geosegun:


Such a huge discuss here. I guess you can write a whole book on this...*smiles* well detailed explanation.

Addendum: Just like - Oye la, Oye la, bi a ba f'omo l'oju, ari'ran - I concur %100.

Thanks pal.

Baa fe'mo l'oju ariran.

Lami l'oye kin la o l'oye,

Oye ni gbogbo wa jo nla 'ra wa.

Anikan gbontan o seun.

"There are great many wonderful things in Yoruba", according to Sultan Bello. "In it is the talking bird called babanga... " the parrot.

More than the parrots, the Yoruba scholars of old had ageless information preserved in codes and mnemonics for us to dig for meaning.

It's the phenomenal that has taken some of us by the heart here. I pray that the same delight will reach to you sir.

May the light of God dwell in you richly.

absoluteSuccess:


Thanks pal.

Baa fe'mo l'oju ariran.

Lami l'oye kin la o l'oye,

Oye ni gbogbo wa jo nla 'ra wa.

Anikan gbontan o seun.

"There are great many wonderful things in Yoruba", according to Sultan Bello. "In it is the talking bird called babanga... " the parrot.

More than the parrots, the Yoruba scholars of old had ageless information preserved in codes and mnemonics for us to dig for meaning.

It's the phenomenal that has taken some of us by the heart here. I pray that the same delight will reach to you sir.

May the light of God dwell in you richly.

Asę n tedumare.

macof:


using Bible to learn yoruba history

You can use any written source of old to learn Yoruba history, as long as it has information that places your claims in better perspectives.

The readers, scholars and critics are not dumb, but there to confirm your claims or reject it oujtright, based on critical reviews, not on bias ground at first sight.

Great ideas in history are derived from inconsequential human artifacts and materials of all sort, bible inclusive. You consider the time frame of the artifact in question.

Every concepts draw it's thesis and antithesis. Your personal bias is not "World Historians' Standard". The world is not learning at your feet.

Don't make it look like such.

He say Sultan of Sokoto said Yoruba are from Canaan sultan of sokoto is now a Yoruba historian

About 200 years ago, this man gave Clapperton the name "Yoruba" in its early form. He based his claims on what he was told regardless of how accurate.

Granted that he was no historian, he knew the people he was talking about, and he had a tradition he was referring to hence he said "we were told".

What he said came from the same source as the name Yoruba, and that's what the man is trying to establish. So he's not being creative but telling us the origin of the name Yoruba.

The name Yoruba was plucked from an Islamic source before the advent of Sultan Bello.

And as a well read scholar, the Sultan had details of the name from the same source, as common sense should reveal.

I'm a Yoruba, and right after my names; Yoruba is my only identity.

How does it beats you, a world renowned historian that the same man who was not to be taken seriously gave you your only identity?

Since everything that comes from the man should be rejected, then you definitely have no identity either, can you see your fooly?

Yoruba is an appellation, not a bloodline. If that's your identity, now what's the origin of the core of your only Identity right after your name?

The same name recently made headline and was questioned by all informed historians, how do you adopt an identity from the same source you scorned?

This put a big question mark on your IQ as a self-acclaimed historian and your sense of perception as an intelligent entity.

Historian, we need to know...

Every Yoruba has a Yoruba identity.

However, the Yoruba are not clones, everyone has their uniqueness.

.

absoluteSuccess:


You can use any written source of old to learn Yoruba history, as long as it has information that places your claims in better perspectives.

The readers, scholars and critics are not dumb, but there to confirm your claims or reject it oujtright, based on critical reviews, not on bias ground at first sight.

Great ideas in history are derived from inconsequential human artifacts and materials of all sort, bible inclusive. You consider the time frame of the artifact in question.

Every concepts draw it's thesis and antithesis. Your personal bias is not "World Historians' Standard". The world is not learning at your feet.

Don't make it look like such.



About 200 years ago, this man gave Clapperton the name "Yoruba" in its early form. He based his claims on what he was told regardless of how accurate.

Granted that he was no historian, he knew the people he was talking about, and he had a tradition he was referring to hence he said "we were told".

What he said came from the same source as the name Yoruba, and that's what the man is trying to establish. So he's not being creative but telling us the origin of the name Yoruba.

The name Yoruba was plucked from an Islamic source before the advent of Sultan Bello.

And as a well read scholar, the Sultan had details of the name from the same source, as common sense should reveal.



How does it beats you, a world renowned historian that the same man who was not to be taken seriously gave you your only identity?

Since everything that comes from the man should be rejected, then you definitely have no identity either, can you see your fooly?

Yoruba is an appellation, not a bloodline. If that's your identity, now what's the origin of the core of your only Identity right after your name?

The same name recently made headline and was questioned by all informed historians, how do you adopt an identity from the same source you scorned?

This put a big question mark on your IQ as a self-acclaimed historian and your sense of perception as an intelligent entity.

Historian, we need to know...

Nobody even considers the bible a proper source for Hebrew history. Usually historical details mentioned in the bible are only taken seriously when confirmed by actual historical sources
The Bible holds no weight as a historical source.
Countless source critics have stated this, even Jewish historians do

But some deranged fellow claiming to be Yoruba thinks the same Bible that doesn't mention Yoruba people is the source of yoruba history


As to the rest of your senseless chatter, I have no response to such irrelevant comment. Especially as It does not address my post

PeterKbaba:
YORUBA=HEBREW=ENGLISH MEANING
YORU=YAHU = GOD

YORUBA=HEBREW=ENGLISH MEANING
BA=BA = COMING OR COMES OR CAME

YORU+BA=YAHU+BA=YAHUBA=GOD IS COMING OR GOD COMES OR GOD CAME

Very wrong interpretation.

