Twelve Tribes of Israel info & research thread

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
While the stories about Ethiopia are interesting, they do not have anything to do with the tribes of Israel.

In the Bible, Ethiopia is identified as Cush, the son of Ham (
Gen. 10:6). The Ethiopians are therefore Hamites, NOT Semites, and thus cannot possibly be any of the 12 tribes of Israel, much less all of them.

Cush (Ethiopia) begat Nimrod, who became a great enemy of God upon the Earth (Gen. 10:7-9).

Tirhakah king of Ethiopia advised the king Hezekiah of Israel against taking the Counsel of God (which is overtly satanic).

2 kings 19:9-10
19:9 And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying,
19:10 Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.

Ethiopian claims that the Ark of The Covenant has been in Ethiopia since the times of Solomon and Menelik are provably false. The Bible itself states that The Ark was still in Jerusalem c. 400 years AFTER the time of Solomon and Menelik.

God made a promise to David that he would NEVER lack a descendant to sit on his throne IN Israel (2 Sam. 7:12-17, 2 Sam. 22:51, 2 Sam. 23:5, 1 Chron. 7:10-14, 2 Chron. 1:9, 2 Chron. 7:18, 2 Chron. 13:5, 2 Chron. 21:7, 2 Chron. 23:3, Ps. 89:3-4, Ps. 89:34-36, Ps. 132:10-11, Jer. 33:17).

The last emperor of Ethiopia was Haile Selassi's son, Amha Selassi, whose reign ended in March of 1975. There has been no emperor since that time, and there have been other breaks during the past 3000 years as well.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Scriptural marks in the Bible describing the true people Israel. Ethiopia fits NONE of them, and was already disqualified in Gen. 10:6, because it's impossible for the descendants of Ham to also be the descendants of Shem/Sem.
 






Last edited:

Phithx

Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
549
I found some interesting pieces this week. It looks like the book of Jubilees that was found among the dead sea scrolls is almost verbatim to the version that is part of the Ethiopian canon. There is evidence to suggest that the book of Jubilees found among the dead sea scrolls is from before 100 BC.

The book of Jubilees is also called lesser Genesis because it details many of the early stories in Genesis without some of the pieces that would otherwise be connected to other writings from the surrounding area from what I can tell superficially. However, I also just found a book called Plato and the creation of the Hebrew Bible, and I'm not sure how this information will integrate with what I have been researching already.

I still think that there is a root to all this that has been buried. It is covered in dross so to speak because interestingly enough, they use a Semitic language called Amharic in Ethiopia. This is apparently derived from an older version of this language that is still used as a liturgical language called Ge'ez. The dead sea scroll version of Enoch is also older than any existing version of most of the books that are part of the Christian canon today with few exceptions.

The traditional story of the Ethiopian community says that Enoch was originally written in Ge'ez which is an earlier Ethiopian Semitic language. Speculation is that this language was used as early as 400 BC, possibly earlier. I think there is a possibility that this is an original language rather than the language we usually consider as the original that is actually based on the Masoretic text from the 9th century.

The Damascus document also provides insight into the identity of the original members of the 12 tribes of Israel as well. It is speculated that the Damascus document was written somewhere between 100BC and the first few years of the next century.

It says, "And to observe the Sabbath according to its true meaning and the feasts and the day of the Fast according to the utterances of them who entered into the New Covenant in the land of Damascus:"

Outside of the obvious reference to the New Covenant, what is interesting about this passage is the reference to Damascus in connection with this New Covenant, when you consider the history of the Samaritans in Damascus until the time of the Ottoman empire. The Samaritans have long claimed to be from the tribe of Ephraim and Manassah. The Samaritan Pentateuch is also considered to mirror what the earliest fragments of the Septuagint say. However, the oldest Masoretic version varies considerably from these versions.

The version of Judaism that we currently understand is obviously nowhere near the original. The history of the version that we have probably never happened the way we have been told either. There is evidence that contradicts the story that we have been told and different parts of the world are starting to tell this story after being silenced for too many years. The earth itself is sharing the truth. The only real conclusion I have based on this information is that it would probably be a good idea to start thinking about embracing change soon.
Thank-you for your comment, but I wish we could trust what they've disclosed about the Dead Sea scrolls.

They took decades to publish them, which is ample time for their specialist forgers to meddle with them.

Interesting bit about who the Samaritans were:

"The Samaritans were the descendants of the Assyrian colonists who have been mentioned above; they did not go up to Jerusalem to the Feasts, but worshipped YHWH (Jehovah - the "I AM") in their own fashion (Jonah 1:2; 3:4-5) at their own temple on Mount Gerizim. The Jews were expressly forbidden by their leaders to have any dealings with the Samaritans, except in so far as it might be incumbent upon them to buy food, or other necessities, when passing through their territory." from THE FIGHT FOR THE KINGDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

Christian Pinto talks about the forgers in his movie:
Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to A Lamp in the Dark
 






Last edited:

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,032
...The version of Judaism that we currently understand is obviously nowhere near the original. The history of the version that we have probably never happened the way we have been told either. There is evidence that contradicts the story that we have been told and different parts of the world are starting to tell this story after being silenced for too many years. The earth itself is sharing the truth. The only real conclusion I have based on this information is that it would probably be a good idea to start thinking about embracing change soon.
The book you shared has helped confirm these same thoughts for me. I think you're asking the right questions. The Jewish Tanakh is only from 200-300 BC- a collection of much older tales. In contrast the Abyssinian scripture contains an archaic form of the Law of Moses and the Holiness Code with parts of Deutoronomy and Leviticus missing (similar to the Elephantine communities). They date the life of Solomon earlier to 925 BC, and have no records of a divided kingdom etc.

I agree the connections to the book of Jubilees and Enoch are beautiful. There's so many examples of the rich Biblical tradition within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the rites of Beta Israel that are incorporated. Their priests still use drums for worship and perform the "dance of David." I was told first-hand they also grow and utilize cannabis. :) There are Nazarite monks to this day which is really mystical.

Truth is never desperate to boast or prove itself... truth just is! The descendants of ancient tribes are alive and well, spread everywhere. We could even look at it in spiritual terms. Ethiopia is only part of the story but their place in history is real:

"In summarizing the above evidence it seems that at the very least Ethiopia has ancient association with the Israelite First Temple and a culture obsessed even today with the Ark of the Covenant reflecting the ancient existence of an Israelite state that eventually nearly obliterated the Christian state of Aksum under its pagan-Hebraic Queen Yodit ca. A.D.970. " - Leeman

 






Last edited:

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,032
The last emperor of Ethiopia was Haile Selassi's son, Amha Selassi, whose reign ended in March of 1975. There has been no emperor since that time, and there have been other breaks during the past 3000 years as well.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Scriptural marks in the Bible describing the true people Israel. Ethiopia fits NONE of them, and was already disqualified in Gen. 10:6, because it's impossible for the descendants of Ham to also be the descendants of Shem/Sem.
Hilarious. Like we're gonna lean on 19th century Protestant concepts of Biblical races as a source of historical truth. This is a major pitfall of fundamentalists and end-time fanatics. The peoples of Genesis were all what we would consider African, whether red (Semitic,Ethiopian) or black (Sudanese phenotypes). I know you and pirate Morgan disagree, but Hem, Shem, and Japhet were all Africans.

http://afroasiatics.blogspot.com/

Also the current successor to the Solomonic Dynasty is the grandson of Emperor Haile Selassie I, Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie Haile-Selassie.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
Hilarious. Like we're gonna lean on 19th century Protestant concepts of Biblical races as a source of historical truth. This is a major pitfall of fundamentalists and end-time fanatics. The peoples of Genesis were all what we would consider African, whether red (Semitic,Ethiopian) or black (Sudanese phenotypes). I know you and pirate Morgan disagree, but Hem, Shem, and Japhet were all Africans.

http://afroasiatics.blogspot.com/

Also the current successor to the Solomonic Dynasty is the grandson of Emperor Haile Selassie I, Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie Haile-Selassie.
Do you understand the difference between evidence and conjecture please?

