Hi Zucchini, I researched the book titled “Black Biblical Heritage” by author Jack L. Johnson, and I must say that it is definitely a “MUST READ” book for people like me who eat, sleep, walk, talk ancient Black historical significant others and how they contributed to the history of the world… I will read as much as I can so that I can have a better understanding about the Bible and the Black people who are mentioned in it..
People are still born with little tails sometimes. I was told doctors used to cut them off without telling the parents. The real question in my mind is why my mother thought it necessary to have little one on one talks with me normalizing being born with a tail.
Get a copy of the Black Biblical Heritage Book on Amazon trust me you will like enjoy this Book and yes Ham an his 3 Son's are mentioned in The History Book; written by Jack L. Johnson. For me finding this Specific History Book it was an answer to several prayers for me an again sorry can't remember The Scythians referenced in The Book.
This is all I've got for you so far Charles check this History Book out on Amazon, so until next time, what do you say? Goodbye!
According to Genesis KUSH was the first son of Ham, and his three brothers were Mizriam=Egypt, Phut=Libya and Canaan=Father of the Canaanites? I would assume that all three of Ham’s sons were Black especially if they shared the same mother as well? I’m just using deductive logic here?
I think you are correct in many ways. If the water was low enough for the Berring Land bridge then Mu would have been exposed as would have other islands. This coupled with the theory of the Hudson Bay north pole, which would have brought the American side of Antartica 30 degrees north would have made it fairly easy for folks to travel between the two areas.
According to the Urantia Book, they did come by sea. The sea was much lower back then and there were many more islands to stop at. These people were the Andites of old.
Further evidence that South America was originally populated from the South. I theorize that Australian Aboriginals / Melanesians either sailed (paddled, floated, etc.) following the coast of Antarctica until they reached Tierra del Fuego. Alternately (quite a stretch of the imagination), the migration may have happened so deep in time that they walked from Australia / Antarctica to South America, when all these continents were much closer.
Not so long ago we were taught that people only migrated to North America via Beringia. My grandfather, who is Unangax (Native Alaskan, Aleut) said his ancestors came by boat, they didn’t walk, only the inlanders walked. Now we know there were multiple migrations by way of land and sea to the Americas. DNA testing has proven this by showing that the inland tribes are Athabaskans closely related to the Navajo, and Unangax are more closely related to Manchurians / Mongolians, interestingly enough with some Peruvian markers. The migration picture is much more complicated than the simplistic explanations pushed by small minded members of the current archaeological world.
I am an electrical engineer, by no means an archaeologist, but I can easily imagine global cultures with small craft following coastlines and striking out for islands visible upon the horizon. Why not? History is rife with archaeologists having their careers ruined for postulating new theories (only to be honored posthumously), yet the rest of the world praises thinking outside of the box. Time for the Luddites to retire and make way for actual scientists without preconceived notions clouding their judgement.
“The world is full of people who have never, since childhood, met an open doorway with an open mind.” ― E.B. White
This is a good story of Medieval Counter-PR. Henry II who helped cause the death of Thomas Beckett & deeply disliked by his Welsh subjects decided to “discover” the grave of a mythical ‘King’ who’s existance is yet to be proven. Well it didn't work. As for King Arthur’s grave exhumation & reburial; if they did ‘discover’ & rebury some bones, I wonder who it really was? A Saxon King maybe? Personaly I would love to the existance of Arthur to be proven without a doubt but I've resigned myself that this prospect is unlikely to happen.
itd be interesting to look in the shallows of the worlds seas and oceans. places that would have been above ground antedelluvian and see what is there. or buried under the sands of the Sarah from when it was a lush plain
Arthur was likely a title more than an individual given its similarity in name to the Celtic/Welsh name for bear (Arth) and its association with leadership in the North. If one takes all the Arthurian legends in chronilogical order and overlays them with actual known history it does fit quite nicely (albeit with a few fictional tales mixed in). There could be AN King Arthur buried in Glastonbury even if it wasn’t the first King Arthur who was able to rally the tribes of Briton against the Saxons.
