Really? In other words, the world is divided into black and white. Where then do the asians stand?

That is a load of bollocks. White people may have tried at some stage to justify their actions during the slave trade, but to say that there's an outright plot against black people is just a bit too far fetched.

Ham Shem and Japhet didn't split into ethnic groups, even if we were to follow the bible as a guideline (which I personally am not sure it should be), this would assume that the brothers' children didn't marry each other (cousins), and only married within their nuclear families (siblings). Possible, but why ever should they? They all lived together until the tower of babel.

It was AFTER the tower of babel that the dispersions happened. NO LINK. No Connection.

Africa is somewhat behind because of the desertification of the Sahara which isolated most of black africa from the events of the rest of the world. When the romans invaded britain, they were shocked to find out the kind of barbarism that still existed in europe, and that is an island separated from mainland europe by a narrow strip of water.

And where did the bible say that the israelites where like Ethiopeans? Where did this creator say this? What was the context??

I personally believe that a lot of the differences that count as race are recent occurences in the history of mankind - we all used to look the same, but changed due to socio-environmental influences.

Not everything western is a lie.

Banderas:

Really? In other words, the world is divided into black and white. Where then do the asians stand?

That is a load of bollocks. White people may have tried at some stage to justify their actions during the slave trade, but to say that there's an outright plot against black people is just a bit too far fetched.

Ham Shem and Japhet didn't split into ethnic groups, even if we were to follow the bible as a guideline (which I personally am not sure it should be), this would assume that the brothers' children didn't marry each other  (cousins), and only married within their nuclear families (siblings). Possible, but why ever should they? They all lived together until the tower of babel.

It was AFTER the tower of babel that the dispersions happened. NO LINK. No Connection.

Africa is somewhat behind because of the desertification of the Sahara which isolated most of black africa from the events of the rest of the world. When the romans invaded britain, they were shocked to find out the kind of barbarism that still existed in europe, and that is an island separated from mainland europe by a narrow strip of water.

And where did the bible say that the israelites where like Ethiopeans? Where did this creator say this? What was the context??

I personally believe that a lot of the differences that count as race are recent occurences in the history of mankind - we all used to look the same, but changed due to socio-environmental influences.

Not everything western is a lie.

No2Atheism:


Be rest assured, there is a silent mental war going on, between all the races (the most blatant one is the one between Caucasians and Black people), it is a war which the Caucasians are presently winning considering that they control the books and the media, hence most black people have no idea of history till its sometimes too late to make any difference.

1. I am assuming your response is towards my post.
2. Go through my points line by line and kindly show me the erroneous statements.
3. Please notice notice my statement and consider the context of your response.
4. Notice that i said "between all the races", then i proceeded to use the one between Caucasians and Blacks as an example. I do not beleive i have told u only blacks and whites exists neither did i say anything about Asians, where u got that from is quiet suprising to say the least.

By the way, yes you are welcomed  .

And where did the bible say that the israelites where like Ethiopeans? Where did this creator say this? What was the context??

Question: And where did the bible say that the israelites where like Ethiopeans?
Answer: Old Testament

Question: Where did this creator say this? 
Answer: Amos 9:7

Question: What was the context??
Answer: Historical

RNKJV

Amos 9:5 And the Sovereign יהוה of hosts is he that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn: and it shall rise up wholly like a flood; and shall be drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.

Amos 9:6 It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: יהוה is his name.

Amos 9:7 Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith יהוה. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? [/b]and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

Amos 9:8 Behold, the eyes of the Sovereign יהוה are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith יהוה.

Amos 9:9 [b]For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

Amos 9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.




---------------------------------

The question one should ask himself is that:


- Do you believe in a Creator ?
               a. If the answer is Yes, then do you believe in the bible ?
                              b. If the answer is Yes, then do you believe the Creator can Lie ?
                                                c. If the answer is No, then how come its so difficult to believe the Creator when He Himself said Isrealites were like the Ethiopians.


- If you do not believe in a Creator, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of whether or not the Ancient Isrealites were white or black
(nevertheless to my suprise on nairaland, i have observed people who claim to be atheists on one hand, still continue to say, argue and defend that the Isrealites were white - something which i find rather ridiculous considering that who or what the isrealites are should be of no concern or bother to them)

- Otherwise if you do not believe in the bible then what i have said and quoted has no bearing on your world view hence u have nothing to worry about.