One of the major pitfalls today is that people do not seem to be able to differentiate between the two, giving their own opinions (which can be, and often are, based entirely upon lies and misconceptions) equal or even greater weight than actual evidence (which is what proves the truth of the matter).

Another major pitfall for people today is that most lack both faith in our Creator (
Luke 18:8) and the ability to apply reason and common-sense that goes hand-in-hand with faith.

Please, for a moment, consider the obvious. The TRUE people Israel are described IN THE BIBLE. So what we're discussing is how to identify the people who are described
IN THE BIBLE.

Logically
, one would first turn to THE BIBLE to see what descriptions it gives for those people, rather than look everywhere else first to identify these people described in
THE BIBLE.

We are given numerous descriptions in the Bible of who the TRUE people Israel are, so that they can be easily identified in the
end-times. And there are no Biblical descriptions anywhere in the Bible describing the Israelites as a dark-skinned people, nor are there any descriptions of Israel that would apply to any of the current nations on the continent of Africa. NONE.

So while it is interesting to watch people derive their hypotheses about the people Israel of the Bible from everywhere except the Bible based on little more than their opinions, it is a totally illogical approach, based upon racial bias, which has zero evidence in the Bible to support it (and really nothing physical to support it either).

Peace be upon you.
 






Last edited:

Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,954

Just wanted to add to the discussion. My dad always would tell us about this (he's Afghan/Pashtun). Regardless though it's what's in your heart that matters. Everything else is just fluff.
 






Phithx

Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
549

Just wanted to add to the discussion. My dad always would tell us about this (he's Afghan/Pashtun). Regardless though it's what's in your heart that matters. Everything else is just fluff.
This is very possible as there are several references in the Bible to the 2 Tribed kingdom of Judah (including Benjamin) having taken non-Judah wives from Babylon, where they were taken captive in about 588BC (Ezra 2:31, 2:59, 2:62, 6:21, 9:2, 10:13 Ester 8:17, Neh. 7:34).

But the Assyrians took the Northern kingdom of Israel (10 Tribes) captive in about 722BC, and the names in the article ("Rubeni, Gadi, Ashuri, Efridi, Shinwari, Lewani and Yousefzai, which clearly resemble the tribes of Reuven, Gad, Asher, Ephraim, Shimon and Yosef") are correctly Northern kingdom of Israel tribe-names: not Jewish, which are Judah and Benjamin

It's confused these days because the current Jews of the world are fake counterfeits (Rev. 2:9, 3:9), and, because they called their (stolen) country Israel people think they're the real thing when they're not.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Pashtun descend from wives that true Israel took amongst the locals there, after their captivity. Some may even have stayed and blended in.
 






Last edited:

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,032
Do you understand the difference between evidence and conjecture please?

One of the major pitfalls today is that people do not seem to be able to differentiate between the two, giving their own opinions (which can be, and often are, based entirely upon lies and misconceptions) equal or even greater weight than actual evidence (which is what proves the truth of the matter).

Another major pitfall for people today is that most lack both faith in our Creator (
Luke 18:8) and the ability to apply reason and common-sense that goes hand-in-hand with faith.

Please, for a moment, consider the obvious. The TRUE people Israel are described IN THE BIBLE. So what we're discussing is how to identify the people who are described
IN THE BIBLE.

Logically
, one would first turn to THE BIBLE to see what descriptions it gives for those people, rather than look everywhere else first to identify these people described in
THE BIBLE.

We are given numerous descriptions in the Bible of who the TRUE people Israel are, so that they can be easily identified in the
end-times. And there are no Biblical descriptions anywhere in the Bible describing the Israelites as a dark-skinned people, nor are there any descriptions of Israel that would apply to any of the current nations on the continent of Africa. NONE.

So while it is interesting to watch people derive their hypotheses about the people Israel of the Bible from everywhere except the Bible based on little more than their opinions, it is a totally illogical approach, based upon racial bias, which has zero evidence in the Bible to support it (and really nothing physical to support it either).

Peace be upon you.
We're in a public forum. Last time I checked this place isn't called the Vigilant Christian. Also this topic (for whatever reason) isn't in the religious section.

The more I study the less reliance I put in the Jewish OT, and the NT for that matter. I think people who worship the Bible, quoting it word-for-word as the only explanation of our reality are immature souls. The books were intended to glorify faith in the Supreme All, to improve the Bible reader's way of life, but the way scripture is used today is to mostly stroke our ego while debating irrelevant doctrines. Look at the multitude of base individuals who's only ability is to piece together random verses from a 1000 page book.

It's silly to decry fake Jews but then use what is essentially their "history" book in a competition for who is the "most Jewish". Only the insecure care about such labels. As has been shown, multiple groups identify as children of Abraham and Yisrael; each of these branches are fascinating. Beta Israel doesn't care what the world knows about them, they just continue to live within their ancient laws of sabbath, circumcision, worship of the Almighty, etc. We're supposed to live our lives man, as children of God.

I could care less about Eurocentric theories of Biblical races when the "people of the book" are staring us right in the face.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
While the stories about Ethiopia are interesting, they do not have anything to do with the tribes of Israel.

In the Bible, Ethiopia is identified as Cush, the son of Ham (
Gen. 10:6). The Ethiopians are therefore Hamites, NOT Semites, and thus cannot possibly be any of the 12 tribes of Israel, much less all of them.

Cush (Ethiopia) begat Nimrod, who became a great enemy of God upon the Earth (Gen. 10:7-9).

Tirhakah king of Ethiopia advised the king Hezekiah of Israel against taking the Counsel of God (which is overtly satanic).

2 kings 19:9-10
19:9 And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying,
19:10 Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.

Ethiopian claims that the Ark of The Covenant has been in Ethiopia since the times of Solomon and Menelik are provably false. The Bible itself states that The Ark was still in Jerusalem c. 400 years AFTER the time of Solomon and Menelik.

God made a promise to David that he would NEVER lack a descendant to sit on his throne IN Israel (2 Sam. 7:12-17, 2 Sam. 22:51, 2 Sam. 23:5, 1 Chron. 7:10-14, 2 Chron. 1:9, 2 Chron. 7:18, 2 Chron. 13:5, 2 Chron. 21:7, 2 Chron. 23:3, Ps. 89:3-4, Ps. 89:34-36, Ps. 132:10-11, Jer. 33:17).

