empire building for a reason. The others you mentioned above are Asiatic and patriarchal no?


What did I miss? which Abrahamic empire the the Hebrews have most of the time they were slaves of empire...As for you latter question two were Asiatic and all had female gods which was you original issue...Some even had women empresses such as Rome have you ever heard of Agrippina the mother of Nero?


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
From what historical reference are you drawing this statement? cite a credible verifiable source of information to support your claim


Dr. Ben is one, I'll have to look in my books to remember exactly what other references I have.. This may take a while...


Yep so far he seems to be the ONLY one



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

WHile I'm at it, can you use something besides the Bible or other related Holy scripts to verigy Noah was a historicla figure... Moses, ect?


I can provide other scholastic accounts to rival Dr. Bens claims... However, why do you not think the Bible which was at least written close to the time the events took place is less credible than Dr. Ben who was no where on the scene?


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:
What you have commited here is a logical fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority' agrument....


But you just quoted (old) Dr. Ben, and keep quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, logical fallacy indeed.


I only quoted him to point out the complete 180 he did in his teaching but don't get it twisted he is your source....not mine



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
For example the word [i]Obayifo means "witch" and is derived from Obayen and the name for God is pronounced Yame similar to Hebrew Yawe. They show ultimately that the Hebrew were actually the parent stock from which the Ashanti emerged.



God is actually Nyame in AAsante/Akan. Similar the the Eastern Bantu word Nyame for meant/flesh. Like I said, been there don't that. There is also a referrence the the breastplate of the Asante preist being similar to the Hebrwews because of the 12 markings... That number sequence is repeated all over the world because of the twelve signs of the zodiac. Literalizing astrotheology proves nothing about Hebrew roots.


Redundant correction # 5....Oshun, In the name of God regarding the Asanti language the "N" is silent which is why I said it's PRONOUNCED Yame. so your correction was not necessary at all. If you had read the book you would have been aware of this fact...but you didn't so here we are with you exposing yourself as a novice in your failed attempts to "correct"...If you keep these antics up I'm just going to take the position that you are out of gas and get back to my T.R.E.S.O.B.A. that I've been neglicting for you.


quote:
Mighty courteous of you to write off the books I refered you to as "literalism" without even having seen them...Yet you want me to read the book you suggested with the promise of more to come...


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Why are you assuming I haven't seen/read them, whe I told you I have?


I guess because you contradicted yourself at first by stating that you did not and would not read them because you deemed them "literalism"
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I know what y'all are thinking but no there's no need for anyone to thank me for suggesting that this topic should be in its own thread.

My private message box is full. Therefore, I can no longer electronically sign anymore autographs until I'm done signing the ones I already have. hat


I never read your post... I stopped reading them in that thread towards the middle of it. I purely responded to LD's request...
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
If we are going continue this quite interesting conversation a few adjustments are going to need to be made...Since we are discussing a topic with history that spans over THOUSANDS of years and is laced with various nuances. I feel that we need to condense this discussion down to it's core points...because the longer our replys to each other get the harder it will be to remain focused on the issue. We run the risk of veering off track into whats nothing more than a contest of spirtual interpretations that will lead us no where.


But it is up to interpretation what the 'main points' are... We can attempt this though...

quote:
Besides, I want to only focus on addressing those valid points that you made without sifting through the numerous typos, mispellings, misquotes and syntax errors that I noticed in your last post. I know this doesn't reflect your true intellectual ability but has more to do with the challenge of responding to every point I'm making using this format.


Actually, you are looking at the old version of my post. I went back and corrected most of it and added quite a bit a few hours before you responded.

quote:
So moving forward I will focus on making sure I'm hitting the crux of what you are saying... However, if at any point you feel I've overlooked or not properly addressed a point that you've made I will be glad to revisit it...I just request that you do the same in return.


We can attempt this, but I'm not big on sifting through things already stated...

quote:
I'm aware of that... but we are talking about the Beta specifically right here are we not?....So lets stay focused shall we?..


You are talking about the Beta now, but we have been discussing the Ethiopians in general on the other post... So I felt it was relevent.

quote:
this was a redundant clarification which sole purpose can only be to feign that you were "correcting me"....thus trying to create the appearance that you know more about Ethiopia. I actually noticed a few of these in your replys but more on this later....


If we want to interpret responses as offensive, I could have thought you sounded quite preachy/teachy. But since you are new to the forum, and appear to be posting in the spirit of love for our people, I didn't accuse you of that. To me what you have posted is 'basic' info to a large extent, but I don't think your intent is to patronize.

quote:
I'm sure you were familar with this but that wasn't the issue...The point was that it is a belief that the Beta adopted for THEMSELVES and it was NOT imposed on them by "Asiatic invaders" in the way you keep claiming how Africans became Semitic.


Who did they adopt it from and how do they depict/describe that/those person/peoples? To adopt something and to actually internally develop it are very different processes. To adopt something it must come from outside exposure.

quote:
By the way who were these "historical Queens of Ethiopia" The only Queen I'm aware of is the "Queen of Sheba" and from the research I've seen even she ascended to the throne because she was the daughter of a King. So what proof do you have that Ethiopia was a "Queendom" instead of a KIngdom prior to the Solomonic lines? I'm not saying that there were no Queens in Ethiopia prior to the Queen of Sheba but I'm just curious about what your sources are.


Black Women in Antiquity: The Great Queens of Ethiopia

quote:
Through out history actually people that existed were later depicted as monsters, demons etc and legends grew up around them. Look at "Vlad the Impaler" an actual king of Romania who later on became "Dracula" a blood sucking vampire. Following your logic we should not believe that "Vlad the Impaler" ever existed since "Dracula" is a myth.


Her demonizing was for a particular reason. There was nothing evil/demonic about her actual life/actions to demonize(unlike Vlad the IMPALER) so that 'twist' serves an entirely different purpose. Vlad, just as the Queen of Sheba, existed(because we have extra-biblical confirnation of this) but it would be FOLLY for us to take the legend/myth surrounding them as historically accurate fact because that is not the purpose that the myth/legend serves.{Notice how different Vlad's actual life was in comparrison with the vampire myth). Without extra-biblical(or extra any other religious script) validation in history, it is impossible to seperate the historical aspects from the mythical... So literalism is innacurate when religious myth wasn't meant to serve as historical record in the first place.

quote:
Besides, if you do believe that there was ever a "Queen of Sheba" (which it appears that you do based on your assertion about "historical Queens of Ethiopia"). and the Bible also mentions her existence shouldn't that give the Bible some credibilty as a historic record and not just a 'book of fables and fairytales'?


The Helio Biblio was not compiled to be a historical record. Neither was the Papul Vul, the Odu Ifa, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other spiritual/religious oral tradition or writ. It IS religious myth. I'm not sure why, but you seem to be looking at 'myth' as a prejoritive term, when symbolic language as represented by myth is some super deep stuff.

quote:
Whats more you keep trying to depict the ancients (particularly those who wrote the Bible) as nothing more than tellers of myths/legends... as if they were incapable of seeing an event and simply making a record of it.


The ancients kept many seperate historical records. The ancients also wrote wonderful myths that enrich our lives and can actually change our state of consciousness and teach us about ourselves and universe's workings. Reliigious spiritual myth, oral or writ has a different function than historical record. You seem to be confusing the two. Of course myths about figures sometimes have a real person or persons at the core of them(as I explained in the other thread), but the story around the deified ancestor(s) often are an allegory of some natural event personified to make it easiewr to identify with and remember...There are also myths about primordial powers that get personified/anthropomorphized purely for symbolic ease that are completely a-historical. The natural event the allegory represents is often associated with some essoteric or metaphysical knowledge. This is what the 'mystery system' is... Literalism the 'mystery' or mystical aspect. It destroys the essoteric or metaphysical knowledge to be had...

quote:
What is your proof of this? Is it really impossible that a Hebrew by the name of Jacob/Israel could produce twelve sons?..Why should this be explained away as allegory? it's not even supernatural....Heck I got an great uncle that had 13 kids... we all know of instances like this especially among Black folk.


If you read the books by Massey you will understand, also you may want to check this out below... Astrotheology is a very commen 'natural allegory' that myths symbolize.

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered

quote:
Tell me how "old" these depictions are? do you have any examples? By the way, according to their belief "non-Africans" did not bring said religion ETHIOPIAN Hebrews did.


How could the same people you just said 'adopted' the religion, bring it to themselves? Did you mean to say 'created' in the previous part of this post?

quote:
Besides, what I don't get is how can you on the one hand even cite the fact MODERN Ethiopians feel their phenotype is the result of 'Solomon's admixture'.... While at the same time you are dismissing the Biblical record of his existence as pure fiction? Doesn't it stand to reason that if either one of our positions is correct vis-a-vis mine which says Solomon was Black.... and yours that says he 'didn't exist'. Render their claim that his admixture created their modern mixed phenotype null and void? So that means their modern phenotype would have to be from a different source...I say it is from the Arab invaders what say you?


There is extra Biblical evidence for Solomons existance. There IS NOT extra biblical evidence for the existance of Abraham or Moses. And I've already explained how ancestor deification works. A person/people could have existed, while the events surrounding them could be totally fabricated(natural allegory). Hence you cannot take religious/spiritual myth, which serves and entirely different purpose, as historical record.

quote:
First of all lets get some things straight the Hyksos did not stay in KMT for "hundreds of years" they ruled for about 108 years which is barely a blip on Egypts long history. They did not "invade" Egypt per se in any way more then say the Mexicans are "invading" the U.S. The Hyksos came to Egypt looking for work because Egypt was the place to be at the time. Sure there may have been some skirmishes as they arose to power but they gained power in Egypt by political means also.


I see you are still going with wiki, do you have any other confirmation of this info besides that? Can you please check the Massey books I posted on Egypt. Do you look past the 'coincidence' of the exodus and their expulsion?`If you do, how do you manage that?

quote:
Egypt was simply too strong to have been completely overrun by a ragtag group of Asiatic people by pure force of arms as depicted in Manetho's account which by the way came 1300 years later. One good indicator of how strong Egypt still was is how easily and quick it ridded itself of them once they wore out their welcome.


Egypt was overrun many times. I see you are still refferencing that wiki... 'Egypt Light of the World' please... It's the refference you requested remember?

quote:
I'm not confusing times at all I was merely citing Kush as a point of reference to indicate that the people ancient Ethiopia and Kush were Black with no admixture. I'm well aware Kush wasn't Hebrew and that's not what I said. The point I'm making is that the Prototypical family stock of the Cushites and Semites is the same and that stock was Black. The fact that they developed into different cultural traditions one being Ethiopian and the other being Hebrew doesn't change this.


You have lost me on this one... Are you saying the Hebrews introduced Judaism to Ethiopia then? Can you please explain how you think the Hebrew religion and people 'sprung from Egypt'.. I've stated what I think their origin is, but you haven't been specific.

quote:
What historic reference are you citing that supports this claim?.... I have an explanation of the origin of Semite...I'm going to repost the one I shared with Raptor....

"The word "Semitic" is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21), or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite."

What source can you post that has a preponderance of evidence that will render this one moot and convince any unbiased observer that your reference is correct and mine is wrong?


That's your Biblical explanation. Not THE explanation of the term. The is what it means inside of the Bible, not in a universal sense. Please use extra-biblical info to verify that Noah is a historical figure and not a late retelling of Ut-Napishtim of the Gilgamesh epic. Like I stated, you can't use the Bible to prove the Biblical. BTW Pagee 73 OF "101 Myths of the Bible" deals with where the Japeth ect stuff comes from. You are accepting as literal Hebrew history and lineage what really is a very old EGYPATIAN story. Yet you claim to be aware and accept the African? KeMeTic origins of the Bible... You do realize that is a major contradiction.

quote:
Sure it is...but clearly it's not limited to that...*Redundant Clarification #2*


It was not meant as such. It is the NON BIBLICAL explanation(that can be backed up with extra-biblical information).

quote:
I'm talking about the culture being 'original' in the context of the when the Asiatic and Ashkenazi 'Jews' highjacked it (not in absolute terms) they were NOT Semetic originally they BECAME Semetic after taking it over from the Black Semites that practiced it first...I hope you are clear about what I was saying now.


Where did these Black semites originate? How did their culture develop? Are you saying the Ethiopians 'adopted it' from them, or are you saying the Ethiopians are the 'original'. Please explain the Genesis/birth of the Hebrew culture/religion ect from your point of view. The Canaanites were panentheists/polythiests, the Kamau were too, the Hebrews 'borrowed' so much, what is their 'origin' culturally in your eyes? Did they just magically appear with no explanation?

quote:
Yep I read it over and I view it the same way you might view a european "Egyptologist" stating that ancient Egyptian writtig are purely myth with no historic value....


You musn't have read it clearly. He laid out the actual KeMeTic historical records and spiritual myths that the Hebrews literalized and created their history from. You cannot admit to the African origins of Judaism, X-ianity, and Islam in one breathe, and dismiss them when given when they are given as evidence of that the Bible cannot be taken literally the next. For some reason you see symbolic language in myth as negative(I'm still not sure why that is, to think symbolically is some DEEP stuff as I mentioned before)...

quote:
Phaoroh is a title not Moshe/Moses...you have it backwards


It means "from the water"...Ahmose, Tuthmosis I, II, & III, ect, ect... It's COMMON... Please prove Moses existed as a historical figure with non-biblical accounts.

quote:
"New information" is not always the best information especially when it comes to a revisionist perspective of history...Oh and by the way let's not get into any more of this contrived and feigned attempt to place yourself in a 'advanced' role by claiming you were " was once at the same ideological stage that I'm in. You should've read enough of my other posts to know that I'm not the one to try to pull petty little head games like that on. Besides whether or not you have a keener insight on this issue than me remains to be seen but thus far I see no indication of this.


Calm down, stop the defensiveness. When someone clearly is not familiar with astrotheology and symbolic language, and are waiding in the ltieralist arena, then I know there are certain things I am more familar with, that's all. I'm quite sure that you have plenty of areas of knowledge that surpass mine. This is not a competition.

quote:
Nope, because it simply doesn't..and anyone can see this...If it does have something to do with Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa...I would love for you to show me.


I'll take that as, 'Yes, because I say it doesn't'.

quote:
Oshun, If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this we have to maintain a certain level of intellectual honesty... Clearly, I have you dead to rights on the point about Akhenaten being the one who introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa anyone with two eyes and a few working brain cells can see that. However, you can't acknowledge this because to do so COMPLETELY DESTROYS your entire premise that patriarchal monotheistic religion is a 'Asiatic import' to Africa. So what do you do? you try to throw "Akhenaten's wife" under the chariot by saying "Per Dr. Ben" she was "Asiatic"....as if that negates anything. Lets look at the facts "Akhenaten's wife" as you so discretely put it had a name...Nefertiti and she was EGYPTIAN/AFRICAN and not "Asiatic" as we all know. Furthermore the hyksos did not even gain power until about 300 years after Akhenaten's rule so how could they be in a position to impose monotheism on Egypt?...Akhenanten imposed it on THEM and there is a ton of evidence to back me up....where is yours besides what thus saith Dr. Ben?


You asked me for references and I gave you several but you have not partaken of them. Why is that? Egypt Light of the World please... Please stop posting wiki and give legitimate references of your own...

quote:
Hold up wait a minute...I post excerpt from the wiki link that YOU provided now all of a sudden it's "Euro-historical twist" hilarious.... Oshun is this really you or are you letting EP log in under your screen name?


That is me making the mistake of thinking you actually read Dr. Ben's works that refuted the evidence on wiki which you chose to hilight. I thought you had already done certain studying, I didn't realize you would rely on me to impart certain info on you from people you were quoting. And once again, I gave other refferences that you have not addressed.

quote:
Redundant "correction" # 4...Oshun aside from our different spiritual beliefs we are normally on the same page when it comes to socio-economic issues. So I'm really not trying to embarass you but I think it's only right to inform you that Horace, Isis and Osiris are the EXACT SAME dieties as the ones you called yourself correcting me on...In fact if you search for 'Heru' then Horus will come up. The fact that you felt the need to correct me on this shows that you didn't know this...which is sad for someone who deems herself knowledgeable about KMT. It's compounded further by the fact that you've even chose Auset as a screen name.


Are you serious? I correct you with the KeMeTic versions(which most Africans prefer to using over the Greek you mentioned) and you claim I don't know what they are? Now you are just being silly... spank

quote:
Yeah, I know you may comeback and say something like you you were just trying to be more "authentic" or something....However the fact remains that this was a "correction" that should not have been made.


The way you have literalized things, keep posting wiki, aren't overly familiar with Dr. Ben's teachings outside of Africawithin.com, are completely unfamiliar with astrotheology, and then use the Greek terms for KeMeTic Neteru(powers of nature) calls your base of info into question, not mine. I posted the KeMeTic version because I figured I shouldn't assume that you know them since you didn't use them.

quote:
What did I miss? which Abrahamic empire the the Hebrews have most of the time they were slaves of empire...As for you latter question two were Asiatic and all had female gods which was you original issue...Some even had women empresses such as Rome have you ever heard of Agrippina the mother of Nero?


You are missing the point of course, and since it isn't a main focus(right now) I'll pass on arguing about it.

quote:
Yep so far he seems to be the ONLY one


Still waiting on your non biblical ones...

quote:
I can provide other scholastic accounts to rival Dr. Bens claims...


Please do...

quote:
However, why do you not think the Bible which was at least written close to the time the events took place is less credible than Dr. Ben who was no where on the scene?


Ut-Napishtim from the Gilgamesh epic...

quote:
I only quoted him to point out the complete 180 he did in his teaching but don't get it twisted he is your source....not mine


Still waiting for your non biblical and KeMeTic sources...

quote:
Redundant correction # 5....Oshun, In the name of God regarding the Asanti language the "N" is silent which is why I said it's PRONOUNCED Yame. so your correction was not necessary at all.


Been to Ghana, know a little Twi, no it's not. This is one of many reasons I question the scholarhip in that book(and can guess at it's motivation)... When an author is in error about easily confirmed facts, like the pronunciation of a word in a living language... It makes the info look shady to say the least.

quote:
If you had read the book you would have been aware of this fact...but you didn't so here we are with you exposing yourself as a novice in your failed attempts to "correct"...


I've read the book, I DON'T AGREE WITH IT'S FINDINGS. Real life experience in Ghana with the Akan/Asante and with those who follow that path here is what lead me to disagree from jump.

quote:
If you keep these antics up I'm just going to take the position that you are out of gas and get back to my T.R.E.S.O.B.A. that I've been neglicting for you.


I hate to say this to you, but you are ASS-uming much.

quote:
I guess because you contradicted yourself at first by stating that you did not and would not read them because you deemed them "literalism"


I said I wouldn't reference/re-visit/re-read them... because of what I stated above...

Like I stated earlier...

"I found it fascinatingly ridiculous that the Asante/Akan spiritual sciences, so dominated by priestesses, is dealt with in this manner. Sometimes people use academics to skip past the obvious for the purpose of unecessary cultural validation... and it makes certain conclusions almost laughable and quite sad when coming from Africans."

BTW, so we don't start a pissing match, it would be best if you come with a little less of a patronizing attitude, and ass-uming the worst in posters from this point on. It smacks of arrogance. I know you enjoy gettin your clown on, but when someone is in a rush to do that, they end up looking immature and disrespectful. We are not enemies, we are discussing a topic.
Last edited {1}
I see where this conversation is headed unless another fundamental adjustment is made...Now Oshun I noticed in your last post a high number of non answers. sidesteps and deferments to "Dr. Ben" and your books in response to DIRECT questions. To remedy this I'm going change my Q&A style to make it harder for you to give non answers, sidestep etc. Since all that will do is drag this thing out longer than necessary and at the end of the day get us nowhere. So I propose that we cut to the chase and just respond as DIRECTLY and HONESTLY as possible without all the extra bells, whistles, knobs, and dials. Which once again like this...