Let's try to avoid giving this impression:

kayfra:
This looney thread gains more freaks by the day

We don't have to make people think loonies and freaks are the ones discussing Yoruba matters and Yoruba history.

macof:


Nobody even considers the bible a proper source for Hebrew history.

Psychologists call this "lying by generalizing".

Usually historical details mentioned in the bible are only taken seriously when confirmed by actual historical sources

Please what do you have as "actual historical sources"? I know you have no explanation for this.

You always sounds big and clever to evade entertaining knowledge because you have none to offer.

How is it possible for a self-acclaimed historian to always adopt fact-efacing terminologies as answers to every technical historical questions?

The Bible holds no weight as a historical source.
Countless source critics have stated this, even Jewish historians do

What should we expect from a destroyer? It's funny how your source critics lived through the Bible ages to our time just to renounce the bible.

Point us to a work in your collection that holds historical weight from this same source critics to understand your arguments better.

Perhaps they also inspired your counter thread to this one? Finding fault is your article in trade. That's quite easy to do than anything else.

But some deranged fellow claiming to be Yoruba thinks the same Bible that doesn't mention Yoruba people is the source of yoruba history

At least you're not knowledgeable in the Bible but in the claims of "source critics" third party. So, keep shut and let those in the know teach you what you don't know.

You cannot know more than your teachers. You have no idea of your own safe what you were fed by the people in the business. You're not intelligent enough to find out yourself.



You can do exactly what you have done to the Bible to every other ancient narratives as well to become a real historian.

As to the rest of your senseless chatter, I have no response to such irrelevant comment. Especially as It does not address my post

You have to dodge whatever input that beat your intellect as usual. That's the prank you pull for many years on here.

absoluteSuccess:


Psychologists call this "lying by generalizing".



Please what do you have as "actual historical sources"? I know you have no explanation for this.

You always sounds big and clever to evade entertaining knowledge because you have none to offer.

How is it possible for a self-acclaimed historian to always adopt fact-efacing terminologies as answers to every technical historical questions?



What should we expect from a destroyer? It's funny how your source critics lived through the Bible ages to our time just to renounce the bible.

Point us to a work in your collection that holds historical weight from this same source critics to understand your arguments better.

Perhaps they also inspired your counter thread to this one? Finding fault is your article in trade. That's quite easy to do than anything else.




At least you're not knowledgeable in the Bible but in the claims of "source critics" third party. So, keep shut and let those in the know teach you what you don't know.

You cannot know more than your teachers. You have no idea of your own safe what you were fed by the people in the business. You're not intelligent enough to find out yourself.



You can do exactly what you have done to the Bible to every other ancient narratives as well to become a real historian.



You have to dodge whatever input that beat your intellect as usual. That's the prank you pull for many years on here.

Nothing of relevance here

FrLukas:


Ela. You may be right, you know. Ela l'oro. I have heard that phrase before. Oro meaning Word, Ela probably meaning Enlightenment. And God is Enlightenment.
Yoruba mysticism is something I'd like to study in and of itself and also to see how it squares up with Christian mysticism and Yoga.

Unfortunately, I lack the source for that. I don't think it is written down in books. Probably passed from mouth to mouth of initiates. Which makes a lot of sense because even TRUE CHRISTIANITY as taught by Jesus himself contained a lot of secret teachings which is still hidden from 99.9% of so-called Christians who content themselves with following the exoteric teachings while being ignorant of the esoteric teachings even when it is staring them in the face right there in the Bible.

Can you refer me to a compendium or something of sorts that spells out, even if esoterically the esoteric and mystical aspects of Yoruba religion? Thanks.

Pardon my late response. On the request you made, about Yoruba books, I must confess, there are different writers with different perspective on Yoruba religion,which make it controversial. But, you need be specific on the books you want to read because Yoruba's language is coded in Ifaodu,which basically are in three fold.Namely:

1.Mythology(divination and religious beliefs)
2.History and philosophy of Yoruba
3. Yoruba medicine




Cheers.

Olu317:
Pardon my late response. On the request you made, about Yoruba books, I must confess, there are different writers with different perspective on Yoruba religion,which make it controversial. But, you need be specific on the books you want to read because Yoruba's language is coded in Ifaodu,which basically are in three fold.Namely:

1.Mythology(divination and religious beliefs)
2.History and philosophy of Yoruba
3. Yoruba medicine




Cheers.

Thanks for the response. Delay isn't denial.

I was hoping for a complete compendium of Yoruba spirituality which will comprise of the three aspects you've mentioned.

Seems there's none. How I wish there was.

Any link to any of the three aspects you've listed will be appreciated.

absoluteSuccess:


You can use any written source of old to learn Yoruba history, as long as it has information that places your claims in better perspectives.

The readers, scholars and critics are not dumb, but there to confirm your claims or reject it oujtright, based on critical reviews, not on bias ground at first sight.

Great ideas in history are derived from inconsequential human artifacts and materials of all sort, bible inclusive. You consider the time frame of the artifact in question.

Every concepts draw it's thesis and antithesis. Your personal bias is not "World Historians' Standard". The world is not learning at your feet.

Don't make it look like such.



