Are Black People Israelites?
Note: This is not an argument against Ethiopian Jews, or an argument to say that there are no blacks with lineage to the 12 Tribes. This is an argument against the idea that the original 12 Tribes were black.
Before anyone comes on here and tries to argue with me, know this; I am not arguing against the law of Moses, nor am I arguing that the 12 Tribes were white.
Here are the verses I address in order. If you believe in this faith and one of these is your arguments, read mine first and then come and try to refute me. These are all the arguments that I break down. Anyone who comments and I already addressed something will be exposed and further comments deleted if nothing new is brought.
- Verse That Supposedly State the Skin Color of the Hebrews (Jeremiah 14:2, Lamentations 5 10, Job 30 30, Song of Solomon 1 5 and 5 11, Hosea 7 8, Amos 9 7, Lamentations 4 8, Ezekiel 1 13, Ecclesiasticus 14 3 and 31 24, )
- Simeon called Niger.
- The Color of Christ (or God) (Daniel 7 9, 10 6, and Revelation 1 14-15)The 2/3rds Doctrine
- Selling Slaves to Greeks (Joel 3 6)
- Psalm 83, 137, and Zechariah 11 5.
- Are These Verses Cross References to The Slave Trade? (Jeremiah 17 4, Isaiah 1 3, Lamentations 1 3, and Luke 21 24).
- Confusion of Faces/ Identity Crisis
- Fake Jews
- Moses's Leprosy (Exodus 4 6) and Gehazi's Leprosy (2 Kings 5)
- The Color of Noah's Children
- Zondervan's Definition of Ham
- Yah In Slave Names
- Were the Shemites Black? Does Israel Reside in Africa?
- Joseph, Moses, and Paul called Egyptian (and Are the Egyptians Black?)
- The Scattering (and Kingdom of Whydah/Juda)
- Enslavement of the Other Races (Genesis 25 23, Isaiah 14 1-2, and Revelation 14 10).
- Quotes From Others (Abdel Nasser, Adolf Hitler, and Josephus).
- Blacks Come From Ham
- The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 are not about the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade (link at the end).
- The 400 Years mentioned in Genesis are not in America (link at the end).
- Esau is not the Caucasian race (link at the end).
I realize that not all the members of this faith believe the exact same thing. I also realize that not all of them follow the 1 West camps ( I refer to them all as 1 West as all of the camps and groups are branches of the original group). This is only to address both the camps and the general beliefs that almost all of them have in common with one another.
Welcome. Today we are going to expose this false group claiming to be the real 12 Tribes.
A Brief Summary
I realize there are more splinter groups then this and that they each have different beliefs, such as some of them believe in a thing called the 12 Tribe Chart and some of them do not. But here is a general belief among them:
- All or most Black people are the true 12 Tribes.
- The Law of Moses is to be followed (I believe this is true, see my article "Is the Law Done Away With?" and you will see how it is still in effect today).
- The other races will be sent into captivity or into some type of servitude when the Messiah returns.
- The Jews today are not the real Jews, as a whole or just a lot of them.
There is a lot more history to it than this, stemming from the Civil War era when some slave, as well as some former slaves who started claiming to be descendants of Jacob. But in the present time, these groups are the main heads of the faith stemming from one man; Abba Bivens. In 1960, Abba Bivens formed the ISUPK group, the one that gave birth to the other groups we see today.
A lot of these groups believe in reincarnation. See my article, Scriptural Reincarnation Debunked.
Now that we have that out of the way, let's go about exposing their message.
They claim that these scriptures alone prove that the original Hebrews were black. But with the problem of archaic English, these scriptures have been misunderstood due to the Old English used, and taken out of context. Let's go over that.
Are these two verses talking about a color? When we use the Concordance we get the following.
"For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me."— Jeremiah 8 21
"Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up."— Jeremiah 14:2
6937 qadar: to be dark
Part of Speech: Verb
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-dar')
Short Definition: mourning
When we look in the other translations we see that it should say they were mourning, they were upset. Go to the first verse in this chapter and you see that this was about a drought going on in the land. Keep reading on in that chapter and it shows how much trouble this drought is bringing them, so of course, they are going to be upset. This is not about a color. They are upset over the drought. We can further prove this is the correct definition when we read Job 5 11.
- "To set up on high those that be low; that those which mourn may be exalted to safety."
When we look up the word mourn in this verse we get the same thing. 6937. qadar. The word black has a few different meanings in the KJV, such as in Lamentations 5 10.
- "Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine."