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...844605126/m/34210943

You thought made something 'more complex' but it actually only adds confusion....

So this is how we are going to do this... I'm going to first lay out the direct statements and questions you made and I will answer them as specifically as possible. Then I'm going to lay out all the direct questions I asked you that I need answered as specifically as possible as well. In the process of doing this it will be exposed how some of the larger points being made were side tracked. I'm not saying you always did this intentionally since sometimes this happens on message boards simply because of the format.


For example ...

When I said: "Some Beta believe that as expressed in the Kebra Nagast they are descended from King Solomon which dates back to 950 B.C. over 1500 years before the Arab invasions.


You 'answered': "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general."

Which totally missed the larger point I was making... which is that the Beta in particular (who you brought up by the way) are a clear example of Africans VOLUNTARILY embracing a patriarical and monotheist heritage. This was clearly not the result of a "Asiatic Invasion" which is how you always seem to attribute these instances in Africa. I pointed out the Arab invasion which came much later ( over1500 years later) to show that the Black Ethiopians (long before Arab admixture) embraced a patriarical and monotheist heritage.

Something your... "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general." response didn't even address which is why it appeared to me that you were 'correcting' something you thought I didn't know.


Another one was when I asked you regarding depictions of Hebrews:

Tell me how "old" these depictions are? do you have any examples? By the way, according to their belief "non-Africans" did not bring said religion ETHIOPIAN Hebrews did.

You 'answered': How could the same people you just said 'adopted' the religion, bring it to themselves? Did you mean to say 'created' in the previous part of this post?

This COMPLETELY avoided the questions I asked you which were Tell me how "old" these depictions are? and do you have any examples? You provided no answers and effectively just answered a question with a question...which adds nothing to a conversation except confusion as I mentioned in my opening statement.

By the way, when I said it wasn't "non-Africans" but Ethiopian Hebrews who brought the Hebrew faith to other Ethiopians. I was referring to converts like the Queen of Sheba and her decendants who the last time I checked were AFRICANS...the fact that you didn't get that puzzles me.


There are MANY other 'answers' like this that you gave..I just wanted to point these out so you could see the reason for me to change our Q&A style as to avoid this.

Anyway, lets begin...

For staters in your last post you said...

"If we want to interpret responses as offensive, I could have thought you sounded quite preachy/teachy. But since you are new to the forum, and appear to be posting in the spirit of love for our people, I didn't accuse you of that. To me what you have posted is 'basic' info to a large extent, but I don't think your intent is to patronize. "

This response is a prime example of what I'm talking about...you wrote this in reaction to how I interpreted your... "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general." comment to my answer about the Beta. Which based on the points that I laid out above was a reasonable interpretation on my part since you did NOT address to actual point.

Whether or not something is "basic info" to you personally has nothing to do with making a point...Besides, not everyone reading this thread is an expert on all things Afrikan (such as yourself) so there's no need for either of us to put on an unnecessary show about what we know...I'm sure people are learning new things just based on what we've talked about so far anyway. By the way, I don't mind whether or not you interpret me as being "preachy/teachy" I don't find that offensive... I'm just concerned with you addressing the actual points that I make....which in this instance you did not.


You asked directly regarding how the Beta received their culture:

Who did they adopt it from and how do they depict/describe that/those person/peoples? To adopt something and to actually internally develop it are very different processes. To adopt something it must come from outside exposure.

My answer is that I do believe that the Beta converted to their Hebrew belief based on the fact that the Queen of Sheba after returing home from seeing Solomons vast wealth and wisdom accepted his God over her pagan beliefs as documented in the Bible. Obviously, her being the Queen would give her tremendous influence over her peoples belief systems and cultural practices. So it's not at all impossible that once she got home she issued edicts banning the worship of the pagan gods in favor of Solomon's God.

If she became pregnant with Solomon's son (which is open to debate) this would further promote Solomon's beliefs onto the Ethiopians once the son became King. Even if Solomon never impregnated the Queen of Sheba whatever children she had after the encounter would have still embraced the beliefs of their mother. They could also just as easily been passed off as Solomon's seed (whether truthfully or not) since there were no paternity tests back then to prove otherwise.

Furthermore, to answer your question about how they depict/describe those other people?... I would say at first they described them as Black just like the Ethiopians were. However, over the centuries after the real Asiatic invasions took place *see Arab invasion* this whitening in depicting the Ancient Hebrews took place..similar to how they now depict the Ancient Egyptians.

I also know that to adopt means from an outside source... I never said the Ethiopians were originally Hebrews I just said that the original Hebrews from whence they got it were Black and not "Asiatic Invaders".


The Helio Biblio was not compiled to be a historical record. Neither was the Papul Vul, the Odu Ifa, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other spiritual/religious oral tradition or writ. It IS religious myth. I'm not sure why, but you seem to be looking at 'myth' as a prejoritive term, when symbolic language as represented by myth is some super deep stuff.

It's not that I'm looking at myth as a perjorative term..I now that humans have always felt the need to create folklore and fables and it serves a purpose which is to send a message while also entertain...similar to how we use fiction and movies today. However, The issue I have is that you are seemingly saying that the Bible is ONLY a book of fables and is DEVOID of any historically accurate information which I disagree with.

We all know that the Bible has been changed/translated from the original texts the ancient Hebrews left. That does not mean there is no actual record of events that took place....whats more you seem to be trying to have it both ways...On the one hand you dismiss the Bible as pure fiction (while acknowledging certain people in it actually existed like Solomon and 'Sheba') Yet you view events and people mentioned in ancient Egyptian texts (that were also translated in the same way as the Bible) as a irrefutable fact. Such as your belief that the Asiatic Hyksos 'invaded' Egypt which was translated 1300 years after the alleged event took place. Yet you take it on face value because it ties into what you want to believe.


The ancients kept many seperate historical records. The ancients also wrote wonderful myths that enrich our lives and can actually change our state of consciousness and teach us about ourselves and universe's workings."

Of course... which is why I just said what I did above...my question to you though is what makes you think the Ancient Hebrews didn't keep historical records? The Black Hebrews after being exposed to Egyptian culture for so long would undoubtably have learned how to separate fact from fiction. Just because their ancient texts were later comingled with historic record and what some may consider to be 'myths' (becoming what has resulted in todays Bible) does not mean that the Bible is a mythological book.

"If you read the books by Massey you will understand, also you may want to check this out below... Astrotheology is a very commen 'natural allegory' that myths symbolize."

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered "


As I said in the beginning deferring to a book in response to a direct question is not an answer. When I referred you to my books (which you O' shunned) I at least provided you with an excerpt to prove my point...If you don't mind could you tell me specifically what Massey said before I read the book?.

By the way, I've already seen the Zeitgeist link that you posted and I agree with it..It completely rips christianity apart (but I'm not a christian) so could you tell me what it had to do with my question to your regarding whether or not a Hebrew named Jacob/Israel could or did have 12 sons?



"There is extra Biblical evidence for Solomons existance. There IS NOT extra biblical evidence for the existance of Abraham or Moses."

If there is extra Biblical evidence to support the fact Solomons existed isn't it reasonable to extraploate that the Bible at least got his lineage right?...which leads right back to Abraham and Moses?....Solomon could not have existed in a bubble with no ancestry could he? Just because no physical evidence has been discovered to verify their existence does not mean that didn't (afterall they were much further back) I see NO reason to cast off the idea that they existenced because they don't have the physical evidence Solomon has...The Biblical record and circumstantial evidence are enough.


"I see you are still going with wiki, do you have any other confirmation of this info besides that? Can you please check the Massey books I posted on Egypt. Do you look past the 'coincidence' of the exodus and their expulsion?`If you do, how do you manage that?"

As I said before hold up wait a minute...YOU were the one that introduced the wiki link about the Hyksos in the first place... now because YOU didn't read it fully enough to see where it raised doubt about an Hyksos 'invasion' so now you want to cry fowl. First of all wiki may have been critisized in the past by me (mainly because I felt someone was posting too many links...but make no mistake it's just as good as any other source on the net they have vastly improved their accuracy over the years. So you complianing about me referring to wiki links (especially ones YOU posted) is VERY disingenuous
However, if you need to see a different non wiki link that says basically the same thing here you go....


"Hyksos rule of Egypt was probably the climax of waves of Asiatic immigration and infiltration into the northeastern Delta of the Nile. This process was perhaps aided by the Egyptians themselves. For example, Amenemhat II records, in unmistakable language, a campaign by sea to the Lebanese coast that resulted in a list of booty comprising 1,554 Asiatics, and considering that Egypt's eastern border was fortified and probably patrolled by soldiers, it is difficult to understand how massive numbers of foreign people could have simply migrated into northern Egypt. These people migrated, or otherwise moved to the region from the 12th Dynasty onward, and by the 13th Dynasty, this migration became widespread."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm

You should also note this article points out the fact that the Hyksos themselves were panetheists... so how could they be the same people as the monotheic Hebrews? More on this later.

"Egypt was overrun many times. I see you are still refferencing that wiki... 'Egypt Light of the World' please... It's the refference you requested remember?"

I'm well aware of that but what does that have to do with whether or not the Hyksos invaded?....again instead of just deferring to a book for the purpose of this conversation why don't you tell me what it says and what ancient data does it reference?

"You have lost me on this one... Are you saying the Hebrews introduced Judaism to Ethiopia then? Can you please explain how you think the Hebrew religion and people 'sprung from Egypt'.. I've stated what I think their origin is, but you haven't been specific."

I explained above how I believe the Ethiopians were introduced to Judiasm through Solomon by way of the Queen of Sheba. I believe the Biblical account that Jacob/Israel and his family migrated to Egypt and were there 430 years. I also feel they were Black going in and they were certainly Black by the time they left after intermixing with the Black Egyptians over centuries.

Regarding the definition of Semite I provided you said:

That's your Biblical explanation. Not THE explanation of the term. The is what it means inside of the Bible, not in a universal sense. Please use extra-biblical info to verify that Noah is a historical figure and not a late retelling of Ut-Napishtim of the Gilgamesh epic".

I indeed quoted Biblical root of the word 'Shem'...but I also quoted the Greek derivitive of the word which explains how we got "Semite" which you ignored...Here it is again...

"more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite."

Regarding whether Noah's great flood is the Gilgamesh epic I say that to me it would make sense if it was and give credence to the fact that a world event like that happened for it to be retold in so many diverse places by different people.

For one thing remember Noah (or Gilgamesh depending on the language) represents one first men on earth. As we all know Ancient Mesopotamia (where this story originated) is the cradle of human civilization and pre dates Egypt. So it makes perfect sense that this history would have been handed down to the Hebrews like any other people who stemmed from this very first civilization...Which by the way was Black.



"Calm down, stop the defensiveness. When someone clearly is not familiar with astrotheology and symbolic language, and are waiding in the ltieralist arena, then I know there are certain things I am more familar with, that's all. I'm quite sure that you have plenty of areas of knowledge that surpass mine. This is not a competition.

You said the above in response to me pointing out the fact that you feigned an attempt to place yourself in a 'advanced' role by claiming you were " was once at the same ideological stage that I'm in" which as I stated was neither necessary or validated. You then accuse my of not being familar "astrotheology and symbolic language" Which I very much am...and I have no idea where you got the idea I'm not...I guess it's simply because I don't feel that the Bible is soley "symbolic" the way you do I feel it is but there is also a lot of historic record that should not be dismissed. I know you feel that this is your "area of expertise" hence your need to feel you are 'correcting' someone but I'm just making it clear that there is no need for you to do that with me.


"I'll take that as, 'Yes, because I say it doesn't'.

You said this in response to when I asked you how does the Hyksos link from wiki that YOU posted (you know the one you keep crying about) answer the initial question I posed about Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa...something you've been avoiding for two posts now

"You asked me for references and I gave you several but you have not partaken of them. Why is that? Egypt Light of the World please... Please stop posting wiki and give legitimate references of your own..."

Again Oshun, stop all the disingenuous griping about wiki when you clearly have no problem with it as long as it says what you want it to...and why don't you save us both some time by telling me what secret is locked in "Egypt Light of the World" that will disprove the FACT that Akhenaten started a monotheistic religion in Africa or supports your attempt to throw "Akhenaten's wife" NEFERTITI under the chariot as being "Asiatic".

"That is me making the mistake of thinking you actually read Dr. Ben's works that refuted the evidence on wiki which you chose to hilight. I thought you had already done certain studying,"

I have read Dr. Bens earlier works before he took a complete 180... tell me what "new information" is Dr Ben privy to all of a sudden that cannot be confirmed on wiki or any other outside source? As I said before I'm taken a back that he is now changing his whole song and dance in order to break into the mainstream. Like I said before that's like a devout christian becoming an atheist or a Mullah becoming a Catholic priest.

Are you serious? I correct you with the KeMeTic versions(which most Africans prefer to using over the Greek you mentioned) and you claim I don't know what they are? Now you are just being silly... FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=spank"

Once again you didn't 'correct' me on anything I already knew the KeMeTic meanings... as proof remember a few days ago when I broke down the fact you are using two goddesses the Yoruban 'Oshun' and Egyptian/Kemetic 'Au Set' in your name? So again your corrections are NOT necessary...I used the names most people are familar with 'Osiris, Isis,' because I'm aware that not every one is familar with the KMT versions. Since we are still talking about the SAME gods your 'correction' was moot and only took us off the main point I made which was that certain KMT myth's have been literalized.

In response to me saying: Oshun, In the name of God regarding the Asanti language the "N" is silent which is why I said it's PRONOUNCED Yame. so your correction was not necessary at all.

You said:
Been to Ghana, know a little Twi, no it's not. This is one of many reasons I question the scholarhip in that book

First of all you are not the only one with a passport so please stop name dropping were you've been it's irrelevent...Secondly, you citing your personal experience and the "little Twi" you know doesn't speak for how the whole nation of Ghana pronounces the word Nyame. In most words spelled with a 'N' prefix followed by a consonant the 'N' is silent. Furthermore, even IF everyone in Ghana pronounces the 'N' it still does NOT take away from the obvious similarity there is between the Ashanti word for God Nyame and Hebrew word for God Yaweh. A point that once again your unnecessary 'correction' only served to cloud

"I hate to say this to you, but you are ASS-uming much.

BTW, so we don't start a pissing match, it would be best if you come with a little less of a patronizing attitude, ass-uming the worst in posters from this point on. It smacks of arrogance. I know you enjoy to get your clown on, but when someone is in a rush to do that, they end up looking immature and disrespectful. We are not enemies, we are discussing a topic."


Actually, Oshun I think you are reading too much into what you deem to be my 'attitude' I know we are not enemies in fact like I said earlier on most socio-economic issues we see eye to eye. However, you are intitled to expressing how you feel and while we're being honest I think it's only fair for me to tell you about this new vibe I'm getting from you...

From the time I first started noticing your posts I had a vision of the type of women you were...you seemed to come off like some of my other favorite posters Chocolate Queens like Khalliqa, Fabulous, Kocolicious andNegrospiritual.

I kinda pictured you as the Lauren Hill type (before her breakdown). Now after seeing some the numerous errors you've made I kinda picture you as one of those Denise Huxtable when she decided to go back to Africa types...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qshPuptg1C0

I'm not saying this to 'clown' you I'm just being honest.... I still very much respect your ideas and think you are a great poster with a lot of good things to say... but my mental picture of you has shifted a bit...or am I just 'ass-uming' too much?

P.S. I will be sending you the questions I feel you didn't answer from your last post..In my next reply...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I know what y'all are thinking but no there's no need for anyone to thank me for suggesting that this topic should be in its own thread.

My private message box is full. Therefore, I can no longer electronically sign anymore autographs until I'm done signing the ones I already have. hat


I never read your post... I stopped reading them in that thread towards the middle of it. I purely responded to LD's request...


You're not the one that started this thread now are you?


Now, I haven't read either one of your posts--not that I don't care but just like that epic novel-lengthed post raptor made in that other thread they're way too long.


I believe it was either the New Jersey or L.A. chapter of the New Black Panther Party who is currently verbally attacking (debating?) the Jews in the inner city streets over this very issue right now.


I also remember a peice being done on the history channel over a year ago about the ancient temple in Ethiopia where the original scrolls are stored. It was a fascinating temple that could only be reached by climbing a long, long thick rope like in some fairytale story. No women are allowed in the temple. I'm sure the both of you know the temple I'm talking about. I could easily google it but the point is I've been aware of the black Jews and their origin for quite a while.


I'm also sure either one of you will probably snap back with some response about what I don't know and blah, blah, blah or conspicuously post some Moby Dick-length information you copied from another site. I really don't care how you respond since I could easily google what I need to know. besides, there really is nothing to debate about the subject unless you simply like expressing what you know of Ethiopian history and what not. Nevertheless, I've contributed to the thread.
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
I see where this conversation is headed unless another fundamental adjustment is made...Now Oshun I noticed in your last post a high number of non answers. sidesteps and deferments to "Dr. Ben" and your books in response to DIRECT questions. To remedy this I'm going change my Q&A style to make it harder for you to give non answers, sidestep etc.



You have sidestepped quite a bit on the previous thread and this one. If I didn't answer a question it was because I found it to be a... what did you call it?... CORE POINTS.

quote:
Since all that will do is drag this thing out longer than necessary and at the end of the day get us nowhere. So I propose that we cut to the chase and just respond as DIRECTLY and HONESTLY as possible without all the extra bells, whistles, knobs, and dials. Which once again like this...

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...844605126/m/34210943

You thought made something 'more complex' but it actually only adds confusion....


Wasn't that an extra bell/whistle right there? I suggest that you follow your own advice and cut out the attempts at clowning ALL the time. If I have a different posting style or thought process then yours, you will have to deal with it as I have to deal with yours... Clowning and all... Roll Eyes

quote:
So this is how we are going to do this... I'm going to first lay out the direct statements and questions you made and I will answer them as specifically as possible. Then I'm going to lay out all the direct questions I asked you that I need answered as specifically as possible as well.


Can this be retroactive to where this conversation started from so I can get answers to all the direct questions you have sidestepped?

quote:
In the process of doing this it will be exposed how some of the larger points being made were side tracked. I'm not saying you always did this intentionally since sometimes this happens on message boards simply because of the format.


I don't think you necessarily did it intentionally either, but you have also done this.

quote:
For example ...

When I said: "Some Beta believe that as expressed in the Kebra Nagast they are descended from King Solomon which dates back to 950 B.C. over 1500 years before the Arab invasions.


You 'answered': "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general."

Which totally missed the larger point I was making... which is that the Beta in particular (who you brought up by the way) are a clear example of Africans VOLUNTARILY embracing a patriarical and monotheist heritage. This was clearly not the result of a "Asiatic Invasion" which is how you always seem to attribute these instances in Africa. I pointed out the Arab invasion which came much later ( over1500 years later) to show that the Black Ethiopians (long before Arab admixture) embraced a patriarical and monotheist heritage.


And you keep posting as if the Arab invasion was the earliest and only Asiatic invasion and/or contact into North East Africa which is innacurate! BTW, there was no question being posed above by you... You made a coment, and I commented upon it.

quote:
Something your... "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general." response didn't even address which is why it appeared to me that you were 'correcting' something you thought I didn't know.


