Author Topic: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?  (Read 786 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ajax

  • Lieutenant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« on: June 30, 2009, 10:30:43 AM »

The Original Biblical Jews Were a
Black African People
The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people as an ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p501) Many of them still are Black, in northenrn Africa such as the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia. A New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them as "a lost tribe that has kept it identiy for more than 2,000 years in a remote corner of Africa." Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes it name from Ophren, a son of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston: The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus p50) Like Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes back to Judah -through Solomon/Queen of Sheba and King David.

Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origion." The Bible classifies the Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord." (Amos 9:7) Black Paul is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares himself to be a "Jew." (Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3) That the Jews got their language, religion & culture from the Canaanites & Sumerians through Babylon, is well documented by historians. The original ancient Hebrew alphabet was identical to that of the Phoenicians. "Semitic languages" are really dialectical variants of African languages.

The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK! (mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means half. "half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is genetically dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing. Historian Cheikh Anta Diop also points out that the "Semitic" arises in the 4th millennia B.C. from crossbreeding between Black inhabitants of the holy land and white northern invaders. While many Semites (such as Jews & gypsies) have mixed so much with whites that they've forgotten or deny their African roots, racism (white supremacy) will never let them forget this no matter how light-skinned they become, as proved by Hitler, who mandated their destruction because they were classified by whites as "non-white" peple originating in Africa. The very word gypsy means "out of Egypt."
"There is no longer any room for hope"

Offline dean_saor

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 3657
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2009, 12:27:03 PM »
I think "semite" comes from Shem son of Noah, the presumed progenitor of the Semitic races such as Akkadians, Aramaians, Arabs et al.
Cha do dhùin doras nach d'fhosgail doras eile;
No door shut but another door opened

Offline FrankDialogue

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5707
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2009, 01:08:58 PM »
This question/issue is impossible to settle...1) Transliteration of Hebrew is difficult, as the words have multiple meanings, which are often misinterpreted...2) Jews, as constituted today, are not Semites (95%)...Their are two African tribes who claim descent from the original Israelites, or a relation with them...They are, as mentioned, the Falasha, from Ethiopia, and the Lemba, who also claim Israelite descent...The Lemba are a small group and live in South Africa and Zimbabwe for the most part...Both may be an Ethiopian tribe...The term Jew has become almost synonymous with 'Israel' (Israelites) but there is a big difference...Jews claim Israelite descent, but the first 'Israelites' were what we would call Arabs today.

South African Lemba

Ethiopian Falasha

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2009, 01:22:03 PM »
The original ancient Hebrew alphabet was identical to that of the Phoenicians.

Well, yes, because the Hebrews didn't have an alphabet and were using the Phoenician alphabet.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2009, 01:28:19 PM »

The Original Biblical Jews Were a
Black African People

The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people as an ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p501) Many of them still are Black, in northenrn Africa such as the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia. A New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them as "a lost tribe that has kept it identiy for more than 2,000 years in a remote corner of Africa." Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes it name from Ophren, a son of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston: The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus p50) Like Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes back to Judah -through Solomon/Queen of Sheba and King David.

Here are some notes that I have saved:

During the time of Solomon, the corrupt of Levi and Judah (two of the tribes of Israel) made a pact with the devil's advocates.  For this, Solomon deposed them from their positions of authority in Israel: the Levites from their custodianship of the Ark of the Covenant and the Law, and the faithless of Judah from the throne of Judah.

Solomon sent the Ark, the Torah, the first-born sons of the leaders of all the tribes, and his seal ring, with his son, Menelik, to Abyssinia/Ethiopia, to reign over Israel with Menelik's mother, Bilqis, who ruled what is now Egypt, Ethiopia, the Sudan, and the Horn of Africa, and  Sheba, which is now the south of Arabia.
What was left in Jerusalem fell after Solomon's death, and the ruling class was taken into the Babylonian Captivity.  After seventy years, Cyrus, Grand Master, restored them to Jerusalem, where they continued their conspiracy. 

The well-known history of Israel thereafter is the history of that conspiracy, while the history of Israel in Abyssinia is almost unknown outside Ethiopia.

Ham, Shem, and Japheth were the three sons of Noah from whom all humanity are descended. Ham and Shem went south to what is now called the Middle East, Japheth and Noah remained in the north in the lands now known as Europe and Asia.