In that verse get 3648. kamar. to grow warm and tender, to be or grow hot. When properly translated, it should say that their skin was getting hot due to the fever. Note how it says "because", not that it was naturally like that, but for a reason.
"My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.— Job 30 30
Again, this is taken out of context. First off, why is Job shouting out the color of his skin for no reason? Obviously, there is something wrong. This is at the moment of him being tried for his faith. We can further confirm this by noting how it says his bones are burned with heat.
My skin is black upon me; either by his dark-coloured scabs, wherewith his body was in a manner wholly overspread; or by grief, as before.
My bones are burned with heat; the effect of his fever and sorrow, which dried up all his moisture, and caused great inflammations and burning heats within him.— Matthew Poole's Commentary
My skin is black upon me,.... Either through deep melancholy, as may be observed in persons of such a disposition, through grief and trouble; or rather through the force of his disease, the burning ulcers and black scabs with which he was covered, as the Jews were through famine, in their captivity, Lamentations 4:8;
and my bones are burnt with heat; with the heat of a burning fever; which not only made his inwards boil, but reached to his bones, and dried up the marrow of them.— Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Job is saying that he is suffering his affliction, not that he is a black man,
"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.— Song of Solomon 1 5
Take notice of how this person says "as the curtains of Solomon", not "as my curtains". This implies that Solomon is not the one speaking. Let's continue. If we read the sixth verse we can see that not only is this person "black" because of being burnt in the heat of the sun but also that this is not Solomon speaking in this verse.
6 "Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept."— Song of Solomon 1 6
Let's go by the logic that this is Solomon speaking. So Solomon's siblings got mad at him and made him work in the vineyard? Verse 6. The wisest and well-known king of the 12 Tribes has to do what his siblings say and work? Verse 6 according to this logic says so. Here's more proof.
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.— Song of Solomon 1 2-4
So here, we see the main speaker addressing the king. Solomon was king at this time so we know that the king in this chapter is Solomon. Solomon is not the speaker here. He does not begin to speak until verse 8. We have more proof coming from another chapter that this is not Solomon speaking in the story. In Songs 2 it is clear that this is a woman describing herself and her male lover. There is also one more thing I must add; there are multiple narrators. The Songs are told from three perspectives; the woman, her friends, and Solomon himself. At the beginning of Songs 3, we hear the woman tell of how she looks for her lover in the night. Later on, she tells the daughters of Jerusalem to "stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please." Who is this lover?
"Behold his bed, which is Solomon's; threescore valiant men are about it, of the valiant of Israel."
— Song of Solomon 1 7
Now we will address 5 11. It says, "his locks are wavy, black as a raven." Dreadlocks? No. The word "locks" when applied to hair can mean hair on any race. Google Image Source.
Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned.— Hosea 7 8
I have heard the argument that Ephraim is the Puerto Ricans because what is the color of a cake not turned. Not black, but a lighter shade. They say this is about Puerto Ricans being whited out. First off, if you read the whole chapter you can see that this is a metaphor for the tribe of Ephraim being in sin. Second of all, what nations was Ephraim among at this time? Hosea 7 11 says Egypt and Assyria. So even if this was about racial mixing, it is not about them mixing with white people. This is not describing their skin color.
8. mixed … among the people—by leagues with idolaters, and the adoption of their idolatrous practices (Ho 7:9, 11; Ps 106:35).
Ephraim … cake not turned—a cake burnt on one side and unbaked on the other, and so uneatable; an image of the worthlessness of Ephraim. The Easterners bake their bread on the ground, covering it with embers (1Ki 19:6), and turning it every ten minutes, to bake it thoroughly without burning it.— Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Note: the ones who believe this are a major sect of Hebrew Israelites who follow what is called the 12 Tribe Chart, which says that blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are the 12 Tribes and lists what tribe they are. Not all Hebrew Israelites believe this, and this is not to say that there is not some truth to that chart as some entirely different theories have been used to say that Hispanics and/or native Americans have links to the 12 Tribes, but I am not too familiar with it to where I can say it is correct or not.
"Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?— Amos 9 7
The first thing a lot of them will say is that this is talking about skin color. "See? He is comparing our skin color to the Ethiopians.". Based on their interpretation, the skin color of the Hebrews is randomly being shouted out in inappropriate scenarios. What is this chapter referring to? The greatness of God. He is comparing how he brought the children of Jacob out of Egypt to these other instances. Amos 9 is not comparing the physical appearance of Hebrews to Ethiopians, but their standing with the Almighty in terms of their wayward behavior. Jeremiah 13 23 mentions something very key in regards to the state of Israel at that time.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil."