About 200 years ago, this man gave Clapperton the name "Yoruba" in its early form. He based his claims on what he was told regardless of how accurate.

Granted that he was no historian, he knew the people he was talking about, and he had a tradition he was referring to hence he said "we were told".

What he said came from the same source as the name Yoruba, and that's what the man is trying to establish. So he's not being creative but telling us the origin of the name Yoruba.

The name Yoruba was plucked from an Islamic source before the advent of Sultan Bello.

And as a well read scholar, the Sultan had details of the name from the same source, as common sense should reveal.



How does it beats you, a world renowned historian that the same man who was not to be taken seriously gave you your only identity?

Since everything that comes from the man should be rejected, then you definitely have no identity either, can you see your fooly?

Yoruba is an appellation, not a bloodline. If that's your identity, now what's the origin of the core of your only Identity right after your name?

The same name recently made headline and was questioned by all informed historians, how do you adopt an identity from the same source you scorned?

This put a big question mark on your IQ as a self-acclaimed historian and your sense of perception as an intelligent entity.

Historian, we need to know...

My brother, an ignorant will perpetually be one. I am of the opinion, that this guy crying over a spill milk, knows and wonder how on earth can these things really be!

And the propaganda written by assimilated votaries, priests,priestess Yorubas,which had great negative impacts on Yoruba history,religion and medicine but the cheering news is that these people and their descendants could not interpret the written ideograms on Yoruba soil but do guess work.In fact, I likened these people to modern day non Yoruba pastors,who married Yoruba females and their children became part of the Yoruba nation, where their children knowledge is divided between their paternal and maternal lineages that dearly desired to be merged as one, when in fact, they are distinct.So, bother yourself not anymore because the person you engage has no written historians records that fixed Yorubas foundational home in Nigeria or Africa.

FrLukas:


Thanks for the response. Delay isn't denial.

I was hoping for a complete compendium of Yoruba spirituality which will comprise of the three aspects you've mentioned.

Seems there's none. How I wish there was.

Any link to any of the three aspects you've listed will be appreciated.

Three ways you can have access to these things.

1. Google books online to buy or download on pdf

2. Contact one on one person who is an Ifaodu priest, who can give answers to you on questions you desire.

3. Join ifaodu groups online but be mindful of scams.

Olu317:
Three ways you can have access to these things.

1. Google books online to buy or download on pdf

2. Contact one on one person who is an Ifaodu priest, who can give answers to you on questions you desire.

3. Join ifaodu groups online but be mindful of scams.

OK, thanks.

Let me share classic ideogram writing of ancient Semitic language that Yoruba language is part of.
Kayfra, come learn the might of Yoruba ancestors writing!

Modern: una,Ina
Ancient: Nowr,Ner
Meaning: Light


Did Yoruba loaned this word too?

Olu317:
Let me share classic ideogram writing of ancient Semitic language that Yoruba language is part of.
Kayfra, come learn the might of Yoruba ancestors writing!

Modern: una,Ina
Ancient: Nowr,Ner
Meaning: Light


Did Yoruba loaned this word too?

Shouldn't you be tracking with the ancient since that is the alleged tree you got branched out of?

All these random and very inconsistent hypotheses

Olu317:
My brother, an ignorant will perpetually be one. I am of the opinion, that this guy crying over a spill milk, knows and wonder how on earth can these things really be!

And the propaganda written by assimilated votaries, priests,priestess Yorubas,which had great negative impacts on Yoruba history,religion and medicine but the cheering news is that these people and their descendants could not interpret the written ideograms on Yoruba soil but do guess work.In fact, I likened these people to modern day non Yoruba pastors,who married Yoruba females and their children became part of the Yoruba nation, where their children knowledge is divided between their paternal and maternal lineages that dearly desired to be merged as one, when in fact, they are distinct.So, bother yourself not anymore because the person you engage has no written historians records that fixed Yorubas foundational home in Nigeria or Africa .

@bold

You are deranged
So what is Ifè to Yoruba of not foundational home?

kayfra:


Shouldn't you be tracking with the ancient since that is the alleged tree you got branched out of?

All these random and very inconsistent hypotheses

Contrary to your view, what I posted is known as early or the first written ideograms of ancient Yoruba, that were called anciently called, Ebora(Aboram/Abram),who was a warrior and mercenary,who moved people from place to place, Abari,which English language, termed, 'Hebrew'.


This early stage of the writing is the oldest, which is believed that, it has been stated that the Phoenicians developed the world's first alphabet around 1050 BC. This alphabet was believed to have then spread to the Hebrews and other cultures in the Canaan area over the next centuries, eventually being picked up by the Greeks and Romans and passed down to the modern alphabets of today. However, many may have missed the implications of this view for the traditional understanding that Moses wrote the first books of the Bible'. And archeological finding support this belief.

While writing had long been in use by the Egyptians and the people of Mesopotamia, they used complicated writing systems (hieroglyphics and cuneiform) that were limited because they employed nearly a thousand symbols with many more variants representing not just sounds, but also syllables and whole words. The messages they conferred were fairly simple, while the Bible uses complex forms of language. The genius of the first alphabet was to boil everything down to about two-dozen letters that originally represented the sounds of consonants only. From these few letters, every word of a language can be easily represented'. Culled from ancient Hebrew writing.