Generally, Biblical scholars believe Ham to be the father of "black" (African) peoples, Shem to be the father of Hebrews (Jews) and Arabs, and Japheth to be the father of "white" people (today's Europeans, Russians, and Americans).
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline FrankDialogue

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5707
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2009, 02:49:57 PM »
You see, this is all impossible to settle, because it goes back too far...The present days 'Jews', the majority, are sons of Japheth, according to the history of the Khazars, who claim descent from him...This is one reason for this interest in Noachide Laws by the Russian Chassidim (Chabbad/Satmar), because of the fascination with Noah's progeny...But they twist it, claiming they are sons of Shem, when they are actually Khazars, sons of Japheth (at least according to Khazar belief)...All conjecture, but interesting.

Offline WindRiverShoshoni

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1431
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2009, 05:55:09 PM »
You see, this is all impossible to settle, because it goes back too far ... The present days 'Jews', the majority, are sons of Japheth, according to the history of the Khazars, who claim descent from him ... This is one reason for this interest in Noachide Laws by the Russian Chassidim (Chabbad/Satmar), because of the fascination with Noah's progeny ... But they twist it, claiming they are sons of Shem, when they are actually Khazars, sons of Japheth (at least according to Khazar belief) ... All conjecture, but interesting.

It's not all conjecture.  See for a fairly comprehensive history of the Talmudic zionist conspiracy of the scribes and pharisees of Temple Israel formed during the reign of Solomon, starting about two hundred years later.  There is reason to believe that the Ashkenazim are descendants both of Japheth and Shem.

The Pharisaic elders who moved to Jamnia from Jerusalem before its destruction in 70 AD intended, like the Levites in Babylon earlier, to set up a centre of power and remote-control, from which they might keep in subjection a tribal organization, by that time distributed over the earth.  They took with them to Jamnia the accumulated experience of Jerusalem and Babylon and the stored secrets of ages and they succeeded in establishing a mobile government which has continued to exercise authority over the Jews until the present day. ...

The period of government from Jamnia lasted for about a century, and then it [81] was transferred to Usha in Galilee, where the Sanhedrin was re-established. ... "the centre" was moved back to Babylonia, where the Judean colony, which eight centuries earlier had preferred to stay there rather than "return" to Jerusalem, "was still intact."  The Talmudic government was set up at Sura, and academies were established there at Pumbedita. ...

For six hundred years the Talmudic government, at Jamnia, Usha, and Sura, remained in or near to its native, oriental climate ...

Then came the event which has produced such violent results in our time:  the Talmudic government moved into Christianized Europe and established itself among peoples to whom the nature of its dogma and its methods were strange and even incomprehensible.  This led, in the course of many centuries, to the recurrent clash of the alien ambition and creed against native interest, which our century is again experiencing. ...

Dr. Kastein says:

"Judaism, dispersed as it was over the face of the globe, was always inclined to set up a fictitious state in the place of the one that had been lost, and always aimed, therefore, at looking to a common centre for guidance ... This centre was now held to be situated in Spain, whither the national hegemony was transferred from the East.  Just as Babylonia had providentially taken the place of Palestine, so now Spain opportunely replaced Babylonia, which, as a centre of Judaism, had ceased to be capable of functioning.  All that could be done there had already been accomplished; it had forged the chains with which the individual could bind himself, to avoid being swallowed up by his environment:  the Talmud." ...

...  in 1492 the Jews, as well as the Moors, were expelled.  They had become identified with the invaders' rule and were cast out when it ended, as they had followed it in.

The "centre" of Talmudic government was then transferred to Poland.

At that point, less than four centuries before our own generation, a significant mystery enters the story of Zion:  why was the government set up in Poland? ... There is no record that any substantial number of Spanish Jews went to Poland, or that any Jewish mass migration to Poland had occurred at any earlier time.

Yet in the 1500's, when the "centre" was set up in Poland, "a Jewish population of millions came into being there," according to Dr. Kastein.  But populations of millions do not suddenly "come into being."  Dr. Kastein shows himself to be aware that something needs explanation here, and to be reluctant to go into it, for he dismisses the strange thing with the casual remark that the size of this community, of which nothing has previously been heard, "was more due to immigration, apparently from France, Germany and Bohemia, than to any other cause."  He does not explain what other cause he might have in mind and, for a diligent scholar, is on this one occasion strangely content with a random surmise.

