The Ancient Black Hebrews: Abraham And His Family
Reviews (93)
Facts based on Evidence, not opinion!!
Okay about the book, very quick and easy read straight to the point. The Author gives you the argument for Abraham being black and against, Abraham being black facts on both sides. It's Amazing about the author and the way that he wrote the book, he gave you illustrations and factual documentation that supports what he says as truth. European reading my post let's get a few things straight, although I did use the word black it's a misnomer. Black is a social status not a culture a heritage, or a nationalty.
ancient black hebrews
Abraham and his family were people of color black.
This is extremely important to your life as you know it.
This book was a very good beginning in your search for identities among the people in the scriptures. It makes you feel like they are your ancestors if you are of darker or African origin. 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄
Good info but more needed
This is a good book to establish the heritage of Abraham and his family as Amorites. Great explanation on the anachronisms which cause people to assume Bible contradictions. However, I feel for info is needed especially quoted text from the Ebla tablets and other artifacts. Many people who doubt Abraham's existence need more architectural evidence to establish for them he really existed, and was the father of Hebrews. Good read either way.
Great info on the Hebrews.
Really good book. Has a lot of Black Hebrew info in this book.
Truth based on evidence:
Evidence.
GREAT
THIS IS A MUST HAVE BOOK
Knowledge is POWER
On point.
BOOK 5 OF HIS “BLACK HEBREWS” SERIES
Gert Muller is a free-lance journalist's investigator and has been for 20 years in Southern Africa and Britain. He has been researching the history of Africans in the Asia and Biblical history for just as long. He has carried out investigative research for many articles that have appeared in such world-wide publications as West Africa magazine. He has worked with such notable journalists as Anu M'Bantu and such world-renowned historical authors as Robin Walker. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2019 book, “All the evidence in four volumes of ‘The Ancient Black Hebrews’ shows the ancient Israelites were a Black people. Abraham was the ancestor of the Israelites. Some might think it is reasonable to assume he was Black because of his descendants. This, however, cannot be assume but must be shown separately. A group of people can be Black without the founder necessarily being Black and vice versa. This is because it only takes three generations to change appearance from Black to White or from White to Black. We shall look at the Biblical account to see what can be learned about Abraham from it… What did the people of the region look like at the time? What are the ethnic clues of Abraham’s family specifically? Are there any pictures of people of the region from that time? The answers to all of these questions will inform us what Abraham and his family looked like.” (Pg. 6-7) He explains, “Many scholars have equated the sons of Shem with speakers of the Semitic language family. When we look closer we find that Elam, the eldest, represents the Elamites and they spoke a non-Semitic language. This means that a Shemite is not necessarily a Semite. Furthermore, other speakers of Semitic languages like the Canaanites, the Amorites are descended from Ham (Gen 10:15-19). This means that a Hamite can also be a Semite… The divisions of Hamite and Shemite were never intended to divide people by language family or by complexion. If there are more dark-complexioned nations under two sons and hardly any under one, it is because of the geographical nature of the classification. It is incidental not intended.” (Pg. 10) He notes, “We are told that Terah and his family moved from Ur to Harran on the way to Canaan. But why did they go as far as Harran as opposed to other closer cities in Northwest Mesopotamia… like Tuttul or Tuba? Did they have a pre-existing historical connection with the region around Harran? There is evidence to suggest just that… These correspondences establish a strong link between Abraham’s family, his immediate ancestors, and the area of NW Mesopotamia around the Euphrates-Habur region. It suggests this area is his ethnic homeland.” (Pg. 14-15) He points out, Most writers who argued that Abraham was Black did so based on Ur being part of the region founded by Nimrod, son of Cush (Gen 10:6-11). But this is only a valid argument if Abraham was indigenous to Ur or that region. Being born somewhere does not necessarily mean that one is indigenous to that place.” (Pg. 16-17) He suggests, “Amorites in Genesis 10 are descended from Ham while the Hebrews are descended from Shem. This presents a problem for many Biblical scholars. In reality it should not because the genealogies look as if they are more about geographical location rather than ethnic descent. Some eponymous ancestors of