Hi Chris , I just reviewed a number of Comments on the subject & noticed you have a couple noteworthy Replies , indeed the archealogy in the US is stifled with the Smithsonioan’s ’ only from Colombus on ‘ but , the trends are increasingly moving towards ‘ WE WANT TO KNOW MORE ‘ (!) , The Smithsonian’s attitude , not surprisingly is also following this , but the seem ‘ institutionally sluggish ‘ . I’ve read some information that was told by fishermen in the Chesapeake , that in the early morning hours as the fishermen moved their boats out to the traps & so on , that a boat was out already & , dumping what appeared to be bones into the water . My guess is the institution was ‘enforcing’ their policy , Disgraceful actions by a publically funded body – a coverup of essential history . The institution , when it established its American Archealogy Dept , made John Wesley Powell the head ; a man who’s claim to fame was that he had navigated the Grand Canyon’s river system – that’s it . From that point on , whatever discoveries of monuments , gravesights , and such , were officlally quashed , This , I beleive , in view of ‘official policies ‘ also determining the welfare – or exterminatiion of the tribes here , the same as England’s shabby treatment of any ‘ Tribe ‘ the Crown deemed as ‘lower & unworthy’ of representation or way of life . One would expect ‘ the new world ‘ to have offered more , but it’s taken a long time for any actual education to be ‘unearthed’ ! Here’s to Enlightenment & upholding of Truth in Archeaology ! Thanks for your inputs ! Mike ( A Scot/Dane/French/Cherokee & All - American “ Heinie “ ! )
Kush is mentioned in Genesis he's the first born son of Ham followed by his 3 brother's...
Mizriam-Egypt
Phut-Libya
Canaan-Father of Canaanites
As for Kush-Ethiopia
There is a History Book if interested (don't get mad reading it)
The Black Biblical Heritage is Sort of an Encyclopedia of who's who in The Bible. The front Book Jacket should depict two men.
One Man is sitting on his Throne; He would be a Pharoah because of the Egyptian headdress on his head, another stands before Him, drawing something in the dirt with a Stick also wearing an Egyptian Head dress.
One could find This history book on Amazon although, I'm not certain if the Scythians are depicted on the page's.
I do promise King's English is not found in This Bible History Book.
Quick suggestion about King's English however you might not be interested but, practice reading thee and thou, Ye, by reading Anna Sewell's famous horse story Black Beauty.
She was Quaker.
Thought you maybe interested in the history Bible Book, that I mentioned. See you around Charles an until next time, Goodbye!
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Pretty interesting
This isn’t considered “ancient”. This is prehistoric.
Hi Zucchini, I researched the book titled “Black Biblical Heritage” by author Jack L. Johnson, and I must say that it is definitely a “MUST READ” book for people like me who eat, sleep, walk, talk ancient Black historical significant others and how they contributed to the history of the world… I will read as much as I can so that I can have a better understanding about the Bible and the Black people who are mentioned in it..
People are still born with little tails sometimes. I was told doctors used to cut them off without telling the parents. The real question in my mind is why my mother thought it necessary to have little one on one talks with me normalizing being born with a tail.
Instead of Homo Apriliensis how about: Homo Aprilfoolsis, Homo Pulourlegsis or Homo Hahasis to name a few.
Hi Charles,
Get a copy of the Black Biblical Heritage Book on Amazon trust me you will like enjoy this Book and yes Ham an his 3 Son's are mentioned in The History Book; written by Jack L. Johnson. For me finding this Specific History Book it was an answer to several prayers for me an again sorry can't remember The Scythians referenced in The Book.
This is all I've got for you so far Charles check this History Book out on Amazon, so until next time, what do you say? Goodbye!
According to Genesis KUSH was the first son of Ham, and his three brothers were Mizriam=Egypt, Phut=Libya and Canaan=Father of the Canaanites? I would assume that all three of Ham’s sons were Black especially if they shared the same mother as well? I’m just using deductive logic here?
You gave yourself away with the tail bit. But, nice try. I wonder how many people will fall for this today?
I think you are correct in many ways. If the water was low enough for the Berring Land bridge then Mu would have been exposed as would have other islands. This coupled with the theory of the Hudson Bay north pole, which would have brought the American side of Antartica 30 degrees north would have made it fairly easy for folks to travel between the two areas.
According to the Urantia Book, they did come by sea. The sea was much lower back then and there were many more islands to stop at. These people were the Andites of old.
Further evidence that South America was originally populated from the South. I theorize that Australian Aboriginals / Melanesians either sailed (paddled, floated, etc.) following the coast of Antarctica until they reached Tierra del Fuego. Alternately (quite a stretch of the imagination), the migration may have happened so deep in time that they walked from Australia / Antarctica to South America, when all these continents were much closer.
Not so long ago we were taught that people only migrated to North America via Beringia. My grandfather, who is Unangax (Native Alaskan, Aleut) said his ancestors came by boat, they didn’t walk, only the inlanders walked. Now we know there were multiple migrations by way of land and sea to the Americas. DNA testing has proven this by showing that the inland tribes are Athabaskans closely related to the Navajo, and Unangax are more closely related to Manchurians / Mongolians, interestingly enough with some Peruvian markers. The migration picture is much more complicated than the simplistic explanations pushed by small minded members of the current archaeological world.