But when a Zionist historian thus slurs over something the seeker after knowledge may be fairly sure that the root of the matter may by perseverance be found.

So it is in this case; behind Dr. Kastein's artless conjecture the most important fact in the later story of Zion is concealed.  The "centre" of Jewish government was at this time planted among a large community of people who were unknown to the world as Jews and in fact were not Jews in any literal sense.  They had no Judahite blood at all (for that matter; Judahite blood must by this time have been almost extinct even among the Jews of Western Europe) and their forefathers had never known Judea, or any soil but that of Tartary.

These people were the Khazars, a Turco-Mongolian race which had been converted to Judaism in about the 7th century of our era.  This is the only case of the conversion of a large body of people of quite distinct blood to Judaism (the Idumeans were "brothers").  The reason why the Talmudic elders permitted or encouraged it can only be guessed; without it, however, the "Jewish question" would by now have joined the problems that time has solved.  [emphasis added]

This development (which will be further discussed in a later chapter) was of vital, and perhaps even mortal importance to the West. ...

In effect, a Jewish state, Talmud-ruled, was recreated on the soil of Poland.

So from muslim Spain the conspiracy moved to Poland, still under the control of the Talmudic elders.  There is no reason to think that the Talmudic zionists just "turned over" a three-thousand year conspiracy to "a Turco-Mongolian race which had been converted to Judaism in about the 7th century of our era" and then disappeared.  According to the halacha, it is the descendants of a convert to Judaism, whose children have "married in," who are considered to be fully members of the nation of Israel, while the convert is regarded as a "righteous gentile" and a nominal Jew, but not really a "first-class" citizen of the blood.

But it is clear that the conspiracy ~ the Talmudic elders ~ went from Islamic Spain to Poland, and continued from among the Khazars.  They, being "full-fledged Jews," would have been more than welcome, they would have been instant dignitaries, and by taking wives and concubines from among the Khazars would have "legitimized" the latter's claim to Judaism.

The fact is that we cannot trace the movements of the Talmudic elders to anywhere else but to Poland, and they are not likely to have simply "disappeared" elsewhere except among the Khazars.

So it is my opinion ~ repeat, my opinion ~ that we cannot peremptorily dismiss the Ashkenazi zionists as "not of the blood" and thus not "legitimately" Jewish.  Not only are there ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel who are supposedly "lost," but there were Jewish colonies and kingdoms in many places besides in the vicinity of Jerusalem.  Without more evidence, we cannot say with certainty that the Khazars themselves, before the arrival of the Talmudic elders, were not "Jewish" by blood, and merely "converts" with no historical roots in Israel leading to that "conversion."  Many people whose Jewish ancestors "converted" to Christianity in Spain, but kept their traditions in secret, have returned to their Jewish heritage.

It is true that the Sephardim call the Ashkenazim "soap" as an insulting epithet, and consider them "deficient" as a result of "mixed blood," which was a characteristic prejudice of those who returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian Captivity and all who came after them.  And in this sense there is a "divide" between the two populations.  In practice, however, this makes no real difference when it comes to their allegiance to Israel and their "defense" against "anti-Semitism."

So that it is "impossible to settle" the question of lineage is not particularly relevant to anything in our time, since it makes no significant difference among the Israelis, which is the only place where it might have any practical effect.  That non-Israelis think about it means little or nothing to the Israelis, who treat it as "just another anti-Semitic slur."

And in the end, without a lot more information that is not likely to be forthcoming, it is "impossible to settle" in either direction ~ lineal descent from Japheth, or from both Japheth and Shem, might be determined through DNA studies, but what difference would it make?  None:  "purity of blood" prejudices are already applied among the zionists, diminishing the Ashkenazi in the eyes of the Sephardim simply by the presence of Khazar blood.

And the scribes and pharisees did go to Poland ...

It's too dark here.

Offline Ajax

  • Lieutenant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2009, 06:19:05 AM »
thanks sushigirl--

The Descendants Of Ham

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.

And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,

And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same [is] a great city.

And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.

And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,

And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,

And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,

And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.

And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

These [are] the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, [and] in their nations.