Will you get past this 'side point' please?

quote:
Another one was when I asked you regarding depictions of Hebrews:

[b]Tell me how "old" these depictions are? do you have any examples? By the way, according to their belief "non-Africans" did not bring said religion ETHIOPIAN Hebrews did.


You 'answered': How could the same people you just said 'adopted' the religion, bring it to themselves? Did you mean to say 'created' in the previous part of this post?

This COMPLETELY avoided the questions I asked you which were Tell me how "old" these depictions are? and do you have any examples? You provided no answers and effectively just answered a question with a question...which adds nothing to a conversation except confusion as I mentioned in my opening statement.


I was asking for clarification on your thought process. Am I 'allowed' to do that?

The depictions of Solomon being Asiatic are in the orthodox temples in Ethiopia. They vary in age. I couldn't find any online, but I have seen them in print and photographs.

quote:
By the way, when I said it wasn't "non-Africans" but Ethiopian Hebrews who brought the Hebrew faith to other Ethiopians. I was referring to converts like the Queen of Sheba and her decendants who the last time I checked were AFRICANS...the fact that you didn't get that puzzles me.


Was that so difficult to clarify? You must remember, I'm not a literalist, so I have to ask...

quote:
There are MANY other 'answers' like this that you gave..I just wanted to point these out so you could see the reason for me to change our Q&A style as to avoid this.


But as I pointed out, the first 'complaint' wasn't about a question or answer...

quote:
For staters in your last post you said...
"If we want to interpret responses as offensive, I could have thought you sounded quite preachy/teachy. But since you are new to the forum, and appear to be posting in the spirit of love for our people, I didn't accuse you of that. To me what you have posted is 'basic' info to a large extent, but I don't think your intent is to patronize. "

This response is a prime example of what I'm talking about...you wrote this in reaction to how I interpreted your... "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general." comment to my answer about the Beta. Which based on the points that I laid out above was a reasonable interpretation on my part since you did NOT address to actual point.


There was no question to address... You've covered this 3 times... can we please move on now?

quote:
Whether or not something is "basic info" to you personally has nothing to do with making a point...Besides, not everyone reading this thread is an expert on all things Afrikan (such as yourself) so there's no need for either of us to put on an unnecessary show about what we know...I'm sure people are learning new things just based on what we've talked about so far anyway.


So then why were you so pissed about me posting Ausar, Auset, and Heru? You can't post basic info 'for the public' in conversation with me, and then take offense and go on a clown session when I do the same thing. That's hypocritical.

quote:
By the way, I don't mind whether or not you interpret me as being "preachy/teachy" I don't find that offensive... I'm just concerned with you addressing the actual points that I make....which in this instance you did not.


Are you talking about the instance that WASN'T a question still?

quote:
[b]You asked directly regarding how the Beta received their culture:

Who did they adopt it from and how do they depict/describe that/those person/peoples? To adopt something and to actually internally develop it are very different processes. To adopt something it must come from outside exposure.

My answer is that [b]I do believe that the Beta converted to their Hebrew belief based on the fact that the Queen of Sheba after returing home from seeing Solomons vast wealth and wisdom accepted his God over her pagan beliefs as documented in the Bible.


Beleif is not applicable as proof, and I would need extra-biblical proof please to accept the religious stories as historically accurate.

quote:
Obviously, her being the Queen would give her tremendous influence over her peoples belief systems and cultural practices. So it's not at all impossible that once she got home she issued edicts banning the worship of the pagan gods in favor of Solomon's God.


It's not impossinle. But you cannot prove the Biblical with the Bible(or other related religious texts). Do you have ANY historical other references other than your literalized belief in religious text?

quote:
If she became pregnant with Solomon's son (which is open to debate) this would further promote Solomon's beliefs onto the Ethiopians once the son became King. Even if Solomon never impregnated the Queen of Sheba whatever children she had after the encounter would have still embraced the beliefs of their mother. They could also just as easily been passed off as Solomon's seed "whether truthfully or not" since there were no paternity tests back then to prove otherwise.


You cannot prove the Biblical with the Bible(or other related religious texts). Do you have ANY historical other references other than your literalized belief in religious text?

quote:
Furthermore, to answer your question about how they depict/describe those other people?... I would say at first they described them as Black just like the Ethiopians were. However, over the centuries after the real Asiatic invasions took place *see Arab invasion* this whitnening in depicting the Ancient Hebrews took place..similar to how they now depict the Ancient Egyptians.


Are you aware of any other Asiatic invasions besides the VERY late Arabic one?

quote:
I also know that to adopt means from an outside source... I never said the Ethiopians were originally Hebrews I just said that the original Hebrews from whence they got it were Black and not "Asiatic Invaders".

The Helio Biblio was not compiled to be a historical record. Neither was the Papul Vul, the Odu Ifa, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other spiritual/religious oral tradition or writ. It IS religious myth. I'm not sure why, but you seem to be looking at 'myth' as a prejoritive term, when symbolic language as represented by myth is some super deep stuff.

It's not that I'm looking at myth as a perjorative term..I now that humans have always felt the need to create folklore and fables and it serves a purpose which is to send a message while also entertain...similar to how we use fiction and movies today. However, The issue I have is that you are seemingly saying that the Bible is ONLY a book of fables and is DEVOID of any historically accurate information which I disagree with.


That is not what I have stated ... Can you please explain what you are not overstanding what I am saying? I'm not talking about 'Fables and Folklore' sending a 'message' and being 'entertaining'. I'm talking about deep metaphysical and essoteric myth that explains the cycles of nature by anthropomorphizing them. I'm talking about SPIRITUAL SCIENCES and MYSTERY SYSTEMS that allow us to Know Ourselves. To chalk 'myths' up to 'folklore' or literal history ROBBS them of their richness.

quote:
We all know that the Bible has been changed/translated from the original texts the ancient Hebrews left. That does not mean there is no actual record of events that took place....


And how do you figure out which stories are allegory and which are literal history? You keep relying on BELIEF, while I ask for extra biblical historical confirmationm.

quote:
Whats more you seem to be trying to have it oth ways...On the one hand you dismiss the Bible as pure fiction (while acknowledging certain people in it actually existed like Solomon and 'Sheba')


I've never used the term 'fiction' in replacement of 'myth'. I still think you don't overstand how deep our ancestors spiritual sciences are,1) to be a literalist, 2) To not want to focus on the essoteric and metaphysical aspects like astrotheology and the allegory or trnassformation of consciousness. As I ALREADY STATED in my previous posts(but you keep ignoring) There is historical record OUTSIDE OF TEH BIBLE that's supports the existance of a historical Queen Sheba... but as ancestor veneration and deificationgoes... That does not necessarily mean the story around 'the historical figure' is accurate and not meant to convey another message all together. THAT is how religious writings work. INTENTIONALLY so...

quote:
Yet you view events and people mentioned in ancient Egyptian texts (that were also translated in the same way as the Bible) as a irrefutable fact.


No I don't The religious texts and th historical records are SEPERATE in Egypt. I do not view Ausar/Auset/Heru as historical figures, they are Neteru(powers of nature) that depicts an allegory of the procession of the sun, which also symbolizes man reaching enlightenment via mythical archetype.

quote:
Such as your belief that the Asiatic Hyksos 'invaded' Egypt which was translated 1300 years after the alleged event took place. Yet you take it on face value because it ties into what you want to believe.


As I asked.. non wiki source for this please... In fact. I've been asking over and over again for non-biblical sources, whcih I provided for you, yet you keep ignoring my request and giving me you literalist belief... which doesn't suffice as any proof.

quote:
The ancients kept many [b]seperate historical records. The ancients also wrote wonderful myths that enrich our lives and can actually change our state of consciousness and teach us about ourselves and universe's workings."

Of course... which is why I just said what I did above...my question to you though is what makes you think the Ancient Hebrews didn't keep historical records?


Please present the SEPERATE(extra-biblical) historical records for Noah and Moses. I'm not sure why you are asking me what I 'think the Hebrews did' when all you have to do, and all I'vebeen asking for is some non-biblical refferencese... If you keep not presenting them I am going to be forced to believe it is because there either aren't any, or you do not have access to them.

quote:
The Black Hebrews after being exposed to Egyptian culture for so long would undoubtably have learned how to separate fact from fiction. Just because their ancient texts were later comingled with historic record and what some may consider to be 'myths' (becoming what has resulted in todays Bible) does not mean that the Bible is a mythological book.


So let me get this straight. You admit to the African origins of the Bible and actually promote this idea. In EVERY BOOK I have ever read about the African origins of the Bible... It is a fact that the myths/natural allegories that the Kamau and others wrote thousands of years before the Hebrews were on the scene, and the SEPERATE historical records of the Kamau are the basis for what you believe are 'historical accounts' in the Bible, wrewritten and compiled to have happened at a later time to later people.

You have not given any extra-biblical records confirming that the people(Noah & Moses) and events(the stories surrounding them and other firgures which ARE historically proven like Sheba) that you literalize in the Bible are actually historical. If you do not have extra-biblical accounts, then what majic power do you posess that the rest of us are not privy to that allows you to assertain what and who is allegory and what and who is historical? And please don't say 'faith'... cuz that doesn't fly...

quote:
"If you read the books by Massey you will understand, also you may want to check this out below... Astrotheology is a very commen 'natural allegory' that myths symbolize."

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered "


As I said in the beginning deferring to a book in response to a direct question is not an answer. When I referred you to my books (which you O' shunned)


I actually discussed point in them that I disagreed with, you have yet to do that.

quote:
I at least provided you with an excerpt to prove my point...If you don't mind could you tell me specifically what Massey said before I read the book?.


That's impossibnle.

quote:
By the way, I've already seen the Zeitgeist link that you posted and I agree with it..It completely rips christianity apart (but I'm not a christian) so could you tell me what it had to do with my question to your regarding whether or not a Hebrew named Jacob/Israel could or did have 12 sons?

SO the zodiac allegory only applies to X-ianity? The movie that you 'completely agree with' verymuch demonstrates that the Sun allegory is in alomost ANYTHING that the number 12 shows up in, cross culturally... Does not the Ausarian mystery PREDATE the 12 tribes? You picking and choosing in an odd fashion...


quote:
"There is extra Biblical evidence for Solomons existance. There IS NOT extra biblical evidence for the existance of Abraham or Moses."

If there is extra Biblical evidence to support the fact Solomons existed isn't it reasonable to extraploate that the Bible at least got his lineage right?...


No, that would not be a logical leap to make about religious texts. As I've stated before, the stories surrounding even proven historical figures are not historical unless proven as such with extra-religious proof. Please present extra biblical proof of the lineage story actually referring to historical individuals?

quote:
which leads right back to Abraham and Moses?....Solomon could not have existed in a bubble with no ancestry could he?


Nope, and I gave on the other therad as an example of ancestor deification(whcih you skipped poat) that Shango was a proven historical Alafin of Oyo, but the story surrounding him is a nature allegory and is taught as such.

quote:
Just because no physical evidence has been discovered to verify their existence does not mean that didn't (afterall they were much further back)


It also doesn't prove that the stories surrounding them, which often predate them(there is that inconvienient African origins thingy) are historical. The predated stories actually prove that most of the stories around 'possible' historical figures are allegory. That is why focussing on the historocity is folly, and honestly is missing the entire point of the MYSTERY SYSTEM.

Please don't take offese to this, but you do realize the logic you just used above is the same as what X-ains use to believe in a literal Jesus... "well, you can't ptove they didn't exist'" doesn't fly friend.

quote:
I see NO reason to cast off the idea that they existenced because they don't have the physical evidence Solomon has...The Biblical record and circumstantial evidence are enough.


Maybe for 'believers'. Why someone would choose faith that figures are historical over learning the deeper essoterica and metaphycial aspects of a myth is beyond me. Particualrly someone who sees how silly it is for X-ians to do that exact thing.

quote:
"I see you are still going with wiki, do you have any other confirmation of this info besides that? Can you please check the Massey books I posted on Egypt. Do you look past the 'coincidence' of the exodus and their expulsion?`If you do, how do you manage that?"

[b]As I said before hold up wait a minute...YOU were the one that introduced the wiki link about the Hyksos in the first place...


Because, as before, you only kept referencing the very late Arab invasion. I figured you forgot about them, and that was the quickest 'refference' available. I have later given refferences to several books that go indepth abot them. You can lead a horse to water.


quote:
now because YOU didn't read it fully enough to see where it raised doubt about an Hyksos 'invasion' so now you want to cry fowl.


No, because YOU said you knew of the African origins of Judaism/X-ianity/Islam and quoted Dr. Ben. I didn't know you hadn't read his material(which would allow one to easilt discern what aspects of that wiki article are obvious bs).

quote:
First of all wiki may have been critisized in the past by me (mainly because I felt someone was posting too many links...but make no mistake it's just as good as any other source on the net they have vastly improved their accuracy over the years.


On the net yes... I agree with tat. But I think the net makes for poor source amterial in general. Hence I refer books.

quote:
So you complianing about me referring to wiki links (especially ones YOU posted) is VERY disingenuous
However, if you need to see a different non wiki link that says basically the same thing here you go....


I wanted BOOKS...not internet links.

"Hyksos rule of Egypt was probably the climax of waves of Asiatic immigration and infiltration into the northeastern Delta of the Nile. This process was perhaps aided by the Egyptians themselves. For example, Amenemhat II records, in unmistakable language, a campaign by sea to the Lebanese coast that resulted in a list of booty comprising 1,554 Asiatics, and considering that Egypt's eastern border was fortified and probably patrolled by soldiers, it is difficult to understand how massive numbers of foreign people could have simply migrated into northern Egypt. These people migrated, or otherwise moved to the region from the 12th Dynasty onward, and by the 13th Dynasty, this migration became widespread."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm


OMG! Tour Egypt? You can't be serious...

quote:
You should also note this article points out the fact that the Hyksos themselves were panetheists... so how could they be the same people as the monotheic Hebrews? More on this later.


Did you know that the Hebrews were panentheists/polytheists too? Uh oh... There goes that historical fact vs. religious literalism contradiction...

quote:
"Egypt was overrun many times. I see you are still refferencing that wiki... 'Egypt Light of the World' please... It's the refference you requested remember?"

I'm well aware of that but what does that have to do with whether or not the Hyksos invaded?....again instead of just deferring to a book for the purpose of this conversation why don't you tell me what it says and what ancient data does it reference?


I've told you what the book says in my own words... I gave the link the the BOOK as a refference to said information upon you request. If you would have clicked on the link their is a chapter on the Exodus that covers it. Still waiting on that extra-biblical confirmation of figures you believe are historical and the stories around them that are so simliar to stories that predate said characters....

quote:
"You have lost me on this one... Are you saying the Hebrews introduced Judaism to Ethiopia then? Can you please explain how you think the Hebrew religion and people 'sprung from Egypt'.. I've stated what I think their origin is, but you haven't been specific."

I explained above how I believe the Ethiopians were introduced to Judiasm through Solomon by way of the Queen of Sheba. I believe the Biblical account that Jacob/Israel and his family migrated to Egypt and were there 430 years. I also feel they were Black going in and they were certainly Black by the time they left after intermixing with the Black Egyptians over centuries.


I keep forgetting you are a literalist.. My bad. I'm not used to conversing with literalists so it slips my mind.

quote:
Regarding the definition of Semite I provided you said:

That's your Biblical explanation. Not THE explanation of the term. The is what it means inside of the Bible, not in a universal sense. Please use extra-biblical info to verify that Noah is a historical figure and not a late retelling of Ut-Napishtim of the Gilgamesh epic".

I the quoted Biblical root of the word 'Shem'...but I also quoted the Greek derivitive of the word which explains how we got "Semite" which you ignored...Here it is again...

"more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite."


I didn't ignore that... That is a neither here nor there, it's irrelevent. 'Jesus' is the Greek word for 'Yeshua'... neither character existed. So waht was your point?

quote:
Regarding whether Noah's great flood is the Gilgamesh epic I say that to me it would make sense if it was and a credence to the fact that a world event like that happened for it to be retold in so many diverse places by different people. For one thing remember Noah (or Gilgamesh depending on the language) represents one first men on earth. As we all know Ancient Mesopotamia (where this story originated) is the cradle of human civilization and pre dates Egypt. So it makes perfect sense that this history would have been handed down to the Hebrews like any other people who stemmed from this very first civilization...Which by the way was Black.


Your thought process is all over the place. You say Noah is historical, and the Bible is historically accurate, and so are it's lineages, yet you accept the 'millenia older' Epic of Gilgamesh as the same person/story/event as Noah...which per the lineages you believe are historically accurate, HAD to exist in a completely different and far later timeframe? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

quote:
"Calm down, stop the defensiveness. When someone clearly is not familiar with astrotheology and symbolic language, and are waiding in the ltieralist arena, then I know there are certain things I am more familar with, that's all. I'm quite sure that you have plenty of areas of knowledge that surpass mine. This is not a competition.

You said the above in response to me pointing out the fact that you feigned an attempt to place yourself in a 'advanced' role by claiming you were " was once at the same ideological stage that I'm in" which as I stated was neither necessary or validated.


It's true, before I was taught some of them ysteries I was somewhata literalist like you.

quote:
You then accuse my of not being familar "astrotheology and symbolic language" Which I very much am...and I have no idea where you got the idea I'm not...


Because you selectively aplly it to only X-ianity and still are a literalist...

quote:
I guess it's simply because I don't feel that the Bible is soley "symbolic" the way you do I feel it is but there is also a lot of historic record that should not be dismissed. I know you feel that this is your "area of expertise" hence your need to feel you are 'correcting' someone but I'm just making it clear that there is no need for you to do that with me.


You haven't given on iota of extra biblical proof of historicity, although I have been asking for it over and over.

quote:
"I'll take that as, 'Yes, because I say it doesn't'.

You said this in response to when I asked you how does the Hyksos link from wiki that YOU posted (you know the one you keep crying about) answer the initial question I posed about Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa...something you've been avoiding for two posts now


Nope, you initially said the asiatics weren't there during his time. Taht wasn't accurate AT ALL so I posted the link.

quote:
"You asked me for references and I gave you several but you have not partaken of them. Why is that? Egypt Light of the World please... Please stop posting wiki and give legitimate references of your own..."

Again Oshun, stop all the disingenuous griping about wiki when you clearly have no problem with it as long as it says what you want it to...and why don't you save us both some time by telling me what secret is locked in "Egypt Light of the World" that will disprove the FACT that Akhenaten started a monotheistic religion in Africa or supports your attempt to throw "Akhenaten's wife" NEFERTITI under the chariot as being "Asiatic".


Why don't you stop being generally disingenous and post the references for the SPECIFIC things that 'you believe' I have repeatedly asked for.

quote:
"That is me making the mistake of thinking you actually read Dr. Ben's works that refuted the evidence on wiki which you chose to hilight. I thought you had already done certain studying,"

I have read Dr. Bens earlier works before he took a complete 180... tell me what "new information" is Dr Ben privy to all of a sudden that cannot be confirmed on wiki or any other outside source? As I said before I'm taken a back that he is now changing his whole song and dance in order to break into the mainstream. Like I said before that's like a devout christian becoming an atheist or a Mullah becoming a Catholic priest.