The last emperor of Ethiopia was Haile Selassi's son, Amha Selassi, whose reign ended in March of 1975. There has been no emperor since that time, and there have been other breaks during the past 3000 years as well.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Scriptural marks in the Bible describing the true people Israel. Ethiopia fits NONE of them, and was already disqualified in Gen. 10:6, because it's impossible for the descendants of Ham to also be the descendants of Shem/Sem.
Technically, in the Old Testament, Cush is identified as Cush. In the New Testament, Ethiopia is identified as Ethiopia, and unless you have some way to correct me, there is no reason to believe these two references are referring to the same nation historically much less where they would have been located.

According to scripture in the original language, Ethiopia could have been north and Cush could have been south for all we know. Therefore, what we call Ethiopia today is a combined assumption that these refer to the same nation for one, and that this nation is recognizable in the area that we have been told. However, I have never heard anyone explain why this area should be defined as Cush.

There are not significant markers in scripture that would allow someone to identify this location on a map. If there are, I have missed them because we don't often go over things like this in Bible studies, unfortunately. It is entirely possible that language barriers would have presented a challenge for explorers of the region. Names and slang terms are the hardest parts of a language to correctly pronounce, spell, or translate; and the identification of Cush in the area around where we consider Ethiopia to be located could have been made very innocently at the time. However, in the modern world, it is clear to see that these assumptions were wrong and at the present time, there is no real way to identify where Cush was located historically no matter how much we would like for these things to all fit together as though they were all figured out.

So it is logical to me that names of people and places could be inaccurately understood in the Bible because I have also never considered the Bible to be some magical infallible book. I have believed that the Bible was more like a garden that had had some of the weeds pulled so that it was metaphorically more pleasing to look at. And, it was this objectivity towards this process of creating a canon that was more or less scientific and would not create a contradiction between believing that being part of humanity born in sin is somehow still capable of creating a perfected book and subsequent perfected translations.

Saying people are born in sin, but capable of this is already a contradiction. However, people are capable of testing things to see what works best, so I believed the Bible to be thoroughly tested, but not something that would need to be proven to be perfectly translated. Because that is what I am still working with, using the original place names to look at the possibility that things happened in different locations does not create a crisis of faith for me especially since the original languages do not make the same claims that the translations do anyway.

An understanding of African history is so undeveloped, there is no real way to say that it doesn't match anything regarding what the scripture says about Israel at the present time.

In fact, this is a picture of a map of the potential location of the ancient nation of Punt. This land was filled with resources and this is known because ancient Egyptians records tell us that they were trading in this area. It was essentially a "land flowing with milk and honey" in the ancient world, although it almost seems like esoteric information to us because we only learn a small fraction of information about Africa from a historical perspective in the western world.

So this is where Punt is



And this is a map of what has been referred to as the Atlantis of the sands. There is a legendary story connected with these locations that say that long ago, the city was destroyed as a punishment by God. The possibility that this could be the true location of Sodom and Gomorrah has been entertained because of this. I should point out that there is no location near where we consider Israel that includes a legend like this even though Sodom and Gomorrah should also be discoverable within the region since it is where Lot and Abraham parted ways when they arrived in the land. This is just another example of why there is no real evidence to support Israel historically being where we are presently told.



So consider the proximity of this location to the land of punt and consider the possibility of continental drift, which is difficult to measure to prove. However, we can prove that the tectonic plates shift and cause earthquakes. Therefore, it is possible to consider that these landmasses were possibly closer together at some point.

In conclusion, you are exaggerating more than a little when you say there is no way to make a connection between these areas and the locations in scripture especially when you are comparing them with modern assumptions. Superficially, I can make more connections than 200 years of archeological research within the areas of Egypt and Israel have been able to do.

The other thing that I have always realized about the Bible is that believing in the Bible is the same as believing that better things will come and all truth will come to light. So I do feel like an argument that solely depends on theology as a foundation for the study of cartography is going to fall short in many places. So while I respect that you might have a different opinion on this subject than I do, I have probably heard many of the arguments that you are going to make unless you have something to add about the origin of words like Cush or Ethiopia or some more developed understanding of the history of Africa that I am not aware of.

Quite frankly, after spending time on this forum with many Christians speaking from a fundamentalist perspective that often expresses this perspective in ways that I know I wouldn't hear at church, has caused me to do more reflection about my own faith than about anything else I may have studied while I have been here.

Clearly something is missing in the Bible or in our understanding of it and while I recognize that you are another member that follows Jahtruth if I'm not mistaken? Even still, much of your understanding doesn't deviate from the classical interpretation that I am more than a little familiar with and that I am convinced is not working. Something is wrong, something is missing, and something needs to come into the light, but unfortunately, too many people think they have it all figured out.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
Thank-you for your comment, but I wish we could trust what they've disclosed about the Dead Sea scrolls.

They took decades to publish them, which is ample time for their specialist forgers to meddle with them.

Interesting bit about who the Samaritans were:

"The Samaritans were the descendants of the Assyrian colonists who have been mentioned above; they did not go up to Jerusalem to the Feasts, but worshipped YHWH (Jehovah - the "I AM") in their own fashion (Jonah 1:2; 3:4-5) at their own temple on Mount Gerizim. The Jews were expressly forbidden by their leaders to have any dealings with the Samaritans, except in so far as it might be incumbent upon them to buy food, or other necessities, when passing through their territory." from THE FIGHT FOR THE KINGDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

Christian Pinto talks about the forgers in his movie:
Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to A Lamp in the Dark
I don't find your argument for the forgery of the dead sea scrolls convincing. It is basically no more than a claim that I should take your word for it. The same could be true for many things. It could be true for the argument about the book of Mark that is said to have been written around 70 AD. Seventy years is a long time and gives plenty of opportunity to specialist forgers.

Interesting comment about the Samaritans too that would otherwise support the theory that Judaism spread as a political movement within the area we assume to be Israel rather than originating there. This would explain why there is no ancient evidence of any sort of correspondence with the nation of Israel because the nation of Israel was created through the conversion of different nations like the Assyrians. The Amarna letters, for example, make no mention of any nation of Israel and it is very unlikely that they would not have encountered them considering Egyptian interests in the area.

However, it is possible that people from another location that was not originally located in the same area, could have found their way into the area and intermarried with the people there, and this is where the claim of descending from Manassah and Ephraim comes from. Possibly someone from the Elephantine which is the first historical reference to the Jews in the area.

On the other hand, if the assumption that they are descended from Assyrians is dependent on their ritual practice and not on other evidence, then it is really a useless reference to be discarded. So your reference is not conclusive in supporting your counter-argument in any way because there are many possibilities to consider based on this information.
 






Phithx

Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
549
I don't find your argument for the forgery of the dead sea scrolls convincing. It is basically no more than a claim that I should take your word for it. The same could be true for many things. It could be true for the argument about the book of Mark that is said to have been written around 70 AD. Seventy years is a long time and gives plenty of opportunity to specialist forgers.
Just in case I need to clarity: I said "meddle with", not produced them from scratch, but agreed, it's hard to tell.