This verse implies a difference in skin color.
"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."
— Lamentations 4 8
Correct context is needed here. Let's read it from verse 1.
1 How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.
2 The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!
3 Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.— Lamentations 4 1-8
4 The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them.
5 They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills.
6 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.
7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk (not actually saying they are white this is symbolic), they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:
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.
Something else is going on. Their skin is dry, struggled up, and dead from the destruction by the Babylonians. We can further prove it when it says, "they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick." Verse 7 says they were white. Are we to assume that they were white and then became black? No. This is about purity and then their destruction.
As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning— Ezekiel 1 13
They focus on the "coal" and not the "burning coals of fire" in this passage, making it sound as if their appearance is the color of coal. Notice how it says they are also like lamps (or torches). Like other heavenly images, we see here that they have a glowing aura about them. We can also prove this when we see that the word "and" is not in the original, and it was just further expounding upon the explanation given. We will see another example of this when we discuss the color of Christ.
Riches are not comely for a niggard: and what should an envious man do with money?— Ecclesiasticus 14 3
But against him that is a niggard of his meat the whole city shall murmur; and the testimonies of his niggardness shall not be doubted of.— Ecclesiasticus 31 24
They confuse the word niggard with the slang term used for black people. And although this word has caused controversy in the United States and has been used by racists to condemn black people, the word itself does not descend from the same word that the slang term comes from, which is the Latin word niger, meaning "black". Niggard does not mean black. It's an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly". It comes from the Middle English word nigon, and is related to the Old Norse verb nigla, which means "to fuss about small matters". (Bryan A. Garner (31 March 2009). "Words, Words, Words—and Race". Garner on Language and Writing. American Bar Association. pp. 236–238. ISBN 978-1-61632-679-1. Retrieved 21 March 2013.)
Simeon called Niger
"See there? They just called him a n****r. They're all black." If this was the case, why weren't they all called this? Why is it just Simeon? There is a reason that this one man out of the group was called this name. This may be a surname or in reference to a land.
The Color of Christ (or God) (Daniel 7 9, 10 6, and Revelation 1 14-15)
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.— Daniel 7 9
His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.— Daniel 10 6
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.— Revelation 1 14-15
They use these scriptures to say that Christ, God, or both (the Trinity is still debated among them) are black (the brass color) with "wooly" (afro) hair. But let's take a closer look. 10 6 says that the brass is polished, not burnt. And Revelations says that it was like brass that burned in a furnace, not that the brass was already burnt and refined into a darker color. Brass burning in a furnace as Revelations says is a description of the smelting of brass, which is very bright. This is evident by the fact that the word used here, chalkolibanō, means "white brass." Am I saying he is white? No, but this was not about his earthly skin color, which I will prove later on. And what is the color of pure wool? White. Notice how 7 9 said it was like pure wool, then Revelations says "white like wool." Pure wool is not dark. It is white. This was regarding his hair color.
This is obviously a supernatural image, not some basic description of a man. How can I prove this? Read Revelations 1 16.
- "and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength."
The word countenance means a person's face or facial expression. As I said the belief in the Trinity or if this is Christ or God in this passage varies among them, but most believe it to be Christ so we will go by that logic. Where else do we see this happening? Matthew 17 1-2. says the Savior was, "transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." So this is not even about his earthly skin color. This is about his heavenly image. It can also be taken as symbolic. Some scholars say that in ancient times, describing a body as being like brass gives the impression that this person has glory, strength, and stability.
If this was about a black man and the original Hebrews were black what is the big deal of John describing this? Obviously, this is an abnormal image for him to see, something supernatural. If this is about describing a black man, then John is basically saying something irrelevant as they would have no need of this description because they would already know what he looks like, or would have an idea of what he would look like. That would be like if I go to England to look for someone and I say, "He has an English accent." That's already obvious to everyone unless I imply something is different about him.
I heard someone say, "This description of him is so we would know what the Israelite looked like, which are black." No mention of why he is described is given. John was simply giving a description of what he saw. And we can't affirm that this was only for the people to know what he looks like because Revelations 1-3 is not dealing with the other prophecies but the spirit realm and the letters to the seven churches and the prophecy of what would happen specifically to them, but we will go into that later on when we discuss the fake Jews of Revelation 2 9 and 3 9.