---------------------------------

Yes i am tempted to continue this discussion nevertheless i choose not to do so, because, i have discussed it at length on nairaland (people that are interested in it can chk my profile and go through my past posts) to the extent that i am tired of discussing it, people can choose to continue to believe dogma and those who choose to listen and study history and the bible can choose to do as they wish. I am not here to impose anything. It costs me nothing to be silent hence i would remain silent as at when i choose.



--------------------------------

Not everything western is a lie.

- Correct

Nevertheless most the important ones that had to deal with Blacks or Africans and African History are lies that are still being actively propagated even till today. I bet u fail to realise that there was a time Europeans claimed that anything of important civilisation had to do with Europeans : because they believed that Africans could possibly not have done it (just exactly the same way that you are currently sounding with your inference to barbarism and wat u have ). By the way this brings me to the question: please are u black or white or both or asian

--------------------------------

Africa is somewhat behind because of the desertification of the Sahara which isolated most of black africa from the events of the rest of the world. When the romans invaded britain, they were shocked to find out the kind of barbarism that still existed in europe, and that is an island separated from mainland europe by a narrow strip of water.

Sahara Wat the heck are u talkiing about, oh let me guess probably u are one the people that think Blacks dwelve in only the so called Sub Saharan Africa (Hence your inference to the sahara and barbarism) . . . please take time out to actually study the geographical make up of people and cultures in the ancient world. Then you yourself would realise just how unusual your statement sounds.

- Conjecture please provide reference

- Because Most Europeans descended from Barbarians that attacked the Romans does not mean other people were barbarians. STOP MAKING WISHFUL INFERENCES

- Do you even know about Black Moors civilisations thrived on the north west coast of Africa (around your so called Sahara region  )

- Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia had advanced civilisations thousand of years before Romans and Greeks were yet to know their left from their right . . . so please i would appreciate you do not give me the hullabaloo about desertification nonsense.

- Your statements are quite unusual so i would advise you please take time out to actually study African History rather than use conjectures.


---------------------------------

@original topic

By the way, to those who are Atheists, please consider that:


-  the Greeks themselves said the Egyptians were black.
-  the Egyptians themselves said they were black.



----------------------------------

Like i said earlier, i would not be responding to this thread any longer, cus i personally hate repetition and i am really not interested in trying to indoctrinate anyone. I wold prefer people come to their own slow realization of what i have said.

Until then  have a nice day.

Banderas:

A question I always ask myself. But saying they were gardeners is quite unwise. At the time of Jesus, ethiopea was by far a wealthier region than judea was. And gardener? Really? Do you think people had domestic servants then? There were slaves. And Judea being an "occupied area" would mean jews were more likely to be slaves than slave owners.

Personally, I don't even think they actually saw Jesus in the way we think they did. It makes no sense. The whole idea of Jesus ascending to heaven is a bit strange - No human being is supposed to be able to see God.

There's an extra body in the whole tale, where there should only be a spirit.

But your ethiopean story,  nah.

There were slaves in the jesus era and they were blacks. There was also a thriving kingdom in Ethipia, did not mean tht they were the centre of the World. The New York of those days was Jerusalem, the epicenter of the world then, the melting pot of all nationalities.


There is no extra body except your own imagination. If Jesus ministered and preached for 3 1/2 years with his disciples, then on resurrection, if he is exactly the same, they will recognize him.  That they failed to recognize him confirms the fact that his nature was changed. Mary seeing him as a gardener could only mean that he looked like a gardener and most hired help in those days were dark skinned. Jesus resurrected not as a white man, but as a coloured man. Tht would explain hy other disciples could neither recognize or believe him.

On another note, the early man is black, from scientific evidence. If the early man is black, then God's image and likeness is also black (he made us in his image). All descriptions of God (Dan 7:9 and Rev 1:15) describes someone of Negroid origin.

The earliest potrait of Jesus known to the Romans was that of a black man.  The Romans knew this  because  the inprint of his face found on a  cloth after resurrection was that of a black person.

Ancient egyptians were African and therefore it is correct to say their adaptations would include dark skin as much of Africa is.
Please note that the definition of "black" depends on who is using it and in what context.

The definition of causcasian is ambigious in nature and therefore should not be used in conjucture with color of skin.

The egyptians have been depicted as possesse a pigmentation consistent in Africa in both written documentation as well as wall paintings.