I am an electrical engineer, by no means an archaeologist, but I can easily imagine global cultures with small craft following coastlines and striking out for islands visible upon the horizon. Why not? History is rife with archaeologists having their careers ruined for postulating new theories (only to be honored posthumously), yet the rest of the world praises thinking outside of the box. Time for the Luddites to retire and make way for actual scientists without preconceived notions clouding their judgement.
“The world is full of people who have never, since childhood, met an open doorway with an open mind.”
― E.B. White
This is a good story of Medieval Counter-PR. Henry II who helped cause the death of Thomas Beckett & deeply disliked by his Welsh subjects decided to “discover” the grave of a mythical ‘King’ who’s existance is yet to be proven. Well it didn't work. As for King Arthur’s grave exhumation & reburial; if they did ‘discover’ & rebury some bones, I wonder who it really was? A Saxon King maybe? Personaly I would love to the existance of Arthur to be proven without a doubt but I've resigned myself that this prospect is unlikely to happen.
itd be interesting to look in the shallows of the worlds seas and oceans. places that would have been above ground antedelluvian and see what is there. or buried under the sands of the Sarah from when it was a lush plain
Arthur was likely a title more than an individual given its similarity in name to the Celtic/Welsh name for bear (Arth) and its association with leadership in the North. If one takes all the Arthurian legends in chronilogical order and overlays them with actual known history it does fit quite nicely (albeit with a few fictional tales mixed in). There could be AN King Arthur buried in Glastonbury even if it wasn’t the first King Arthur who was able to rally the tribes of Briton against the Saxons.
this article was my inspiration I tried to reflect all the theories behind this device on this short film I hope you will like it
https://youtu.be/d29-B9R0VTA
The photo is laheled: A ‘tupu needle-like object used to hold pieces of clothing together.”… I have seen that image of a Pharoah handing it to Osiris
Hi Chris , I just reviewed a number of Comments on the subject & noticed you have a couple noteworthy Replies , indeed the archealogy in the US is stifled with the Smithsonioan’s ’ only from Colombus on ‘ but , the trends are increasingly moving towards ‘ WE WANT TO KNOW MORE ‘ (!) , The Smithsonian’s attitude , not surprisingly is also following this , but the seem ‘ institutionally sluggish ‘ . I’ve read some information that was told by fishermen in the Chesapeake , that in the early morning hours as the fishermen moved their boats out to the traps & so on , that a boat was out already & , dumping what appeared to be bones into the water . My guess is the institution was ‘enforcing’ their policy , Disgraceful actions by a publically funded body – a coverup of essential history . The institution , when it established its American Archealogy Dept , made John Wesley Powell the head ; a man who’s claim to fame was that he had navigated the Grand Canyon’s river system – that’s it . From that point on , whatever discoveries of monuments , gravesights , and such , were officlally quashed , This , I beleive , in view of ‘official policies ‘ also determining the welfare – or exterminatiion of the tribes here , the same as England’s shabby treatment of any ‘ Tribe ‘ the Crown deemed as ‘lower & unworthy’ of representation or way of life . One would expect ‘ the new world ‘ to have offered more , but it’s taken a long time for any actual education to be ‘unearthed’ ! Here’s to Enlightenment & upholding of Truth in Archeaology ! Thanks for your inputs ! Mike ( A Scot/Dane/French/Cherokee & All - American “ Heinie “ ! )
This article is very helpful but there are a few things it did not help with.
Chris , Well said !
Hi Charles,
Kush is mentioned in Genesis he's the first born son of Ham followed by his 3 brother's...
Mizriam-Egypt
Phut-Libya
Canaan-Father of Canaanites
As for Kush-Ethiopia
There is a History Book if interested (don't get mad reading it)
The Black Biblical Heritage is Sort of an Encyclopedia of who's who in The Bible. The front Book Jacket should depict two men.
One Man is sitting on his Throne; He would be a Pharoah because of the Egyptian headdress on his head, another stands before Him, drawing something in the dirt with a Stick also wearing an Egyptian Head dress.
One could find This history book on Amazon although, I'm not certain if the Scythians are depicted on the page's.
I do promise King's English is not found in This Bible History Book.
Quick suggestion about King's English however you might not be interested but, practice reading thee and thou, Ye, by reading Anna Sewell's famous horse story Black Beauty.
She was Quaker.
Thought you maybe interested in the history Bible Book, that I mentioned. See you around Charles an until next time, Goodbye!
Pages