How did you not know the Hyksos were present during Ankenaten's reign then? How do you literalize the African MYTHS the Hebrew writings have historicized then? Something is amiss...

quote:
Are you serious? I correct you with the KeMeTic versions(which most Africans prefer to using over the Greek you mentioned) and you claim I don't know what they are? Now you are just being silly... FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=spank"

Once again you didn't 'correct' me on anything I already knew the KeMeTic meanings... as proof remember a few days ago when I broke down the fact you are using two goddesses the Yoruban 'Oshun' and Egyptian/Kemetic 'Au Set' in your name? So again your corrections are NOT necessary...I used the names most people are familar with 'Osiris, Isis,' because I'm aware that not every one is familar with the KMT versions. Since we are still talking about the SAME gods your 'correction' was moot and only took us off the main point I made which was that certain KMT myth's have been literalized.


Well if that's the case. I MENTIONED the Beta Israel first, so prey tell why you posted the stories of Sheba and the Kebra Negast as if you were teaching something new. BTW, I've never known a conscious African to use 'Gods' in place of Neteru/Netcher or Isis in place of Auset... So it threw me off understandably, and as much for others, as for you. I posted the KeMeTic. Now, can you get over it and move onto those references please? You are beginning to drag this out...

quote:
In response to me saying: Oshun, In the name of God regarding the Asanti language the "N" is silent which is why I said it's PRONOUNCED Yame. so your correction was not necessary at all.

You said:
Been to Ghana, know a little Twi, no it's not. This is one of many reasons I question the scholarhip in that book

First of all you are not the only one with a passport so please stop name dropping were you've been it's irrelevent...


That wasn't my point. I was referrencing Ghana because it is very different to here a language spoken than to read bout it no?

quote:
Secondly, you citing your personal experience and the "little Twi" you know doesn't speak for how the whole nation of Ghana pronounces the word Nyame. In most words spelled with a 'N' prefix followed by a consonant the 'N' is silent.


And you know this because of?...(and please don't say that same errored book) I am surrounded with Bantu speakers from all over the continent on a daily basis and that is FALSE.

quote:
Furthermore, even IF everyone in Ghana pronounces the 'N' it still does NOT take away from the obvious similarity there is between the Ashanti word for God Nyame and Hebrew word for God Yaweh. A point that once again your unnecessary 'correction' only served to cloud


It takes away from the accuracy of the book(particualrly concerneing how weasy that would be to verify), and it makes it look as if they have an alterior motive for making things look more alike than they actually are. I have an inclination to what that motive would be...

quote:
"I hate to say this to you, but you are ASS-uming much.

BTW, so we don't start a pissing match, it would be best if you come with a little less of a patronizing attitude, ass-uming the worst in posters from this point on. It smacks of arrogance. I know you enjoy to get your clown on, but when someone is in a rush to do that, they end up looking immature and disrespectful. We are not enemies, we are discussing a topic."


Actually, Oshun I think you are reading too much into what you deem to be my 'attitude' I know we are not enemies in fact like I said earlier on most socio-economic issues we see eye to eye. However, you are intitled to expressing how you feel and while we're being honest I think it's only fair for me to tell you about this new vibe I'm getting from you...

From the time I first started noticing your posts I had a vision of the type of women you were...you seemed to come off like some of my other favorite posters Chocolate Queens like Khalliqa, Fabulous, Kocolicious andNegrospiritual.

I kinda pictured you as the Lauren Hill type (before her breakdown). Now after seeing some the numerous errors you've made I kinda picture you as one of those Denise Huxtable when she decided to go back to Africa types...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qshPuptg1C0

I'm not saying this to 'clown' you I'm just being honest.... I still very much respect your ideas and think you are a great poster with a lot of good things to say... but my mental picture of you has shifted a bit...or am I just 'ass-uming' too much?

P.S. I will be sending you the questions I feel you didn't answer from your last post..In my next reply...


Roll Eyes You probably spent more time looking up that uncalled for link to do another clown than you did trying to find your non-existant extra-bniblical proof that you have NOT PROVIDED. This speaks volumes about your character.

BTW, although I afree with a lot of your soci-economic points. You came off as preachy and immature(with all the hardcore clowning, although some of it made me giggle) from the beginning...
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:

When I said: "Some Beta believe that as expressed in the Kebra Nagast they are descended from King Solomon which dates back to 950 B.C. over 1500 years before the Arab invasions.


You 'answered': "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general."

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:

Which totally missed the larger point I was making... which is that the Beta in particular (who you brought up by the way) are a clear example of Africans VOLUNTARILY embracing a patriarical and monotheist heritage. This was clearly not the result of a "Asiatic Invasion" which is how you always seem to attribute these instances in Africa. I pointed out the Arab invasion which came much later ( over1500 years later) to show that the Black Ethiopians (long before Arab admixture) embraced a patriarical and monotheist heritage.



And you keep posting as if the Arab invasion was the earliest and only Asiatic invasion and/or contact into North East Africa which is innacurate! BTW, there was no question being posed above by you... You made a coment, and I commented upon it.


This is a redherring I never said the Arab invasion was the "earliest" I said that regarding an invasion that IMPOSED a monotheist belief system on the Ethiopians by an Asiatic people the first was the Arabs which is only point I was making

quote:
Something your... "Actually, that's Ethiopians in general." response didn't even address which is why it appeared to me that you were 'correcting' something you thought I didn't know.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Will you get past this 'side point' please?


Gladly, if you finally get it....



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:

Another one was when I asked you regarding depictions of Hebrews:


Tell me how "old" these depictions are? do you have any examples? By the way, according to their belief "non-Africans" did not bring said religion ETHIOPIAN Hebrews did.

You 'answered': How could the same people you just said 'adopted' the religion, bring it to themselves? Did you mean to say 'created' in the previous part of this post?

This COMPLETELY avoided the questions I asked you which were Tell me how "old" these depictions are? and do you have any examples? You provided no answers and effectively just answered a question with a question...which adds nothing to a conversation except confusion as I mentioned in my opening statement.


I was asking for clarification on your thought process. Am I 'allowed' to do that?



Sure you can but that shouldn't come at the expense of answering a DIRECT question

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
The depictions of Solomon being Asiatic are in the orthodox temples in Ethiopia. They vary in age. I couldn't find any online, but I have seen them in print and photographs.


I didn't ask where they were I just wanted to know how old they were...because from the research I've done most of the depictions of Solomon (even in that part of the world) reflect the current eurocentric standard. They were made mostly during the middle ages...which proves my point. If cannot provide evidence to the contrary your statement about seeing "old" depictions of a non Black Solomon mean nothing.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
By the way, when I said it wasn't "non-Africans" but Ethiopian Hebrews who brought the Hebrew faith to other Ethiopians. I was referring to converts like the Queen of Sheba and her decendants who the last time I checked were AFRICANS...the fact that you didn't get that puzzles me.


Was that so difficult to clarify? You must remember, I'm not a literalist, so I have to ask...


Maybe that's the problem you're so focused on not being a "literalist" that for forget that many things in life are straight forward/literal... everything doesn't need to be so 'Mystical' with some hidden meaning behind it. ....At any rate I'm glad you FINALLY got it....

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
There are MANY other 'answers' like this that you gave..I just wanted to point these out so you could see the reason for me to change our Q&A style as to avoid this.



But as I pointed out, the first 'complaint' wasn't about a question or answer...


The point is you didn't address it properly but anyway I think you realize your folly now...


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
Whether or not something is "basic info" to you personally has nothing to do with making a point...Besides, not everyone reading this thread is an expert on all things Afrikan (such as yourself) so there's no need for either of us to put on an unnecessary show about what we know...I'm sure people are learning new things just based on what we've talked about so far anyway.


So then why were you so pissed about me posting Ausar, Auset, and Heru? You can't post basic info 'for the public' in conversation with me, and then take offense and go on a clown session when I do the same thing. That's hypocritical.


I really don't think you get it...I was not 'pissed' about you posting Ausar, Auset, and Heru. I'm just pointing out the fact that in making such negligable 'corrections' while falling to address the larger point being made...you are wasting valuable time and not progressing the conversation...Anyway you don't seem to get it so onward and upward.



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
You asked directly regarding how the Beta received their culture:

Who did they adopt it from and how do they depict/describe that/those person/peoples? To adopt something and to actually internally develop it are very different processes. To adopt something it must come from outside exposure.

My answer is that [b]I do believe that the Beta converted to their Hebrew belief based on the fact that the Queen of Sheba after returing home from seeing Solomons vast wealth and wisdom accepted his God over her pagan beliefs as documented in the Bible.


Beleif is not applicable as proof, and I would need extra-biblical proof please to accept the religious stories as historically accurate.


Oshun, you've got to cut out these types of lame shenanigans...what possible 'proof' can one provide to confirm that a CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS transfer took place other than through CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS means??? We already have this in the person the Ethiopians themselves and their handed down CULTURAL traditions and RELIGIOUS texts. The "extra-biblical" proof is the mere fact that they are practicing Judaism even TODAY unlike any of the other people around them. You looking for some sort of tangible proof to something like this is like asking to see 'proof' that the Indians taught the pilgrims how to plant corn...there is no physical proof to this but we know they taught them due to it being handed down...STOP asking for PHYSICAL proof to CULTURAL exchanges it's NOT a valid request and is a logical fallacy.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
Obviously, her being the Queen would give her tremendous influence over her peoples belief systems and cultural practices. So it's not at all impossible that once she got home she issued edicts banning the worship of the pagan gods in favor of Solomon's God.


It's not impossinle. But you cannot prove the Biblical with the Bible(or other related religious texts). Do you have ANY historical other references other than your literalized belief in religious text?


*See above*

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
If she became pregnant with Solomon's son (which is open to debate) this would further promote Solomon's beliefs onto the Ethiopians once the son became King. Even if Solomon never impregnated the Queen of Sheba whatever children she had after the encounter would have still embraced the beliefs of their mother. They could also just as easily been passed off as Solomon's seed "whether truthfully or not" since there were no paternity tests back then to prove otherwise.



You cannot prove the Biblical with the Bible(or other related religious texts). Do you have ANY historical other references other than your literalized belief in religious text?


Again this is a logical fallacy you want physical evidence of a cultural and religious exchange...besides I don't see you offering up a better explanation than the Biblical accounts...How do you reckon they embraced the Hebrew culture? If you say "Asiatic invasion" then surely you should have at least a recorded history of it no?

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
Furthermore, to answer your question about how they depict/describe those other people?... I would say at first they described them as Black just like the Ethiopians were. However, over the centuries after the real Asiatic invasions took place *see Arab invasion* this whitnening in depicting the Ancient Hebrews took place..similar to how they now depict the Ancient Egyptians.


Are you aware of any other Asiatic invasions besides the VERY late Arabic one?


I sure am but non of those are relevent to what we are discussing here...If you think they are let me know how...


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
It's not that I'm looking at myth as a perjorative term..I now that humans have always felt the need to create folklore and fables and it serves a purpose which is to send a message while also entertain...similar to how we use fiction and movies today. However, The issue I have is that you are seemingly saying that the Bible is ONLY a book of fables and is DEVOID of any historically accurate information which I disagree with.


That is not what I have stated ... Can you please explain what you are not overstanding what I am saying? I'm not talking about 'Fables and Folklore' sending a 'message' and being 'entertaining'. I'm talking about deep metaphysical and essoteric myth that explains the cycles of nature by anthropomorphizing them. I'm talking about SPIRITUAL SCIENCES and MYSTERY SYSTEMS that allow us to Know Ourselves. To chalk 'myths' up to 'folklore' or literal history ROBBS them of their richness.


Don't you think you are diving just a little bit too much into that Oprahesque 'The Secret' stuff not all ancient historic accounts were meant to do this...some things actually dealth with things concerning the world in which we live.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
We all know that the Bible has been changed/translated from the original texts the ancient Hebrews left. That does not mean there is no actual record of events that took place....



And how do you figure out which stories are allegory and which are literal history? You keep relying on BELIEF, while I ask for extra biblical historical confirmationm.



For one thing if I see a genealogy or lineage being spelled out there is not one reason for me to assume that it's menat to be an "allegory" if so what purpose would it be? Trying to add some mystic value to something like that would only create confusion and detract away from the utility of the record itself.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
Yet you view events and people mentioned in ancient Egyptian texts (that were also translated in the same way as the Bible) as a irrefutable fact.


No I don't The religious texts and th historical records are SEPERATE in Egypt. I do not view Ausar/Auset/Heru as historical figures, they are Neteru(powers of nature) that depicts an allegory of the procession of the sun, which also symbolizes man reaching enlightenment via mythical archetype.


I'm not talking about clearly mythical beings like 'Ausar/Auset/Heru' I'm referring to actual events and people that were written about thousands of years after the fact. Such as like I said your belief that the Asiatic Hyksos 'invaded' Egypt which was translated 1300 years after the alleged event took place



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
Please present the SEPERATE(extra-biblical) historical records for Noah and Moses. I'm not sure why you are asking me what I 'think the Hebrews did' when all you have to do, and all I'vebeen asking for is some non-biblical refferencese... If you keep not presenting them I am going to be forced to believe it is because there either aren't any, or you do not have access to them.


See this is what I mean you keep presenting non sequiturs their are people in the Bible for which their is extra-biblical records and some that are not....you keep asking for records for those that have not been discovered yet. The fact that there ARE non biblical records for people like Ramsees, Solomon, Queen of Sheba, Nebuchadnezar, Belteshazar, Darius I etc. Should be prove positive that the Bible does contain accurate hisotic records but nooooo..you keep asking for those records that you KNOW have not been discovered.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
"If you read the books by Massey you will understand, also you may want to check this out below... Astrotheology is a very commen 'natural allegory' that myths symbolize."

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered "


As I said in the beginning deferring to a book in response to a direct question is not an answer. When I referred you to my books (which you O' shunned)


I actually discussed point in them that I disagreed with, you have yet to do that.

quote:
I at least provided you with an excerpt to prove my point...If you don't mind could you tell me specifically what Massey said before I read the book?.


That's impossibnle.


Why is it impossible? can you not quote it?



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
First of all wiki may have been critisized in the past by me (mainly because I felt someone was posting too many links...but make no mistake it's just as good as any other source on the net they have vastly improved their accuracy over the years.


On the net yes... I agree with tat. But I think the net makes for poor source amterial in general. Hence I refer books.


Ummm in case you havent noticed we are on the net so refering books which one may not have in front them is not efficient...there is nothing wrong with internet source material and you know it... much of it comes from books...

quote:
So you complianing about me referring to wiki links (especially ones YOU posted) is VERY disingenuous
However, if you need to see a different non wiki link that says basically the same thing here you go....


I wanted BOOKS...not internet links.

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset

"Hyksos rule of Egypt was probably the climax of waves of Asiatic immigration and infiltration into the northeastern Delta of the Nile. This process was perhaps aided by the Egyptians themselves. For example, Amenemhat II records, in unmistakable language, a campaign by sea to the Lebanese coast that resulted in a list of booty comprising 1,554 Asiatics, and considering that Egypt's eastern border was fortified and probably patrolled by soldiers, it is difficult to understand how massive numbers of foreign people could have simply migrated into northern Egypt. These people migrated, or otherwise moved to the region from the 12th Dynasty onward, and by the 13th Dynasty, this migration became widespread."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm


OMG! Tour Egypt? You can't be serious...[/QUOTE]

Oshun, your feigned 'expert on all things Egyptian' has got to be turned down a notch...there is nothing wrong with the info contained within this link so kill the theatric's you asked for a non wiki link I give you one and you're still complaining about it


Anyway, below is a montage of all the questions you blatantly sidestepped I told you that I would answer your questions but all I asked that you answered mine but you couldn't do that as demonstated below...

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
"I'll take that as, 'Yes, because I say it doesn't'.

You said this in response to when I asked you how does the Hyksos link from wiki that YOU posted (you know the one you keep crying about) answer the initial question I posed about Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa...something you've been avoiding for two posts now


Nope, you initially said the asiatics weren't there during his time. Taht wasn't accurate AT ALL so I posted the link.

quote:
"You asked me for references and I gave you several but you have not partaken of them. Why is that? Egypt Light of the World please... Please stop posting wiki and give legitimate references of your own..."

Again Oshun, stop all the disingenuous griping about wiki when you clearly have no problem with it as long as it says what you want it to...and why don't you save us both some time by telling me what secret is locked in "Egypt Light of the World" that will disprove the FACT that Akhenaten started a monotheistic religion in Africa or supports your attempt to throw "Akhenaten's wife" NEFERTITI under the chariot as being "Asiatic".


Why don't you stop being generally disingenous and post the references for the SPECIFIC things that 'you believe' I have repeatedly asked for.


^^^^ A question with a question totally avoiding it....

quote:
"That is me making the mistake of thinking you actually read Dr. Ben's works that refuted the evidence on wiki which you chose to hilight. I thought you had already done certain studying,"

I have read Dr. Bens earlier works before he took a complete 180... tell me what "new information" is Dr Ben privy to all of a sudden that cannot be confirmed on wiki or any other outside source? As I said before I'm taken a back that he is now changing his whole song and dance in order to break into the mainstream. Like I said before that's like a devout christian becoming an atheist or a Mullah becoming a Catholic priest.


How did you not know the Hyksos were present during Ankenaten's reign then? How do you literalize the African MYTHS the Hebrew writings have historicized then? Something is amiss...

^^^^ Has nothing to do with the question about Dr. Bens sources...blantant avoidance...



quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
In response to me saying: [b]Oshun, In the name of God regarding the Asanti language the "N" is silent which is why I said it's PRONOUNCED Yame. so your correction was not necessary at all.[/b]

You said:
Been to Ghana, know a little Twi, no it's not. This is one of many reasons I question the scholarhip in that book

First of all you are not the only one with a passport so please stop name dropping were you've been it's irrelevent...


That wasn't my point. I was referrencing Ghana because it is very different to here a language spoken than to read bout it no?


^^^^^Irrelvent you have not heard every person in Ghana prounce it

quote:
Secondly, you citing your personal experience and the "little Twi" you know doesn't speak for how the whole nation of Ghana pronounces the word Nyame. In most words spelled with a 'N' prefix followed by a consonant the 'N' is silent.


And you know this because of?...(and please don't say that same errored book) I am surrounded with Bantu speakers from all over the continent on a daily basis and that is FALSE.[/quote]

^^^^^again you have not read the book yet it's 'errored' you believe your personal experience trumps someones years of research on this subject...illogical


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset
quote:
"I hate to say this to you, but you are ASS-uming much.

BTW, so we don't start a pissing match, it would be best if you come with a little less of a patronizing attitude, ass-uming the worst in posters from this point on. It smacks of arrogance. I know you enjoy to get your clown on, but when someone is in a rush to do that, they end up looking immature and disrespectful. We are not enemies, we are discussing a topic."


Actually, Oshun I think you are reading too much into what you deem to be my 'attitude' I know we are not enemies in fact like I said earlier on most socio-economic issues we see eye to eye. However, you are intitled to expressing how you feel and while we're being honest I think it's only fair for me to tell you about this new vibe I'm getting from you...

From the time I first started noticing your posts I had a vision of the type of women you were...you seemed to come off like some of my other favorite posters Chocolate Queens like Khalliqa, Fabulous, Kocolicious andNegrospiritual.

I kinda pictured you as the Lauren Hill type (before her breakdown). Now after seeing some the numerous errors you've made I kinda picture you as one of those Denise Huxtable when she decided to go back to Africa types...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qshPuptg1C0

I'm not saying this to 'clown' you I'm just being honest.... I still very much respect your ideas and think you are a great poster with a lot of good things to say... but my mental picture of you has shifted a bit...or am I just 'ass-uming' too much?

P.S. I will be sending you the questions I feel you didn't answer from your last post..In my next reply...