Especially given the establishment's penchant for twisting everything, as evidenced below in the Bible's case; and other.

Rulers_of_Evil learning against learning.png

Rulers_of_Evil cover1.png

Interesting comment about the Samaritans too that would otherwise support the theory that Judaism spread as a political movement within the area we assume to be Israel rather than originating there. This would explain why there is no ancient evidence of any sort of correspondence with the nation of Israel because the nation of Israel was created through the conversion of different nations like the Assyrians. The Amarna letters, for example, make no mention of any nation of Israel and it is very unlikely that they would not have encountered them considering Egyptian interests in the area.
Understood, although this could just be more pitching "learning against learning"?

However, it is possible that people from another location that was not originally located in the same area, could have found their way into the area and intermarried with the people there, and this is where the claim of descending from Manassah and Ephraim comes from. Possibly someone from the Elephantine which is the first historical reference to the Jews in the area.
Could be?

On the other hand, if the assumption that they are descended from Assyrians is dependent on their ritual practice and not on other evidence, then it is really a useless reference to be discarded. So your reference is not conclusive in supporting your counter-argument in any way because there are many possibilities to consider based on this information.
Yes many; they've succeeded in the "learning against learning" project to a large degree it seems.

But I find the http://JAHTruth.net information to be consistent with itself, the Bible and Koran http://JAHTruth.net/kofk-free/Bible, and with the truth the way I see it. It's the best short cut to the truth about everything that I've ever encountered.
 






Last edited:

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
We're in a public forum. Last time I checked this place isn't called the Vigilant Christian. Also this topic (for whatever reason) isn't in the religious section.

The more I study the less reliance I put in the Jewish OT, and the NT for that matter. I think people who worship the Bible, quoting it word-for-word as the only explanation of our reality are immature souls.
At least one good reason this isn't in the religious section is because this research has far reaching geopolitical implications today, for those who are awake to what's going on in this world.

Most people have been wrongly trained by organized religions to think of the Bible* as a religious book, even though it is NOT a religious book, at least not in the sense that word is used today. It is, in fact, an instruction manual and historical text, given to us by our extra-terrestrial progenitors, including our Creator, The King Ruler of the Universe.

*The true Bible includes what is separately referred to today as the Koran.

There are numerous, otherwise inexplicable characteristics that the Bible shares with no other books on Earth, which leave NO DOUBT of its extra-terrestrial origin. One of those characteristics is that over two-thirds of the Bible is prophecy, over 99% of which has already been fulfilled in exact and minute detail, which means that it would be extremely naive and downright foolish to think that the remaining <1% won't likewise be fulfilled in exact and minute detail. Another characteristic is how the Bible has been CODED in a way that simply is not possible today, even with every supercomputer on the planet linked together in the attempt.

One such example, for anyone interested:-


Of course this is but the tip of the iceberg.

The entire Bible chronicles the true people Israel, including the history leading up to them, and their history since then, as well as what will happen to them in our immediate future. As such, anyone who would like to understand exactly where we are headed, and what's about to happen -- and most importantly WHY it has to happen -- MUST understand who the true people Israel are, or it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand the prophecies concerning them.

The books were intended to glorify faith in the Supreme All, to improve the Bible reader's way of life, but the way scripture is used today is to mostly stroke our ego while debating irrelevant doctrines. Look at the multitude of base individuals who's only ability is to piece together random verses from a 1000 page book.
There is no disagreement that organized religion uses and abuses the Bible for profit. But that is NOT what this thread is doing, nor is researching who the 12 tribes of Israel REALLY are some irrelevant doctrine.

Once it is correctly understood that the 12 tribes of Israel are the British and Anglo-Saxon American people, it is possible to know exactly what is about to happen, not only with American foreign policy in the Middle East, but also with WW3, which is now imminent.

The U.S. and U.K. are about to drag the entire Middle East into a battle they have absolutely no chance of winning, which will wipe out one-third of the global population, i.e. over 2 billion people. This will further weaken U.S. and U.K. military forces, making it easy for Russia and China to overcome them. That should hopefully illustrate exactly how important this research REALLY is, and why thinking it is somehow irrelevant is both short-sighted and potentially fatal. Perhaps that bears repeating.

The U.S. and U.K. WILL LOSE WW3.

It's silly to decry fake Jews but then use what is essentially their "history" book in a competition for who is the "most Jewish".
That statement makes about as much sense as someone claiming it's silly for Wikileaks to decry COUNTERFEIT "military intelligence" using the very documents that these same information gathering alphabet soup agencies assembled. The only difference is the "Jews" did NOT write the Bible, nor does it belong to them, nor do they follow it, nor does it have anything to do with them, other than to expose them as FRAUDS.

What's amazing, in a horrific but eye-opening way, is that so many are actually duped into believing that "Jews" somehow represent Israel, when just the names involved make that IMPOSSIBLE.

Even if we were to disregard the fact that by their own admission, 95% of modern Jews are Ashkenazis (which means they are not even Semites, but are instead Japhethites), the term "Jew" is NEVER applied to either the united 12 tribes of Israel nor to the 10 tribes of Israel that make up the "House of Israel". To do so would be akin to calling all Americans "Californians" or calling all British "Scots". It simply doesn't work.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13992-statistics

Furthermore, the prophecies tell us that the true people Israel will NOT be called by the name Israel, but instead will have a NEW name
(Isa. 62:2, Isa. 65:1, Isa. 65:15, Hos. 2:17) that God Himself shall name (Gen. 12:2, Gen. 21:12). And we're likewise told that the very people who call themselves "Jews" are NOT; but instead are those who are temporarily running the world (Zionists) for their master: Satan (Rev. 2:9, Rev. 3:9).

Only the insecure care about such labels.
No, only those genuinely interested in the truth care enough to expose fraud and evil wherever they find it.

As has been shown, multiple groups identify as children of Abraham and Yisrael; each of these branches are fascinating. Beta Israel doesn't care what the world knows about them, they just continue to live within their ancient laws of sabbath, circumcision, worship of the Almighty, etc. We're supposed to live our lives man, as children of God.
Absolutely agreed. IF everyone was living by God's Law - which is found in only one place: the first five books of the Bible - then this entire world would become the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. We are the children of Whom/whom we choose to obey.

If we obey God, then we are His Children. If we continue obeying Lucifer/Satan/Iblis, then we are his children.

I could care less about Eurocentric theories of Biblical races when the "people of the book" are staring us right in the face.
The truth is what matters. Unfortunately people today couldn't care less about the truth, but are content with the fictions of their own imaginations, and will fight to defend them, regardless of how baseless and untenable they are.
 






Last edited:

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
Technically, in the Old Testament, Cush is identified as Cush. In the New Testament, Ethiopia is identified as Ethiopia, and unless you have some way to correct me, there is no reason to believe these two references are referring to the same nation historically much less where they would have been located.
And yet the Septuagint uniformly translates Cush as Αἰθιοπία "Aithiopia."

According to scripture in the original language, Ethiopia could have been north and Cush could have been south for all we know. Therefore, what we call Ethiopia today is a combined assumption that these refer to the same nation for one, and that this nation is recognizable in the area that we have been told. However, I have never heard anyone explain why this area should be defined as Cush.

