₦airaland Forum

Let the words sink into the inner most cordon of my mind and set me FREE as I read this text.

THE BIBLE IS A FRAUD!

The bible is not what it claims to be but is merely a biblography, a compilation of plagiarized text from ancient religions and stories from around the world; the contents and characters of which have been re-packaged, sexed-up or simply altogether made-up.

PastorAIO:
The Magna Carta

hakeem4:
i can only trust the bible as a historical evidence if we can start trusting marvel and DC comic as historical references also...

I 100% agree with you both.

The firsr ever creation story is Africa. Africa is THE creation story.

All creation stories have one thing in common, that is now clear to everyone, they all refer to Africa.

When God created humans it started in Africa.

@Op yes, Africans are the first people of the Ancient Americas.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

Olu317:
Now I know you are truly yoruba man on IFA mention of yours because I was waiting for you call AFIN as ‘Orisa', which you did.


Respect to you.
Cheers.

Respect to you. Good on you aswell.

Olu317:
Bini kingdom is in Edo land and the Yoruba created Bini through conquest out of the IDU-IGODOMIGOD...

Plainly , Bini is a subgroup of yoruba people. My point here is that your view of Africanist on diversity can't be managed properly until each group develop differently before trust and economic benefit can foster friendship across borderline.

Once again, i agree with you here. I would use 'relative' instead of sub-group; but i totally understand your great points above.

Olu317:
And you, being an Pan Africanist is good but can it stand the test of a lifetime? Perhaps. On my part, I choose the pattern in which Yoruba ancestors did because they know the world and not colour of mankind. Àfíìn( Albinism) has always been part of Yoruba worldview and are treated with speciality because of their skin...

I agree with much of what you write here, and would add that
'Afiin are often Orisas favourite children.

Olu317:
‘SUBGROUP'? My knowledge of the meaning is a ‘small group within a larger group; a group whose members are some, but may not all be of the members of a larger group'

Most social- scientist will tell you "sub' is not a good description of anything.

In social science, to call 'anything' sub is to accept that its inferior to something else.

And does not describe Africa.

Let me prove to you that the term 'sub' is not to be used in the African context, and that the term 'sub is unAfrican. i.e use a more accurate term "South of The Sahara" DO NOT say or use "Sub Sahara"


Africa comprises of various ethnicity.

As in, no one ethnicity is seen as superior to the other.

The term "sub" is a socio-scientific construct that has its maiden use in the classification of non human species into inferior and superior classes.


Americans, Asians nor Europeans DO NOT use the term 'sub' when describing the people of their nations, Africans shouldnt uses that term to describe ourselves.

Everyone in the world have good reason to appreciate Africans diversity.

The reason everyone appreciates the diversity of Africans is due to the fact that modern day humans enjoy their current genetic make-up as a result of Africans and their ancestry.

Africans invented, or are gifted with', THE generic building blocks responsible for, and traceable to , what is seen in post-modern day humans.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint, indigenous Americans are said to have come from the line of the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Again, modern day African scholars identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

Amujale:
"My point is to call it DIVERSITY not sub-group, or sub' anything for that matter. Africans dont have 'sub-groups"


That is to say, stick to words like, diversity, different ethnicity, instead of the term 'sub-group',


Diversity is the state of being diverse.

Olu317:
That's my point Sir, because I find it hard to understand your kind of English language in this context on word and antonym. How do you call Africa diverse when you don't even understand subgroup or ethnicity...

Cheer

Atleast have the courtesy to read what is written.

When you make spurious claims like:

Olu317:
How do you call Africa diverse when you don't even understand subgroup or ethnicity...

False, untrue.

Olu317:
From the above, I only posited as others that your assertion is pseudo unification of Africans...

False, untrue.


Since my previous post clearly says:

Amujale:
"...stick to words like, diversity, different ethnicity, instead of the term 'sub-group',

Goes a long way to show that you are have little or no perception of recognition.

You fail to recognise that i teach accurate African history for a living and have a great background in earth sciences. More importantly, i am African.


I am an Africanist not an Afrocentric.

Similar to most active supporters of a worldwide movement that aims to encourage and strengthen binds of solidarity between all people of Africa and our descendants, our ultimate goal in life is to assist with securing the betterment of all Africans anywhere in the world today and as such helping to make the entire world a better place.