Roll Eyes You probably spent more time looking up that uncalled for link to do another clown than you did trying to find your non-existant extra-bniblical proof that you have NOT PROVIDED. This speaks volumes about your character.

BTW, although I afree with a lot of your soci-economic points. You came off as preachy and immature(with all the hardcore clowning, although some of it made me giggle) from the beginning...


Actually, it took me no time to find that link once you started name dropping and flexing your Afrocentric muscles that old Cosby episode came to mind. I don't normally set out to clown people on purpose..I normally just like sticking to the facts however every once in a while it feels good to add some levity to a situation when the opportunity presents itself.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Maybe that's the problem you're so focused on not being a "literalist" that for forget that many things in life are straight forward/literal... everything doesn't need to be so 'Mystical' with some hidden meaning behind it. ....At any rate I'm glad you FINALLY got it....


Uhhhmmmm... We aren't discussing 'everything' now are we? We are specifically discussing religious/spiritual writings that we both agree are borrowed from the KeMeTic mystery systems... So are you saying that in your opinion spiritual sciences aren't mystical? And there is no deeper meaning to the myths and allegories of the worlds spiritual traditions beyond literal history? Confused If you think that, please let me know... cuz then really, our entire convo is pointless...

quote:
Oshun, you've got to cut out these types of lame shenanigans...what possible 'proof' can one provide to confirm that a CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS transfer took place other than through CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS means??? We already have this in the person the Ethiopians themselves and their handed down CULTURAL traditions and RELIGIOUS texts. The "extra-biblical" proof is the mere fact that they are practicing Judaism even TODAY unlike any of the other people around them. You looking for some sort of tangible proof to something like this is like asking to see 'proof' that the Indians taught the pilgrims how to plant corn...there is no physical proof to this but we know they taught them due to it being handed down...STOP asking for PHYSICAL proof to CULTURAL exchanges it's NOT a valid request and is a logical fallacy.


Why are you beiong dishonest? nono I have specifically and repeatedly asked for extra-biblical proof of the characters in the Helio Biblio that you believe are literal history, like Noah and Moses. If you do not have it then fine. You can choose to 'believe' what you will, but for the non-literalist crowd who KNOW(as you do) that many of the stories surrounding characters which are hsitoricized in the Helio Biblio, originate from other earlier cultures that didn't portray them as literal but as allegories for nature.

quote:
Again this is a logical fallacy


No dear. The logical fallacy is prooving the Bible's historical literalism with the Bible.

quote:
you want physical evidence of a cultural and religious exchange...[/qwuote]

No, I've got that already(Dr. Ben Massey, ect.), cultural exchange of pre-existing stories with the same themes, different names PROOVES that it ain't literal Hebrew history. You just choose to ignore that FACT.

quote:
besides I don't see you offering up a better explanation than the Biblical accounts...How do you reckon they embraced the Hebrew culture? If you say "Asiatic invasion" then surely you should have at least a recorded history of it no?


Gave you refferences and links, I can only lead a horse to water.

quote:
Don't you think you are diving just a little bit too much into that Oprahesque 'The Secret' stuff


Never that, that's my style(told yah you should have skimmed through the section) I take what you said as as a compliment. I thought that was what our ancestors wanted us to do... Was that not the purpose of our spiritual sciences if they were not to elevate states of consciousness and achieve balance in ALL realms of reality?

quote:
not all ancient historic accounts were meant to do this...


We aren't dealing with ancient historical accounts. We are dealing with spiritual/religious writings.

quote:
some things actually dealth with things concerning the world in which we live.


So the mystery systems don't deal with the world we live in? Our ancestors heads are/were 'up in the clowds'? The mundane and the spiritual are unified not opposites. You cannot remove all pervading energy/consciousness from the natural world.

quote:
For one thing if I see a genealogy or lineage being spelled out there is not one reason for me to assume that it's menat to be an "allegory" if so what purpose would it be?


Massey... and 101 myths SPELL this out. 'Invented' history serves an obvious purpose...

[quoteTrying to add some mystic value to something like that would only create confusion and detract away from the utility of the record itself.


Only if the lineage mentioned isn't 'borrowed' from a previous cultures writings be they spiritual or historical, which overwealming evidence shows it was.

quote:
See this is what I mean you keep presenting non sequiturs their are people in the Bible for which their is extra-biblical records and some that are not....you keep asking for records for those that have not been discovered yet. The fact that there ARE non biblical records for people like Ramsees, Solomon, Queen of Sheba, Nebuchadnezar, Belteshazar, Darius I etc. Should be prove positive that the Bible does contain accurate hisotic records but nooooo..you keep asking for those records that you KNOW have not been discovered.


When there are mystical stories OBVIOUSLY present, and that can be confirmed by the mystical stories they were borrowed from that predated them... Then no, you cannot assume that the characters that you have no extra-biblibal evidence for existed, and that the stories surrounding them are NOT mystical. That is a logical fallacy.

quote:
Why is it impossible? can you not quote it?


Nope, don't have it memorized, and if you knew anything about the way in which he wrote, you wouldn't ask for me to do such a thing. The link I provided does not allow for cut and paste... but I did provide a link directly to the actual and entire book online...

quote:
Ummm in case you havent noticed we are on the net so refering books which one may not have in front them is not efficient...there is nothing wrong with internet source material and you know it... much of it comes from books...


So, I see you didn't even click on the links... The links are to the actual books online... the entire books, page by page. So it is right in front of you...

quote:
Oshun, your feigned 'expert on all things Egyptian' has got to be turned down a notch...there is nothing wrong with the info contained within this link so kill the theatric's you asked for a non wiki link I give you one and you're still complaining about it


My bad, I didn't realize I had to specify that an academically credibal link was a pre-requisite.

quote:
tell me what "new information" is Dr Ben privy to all of a sudden that cannot be confirmed on wiki or any other outside source?

^^^^ Has nothing to do with the question about Dr. Bens sources...blantant avoidance...


He is a 360 adept of 'the craft' You can't think that one can be a 'literalist' simultaneously... Confused I've given you links to info that he has studied over the years. You just choose not to click... YOU are AVOIDING big time.

quote:
^^^^^Irrelvent you have not heard every person in Ghana prounce it

^^^^^again you have not read the book yet it's 'errored' you believe your personal experience trumps someones years of research on this subject...illogical


I see many things are 'irrelevent' to you, stricktly because you say they are... You are not the authority on what is and isn't relevent. Hearing a language spoken is quite relevent... and I've heard several people from Ghana, from various areas that the Asante/Akan occupy, and not one to date has NOT pronounced the 'N', just like ALL the other Bantu A & B language speakers that I've known closely over the years (which is 150 people at minimum). That ain't no coincidence, and it offers quite a bit of evidence that the author was 'reaching' to say the least. Only those 'reaching' for the same goal would choose to deam it irrelevent...

And please stop saying I haven't read the book when I clearly brought up subjects mentioned in it without provocation... Admitedly it was a LONG time ago, but that is because I peeped it's erronious search for cultural validation. I'm a voracious reader, and when an author demonstrates a need for cultural validation, I don't try to commit his/her work to memory.

Frankly, the way you cling to BIBLICAL literalism is a MAJOR contradiction while simultaneously claiming to have read works on the 'African origins of the Bible', particualrly those dealing weith KMT, (besides the two you mentioned). Most people can't make it out of 1 Dr. Ben or Ra Un Nefer Amen book and accept the plagerized version of things as literal. You'd be the first I EVER met.

quote:
Actually, it took me no time to find that link once you started name dropping and flexing your Afrocentric muscles that old Cosby episode came to mind.[quote]

I didn't 'name drop' ish. I just mentioned that while in Ghana I was exposed to the REAL LIFE pronunciation of Nyame... and I'm not an Afro-centrist although, I am African centered. I'm a Pan Africanist.

[quote]I don't normally set out to clown people on purpose..I normally just like sticking to the facts however every once in a while it feels good to add some levity to a situation when the opportunity presents itself.


It would be nice if you put as much effort into presenting requested information as you do clowing... Not that I'm such a stiff that a clown every now and then isn't fun... Speaking of...

Where's the Beef?

Honestly, I see this convo is going nowhere fast... Had to many like it... It's become unproductive, I'm not learning anything. Unless you present something 'new' and 'different' I'll be moving on...
I was looking forward to logging back in to see if you had addressed my questions while I was away handling my business for a couple days. I come back to see just a prolonging of the same circular conversation we've been having. Oshun, If we are going to advance this discussion to the next level we've got to answer each others questions as openly and honestly as possible. I've made a few attempts to do just that but what I've found is that you simply find a different way to ask the same question. I've also tried to ask you straight forward and direct questions... but instead of those questions being answered in a straight forward and direct manner, you've either responded by throwing a redherring into the mix, answering a question with a whole other question or outright avoiding it and trying to change the subject.

So let's cut to the chase and lets get down to business....Below I have answered 5 of your most reoccurring questions as openly and honestly as possible. I have also laid out 5 questions that I would like for you to answer as openly and honestly as possible. I chose 5 questions so that we can better focus and to reduce the length of our replys...I'm a busy man and I can't keep having these marathon contests with people at the present time. So once we have thoroughly answered these 5 questions we can move on to more...If not it makes no sense to keep talking at each other. Talking about spiritual matters is one of those subjects that you will never totally agree with someone on...however that doesn't mean that no common ground can be had if we try. If we can't get to the point of truly understanding each other's POV then we may as well just stick to the things that we have most in common i.e., socio-economics and call it a day.

Anyway, here are the first 5 questions that I've noticed you still seem to want answers to.... so here goes.....


1) "I have a question for you... The way the borrowed stories of the helio biblio were written and compiled in some of it's oldest forms, the Hebrew culture seems to demonize the woman, and have no Goddess' present... yet the cultures it is based on have no issue the devine feminine... I find that interesting... Why the 'change'?"

Actually, the helio/biblio/Holy Bible does not demonize women in fact most of the "demonized" people in the Bible are men. There are many great and wonderful examples of women in the Bible such as Sarah (mother of the nation of ysreal) Miriam who was a Prohetess (which is rare even in matriarcal societies) Queen Hadassah/Ester (for which the book of Ester was written) Deborah was a Prohetess and a Judge and of course you know about Queen Makeda...These are just a few of the many women who've played pivitol roles in Hebrew culture...far from being "demonized".

2) "So do you apply this to your own, "The Bible and it's offshoots prove the Bible" logic? You claim to be be fully aware of the KeMeTic origins of the Bible, they clearly prove that myths of the Bible pre-existed are just that, myths. They cannot be literal history of a later Hebre people, borrowed from earlier accounts of other cultures... that doesn't make sense. Please explain how literalism works 'simultaneously' with these admitted FACTS."

Most of the historical accounts recorded in the Bible are wriiten in a matter of fact way and are just description of the lives that individual Hebrews and the Hebrew nation as a whole lead. Aside from the story of the great flood which I admitted could very well be a retelling of the story of Gilgamesh (which wouldn't suprise me because many ancient cultures tell the same story which suggests that something had to happen that they all experienced) Hebrew history is quite unique. There are MANY biblical accounts that don't seem to be refering to anything except Hebrew experiences. Of course parrallels can and often will be made just like today you may have a leader compared to a leader of antiquity...but that should not diminish the current leaders unique accomplishments.


3) Why are you assuming I haven't seen/read them, when I told you I have? Is it because I don't agree with them perhaps? I've read BEYOND them... I'm waiting for your comentary on the books I mentioned "101 myths of the Bible" and Massey's works. Your literalism and historization doesn't reflect that you have been exposed to this info.

Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World By Gerald Massey

The natural genesis: or second part of A book of the beginnings By Gerald Massey

"Why are you assuming I haven't seen/read them, when I told you I have"....

As I said before this statement you made after I first recommended them....

Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I'd have to review them... but I won't cuz it's literalism. I won't deal with literalism period. I suggest you read the book I provided. I will make a list of others.[/quote]

Seems to contradict what you just said. Regarding your posts from Massey I've reviewed them as much as I could but lets be honest those book are THOUSANDS of pages long and for the purpose of this conversation I won't get through them. Which why I asked you to quote SPECIFIC passages to prove your point...besides those links only provide a half of the books and not all of it. On another note Massey makes good points about crediting the Black race for Egypt...although he could have kept this statement in "Natural Genesis"...

"The Blacks of Britain who left the flattened tibia, the negroid pelvis, the Austrloid molars and Gorilla like skulls in our bone caves"

I know that's your boy and everything but that reeks of a back handed insult. It should also be noted that Massey was neither a historian or Egyptologist he was a Self Taught hieroglyphics reader... he was actually a poet in case you didn't know it...Even though he did some extensive research on Egypt most of his work is still considered Theosophical and is by no means scientific fact.

On a side note which I know has nothing to do with his work but have you seen his picture?... he looked like a plantation owner...as Kocolicious might say his name should be "Gerald Massa"....



4) "Please use extra-biblical info to verify that Noah is a historical figure and not a late retelling of Ut-Napishtim of the Gilgamesh epic. Like I stated, you can't use the Bible to prove the Biblical. BTW Pagee 73 OF "101 Myths of the Bible" deals with where the Japeth ect stuff comes from. You are accepting as literal Hebrew history and lineage what really is a very old EGYPATIAN story. Yet you claim to be aware and accept the African? KeMeTic origins of the Bible... You do realize that is a major contradiction."

It seems to me that you specifically requested extra biblical proof for Moses and Noah for no reason other than you felt there are no extra biblical records for them. Just because certain information may seem to parralel doesn't not always mean it's derived from that source.

I am indeed aware of the African orgins of the Bible which is why I consider the Hebrews to be Black and capable of writting accounts about not only Egyptian history but the own also. Bottom line it's still Black history and for what reason you want to try to down play it I have no idea... I feel there is no contradiction because I don't find Egyptian and Hebrew culture to be mutually exclusive



5)" Please present the SEPERATE(extra-biblical) historical records for Noah and Moses. I'm not sure why you are asking me what I 'think the Hebrews did' when all you have to do, and all I'vebeen asking for is some non-biblical refferencese... If you keep not presenting them I am going to be forced to believe it is because there either aren't any, or you do not have access to them."

First of all lets make something perfectly clear I never claimed to have extra-biblical historic records for Noah and Moses...that whole argument was a contrived attempt by you to try to prove that all the Biblical accounts are myth. My point has been simply that even though we all know the Bible has been translated many times and there is no extra-biblical proof for EVERYTHING in it. It should not be viewed simply as a mythological book with no accurate historic records or no accounts of actual people.

I feel to do this throws the baby out with the bath water and robs us of a unique chance to see what live was like for those Black Hebrews that wrote it. Perhaps you feel differently and you only want to focus on KMT that's fine and dandy and is your prerogative....However, you must realize there are those of us who acknowledge the fact that Black civilization expanded beyond the limits of Egypt into what is known today as the "Middle east" which should really just be called Northern Africa but that's a different issue.

The fact of the matter is those Ancient Hebrews that expanded out of Egypt into the land of Canaan can be liked to the many other people who broke away from a continent to form their own rich independant culture. Such as what the Japanese did off the coast of mainland Asia or even in some ways like the American colonies broke away from Britain. Of course you can never forget that these countries were born from older civilizations that came before them....however it does not take away from their own unique cultures... the same is true for the relationship between the Egyptians and Ancient Hebrews.




Now My questions to you are as follows.....


1) When you said this...

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
"The hyksos were already there... Per Dr. Ben, Ankenaten's wife was also Asiatic."
....

In response to my point regarding the FACT that Akhenaten introduced a Patriarchical, monotheistic, faith to Africa were you suggesting that the Hyksos (who even if they were there had not come to power yet) weilded more power and influence than Akhenathen the KING....in his own country? Then when you added the "Per Dr. Ben, Ankenaten's wife was also Asiatic" part were you aware that Akhenatens wife was none other than Nefertiti? if so why did you not call her by her name in lieu of simply designating her "Akhenatens wife"....That seems quite odd for someone to do who is championing "the devine feminine".

Also even if she was 'Asiatic' (which she wasn't) but even if she was what does that have to do with Akhenaten introducing a Patriarchical, monotheistic religion to Egypt?....Lastly, since you said this was "Per Dr. Ben" what proof does he use to support these claims? are there sources other than Dr. Ben himself in which I can verify such information?


2)Are you going to produce any specific dates regarding the textiles and drawings you said you saw depicting Solomon as 'Asiatic' that will give credence to the modern Ethipians claim as this being he reason for their current mixed Phenotype?

3)Regarding your two following statements.....

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
"I'm stating that the Hyksos combined with the Africans of KMT is the origin of 'the Semite'.

The Hyksos, that were expelled from KMT after being in KMT for hundreds of years and multiplying would have taken on an African pheontype while retaining some Asiatic cultural proclivity"



I have a question for you...If by your estimation the Semite's are merely descendants of the Egyptians and the Hyksos but they took on an African Phenotype...wouldn't that make them just as much sons and daughters of the Egyptians as the Hyksos? That being the case how could the Egyptians so easily have extracted them from Egypt? wouldn't they be ripping their own families apart in the process? How would they even be able to distinguish who was a Hyksos after the 'hundreds of years' of misengenation that you described.

Even if they (despite their African Phenotype) retained their 'Asiatic cultural proclivity' Egypt contained many diverse cultures so that would not have made them stand out either. So how could the Egyptians dispel what would have essentially (after hundreds of years of the racial and cultural misegenation you described) been their own blood family members. Moreover, when you claimed later that the Ethiopians received the Hebrew faith by 'non Africans' if your theory about the origin of Semites is correct wouldn't they actually be Africans...especially after being in Egypt hundreds of years?....Therefore rendering the claim that 'non Africans' introduced a Patriarchical, monotheistic, faith to Africa false?....by the way where and who are the TRUE Hebrews today in your opinion?


4) I notice that you seem to take more umbrage with the fact that a Patriarchical faith like Judaism has no female gods than the role women actually played in the culture. Are you aware that in Hebrew culture women played very important roles despite the lack of goddesses? In many ways Hebrew women had it better that those cultures that had females gods...do you realize that putting more emphasis on the fictional potrayals of women over their actual treatment in society is like ignoring the fact women on average receive less pay than men today... as long as they portrayed in the media?

5) Just so that we are clear I completely understand the concept of the astrotheological and anthropomorphized myths of Ancient KMT and even the Babylonian/Mesopatamian one that predate even those. However, is your position that Hebrew culture itself is a myth? Are you suggesting that since the Bible is widely viewed as a "religious book" (erroneously in my oppinion) that this renders it completely void of any credible historic accounts? Moreover, many ancient peoples wrote an accurate record of their history along with some folklore...why do you believe the ancient Hebrews were any different?

P.S. regarding this comment you made...

"It would be nice if you put as much effort into presenting requested information as you do clowing... Not that I'm such a stiff that a clown every now and then isn't fun... Speaking of"...

Where's the Beef?



"Honestly, I see this convo is going nowhere fast... Had to many like it... It's become unproductive, I'm not learning anything. Unless you present something 'new' and 'different' I'll be moving on...

As I said before I prefer to stick to facts I don't 'clown' people unless the opportunity presents itself and it's appropriate to do so. I pointed out to you above your "requested information" was nothing more than a ploy to try to make a point...so let's not act as though it was a geniune request for information.

You specifically requested extra biblical proof for Moses and Noah for no reason other than you felt there are no extra biblical records for them. If you were truly concerned about being objective about this you would acknowledge the fact this there ARE several biblical people for which there are such records... who can be verified as having truly existed like I said before.....Ramesses, King Solomon, Queen of Sheba, Nebuchadnezzar, just to name a few.... that alone debunks the claim that the bible should never be taken literally. Since these people actually existed and they just so happen to be in the Bible what other choice do I have but to take them literally? Anything else would just be someone deluding themselves into thinking they are only meant to be symbolic/mythological. You are correct though if you can't see this you should be moving on....