There are not significant markers in scripture that would allow someone to identify this location on a map. If there are, I have missed them because we don't often go over things like this in Bible studies, unfortunately. It is entirely possible that language barriers would have presented a challenge for explorers of the region. Names and slang terms are the hardest parts of a language to correctly pronounce, spell, or translate; and the identification of Cush in the area around where we consider Ethiopia to be located could have been made very innocently at the time. However, in the modern world, it is clear to see that these assumptions were wrong and at the present time, there is no real way to identify where Cush was located historically no matter how much we would like for these things to all fit together as though they were all figured out.
The name Ham is Hebrew and means "burnt, black". Ham had four sons: Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

There is no question that Mizraim is Egypt. We're told in the Book of Ezekiel, in Chapter 29, that Father (God) will lay waste to Egypt, from the tower of Syene unto the border of Cush (Ezek. 29:10).

So where is/was Syene? It was in the south of Egypt facing south of Egypt.

Aswan is the ancient city of Swenett, later known as Syene, which in antiquity was the frontier town of Ancient Egypt facing the south. Swenett is supposed to have derived its name from an Egyptian goddess with the same name."


Continuing on a southerly route on a current-day map what do we find? Sudan and Ethiopia.

The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies brown skin color; also, the Septuagint uniformly translates Cush as Αἰθιοπία "Aithiopia."

The historian Josephus gives an account of the nation of Cush, son of Ham and grandson of Noah: "For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites" (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6).

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush

So it is logical to me that names of people and places could be inaccurately understood in the Bible because I have also never considered the Bible to be some magical infallible book.
And yet it is THE historical reference book used in Egyptology, which is the source of most of our secular knowledge about that period of history, c. 2500-1500 B.C. And it's interesting to note that every time the Egyptologists mistakenly think the Bible account is in error, they are eventually proven to be in error themselves. Case-in-point: the must see 2014 documentary film "Patterns of Evidence" by American filmmaker Tim Mahoney, featuring the amazing work done by Egyptologist David Rohl.

I have believed that the Bible was more like a garden that had had some of the weeds pulled so that it was metaphorically more pleasing to look at. And, it was this objectivity towards this process of creating a canon that was more or less scientific and would not create a contradiction between believing that being part of humanity born in sin is somehow still capable of creating a perfected book and subsequent perfected translations.
Within the past generation, we have mapped out the human genome, and in doing so have discovered that DNA is a programming language (based on quaternary code rather than binary). We've also learned that DNA has built-in redundancies and error-correction capabilities to ensure that it can deliver its programming instructions despite significant outside influences.

The Bible is written in the same exact way, with built-in redundancies and error-correction capabilities. That's how it's possible to know when something has been added or taken away from it, because the ignorant people who make such attempts, who have no idea of how the program was designed or written, leave very obvious clues of their crimes behind. And of course our All-Powerful Extra-Terrestrial Creator would never allow puny humans to corrupt His Message to mankind.

Saying people are born in sin, but capable of this is already a contradiction.
Your basic assumption though is flawed. Humans didn't create the Bible.

However, people are capable of testing things to see what works best, so I believed the Bible to be thoroughly tested, but not something that would need to be proven to be perfectly translated.
Unfortunately, the Bible hasn't been thoroughly tested, or we wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves in today. Within the Bible we have been given the PERFECT Law of Liberty, which contains the perfect system of governance, the perfect system of justice, the perfect agricultural policy, the perfect economic policy and the perfect healthy diet.

Instead of putting that perfect Law into practice, we've tried every other way possible, because we think we are so smart and have all the answers, and as a result we have always had crime, poverty, war and death. This proves not only how insane we really are, but that we don't have the answers which is why we are incapable of running this one, tiny planet, much less the entire universe.

Because that is what I am still working with, using the original place names to look at the possibility that things happened in different locations does not create a crisis of faith for me especially since the original languages do not make the same claims that the translations do anyway.
The more logical approach would be to take the Bible account as accurate, study it in depth and outside the veil of organized religion, and then look for the evidence to either corroborate it or disprove it.

An understanding of African history is so undeveloped, there is no real way to say that it doesn't match anything regarding what the scripture says about Israel at the present time.
Yes there is; you just don't "see" it. There are at least 95 different and very detailed Scriptural marks of Israel during the latter-days which are given to us in Scripture. Additionally, there are hundreds of different secular historical texts that span the globe confirming the Biblical descriptions given of the true people Israel during the latter-days. We are literally surrounded by evidence.

In fact, this is a picture of a map of the potential location of the ancient nation of Punt. This land was filled with resources and this is known because ancient Egyptians records tell us that they were trading in this area. It was essentially a "land flowing with milk and honey" in the ancient world, although it almost seems like esoteric information to us because we only learn a small fraction of information about Africa from a historical perspective in the western world.

So this is where Punt is



And this is a map of what has been referred to as the Atlantis of the sands. There is a legendary story connected with these locations that say that long ago, the city was destroyed as a punishment by God. The possibility that this could be the true location of Sodom and Gomorrah has been entertained because of this. I should point out that there is no location near where we consider Israel that includes a legend like this even though Sodom and Gomorrah should also be discoverable within the region since it is where Lot and Abraham parted ways when they arrived in the land. This is just another example of why there is no real evidence to support Israel historically being where we are presently told.
Would you describe ANY of the nations in Africa as being "the isles afar off"? And yet this is how Israel's new home is described in Scripture (Isa. 42:4, Isa. 42:10, Isa. 66:19, Jer. 31:10). Have ANY of the African nations colonized the rest of the world? And yet this too is a description of what the people Israel would do (Gen. 17:4-6, 16, Gen. 35:10-11, Gen. 48:19, Gen. 49:22). Have ANY of the African nations built a navy and become a naval sea power? And yet the true people Israel were to do exactly that (Num. 24:24, Deut. 33:19, 1 kings 9:26-27, Ps. 89:25, Isa. 24:14-16, Isa. 43:16, Isa. 60:5). And the list goes on and on and on, with hundreds of verses in Scripture describing the true people Israel in the latter days, right down to their name, location, and activities. All in amazing detail.

Similarly, if you read and studied the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah, you would recognize the error in your approach. Today, humans have been given the technology to build rockets and crude, nuclear weapons which can destroy on an unprecedented scale, but these things are still nothing more than children's toys relative to the technology that our Extra-terrestrial progenitors have.

The Extra-terrestrial guardians of this planet, aka "angels" destroyed the two cities with a terrible blast (“Fire”), which so TOTALLY annihilated them, that, to this day, although it is known roughly where they were situated, ABSOLUTELY no trace of them has ever been found (Gen. 19:24-26, Sura 15:73-77). The blast was far more efficient, than any crude nuclear-weapon, and destroyed not only the cities, and everything in them, but also the bodies and souls of the inhabitants. That is why no one knows exactly where those two cities were, because there isn't a trace of them left to find.

So consider the proximity of this location to the land of punt and consider the possibility of continental drift, which is difficult to measure to prove. However, we can prove that the tectonic plates shift and cause earthquakes. Therefore, it is possible to consider that these landmasses were possibly closer together at some point.
How does any of that speculation help determine exactly who the true people Israel are today, or where they are located, so that the prophecies surrounding them during the latter-days can be properly understood?