The 2/3rds Doctrine
"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein."— Zechariah 13 8
This verse is used to promote a doctrine that says when the Messiah comes back in this age to bring judgment, two-thirds of the Israelites will be killed. They say this is a future prophecy, and some of them use it as a tactic for anyone who disagrees with them (I am not saying every Hebrew Israelite teaches this, nor that they all use fear tactics. This is just based on an analysis on some of them. Now, using the verse alone it sounds like a future prophecy, But present or past tense? Is it something that has not come to pass in Zechariah’s time or ours? Let’s see.
1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.
2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.— Zechariah 13 1, 2, and 7
7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
Note how it says this is the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Out of the land. What land? Jerusalem, just like verse 1 says.
Smite the shepherd. Now, who is the shepherd? Matthew 26 31 has the answer straight from the Savior's mouth. He says to his people,“This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. So he is acknowledging the fulfillment of this part of the prophecy. Now, how can we prove that verse 8 has already happened?
Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city (Jerusalem), when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them."— Ezekiel 5 2
We see a third, and another third, which equals two-thirds. Just as the other verses say. What does this mean? This prophecy is about the destruction of Jerusalem, and how two-thirds of the people were destroyed then.
Selling Slaves to Greeks (Joel 3 6)
"See? This is talking about how they sold us over to the white man in slavery."
This is not about that at all. The Phoenicians had further played the part of slave-dealers and had sold Judahite captives into the hands of the Greeks. The slave-traffic of the Phoenicians is often mentioned; they sometimes kidnapped women and children themselves, sometimes obtained slaves by purchase from uncivilized tribes, or purchased captives taken in war. See Amos 1 9, Ezekiel 27 13, 1 Maccabees 3 41, and 2 Maccabees 8 11. Also if we go back in the chapter it mentions Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia, which were not involved with the slave trade from a few hundred years ago.
Psalm 83, 137, and Zechariah 11 5.
They take a few verses out of context here.
PSALM 83 4
- "They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance."
Some of them use this to say that the other nations are conspiring to make the 12 Tribes forget who they were. But this is not a prophecy for this age. It is a Psalm about how the particular nations are specifically named indicates that it does refer to a specific historical period, even though the prayer itself would be offered in the Temple of Jerusalem. The dating of the composition of the Psalm is debated, but the reference in verse 9 to Assyria is by many sources seen as an indication that the Psalm was written during the time of Assyrian ascendancy, the ninth to seventh centuries BC. Others have placed the composition of the psalm between the time of Saul to the age of the Maccabees, suggested by Theodore of Mopsuestia.
PSALM 137 VERSE 3
- "For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion."
- "Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof."
- "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us."
They assume that this is about how the blacks were unfortunately forced to sing spirituals to them. They also think that the Edomites are the white people of today (Which I leave a link for at the conclusion of this article). Is this the case? Let's see. Who wrote this Psalm? After Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, the Jews were held captive in Babylon. Unlike many of the Psalms in the scripture, this was not written by David. Sources attributed the poem to the prophet Jeremiah, and the Septuagint version of the psalm bears the superscription: "For David. By Jeremias, in the Captivity." Jeremiah lived during the Babylonian captivity, so it makes more sense for him to be speaking about this. The rivers of Babylon in verse 1 are the Euphrates river, its tributaries, and the Tigris river.
- "Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not."
They take this as talking about how the so-called Christian slave masters would claim to worship the Almighty, but hurt them as well. Now as bad and hypocritical as that was, this is not about that. Let us read in the context.
- "There is a <<voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled.>>"
So here we see a reference to a shepherd. What does a shepherd do? Guide his flock. So what is being said here? Sheep and shepherd symbolism was used to symbolize leaders, whether they be good or bad, just as the Savior was called a shepherd. So this is discussing false prophets leading their flock astray.
Are These Verses Cross References to The Slave Trade? (Jeremiah 17 4, Isaiah 1 3, Lamentations 1 3, and Luke 21 24).
They use these verses to say that they are cross-references to the others that prove these are future prophecies. Let's examine them.
Jeremiah 17 4 says they would be discontinued from their heritage and serve enemies in a strange land. Does that fit the Hebrew Israelite theology? Think about this. What time period did Jeremiah live in? The Babylonian captivity. What did the Babylonians do? Destroy Jerusalem, a portion of Judah's land. What tribe is being condemned in Jeremiah 17? Verses 1, 19, 20, 25, and 26 says, Judah.
They use Isaiah 1 3 to say this refers to them, but as established in my previous article on the subject Isaiah is referring to the Babylonian captivity. And this verse is not literally saying Israel does not recognize the Almighty. It says they "doth not consider", meaning they do not recognize that he is over them. When we sin we are acting in rebellion against God and are basically saying he does not tell us what to do.