On a lighter note posting the link was cute but shouldn't you be a vegetarian?..Why are you asking for Beef?
In response to a post made by LD on the thread about gaza and israel.
http://africanamerica.org/eve/...60213/m/54110433/p/8

A response I pm'd LD on for I didn't wanna 'jack' the other thread anymore than it was. So I'm posting it publicly since this thread is more appropriate with a few more tidbits, that came to mind since then:

quote:
Here is where my first clarification must be made for the record my position is not to try to "qualify" African/Black civilization by attaching what you consider to be a 'myth' to it. In point of fact what I am doing is CONFIRMING the fact that the TRUE origins of the Hebrew people, faith and culture has it's ROOTS in Africa. Here is where my first clarification must be made for the record my position is not to try to "qualify" African/Black civilization by attaching what you consider to be a 'myth' to it. In point of fact what I am doing is CONFIRMING the fact that the TRUE origins of the Hebrew people, faith and culture has it's ROOTS in Africa.


We can agree that the abrahamic faiths find their origins in afrika, so, that much, we can put to rest.

quote:
Furthermore, your assertion that Noah was only a 'myth' doesn't really hold water (not a flood pun) when a detailed verifiable genealogy is given with regard to his offspring.


Outside of the bible? Where?

quote:
Are you suggesting that ancient blacks that ancient blacks did not keep historical records?

No. Nor am I saying that they did not produce myth and allegory to get their message across either.
quote:
and therefore any such records in existence would have to be european in origin?

Of course not! Nile valley civilizations reveal to us a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Now just because the original texts written by the Black Hebrews were later simply TRANSLATED into other peoples languages such as the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea scrolls, Targum, Peshitta, Latin and the King James version now in heavy rotation today. This does not I repeat NOT negate it's utility as a historic document chronicling the ancient history of our people in northern Africa.


I'm not sure if they were all "simply TRANSLATED", and that was it. For we can not dismiss the element of corruption (not all by accident, to say the least) in the text throughout the centuries.

Again, I am saying that ourstory doesn't start with abraham, reiterating that there is a preponderance of evidence available to substantiate my position. Why so many of us, in the diaspora at least, dismiss or overlook the data?...is usually because it doesn't have that abrahamic hook to catch onto, for many afrikans of the diaspora to embrace. Some would rather settle, position themselves, somewhere between where the river begins and ends then say "thats where it all began".

quote:
Granted there were indeed many things lost in translation to be sure... however, there is enough of this historic record left intact for it to be accepted.... especially when there is a plethora of corroborating and circumstantial evidence to back it up.


Yeah, like those pre-abrahamic sources, data, artifacts, etc. Yet, many of 'us' find it un-praiseworthy. Kinda' like not giving due props to the mother and father who gave birth to the child and guided that child to be the 'exceptional' child the he/she is.
quote:
So there is no need to throw the Black baby out with the dirty bath water YT has tried to baptize it with.
True, however, the same can be said to that with which I am promoting.
quote:
Besides even IF the Noah theme was a myth that would still place it in good company among the MANY mythological stories and characters running rampant throughout Egyptian/Kemetic cultural traditions...yet I don't see us ascribing titles such as "allegorical myth" to these and using this as a basis to deny it as being a part of Black civilization.

Should you go back through some of the earlier threads in this forum, you will read folks saying that characters such as heru ausar auset are drenched in myth. Allegorical and or otherwise, myth. As I continue to beat the dead horse, I've said if the message is true the story doesn't have to be true. And I don't know if there is a such thing as good myth and bad myth, so sure, the noah theme can sit alongside other myths.

quote:
All the "Shem, Ham and Japheth stuff" was not used as a means to "distinguish color" by the BLACK HEBREWS who first began to keep historic records...why would they need to do this when they were all BLACK? I believe you are confusing the COLONIAL distortions of the Hebrew record with it's actual purpose.
I do recall saying "as a means to distinguish different skin colors or race of peoples". Race doesn't necessarily have to imply skin color. I could also imply creeds, cultures, lanquage, ethnic group etc. So if you they are, as you have said "all black", then why the need for such distinctions?

NOAH and the deluge:

I start by saying the whole earth was not flooded over. That is to say it did not look like a blue ball from space at the time noah was said to have existed, to times much earlier. Secondly, who was there to chronicle this phenomena? As was stated before, we find flood stories all over the globe. Hermopolitan flood stories, south sea island flood stories, y'all have mentioned gilgemesh[sp?] already, and in other kemetan literature. All predating noah's flood. Just because nyc exist doesn't mean spiderman existed.

(had go back in the books for this)

My findings regarding Noah flood myth:

Noah in old hebrew is made up of 2 characters "NUN" and "CHED" translated as "NOACH". We don't now the original vowel sounds, for hebrew text didn't use vowels (the same is said regarding kemetan writings). At best, we surmise.

NUN, the 1st letter used in the hebrew name -noah- interestingly we find nun to be a deity in kemetan lore, which represents the flood of creation who also guides a boat, or what has been referred to as "solar boat", across the waters, which carried the other deities of the ogdoad. Nun symbolized the flood and was portrayed in anthropomorphic form.

In the hermopolitan creation myth, we find four males and females that emerged from a primeval flood stepping onto the "first" piece of land. Liking to that of the noah story where we find 4 males and females emerging from a global flood after a mountain arose from the sea.

SHEM "SHM", I discovered, means "name"? He was named, "Name"? However, word shem also forms the root of the word "shemoneh" meaning "eight'.

Hermopolis, as the greeks called it was called shm by the kemetans meaning "8-town" after the eight deities that emerged from the flood.

HAM "CHEM" or "CHM" in hebrew derives from the word kmt. It is still up to debate as to whether Kmt "the black land" is in regard to the fertile black soil from the yearly flood of the nile after the water recedes or its indigenous inhabitants. To me, it really doesn't matter, for we know who the originals were.

Japheth, we find in old hebrew, that its made up of 3 consonants "j-ph-th", where the "ph" and the "th" sounds are linguistically close to "p" and "t". In hebrew we find the j is used in combination with 'god' for 'god's' name, i.e. "ja" or "jo". We find the "pt" part of "j-ph" is used in the memphite creator deity known as Ptah.

Linguistically japheth appears to be equivalent to 'god-ptah', which may suggest the frequent use of the hebrew term "lord god".

Call it all coincidence, I'm not stopping anyone from doing so, however we see here how noah & sons resemble an older hermopolitan creation myth story.

Noah - nun, primeval flood

Ham - kmt, signifies the first land to emerge from water (or land of the blacks? 19 )

Shem -shm, representing a city, hermopolis, called shm by kemetans -8 town. A city built on the first land (to emerge from water).

Japheth, correlates with a primary deity; which can be seen to parallel the hermopolitan ogdoad and ptah.
quote:
Moreover, your statement that... "The afrikan needed no haribu mythological and or secular classification to establish their own afrikan identity."

Misses the point in that you are crediting the "mythological" and or "secular" classification that the Africans gave THEMSELVES to another people.... this WAS their own identity and that's why they wrote it for themselves.
I'm not sure I follow. Confused
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
For nowhere in recorded history written by Africans or other ancient peoples of the era in question, is there any mention of HAMITES and SEMITES, before their appearance in their Jewish or Christian advocates’.”


Are you sure about that? because the Biblical recorded history does include the names of those Black men who started what would LATER be called the HAMITIC and SEMITIC lineage. That is unless of course you believe that the ancient Hebrews were white and not of African origin
Show me, extra-biblically, if you don't mind. Using the bible to prove the bible, just don't cut it for me.

I believe that a following of [black] afrikans, kemetans where lead out of kemet by akhenaten into the land of canaan to later become what we call the hebrews.

quote:
(which I'm starting to think you do)
Wise man once said, "Don't get mad over things over the things you can control; for the things you can not control, no need to get mad". Wink

quote:
Besides, I wouldn't expect the actual words HAMITE or SEMITE to appear in the ORIGINAL Biblical texts or subsequent African writtings any more than I would expect to see the word NATIVE AMERICAN show up in ancient Lakota Sioux writtings to describe themselves...but does that mean they are not the same people?


Why not? You said that the text were "simply "TRANSLATED"".

"Simply", you said.

To reiterate:

What were these people called before the words semite(shem) or hamite were attached?

You will find Lakota Sioux writings that say they are Lakota sioux. And if you don't expect to find the such in afrikan writings then how can we attribute that this group of afrikans called themselves hebrew: s[h]emite hamite or japhite[?] before they trekked over to the land of canaan?

We seem to be using the bible to prove the bible. So, I am asking you for extra-biblical sources, if you don't mind.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Furthermore, your assertion that Noah was only a 'myth' doesn't really hold water (not a flood pun) when a detailed verifiable genealogy is given with regard to his offspring.


Outside of the bible? Where?



It's verified through archaeology, anthropology, linguistic studies and genetics..Here is a table of nations link that breaks it down pretty good... Despite the fact it's titled "sound christian"...but hey if Oshun in order to make a point can use a 19th century young Colonel Sanders looking poet who compares Blacks to "Gorilla's".... I guess I can use this.

http://www.soundchristian.com/man/



quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Now just because the original texts written by the Black Hebrews were later simply TRANSLATED into other peoples languages such as the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea scrolls, Targum, Peshitta, Latin and the King James version now in heavy rotation today. This does not I repeat NOT negate it's utility as a historic document chronicling the ancient history of our people in northern Africa.


I'm not sure if they were all "simply TRANSLATED", and that was it. For we can not dismiss the element of corruption (not all by accident, to say the least) in the text throughout the centuries.


Thats true regarding any history.... it's our job to use what we can that will uplift us and discard the rest...

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Again, I am saying that ourstory doesn't start with abraham, reiterating that there is a preponderance of evidence available to substantiate my position. Why so many of us, in the diaspora at least, dismiss or overlook the data?...is usually because it doesn't have that abrahamic hook to catch onto, for many afrikans of the diaspora to embrace. Some would rather settle, position themselves, somewhere between where the river begins and ends then say "thats where it all began".


I truly believe that both you and Oshun are misinterpreting my position....I never said our history "started with Abraham" my point is simply that he is a part of our history...BLACK HISTORY....Just like ancient Kemet/Egypt (which has been hijacked by others) we sould not allow for our Hebrew heritage/history to be hijacked either.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Granted there were indeed many things lost in translation to be sure... however, there is enough of this historic record left intact for it to be accepted.... especially when there is a plethora of corroborating and circumstantial evidence to back it up.


Yeah, like those pre-abrahamic sources, data, artifacts, etc. Yet, many of 'us' find it un-praiseworthy. Kinda' like not giving due props to the mother and father who gave birth to the child and guided that child to be the 'exceptional' child the he/she is.


Again personally, I don't find Egyptian and Hebrew culture mutually exclusive...I agree that Kemet/Egypt civilization came way before ancient Hebrew civilization and that it influenced it....However, I'm not going to downplay the richness and uniqueness of Hebrew culture... just like I won't downplay ancient Kemet...it's still all BLACK HISTORY....so let's stop acting like this is a 'either/or' issue.


quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
So there is no need to throw the Black baby out with the dirty bath water YT has tried to baptize it with.


True, however, the same can be said to that with which I am promoting.


Who's disagreeing with that?...not me.


quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Besides even IF the Noah theme was a myth that would still place it in good company among the MANY mythological stories and characters running rampant throughout Egyptian/Kemetic cultural traditions...yet I don't see us ascribing titles such as "allegorical myth" to these and using this as a basis to deny it as being a part of Black civilization.


Should you go back through some of the earlier threads in this forum, you will read folks saying that characters such as heru ausar auset are drenched in myth. Allegorical and or otherwise, myth. As I continue to beat the dead horse, I've said if the message is true the story doesn't have to be true. And I don't know if there is a such thing as good myth and bad myth, so sure, the noah theme can sit alongside other myths.


As I told Oshun I'm not trying to compare obviously mythological deities like Heru, Ausar and Auset with people who could have very well existed... that's mixing apples and oranges. I'm just pointing out the fact that there is good reason to believe that many of the people described in the ancient Hebrew texts actually existed.... and to be fair those people should be compared to the people we believe actually existed from the ancient Egyptian texts...not the myths



quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Moreover, your statement that... "The afrikan needed no haribu mythological and or secular classification to establish their own afrikan identity."

Misses the point in that you are crediting the "mythological" and or "secular" classification that the Africans gave THEMSELVES to another people.... this WAS their own identity and that's why they wrote it for themselves.


I'm not sure I follow. Confused


Because you keep making a distinction between African and Hebrew culture/history that doesn't need to be there...these traditions OVERLAP they don't CONTRADICT.


quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
(which I'm starting to think you do)


Wise man once said, "Don't get mad over things over the things you can control; for the things you can not control, no need to get mad". Wink


This applys to the discussion we're having because???

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Besides, I wouldn't expect the actual words HAMITE or SEMITE to appear in the ORIGINAL Biblical texts or subsequent African writtings any more than I would expect to see the word NATIVE AMERICAN show up in ancient Lakota Sioux writtings to describe themselves...but does that mean they are not the same people?


Why not? You said that the text were "simply "TRANSLATED"".

"Simply", you said.

To reiterate:

What were these people called before the words semite(shem) or hamite were attached?

You will find Lakota Sioux writings that say they are Lakota sioux. And if you don't expect to find the such in afrikan writings then how can we attribute that this group of afrikans called themselves hebrew: s[h]emite hamite or japhite[?] before they trekked over to the land of canaan?

We seem to be using the bible to prove the bible. So, I am asking you for extra-biblical sources, if you don't mind.



This is yet another example of why I wish you would have just maintained your position that you would PM me if you needed further clarification on something. Raptor, you completely missed the point I was making here and me having to address this is only taking this thread away from the direction it was going in... but alas since you made this public I will address it. Ok here we go....Now if you notice you mixed up the entire example regarding the Lakota Sioux that I gave....You said... "You will find Lakota Sioux writings that say they are LAKOTA SIOUX"....Which is the exact opposite of the point I was making when I said...

"I wouldn't expect to see the word NATIVE AMERICAN show up in ancient Lakota Sioux writtings to describe themselves"
The point being is that the word NATIVE AMERICAN came later to describe a group of people who called THEMSELVES Lakota. This was in response to when you said....
"For nowhere in recorded history written by Africans or other ancient peoples of the era in question, is there any mention of HAMITES and SEMITES, before their appearance in their Jewish or Christian advocates’.”
I was simply pointing out to you the fact that like many other names, designations, places, titles, etc...over the years (in this case thousands of them) names change and evolve. So those first ancient Blacks who named their different tribes used names that were a precursor to the one's we know today i.e., SHEM, HAM and JAPHETH. Over the centuries due to numerous translations those original names changed similar to how Babel/Babylon became "Iraq", Persia became "Iran", Mizriam/Kemet became "Egypt" and Cush later became "Sudan" but they are still the SAME place. I used the Lakota example just to illustrate the fact that they did not originally call themselves "Native Americans" however this designation is still a way to identify them because you are still talking about the SAME people. So the bottomline even though the word HAMITE and SEMITE may not be in African written history...that doesn't make us any less Hamitic or Semitic than a Lakota Souix is Native American....I hope this helps.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
All the "Shem, Ham and Japheth stuff" was not used as a means to "distinguish color" by the BLACK HEBREWS who first began to keep historic records...why would they need to do this when they were all BLACK? I believe you are confusing the COLONIAL distortions of the Hebrew record with it's actual purpose.
I do recall saying "as a means to distinguish different skin colors or race of peoples". Race doesn't necessarily have to imply skin color. I could also imply creeds, cultures, lanquage, ethnic group etc. So if you they are, as you have said "all black", then why the need for such distinctions?

NOAH and the deluge:

I start by saying the whole earth was not flooded over. That is to say it did not look like a blue ball from space at the time noah was said to have existed, to times much earlier. Secondly, who was there to chronicle this phenomena? As was stated before, we find flood stories all over the globe. Hermopolitan flood stories, south sea island flood stories, y'all have mentioned gilgemesh[sp?] already, and in other kemetan literature. All predating noah's flood. Just because nyc exist doesn't mean spiderman existed.

(had go back in the books for this)

Noah in old hebrew is made up of 2 characters "NUN" and "CHED" translated as noach. We don't now the original vowel sounds, for hebrew text didn't use vowels (the same is said regarding kemetan writings). At best, we surmise.

NUN, the 1st letter used in the hebrew name -noah- interestingly we find nun to be a deity in kemetan lore, which represents the flood of creation who also guides a boat, or what has been referred to as "solar boat", across the waters, which carried the other deities of the ogdoad. Nun symbolized the flood and was portrayed in anthropomorphic form.

In the hermopolitan creation myth, we find four males and females that emerged from a primeval flood stepping onto the "first" piece of land. Liking to that of the noah story where we find 4 males and females emerging from a global flood after a mountain arose from the sea.

SHEM "SHM", I discovered, means "name"? He was named, "Name"? However, word shem also forms the root of the word "shemoneh" meaning "eight'.
Hermopolis, as the greeks called it was called shm by the kemetans meaning "8-town" after the eight deities that emerged from the flood.

HAM "CHEM" or "CHM" in hebrew derives from the word kmt. It is still up to debate as to whether Kmt "the black land" is in regard to the fertile black soil from the yearly flood of the nile after the water recedes or its indigenous inhabitants. To me, it really doesn't matter, for we know who the originals were.

Japheth, we find in old hebrew, that its made up of 3 consonants "j-ph-th", were the "ph" and the "th" were the sounds are linguistically close to "p" and "t". In hebrew we find the j is used in combination with 'god' for 'god's' name, i.e. "ja" or "jo". We find the "pt" part of "j-ph" in used in the memphite creator deity known as ptah.

Linguistically japheth appears to be equivalent to 'god-ptah', which may suggest the frequent use of the hebrew term "lord god".

Call it all coincidence, I'm not stopping anyone from doing so, however we see here how noah & sons resemble an older hermopolitan creation myth story.

Noah - nun, primeval flood
Ham - kmt, signifies the first land to emerge from water (or land of the blacks? 19)
Shem -shm, representing a city, hermopolis, called shm by kemetans -8 town. A city built on the first land (to emerge from water).
Japheth, correlates with a primary deity; which can be seen to parallel the hermopolitan ogdoad and ptah.



You did a good job breaking down the roots of the names and this gives credence to what I said above regarding how names change and evolve...For example look at how you broke down the name Ham and discovered it actually comes from KMT..this ties in perfectly with the fact that one of Hams sons founded what we know to be Kemet/Egypt...this is just the point I've been making all along.

Now I hope I've answered all your questions if not send me a PM if you don't mind. Because I would like for Oshun to answer the previous questions I laid out for her in my last post...nothing personal I just don't want our rhythm disrupted.
I hope that those who were following this thread and intrigued by it's subject matter are not disappointed that the questions that I posed to Oshun a few days ago have gone unanswered. For the record I did not expect for these questions to be answered when I posed them... for I knew that if answered they would reveal the flaws in that particular belief system. This is not a slight against Oshun as I do believe she is sincere in her beliefs...However, the problem I have is with the numerous false doctrines and philosophies that Blacks have been saturated with. It's like I stated in the first thread I started regarding Black America's true economic condition...This issue is bigger than Me, Oshun or any other individual it's about Blacks as a GROUP. I don't come to these boards to garner some type of pleasure by destroying peoples arguments...what I prefer to do is cause people to think differently about issues that affect our community.