The constant pull back and forth by eurocentrists and Afro centrist about what morphology and skin tone the egyptians were is a distraction to their true identity.

What can be said is that it is very obvious that an Average ancient egyptian did not look like a Nordic european and therefore can not be categorized as such neither did they look like and average Yoruba man. Their closet relatives should be the ancient ethiopians and ancient northern berber tribes.

Africa is exteremly diverse phenotypically as well as genotypical so to say light or dark is putting them in simplistic contexts.

Marlbron:

There were slaves in the jesus era and they were blacks. There was also a thriving kingdom in Ethipia, did not mean tht they were the centre of the World. The New York of those days was Jerusalem, the epicenter of the world then, the melting pot of all nationalities.


There is no extra body except your own imagination. If Jesus ministered and preached for 3 1/2 years with his disciples, then on resurrection, if he is exactly the same, they will recognize him.  That they failed to recognize him confirms the fact that his nature was changed. Mary seeing him as a gardener could only mean that he looked like a gardener and most hired help in those days were dark skinned. Jesus resurrected not as a white man, but as a coloured man. Tht would explain hy other disciples could neither recognize or believe him.

On another note, the early man is black, from scientific evidence. If the early man is black, then God's image and likeness is also black (he made us in his image). All descriptions of God (Dan 7:9 and Rev 1:15) describes someone of Negroid origin.

The earliest potrait of Jesus known to the Romans was that of a black man.  The Romans knew this  because  the inprint of his face found on a  cloth after resurrection was that of a black person.

Sorry that i am breaking my rule and silence, after this i would speak no more and thus keep to my silence on this topic.

The Romans knew this

Yes the romans knew the isrealites were black, even one of them mistook Paul for an Egyptian.

because  the inprint of his face found on a  cloth after resurrection was that of a black person.

Please do not beleive the so called Shroud of Turin. Most scientific evidences points that it is a fraud. It has no basis even in the bible. So please be careful about any so called dogmatic evidence about history. its dangerous.

morpheus24:

Ancient egyptians were African and therefore it is correct to say their adaptations would include dark skin as much of Africa is.
Please note that the definition of "black" depends on who is using it and in what context.

The definition of causcasian is ambigious in nature and therefore should not be used in conjucture with color of skin.

The egyptians have been depicted as such in both written documentation as well as wall paintings.

The constant pull back and forth by eurocentrists and Afro centrist about what morphology and skin tone the egyptians were is a distraction to their true identity.

What can be said is that it is very obvious that an Average ancient egyptian did not look like Nordic europeans and therefore can not be categorized as such neither did they look like and average Yoruba man. Their closet relatives should be the ancient ethiopians and northern beber tribes.

Africa is exteremly diverse phenotypically as well as genotypical so to say light or dark is putting them in simplistic contexts.

Thank you

- I would not be suprised that some people would not also realise that Berbers were primarily an originally black skin african people before their mixture with Asians and Europeans that now gives them features ranging from European white to African Black.

- Yes u are correct about the Ethiopian correlation with Egyptians. I am not suprised about this since the Egyptians themselves said they came from the South (i.e. around the area of Nubia and Ethiopia)

Marlbron:

There were slaves in the jesus era and they were blacks. There was also a thriving kingdom in Ethipia, did not mean tht they were the centre of the World. The New York of those days was Jerusalem, the epicenter of the world then, the melting pot of all nationalities.


There is no extra body except your own imagination. If Jesus ministered and preached for 3 1/2 years with his disciples, then on resurrection, if he is exactly the same, they will recognize him. That they failed to recognize him confirms the fact that his nature was changed. Mary seeing him as a gardener could only mean that he looked like a gardener and most hired help in those days were dark skinned. Jesus resurrected not as a white man, but as a coloured man. Tht would explain hy other disciples could neither recognize or believe him.

On another note, the early man is black, from scientific evidence. If the early man is black, then God's image and likeness is also black (he made us in his image). All descriptions of God (Dan 7:9 and Rev 1:15) describes someone of Negroid origin.

The earliest potrait of Jesus known to the Romans was that of a black man. The Romans knew this because the inprint of his face found on a cloth after resurrection was that of a black person.

Where do you conjure up these stories from?

What is your definition of a black man? Please I would like to know.

Which story is conjured?

Pictures of North east Africans(berbers, an upper egyptian, an ethiopian) 

Black depends on what context you are using it.