For instance, my love for physics and mathematics is never in doubt here, i proposed a mathematical formulae that is meant to determine the difference between TRUTH"
and "FACT".

I believe in Orisa Ifa. My belief in Olodumare and the Orisa does NOT contradict my study into the earth sciences or any other aspect of science.

I consider myself also a Yoruba royalist.

Anyone can easily take my word for it, Africans don't have sub-groups. Africans have diversity, ethnicity.

Is a common Yoruba saying;

"There are Orisha, and there are Orisha".

My Great grandad is Orisha to me, yet he isnt when compares to Orunmila.

My Great grandad is better known as a dema-deity, whilst Orunmila is Imole.

That is to say, the real Orisha exist prior to the earth's existence and as such are known as Divinities or the divine Visiers of Olodumare; their embodiments, those that came to live amongst us as men/women are known as Deities.

When Orisha are in the 'heavenly realm' they are known as a "divinity"; while on earth they are called deity.

Just as earlier post suggest, there are an innumerable amount of dema--deities.

PAGAN9JA:
the point is that the name of a powerful ruler (Shango) was probably used to designate the SPirit of warfare and destructive forces. this force already existed. it was just named after this ruler (in all probabilities). also this force surely had a different name before being renamed as Shango (DJakuta).

I agree with you. Olodumare continue blesssings upon Nairalanders, blessins be upon OP, blessings be upon the above authority, blessings upon all adherents of Shango, Ogun, Osun e.t.c blessings be upon you all.

...

The Almighty God loves the people of the world correctly and judiciously, as such, Yoruba Orisha are said to have been sent to planet earth so as to make the world a better place.

Yoruba never have and never will be Idol worshhipers.

The term "Idol worship" is a nonsensical Abrahamic Religions concept that is meaningless outside of European and Asian philosophy. i.e the term "Idol' makes better sense in a European and Asian context as is properly reserved for Roman & Greek mythology.

The term "Idol" in the context of Abrahamic Religions is an immure and derogatory way of attempting to discredit all other faiths or religious concepts that arent Abrahamic.


That is to say, those who belong to any of the Abrahamic faith are prone to automatically consider anyone else using bad and disrespectful terms such as non-believer, Idol worshiper e.t.c

Yoruba Orisha is never an Idol in the context Abrahamic religions would have you believe..

Orisha are divine entities.

Orisha are in all reality divine representatives of the Almighty God on planet earth.

PAGAN9JA:
THat is a symbolic thing. They are not human beings. they might be represented by human beings/names, but they are SPiritual Forces/ Gods.

Everyone in the world have good reason to appreciate Africans diversity.

The reason everyone appreciates the diversity of Africans is due to the fact that modern day humans enjoy their current genetic make-up as a result of Africans and their ancestry.

Africans invented, or are gifted with', THE generic building blocks responsible for, and traceable to , what is seen in post-modern day humans.

Amujale:
You continue to misconstrue what has been said with anti-African rhetoric.

My point is to call it diversity NOT sub-group, or sub' anything for that matter. Africans dont have 'sub-groups.

Olu317:
Mr man,Africa is extremely diverse. Stop being ignorant. Stop this nonsensical psuedo Afrocentrism because I am from a quiet family whose history is a reference point in Yoruba Land. I strongly detest your pointless view when you ignore scientific and linguistic aspect of history.

I once asked you if you ever heard of people burying their dead upward and you had no answer. Here you fanning Afrocentricism as if you have what it takes to speak or be trilingual as an individual. Mr,there people here who know fact and not fiction as it seems.

Do you even know that over 1000+ languages is spoken in Africa?

Do you even know there are more than 1000+ languages spoken in Africa that's spoken in Europe?

Bro, Africa is a complex continent that you have no idea about. So stop your view and kindly specialise in one area.

Its seems you find it hard to understand was has been written. How can you claim you disagree with me whilst repeating what i write above.

Maybe learn to read.

Stop a think.

READ what is posted accordingly and try again because the above post is simply repeating what i say.


"My point is to call it DIVERSITY not sub-group, or sub' anything for that matter. Africans dont have 'sub-groups"


That is to say, stick to words like, diversity, different ethnicity, instead of the term 'sub-group',

Tying to use my own 'handle' to argue against is a really low and poor move.