In conclusion, you are exaggerating more than a little when you say there is no way to make a connection between these areas and the locations in scripture especially when you are comparing them with modern assumptions. Superficially, I can make more connections than 200 years of archeological research within the areas of Egypt and Israel have been able to do.
Thus far you've provided nothing more than speculation and personal opinion, which is hardly evidence and proof of nothing, superficially or otherwise. And that includes your false claim of anything that was personally shared being exaggerated.

The other thing that I have always realized about the Bible is that believing in the Bible is the same as believing that better things will come and all truth will come to light. So I do feel like an argument that solely depends on theology as a foundation for the study of cartography is going to fall short in many places.
Agreed, but that isn't what's being discussed here. There is literally a mountain of physical evidence in support of the Biblical prophecies concerning true Israel in the latter-days/end-times, many of which are still being fulfilled. We even have proof carved in stone of Jeremiah's journey to and burial in Cairn T near Loughcrew, Co. Meath, IRELAND, which is backed up not only by the hieroglyphics at the tomb, but by Irish historical accounts, including those found in the Yellow Book of Lecan, the Book of Conquests (Leabhar Gabhala), the Annals of Clonmacnoise, and the metrical Dindsenchas, and the autobiography of Teia Tephi, along with the physical artifacts and other evidence. Too much to list here, but suffice to say, it is a mountain of evidence that simply cannot be ignored by anyone seeking the truth with an open-mind.

So while I respect that you might have a different opinion on this subject than I do, I have probably heard many of the arguments that you are going to make unless you have something to add about the origin of words like Cush or Ethiopia or some more developed understanding of the history of Africa that I am not aware of.

Quite frankly, after spending time on this forum with many Christians speaking from a fundamentalist perspective that often expresses this perspective in ways that I know I wouldn't hear at church, has caused me to do more reflection about my own faith than about anything else I may have studied while I have been here.
Understood. As above please. If people understood the Bible is replete with condemnations of the churches, etc. and the priests, pastors, rabbis, and imams, etc. that run them, perhaps they would be less willing to accept their spiritually blind interpretations of the Scriptures or of what's going on in the world today.

Clearly something is missing in the Bible or in our understanding of it and while I recognize that you are another member that follows Jahtruth if I'm not mistaken? Even still, much of your understanding doesn't deviate from the classical interpretation that I am more than a little familiar with and that I am convinced is not working. Something is wrong, something is missing, and something needs to come into the light, but unfortunately, too many people think they have it all figured out.
It is people's understanding of the Bible that is in error, not the Bible itself. If people wish to pretend that we have no evidence linking the name Cush to the Ethiopians, or that we don't know who the true people Israel are today by dozens and dozens and dozens of Scriptural marks describing them in the latter days, then it's possible to entertain any fantastical idea about who the people Israel may or may not be.
 






Last edited:

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,032
At least one good reason this isn't in the religious section is because this research has far reaching geopolitical implications today, for those who are awake to what's going on in this world.
The research doesn't have far reaching geopolitical implications, except for fundamentalists and literalists like John Bolton or other end-times, rapture obsessed Evangelicals who are acting to achieve what they dream is "biblical prophesy." Another cult is the Chabad Jews and Jared Kushner who lust for their 3rd temple to fulfill "prophesy." They are psychopaths.

There are hundreds of thousands of tribes on the earth. Abrahamic tradition may be your focus but you have to humble and realize it's just one perspective. I personally honor Native American prophesy like the Hopi just as much.

Once it is correctly understood that the 12 tribes of Israel are the British and Anglo-Saxon American people, it is possible to know exactly what is about to happen, not only with American foreign policy in the Middle East, but also with WW3, which is now imminent.
We should be weary of wasting our time like other wannabe end-times "prophets". Jesus said no man knows when the end will be. We're supposed to live consciously, ever prepared for the day of Judgement. Britain and their offspring the US, including European Jews actually have 0% to do with the original Bible peoples that were mythologized. Caucasians, Turks, Persians, Latins, etc., had not yet entered the regions of Arabia (where the Afroasiatic/Semitic families of the Bible were centered) before 1000-500 BC. Like I said, JaPHUT, sHem, and Hem were all Afroasiatic tribes.

If we insist on using religious reference, then the US/UK/Israel are the personification of evil/satan/the devil. They pretend to be of freedom, liberty, and goodness while they exploit others and r*pe the planet. These 3 groups fomented WW2 (Britain w/Rhodes and other propagandists perpetrated WW1) and are the worst international criminals that ever existed.

The only difference is the "Jews" did NOT write the Bible, nor does it belong to them, nor do they follow it, nor does it have anything to do with them, other than to expose them as FRAUDS.
The point I was making is that sometime around 200-300 BC a group evolved in Palestine known as Judeans, whose texts the Septuagint was formed into. This was the age of the Hasmonean kingdom and their sacrificial religious system overseen by priests. This is the first documented history of Judaism. So yes, these Jews did write the Bible that we're discussing.

It could be imagined how newcomers to the region could take much earlier tales and appropriate the identity/myths for themselves. The fact remains there is no proof of an Israelite kingdom in the area of the Levant. Curious enough, historians don't believe the ancient inhabitants were monotheistic, having found as many idols representing Ashteroth as her husband Yao.

The name Ham is Hebrew and means "burnt, black". Ham had four sons: Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
Again this is a debunked, eurocentric misunderstanding of the Hebrew language and faulty exegesis of scripture. Anglo-protestants after the Renaissance used these incorrect understandings to legitimize the trans-Atlantic slave trade and subjugation of non-Christians in general:

"For the meaning of this name Ham, Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names) confidently derives it from the verb חמם (hamam), meaning to be hot, and renders it Heat, Black. Then he goes off on the tried and commonly rejected ramble that connects blackness with sin. Jones rather reluctantly admits that Ham was the grandfather of Nimrod, the world's first emperor, but quickly relativizes this feat by fantastically stating, "no doubt [Ham] was the sole introducer of the worship of the sun," and thundering, "even while the hand of God was bearing him up in safety in the Ark of gopher wood, the leaven of his horrid idolatry was working in his breast".

What escapes the otherwise fine scholar is that:

-This version of the name Ham is also identical to חם (ham), father-in-law, from the unused root חמה (hmh) of which the cognates mean to protect or surround.

-In the Bible not blackness but whiteness is associated with sin. Miriam turned white because of her aggression against Moses' second wife, who was a Cushite and thus quite likely very black. And the bride of the Song of Solomon, often regarded as a type of the Church, was black as well (Song of Solomon 1:5)."

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Ham.html

The truth is what matters. Unfortunately people today couldn't care less about the truth, but are content with the fictions of their own imaginations, and will fight to defend them, regardless of how baseless and untenable they are.
I agree. The most important battle is the struggle within ourselves to see reality as it is.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
The research doesn't have far reaching geopolitical implications,
According to whom? You? The implications of knowing in advance that the U.S. and U.K. will lose WW3 to Russia and China couldn't be any greater.

except for fundamentalists and literalists like John Bolton or other end-times, rapture obsessed Evangelicals who are acting to achieve what they dream is "biblical prophesy." Another cult is the Chabad Jews and Jared Kushner who lust for their 3rd temple to fulfill "prophesy." They are psychopaths.
Don't do that. You're attempting to lump together those who are correctly identifying who the true people Israel are for everyone's benefit, with the Christian Zionists and Counterfeit Jews who are trying to destroy the true people Israel, to confuse the issue.