The context shows that Lamentations 1 is referring to Biblical times.
1 How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! how is she become as a widow! she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!
2 She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks: among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her: all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies.
The city is abandoned, desolate. Modern day Israel is inhabited by over 8 million people so this prophecy cannot be referring to the modern day. And finally, we will address Luke 21 24. As shown the other verses cannot possibly be cross-referencing these with the slave trade, so what does it mean? The context shows that it would be something to happen during that time.
Luke 21:24. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations — The fulfilment of this part of the prophecy, we have Bell., Luke 7:16, where Josephus describes the sacking of the city. “And now, rushing into every lane, they slew whomsoever they found without distinction, and burned the houses, and all the people who had fled into them.— Benson Commentary
O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.— Daniel 9:7
"See? It is talking about us forgetting that we are Jews. It is also talking about how the other races mixed with all of us and now we might have some white Israelites out here if they have a black ancestor."
This isn't a future prophecy, though. This is a direct quote from the prophet Daniel as he was praying. Read it from verse 1. He was not prophesying. Let's look in another verse that says this.
Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?— Jeremiah 7:19
Again, not about the things aforementioned. Read it from verse 1 onward. It is about the sin of external belief. Judah is sinning against the Most High in Jeremiah's time. So what does "confusion of faces" mean? Shame. They are provoking themselves unto shame. Read it in other translations and it comes to this same conclusion. Some might also argue that Deut 32:26 is about them forgetting that they Israelites. But this happened in Kings 17:22-24 when they settled and assimilated into Assyria. And these verses don't exactly mean they would forget who they are.
They misuse Revelations 2 9 and 3 9 and use it to say that in the modern day times, there would be impostor Jews. But we need to take this within the context. All of the books in Revelation prior to chapter 4 are letters to the seven churches, so these chapters are not like the other prophecies whether or not you take it from a preterist or futurist view. Read them for yourselves and see how this is a personal address to these churches, conveniently right before the verses about fake Jews. Revelation 2 8 and 3 7.
"And unto the messenger of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive."
"To the messenger of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."— Revelation 2 8 and 3 7
This is not about current times saying that there would be impostors. They were direct letters to the seven churches. This is about the time when people who believed in the word of Christ were still being persecuted. Their persecutors collaborated with local Roman officials to persecute those who believed in the Messiah. The reason they are "Jews, but are not, but are the synagogue of Satan", can be further explained once we read Romans 9 6 and Romans 2 28, which basically says it is not enough to be a descendant of Abraham and be circumcised but to be reborn and follow the faith. These Jews, while being descended from Jacob and being circumcised were not doing what the Jewish people were called to do. Revelations 2 and 3 were for the churches at that time.
I have also heard them use this verse.
"One shall say, I am the LORD's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel."— Isaiah 44:5
But if you read it in context from verse one, again this is not about an end time prophecy of people claiming to be Jacob and are not the descent of Jacob. It is about the Almighty's promise to Jacob and his children.
They use this verse to say that Moses could not be white because he is turned white, so he must obviously be black. According to them, leprosy in the Bible is vitiligo, a condition that causes whitening of the skin. Now I do think that the original 12 Tribes were not white like modern day Caucasians, but white can also appear on a white person because white people are not the actual color white, but just a very light color. And again I am not saying the original 12 Tribes were white. But still, this argument from them proves nothing. Also, someone does not have to be black in order for white marks to appear on them. And I hear them say, "Black is a misnomer. We come in all shades." But that is not what we mean when we say the word black in relation to skin color nowadays. We usually use it to refer to African Americans. Yet they'll quote verses that say "black" and say it is talking about them.
And finally, leprosy in the Bible does not give the appearance of being Caucasian. Leviticus lists a few more symptoms of the disease.
- a rising, a scab, or bright spot and the hair in the plague is turned white (Leviticus 13 2)
- an inflammation (18-28); (4) on the head or chin (29-37)
And even if white skin was leprosy, white patches can appear on both white people and people of color as seen in the images below.