I already know Africa is diverse, thats why my advise to you is to use the term "diversity" instead of the term 'sub.


Now that you have taken my advice dont you think its a bad move to try and claim my handle for yourself, given that am still here.

Goes to show profound ignorance.

Diversity is the state of being diverse.

Everyone in the world have good reason to appreciate Africans diversity.

The reason everyone appreciates the diversity of Africans is due to the fact that modern day humans enjoy their current genetic make-up as a result of Africans and their ancestry.

Africans invented, or are gifted with', THE generic building blocks responsible for, and traceable to , what is seen in post-modern day humans.

morpheus24:
Nonsensical. Which "days" are you talking about. You can't even put dates to your assertions or a time continuum to support your garbage.

Let me help you.

100,000 to 200,000 years ago Homo sapien emerged. During this period there were waves of Humans leaving Africa. These humans approximate phenotypical representation would be closer to what Africans look like today. This is a PROBABILITY and not AN ABSOLUTE.

2. These humans bottled necked into smaller groups with lesser mutations than the ones preceding them. This event would alter their genetic makeup as well as their phenotypical attributes. As these groups splintered they carried smaller genetic variations among the groups that drifted. In addition to encounters with other human species i.e. Neandethal and Denisovan the picked up additional genetic material.

3. Phenotypical changes occurred based on selective breeding, adaptation to environment, nutrition and random genetic mutations. Some people retained their African features while drifting genetically away from Africans. Others lost African features and gained new features while still staying closer in genetic morphology to Africans. This is the reason a European is genetically closer to an African than a Papau new Guinean even though the papau new Guinean still physically resembles an African.


Keep spouting your fake pseudo science based on Afrocentrism. Fact will always win at the end of the day




No common sense at all, by your definition above everyone that lives outside of African are all African then including Europeans so regardless of physical appearance since their ancestors hailed originally from Africa you should call them African going forward.

Most of what you write here is Eurocentric and Asiatic gibberish; unAfrican.

You cannot think to claim that any of the above text has anything to does with Africa.

Stop & Think!


The Eurocentric/Asiatic version of African history you peddle is false.

African history is very African.

African history is THE history of GENETICS. They are one and the same.

African history is the history of Genetics and many other things i.e thoughts, spoken word, written text, art, medicine, music, e.t.c

morpheus24:
Every group of people have diversity in look and in features. This includes Africans who are not a monolithic group by any stretch of the imagination.

We understand you want to propagate an Afrocentric mind set but please not at the expense of scientific facts.

Europeans did not invent intelligence nor can they deny fact. The data is reproducible as regards genetics everytime which is why it is FACT!

Native Americans do not have the same genetics as Contemporary African peoples therefore they are not AFRICAN in the way it is understood genetically today.

You continue to misconstrue what haa been said with anti-African rhetoric.

My point is to call it diversity NOT sub-group, or sub' anything for that matter. Africans dont have 'sub-groups.

fieryy:
Just realized you added more to your post.

There is NOTHING like an African feature. All we have in common is our DARK SKIN!

The fact that the Bantu people make up the majority of Africans, due to their immigration down south, doesn't mean they are the only face of Africa.

The Nilotic people look different from the Bantus, the Pygmies have their own unique features as well. Same with the Khoisan. These are just few of the African "subgroups". Each with unique features!

@ Amujale or whatever your name is

Btw i dont understand Africans having subgroups. Most of what you write here are Eurocentric and Asiatic giberish.

Maybe you refer to Africans with our diversity.

Well the point is that ,everyone in the world have good reason to appreciate Africans diversity.

The reason everyone appreciates the diversity of Africans is due to the fact that modern day humans enjoy their current genetic make-up as a result of Africans and their ancestry.

Africans invented, or are gifted with', THE generic building blocks responsible for, and traceable to , what is seen in post-modern day humans.

Africa is the beacon of the world and is responsible for the success of one of the greatest conceivable feats known to humanity, humanity itself.

Our ancestors didnt choose to jump of a cliff and potentially putting an end to humanity as is conceived today.

African ancestors are a great inspiration to all of humanity.

fieryy:
According to the "Out of Africa" theory (because there ARE several theories), every person's ANCESTORS hailed from Africa.

But what you are doing is confusing SKIN COLOR with nationality/the continent you are from.