(Genesis 10:6-20)

THE DESCENDANTS of Japheth and the descendants of Shem are traced reasonably clearly in subsequent history, but the descendants of Ham present problems which are not shared by these other two. It is true that a certain number of listed descendants of Ham are also easily traceable, for example, Mizraim, Canaan, and Heth. And a number of the cities related to Ham in Genesis 10 present no problems, having become household words to Bible students. But there are many names here, about which we have very little information, yet which may have been ancestors of very substantial portions of the present world's population. It is certain of these names we propose to examine, for they bear upon the origin of the so-called "coloured races."

Methods for Tracing Ham's Descendants

We have already proposed that Japheth was indeed "enlarged" to an exceptional degree in his descendants, not merely in the number of nations ultimately derived from his family, but in their very wide spread over the face of the earth. Also, this enlargement was gradual enough to occur without seriously disrupting the natural development of dialectic differences, which in due course became distinct languages within the family. In another Doorway Paper, (96) it is suggested that the confusion which occurred at Babel served chiefly as an affliction for the children of Ham, whose languages have proliferated bewilderingly from very early times to the present day, a proliferation contributing in no small measure to the fragmentation of the original family. The changes which took place in the Semitic family of languages were remarkably small. And though the changes which took place in the Japhetic family of languages were somewhat greater, they were, nevertheless, so orderly as to allow linguists to reconstitute both families with considerable assurance. In neither of these two families of language is there any real evidence of "confusion" in their development. On the other hand, in the languages of the Hamitic line there is a great deal of confusion, if by "confusion" we allow the term to mean that dialects rapidly developed between neighbouring and related tribes as they multiplied, rendering their speech unintelligible to one another in a remarkably short space of time. This subject is explored in the Doorway Paper mentioned above and will not be pursued here, but it is necessary to introduce this because it bears on the lack of persistence through passing centuries of Hamitic ancestral names (as compared to those in the lines of Japheth and Shem). This makes it much more difficult to establish lines of connection by the means of names. In fact, the most important members of Ham's family bore names which disappeared completely, except as preserved in ancient documents. The names of Ham's sons are not preserved even in corrupted form in modern times. The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan, but not one of these is held today by any living representatives in any recognizable form whatever. Cush subsequently became identified with Ethiopia, Mizraim with Egypt, Phut with Libya and Canaan with Palestine, but the old names passed completely out of use.

On the other hand, many of the names were bywords for a long time, not because there were numerous descendants, as is the case of Japheth, but rather because of some single notable achievement. Nimrod was remembered for his hunting prowess. Many of the cities which are listed as having been founded by Ham's descendants had notable histories. But they, too, for the most part ceased to have importance long before modern times. A notable exception is the city Jerusalem, which, of course, is not actually mentioned at all even under its older name Jebus.

Cush and his Sons

How, then, can one provide substantiating evidence for the claim that from Ham were descended the colored races? The answer is only by inference. For example, while there was a Cush in or near Mesopotamia at the very beginning, the most prominent settlement established by descendants of this patriarch was in Ethiopia. The Ethiopians have been habitually considered true blacks, which is recognized indirectly in Scripture when the prophet asks, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" (Jeremiah. 13:23). The first son of Cush was Seba, and according to Jervis, this patriarch was reputedly the founder of the Kingdom of Jemameh in Arabia. He says: (97)

    His tribe, extending eastward, occupied the coast of Oman, from Cape Musandam to the neighbourhood of Ras-el-Had, on the extreme east border of the peninsula: they are mentioned by Ptolemy under the name of Asabi. The commercial greatness of this nation is attributed to their possession of Littus Hammaeum or Gold Coast, and of the port of Maskat, which, from the infancy of navigation, must have attracted and commanded the commerce of India.

    It appears that, from thence, they spread into Africa, across the straits of Bab-el-Mandeb. Josephus attests that Saba was an ancient metropolis of the kingdom of Meroe, in the very fertile region between the Nile and Astaboras (or Bahr-el-aswad); and that it ultimately received the name of Meroe after a sister of Cambyses King of Persia, although Meroe seems rather to be a word of Ethiopic derivation. The ruins of the ancient Meroe lie four miles to the north-east of Shendy, in Nubia.

