That's racist!

[volfanhill]

Oxford & Cambridge are media… ok

Well he Fake attended Duke

 

[85SugarVol]

People listening to a guy who was caught lying about attending Duke. Ok

Sorry. I couldn’t resist.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Oxford & Cambridge are media… ok

You cited CNN as well. But nonetheless why don't you respond to actual arguments against the study? Do you think one site from a time period of foreign rule is sufficient in determining the demographics of the native Egyptian population that spanned a far larger area and for thousands of years earlier?

Simply citing authority is a logical fallacy. Oxford and Cambridge have been wrong before. Simply saying they posted the study doesn't make the study accurate.

 

[WeeohdeeWood]

 

[FLVOL_79]

He does make me lean more toward the aliens building the giant pyramids for power plants.

This is true. I was pretty skeptical of that once upon a time but the more "research" and "reading" he does I think those crazy f###ers on TV might actually be on to something.

 

[85SugarVol]

You cited CNN as well. But nonetheless why don't you respond to actual arguments against the study? Do you think one site from a time period of foreign rule is sufficient in determining the demographics of the native Egyptian population that spanned a far larger area and for thousands of years earlier?

Simply citing authority is a logical fallacy. Oxford and Cambridge have been wrong before. Simply saying they posted the study doesn't make the study accurate.

Yea I’m going to defer to Oxford & Cambridge over your amateur sleuth analysis of the pictures.

Where is the link to your study debunking the one that Oxford, Cambridge, CNN, Nature, and others are still running ?

 

[LouderVol]

I know. And those same groups were described by many as "black" including the Bible that listed Nimrod (King of Ancient Mesopotamia) as the son of Kush (biblical name for Ancient Nubia) and grandson of Ham ("father of the black race").

Also note the Ancient Greeks said the historical lands of the Ethiopians (aka black people) included the entire Arabian Peninsula as far north as Syria. So yeah the fact hair braiding was a big time in the "Middle East" back then is actually proof that you were dealing with a black people there as well. Which is attested to in ancient sources.

they also lived for 400 years a piece apparently too. you have to get the horse in front of the cart.

nothing in the bible describes any of those sons as bearing specific traits we would take as defining a race. and from a DNA perspective it doesn't make a ton of sense to assume one father would have three sons that different where over a couple thousand years they generated completely different races.

you are still falling into the same linguistic trap. you are assigning the racial traits of those that currently live in an area that bears the names of a people who came before them, to those people who were there before them.

I lived in Chattanooga, the native American name for the place. knowing this and seeing me, a white person, who lived there, would you assume the Native Americans looked like me? what if you dug up some artifact from a couple hundred years ago, that showed another white person? would you then assume that is what the native americans looked like?

of course not. but that is the leap you are making.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Yea I’m going to defer to Oxford & Cambridge over your amateur sleuth analysis of the pictures.

Where is the link to your study debunking the one that Oxford, Cambridge, CNN, Nature, and others are still running ?

Here's the scholarly response to the Scheunemann study: OSF

The study title is below in case the link doesn't work.

Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion​

Authors
Jean-Philippe Gourdine, Shomarka Keita, Jean-Luc Gourdine, and Alain Anselin​

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

nothing in the bible describes any of those sons as bearing specific traits we would take as defining a race. and from a DNA perspective it doesn't make a ton of sense to assume one father would have three sons that different where over a couple thousand years they generated completely different races.

I think you're missing the point of why I cited the Bible. I'm not trying to prove Noah actually existed and his 3 sons after the flood founded the different races of man. I keep citing the Bible to show how people back then thought about their relationships with one another.

If the Ancient Egyptians were a middle eastern looking population and the Ancient Nubians were a black looking population, it probably wouldn't have made sense to argue they were descended from the same ancestor while the Persians and Greeks (who today look similar to Middle Easterners) were descended from another. The fact the writers of the Bible grouped the Ancient Egyptians with the Nubians means that they saw those two groups as being more closely related than either was to the Greeks and Persians.

