"Jesus was a Black man who was oppressed by White men"

lol!!!!!!

there is no historical or scientific evidence whatsoever that the native people of the Fertile Crescent are Ethiopians.

I don't know where you got such a silly idea. Not even the Ethiopians believe this.

 

The Axum Empire did NOT conquer the Fertile Crescent. Its northern limits were the southern end of what is now Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

meanwhile, the Greek Empire covered ALL of the Fertile Crescent, Canaan, Egypt, Babylon. Does that mean the natives of these lands are actually Greeks? Your logic would say "yes".

Also, the Roman Empire conquered the same lands. Does that mean the natives of Canaan are Romans?

your logic would say "yes".

 

The bible states that Ethiopians were the builders of the first sumerian cities.(book of Chronicles and book of Micah)

- - - Updated - - -

whats your definition of native?

 

yeah? where? post a quote from the Bible saying this.

so you're saying that when the Greeks conquered the Fertile Crescent, they became the natives?

when the Romans conquered it, THEY became the natives?

your logic is absurd.

 

native; someone born somewhere.

Well of course Arabs are native to fertile crescent, so are Polish and russian.

I thought you said the bible is a fantasy book, now you want a quote, why? so you can say, thats all fantasy.

which bit are fantasy and which not?

The bits that state ethiopians are the builders of sumer?

Lets just say for now, so ican see how genuine you are, that it states ethiopians were the builders, now what?

 

where does the Bible state this? are you going to support your claim with evidence?

 

fyi;
.

 

no it doesn't.

 

I am very sorry but you have been told lies. The Bible doesn't say this.

 

there's a clear description in genesis, let me find it.

 

first you say Chronicles and Micah, now you say Genesis?

 

It states such in many places, thats what im showing you..

 

i would greatly appreciate you providing a Bible chapter & verse that says "the Ethiopians built the cities of Sumer".

 

ok

no problem

 

yeah, let me know when you find it

 

I could concede to the gulf arabs being non white like the kuwaitis for instance, but the kurds are from the medes most likely and many of them look white, they are related to the iranians, aryans, persians. Many are dark, many are also literally white skinned with blonde hair and blue eyes.

 

Genesis 10:10, a very cool verse, talks about the cities of akkad (still not discovered, but definitely existed), calneh, erech (uruk) in the land of shinar (possibly sumer), but no mention of the color of these peoples. Reliefs and seals show them to be cacasoid though.

 

no, nothing is said about their skin color.

 

Thats what I just said, "no mention of the color of these peoples".

 

you do of course understand that Noah and his sons never existed, right?

 

What does that have to do with Genesis 10:10 or the discussion? Also, there is no proof that he did not exist.

The fact that genesis 10:10 mentions these ancient cities shows the books is a very valuable and accurate historical document in the area of archaeology.

 

it is logically and intellectually ABSURD to demand proof of a negative. Didnt you say you are an academic? You should know better than to say "you have no proof he didn't exist".

- - - Updated - - -

As far as historical accuracy is concerned, the Bible is nothing but make-believe fantasy until we reach around the time of David & Solomon.

Before then, nothing is reliable history. No more than Santa Claus.

 

somebody is paying attention. naysayers aside, the chapter does however explain the ethnic origin of the builder of the cities, to which there is historical record of the architect.

 

yeah, but according to you, ALL of Noah's sons were black.

which kinda renders this whole debate kinda useless & pointless.

 

yeh we get it, the bible is afrocentric blah blah.