People like you underestimated Yoruba people because, some of your ancestors were assimilated Yorubas, though it is not a big deal , if one is related maternally or paternally to yoruba. But, you disproved ideology that you don't understand. It is strikingly shocking for someone to contend on what he/she haw no knowledge. Perhaps, If I posted my knowledge on Yoruba ancestors ideograms, you will appreciate your ancestors and the knowledge they brought to the whole mankind.Interestingly the ancient Yoruba are masters in code. I guess, you don't actually know what dawaodu whom is referred as Odudawa did on earth. Let me quickly clarify here that the man simply tumbled the world and established God authority on earth. But Ignorance has eaten deep into your heart and your like minds, who don't know the value of my ancestor and our ancestors who did exploit in their original homeland; Near East. Bronze man and not a black man ,is who I am and and proudly Odelu Ikan descendant.....descendants of Oranmiyan...Dawaodu( odudawa). We birth twins as the chosen one of God.

macof:


@bold

You are deranged
So what is Ifè to Yoruba of not foundational home?

You try macof but what amaze me is that you don't give concrete information to buttress your instead, abuse. This is really shocking. I guess, facts hit you like thunder. Renowned scholars in Yoruba history acknowledged that Ileife has moved for close to 8 times and the places can't even be traced except via oral account. Mr. man, show evidence of your information and stop using Ife as excuse. Yorubas are not the only one on planet earth.

Mind you, Yoruba do not have the oldest bones on earth although if you have contrary established facts from historians or archeologists, kindly share. As far as I am concerned, Yoruba ancestors had knowledge of ancient beginning but they were not the first mankind on earth. Instead, they were told by God ,how he created the world and established mankind on earth. Ileifeife i Nigeria is not even older t than oldest fossil found in Morocco, Ethiopia, Israel. Kindly inform us.

Olu317:
You try macof but what amaze me is that you don't give concrete information to buttress your instead, abuse. This is really shocking. I guess, facts hit you like thunder. Renowned scholars in Yoruba history acknowledged that Ileife has moved for close to 8 times and the places can't even be traced except via oral account. Mr. man, show evidence of your information and stop using Ife as excuse. Yorubas are not the only one on planet earth.

Mind you, Yoruba do not have the oldest bones on earth although if you have contrary established facts from historians or archeologists, kindly share. As far as I am concerned, Yoruba ancestors had knowledge of ancient beginning but they were not the first mankind on earth. Instead, they were told by God ,how he created the world and established mankind on earth. Ileifeife i Nigeria is not even older t than oldest fossil found in Morocco, Ethiopia, Israel. Kindly inform us.

Lmao. This is how you go about desperately trying to connect anything to your Hebrew agenda mentioning Israel every opportunity you get

Some scholars speak of multiple era Ife on the same site mentioning Ife Ooyelagbo and Ife Oodaye
Some speak of multiple Ife on different sites across the Volta-Niger region.. Citing places like Amedzofe and Ife Abejukolo


This is a very deep topic, such that you are too unequipped and blinded by your urge to connect anything to your masters in Israel to actually realize the true implications of these suggestions (should they be true)

I personally have defended both suggestions

I am also aware of the claim of your little band here on NL who claim Niniveh is Ife
I'm sure this one you like, because it connects ife to the middle East
But no renowned scholar is of this opinion, neither is there any basis for such suggestion

Show evidence for which information? Be specific and while you prepare your specifics
You still have not addressed the fact that in Yorùbá traditions Ife is the foundation of our civilization and humanity at large
Whether this be inconsistent with current Paleoanthropologic knowledge or not is not the point,
The point is that Yoruba belive Ife is their origin

You would have to provide evidence that said ife is in the middle East

macof:


Lmao. This is how you go about desperately trying to connect anything to your Hebrew agenda mentioning Israel every opportunity you get

Some scholars speak of multiple era Ife on the same site mentioning Ife Ooyelagbo and Ife Oodaye
Some speak of multiple Ife on different sites across the Volta-Niger region.. Citing places like Amedzofe and Ife Abejukolo


This is a very deep topic, such that you are too unequipped and blinded by your urge to connect anything to your masters in Israel to actually realize the true implications of these suggestions (should they be true)

I personally have defended both suggestions

I am also aware of the claim of your little band here on NL who claim Niniveh is Ife
I'm sure this one you like, because it connects ife to the middle East
But no renowned scholar is of this opinion, neither is there any basis for such suggestion

Show evidence for which information? Be specific and while you prepare your specifics
You still have not addressed the fact that in Yorùbá traditions Ife is the foundation of our civilization and humanity at large
Whether this be inconsistent with current Paleoanthropologic knowledge or not is not the point,
The point is that Yoruba belive Ife is their origin

You would have to provide evidence that said ife is in the middle East

Citing places like Amedzofe and Ife Abejukolo tell me more about this places ... Amedzofe Ghana Ashanti ... Ife Abejukolo Igala

macof:


Lmao. This is how you go about desperately trying to connect anything to your Hebrew agenda mentioning Israel every opportunity you get

Some scholars speak of multiple era Ife on the same site mentioning Ife Ooyelagbo and Ife Oodaye
Some speak of multiple Ife on different sites across the Volta-Niger region.. Citing places like Amedzofe and Ife Abejukolo


This is a very deep topic, such that you are too unequipped and blinded by your urge to connect anything to your masters in Israel to actually realize the true implications of these suggestions (should they be true)

I personally have defended both suggestions

I am also aware of the claim of your little band here on NL who claim Niniveh is Ife
I'm sure this one you like, because it connects ife to the middle East
But no renowned scholar is of this opinion, neither is there any basis for such suggestion