While we are talking about leprosy, I wanted to touch upon something; Gehazi is not the progenitor of the white race as some of them have said. This mainly comes from the ones who believe that Israelites are black and can only be black, and whenever the mainstream groups use this they teach that they were originally black but can be found in multiple colors, yet they do not try to say Gehazi was the progenitor of the white race, which is ironic since most of the time they will look at a white person and automatically judge them as being Edom before any background check, and even then they only go by their father, and not their father's father and so on. In 2 Kings 5, Gehazi, Elisha's servant, falsely claims that Elisha wanted the gift from Namaan that he had refused earlier in the chapter, but he hides it. Namaan, who was cured of leprosy earlier on, does so. When Elisha figures out what Gehazi did he curses him and his descendants to be leprous. First off, even if white skin was leprosy, how does that prove that Gehazi is the progenitor if there are multiple people who have leprosy in scripture? And secondly where is the proof that Gehazi gave birth to the Europeans other than this similarity? Where is the scriptural or historical evidence showing an immigration from Israel to the European countries and having children there? And finally, even though scripture does not state his ancestry, he is Elisha's servant so it is possible he was an Israelite. Wouldn't that mean that there are white people who might be Israelites? That seems to be the opposite of what most of the proponents of this theory are trying to prove since they teach that Israel can only be black people and that everyone else is another race entirely.
Were Adam and Eve Black?
"What color is dirt? Black. So Adam and Eve, who were formed from the dust, must be black." What they fail to realize is that dirt itself comes in many colors. The Bible itself does not say exactly what color dirt was used. And they use the excuse that since only black people can give birth to people of different shades, they must be black. But that does not take into account the scientific explanation towards different skin colors, which I will touch upon in the next section where I talk about Noah's children.
This is further debunked when we look at the relation between Adam and admoni, the word used to describe Esau as red. Most of them say that Esau being described as red is describing white people, who show their blood through their skin, but then they will say that this word does not mean that when applied to other people. Adom, which is related to Adam and admoni, means "red". The same also goes for King David in 1 Samuel 16 12 and 17 42, Solomon in Song of Solomon 5 10, and the Israelites in Lamentations 4 7. They are also described as red, or ruddy with the same root word.
By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning "ground" (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means "red". Each of these words have the common meaning of "red". Dam is the "red" blood, adamah is the "red" ground, edom is the color "red" and adam is the "red" man.
There is one other connection between "adam" and "adamah" as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that "the adam" was formed out of the "adamah".
In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one's character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins.— Biblical Word of the Month - Dor By: Jeff A. Benner
The Color of Noah's Children
According to them, only black people can give birth to all types of skin colors. But I do not believe Noah gave birth to three different shades of children. There is another possibility. Variations in skin color are a result of adaptations to an environment and the diet of the people living there. (Modern Human Diversity - Skin Color) I've also heard the excuse, "If that's the case then why are Eskimos dark-skinned?" Here is a link that covers the question. But to summarize it for you it has to do with diet and UV exposure.
A common argument used is that if you have the e1b1a haplogroup, you are of one of the 12 Tribes. Please see this discussion regarding the topic.
Zondervan Bible Dictionary
Earlier we talked about how many of them use the Zondervan Bible Dictionary to support their claims. What you're going to find out is that the Zondervan Compact Bible Dictionary actually debunks their claims when you go into more definitions.
Ham – The youngest son of Noah, born probably about 96 years before the Flood; and one of eight persons to live through the Flood. He became the progenitor of the dark races; not the Negroes, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and Canaanites.— Zondervan Compact Bible Dictionary
"See here? It just said that Ham is not the progenitor of the Negroes. We are not Africans. We are Israelites." There is one thing I want to point out. Just because it states that Ham is not the progenitor of the Negroes does not mean Shem is the progenitor of them. Given that I hardly see any of them actually use more of the Zondervan Dictionary, they have no idea what else it could say. For all, they know it could say the Edomites are the Negroes. Which it doesn't. I was just saying.
What they fail to realize is that the Zondervan Compact Bible Dictionary's entry on Ham uses what we call the "Hamitic Hypothesis". This is a 19th-century theory created by a Eurocentric, who was looking to claim the accomplishments of certain African and Western Asian countries (Egyptian/Kemet, Ethiopian, Canaanite, etc) by systematically placing them under the umbrella of the Caucasian "race".
In the mid-19th century, the term Hamitic acquired a new meaning as scholars asserted that they could anthropologically discern a "Hamitic race" that was distinct from the "Negroid" populations of Sub-Saharan Africa The theory arose from early anthropological writers, who linked the stories in the Bible of Noah's sons to documented ancient migrations of peoples from the Middle East into Africa. (Sanders, Edith R (1969), "The Hamitic Hypothesis: Its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective", Journal of African History, 10: 521–32,)
Now let's go into the Zondervan's NIV Study Bible notes on Genesis 9 25.
"Noah's curse cannot be used to justify the enslavement of blacks since most of Ham's descendants are known to be Caucasian, as the Canaanites certainly were as shown by ancient paintings of the Canaanites discovered in Egypt)."