There are other native African tribes which trace themselves back traditionally to Ham. The Yoruba, (98) who are black skinned, for example, claim to be descendants of Nimrod, whereas the Libyans, who are "white" skinned, are usually traced back to Lehabim, a son of Mizraim. And the Egyptians were direct descendants of Mizraim. It is therefore possible that all of Africa, despite the different shades of colour of its native populations, was initially settled by various members of this one Hamitic family.

There still remains, however, the vast aggregate of peoples who are generally classified as Mongoloid, who settled the Far East and the New World. Do they really appear in this genealogical tree, or must we admit that the Table of Nations is not comprehensive here?

There are two names which I think may conceivably provide us with clues. That they should be briefly referred to in the genealogy may seem surprising if - as we are proposing - they gave rise to such enormous populations. We are referring specifically to Heth, a son of Canaan, and the Sinites, a tribe presumably descended from Sin, a brother of Heth.

Descendants of Heth

Heth was, without question, the father of the Hittites. Except for the work of archaeologists, however, we should never have known how important the descendants of this man really were at one point in history, for the Hittite empire disappeared completely from view - or nearly completely. This qualification is necessary if we allow any weight to an observation made by C.R.Conder. (99) It was his contention that when the Hittite empire crumbled, all the Hittites of importance were either killed or fled eastward. Conder's view was that the word Hittite, which appears in Cuneiform as Khittae, was borne by the fleeing remnant of this once powerful nation to the Far East and was preserved through the centuries in the more familiar form Cathay. (100) He assumes that they became a not unimportant part of early Chinese stock. Certainly, there are curious links between them - for example, their modes of dress, their shoes with turned-up toes, their manner of doing their hair in a pigtail, and so forth. Representations show them to have possessed high cheekbones, and craniologists have observed that they had not a few characteristics of Mongoloids. More recently, another possible corroborating link appears in the discovery that the Hittites mastered the art of casting iron and the taming of horses, two achievements of great importance, and recurring very early in Chinese history (101) - long before reaching the West.

It should be observed that linguistic evidence exists for a Japhetic component in the Hittite empire. (102) In view of the fact that their initial expansion took place in Asia Minor, it is not too surprising that there may have been a mixture of races within the Empire. It could well be that there was an Indo-European aristocracy, just as at one point in Egyptian history there was a Shepherd King (Semite) aristocracy. George Barton observed: (103)

    Some features of their speech clearly resemble features of the Indo-European family of languages, but other features seem to denote Tartar (i.e., Mongol) affinities. In a number of instances the influence of the Assyrian language can clearly be traced. The same confusion presents itself when we study the picture of Hittites as they appear in Egyptian reliefs. Two distinct types of face are there portrayed. One type has high cheekbones, oblique eyes, and wears a pigtail, like the people of Mongolia and China. The other has a cleancut head and face which resemble somewhat the early Greeks.

Sin and the Sinites

This brings us to Heth's brother whose name was, presumably, Sin. Of this name there are many occurrences in variant forms through the Middle East and towards the Far East. One of the characteristics of Hamitic peoples - using the term Hamite in its strictly biblical sense and not as anthropologists currently employ it - is a tendency to deify their ancestors. It has been suggested that the Ammon of the Egyptians is a case in point, in which Ham himself has been deified: the combination in that same land of No-Ammon may be an extension of this practice back to Noah himself, who is then associated with his son in the dual title. The point of direct concern here is that the word Sin became the name of a very important deity, appearing from quite early times until quite late in Assyrian history. The last King of Sumerian Ur was named Abi-Sin. The word appears, of course, in the name Sennacherib (Sin-ahe-erba, i.e., "May the god Sin multiply [my] brothers"), and as Naram-Sin, etc.

Sin was important enough, not only to have been deified but to have been given the title Lord of Laws. (104) In a hymn from Ur, he is described as: "he who created law and justice so that mankind has established laws," and again, "the ordainer of laws of heaven and earth." Another remarkable circumstance may stem from this, for if some of his descendants travelled south into Arabia and settled in a district subsequently known as Sin-ai, then possibly his reputation as a great codifier of law led to a tradition which associated Sinai as a place where law was originated. It is possible that there is some connection between this circumstance and God's choice of Mount Sinai as the place where He gave the Ten Commandments. Moreover, according to Boscawen, the title Lord of Laws, attributed to the deified Sin is, in the original hymn of Ur, Bel-Terite, and the first syllable is a form of the more familiar Baal. And the word Terite is the plural of the form tertu meaning law, which itself is the equivalent of the Hebrew Torah (law).