Pictures of West Africans(Fulani, Ghana, mali)

Now if you don't see some sort of gradal resemblance amongst these people. you must either be too stupid or just plain blind.

Atheism:

Early man was not as dark as me and you (or a typical "black" man). They were perhaps darker than europeans but were lighter than you and I are.

You keep generalising. Whites against blacks and all that. Like all whites are against all blacks. This is simply not true. A lot of what you have quoted is straight from black fundamentalist and racist website, it's as spurious as the same theories of denial that the whites used against blacks in the 15th century (blacks could never have done this, etc).

Your reference to Amos in that scripture is less than honest. Are you a christian at all? Is that how you follow the bible? How does that statement infer that Israelites are black? It could very well be saying that he freed israel from egypt just as he freed ethiopea from egypt. I'm sorry, that argument will not hold in any reasonable and thoughtful argument.

Now I'm not saying that the israelites were white, I'm simply saying they are NOT african, they did not originate in africa - they originated somewhere between Syria and Iran.

And I am black.

One more thing - re: Mistaking Paul for an Egyptian - did the bible say this was because of his skin? Is it possible that it was for some other reason, like, idunno, maybe the way he was dressed? This is too much of an assumption.

There is scientific evidence to show that most of southern europe had similar complections to north africans, until the expansion into western europe brought in the "extreme" caucasian genes (blue eyes, blonde hair, etc).

''

@Morpheus:
New york is currently the financial centre of the world, the very centre of the world's economy. There was NEVER. NEVER EVER EVER a time when Jerusalem or Judea got to that position.
At the highest point of jewish civilization (King Solomon), Jerusalem held the position of a Dubai or a Johannesburg in the world. Upcoming, not ultimate. By the time of Jesus, they had been broken by the Assyrians, the Babylonians and Persians, then the Romans. At the time of Jesus, ROME was the capital of the world, not Jerusalem. At the time of Jesus, slaves were both white and black, captured in what is now spain, france, germany, as well as persia and north africa.

One more thing - while there is evidence that man originated around africa (personally I think it's far north of africa, not below the sahara), there is absolutely NO evidence that he was black. Apart from the "bushmen" of south africa, the current negroid mitochondrial DNA is newer than several asian and european DNA.

Who deleted my post?, what is going on here ?!!!!!!!

Banderas:

@Morpheus
Apart from the "bushmen" of south africa, the current negroid mitochondrial DNA is newer than several asian and european DNA.

Can you give a source on the above. What does this information suggest or imply in the context of which grous appeared first.

while studies have shown that the original migrations out side of Africa of humans began with a group of eastern Africans "most likely somewhere in ethiopia."  the exact  position the orignal men "originate" from is still ambigious. Can you explain why your Personal opinion suggests a North African location.

''

Banderas:

Atheism:
There is scientific evidence to show that most of southern europe had similar complections to north africans, until the expansion into western europe brought in the "extreme" caucasian genes (blue eyes, blonde hair, etc).

please what is your definition of caucasian using the quote above. Are southern europeans of today not grouped into this term despite these exteme 'caucasian' genes differentiating the north from the south. A southern european is caucasian, a norther european is caucasian, a north African is considered caucasion even some ethiopians are considered caucasoid.  Why is the reverse not used when defining extremities in so called "Negro' Africa.

Why are the southern Negros refered to as such and then there is a completely different definitiion for Northern Africans who carry a good amount of Sub saharan genotypes and their subsets.

''

''

''