The term Caucasian itself can refer to the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. It was used for anthropology, not skin tone. (Grolier Incorporated, Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 6: Cathedrals to Civil War, (Grolier Incorporated, 2001), p.85)
As we can see this hypothesis is still used today. Now let's look at the definition for Shem.
- "Shem–This second son of Noah and progenitor of the Semitic race was born ninety-eight years before the flood (Gen.11.10). He lived six hundred years, outliving his descendants for nine generations (except for Eber and Abraham)."
- "In the racial prophecy that Noah made after the episode of his drunkenness (Gen.9.25-Gen.9.27), he mentioned "the Lord, the God of Shem. The three monotheistic religions–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–all had Semitic origins."
- "Noah added that Japheth's descendants would "live in the tents of Shem," indicating that the Aryan peoples to a large extent have derived their civilization from the Shemites. In the "Table of nations" (Gen.10.1–Gen.10.32) ..."
- "...Shem, Ham, and Japheth probably differed only as brothers do, but their descendants are quite distinct."
Notice how this entry does not make a single reference to Shem being the progenitor of the Negroes. And while the Zondervan avoids painting Hamites as "Negroes" in an attempt to shun the so-called "curse of Ham" theory, they are openly claiming them as Caucasians. This not only exposes that these guys used the Hamitic Hypothesis, but that this definition denies the idea that Shem is a negro. And I am not affirming that this is correct, but the evidence used by so-called Hebrew Israelites is still debunked.
Slaves With Yah In Their Names
Using the name Yah in names is believed to be a common practice among the 12 Tribes. But you have to go into a bit of history before you claim this means they are the descendants of Jacob.
Many West Africans came to adopt Judaism and Hebraic Customs. Many were made proselytes. Not to mention the enormous Islamic presence in West Africa, which explains why many of the names listed among the Hebrew names are also Islamic names. And we also have to take in the context that not all of the slaves had Hebrew names. And it seems as if some of these names are combinations of two languages as some of these names do not make sense in the original Hebrew.
And not all of the slaves believed in these religions before being kidnapped and taken to the Americas.
"The slaves were religious people before Christianity came to the West Indies. Many practiced tribal African religions, and two slave religions—Obeah and Myalism—were formed in the islands. On many plantations, slaves were not allowed to practice these religions, and they were severely punished if they were caught."— The Christianization of Slaves in the West Indies by Jeffrey K. Padgett
Were the Shemites Black? Does Israel Reside in Africa?
According to research, Abraham lived in Mesopotamia (or what you know as the Tigris–Euphrates river system), the land of the Arameans. In Genesis 24 4 and 5 he is associated with the Arameans, giving us a further indication of this. The settlements that they would have lived in came from what is now known as modern day Syria, quite the distance from the land of Cush. While we do see that some of Abraham's children married non-Semitic races (Gen 38 2, 41 50, and 46 10), this is not enough to say that all of the 12 Tribes were black. Thus, they were all Asiatics. In the context of ancient Egypt, Asiatic meant something that was beyond the border of Egypt and Africa to the East.
Some of them also argue that Israel is part of Africa. This claim draws on the biblical reference of Israel as the land of Canaan. Canaan was the son of Ham, who the father of Africa, and therefore Israel should be part of Africa. Israel is geographically located in Asia. The country borders Lebanon to the north, Jordan to the east, Syria to the northeast, and Egypt to the southwest., Israel borders Egypt, which is part of both Africa and Asia. The continent of Asia itself spreads from Turkey in the far West, through to Japan and Russia in the East of Asia; and from Arctic Russia in the North to the islands of Indonesia in the South. (What Continent Is Israel Located In?). It is divided from Africa by the Sinai desert and the Suez canal. (Why isn't Israel considered part of Eastern Africa?)
"...combine the look of the current inhabitants of the Middle East with the representations of the Israelites and other 'Asiatic' peoples in the paintings and monument carvings of the Egyptians and the Assyrians. As mentioned above, numerous 'Asiatics' are depicted in Egyptian art from the Old Testament period."— J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation, [Intervarsity Press, 2003], pp. 33-34
"Likewise, numerous Israelites are portrayed in Assyrian sculpture. Jehu, king of Israel, along with several Israelites, is depicted in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (about 825 B.C)."
"Numerous scenes portraying Israelites are included in the sculptured wall-panels from Sennacherib's palace (701 B.C) portraying the siege of the Israelite city of Lachish. The people in these artistic portrayals are, in general, similar in appearance to the Israelis and Arabs living in and around Israel/Palestine today."