Show evidence for which information? Be specific and while you prepare your specifics
You still have not addressed the fact that in Yorùbá traditions Ife is the foundation of our civilization and humanity at large
Whether this be inconsistent with current Paleoanthropologic knowledge or not is not the point,
The point is that Yoruba belive Ife is their origin

You would have to provide evidence that said ife is in the middle East

1. Yes, ot is true, that this topic is deep but to you and your like minds that created unnecessary hiccup simply because, you can't take time to understudy a language that some scholars claimed, has died. Yet you channel your energy in learning English language, that loaned a lot from Yoruba ancestors written ideograms

2. Oral account through incorporation into Ifaodu claimed, three creators in Ile Ife; Obatala, Odudua and Ela. So, when Oral account has a slight problem, genetic relationship and ideograms writing solves the problems.

3. Ileife claimed Odudua, Ogun, Obalufon I,Oranmiyan, Obalufon II,etc are migrants. In fact, they are called intruders,who married the autochthonous people.

4. According to Fa- bunmi (p. 22), the Iwinrin Grove is the original land of the autochthonous peoples of Ife.

5. According to Idowu, The leader "Odudua" also appears to have suppressed the worship of the local Ife deity, Obatala. Awolalu summarizes (p. 27) the situation at Ife at this time as follows: a) that the original inhabitants of Ife knew and acknowledged Obatala as the deity that created the earth and to whom worship was due and given; b) that at a stage in the early history of Ife, some intruders who were migrating from somewhere, came into Ife, and conquered the orig- inal inhabitants who were devotees of [Obatala]; c) that the newcomers suppressed the worship of Obatala and embraced that of Oduduwa who was possibly a female divinity; d) that at the death of the conquering leader, his followers and admirers deified him and called him Odudua

6.The events surrounding Ife's founding and Obalufon II's role in the early Ife city-state are described in some detail in Ife oral accounts. Present-day scholars of Yoruba religion such as Idowu (p. 23) and Awolalu (p. 27) see the city as developing its political and religious primacy as a result of the arrival of a militarily powerful group of foreigners who were part of a distant branch of the Yoruba people. Un- fortunately the name of the leader of this group is not known, because in the accounts his identity is subsumed by that of his patron deity, Odudua.

7. At the time of the arrival of this outsider and his party, Ife was occupied by an indigenous people who were under the leadership of a hunter named Ore (Oreluere). Not surprisingly, the orig- inal inhabitants of Ife do not appear to have supported this foreigner, "Odudua," in his attempts to gain control of the city.

8.This foreign ruler was, however, by all accounts a strong and politically effective leader. One of his most important decisions was to establish a series of marriage alliances with the local populace. Accordingly, both he and his party mar- ried indigenous women "of the land," in order to create a new generation of Ife residents who, in Idowu's words (p. 24), "... . would be at home in both worlds . . . people who were without bitterness towards either of the opposing parties." In the course of these marriages, the new ruler fa- thered a number of children, many of whom eventually set out to found their own dynasties in other Yoruba states.

9. All the Terracotta artworks, Bronze, etc done in classic time in Yoruba land were around 12th-15th. Yet Yoruba is the oldest mankind on earth

10.Sussan Blier ( Ile Ife, Birthplace of the Yoruba), in the Ikedu list, there is a claims that it was 46th kings As Akintitan explains (p.c.):4 “It was Odudua who was the last to come to Ife, a man who arrived as a warrior, and took advantage of the situation and impose himself.


Note.
As far as I am concern,the identity of Yorubas were diverse and the Odudua group gained ground and dominated everywhere through intermarriages and birth explosion to subdued the original inhabitants, that they met . And odudua language took root as lingual franca,during the early growth of Ileife.

PeterKbaba:
YORUBA=HEBREW=ENGLISH MEANING
YORU=YAHU = GOD

YORUBA=HEBREW=ENGLISH MEANING
BA=BA = COMING OR COMES OR CAME

YORU+BA=YAHU+BA=YAHUBA=GOD IS COMING OR GOD COMES OR GOD CAME

Brother, I know you're good with your research work on the connection between who were the Abari(Hebrew) that moved through the belt of Sudan and disappeared , 1000s of years ago,whom some of us know were Yoruba migrants who came and invaded and subdued part of the Nok culture . However, using linguistic affinity to establish your view must be inline on how the protolanguage connection came to being; cognate and place of origin of such language.

Therefore, you will find it hard if you don't understand the Abari(Hebrew) classic Semitic language and the continuum in Yoruba language from it original land of migration because, once speakers of language move from a community for whatever reason to another community, then there is tendency to be, intimacy language among the owners of language(teachers language) and learners language which is accessible language to both teacher and learners language. The intimacy language in this regard is coded in ifaodu,while the accessible language can be infuse to learners language which are understood by learners and teachers of such language .

So,if you intend to establish connection between Hebrew and Yoruba, then you need be able to read the Semitic ideograms and the classic Hebrews alphabets in comparison with Yoruba language. Furthermore,the translations and transliteration of Hebrew classic language is based on knowledge of the interpreters on Greek,Latin-roman loosely interpretation, which aren't perfect. This is indeed important to stand atop these set of people who don't know the might of Ancient Yorubas.