The White Man originated from a curse that was placed on Ham's Fourth Son Canaan <Aramaic Meaning Lowlander> Genesis 9:18 the Aramic/Hebrew word used for curse in Genesis 9:25 is the root word Awrar which means to curse. When Canaan was Cursed he was to be a servant unto his brother, Canaan was cursed with Leprosy. As a result of Albinism a degenerative disease which left the skin pale and scabby manifested in his genes from his father Ham and his mother Haliyma. This curse was a physical curse of Leprosy Called La'nah in Ashuric / Syriac / Arabic. Canaan was born pale and an Albino however he was a Nubians / Negroid Man. Canaan's skin lacked pigmentation and that is why he was pale. The Bible, According to Leviticus 13: 30 - 37 gives various accounts of the signs, symptoms and the way that Leprosy actually Look. Leprosy affect the skin, the eyes and the Mucus Membranes of the Nose and Throat. In rase cases it affects the Nerves. This disease is known to be Communicable and is caused by an organism called Microbacterium Leprae which produces granlar lesions in the affected areas the Torah Leviticus 13:14 describes what the traits of Leprosy are,White Skin Leviticus 13:4 If the Bright [Be] white in the Skin of his flesh, And in sight [Be] Not deeper Than the Skin, and the Hair thereof Be not Turned White; then the Priest shall shut up [Him that Hath] the Plague Seven Days , If we look at the Aramic/Hebrew Word Used in this for White It is Lawban meaning White. It also describes Blonde Hair, Bible - Old Testament, Leviticus 13:30 (With Hebrew insert). The priest shall examine the disease; and if is appears deeper than the skin, and the hair in it is Yellow and then, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an itch a leprosy of the head or the beard In this Quote The Word used for Yellow is Tsawobe meaning Yellow (Blonde Hair) and how it was Dak meaning thin or fine. Neither one of these words describes Nubian / Black / Negroids with Woolly Hair make note that in Leviticus 13:30-37 it is clear that people with black hair are considered Clean and those who have yellow (Blonde Hair) are unclean. If one was to read the Bible in the Original Language which is in the Original Aramaic / Hebrew You would have a Better Overstanding of what El's Holy Torah is Really Saying like always don't believe me research this information ForYourSelf. With these facts being known the early Caucasian Gentiles trying to find a place for themselves in the Bible and after intensive research finding that the curse on Canaan was Leprosy and was in fact the White Race. They shifted the curse to Ham as it states before, the Jehovah Witnesses admit this in their book titled Did Man Get Here by Creation or Evolution on page 407. It states that the "Black Race From Cush, not due to Curse on Canaan, whose descendants were white". They are telling you right there that Canaan and the Canaanites were not The Nubians/Black or Negroes, but rather The Caucasians. In The Teachers Bible Commentary written by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs Copyright 1972 A.D. published by Broadman & Holman Publishers, located in Nashville, Tenn. This book which is registered with the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 75-189505, on page 21 Second Column it states and I Quote Nubians/Negro/Blacks are NOT Descendants of Canaan, who was white, but are descendents from Ham, the curse was not predicated upon all Ham's descendants, but only upon the canaanites, please note that the 25 contributing Editors of this commentary are all Caucasians, thus they all agree with the contents of this book. (This has nothing to do with Racism I'm only Quoting from Books Authored by Caucasians) The curse of Canaan is on the Canaanite Race. Not the Nubians/Blacks/Negroes Race. The Editors of The Teacher Bible Commentary are as follows:

Donald F. Ackland, Author and formal editor, Nashville, Tenn, Deuteronomy through Malachi
J.P. Allen, Radio and Television Commission (SBC) Forth Worth, Texas, John
James E. Carter, First Baptist Church, Natchitoches Louisana, Isaiah 1-39
Robert L. Cate, First Baptist Church, Aiken, South Carolina Levitcus
William B. Cobble, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Kansas, MIssiouri, Revelation
Wayne Dehoney, Walnut St. Baptist Church, Louisville, Kentucky, Acts
Russell H. Dilday, Jr. Second - Ponce De Leon Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, Esther through Psalms 41,
W.C.Fields, Executive Committe, Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, Tenn, Galatians through James
Fred L. Fisher - Gollen Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Mill Valley, California, Romans through 2nd Corinthians
Clyde T. Francisco, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, Genesis
J. Loe Green, Southern Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminiary - Wake Forest, North Carolina, Jeremiah and Lamentations.
Herschel H. HObbs, First Captist Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Editor, New Testament
J. Hardee Kennedy , New Orlean Baptist Theological Seminary , New Orleans , Louisiana , Psalms 42 - 150
Landrum P. Leaveil, First Baptist Church, Wichita Falls, Texas, Mark
Peter McLeod, First Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, Isaiah 40-66
H. Franklin Pashall, First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tenn Editor, Old Testament
Ben F. Philbeck, Carson-Newman Collage, Jefferson City, Tenn, Joshua through 1 Samuel
Billy E. Simmons, East Texas Baptist College, Marshall, Texas, 1 Chronicles through Nehmiah
Jerry Falwell, D.D.D. Litt. L.L.D.D.D. Tenn Temple Theological Seminary; D. Litt California Graduate School of Theology, L.I.D. Central University (Seoul, Korea)
Wayne A. Brindle, B.A. Th. M.Th. D.B.A. Kansas University; Th. M. Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary
Carl J. Diemer, B.S.M. Div. Th. D.B.S. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; M Div. Th. D. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Edward G . Dobson , B.A.M.A.D.D.Ed.DB.A.M.A.Bob.Jones University ; D.D. California . Graduate School . Of Theology Ed.D. University Of . Viginia ,
Paul R. Fink , B.A. M.E.d.Th.M.Th.D.B.A.Columbia Bible College ; M.E.d.University Of Southern California , Th.M.Th.D.Dallas.Theological. Seminary .
James A. Freerksen, B.A. M.D.iv, Th. M. Th. D.B.A. Pilsbury, Baptist College, M.Div. Th. M. Central Baptist Theological Seminary; Th D Grace Theological Seminary
Edward E. Hindson, B.A.M.A. Th. M. Th. D.D. Min D. Litt, Et. Phil, Fiba. B.A. William Tyndale College; M.A. Trinity Graduate School of Theology D. Min. Westminister Theological Seminary; D. Litt, Et. Phil University of South Africa Fellow of The International Biographical Association (Cambridge England
Daniel R. Mitchell B.A.B.D. Th. M.S.T.M. Th B. A. Washingtion Bible College; B.D. Th. M. Captial Bible Seminary; S.T.M. Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary
Richard D. Patterson, A.B.M. Div. Th. M.A. Ph. D.A.B. Wheaton College, M. Div. Los Angeles Baptist Serminary Th.M.Talbot.Theological Seminary.M.A.Ph.H.University Of California . At Los Angeles ( UNCLA )
Ronald C . Sauer , B.A.Th , M.Ph.D. B.A, Mississippi College . Th .M.Dallas Theological Seminary Ph.D.University Of Manchester ( England )
Stephen R. Schrader, B.S.M. Div. Th. M. Th. D. B.S. Evansville University M. Div. Th. M. Th. D. Grace Theological Seminary.
Elmer L. Towns, B.A. Th. M. M. R.R. D. Min. B.B. Northwestern College; M.A. Southern Methodist University; Th. M. Dallas Theological Seminary; M.R.E. Garrett Theological Seminary; D. Min. Fuller Theological Seminary.
Robert W. Yarbrough, B.A.M. A. Ph.D. B. A. Southwest Baptist College; M.A. Wheaton College Graduate School; D. University of Aberdeen (Scotland)
Jerry Falwell , William Franklin , “Billy Graham - Ruth Bell Graham, ”
The wife of Billy Graham - Anne Graham Lotz - the daughter of Billy Graham
John Hagee, and Robert H. Schuller, They all agree that the Curse of Canaan is on the White Race because they all appear within the Nelson Catalog. Even some of their wives and children are inside the Book. Thus we see that they obviously Condone what is written in the Nelson Version of The King James Bible.
Another bible that share this same point is the Zondervan N.A.S.B. (New American Standard Bible) Study Bible on page 17
Within the Commentary in Reference to Genesis 9:25 it states Noah's Prophecy Cannot be Used to Justify the Enslavement of Black. Since those cursed here were Canaanites. Who Were CAUCASIAN this bible was edited by General Editor. Another bible that share this same point is the Zondervan N.A.S.B. (New American Standard Bible) Study Bible on page 17
Within the Commentary in Reference to Genesis 9:25 it states Noah's Prophecy Cannot be Used to Justify the Enslavement of Black. Since those cursed here were Canaanites. Who Were CAUCASIAN this bible was edited by General Editor.
Ronald Youngblood <> Genesis
Ronald Youngbloom and Walter C. Kaiser Jr. <>Exodus
R. Laired Harris and Ronald Youngblook <>Leviticus
Ronald B. Allen and Kenneth L. Barker <>Number
Earl S. Kalland and Kenneth L. Barker <>Deuteronomy
Arthur Lewis<>Joshua
John J. Davis and Herbert Woldf <>Judge
Marvin E. Wilson and John H. Stek <>Ruth
J. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Samuel
. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Kings
Robert Dillard <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronaldd Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillardd <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronald Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillard and Edward Yamauchi <>Esther
Elmer B. Smick and Ronald Youngblood <>Job
John H. Stek<>Psalms
Herbert Wolf <>Proverbs
Derek Kiner<>Ecclesiates
John H. Stek <> Song of Solomon
. Robert Vannoy <>1.2.Kings
Robert Dillard <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronaldd Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillardd <>1.2. Chronicles
Edwin Yamauchi and Ronald Youngblood <>Ezra & Nehemiah
Raymond Dillard and Edward Yamauchi <>Esther
Elmer B. Smick and Ronald Youngblood <>Job
John H. Stek<>Psalms
Herbert Wolf <>Proverbs
Derek Kiner<>Ecclesiates
John H. Stek <> Song of Solomon
Herbert Wolf and JOhn H. Stek<>Isaiah
RonaldYoungblood <> Jereiah
Roanld Youngblood <>Jeremiah & Lamentations
Mark Hilmer<>Ezekiel
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Ronald Youngblood <>Daniel
Jack P Lewis Hosea
Jack P. Lewis <> Joel
Allen R. Millard and John H. Stek <>Amos
John M. Zinkand <>Obadiah
Marvin R. Wilson and John H. Stek <>Jonah
Allen A. MacRae Thomas E. McComiskey <>Micah
G. Herbert Livingston and Kenneth L. Barker <>Nahum
Ronald K. Harrison and William C. Williams <>Habakkuk
Ronald K. Harrison <> Zephaniah
Herbert Wolf <>Haggai
Kenneth L. Barker and Larry L. Walker <>Zechariah
Herbert Wolf and JOhn H. Stek <>Malachi
Ralph Earle and Wlater W. Wessel <>Matthew
Walter W. Wessel and William L. Lane <>Mark
Lewis Foster <> Luke & Acts
Leon Morris <>John
Lewis Foster <> Acts
Walter W. Wessel<>Romans
W. Harold Mare <>1Corinthians
Robert Mounce<>Galatians
Walter L. Liefeld <>Ephesians
Richard B. Gaffin Jr. <>Phillippians
Gerald F. Hawthorne and Wilber B. Wallis <>Colossianss
Leon Morris <>1.2. Thessalonians
Wlater W. Wesseel and Geroge W. Knight III <>1.2. Timothy
D. Edmond Herbert <>Titus
John Werner <>Philemon
Philip E. Hughes and Donald W. Burdick <>Hebrews
Donald W. Burdick <>James
Donald W. Burden and John H. Skilton 1.2. Peter and Jude
Donald W. Burdick <>1.2.3. John
Robert Mounce <>Revelation
So you See what I'm Saying is Definitely not Racism because they are saying this themselves. Right from theirs mouth. The white man has The Curse of Canaan Not Nubians/Blacks. Who are Indeed the real and only pure seed of the Tribe of Judah.