In spite of the fact, therefore, that the patriarch Sin receives scant mention in Genesis 10, he was a very important individual. He may further have had his name preserved in the modern term China. Although Perry espoused a view of culture growth which has come into general disrepute because of its over-simplification, he nevertheless may be essentially correct in the statements which he makes showing the Chinese civilization as having come from the West. Not a few Cuneiform scholars have noted how similar, in some respects, was Sumerian to Chinese. Now Perry says: (105)

    There is one significant feature concerning the possible mode of origin of Chinese civilization that well merits attention. The place most closely associated by the Chinese themselves with the origin of their civilization is the capital of Shensi, namely, Siang-fu (Father Sin). Siangfu on the Wei, a tributary of the Yellow River, is near important gold and jade mines.

It is surely significant that Sinai was equally important as a place of mines. The name Sin, according to Dillmann, (106) is in Assyrian in the form Sianu. It would not be difficult for Father Sin to become Father Sian or, with a slight nasalization, Siang, in Chinese Sianfu. The Chinese have a tradition that their first king, Fu-hi, made his appearance on the Mountains of Chin immediately after the world had been covered with water. (107) Sin himself was the third generation from Noah, a circumstance which, if the identification is justified, would provide about the right time interval.

Moreover, the people who early traded with the Scythians and who came from the Far East were called Sinae, and their most important town was Thinae, a great trading emporium in western China. (108) This city is now known as Thsin or simply Tin, and it lies in the province of Shensi.

The Sinae became independent in Western China, their princes reigning there for some 650 years before they finally gained dominion over the whole land. In the third century B.C., the dynasty of Tsin became supreme in the Empire. The word itself came to have the meaning of purebred. This word was assumed as a title by the Manchu Emperors and is believed to have been changed by the Malays into the form Tchina and, from there, brought into Europe through the Portuguese as China. Some years ago, the newspapers regularly carried headlines with reference to the conflict between the Japanese and Chinese in which the ancient name reappeared in its original form, for they commonly spoke of the Sino-Japanese war.

Arrian, (109) in A.D. 140, speaks of the Sinae of Thinae as a people in the remotest parts of Asia. One is reminded of the reference to the Sinim in Isaiah 49:12 as coming "from afar," but specifically not from the north and not from the west.

Reverting once more to Conder's observation with respect to the far Cathay of Medieval reference, it would make sense to suppose that the remnants of the Hittites, after the destruction of their Empire, travelled towards the East and settled among the Sinites who were relatives, contributing to their civilization certain arts, chiefly metallurgy (especially the casting of iron) and being so absorbed, subsequently, as to disappear entirely from history as a distinct people.

The finding of prehistoric man in the Choukoutien Caves, with skeletal remains variant enough to bridge from the western limits of types in China to types in the New World, has seemed to many to be clear evidence that the New World was peopled by a Mongoloid stock. There is general agreement on this, though there is some evidence of a small Negroid component. (110) The evidence, it is true, is slim, but what evidence there is appears to me to point consistently in the same direction, supporting our initial contention that not only Africa with its black races, but the Far East and the Americas with their colored races were all descendants of Ham.


There is one further illustration of how the descendants of Ham may have contributed uniquely to a Japhetic civilization - in this case, the Roman. The contribution made to Japhetic culture by the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Cretans, and later the Chinese, and the American Indians, is explored in detail in Part IV of this volume. The contribution made by the Etruscans is similarly pointed out in that Paper. The origin of the Etruscans, even though they have been studied and puzzled over intensively for over a hundred years, is still a mystery. I should like to suggest that there is one name in the list of Ham's descendants which might, conceivably, be a reference to their forebear, namely Resen (verse 12).

