PDA

View Full Version : The Blacks of America: The True Jews of the Bible


Kohen El Shaddai
05-11-2006, 01:18 PM
Are the so-called "African-Americans" or "Negroes" truly descended from the indigenous people of Africa (Ethiopians, Egyptians, Somolians, Libyans, South Africans)? NO! They are the true Jews according to the King James Version of the Holy Bible!

The scriptures clearly describe the Jews of the Bible as having dark skin:

LAMENTATIONS 4:8
"Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick."

The Bible says that the visage of the Jews is "blacker than a coal".
Let's see what this word "visage" means when looked up in a dictionary.

From The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition:

visage - poetic/literary a person's face, with reference to the form of the features. a person's facial expression

So we see the word visage relates to a person's facial features. If the Jews of the Bible have facial features blacker than a coal, how are they Caucasian?

LAMENTATIONS 5:10
"Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine."

If the Jews of the Bible have skin "black like an oven", how are they Caucasian? Caucasian people do not at any time turn any shade of brown, let alone "black like an oven". Caucasians lack melanin to even turn the lightest shade of brown.

Job was an Israelite. Let's see how he described himself:

JOB 30:30
"My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat."

Job, an Israelite, says that his skin is black upon him. Do I need to say anything else? Where he says "and my bones are burned with heat", that is referring to the affliction that he was going through.

King Solomon, one of the wisest men to ever walk the face of the earth, and one of the great kings of the nation of Israel, described himself as a black man!

SONG OF SOLOMON 1:1
"The song of songs, which is Solomon's."

The reason I went to this verse is to show that this is Solomon speaking. The world teaches the lie that this is some concubine or the Queen of Sheba. I dare anyone to come forth and prove according to Scripture that this is some "concubine" or the "Queen of Sheba" speaking instead of Solomon himself.

SONG OF SOLOMON 1:5
"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon."

Solomon, a Jew from the tribe of Judah, is describing himself as black! Furthermore, here is the verse in the original ancient Hebrew:

SHAYAR HASHAYARYAM 1:5

"Shachaawarah anya, wanaahwah, banwath Yarawshalam, kaahhalya Qadar, kayarayiwath Shalamah."

The first part of this verse, "Shachaawarah anya", means "I am dark skinned".

(NOTE: The copies of the Tanach used in these times have been altered by the so-called "Jewish" people. Those who truly know Ancient Hebrew know that when reading this verse in these altered Tanachs, the word for "black" is rendered in the feminine by adding the letter "ha" at the end of "shachar". Solomon is a dark skinned man talking to dark skinned women (the daughters of Zion) in Song of Solomon 1:5, so "I am black" in the Hebrew should not be rendered in the feminine, this is a grave mistake on the part of the so-called "Jewish" people who have altered the original Masoretic text of the Tanach).

Let's look up the meaning of the word for black, "shachar", as used in this verse for proof:

This is the definition of shachar from The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:

7838. shachar from 7835; prop. dusky, but also (absol.) jetty:--- black

So the word "shachar" means "dusky". Let's look that word up and see what it means:

The definition of the word dusky from The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition:

dusky - adj. (-ier, -iest) darkish in colour. euphemistic, dated or poetic/literary (of a person) black; dark-skinned.

So we see that:

1. Solomon described himself as black in Song of Solomon 1:5
2. The word "black" as used in Song of Solomon 1:5 in the ancient Hebrew is defined in The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (widely regarded as one of the top concordances of the Bible) as "dusky"
3. The word "dusky" when defined in a dictionary as pertains to a person means dark skinned!

So if Solomon, a Jew from the tribe of Judah is describing himself as dark skinned, how could he or any other Jew writen of in the Bible be white?

Kohen El Shaddai
05-11-2006, 01:28 PM
According to Scripture, the Jews would never be white![/u]

ISAIAH 29:22
"Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale."

The Bible tells you that Jacob, the progenitor of the Twelve Tribes of the Nation of Israel, that "neither shall his face now wax pale". "Wax" is Old English which means "to turn". So to "wax pale" means "to turn pale". So if Jacob and his descendants' faces would not "wax pale" which means "turn pale", how can a Caucasian be a Jew?

All Caucasian or so-called white people throughout the planet Earth, whether they call themselves "American", "British", "Spanish", "French", "Jewish/Israeli", "Dutch", "German", etc, are all descendants of Esau, the wicked older brother of Jacob (Genesis 25:25, Malachi 1:1-2, Romans 9:13)

The tribe of Judah from which the Jews of the Bible descend from are described as black in the Bible!

JEREMIAH 14:2
"Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up."

Jeremiah 14:2 describes the tribe of Judah (the Jews) as being "black unto the ground", which means different shades of brown. When you dig through the soil, it is many different shades of brown, from light brown to dark brown. You find many shades of brown (light brown to dark brown) amongst the so-called African-Americans.

JEREMIAH 12:9
"Mine heritage is unto me as a speckled bird, the birds round about are against her; come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, come to devour."

The Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah that his heritage (Israel) is unto Him as a speckled bird. A speckled bird has many different colors. The Twelve Tribes of Israel are many shades of brown.

The enslavement of the so-called African-Americans is written in the Holy Bible and is a curse that pertains to the Twelve Tribes of Israel!

DEUTERONOMY 28:1
"And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken dilligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth."

If we kept the laws, statutes and commandments of our God, Jesus Christ, we would be blessed and set high above all nations of the earth.

HOWEVER.....

DEUTERONOMY 28:15
"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and over take thee:"

When you read from verses 15-68, the curses that befell the nation of Israel only apply to the true Jews and Israelites (the people of Negro, Indian and Hispanic descent scattered throughout North, South & Central America, the West Indies, Hispanola, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the four corners of the earth).

Kohen El Shaddai
05-11-2006, 01:29 PM
ut as pertains to the so-called African-Americans, the curse spoken of in verse 68 clearly identifies them as the real Jews:

DEUTERONOMY 28:68
"And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you."

One of the curses that befell the true Jews is that they would be sent "into Egypt again with ships". The word "Egypt" is not the real name of the African country. The Egyptians called it "Kemet" in their native language of Kemau; the Israelites called it "Mizraim" in the Hebrew. "Egypt" also means "bondage" according to Scripture:

EXODUS 20:2
"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

So when the real dark skinned Jews were brought out of Egypt the first time, they were brought out of "a house of bondage". Let's read Deuteronomy 28:68 again:

DEUTERONOMY 28:68
"And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you."

Again, when our people were brought out of Egypt (the African country), we were brought out of "a house of bondage". So Moses (a black man) prophesized that the true authentic dark skinned Biblical Jews would go "into Egypt again" or a "house of bondage" again. How? With ships!

Now I ask you, what dark skinned people were brought into bondage with ships? Didn't this happen to the so-called "African-Americans", "West Indians", and "Haitians"? Yes, it did! Never did this happen to the Caucasians who say they are Jews and are not! (Rev. 2:9 and 3:9)

Where it says "by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again" means that the land of Israel, that the Lord spake unto our fathers about, we would no longer see it again. This shows you that the real Jews are not in the land of Israel at this current time!

And it goes on to say, "and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you". Where it says "and there" it means the place we were taken into bondage by way of ships, which was America. In that place, America, what does the Bible say would happen to us? ".....ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen". When we were brought over here in bondage, we were indeed sold into slavery by our enemies (the white race) for bondmen (slave men) and bondwomen (slave women). Where it says "and no man shall buy you", that isn't saying we wouldn't be purchased, because at this point you already see that we were sold unto our enemies.

The word "buy" written in the Old Quaker English the King James Version Bible is written in means "to save or to redeem". If you are redeeming someone, you are saving them from evil. No man, be it Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, could save us from the evil that has and still is coming down upon our people from 1619 to the present with constant oppression by this country America and the white race (Edom) on many different levels.

The only man that can save us is Jesus Christ, the God of Israel only and a black man according to the Holy Bible (Revelation 1:1, 14-15, Daniel 10:5-6)

denaturat
05-13-2006, 01:49 PM
listen, you should be looking at the bible in it's original language. don't look at an English translation which could have been translated incorrectly.

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 09:37 AM
Did you actually read everything that was written? There was at least one instance when the original language of the scripture was used.

denaturat
05-14-2006, 06:13 PM
Did you actually read everything that was written? There was at least one instance when the original language of the scripture was used.

yeah, selectively....many dictionary and ancient english definitions. this whole thing looks sketchy. I looked up the book of lamentations and the preceding verse kinda changed the meaning of the subsequent verse that was cited by the above author. after that, I kinda gave up. this is all a shoddy conspiracy theory.

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 07:58 PM
yeah, selectively....

That it was used "selectively", of course, is only your opinion and not really based on anything within the post in question.


many dictionary and ancient english definitions. this whole thing looks sketchy.

And this is based on what observation of yours specifically?


I looked up the book of lamentations and the preceding verse kinda changed the meaning of the subsequent verse that was cited by the above author.

Lam 4:7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing [was] of sapphire:

What about this verse changes the fact that verse 8 said their visage (face) was black?



this is all a shoddy conspiracy theory.

What's "all" a "conspiracy theory" exactly? Is it the verbage of those verses found within the Bible? Or that the earliest Jews were not of caucasian European descent. (a subject much written about) Please be more specific if you can.

denaturat
05-14-2006, 08:13 PM
bible is not a history book. it employs parables, hyperbolies, metaphors and fiction. consequently as a historical account it is tainted. for example, if I am writing for a historical journal and refer to black skin, unless qualified, it likely means exactly that. in the bible a black visage be an embelishment of some kind. the bible may be employing the language of myth and poetry. why do you explain infite interpretations of the text? furthermore, the evidence in the bible is not corraborated with any other meaningful evidence. not on this thread at least. so for example, even though roman empire is mentioned in the bible, there is a lot of archeological evidence as well as other written texts that confirm the empire's existence.

