The Little Known Biblical Curse of Egypt by Isaiah
- Thread starter MMS
- Start date
YOGEBEAR09
RAM Gang. Horns up
Your long lost redbone tribeconsider the location
its the boundary between africa and asia/europe
so they could be redbones@YOGEBEAR09
DoubleClutch
Superstar
Your long lost redbone tribe
Those are probably the original “Arab” people.
Which Bible figure was described as “red” again?
Those are probably the original “Arab” people.
Which Bible figure was described as “red” again?
the very next chapter of Isaiah says this
Isaiah 20
the bible distinguishes them. And once again the fierce king of assyria is present...
Ty Daniels
All Star
Chief X is a LIAR AND A CLOWN!!!
ANYONE who has actually studied Nile Valley History, will know that there are ALSO MULTIPLE Depictions of Egyptians and "Nubians" using the same DAMN colors, and facial features.
More so, the "Nubians" in their own tombs were using the same "Reddish Brown" color, for themselves.
The "Nubians" ALSO had depictions of them "Subjugating" other Africans and "Asiatics".
He is the one who is "Cherry-picking".
And one African Group "Beefing" (creating Borders) with another group MEANS NOTHING!
EXAMPLE: The Walls of Benin, constructed by One Group Of Africans (Benin Empire), to keep OTHER Africans out.
It is White People, who conflated Nile Valley "Ethnic Conflicts", into RACIAL Conflicts, where they did not Exist.
We are CURRENTLY in the situation we are in because Intra-African Conflicts were Exploited by Europeans, which allowed Slavery and Colonialism.
DoubleClutch
Superstar
Interesting
But what do you think about the claims on Ethiopians to be the Egyptian predecessors.
Ethiopians history and culture goes further back apparently especially if we are considering it all ONE black African people
Ty Daniels
All Star
Interesting
But what do you think about the claims on Ethiopians to be the Egyptian predecessors.
Ethiopians history and culture goes further back apparently especially if we are considering it all ONE black African people
The "Aetheiopia" of Ancient Times, is NOT the Current Ethiopia, which was once called "Abyssinia".
The "Aeithiopa/Ethiopia" that gave rise to the Egyptian Civilization, is in "Sudan/Nubia".
Africans leaving the the drying "Green Sahara" migrated to the Nile Valley, bringing the precursors of "Egypto-Nubian" Civilization with them.
King Taharqa in the Bible, is the King of Ethiopia/Kush which is in reference to "Sudan".
The Word "Ethiopia" in Ancient Times, was used for some areas in "Arabia", "Sudan", as well as the interior of Africa/South Of Egypt.
The "Atlantic Ocean" on the West Coast of Africa, was once called the "Ethiopic Sea".
When the modern "Racial" Theories were being proposed, the "Black Race"(All of It) was called the "Ethiopian Race".
Ancient Egypt was EXTREMELY AFRICAN, anyone who denies this doesn't know anything about the subject.
Last edited:
At first I thought the IG poster was kidding, but it appears he’s actually serious.
The number of deep branchings leading to African-specific clades has doubled, further strengthening the MSY-based evidence for a modern human origin in the African continent. An analysis of 2204 African DNA samples showed that the deepest clades of the revised MSY phylogeny are currently found in central and northwest Africa, opening new perspectives on early human presence in the continent.(Fulvio Cruciani et al., A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa, Volume 88, Issue 6, 10 June 2011, Pages 814-818)
"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
Egyptology.yale.edu
"In the Rayayna Desert we have evidence of ossuary burials, and similar interrments are also known from Gebel Ramlah (between Nabta Playa and the southern Sinn el-Kiddab).28 The burial practices at Nuq‘ Maneih contribute to our suspicions — aroused by our work at Rayayna — that the desert communities along the Darb Gallaba/Darb Bitân route disinterred those who had died during preceding years’ treks, and brought the skeletized and dismembered bodies to major centers for burial. The practice of ossuary burial connects the Rayayna, Nabta, and Nuq‘ Maneih groups.
High Road between Kurkur and Dunqul
Our surveys of the route between Kurkur and Dunqul across the Sinn el-Kiddab plateau (Figure 22) have revealed a number of archaeological sites, the most extensive located near the midway point between Kurkur and Dunqul. This area shares features with sites in Kurkur, including hearth mounds and slab structures, and preserves evidence of intensive, early activity. Although some Predynastic Egyptian pottery is present (e.g. Marl A1 jars), most of the ceramic material at the site belongs to “Final Neolithic”/early A-Group/Libo Nubian cultures, linking such a presence at the nodes of the north-south routes through Kurkur — the Wadi el-Hôl and Rayayna to the north, and sites such as Gebel Ramlah and Nabta Playa to the south. Some material is paralleled in the Badarian, Tasian and Libo-Nubian corpora, with fabrics comparable to Late and Final Neolithic material from Nabta Playa. Also present are vessels of fine silt with interior/exterior ripple burnishing. Sherds belonging to Early Neolithic traditions also occur at the site (these include sherds identical with those of the Al Jerar phase, with Gatto’s R1 decoration type29), as well as at various sites in Kurkur, and reveal obvious connections between the Kurkur area and the Nabta region and points beyond."
Egyptology.yale.edu
*Some groups (using cemeteries E-01-2, E-03-1, E-03-2, and E-09-4) show some affiliation with sub-Saharan Africans, readable in the pottery assemblage and other grave goods, as well as some morphological features “
(Irish 2010; Kobusiewicz and Kabaciński 2010; Czekaj-Zastawny and Kabaciński 2015).*
*”There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.*
*In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas* [...]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
*In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.*
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography"
(Kathryn A. Bard, Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology (2015))
“Meanwhile, in the Western Sahara, Joel Irish’s (2005) dental study, of 671 individuals spanning the Late Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.