Resen is said to have been a city. It is characteristic of the earliest towns and cities mentioned in Genesis that they were named after their founders or their founders' children. Cain built a city and called it after the name of his son, Enoch, according to Genesis 4:17. There is little doubt that the Unuk, and later Uruk, of the Cuneiform inscriptions reflects this. It became known as Erech in due time, and much later as Warka. It gave rise to a word meaning city (111) which has come into English as burg. We have noted also that Sidon is first mentioned as the firstborn son of Canaan, but a few verses later as the name of a city (verses 15 and 19). Similarly, the Jebusites, presumably descendants of a man named Jebus, lived in a stronghold named originally after their ancestor. So I think it quite probable that when Nimrod went up from southern Babylonia into Assyria and built Nineveh and Resen, among other towns, he named the city of Resen either after a forebear or an immediate relative. It is not strictly required to demonstrate that the Etruscans were a kind of colonizing fragment originating from this particular settlement founded by Nimrod. All I am proposing is that an ancestor whose name was Resen not only achieved sufficient importance to have an ancient city named after him in Assyria, but also to have given rise to a people who grew powerful enough and large enough to migrate up into Europe and into the north of Italy, from which they multiplied, and became wealthy and cultured enough to inspire the Japhetic Romans to adopt a very large part of their art, law, custom, and technology as their own, making scarcely any improvement on it.

The question is, Can we reasonably establish the propriety of deriving the more familiar word Etruscan from an ancient Resen? Can we trace these same people back to the Middle East and close proximity to Assyria? Can we establish their racial affinity as neither Indo-European nor Shemitic? The answer to all three of these questions can be stated in the affirmative with some assurance on the following grounds.

To begin with, it can be stated simply that the people of Etruria or Tuscany were called by the early Greeks Tyrsenoi. By the early Romans they were called Etrusci. But in classic Latin times, they called themselves Rasena. (112)

According to Herodotus, (113) these people came from Lydia. They claimed to have invented, during a very protracted famine in the land, a series of games, including dice. These were subsequently introduced into northern Italy and into Greece as a result of the following circumstance. The famine finally became so serious that it was decided to divide the nation in half, one half emigrating from Lydia in the hope of saving the other. The king's son was named Tyrrhenus, and he became the leader by appointment of that half of the nation which left Lydia. After sailing past many "countries," they came to a place which Herodotus calls Umbria (apparently almost the whole of northern Italy is intended), where they built cities for themselves. They laid aside their former name of Lydians and called themselves after the name of the king's son, Tyrrheneans.

That these people, the Etruscans, did come from Asia Minor is confirmed on linguistic and other grounds. Professor Joshua Whatmough (114) says, "There is scarcely room any longer to doubt the Anatolian affinities of the Etruscans." Raymond Bloch, (115) on the basis of linguistic evidence, believes that the Etruscans belonged to a loosely interrelated family of people who inhabited the shores of the Mediterranean, including those of Asia Minor, before the Indo-European invasion upset the patterns of the region, an invasion which came in the second millennium B.C. He considers the Etruscans to be a "pocket" of such displaced people and that this explains the similarity between their religious and social customs and those of certain peoples of Asia Minor.

Many years ago, Professor E. St. John Parry (116) presented evidence to show that the Pelasgians who, like the Etruscans, built megalithic monuments, may have been disturbed at the same time by the same circumstance and moved out from Asia Minor along with them, subsequently being confused with them by early historiographers.

One thing seems well-established: their language was neither Indo-European nor Semitic. (117) It seems fairly safe to assume (though language is by no means a safe guide in the matter) that they were themselves racially distinct from the Indo-Europeans. (118) A relationship has also been proposed with certain other "pockets" - the Basques, for example. (119)

We have mentioned the tradition which ascribes to the Etruscans or Racena the invention of dice. Years ago, a pair of dice was found, with the numbers apparently written out upon them instead of merely being indicated by dots. Shortly after this discovery, the Rev. Isaac Taylor (120) presented a paper before the Victoria Institute in London, in which he showed that the most probable interpretation of the numerals was to be found by reference to allied terms in Finnic, Altaic, and Basque. A few years later, while the subject was still a very live issue - as indeed it still is - a paper was presented by a Mr. R. Brown (121) before the same Institute in which, in an appendix, some further Etruscan words are compared to certain Sumerian words. We are, then, coming perhaps even nearer to the ancient Resen of Genesis 10.

In his Origin of Nations, Rawlinson (122) draws attention to the fact that certain Etruscan bronzes are decorated or adorned with figures in rows, exhibiting sphinxes and human beings which, he suggests, are not unlike similar processions of figures found near Nineveh. These Assyrian parallels were discovered by Layard and reported in his famous work, Discoveries in the Ruins of Babylon and Nineveh. Of these, Layard wrote as follows: (123)

    A second bowl, 7 inches in diameter and 3 inches deep, has in the centre a medallion and on the sides in a very high relief two lions and two sphinxes wearing a collar, feathers, and a headdress formed by a disc with two uraei. Both bowls are remarkable for the boldness of the relief and the archaic treatment of the figures, in this respect resembling the ivories previously discovered at Nimroud.