Similarly, if the writers of the Bible are gonna say the King of Ancient Mesopotamia (Nimrod) was the son of Cush (Nubia) rather than the son of Persia or Greece then that should tell you the writers of the Bible saw Ancient Mesopotamia as being closer to a black nation like Nubia than a European or Middle Eastern civilization.

The point here is the people back then wouldn't be associating all these nations together unless they resembled each other. Imagine trying to sell people on the idea your religion is true by arguing the Chinese are more related to Europeans than the Japanese. It would get you laughed at. So when writing these creation stories the writers of the Bible had to make their religious beliefs align with what the people could see with their eyes. And if everyone saw that the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Nubians were black then it would stand to reason that they shared closer ancestry than to populations that weren't black.

 

[volbound1700]

Well he Fake attended Duke

Honestly, I just like all the discussion about Ancient Egypt.

 

[LouderVol]

I think you're missing the point of why I cited the Bible. I'm not trying to prove Noah actually existed and his 3 sons after the flood founded the different races of man. I keep citing the Bible to show how people back then thought about their relationships with one another.

If the Ancient Egyptians were a middle eastern looking population and the Ancient Nubians were a black looking population, it probably wouldn't have made sense to argue they were descended from the same ancestor while the Persians and Greeks (who today look similar to Middle Easterners) were descended from another. The fact the writers of the Bible grouped the Ancient Egyptians with the Nubians means that they saw those two groups as being more closely related than either was to the Greeks and Persians.

Similarly, if the writers of the Bible are gonna say the King of Ancient Mesopotamia (Nimrod) was the son of Cush (Nubia) rather than the son of Persia or Greece then that should tell you the writers of the Bible saw Ancient Mesopotamia as being closer to a black nation like Nubia than a European or Middle Eastern civilization.

The point here is the people back then wouldn't be associating all these nations together unless they resembled each other. Imagine trying to sell people on the idea your religion is true by arguing the Chinese are more related to Europeans than the Japanese. It would get you laughed at. So when writing these creation stories the writers of the Bible had to make their religious beliefs align with what the people could see with their eyes. And if everyone saw that the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Nubians were black then it would stand to reason that they shared closer ancestry than to populations that weren't black.

except the bible's primary point wasn't to distinguish races, the bible would be pretty neutral on that. it most likely would have been dividing people's up along the lines of religion. which could still use the same brotherly divisions without referring to race at all.

like I have said, you have the cart, preset expectations, before the horse, evidence. you could end up being right, but you are presenting a TERRIBLE argument for it. Its a bit Graham Hancock going on here.

you take a good question. set your expected results based on a preset, but limited, understanding, and then jump through any hoop you can to get any evidence to match your expected results. while ignoring the rest, and presenting bad arguments. you could ultimately be right, but you have a terrible argument.

 

[C-south]

except the bible's primary point wasn't to distinguish races, the bible would be pretty neutral on that. it most likely would have been dividing people's up along the lines of religion. which could still use the same brotherly divisions without referring to race at all.

like I have said, you have the cart, preset expectations, before the horse, evidence. you could end up being right, but you are presenting a TERRIBLE argument for it. Its a bit Graham Hancock going on here.

you take a good question. set your expected results based on a preset, but limited, understanding, and then jump through any hoop you can to get any evidence to match your expected results. while ignoring the rest, and presenting bad arguments. you could ultimately be right, but you have a terrible argument.

He’s delusional and brainwashed. I mean he’s already referenced malcom x and “the nation of Islam” to defend his beliefs. I doubt he cares anything about what the Bible says and if he does he’ll hurt himself performing some absurd mental gymnastics. He’s going to believe what he wants at this point no matter how ridiculous.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[C-south]

Got to turn it into the rest of Africa.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

except the bible's primary point wasn't to distinguish races, the bible would be pretty neutral on that.

Brother what you think descent means? The Bible focuses on genealogies, descent, and tribes. How else do you know who are the chosen people and who ain't?

Race is just our word for grouping people with similar phenotypes. But humans have been grouping each other from the beginning. To say the Bible doesn't focus on race is to be totally ignorant of what race denotes.