Irish’s results are particularly informative in light of his earlier study of the human mortuary remains from Nabta Playa (Irish, 2001). Analyses of dental and osseous non-metric traits exhibit both sub-Saharan and North African linkages, with cranial morphologies yielding a similar result.
Taken together, the unexplored potential of the data from Saharan isotopic, genetic and skeletal studies lays in demonstrating the degree to which populations grade into each other, as well as intra-and inter-regional patterns of interactions and integration.”
(Michael Brass, Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.)
(Michael Brass, Revisiting a hoary chestnut: the nature of early cattle domestication in North-East Africa, Sahara (Segrate). 2013 Jul 1; 24: 65–70.)
“Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East. Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.”
(Michal Kobusiewicz, Joel D. Irish et al., Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt, Gebel Ramlah—a Unique Newborns’ Cemetery of the Neolithic Sahara (2009, 2018))
Last edited:
“The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time. This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
(Godde K, A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley (July 2018))
A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley - PubMed
The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
“Post-Pleistocene climatic improvement in the Northern Hemisphere after ca. 9550 BC allowed human populations to recolonize large parts of North Africa in what is today the Sahara Desert. In the Egyptian Western Desert, the beginnings of human occupation date as early as ca. 9300 BC. Occupation continued until the middle of the third millennium BC when final desertification of the area no longer afforded human occupation. The settlement of the Neolithic cattle and sheep/goat herders developed along with the rhythm of alternating wet and dry climatic oscillations. One of the areas occupied intensively during the early and middle Holocene was Gebel Ramlah. Pastoral populations established their settlements around the shores of a paleo-lake adjacent to a rocky massif, to exploit the local savannah environment. During most of the Neolithic, they buried their dead dispersed outside of their settlements. Only during the Final Neolithic (after ca. 4600 BC) did they place them exclusively in cemeteries. Of six Final Neolithic cemeteries investigated at Gebel Ramlah to date, one is entirely unprecedented, not only in North Africa but also globally at such an early date. For just under 200 years (ca. 4500–4300 BC), it served exclusively for the inhumation of infants who died around (perinate) or shortly after the time of birth (neonate). Thirty-two burial pits contained skeletal remains of 39 individuals, not only infants but also at least two adult females accompanied by perinates/neonates. Older children (> 3 years) were interred at a nearby cemetery that primarily comprised adults.
[…]
The area around Gebel Ramlah was settled since the beginning of the Early Neolithic, and the density of settlement reached its maximum during the El Jerar phase (climatic optimum of the Holocene). Traces from the Middle, Late, and Final Neolithic are less intensive and random. In fact, for the Final Neolithic, we have more information on mortuary behavior than for the settlement pattern and subsistence. Between 4500 and 4300 BC, south-western fringes of the Gebel Ramlah lake served as an extended burial ground for different populations. Different ancestry and relationships of these populations can be followed on the basis of archaeological and, partially, bioarchaeological arguments.
These people were certainly mobile, perhaps spending only a few months per year at Gebel Ramlah. The E-09-02 cemeteries for neonates and adults belonged to another, more sedentary group with limited mobility; however, we cannot trace their origins based on the available record. An almost complete lack of grave goods does not allow comparative analyses. On the other hand, peculiar characters of the skeletal remains at these cemeteries—numerous neonatal/perinatal individuals and poorly preserved subadults/adults—do not allow reliable studies based on craniometric or dental data. But, qualitatively, there are no obvious differences among all populations from Gebel Ramlah at the beginning of the Final Neolithic. Thus, the two groups, culturally different, were likely not much different biologically, possibly deriving from the same region of Africa.
[…]
Ethnographic data offer support by showing how radically different children are treated in various African societies (Gottlieb 2004a, b; Pawlik 2004; Kabaciński et al. (2018)).”
(Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny & Tomasz Goslar & Joel D. Irish & Jacek Kabaciński, Gebel Ramlah—a Unique Newborns’ Cemetery of the Neolithic Sahara,African Archaeological Review volume 35, pages393–405(2018))
Gebel Ramlah—a Unique Newborns’ Cemetery of the Neolithic Sahara - African Archaeological Review
Post-Pleistocene climatic improvement in the Northern Hemisphere after ca. 9550 BC allowed human populations to recolonize large parts of North Africa in what is today the Sahara Desert. In the Egyptian Western Desert, the beginnings of human occupation date as early as ca. 9300 BC. Occupation...
link.springer.com
Last edited:
DoubleClutch
Superstar
In Jewish teaching which one of these do animals have?
neffesh n'shama or רֽוּחַַ ru'ah
Koichos
Pro
Good question. The word נֶֶֽפֶֶֶשׁ neffesh is actually used in reference to animals in B'réishît 1:20, 1:21, 1:24 and 1:30—all of which are BEFORE its first use in connection with a human being, which does not occur until 2:7.
So, an animal IS a neffesh and it HAS a ru'ah (ibid., 6:17, 7:15), although it does NOT have a n'shama ('soul').
Consider, however, the account of Bîl'am's she-donkey in B'mîdbar 22:28, and note that the text does NOT say מֶֶה חָָטָָאתִִי לָָךְְ 'how have I sinned against you', but only מֶֶה עָָשִִׂיתִִי לָָךְְ 'what have I done to you [to make you hit me these three times]'—because 'sinning' is meaningless when applied to an animal (even a 'talking' one)!