Obalufon:


Citing places like Amedzofe and Ife Abejukolo tell me more about this places ... Amedzofe Ghana Ashanti ... Ife Abejukolo Igala

I earlier took metaphysical suggestion on Ile Ife as Nineveh, but now I know better through research, bro. Ile Ife is in the land of Edom in Nabatean district, hence the claim that the Yoruba originated in Ile Ife was an ancient fact. the harmony was equally struct on my hometown claim that Ado is the melting point of Edo and Ife tradition. On this I wonder how two far-flung places could influence another community at the same time.

Now it becomes clear: there was an Ife where the Yoruba ancestors came from, which was a district of Edom, and was then under the empire of Israel. The original Ife was a departure point for the emigrants, the adoption of this name as the landing place of the Yoruba ancestors laid the foundation for the continual strife for seniority between the two houses as you have it today.

The original Ife was in a state of Edom, as such, the house of Edom will always claim to have foster Ile Ife, as it was in a foggy past lost to the Yoruba, hence the claim that Oduduwa came from Edo. This rival claim is derived from the fact that indeed, Oduduwa came from the district of Edom to found Ile Ife, in the company of the same folks, (such as edomites too) in a lost tradition we are trying to re-enact now.

Is there a tradition alluding to this? Edom is known as mount Seir, that's right. Albeit, that's anglicize rendition of Seri, from whence the Awori have their variant, Iseri: the earlier claim of Iseri being Israel holds, but the same word serves this two cognate masters as "the melting point of Ife-Edo tradition" so to say.

the ancient habour was the root for the name Ile Ife, but the state was known as Seir. the Yoruba tradition is valid and accurate on the path we are towing: facts does not expose itself so obvious, hence it would never have been an issue for discussion but a common knowledge. Albeit, l'owe l'owe laa lulu agidigbo, ologbon nii jo, omoran nii modie.

absoluteSuccess:
We are familiar with the story of Elijah in the Hebrew scripture.

There seems to be a Yoruba perspective to it: Aja.

The name Ajagbe may be a repository of history that seek to immortalize the memorial of Elijah in anal of Yoruba liturgy. All that is left of that is a foggy tradition that we may still remember to some extent.

In one of Yoruba's storytelling, its often said that when there is whirlwind, someone can be taken away, and so, no one must get close to an active whirlwind. It is often said that whirlwind may take one away and when one comes back, one becomes very powerful.

The regular whirlwind is 'iji' in Yoruba, while 'Aja' is the one that takes one away that one may return and be very powerful. I want to think the belief is well rooted among ancient Yoruba, hence the name Ajagbe was coined to mean "taken away by whirlwind".

In fact, while throwing water on the whirlwind, the Yoruba often shout thief!! to break the whirlwind before it damages or takes anyone away. Aja is akin to Jah in Elijah, meaning 'El is Jah'. Aja is Yoruba for somewhere in the sky where one goes to become powerful.

Well you wont find Elijah in Yoruba tradition, but you will find a gist or a hint that shows that a man can be taken away by whirlwind unto the sky is tenable in Yoruba tradition, then you can bring the integrals closer to see how the story goes. who learnt from who?

Elijah's ascention is 'Ajagbe' to the ancient Yorubas, although they lost the records, but they kept the foggy idea till date.

Erimoje ni mi,
Omo Sa Aja...

Not same as that of Elijah at all. Thanks for this though. Now known as alien adoption. It still happens in this modern day and times.

macof:



Nothing of relevance here

Just as you have nothing of relevance in the post I earlier quoted, however, I will be gracious enough to teach you as I take you through the blankness of your thought. Let's see...

Point 1. “Nobody even considers the bible a proper source for Hebrew history.”

Without the bible, do you know of another source for the Hebrew history? What does that proper source claimed the Hebrew to be? You know the bible is not the proper source, but you never quoted an example of the proper source to substantiate your claim and how the proper source contradicted the bible about the Hebrew history? why must you make bogus claims that you can never substantiate with facts and figures?

More like saying nobody even consider ifa a proper source for Yoruba history.

Point 2.“Usually historical details mentioned in the bible are only taken seriously when confirmed by actual historical sources”

Good, every detail of history that happened in the Hebrew part of the Levant has to be confirmed by actual historical sources. this have to be eyewitnesses, made of people who left their own historical business all the time to record the Hebrew history as it unfolds, so as to be called the original crooners of the actual sources.

Point 3. “The Bible holds no weight as a historical source”.

You have a good case against the bible from “actual sources” without examples. Such bogus claims without substance are clever guises to cover your lack of erudition as you cannot bring any material out of the “heavyweight” source for proper Hebrew history.

Point 4. “Countless source critics have stated this, even Jewish historians do.”

Countless source critics have stated this, how? Is it impossible to cite just a source or an authority among this countless number? When a man claims he is an historian, that’s when he is not but an impostor. Historians tell a story, not primarily engrossed in finding means to destroy one historical collection or the other on the ground that one "actual source" know best what the impostor cannot share.

Such tactics is the game for the iconoclast pretending to be relevant: their only claim to erudition is to read and find something to disagree about in what they read, and that’s quite easy to do. Since you are an "online disagreement historian", you need no personal resources but clever use of the resources of your opponents.

Point 5. “But some deranged fellow claiming to be Yoruba thinks the same Bible that doesn't mention Yoruba people is the source of yoruba history”

This is the basis of telling you that you have low intelligent quotient: expecting the bible that was completed about 2000 years ago to mention “Yoruba” - a name that came with colonialism in its pages is like expecting the “actual historical source of 2000 years ago” to have on its pages a country called “Nigeria”. bible did not have to mention "Yoruba" to validate or invalidate Yoruba canaanland connection.