There are hundreds of thousands of tribes on the earth.
But there are only 12 of those tribes who are the true people Israel.

Abrahamic tradition may be your focus but you have to humble and realize it's just one perspective. I personally honor Native American prophesy like the Hopi just as much.
There is nothing in Native American Prophecy that negates anything that's been shared from Scripture about the present-day location of the 12 tribes of Israel. Likewise, it isn't humble or honest in any way to ignore the dozens and dozens and dozens of Scriptural marks of the true people Israel during the latter-days.

JAHTruth.net/chiefdan

Have you read "He Walked the Americas" by L. Taylor Hansen please? A few excerpts from it below:-

Legends of the Pale Prophet from the Native Peoples of the Americas.

- The legends that follow are the legends of the Healer
. These legends were told by the fireside of a “saintly white teacher,” who performed miracles with healing and control over the winds, waters, and other natural items. All describe his eyes as gray-green like the ocean and told stories of the future. His symbol has been woven into blankets, carved on canyon walls, put on pottery and danced in dances. His name has been given to mountains and rivers.

- The “Algonquin of the Eastern Seaboard” tell they received their name for the Dawn Light from the Pale One. They wouldn’t name the Prophet as He had asked them to do. They wanted to know what He was called where He grew up and He told them a namethat was strange and hard to say. But they tried hard to say it: Chee-Zoos, God of the Dawn Light, basically the same as the Puants.

- The Chippewa remember very well the “pale Great Master.” They tell He gave them medicine lodges where the signs and emblems are secret and taken from those across the ocean. And according to the author, they keep this secret to this day.

Common to almost all:

*He was a white man with a beard
*He said He came from across the sea
*He would choose twelve “disciples”
*He spoke of His Father’s Kingdom
*He wore a bright white garment with golden sandals
*He made references to the future
*He had control over the wind and all elements
*He had the ability to heal wounds
*His sign was the cross
*He taught love and peace
*He taught that good deeds were important
*He referred them to the Dawn Star

We should be weary of wasting our time like other wannabe end-times "prophets".
Malachi 4:4-5
4:4 Remember ye and return to The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgments.
4:5 Behold, I WILL send you EliJAH the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the "I AM" (Sura 43:61):

Jesus said no man knows when the end will be. We're supposed to live consciously, ever prepared for the day of Judgement.
Agreed. Hence the reason for posting this information in this thread: to RAISE the consciousness of a world that is sound asleep in the human condition.

Britain and their offspring the US, including European Jews actually have 0% to do with the original Bible peoples that were mythologized. Caucasians, Turks, Persians, Latins, etc., had not yet entered the regions of Arabia (where the Afroasiatic/Semitic families of the Bible were centered) before 1000-500 BC. Like I said, JaPHUT, sHem, and Hem were all Afroasiatic tribes.
But you saying these things doesn't make them true. And, in fact, from all of the available evidence, both Biblical and secular, your assumptions simply do NOT hold up under the least bit of scrutiny.

If we insist on using religious reference, then the US/UK/Israel are the personification of evil/satan/the devil. They pretend to be of freedom, liberty, and goodness while they exploit others and r*pe the planet. These 3 groups fomented WW2 (Britain w/Rhodes and other propagandists perpetrated WW1) and are the worst international criminals that ever existed.
The counterfeit Jewish state of Israel stole the land and the name Israel from the U.K. (Ephraim) and the U.S. (Manasseh). These same counterfeit Jews also control the central banks, and thus are also running the U.S. and U.K. from within. This isn't my opinion; these are very well-documented facts that have been shared here, on this forum.


This too is part of Biblical prophecy.

While people get the leaders they deserve, it should be pointed out that many within the U.S. and U.K. do NOT support what the counterfeit queen (Elizabeth) and the counterfeit Jews and Christian Zionists and their respective, puppet governments are doing. They too (the British and American people) have their heads on the chopping blocks thanks to these extremely evil war-mongering people.

It should also be pointed out that one of the most important marks of the true people Israel - in specific, the sons of Joseph (Ephraim/U.K. and Manasseh/U.S.) is that they would serve as the Two Witnesses to the rest of the world, which is exactly what they've done. The U.S. and U.K. have translated and published the Bible into many of the world's languages, and then carried it around the world to almost every nation, including all of the nations on the African continent.

The point I was making is that sometime around 200-300 BC a group evolved in Palestine known as Judeans, whose texts the Septuagint was formed into. This was the age of the Hasmonean kingdom and their sacrificial religious system overseen by priests. This is the first documented history of Judaism. So yes, these Jews did write the Bible that we're discussing.
You're skipping a lot of history there, and rewriting some of it to suit your own ideas, none of which are supported by actual evidence, and all of which are really nothing more than regurgitating the same counterfeit Jewish propaganda that you seem to be rightly fighting against.

There were two mass conversions to Talmudic Judaism that took place before and after that time frame. The first took place in Babylon, c. 588-518 BC, when the "House of Judah" (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) were held in captivity in Babylon. The second took place c. 150 BC under the rule of John Hyrcanus, when the Edomites surrounding Jerusalem were converted en masse to Talmudic Judaism.

Today, most people refer to the organized religion known as Talmudic Judaism as "the Jews", wrongly thinking that most of these "Jews" are descendants of the Israelite tribes. In fact, it's even worse than that, because most have been duped into believing that "the Jews" somehow represent all 12 of the tribes of Israel, even though that is impossible and totally unscriptural. The 10 northern tribes, known as the "House of Israel" had already been taken into captivity over 100 years earlier (c. 722 BC) by a different captor (the Assyrians) and did NOT return to the land of Israel.

The Levitical priesthood was abolished by God Himself c. 600 B.C., as evidenced in both the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 23:1-5, Ezek. 34:1-10, 23), in favor of ONE High Priest to come: Christ. So the adherents of Talmudic Judaism, most of which were Idumean Edomites, did NOT write the Bible, even if they referred to it. The first five books of the Bible were GIVEN to Moses (the Torah which, in English, means "The Law"), as evidenced by not one single letter of them being out of place. The other books of the Old Covenant were then given to the prophets of Israel by God to write down. NONE of these people were Talmudic "Jews", as they've been re-branded in the counterfeit Jewish history books since then. In brief, the texts that were delivered by these people to create the Greek Septuagint were NOT of their own hand.

It could be imagined how newcomers to the region could take much earlier tales and appropriate the identity/myths for themselves. The fact remains there is no proof of an Israelite kingdom in the area of the Levant. Curious enough, historians don't believe the ancient inhabitants were monotheistic, having found as many idols representing Ashteroth as her husband Yao.
Your false claims are in direct contradiction to the Bible, as well as the most noted historians of the period.