Just because you don't like the idea that the Bible endorses Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia as being black nations doesn't mean that's not what the Bible is exactly doing. The bible explicitly says Ancient Egypt (Mizraim) and Nubia (Cush) are sons of Ham and that Nimrod (King of Mesopotamia) was the son of Cush (aka Nubia). And all this is in stark contrast to the Arabs and Jews who are sons of Shem and the Greeks and Persians who are sons of Japeth.

The Bible is very clear in saying that the Greeks, Persians, Arabs, and Jews are not as related to Ancient Egypt and Nimrod as Nubia aka Cush.

 

[FLVOL_79]

People listening to a guy who was caught lying about attending Duke. Ok

D4H? Did he attend Duke like I attended Harvard? For a 2 week business certificate?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

He’s delusional and brainwashed. I mean he’s already referenced malcom x and “the nation of Islam” to defend his beliefs. I doubt he cares anything about what the Bible says and if he does he’ll hurt himself performing some absurd mental gymnastics. He’s going to believe what he wants at this point no matter how ridiculous.

Seems I'm more well-versed in the Bible than yall since I know Egypt (Mizraim) and Nubia (Cush) are sons of Ham (said to be father of the black race) while the Arabs and Jews are sons of Shem and the Persians and Greeks are sons of Japeth.

Genealogy is important in the Bible. The writers wouldn't go through the ages and relationships if it wasn't. Just because these genealogies go against your preferred opinions doesn't make the Bible devoid of these claims. Whether you like it or not the Bible views the Ancient Egyptians as a black race. And all biblical scholars in antiquity believed this. It's why the Jewish scholars created the Curse of Ham as a validation for the enslavement of black people. Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

 

[LouderVol]

Brother what you think descent means? The Bible focuses on genealogies, descent, and tribes. How else do you know who are the chosen people and who ain't?

Race is just our word for grouping people with similar phenotypes. But humans have been grouping each other from the beginning. To say the Bible doesn't focus on race is to be totally ignorant of what race denotes.

Just because you don't like the idea that the Bible endorses Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia as being black nations doesn't mean that's not what the Bible is exactly doing. The bible explicitly says Ancient Egypt (Mizraim) and Nubia (Cush) are sons of Ham and that Nimrod (King of Mesopotamia) was the son of Cush (aka Nubia). And all this is in stark contrast to the Arabs and Jews who are sons of Shem and the Greeks and Persians who are sons of Japeth.

The Bible is very clear in saying that the Greeks, Persians, Arabs, and Jews are not as related to Ancient Egypt and Nimrod as Nubia aka Cush.

we already established that the bible wasn't giving out the actual genealogies. so I don't see how you can circle back to it actually being about race.

the bible is concerned with the cultures. the people of Abraham weren't chosen because they were more black-ish than others. they were chosen for their cultural distinctions. you are completely rewriting 1 if not 3 major religions to make it fit your race argument.

 

[C-south]

Seems I'm more well-versed in the Bible than yall since I know Egypt (Mizraim) and Nubia (Cush) are sons of Ham (said to be father of the black race) while the Arabs and Jews are sons of Shem and the Persians and Greeks are sons of Japeth.

Genealogy is important in the Bible. The writers wouldn't go through the ages and relationships if it wasn't. Just because these genealogies go against your preferred opinions doesn't make the Bible devoid of these claims. Whether you like it or not the Bible views the Ancient Egyptians as a black race. And all biblical scholars in antiquity believed this. It's why the Jewish scholars created the Curse of Ham as a validation for the enslavement of black people. Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

You learn that at Duke?

 

[85SugarVol]

Here's the scholarly response to the Scheunemann study: OSF

The study title is below in case the link doesn't work.

Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion​

Authors​

Jean-Philippe Gourdine, Shomarka Keita, Jean-Luc Gourdine, and Alain Anselin​

Yea, that’s not a “debunking”.

That’s a “we don’t like the results, so here’s a list of things we don’t like about the sampling”.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

you are completely rewriting 1 if not 3 major religions to make it fit your race argument.