Horus you are obviously a racist so stop ranting and spamming this thread.

My sources aren't on the net. I read. Many african tribes trace their origins outside africa - to the middle east. Not east africa. Mankind may have originated in east africa, but THAT mankind must have moved away from there soon after. DNA age CAN be determined.

And Horus, your theory doesn't even make sense.

Jagoon:

Horus you are obviously a racist so stop ranting and spamming this thread.

But this was not my intention. I was not spaming when i posted it the first time i looked and  the post was not there so i reposted it and again no post so i posted again and still nothing no post. So i complained and asked who deleted my post?. And after coming back one hours later the post appear several time. There is something wrong whith the forum, and think about it i am a regular poster here on this forum so why do you think that i will do that volontarly?, And what this have to do with racism?. The moderator should delete them this is not my fault.

Banderas:

My sources aren't on the net. I read. Many african tribes trace their origins outside africa - to the middle east. Not east africa. Mankind may have originated in east africa, but THAT mankind must have moved away from there soon after. DNA age CAN be determined.

And Horus, your theory doesn't even make sense.

Which African tribes trace their origins outside Africa? Are you speaking of Berber North Africans?
I said the origins or specific point of the the first man or his group are still ambigious. The origins of the first set of Africans hypothesized to have populated the world originated mostl ikely from east africa if you agree with the OUt of Africa theory.

When you say these tribes trace their origins outside Africa are you spekaing or Y chromosone DNA(unchanged) or Mtna DNA derived from females.

if its Mtna then i will agree many east and north Africans have a high concentration of Mtna from neighbouring West Asia/middle east. other Africns have a high concentration of the L haplogroup which is only found in Africa alone.