Again this is a debunked, eurocentric misunderstanding of the Hebrew language and faulty exegesis of scripture. Anglo-protestants after the Renaissance used these incorrect understandings to legitimize the trans-Atlantic slave trade and subjugation of non-Christians in general:

"For the meaning of this name Ham, Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names) confidently derives it from the verb חמם (hamam), meaning to be hot, and renders it Heat, Black. Then he goes off on the tried and commonly rejected ramble that connects blackness with sin. Jones rather reluctantly admits that Ham was the grandfather of Nimrod, the world's first emperor, but quickly relativizes this feat by fantastically stating, "no doubt [Ham] was the sole introducer of the worship of the sun," and thundering, "even while the hand of God was bearing him up in safety in the Ark of gopher wood, the leaven of his horrid idolatry was working in his breast".

What escapes the otherwise fine scholar is that:

-This version of the name Ham is also identical to חם (ham), father-in-law, from the unused root חמה (hmh) of which the cognates mean to protect or surround.

-In the Bible not blackness but whiteness is associated with sin. Miriam turned white because of her aggression against Moses' second wife, who was a Cushite and thus quite likely very black. And the bride of the Song of Solomon, often regarded as a type of the Church, was black as well (Song of Solomon 1:5)."

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Ham.html
Nonsense. You're trying to argue that black is white and white is black and that good is evil, etc. and it will NEVER work.

The color white is quite obviously and universally associated with light and purity. Every other color immediately shows up in contrast to white, which is why mixing any other color with white defiles it. A bride's wedding gown is white in color as a sign of her virginity/purity.

The color black is a quite obviously and universally associated with darkness and with deception (evil). "The night is black as pitch (pitch-black)". Black universally absorbs light (a scientific black-body). When do people do their evil? In the shadows or in the darkness.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil.

I agree. The most important battle is the struggle within ourselves to see reality as it is.
Absolutely.
 






Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
And yet the Septuagint uniformly translates Cush as Αἰθιοπία "Aithiopia."
I'm glad you mentioned the Septuagint. Tell you what, if you can tell me where the Septuagint came from, I'll consider the connection between Cush and Ethiopians.

The name Ham is Hebrew and means "burnt, black". Ham had four sons: Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
This is also an inconclusive reference for me because there is no evidence that Hebrew is actually an ancient language and so the connection to this reference is something that was invented somewhere during the time that Masoretic text was established. Unless, you have some evidence that the Hebrew you are using to make this connection is ancient. Obviously, Semitic languages are ancient, but as far as defining the word Ham as meaning burnt, or black. How do you prove this?

There is no question that Mizraim is Egypt. We're told in the Book of Ezekiel, in Chapter 29, that Father (God) will lay waste to Egypt, from the tower of Syene unto the border of Cush (Ezek. 29:10).

So where is/was Syene? It was in the south of Egypt facing south of Egypt.

Aswan is the ancient city of Swenett, later known as Syene, which in antiquity was the frontier town of Ancient Egypt facing the south. Swenett is supposed to have derived its name from an Egyptian goddess with the same name."


Continuing on a southerly route on a current-day map what do we find? Sudan and Ethiopia.

The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies brown skin color; also, the Septuagint uniformly translates Cush as Αἰθιοπία "Aithiopia."

The historian Josephus gives an account of the nation of Cush, son of Ham and grandson of Noah: "For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites" (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6).
This is probably the most interesting thing you are saying and you are rushing through it. The reference to Egypt in Ezekiel 29:10. I would like for you to explain how you believe this was fulfilled in regard to Egypt. I just don't see how Egypt was laid waste. It is still somewhat thriving as a tourist destination. Therefore, using this verse as a reference for identifying Egypt is questionable, but I am interested in hearing whether you can take it further than this.

Without this, the rest of what you are saying is without foundation, even while it is interesting. However, I will point out that what you are calling Ethiopia today has more to do with restored independence in a certain area and has nothing to do with a historical reference to Ethiopia or where Ethiopia's boundaries existed historically.

It is interesting to notice a map highlighting the climate of Africa in comparison with older maps showing Ethiopia as a dominant country in an area a little further south than where you are suggesting.





So like I was saying, it is possible that Cush and Ethiopia are two different places, and there is no reason to associate what we are calling Ethiopia today with either reference in scripture.

As far as what you are saying in the rest of your post. Briefly, Egyptology has used the Bible as a reference book because the motivation for archeology within Egypt for a long time was to prove the history of the Exodus, and these efforts have still failed to do this.

The part about the Isles from afar is interesting too, but you are going a little too fast through this information as well. I understand that you believe there are a lot of verses proving this, but if you could narrow this down to a couple that you would be able to discuss in greater detail, I would appreciate it.
 






Last edited:

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
I'm glad you mentioned the Septuagint. Tell you what, if you can tell me where the Septuagint came from, I'll consider the connection between Cush and Ethiopians.



This is also an inconclusive reference for me because there is no evidence that Hebrew is actually an ancient language and so the connection to this reference is something that was invented somewhere during the time that Masoretic text was established. Unless, you have some evidence that the Hebrew you are using to make this connection is ancient. Obviously, Semitic languages are ancient, but as far as defining the word Ham as meaning burnt, or black. How do you prove this?



This is probably the most interesting thing you are saying and you are rushing through it. The reference to Egypt in Ezekiel 29:10. I would like for you to explain how you believe this was fulfilled in regard to Egypt. I just don't see how Egypt was laid waste. It is still somewhat thriving as a tourist destination. Therefore, using this verse as a reference for identifying Egypt is questionable, but I am interested in hearing whether you can take it further than this.

Without this, the rest of what you are saying is without foundation, even while it is interesting. However, I will point out that what you are calling Ethiopia today has more to do with restored independence in a certain area and has nothing to do with a historical reference to Ethiopia or where Ethiopia's boundaries existed historically.

It is interesting to notice a map highlighting the climate of Africa in comparison with older maps showing Ethiopia as a dominant country in an area a little further south than where you are suggesting.





So like I was saying, it is possible that Cush and Ethiopia are two different places, and there is no reason to associate what we are calling Ethiopia today with either reference in scripture.

As far as what you are saying in the rest of your post. Briefly, Egyptology has used the Bible as a reference book because the motivation for archeology within Egypt for a long time was to prove the history of the Exodus, and these efforts have still failed to do this.

The part about the Isles from afar is interesting too, but you are going a little too fast through this information as well. I understand that you believe there are a lot of verses proving this, but if you could narrow this down to a couple that you would be able to discuss in greater detail, I would appreciate it.
Egypt was the lone world superpower during the period of time the Israelites were there, beginning with Joseph, who became the second most powerful man in the world behind only the Pharoah. Comparing the Egypt of then, with the Egypt of today; when God said He would destroy Egypt, He was not joking. So your feeble attempt to argue that Egypt is still a "thriving tourist destination" is utterly ridiculous and proof you're more interested in arguing than in the truth.

Please take the time to watch the documentary film "Patterns of Evidence" by Tim Mahoney, along with the follow-up interviews featuring him and David Rohl, before you make any more baseless assumptions about the Exodus or about the Hebrew language, which is where our modern alphabet originated. If you still have any honest questions after that, please let me know.
 






Top