Actually the 3 major religions agree with me. Which is why they all advocated the "Curse of Ham" as justification for enslaving black people. Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

So you can pretend race has nothing to do with the Bible but history proves you otherwise. Christians, Muslims, and Jews literally justified the enslavement of black people based on the genealogies in the Bible.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Yea, that’s not a “debunking”.

That’s a “we don’t like the results, so here’s a list of things we don’t like about the sampling”.

Sampling is everything if your argument is the Ancient Egyptians were more related to Europeans than Africans. You can't just use a limited sample to make such a bold and wide sweeping claim.

As I said earlier. It's like if someone were to sample a grave in Harlem in the 1920s and use those results to claim the Founding Fathers were of African descent. It would be laughed at for such a silly sampling. That's what the 2017 Scheunemann study did. It made a wide sweeping claim based on faulty sampling. They didn't sample any mummies from the part of Ancient Egypt where the Pharaohs came (Upper Egypt). They also didn't sample any mummies from the periods of Ancient Egypt BEFORE foreign occupation.

If they truly wanted to know who the Ancient Egyptians were most closely related to they would have gone to the part of the nation where the Pharaohs originated (Upper Egypt) and they would have sampled during the time period when there were no foreigners in Egypt (the Old Kingdom). But they didn't do that cause they didn't want to find the truth. They wanted to promote an agenda. So they went to one site known to be used by the Greeks during the periods they ruled Egypt. Tested those mummies. Then acted surprised that they were more related to Europeans than Africans. Just like how silly it would be to act surprised that remains from a grave in Harlem in the 1920s would show more similarity to Africans than Europeans.

 

[LouderVol]

Actually the 3 major religions agree with me. Which is why they all advocated the "Curse of Ham" as justification for enslaving black people. Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

So you can pretend race has nothing to do with the Bible but history proves you otherwise. Christians, Muslims, and Jews literally justified the enslavement of black people based on the genealogies in the Bible.

do you read your own links dude?
"Nevertheless, many Christians, Muslims and Jews now disagree with such interpretations, because in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed, and neither race nor skin color are ever mentioned"

"In halakhic legal texts, the term "Canaanite slave" is used generically for any non-Jew (gentile) held in bondage by an Israelite." gentile doesn't mean black.

the people you are talking about used that curse to justify enslavement of blacks long after they started. it wasn't an original founding principal. heck the first reference they make is to Southern Slave Owners as slavery was being ended in this country.

further down they even explain how it was a white person who introduced the idea of Canaan being black in the 4th century.
"The suggestion that Canaan was the ancestor of dark-skinned people enters the Biblical tradition with the fourth century Syriac Christian Cave of Treasures"

anyone else and I would be shocked that a black person was parroting a racist white trope as fact.

 

[85SugarVol]

Sampling is everything if your argument is the Ancient Egyptians were more related to Europeans than Africans. You can't just use a limited sample to make such a bold and wide sweeping claim.

As I said earlier. It's like if someone were to sample a grave in Harlem in the 1920s and use those results to claim the Founding Fathers were of African descent. It would be laughed at for such a silly sampling. That's what the 2017 Scheunemann study did. It made a wide sweeping claim based on faulty sampling. They didn't sample any mummies from the part of Ancient Egypt where the Pharaohs came (Upper Egypt). They also didn't sample any mummies from the periods of Ancient Egypt BEFORE foreign occupation.

If they truly wanted to know who the Ancient Egyptians were most closely related to they would have gone to the part of the nation where the Pharaohs originated (Upper Egypt) and they would have sampled during the time period when there were no foreigners in Egypt (the Old Kingdom). But they didn't do that cause they didn't want to find the truth. They wanted to promote an agenda. So they went to one site known to be used by the Greeks during the periods they ruled Egypt. Tested those mummies. Then acted surprised that they were more related to Europeans than Africans. Just like how silly it would be to act surprised that remains from a grave in Harlem in the 1920s would show more similarity to Africans than Europeans.

Yes, yes… so where are the major universities and media discussing this refutation?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]