The first humans were all dark skinned and Africans. The first Africans who settled in Europe had been dark skinned as well. The next generation of those settlers were considered EUROPEANS.

Why? Because they had never been to Africa before! Same with Asians etc

Having DARK SKIN does NOT make you African, back then and now!


The first Americans began their journey in northeast Asia and southern Siberia. to America, between 25,000 and 20,000 years ago.

They had first resided in Asia before they moved to North America and probably all had DARK SKIN. Were they Africans? No, because they probably had never even stepped a foot in Africa! We're they Asians? Yes, because that's why they had resided in Asia beforehand!
Were the first generation born in America still Asians? NO!

These are all stuffs that happened thousands of years ago

So this



Is wrong


And since white skin evolved ca. 8000 years ago because Europeans lacked the versions of the genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—which led to depigmentation

This




is also wrong.

I am sorry but its in my opinion that you possess an incorrect understanding of African history.

fieryy:
...But the fact that they were DARKSKINNED doesn't make them Africans either, we've been separated for very long to say that, just like we've been separated from Europeans for way too long.

Eventhough i agree with much of your post, the above that does not read too well.

The fact that they are darkskinned infact does indeed make them African due to the fact that they hailed from Africa, which in itself also makes them African.

The basic truth is that in those days, everyone is African and therefore everyone at the time was darkskinned or have the adequate amount of melanin to assist humanity.

In todays world, maybe possessing darker skin doesnt automatically make you African, however in those days, before the 'Out of Africa' experience, everyone was African and as a result all humans alive at the time possess all the African features.

Please stop all attempts to try an differentiate ancient Africans from their modern peers. It didnt make sense to differentiate then, and it certainly does not make sense to differentiate ancient peoples from their post-modern peers of today.

Africans are the only people that have the RIGHT and the correct qualifications to determine who IS or is NOT African.

And most Africans agree with me on the fact that African ancestors are very very African.

Hence, everyone on planet earth at the time possess African features, therefore, everyone in those days was African.

The people that took part in the 'Out of Africa' experience, are African for thousands upon thousands of years before taking control of other regions on planet earth.

I.e The first people to occupy the Europe lived as part of a larger African family thousands upon thousands years prior to their migration.

Therefore, the first wave of people to arrive in the Europe in anyone's mind are indeed African.

Appreciate the great beacon of our world that is called Africa, stop trying to stifle her.

Lets employ common sense.

Moreover, The firsr ever creation story is Africa. Africa is THE creation story.

All creation stories have one thing in common, that is now clear to everyone, they all refer to Africa.

When God created humans it started in Africa.

Its further argued that the original ancient Egyptian text has its origin in even more older philosophies from all across the African continent.

Plus, other cultures that existed during the later parrallel's to Africa's Pharoahonic period i.e Sumerian, Roman, Greek e.t.c all predate bible's genesis story. And as a result, have in their philosphy or concepts similar and more older versions of most those stories in genesis's bible.

Basically, they number in their thousands, the philosophies and concepts that predate the writing of bible's genesis story.

Teach!

bingbagbo:
Which is?

The genesis story is a bad copy of the original ancient Egyptian text.

Its widely accepted that ancient Egyptian text is the source from which much of bible's genesis came about.

Its important to note that the ancient Egyptians bear little or NO relations with the present day Egyptians.

The current occupants of the land of KMT; the present day Egyptians are as a result of (yes you guessed correctly) an agressive invassion, history puts present day Egyptians in the region as of the 1920's.

As in, indigenous Egyptians, also known as the Ancient Egyptians, also known as the people of KMT (Khemet) have been gradually virtually and steadily wiped out of existence by agressive foreign invaders going back to 800 B.C.E.

What happens in Nigeria definitely affects the rest of the world. Arguably, Nigerians have one of , if not, the greatest influence on the entire African diaspora. The Green-White-Green reigns supreme and uncontested in most African communities presently around the world today. Yet there is a kind of intransigence in the relationship between Africans in general with much of the older diaspora in the Caribbean.

With that being the exception, Nigerians are normally held with high regards due to our good manners, flamboyant fashion styles, professional sports men/women, great musicians e.t.c

Hence, we need to become and or maintain the gigantic force of nature that the rest of the world often praise us with. Nigerians often set the agenda for all the blacks(sic) around the world. Fact