Wow,I'm learning alot from all your posts,please keep them coming.
_{[s]Keep on with the force don't stop Don't stop 'til you get enough[/s]}

@horus

click on the multiple post and delete them and replace the multiple posts with just ".".

Its disconcerting seeing multiple posts.

Since u claim not to be spamming the thread then it makes sense for you to modify the posts and delete the multiple posts using the easily available modify button.

thank you.

morpheus24:

Which African tribes trace their origins outside Africa? Are you speaking of Berber North Africans?
I said the origins or specific point of the the first man or his group are still ambigious. The origins of the first set of Africans hypothesized to have populated the world originated mostl ikely from east africa if you agree with the OUt of Africa theory.

When you say these tribes trace their origins outside Africa are you spekaing or Y chromosone DNA(unchanged) or Mtna DNA derived from females.

if its Mtna then i will agree many east and north Africans have a high concentration of Mtna from neighbouring West Asia/middle east. other Africns have a high concentration of the L haplogroup which is only found in Africa alone.

1. I am not suprised by that cause most of North Africa was invaded by muslims and history tells us that part of what is done by asian muslims is that they rape or end up intermixing with the local population .e.g places like sudan, egypt and so on.

2. the high concentration of Mtna can partly easily be explained by point number 1 above and the domination by Arabs and middle easterners

3. It is the same scenarion that Black men and women in America are to be expected to have a higher percentage of genetype that is not common to blacks in africa, simply because of the isolation of 400 years and also because of the racial intermixing with other racial types going on in America but which does not occur too much in africa.

That exactly is the reason why gene testing cannot be done in isolation, but rather in conjunction with historical records for proper interpretation.

And Horus, your theory doesn't even make sense.

I am not the author of the article. This is not a theory and as you can see I mentioned the source of informations who come from hundreds of differents Theologians, this information do not come from me.

No2Atheism:

3. It is the same scenarion that Black men and women in America are to be expected to have a higher percentage of genetype that is not common to blacks in africa, simply because of the isolation of 400 years and also because of the racial intermixing with other racial types going on in America but which does not occur too much in africa.

That exactly is the reason why gene testing cannot be done in isolation, but rather in conjunction with historical records for proper interpretation.

But note that despite the introduction of these genes when referencing the African American population in America, has not profoundly changed the phenotypically make up of the populous.

This disproves the statment people make concerning east Africans who they claim are a mixed people when given other examples one can see that the introduction of foreign genes in an area that possseses Dominant gene traits can be said to constitute a mixed people.


The only example of a true mixed "race' of people can be found in the "coloreds" of south Africa who are the most genotypically diverse when refencing mixed people.

morpheus24:

But note that despite the introduction of these genes when referencing the African American population in America, has not profoundly changed the phenotypically make up of the populous.

This disproves the statment people make concerning east Africans who they claim are a mixed people when given other examples one can see that the introduction of foreign genes in an area that possseses Dominant gene traits can be said to constitute a mixed people.


The only example of a true mixed "race' of people can be found in the "coloreds" of south Africa who are the most genotypically diverse when refencing mixed people.

Sorry i am not an expert in genetics hence i can't follow u with your grammars  .

Yes you are correct to an extent in that Africa is bloody diverse i.e. the diversity of black people in africa alone is diverse. Also the changes seen in the African Americans is not that rampant because most of the slaves were mostly obtained from a particular section of africa having similar bone structures. Also since black genes are dominant hence its easy to see why African Americans have not changed much physically cus they were more or less mostly mixing with Whites and in some cases Native Americans.

I don't know much about the coloureds of south africa hence would love some introduction and summary about them.

One thing i know is that Ethiopians and Nubians and Egyptians are more or less brothers from the same father i.e. Ham ,  and are all black even though they have slightly different physical features (something easily seen amongts the Igbos of Nigeria who have a higher diversity of very light skinned igbos and dark skinned igbos). Sometimes, some ibos almost look like Half Caste even though they are actually full blooded africans and black men.

So in terms of diversity of black africans, i am not really suprised.

I was just trying to give an explanation for how a certain gene type can be found amongst the blacks of north african and not amongst the blacks of east or south or west africa. . . racial mixing due to invasion and isolation of other africans from invaders could easily explain such things i.e. if we ignore the already obvious fact of genetic diversity amongst we africans ourselves.

Ancient Egyptians were multi-God worshipping sun fans.