The name “Yoruba” is not an eponymous name; it is Fulani appellation on the people now so called. People have been moving around the world for thousands of years, they have moved and changed names and locations before writing was invented and still does. Does “Yoruba” stamped a history spanning thousands of years on the people so named because they were so named?

If yes, discuss

Point 6 “As to the rest of your senseless chatter, I have no response to such irrelevant comment. Especially as It does not address my post.”

That makes you the deranged fellow claiming to be Yoruba, yours is a reverse psychology. Albeit, nothing resourceful attends your post in your post as you would have said: writing history without doing the work. Yours is an empty confidence and expertise built on the use of emoticons.

Let me help you with source criticism of the bible from my source, helping you to shape your argument as you lack the tool to do likewise in your "wild goose chase" tactics that you often adopt to evade explanations and scrutiny.

“In science, we have experiment and in scientific history, we have analogies. We look for repeated events and, of course, a miracle by definition is not a repeatable event. So, when we claim that someone has risen from the dead, this is clearly not something that we observe repeatedly in human history. Therefore, when we have such miracles in a biblical story, the whole story becomes questionable.”

Well as you can see, no part of this Yoruba Hebrew thread dwell on the miracles in the bible, but repeated events of place names and cultural tradition analogous to the Levant repeating itself in Yoruba culture. That’s the scientific attribute of the bible the scientists were talking about.

Source Criticism

By this, your source intends to say literary criticism:

“The basic technique of literary criticism, which derives from studying ancient texts, ought to be applied to the bible. If we insist that everything in the first five books of the bible was written by Moses, whereas literary criticism suggest that whoever put these text together might have used earlier sources, we have a problem. Do we hang on to the tradition? Or do we re-examine our traditional understanding? And if we do the latter, what are the implications?

“If we tie our understanding of inspiration to a very prophetic model-in other words, if we say, unless it was one particular person who sat down and wrote this under the inspiration of God, it’s not inspired- then that doesn’t fits when, for instance we look at the book of Kings, where the writer tells us that they’ve gone and consulted the records, wherever they were, and that they’ve used sources. So why did the writer of the books of Moses not have used existing sources?”

The answer to the two question is simple: when you are the first to reduce the oral record of your people to books, do you quote source that does not exist in your culture just for the sake of quote? The natural tendency will be to assume an omnipresent narrator writing technique to inform the incoming generation.

That subsequent generation of writers in the same culture consult sources shows that time and literary tradition has changed and the writers of the book of Kings did what is expected of the code of ethics of scribes in their days and consulted available sources to ensure their write-up is authoritative as they had not lived through all the ages they wanted to write about.

Quotes taken from the book think God think science by Michael Pfunder in discussion with Ernest Lucas.

GlobalWay:
Not same as that of Elijah at all. Thanks for this though. Now known as alien adoption. It still happens in this modern day and times.

Alright, thanks.

absoluteSuccess:


Just as you have nothing of relevance in the post I earlier quoted, however, I will be gracious enough to teach you as I take you through the blankness of your thought. Let's see...

Point 1. “Nobody even considers the bible a proper source for Hebrew history.”

Without the bible, do you know of another source for the Hebrew history? What does that proper source claimed the Hebrew to be? You know the bible is not the proper source, but you never quoted an example of the proper source to substantiate your claim and how the proper source contradicted the bible about the Hebrew history? why must you make bogus claims that you can never substantiate with facts and figures?

More like saying nobody even consider ifa a proper source for Yoruba history.

Point 2.“Usually historical details mentioned in the bible are only taken seriously when confirmed by actual historical sources”

Good, every detail of history that happened in the Hebrew part of the Levant has to be confirmed by actual historical sources. this have to be eyewitnesses, made of people who left their own historical business all the time to record the Hebrew history as it unfolds, so as to be called the original crooners of the actual sources.

Point 3. “The Bible holds no weight as a historical source”.

You have a good case against the bible from “actual sources” without examples. Such bogus claims without substance are clever guises to cover your lack of erudition as you cannot bring any material out of the “heavyweight” source for proper Hebrew history.

Point 4. “Countless source critics have stated this, even Jewish historians do.”

Countless source critics have stated this, how? Is it impossible to cite just a source or an authority among this countless number? When a man claims he is an historian, that’s when he is not but an impostor. Historians tell a story, not primarily engrossed in finding means to destroy one historical collection or the other on the ground that one "actual source" know best what the impostor cannot share.

Such tactics is the game for the iconoclast pretending to be relevant: their only claim to erudition is to read and find something to disagree about in what they read, and that’s quite easy to do. Since you are an "online disagreement historian", you need no personal resources but clever use of the resources of your opponents.

Point 5. “But some deranged fellow claiming to be Yoruba thinks the same Bible that doesn't mention Yoruba people is the source of yoruba history”

This is the basis of telling you that you have low intelligent quotient: expecting the bible that was completed about 2000 years ago to mention “Yoruba” - a name that came with colonialism in its pages is like expecting the “actual historical source of 2000 years ago” to have on its pages a country called “Nigeria”. bible did not have to mention "Yoruba" to validate or invalidate Yoruba canaanland connection.

The name “Yoruba” is not an eponymous name; it is Fulani appellation on the people now so called. People have been moving around the world for thousands of years, they have moved and changed names and locations before writing was invented and still does. Does “Yoruba” stamped a history spanning thousands of years on the people so named because they were so named?