Often time on these boards I notice when someone can no longer adequately defend their position on a given topic rather than concede the fact that their position is flawed (which their pride prevents) they simply drop it and move on to different discussions. That's fine as long as they take something away from the experience and begin to rethink their previous belief system when it's proven to be erroneous. The way I see it if you truly believe in something you should be ready/willing and able to defend it when it's questioned or challenged. To the extent to which you are either unable or unwilling to do so speaks to the lack of credibility of the issue you claim to support or your commitment to it.

This topic was a good example of how even Blacks that are conscious and knowledgable about Kemet/Egypt tend to limit the true range and scope of historic Black achievement. This whole notion that some Blacks have to embrace Egyptian culture as Black history yet shun ancient Hebrew culture as somehow being 'other' amazes me. It sort of reminds me of those Blacks who shun Rock N Roll as being "white folks music" simply because whites have hijacked it and claimed it as their own...not realizing that it was actually invented by Blacks.

I hope this thread has opened someones eyes to the truth.....
I can tell you, I'm one of a very few here who embraces ancient Egypt. I believe Oshun embraces West Africa.

quote:
This whole notion that some Blacks have to embrace Egyptian culture as Black history yet shun ancient Hebrew culture as somehow being 'other' amazes me.


I can also tell you that I'm not one to shun Hebrew culture, but when contrasted to black African culture, it begins to appear less and less authentic. Your Rock n' Roll analogy is a prime example, look at where whites took Rock n' Roll, Heavy Metal, the Goth movement, how weird is it or would it be, to see a black Goth? It does not fit. Much like what you are trying to do here. It just doesn't fit.

Punk, although rooted in Reggae, isn't Reggae. Heavy Metal, although rooted in 50s, 60s blues, isn't blues. So when you began to speak about heritage, you must allow room for a clean BREAK/SEPARATION.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
I can tell you, I'm one of a very few here who embraces ancient Egypt. I believe Oshun embraces West Africa.

quote:
This whole notion that some Blacks have to embrace Egyptian culture as Black history yet shun ancient Hebrew culture as somehow being 'other' amazes me.


I can also tell you that I'm not one to shun Hebrew culture, but when contrasted to black African culture, it begins to appear less and less authentic. Your Rock n' Roll analogy is a prime example, look at where whites took Rock n' Roll, Heavy Metal, the Goth movement, how weird is it or would it be, to see a black Goth? It does not fit. Much like what you are trying to do here. It just doesn't fit.

Punk, although rooted in Reggae, isn't Reggae. Heavy Metal, although rooted in 50s, 60s blues, isn't blues. So when you began to speak about heritage, you must allow room for a clean BREAK/SEPARATION.



Actually, what doesn't fit is your alteration of my initial analogy...I was not referring to the various genres or styles of Rock n' Roll that you introduced into this i.e., Heavy Metal, Goth, Punk, etc...I was merely referring to the ART FORM Rock n' Roll itself... Which is what Blacks invented NOT the derivative's of it...Those later white infused versions of the music that you mentioned are to the art form of Rock n' Roll what Zionism is to the ORIGINAL Hebrew culture that I'm referring to.

At any rate within this thread I've already made my position abundantly clear with Raptor and Oshun (whom I would guess are more knowledgable about this subject than yourself) So I don't see any need to rehash what I've already stated. However, if you wish to start another thread regarding Black musical origins I think that would be more appropriate.
quote:
At any rate within this thread I've already made my position abundantly clear with Raptor and Oshun (whom I would guess are more knowledgable about this subject than yourself) So I don't see any need to rehash what I've already stated. However, if you wish to start another thread regarding Black musical origins I think that would be more appropriate



I'd hate for you to rehash some stuff that someone pulled out of their ass. No matter how many kings and queens you quote as sitting down with Solomon, you're not going to make black Jews appear more authentic.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
At any rate within this thread I've already made my position abundantly clear with Raptor and Oshun (whom I would guess are more knowledgable about this subject than yourself) So I don't see any need to rehash what I've already stated. However, if you wish to start another thread regarding Black musical origins I think that would be more appropriate



I'd hate for you to rehash some stuff that someone pulled out of their ass. No matter how many kings and queens you quote as sitting down with Solomon, you're not going to make black Jews appear more authentic.


My position with regard to Black Hebrews has absolutely nothing to do with "how many kings and queens sat down with Solomon" since my position is that Solomon himself was Black.

If this is your interpretation of what I've stated it illustrates a gross and undeveloped understanding of it. As far as needing to make Black Jews "appear more authentic" that is not my goal either. My point is just to provide the preponderance of evidence that clearly shows that the ancient Hebrew were indeed Black. Most people capable of formulating an unbiased subjective point of view on this topic will interpret it as such. Maybe you are one who accepts the Eurocentric view of who the Hebrews were/are and you accept the Ashkenazi Jews as "authentic"...That's your prerogative and you can believe whatever you want. My goal is not to reach those of your ilk anyway as I feel it's an excercise in futility
quote:
If this is your interpretation of what I've stated it illustrates a gross and undeveloped understanding



My understanding is decently developed. I used to spout the same bs you're spouting right now... been there, done that. I messed around and started reading, eventually the "preponderence" of evidence became more and more preposterous. But that's neither here nor there... I feel ya bruh. tfro

quote:
My goal is not to reach those of your ilk anyway as I feel it's an excercise in futility


Indeed.

Just take my comment in passing and keep it movin'.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
My understanding is decently developed. I used to spout the same bs you're spouting right now... been there, done that. I messed around and started reading, eventually the "preponderence" of evidence became more and more preposterous. But that's neither here nor there... I feel ya bruh. tfro


I've always been the type of person that cherished learning new things...perhaps one day you will reveal what you've discovered to come to that conclusion...maybe you will even share it with us in detail so that we are no longer stumbling in the fog of ignorance and we will become enlightened citizens of the world...such as yourself....(the way YT intended)

quote:
My goal is not to reach those of your ilk anyway as I feel it's an excercise in futility


quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Indeed.

Just take my comment in passing and keep it movin'.


Don't forget with a grain of salt also...You should never expect me to do anything more than that when it comes to your commentary...just so you will know.
What would you say if I showed you a verse in the Bible, that showed the Jewish disdain for blacks? What if I showed you where Moses caught much flack for marrying a black woman? What if I told you that the idol worship was very exaggerated, with regards Jewish interraction with blacks? Much like whites exaggerate things about blacks today. Africans have been worshipping ancestors long before Judaism came along, but not one mention of ancestor worship, only exaggerated details of moon, sun, or inanimate object worship.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
What would you say if I showed you a verse in the Bible, that showed the Jewish disdain for blacks?


I would ask you to show and prove...

quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
What if I showed you where Moses caught much flack for marrying a black woman?


I'm quite familar with the story and the issue wasn't because she was Black (Ethiopian to be exact) it was because she was not from the tribe of Israel...besides the way things turned out the only person who really had a problem with it was Miriam (his sister)

quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
What if I told you that the idol worship was very exaggerated, with regards Jewish interraction with blacks? Much like whites exaggerate things about blacks today.


I would say that you were pulling for straws to try to make the case that the ancient Hebrews were white...when what you just said has nothing to do with proving that.


quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:

Africans have been worshipping ancestors long before Judaism came along, but not one mention of ancestor worship, only exaggerated details of moon, sun, or inanimate object worship.


You act as though all Black/African belief systems are monolithic...not all Black cultures practiced the same belief systems...you may want to refer back to my discussion with Oshun regarding Akhenaten.
quote:
Interesting... I can't think of one single African culture that didn't/doesn't do this...


Interesting to you, but not interesting to LD who dismissed it as "pulling for straws". I've been reading the Old Testament since the second grade, so I can appreciate the questions that arise within as I get older. As a matter of fact I appreciate the questions alot MORE than the answers.

The Old Testament is very telling when it comes to the anti-black and anti-feminist, agenda/sentiment it displays.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
Interesting... I can't think of one single African culture that didn't/doesn't do this...


Interesting to you, but not interesting to LD who dismissed it as "pulling for straws". I've been reading the Old Testament since the second grade, so I can appreciate the questions that arise within as I get older. As a matter of fact I appreciate the questions alot MORE than the answers.

The Old Testament is very telling when it comes to the anti-black and anti-feminist, agenda/sentiment it displays.


I really did want to just let this thread sit here peacefully...but since you two want to keep chitchattering by all means lets continue...

Firstly, Heru just because you've been reading the Old Testament 'since you were in the second grade' does not mean you truly understand it...Besides, is that even supposed to be impressive? How much could you have possibly REALLY understood about the Bible in the second grade anyway?... if what you've said so far is any indication no very much. Let me break this down to you this way ...For the most part people view the Bible as merely a religious book with nothing but fables and symbols in it. This is a false notion and if thats the frame of mind in which you approach it then you will never truly understand it. I know sometimes its hard to get a true grasp about who a person really is just based on their posts...but you seem to think that you have somehow discovered some secret in the Bible I don't know about that will prove your point.

Just so that you will be aware... I know the Bible backwards and forward I know every possible example you can pull out to try to paint the Hebrews as white these are all completely false and I can easily debunk them (you notice what I did to your Moses marrying the Ethiopian example right?) I've been there and done that. You need to realize that I don't blindly believe in anything for something to get my respect it has to pass a RIGOROUS inspection. I have THOUROULY dissected the Bible and have CRITICALLY analyed it for close to 25 years (which I feel is whats required minimum)I've crossed referenced it with other historic,archaeological, anthropologic, and linguistic studies and it checks out for the most part. Many of the people running around criticizing the Bible and trying to blow it off as myth (particulary the old testament) have no DEEP understanding of it...I actually do.

You keep making reference to the Old Testament being "anti-black" but you've provided no evidence to support this. I keep asking you to show and prove and all I hear is crickets. I hope the Moses example you used was not the best you could do otherwise your future points are in deep trouble.

Anyway, I have a question for you (this goes for you to Oshun since you decided to shamelessly pop yourself back into this thread as if you're home free and have backed up all your claims) The question is since you guys are trying to draw a distinction between Ancient Hebrew and African Culture...How do you explain the fact that Africans tribes like the Annnag, Efik and Ibibio people of Akwa Ibom and Cross River States of Nigeria have had ancient religious practices that strongly resembled some of the Ancient Hebrews traditions? How on earth do you explain the fact than in the old Calabar Kingdom people there were called 'Efik Eburutu.' The name Eburutu being a derivative of Hebrew...and they being historically know as the "Hebrews who settled in Ututu".

While you're at it... try explaiming to me how a people like the Lemba in southern Africa could have specific religious practices similar to the ancient Hebrews even though they are a Bantu Speaking group? Moreover, how do you explain the fact their claims of being of Hebrew decent are backed up even genetically?

At any rate Heru I know this may take you some time to address. However, I'm patient and I will check back every once in a while to see if you did...As for you Oshun you can feel free to tackle these questions also... or you can opt to just add them to the already long list of questions that you are completely incapable of answering.
quote:
Heru:
I've been reading the Old Testament since the second grade, so I can appreciate the questions that arise within as I get older



quote:
LD:
Heru just because you've been reading the Old Testament 'since you were in the second grade' does not mean you truly understand it


Is that how you interpreted that statement? As some lofty proclamation of a superior knowledge? Pretty dense aren't we? Last time I checked, questions were an admission of ignorance.

At any rate.

Ezekial
quote:
Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. [c]

22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side- 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. 24 They will come against you with weapons, [d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire. 26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry. 27 So I will put a stop to the lewdness and prostitution you began in Egypt. You will not look on these things with longing or remember Egypt anymore.


Ezekial is giving a rather graphic analogy about how Jews felt about other Jews interracting with Egyptians (blacks). Was the genital reference intended as a comment? Or is their some specific deeper meaning? Understandbly the God of the Jews was a jealous God, but what was the specific "threat" that God faced from having His people assimilate to deep consciousness and meditation? I'm sure that the Egyptian system of spiritual cultivation posed no eminent danger towards God. What was the sin of interracting with Egyptians? Supposedly Egyptians worshipped "many gods", or idols. History has proven this to be untrue, in fact Egyptians were just as monotheistic as the Jews were, if not moreso.


quote:
(Ham was the father of Canaan.)


The Canaanites were one of the biggest influences on Hebrew culture. The Canaanites were black.


quote:
Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed him in every way. 2 He said to the chief [a] servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. 3 I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, 4 but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac."



Why is this necessary? What threat does the Canaanite woman pose to an Israelite? For one it would put a tremendous damper on the mood of an anti-black agenda. The Jews spent most of their nomadic history trying to steal the "land of milk and honey" from the Canaanites. As a matter of fact it is the underlying PLOT/THEME of the Old Testament, trying to wipe out the Canaanites and take away their land. After hundreds of years of attempts, hasty claims of victory, lost battles, and enslavement, it took the Egyptians to hand over the land of milk and honey.

quote:
(Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife.



What inherent evil/sin did Canaan commit? Was their land the only land that had milk and honey (pun intended)?
sleep
quote:
The question is since you guys are trying to draw a distinction between Ancient Hebrew and African Culture...How do you explain the fact that Africans tribes like the Annnag, Efik and Ibibio people of Akwa Ibom and Cross River States of Nigeria have had ancient religious practices that strongly resembled some of the Ancient Hebrews traditions? How on earth do you explain the fact than in the old Calabar Kingdom people there were called 'Efik Eburutu.' The name Eburutu being a derivative of Hebrew...and they being historically know as the "Hebrews who settled in Ututu".


Already went there... The Nile valley folks moved West in migrations in particularly the area that is now known as Nigeria, since the Nile valley traditions were the Hebrews predicessors and 'fathers/mothers'(which you agree to) the link is obvious... How much you wanna bet the "Hebrew" link was attributed post colonialism? If it wasn't, please quote the ancient traditional way of saying "Hebrews who settled in Ututu"... I'd love to kow the pre-colonial non-European term used to describe what is now identified and given credit to as 'Hebrew'...

quote:
While you're at it... try explaiming to me how a people like the Lemba in southern Africa could have specific religious practices similar to the ancient Hebrews even though they are a Bantu Speaking group? Moreover, how do you explain the fact their claims of being of Hebrew decent are backed up even genetically?


The Yemenese connection to the horn of Africa as part of the 'Sheba' erra is beyond certified, the people who brought Judaism to Ethiopia just moved South and mixed with the Native population. Please explain what that 'proves'? It's best if you mention 'genetic links', you find out to whom those genetic links have been made.

Also, I noticed you didn't deal with Heru's actual 'point' about ancestral veneration. Prey tell? I know for a fact all the folks you just brought up deal with it...

BTW, I don't pop up, I respond when I find the time, and or think it isn't a waste, which frankly I decided on long ago with your apologist 'links' and refusal to provide extra-biblical scholarly BOOK refference. I am shameless when I have my facts straight... You can stress over the Hebrew New kids on the block that YT is so obsessed with... I'll go back to concentrating on the African masses... Peace...
A revision to the anti-black statment: The Jews were anti-PEACEFULLY cohabitating with blacks. Isn't at least worthy of noting that the MAJOR antagonists to Jewish living were blacks? The biggest threat to Jewish society was becoming as blacks. Tolerance was an anomaly because black thought/consciousness was arbitrarily placed in DIRECT opposition to Judaism. There was never an explanation of this opposition, only idolatry was super-imposed into black culture, and blacks were quite literally to be "wiped out".
quote:
I have THOUROULY dissected the Bible and have CRITICALLY analyed it for close to 25 years (which I feel is whats required minimum)I've crossed referenced it with other historic,archaeological, anthropologic, and linguistic studies and it checks out for the most part. Many of the people running around criticizing the Bible and trying to blow it off as myth (particulary the old testament) have no DEEP understanding of it...I actually do.



You speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek... and since you are aware of the African origins... MDW NTR?

BTW, you forgot to respond to Raptor when you popped back up shamelessly... Wouldn't want you to be guilty of what you occuse others of...

quote:
I do recall saying "as a means to distinguish different skin colors or race of peoples". Race doesn't necessarily have to imply skin color. I could also imply creeds, cultures, lanquage, ethnic group etc. So if you they are, as you have said "all black", then why the need for such distinctions?

NOAH and the deluge:

I start by saying the whole earth was not flooded over. That is to say it did not look like a blue ball from space at the time noah was said to have existed, to times much earlier. Secondly, who was there to chronicle this phenomena? As was stated before, we find flood stories all over the globe. Hermopolitan flood stories, south sea island flood stories, y'all have mentioned gilgemesh[sp?] already, and in other kemetan literature. All predating noah's flood. Just because nyc exist doesn't mean spiderman existed.

(had go back in the books for this)

My findings regarding Noah flood myth:

Noah in old hebrew is made up of 2 characters "NUN" and "CHED" translated as "NOACH". We don't now the original vowel sounds, for hebrew text didn't use vowels (the same is said regarding kemetan writings). At best, we surmise.

NUN, the 1st letter used in the hebrew name -noah- interestingly we find nun to be a deity in kemetan lore, which represents the flood of creation who also guides a boat, or what has been referred to as "solar boat", across the waters, which carried the other deities of the ogdoad. Nun symbolized the flood and was portrayed in anthropomorphic form.

In the hermopolitan creation myth, we find four males and females that emerged from a primeval flood stepping onto the "first" piece of land. Liking to that of the noah story where we find 4 males and females emerging from a global flood after a mountain arose from the sea.

SHEM "SHM", I discovered, means "name"? He was named, "Name"? However, word shem also forms the root of the word "shemoneh" meaning "eight'.

Hermopolis, as the greeks called it was called shm by the kemetans meaning "8-town" after the eight deities that emerged from the flood.

HAM "CHEM" or "CHM" in hebrew derives from the word kmt. It is still up to debate as to whether Kmt "the black land" is in regard to the fertile black soil from the yearly flood of the nile after the water recedes or its indigenous inhabitants. To me, it really doesn't matter, for we know who the originals were.

Japheth, we find in old hebrew, that its made up of 3 consonants "j-ph-th", where the "ph" and the "th" sounds are linguistically close to "p" and "t". In hebrew we find the j is used in combination with 'god' for 'god's' name, i.e. "ja" or "jo". We find the "pt" part of "j-ph" is used in the memphite creator deity known as Ptah.

Linguistically japheth appears to be equivalent to 'god-ptah', which may suggest the frequent use of the hebrew term "lord god".

Call it all coincidence, I'm not stopping anyone from doing so, however we see here how noah & sons resemble an older hermopolitan creation myth story.

Noah - nun, primeval flood

Ham - kmt, signifies the first land to emerge from water (or land of the blacks? )

Shem -shm, representing a city, hermopolis, called shm by kemetans -8 town. A city built on the first land (to emerge from water).

Japheth, correlates with a primary deity; which can be seen to parallel the hermopolitan ogdoad and ptah.
Weak positions often make for some strange bed fellows... up until now I could scarcely see how Heru and Oshun Auset could possibly have anything in common. However, you both seem to be linked in your unsubstantiated attempts to accuse the Ancient Hebrews (whom ironically you both admit in some form or fashion came out of and were heavily influenced by Africa...) this is becoming downright comical. Just like your name sakes I see your positions similar to images of Auset holding her baby Heru in her bosom...while a touching sight it is however totally mythological...just like your positions.

Which I will further reveal this as follows....