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 10:35 PM
bible is not a history book.

Straw man arguement. The question was specific scriptures not the arguement if the Bible is or isn't a history book.


it employs parables, hyperbolies, metaphors and fiction.

Does it employ matter of fact statements, yes or no?

consequently as a historical account it is tainted.

Please deal with the specificity of the verse(s) in question, because I fail to see what your opinion here has to do with the color issue. (the focus of this post)


for example, if I am writing for a historical journal and refer to black skin, unless qualified, it likely means exactly that. in the bible a black visage be an embelishment of some kind.

Opinion. The fact remains that Nazerites were being described in a poetic (via their righteousness mentioned in verse 7) and their PHYSICAL likeness (verse eight) as written by the author of Lamentations. (ones visage is not poetic is any sense)


the bible may be employing the language of myth and poetry.

See above.


why do you explain infite interpretations of the text?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


furthermore, the evidence in the bible is not corraborated with any other meaningful evidence.

As far as the scriptures in question (relating to color), there are these ancient paintings called ICONS, you have heard of them, yes?

http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/images/icon23.jpg

denaturat
05-14-2006, 11:14 PM
I'm sorry, but just because you have written something here, does not mean you have refuted my objections. the bible is bad historical source because it talks about existence of god. if you want dissect my arguments and be all scholarly like, maybe you should stop relying on a text that is mostly fiction. this is not a straw man argument at all. this book talks about giant fish swalling man and taking him to safety. it talks about jesus rasing man from the dead. I cannot treat anything in it as true unless it is supported by some other more concrete evidence external to the bible.

Aqueous Moon
05-14-2006, 11:26 PM
wth??

this thread is about the BIBLE!!

He is talking about the bible...why are you so off topic??

Why are you arguing against what you don't acknowledge?

....the bible describes Black people as Jews - take it or leave it.

denaturat
05-14-2006, 11:40 PM
wth??

this thread is about the BIBLE!!

He is talking about the bible...why are you so off topic??

Why are you arguing against what you don't acknowledge?

....the bible describes Black people as Jews - take it or leave it.

I will not debate with you on this thread anymore. :nonono:

Kephrem
05-14-2006, 11:49 PM
I'm sorry, but just because you have written something here, does not mean you have refuted my objections. the bible is bad historical source

The question was specific scriptures not the arguement if the Bible is or isn't a history book. -- Kephrem


I cannot treat anything in it as true unless it is supported by some other more concrete evidence external to the bible.

As far as the specific scriptures mentioned there's these ancient paintings called ICONS:

http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/images/icon23.jpg

Aqueous Moon
05-14-2006, 11:53 PM
I will not debate with you on this thread anymore. :nonono:

You were debating???

It looked like arguing to me.

With you just saying you don't agree over and over ond over again. :nonono:

denaturat
05-15-2006, 12:31 AM
As far as the specific scriptures mentioned there's these ancient paintings called ICONS:

http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/images/icon23.jpg

hard to see the figures. although I see that theri faces are dark. medieval art was not reperesentational, and consequently the skin colour could be symbolic. are those supposed to be the black jews? is it possible that to a european a person from the warmer places with a strong tan would seem black? even if they are blacks, eurpeans went to Africa and could have made this painting. it's not like the only rational explanation for the existence of this icon is the black rule over europe.

I am open to your arguments, but thus far i am not convinced

Aqueous Moon
05-15-2006, 12:33 AM
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley (attributed: source unknown), quoted from John Stear, No Answers in Genesis

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 02:02 AM
hard to see the figures.

Please tell us specifically what was "hard to see" within the painting?


although I see that theri faces are dark. medieval art was not reperesentational,

Source please. And it's actually representing Biblical saints (which relates to the subject), and possibly (as is seen in similar paintings) historic figures (royalty) within Christiandom.


and consequently the skin colour could be symbolic.

The word "could" could never have a comfortable place in discussions of a historical perspective.


are those supposed to be the black jews?


it's actually representing Biblical saints (which relates to the subject),


is it possible that to a european a person from the warmer places with a strong tan would seem black?

Please show us a current people not of darker origins who hold "strong tans" in "warmer places" who "seem black".


even if they are blacks, eurpeans went to Africa and could have made this painting.

The subject of the painting is not of continental Africans but Biblical figures with possible historic European royalty painted amongst them.


it's not like the only rational explanation for the existence of this icon is the black rule over europe.

See above. And your statement here would only stand if it was the sole piece of historic information presented within the thread, which we know it is not.


I am open to your arguments, but thus far i am not convinced

That's fine, I will continue to add-on to the thread to see its further progression, though not necessarily to 'convince' anyone.

denaturat
05-15-2006, 01:05 PM
well, if it is the truth, it may important to convince someone

Kephrem
05-15-2006, 01:42 PM
I'm not compelled to offer anything but the truth, and my positions, I feel, have been clarified enough up to this point.