If yes, discuss

Point 6 “As to the rest of your senseless chatter, I have no response to such irrelevant comment. Especially as It does not address my post.”

That makes you the deranged fellow claiming to be Yoruba, yours is a reverse psychology. Albeit, nothing resourceful attends your post in your post as you would have said: writing history without doing the work. Yours is an empty confidence and expertise built on the use of emoticons.

Let me help you with source criticism of the bible from my source, helping you to shape your argument as you lack the tool to do likewise in your "wild goose chase" tactics that you often adopt to evade explanations and scrutiny.



Well as you can see, no part of this Yoruba Hebrew thread dwell on the miracles in the bible, but repeated events of place names and cultural tradition analogous to the Levant repeating itself in Yoruba culture. That’s the scientific attribute of the bible the scientists were talking about.

Source Criticism

By this, your source intends to say literary criticism:



The answer to the two question is simple: when you are the first to reduce the oral record of your people to books, do you quote source that does not exist in your culture just for the sake of quote? The natural tendency will be to assume an omnipresent narrator writing technique to inform the incoming generation.

That subsequent generation of writers in the same culture consult sources shows that time and literary tradition has changed and the writers of the book of Kings did what is expected of the code of ethics of scribes in their days and consulted available sources to ensure their write-up is authoritative as they had not lived through all the ages they wanted to write about.

Quotes taken from the book think God think science by Michael Pfunder in discussion with Ernest Lucas.

More rants of idiocy.

Learn to make sense in as few words as possible

1. A historian is not a mere story teller. A historian gathers information, analyses and interprets them to reach a conclusion on their authenticity and signifance

2. The Bible does not mention the Yoruba people... That is what I said . Clearly you are too dumb and I should have used an extra sentence to explain that the people not the name was meant... Should I have meant the name "Yoruba" it would have been clear enough by use of quote marks
I still wait for what parts of the Bible Yoruba people are mentioned and with what names

3. Countless scholars (yes, so many I value it as countless) have stated the Bible is not a proper historical source and only take stories from it seriously when confirmed by better measures to gain historical knowledge like archaeology, art history, palaeography and general measures of source criticism
Scholars like William Dever, Thomas Thompson, Lupovitch Howard, Adele Berlin etc

P. S you see how few my words are? Try that and stop ranting

absoluteSuccess:


I earlier took metaphysical suggestion on Ile Ife as Nineveh, but now I know better through research, bro. Ile Ife is in the land of Edom in Nabatean district, hence the claim that the Yoruba originated in Ile Ife was an ancient fact. the harmony was equally struct on my hometown claim that Ado is the melting point of Edo and Ife tradition. On this I wonder how two far-flung places could influence another community at the same time.

Now it becomes clear: there was an Ife where the Yoruba ancestors came from, which was a district of Edom, and was then under the empire of Israel. The original Ife was a departure point for the emigrants, the adoption of this name as the landing place of the Yoruba ancestors laid the foundation for the continual strife for seniority between the two houses as you have it today.

The original Ife was in a state of Edom, as such, the house of Edom will always claim to have foster Ile Ife, as it was in a foggy past lost to the Yoruba, hence the claim that Oduduwa came from Edo. This rival claim is derived from the fact that indeed, Oduduwa came from the district of Edom to found Ile Ife, in the company of the same folks, (such as edomites too) in a lost tradition we are trying to re-enact now.

Is there a tradition alluding to this? Edom is known as mount Seir, that's right. Albeit, that's anglicize rendition of Seri, from whence the Awori have their variant, Iseri: the earlier claim of Iseri being Israel holds, but the same word serves this two cognate masters as "the melting point of Ife-Edo tradition" so to say.

the ancient habour was the root for the name Ile Ife, but the state was known as Seir. the Yoruba tradition is valid and accurate on the path we are towing: facts does not expose itself so obvious, hence it would never have been an issue for discussion but a common knowledge. Albeit, l'owe l'owe laa lulu agidigbo, ologbon nii jo, omoran nii modie.

So in summary :
Odùduwà came from Ile-ife in Edom(modern day Jordan) to Ilé-Ifè in Nigeria and the Edomites migrated to Edo (modern day Nigeria)
So when the Edo say Oduduwa came from Edo, they are not so wrong because they actually mean he came from their former home in Edom



How can't you see the bullshit in this? Are you really that insane?

Do you not think of the implications of this?
1. Edo originate from present day Jordan
2. There is/was an "Ilé-Ifè" in Jordan

How do you bring this into consistency with reality?

Let me bring in some Edo people here, make them see wetin dey happen
Osagyefo98, davidnazee, gregyboy, Efesogie,

macof:




So in summary :
Odùduwà came from Ile-ife in Edom(modern day Jordan) to Ilé-Ifè in Nigeria and the Edomites migrated to Edo (modern day Nigeria)
So when the Edo say Oduduwa came from Edo, they are not so wrong because they actually mean he came from their former home in Edom



How can't you see the bullshit in this? Are you really that insane?

Do you not think of the implications of this?
1. Edo originate from present day Jordan
2. There is/was an "Ilé-Ifè" in Jordan

How do you bring this into consistency with reality?

Let me bring in some Edo people here, make them see wetin dey happen
Osagyefo98, davidnazee, gregyboy, Efesogie,

No need to invite your friends here ...

Obalufon:
No need to invite your friends here ...

what friends?
Don't be silly