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
sleep

quote:
The question is since you guys are trying to draw a distinction between Ancient Hebrew and African Culture...How do you explain the fact that Africans tribes like the Annnag, Efik and Ibibio people of Akwa Ibom and Cross River States of Nigeria have had ancient religious practices that strongly resembled some of the Ancient Hebrews traditions? How on earth do you explain the fact than in the old Calabar Kingdom people there were called 'Efik Eburutu.' The name Eburutu being a derivative of Hebrew...and they being historically know as the "Hebrews who settled in Ututu".


Already went there... The Nile valley folks moved West in migrations in particularly the area that is now known as Nigeria, since the Nile valley traditions were the Hebrews predicessors and 'fathers/mothers'(which you agree to) the link is obvious... How much you wanna bet the "Hebrew" link was attributed post colonialism? If it wasn't, please quote the ancient traditional way of saying "Hebrews who settled in Ututu"... I'd love to kow the pre-colonial non-European term used to describe what is now identified and given credit to as 'Hebrew'...


Since the link is so "obvious" I'm not following your logic with regard to you trying to create this disconnect between the Ancient Hebrews and Africans. Furthermore regarding your bet that Hebrew links to West Africa came about 'post colonialsm' my only question to you would be how much are you willing to lose? Since According to Muslim records such as the Tarikh el-Fettash which dates well before colonialism states that several Black Hebrew communities existed in parts of the Ghana, Mali, and later Songhay empires. To your latter question asking what non-European term was used to describe Hebrew. One word is Eber which is the original root word of Hebrew...which is why the people of the Calabar Kingdom (whom you didn't address in your reply by the way) were called "Eburutu" because it linquistically comes directly from the original word Eber.

Furthermore, When the first European missionaries and traders came in contact with the people of the Calabar Kingdom they were already doing Hebrew cultural practices and spiritual customs or what the Europeans called "Traditional Religions".


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:
While you're at it... try explaiming to me how a people like the Lemba in southern Africa could have specific religious practices similar to the ancient Hebrews even though they are a Bantu Speaking group? Moreover, how do you explain the fact their claims of being of Hebrew decent are backed up even genetically?


The Yemenese connection to the horn of Africa as part of the 'Sheba' erra is beyond certified, the people who brought Judaism to Ethiopia just moved South and mixed with the Native population. Please explain what that 'proves'? It's best if you mention 'genetic links', you find out to whom those genetic links have been made.

Also, I noticed you didn't deal with Heru's actual 'point' about ancestral veneration. Prey tell? I know for a fact all the folks you just brought up deal with it...


That's what I get for assuming that you understood significance of a African Bantu speaking tribe like the Lemba being not only culturally but genetically linked to a Hebrew heritage. The "people who brought Judiasm Ethiopia" as you so eloquently put it were they not Black? Or are going to keep sticking to your belief that they were "Asiatic invaders" which I already proved was patently false? Even by your own convoluted rendition of how you believe the ancient Hebrews came to be... you stated that they were the Hyksos mixed with Egyptians after hundreds of years and were African in phenotype..remember that? The fact that the Lemba (who are Black) can be genetically traced back to one Hebrew forefather alone debunks your and Heru's position that some how there is a dissconnect between the Africans and Hebrews...the Lemba are living proof to the contrary.

I've already addressed Heru's point about ancestral veneration when I reminded him that not all Africans practiced the same belief systems and if the Ancient Hebrews did not practice it that does not make them any less Black than any other monotheistic culture in the area....Considering that he said this...


Supposedly Egyptians worshipped "many gods", or idols. History has proven this to be untrue, in fact Egyptians were just as monotheistic as the Jews were, if not moreso.

it would appear that he actually agrees with the fact that Blacks had many diverse beliefs Besides I wouldn't start itemizing who is not answering what if I were you... because you have a plethora of direct questions you need to catch up on.


quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
BTW, I don't pop up, I respond when I find the time, and or think it isn't a waste, which frankly I decided on long ago with your apologist 'links' and refusal to provide extra-biblical scholarly BOOK refference. I am shameless when I have my facts straight... You can stress over the Hebrew New kids on the block that YT is so obsessed with... I'll go back to concentrating on the African masses... Peace...


Here you go again...making claims that you can't back up what "apologist links" have I posted?... what extra-biblical BOOK references are you waiting on? You mean like the one written by your friend Gerald "Massa" Massey who compares Blacks to Gorilla's and who was really a SELF TAUGHT egyptologist/poet who's work to this day is viewed as theosophically biased? Well I guess since he wrote a book or two everything he said must be 100% accurate huh? Regarding you being shameless when you get your facts straight I would very much like to see that..that is when ever you actually do get your facts straight.

By the way, I like the little false dichotomy you ended with....I guess "stressing over the Hebrew New kids on the Block" automatically precludes me from being able to concentrate on the African masses like you can. Have you ever stopped to think that the reason YT is so obsessed with it (like Egypt) is because he doesn't want Blacks to be? So no I will NOT continue to view Black culture within the boundaries of Western and Southern Africa (where YT wants to confine it) and I will acknowledge the fact that our cultures extended well into what is now known as the "middle east". To concede these cultures to YT is exactly what they want...and personally I'm not going to help them out with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
I have THOUROULY dissected the Bible and have CRITICALLY analyed it for close to 25 years (which I feel is whats required minimum)I've crossed referenced it with other historic,archaeological, anthropologic, and linguistic studies and it checks out for the most part. Many of the people running around criticizing the Bible and trying to blow it off as myth (particulary the old testament) have no DEEP understanding of it...I actually do.



You speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek... and since you are aware of the African origins... MDW NTR?

BTW, you forgot to respond to Raptor when you popped back up shamelessly... Wouldn't want you to be guilty of what you occuse others of...

quote:
I do recall saying "as a means to distinguish different skin colors or race of peoples". Race doesn't necessarily have to imply skin color. I could also imply creeds, cultures, lanquage, ethnic group etc. So if you they are, as you have said "all black", then why the need for such distinctions?

NOAH and the deluge:

I start by saying the whole earth was not flooded over. That is to say it did not look like a blue ball from space at the time noah was said to have existed, to times much earlier. Secondly, who was there to chronicle this phenomena? As was stated before, we find flood stories all over the globe. Hermopolitan flood stories, south sea island flood stories, y'all have mentioned gilgemesh[sp?] already, and in other kemetan literature. All predating noah's flood. Just because nyc exist doesn't mean spiderman existed.

(had go back in the books for this)

My findings regarding Noah flood myth:

Noah in old hebrew is made up of 2 characters "NUN" and "CHED" translated as "NOACH". We don't now the original vowel sounds, for hebrew text didn't use vowels (the same is said regarding kemetan writings). At best, we surmise.

NUN, the 1st letter used in the hebrew name -noah- interestingly we find nun to be a deity in kemetan lore, which represents the flood of creation who also guides a boat, or what has been referred to as "solar boat", across the waters, which carried the other deities of the ogdoad. Nun symbolized the flood and was portrayed in anthropomorphic form.

In the hermopolitan creation myth, we find four males and females that emerged from a primeval flood stepping onto the "first" piece of land. Liking to that of the noah story where we find 4 males and females emerging from a global flood after a mountain arose from the sea.

SHEM "SHM", I discovered, means "name"? He was named, "Name"? However, word shem also forms the root of the word "shemoneh" meaning "eight'.

Hermopolis, as the greeks called it was called shm by the kemetans meaning "8-town" after the eight deities that emerged from the flood.

HAM "CHEM" or "CHM" in hebrew derives from the word kmt. It is still up to debate as to whether Kmt "the black land" is in regard to the fertile black soil from the yearly flood of the nile after the water recedes or its indigenous inhabitants. To me, it really doesn't matter, for we know who the originals were.

Japheth, we find in old hebrew, that its made up of 3 consonants "j-ph-th", where the "ph" and the "th" sounds are linguistically close to "p" and "t". In hebrew we find the j is used in combination with 'god' for 'god's' name, i.e. "ja" or "jo". We find the "pt" part of "j-ph" is used in the memphite creator deity known as Ptah.

Linguistically japheth appears to be equivalent to 'god-ptah', which may suggest the frequent use of the hebrew term "lord god".

Call it all coincidence, I'm not stopping anyone from doing so, however we see here how noah & sons resemble an older hermopolitan creation myth story.

Noah - nun, primeval flood

Ham - kmt, signifies the first land to emerge from water (or land of the blacks? )

Shem -shm, representing a city, hermopolis, called shm by kemetans -8 town. A city built on the first land (to emerge from water).

Japheth, correlates with a primary deity; which can be seen to parallel the hermopolitan ogdoad and ptah.



You really seem to believe that redherrings are actually valid points don't you? My knowledge of the Bible has nothing to do with it being necessary for me to be able to speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. Any more than your expertise in West African culture would require you to speak/read every West African language and dialect.

I don't know why you keep making reference to when I said you shamelessly popped back in here without answering any of my previous questions (which you did). Now you're even trying to accuse me of doing it... when I never left and I was just waiting on you to respond to my questions. It was Raptor who popped back in here in a apparent attempt to come to your aid.

I already answered the question that you posted to Raptors satisfaction. If not I invited him to send me a PM so as not to distract the thread away from your responsibilty to answer direct questions.

Anyway, I can see at least three whole posts that I directed to you, Raptor and Heru that have gone totally unanswered yet you want to nitpick about a paragraph or two that I ommited for the sake of redundancy.

Why are you trying to hold me to a different standard that neither you or your cohorts are able to live up to?
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
Heru:
I've been reading the Old Testament since the second grade, so I can appreciate the questions that arise within as I get older



quote:
LD:
Heru just because you've been reading the Old Testament 'since you were in the second grade' does not mean you truly understand it


quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Is that how you interpreted that statement? As some lofty proclamation of a superior knowledge? Pretty dense aren't we? Last time I checked, questions were an admission of ignorance.



Actually, thats how I'm interpreting your overall tone... however this statement in particular though...

quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
My understanding is decently developed. I used to spout the same bs you're spouting right now... been there, done that. I messed around and started reading, eventually the "preponderence" of evidence became more and more preposterous.


Seems to suggest that somehow during the course of your "messing around" and starting to read that you managed to garner enough information whereby you are now capable of transforming a preponderence of evidence into something "preposterous". To me that would require a superior amount of knowledge. However, if you are now backing away from that claim and you are admitting your "ignorance" and that you are indeed a novice with regard to this subject matter I will accept you as such.



quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
At any rate.

Ezekial
[QUOTE]Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. [c]

22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side- 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. 24 They will come against you with weapons, [d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire. 26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry. 27 So I will put a stop to the lewdness and prostitution you began in Egypt. You will not look on these things with longing or remember Egypt anymore.


When I decided to log back in early this morning and I noticed that you had replied already I was pleased and I was hoping that you would use one of the best Biblical references to try to prove your point. When I read that you had selected this passage of all things I almost didn't believe it...but then I remembered what you said about your "ignorance" regarding this subject so I decided not to clown you on this but actually take this as an opportunity to teach you. So here goes...For starters Heru the word 'Oholibah' was a pejoritive term that Ezekial was using for the KINGDOMS of Israel and Judah (due to their idolatry and law breaking) NOT an individual woman. So I have no idea why you felt the need to bolden the passage....

"whose genitals were like those of donkeys"

As if you are suggesting that Ezekial was trying to use a scare tactic that wouldn't even be invented until the European enslavement of Blacks. Whereby white Jew girls would be afraid of Black mens big ole' Penises and therefore not get with them...which is utter nonsense. Furthermore, everything that Ezekial spells out with regard to the calamities that would befall the ancient hebrews i.e., the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions, the fall of Egypt to the Asiatics, etc happened... this is a matter of historic record. Which only gives further credence to my position that the Bible is also an accurate historic record


quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Ezekial is giving a rather graphic analogy about how Jews felt about other Jews interracting with Egyptians (blacks). Was the genital reference intended as a comment? Or is their some specific deeper meaning? Understandbly the God of the Jews was a jealous God, but what was the specific "threat" that God faced from having His people assimilate to deep consciousness and meditation? I'm sure that the Egyptian system of spiritual cultivation posed no eminent danger towards God. What was the sin of interracting with Egyptians? Supposedly Egyptians worshipped "many gods", or idols. History has proven this to be untrue, in fact Egyptians were just as monotheistic as the Jews were, if not moreso.


You seem to have a hard time understanding the concept of cultural and spiritual diversity among Blacks. The issues that you are pointing out between the ancient Hebrews and other Blacks had NOTHING to do with race back then it was all about Culture, Beliefs and Ethnicity even though they were all Black they were still from different tribes. Regarding your latter statement that....

Supposedly Egyptians worshipped "many gods", or idols. History has proven this to be untrue, in fact Egyptians were just as monotheistic as the Jews were, if not moreso.

You may want to try breaking that to Oshun who tends to want to hold on to the completely BOGUS belief than anytime Africans were monotheistic it had to be due to some Asiatic or other outside invasion. Even though I've already crippled her entire argument when I introduced Akhenaten...something she has yet to offer even a semblence of a cogent defence against.


quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
[QUOTE] (Ham was the father of Canaan.)


The Canaanites were one of the biggest influences on Hebrew culture. The Canaanites were black.


Now we are getting somewhere.... so lets use a little deductive reasoning shall we? Ok you just admitted that the Canaanites were Black right?..which is absolutely correct. Now if Canaan the father of the Canaanites was Black and Ham the Father of Canaan was Black. That would make Shem the BROTHER of Ham Black... and since Shem was the father of the original Semites that produced the ancient Hebrews then that would make them????..... If you follow this logic correctly and you guess the right answer go by yourself a cookie.


quote:
Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed him in every way. 2 He said to the chief [a] servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. 3 I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, 4 but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac."



quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
(Ham was the father of Canaan.)

Why is this necessary? What threat does the Canaanite woman pose to an Israelite? For one it would put a tremendous damper on the mood of an anti-black agenda. The Jews spent most of their nomadic history trying to steal the "land of milk and honey" from the Canaanites. As a matter of fact it is the underlying PLOT/THEME of the Old Testament, trying to wipe out the Canaanites and take away their land. After hundreds of years of attempts, hasty claims of victory, lost battles, and enslavement, it took the Egyptians to hand over the land of milk and honey.

quote:
(Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife.



What inherent evil/sin did Canaan commit? Was their land the only land that had milk and honey (pun intended)?


I don't know if you realize this or not but in this quote alone you've managed to offer evidence to support my position while debunking your own....Follow along now... you started off by trying to make the hostilities between the Israelites and the Canaanites a "anti-black" thing on the israelites part...As opposed to the land, cultural and spiritual dispute that it actually was which is no different than the infighting between any other racial group especially in ancient times.

Then you mentioned one of the occasions when the Egyptians (who you admit were Black) attacked the Canaanites (who you also just admitted were Black) following your logic wouldn't that make the Egyptians white? I mean if everytime there was a conflict between Africans it meant one party had to be white... how do you explain the Nubian conquests of Egypt? does that mean that they were white to?
So you've dismissed the Israelite attempt to steal the culture and destroy the people of Canaan as merely "cultural infighting". 19
Spiritual dispute? Is that all it was... a "spiritual dispute"? Hundreds of years of war over a "spiritual dispute"? You don't pull out the genocide stick over a "spiritual dispute". It would make sense if the Hebrews sought to convert other tribes, it would make even more sense if the Hebrew religion wasn't borrowed, it would make even more sense than that, if the Bible explained it as "cultural infighting over a spiritual dispute", BUT IT DOESN'T.

As a matter of fact, you've done more dismissing than you've done addressing. On historical accuracy, you dismissed the erroneous biblical portrayal of black spiritual beliefs as "not all blacks practiced the same beliefs". Huh? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Surely that's not your explanation for Jews portraying blacks as somehow culturally and spiritually inferior. That's your answer to ancestor veneration, and pretty much any attempt at explaining to you that blacks were doing more than carving images and worshipping them.

------------------------------------------

From my inferior point of view: The Jews were an undeveloped nomadic tribe who aspired to have their own land, their own culture, with their very on God. They would use this God as a scapegoat to break every standard that they set for themselves. Their God allowed them to "covet" another land, steal the culture, and kill the people. When they had to LIE in order to gain access to a land, they hid behind God's promise/plan. As an aside, THEY(the Hebrews) IDOLIZED the Canaanite (Black) culture, women, land, and belief system. These Black people were advanced beyond their comprehension and were HIGHLY admired. But... But... But... Their God was a "JEALOUS" God. They used that theme of Jealousy as a catalyst, that would propel them into any land that they set their nomadic footsies on, and as justification for genocide. Now to review, God said you can't lie, steal, kill, covet, or be jealous, but when you're doing it in my name, it's o.k.

NOT ONE SINGLE BLACK TRIBE USED GOD AS A SCAPEGOAT. NOT ONE.

If the Hebrews were successful at genocide, and they wiped out the Hittites, Jebusites, Canaanites, etc., next on the list of God's "promise" would've been the Nubians, Egyptians. But they never did tackle the smaller fish.

Again, that's just the way I see it.

-----------------------------------------------

So as far as historical accuracy goes, I'm left with a question, did the Hebrew tribe ever REALLY acquire/enjoy their land of milk and honey? When God "promised" a land of milk and honey, was the fact that the land would have no peace, apart of that "promise"?
quote:
Since the link is so "obvious" I'm not following your logic with regard to you trying to create this disconnect between the Ancient Hebrews and Africans. Furthermore regarding your bet that Hebrew links to West Africa came about 'post colonialsm' my only question to you would be how much are you willing to lose? Since According to Muslim records such as the Tarikh el-Fettash which dates well before colonialism states that several Black Hebrew communities existed in parts of the Ghana, Mali, and later Songhay empires. To your latter question asking what non-European term was used to describe Hebrew. One word is Eber which is the original root word of Hebrew...which is why the people of the Calabar Kingdom (whom you didn't address in your reply by the way) were called "Eburutu" because it linquistically comes directly from the original word Eber.

Furthermore, When the first European missionaries and traders came in contact with the people of the Calabar Kingdom they were already doing Hebrew cultural practices and spiritual customs or what the Europeans called "Traditional Religions".

quote:
Since the link is so "obvious" I'm not following your logic with regard to you trying to create this disconnect between the Ancient Hebrews and Africans. Furthermore regarding your bet that Hebrew links to West Africa came about 'post colonialsm' my only question to you would be how much are you willing to lose? Since According to Muslim records such as the Tarikh el-Fettash which dates well before colonialism states that several Black Hebrew communities existed in parts of the Ghana, Mali, and later Songhay empires. To your latter question asking what non-European term was used to describe Hebrew. One word is Eber which is the original root word of Hebrew...which is why the people of the Calabar Kingdom (whom you didn't address in your reply by the way) were called "Eburutu" because it linquistically comes directly from the original word Eber.

Furthermore, When the first European missionaries and traders came in contact with the people of the Calabar Kingdom they were already doing Hebrew cultural practices and spiritual customs or what the Europeans called "Traditional Religions".



My bad, I should be more specific... If Islam is already there, then foreign invaders and Jihads already occured in many areas placing the Semetic/monothestic superiority mindset in place... It doesn't have to be Europeans who change what the locals try to validate themselves by...a s history tells quite clearly.

Sho me a pre Asiatic/European invasion area where there are Jews in Africa and you may have a leg to stand on... until then, back to the African masses.

Oh yeah, just one more thing. Please come up with one OTHER African group that DOESN'T practice ancestral veneration... Yes, cultural practices varied, but that one remained almost perfectly consistant. So no, you did not address Heru's point whatsoever. And please stop dancing around Raptor's post. You should have no problem addressing it if you are so fuilly aware of the African origins...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×