ancient nations are listed under both Ham and Shem. Sheba and Dedan were two nations that were mentioned together in Genesis on five occasions. On two of those they are descended from Cush’s son Raamah (Gen 10:6; 1 Chr 1:9). This is the line of Ham. On another two they are descended from Abraham’s son Jokshan (Gen 25:3; 1 Chr 1:32). This is the line of Shem… Hamite and Shemite categories cannot be about ethnic descent and certainly cannot be about complexion… When we look at the tectonic plate of the Old World we can see that the African Plate, the Arabian Plate and the Eurasian Plate have a striking correspondence to the nations of Ham, Shem and Japhet more so than does Africa, SW Asia and Eurasia.” (Pg. 19-20) He adds later, “Genesis 10 is about geo-tectonic reality of the oikumene [world] rather than about ethnic descent, language family or complexion. Any link to geo-regional appearance is incidental rather than intended.” (Pg. 23) He continues, “not all the descendants of Ham necessarily share an ethnic relationship nor those of Sham. Sometimes they do not even share the same general complexion. Canaanites are a good example of this. They are classed under Ham but are not ethnically identical. In terms of actual ethnic descent some Canaanite nations originally spoke NW Semitic languages. Others originally spoke Hittite and Hurrian from much further north.” (Pg. 21) He asks, “Who was the wandering Aramaean who is father to the Israelites and took ‘a few people’ down to Egypt and ended up in slavery? This can either be a reference to Abraham, who went down into Egypt with his retinue, or Jacob who also went into Egypt with his sons. Both are fathers of the Israelite nation. Either way Jacob is the grandson of Abraham. Grandfathers and grandsons usually share the same ethnicity. This would make Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Aramaeans.” (Pg. 25) Later, he adds, “This eastern location on the Arabian plate is also why the ancestors of the Aramaeans were considered ‘sons of Shem.’ … Not only were they the ancestors of the Aramaeans but also, clearly the Hebrews.” (Pg. 29) He points out, “According to Strong’s [Exhaustive Concordance] Cush is probably a foreign loan into Hebrew and designates a territory, a Biblical character and his descendants. Complexion is not mentioned. It has indirect color connotations the same way Nordic had indirect color connotations but the term Nordic itself has not etymological association with ‘white.’” (Pg. 34) He observes, “Cushites had two main characteristics; ‘unchanging color’ (Jeremiah 13:23) plus being ‘tall and smooth-skinned’ (Isa 18:2). It is likely to be the complexion that ‘cannot change’ which is the likeness point. This implies that they were the darkest version of African complexion because it is THIS hue than cannot change.” (Pg. 35) He states, “Subarians were associated with being slaves, being ‘fair-complexioned,’ and that they were popular because they were considered ‘pleasing to the eye’ in Mesopotamia. Abraham lived in the Old Babylonian period, the time under discussion. By contrast the female slave in his household, with whom he had a son, was Egyptian. He [Abraham] would appear to have had darker tastes.” (Pg. 42-43) He summarizes and concludes, “What was Abraham by ethnicity? Abraham was an Amorite from the Euphrates-Habur region, a ‘descendant of Shem’ by location. They were the ancestors of the Aramaeans. The Elamites, also descended from Shem by location, were of African appearance. A later king of Abraham’s homeland is likened to the people of Cush, as is Moses’ Midianite wife and the Midianites in general. This would only be sensible if the people of Aram-Naharaim were of African complexion in general. There are images of Amorites contemporary with Abraham with dark as well a standard African complexions. Even images from a thousand years later contrast the brown of the Aramaeans with the pale of the Assyrians. All of this makes if clear that Abraham had an African complexion.” (Pg. 45) He adds, “both Ham and Shem correspond to the African and Arabian plates respectively. This is obvious when you compare a map showing Ham’s extension into Asia and Sham’s extension out of Arabia, with a tectonic map. This is a parallel of the advanced scientific knowledge Genesis shows when it accurately locates the origin of humanity in Ethiopia. Almost no other Biblical scholars have ever pointed this out or sought to explain this. This undoubtedly awaits a future work.” (Pg. 46) This book will be “must reading” for those interested in the ethnicity of Biblical figures such as Abraham.
Why does it matter black or not?
I would not recommend the book! As now as then people move around what color they are does not matter. I believe we got off the same boat all eight is us. To say a person is that color or this because they live in an area is dum. The language one speaks means more it says where they may come from. This is what counts to me not their looks!
Comments
Post a Comment