    They forcibly call to mind the early remains of Greece, especially the metal work and painted pottery found in very ancient tombs in Etruria, which they so closely resemble not only in design but in subject, the same mythic animals and the same ornaments being introduced, that we cannot but attribute to both the same origin.

Layard emphasizes this impression by illustrating his point with woodcuts in the text, which show that the figures found on a bronze pedestal at Powledrara in Etruria "are precisely similar to those upon a fragment of a dish brought from Nineveh." A thread of evidence carries us back, therefore, to the very environs of Nineveh where the city of Resen was situated.

There is a further piece of evidence leading us back to the same earlier source. It is of a slightly different nature, though equally suggestive. The Romans annually celebrated a festival called Festival of Saturnus, or Saturnalia, during which law courts were closed, schoolchildren had a holiday, and all business was suspended. One remarkable custom was the "liberation" or "freeing" of all slaves, who were allowed to say whatever they wished about their masters, took part in a banquet attired in their masters' clothes, and were waited upon by them at table. This period of freedom lasted about one week.

The origin of this festival, according to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, is not certain. (124) In view of the fact that so many of the features of earlier Roman culture, including their ceremonies, are directly attributable to the Etruscans, and that the Etruscans and Pelasgians were sometimes confused with one another, it seems possible that this strange practice of giving slaves a week of complete liberty, indeed of licence, was originally introduced by the Etruscans.

It is therefore highly significant, I think, that when Professor Pinches read a paper before the Victoria Institute entitled, "Notes upon Some of the Recent Discoveries in the Realm of Assyriology," he referred to one inscription of the famous Gudea, who stated that after he had built Eninnu (a house or temple), he "released bonds and confirmed benefits. For seven days obedience was not exacted, the maid was made like her mistress, and the manservant like his lord." In commenting on this, Professor Pinches remarks: (125)

    Of course, the Sumerians were slave-holders, but they seem to have been of a kindly disposition, and to have treated their slaves well. In this case seven days' holiday are said to have been given them, and this is the only Cuneiform record known of such a thing.

It is indeed remarkable that there should be such a hiatus of so many centuries, without reference to this custom from Gudea to Roman times, yet, evidently, the custom was transmitted somehow, and it would seem most logical to assume that the transmitters were the Rasena, the descendants of a certain Resen, who were familiar with Assyrian culture.

In summary, then, we have a people calling themselves Rasena after an ancestor whose name could easily be a form of the more ancient Resen. They started in Assyria and settled in Lydia, from which they later emigrated to northern Italy, speaking a language neither Semitic nor Indo-European. Pre-eminently city-builders (as though carrying on the tradition of their ancestor), they continued producing works of art, for which quite exact parallels have been found in the very locality in which Genesis 10 states the city of Resen was built.

It may be that just as Sidon was remembered by a city named for him, so the city of Resen commemorated a patriarch whose descendants, long after the city had disappeared from view, multiplied and carried on their inherited tradition of city life, as well as the name of their forebear and settled in Etruria, where they made a tremendous contribution to the basic Roman civilization which has become, in time, our own.


This is slender evidence indeed. Language is not helpful in tracing the nations descended from Ham. This is to be expected, since it is implied, in Genesis 11, that this linguistic "confusion" happened primarily to the "builders," Ham's descendants. A more fruitful method is to trace them through the exploits and achievements of individuals - as seen here in the examples of Heth and Resen. Thus an analysis of the traditions and folklore of the coloured peoples themselves would likely provide more evidence.

It can be assumed with a fair measure of confidence even now that this Table of Nations does include these "builders" who contributed enormously to the very beginnings of human history, much of which has been lost to us. We can, I think, have confidence in the comprehensiveness of this unique genealogy.
"There is no longer any room for hope"

Offline GovernmentMule

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1297
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Are Black Africans The Original Biblical Jews?
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2009, 03:35:39 PM »
Jews want everyone to believe we all come from one black mama. Guess why! ;D
The only thing that really changes is their names.