Notice how in the first picture the king (the man bowing down) has long hair and seemingly aquiline nose, which is not how ancient Nubians are depicted. On that same obelisk, you find other depictions of these people, which are nowhere near similar to the depiction of the Nubians.
Now on the second one, we can find depictions of black people there. Are they of the 12 Tribes? No, they are Nubians/Cushites who were involved in the battle mentioned in 2 Kings 19 and were made prisoners. In these depictions, we see the Judeans with fringes (Numbers 15 38) and turbans, while the Nubians do not have these.
Were the Ancient Egyptians Black?
We have incriminating evidence that the Egyptians may not have all been black. When Moses was abandoned as a baby in the river, the Egyptians adopted him and he was raised as one of them. Based on the assumptions that the Egyptians were black, they argue that the Israelites were black as well. So the question is, were they all black? According to studying anthropology, mummies, sculptures, paintings, and inscriptions, scholars have concluded that they were not black.
"Egyptians accurately depicted their enemies and their allies. They made clear distinctions between themselves and the black Nubians, whom they rhetorically denounced with insulting epithets"— (Edwin M. Yamauchi, Africa and the Bible, [Baker Academic, 2004], p. 123).
J. Daniel Hays has said that a majority of the Egyptians, quote,
- "...appeared as they are portrayed in Egyptian art; with straight black hair and light brown skin. Undoubtedly, however, there were other people in the society, both Asiatics, and Cushites, who looked different but were, nonetheless, Egyptians" (J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation, [Intervarsity Press, 2003], p. 42).
This was a mixed society, with the majority being the light brown skinned people.
- "In terms of physical and racial characteristics, the Egyptians of the ancient Near East were brown-skinned people with long hair" (Robert A. Bennett, "Africa and the Biblical Period, "Harvard Theological Review, 64 (1971): 492).
- "As we know from their observant depictions of foreigners, the ancient Egyptians saw themselves as darker than Asiatics and Libyans, and lighter than the Nubians [Negroes], and with different facial features and body types than any of these groups" (Ann Macy Roth, Building Bridges to Afrocentrism, Africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/afrocent_rob.html brackets mine).
Classic scholar Frank Snowden (an African American) notes ancient Egyptians were a lot lighter than black Ethiopians and mildly lighter than half breeds who lived between Egypt and Ethiopia.
- "Those dwellings near the boundaries between Egypt and Ethiopia were not completely black but were half-breeds as to color, in part not so black as Ethiopians but in part blacker than Egyptians" (Frank Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity, [Harvard University Press, 1970], p. 4].
- "Though not very numerous, the realistic portrayals of blacks in early Egyptian art are sufficient to illustrate the types of Kushites known prior to the New Kingdom and to show that Nehesyu, a word used of southerners as early as 2300 B.C, included people with Negroid features" (Frank Snowden, Before Color Prejudice, [Harvard University Press, 1983], pp. 11-12).
Another argument is this; the Egyptians called their land Kemet which means black people. That means Moses must have been black. But Kemet refers to the fertile soil of Egypt, in contrast to 'deshret' (red land; desert).
Pharaoh Rameses II's preserved mummified corpse shows he was not a black man.
- "He is a typical northern Egyptian; he came from the northeasternmost nome (governate) of Egypt. He had fine, wavy hair, a prominent hooked nose and moderately thin lips" (Frank Yurco, Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White? ).
It is also said that Egyptian queen Tiye (see link for picture) based on this ancient sculpture of her head, which they interpret to have an afro. However, it is not an afro. It is a kerchief headdress known as a khat. We can further confirm this when we look at her preserved mummy, which has long straight hair and facial features untypical of Negroes, such as a hooked nose and flatter lips. We can also look at the mummy of King Tut's grandfather, which does not have any Negroid features.
And finally, the bust of Queen Nefertiti, created between 1345 B.C.
- "the well-known head of Nefertiti in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. There she is depicted with a blue, caplike crown and the light-colored skin. The color on the statue head is ancient, as originally applied by the sculptor in whose studio the head was excavated. So this is how Nefertiti was actually represented in ancient times" (Frank Yurco, Were the Ancient Egyptians, Black or White? ).
When compared to either the ancient depictions of the Nubians in Egyptian art or the blacks of today, there is a major difference.
"Joseph, Moses, and Paul were called Egyptian, so that means they were black like Egyptians."
According to them, that verse in Amos means the Hamites and the Shemites should look the exact same. So why would they be mistaken for being of the Egyptian race if they looked the exact same way and both are black according to their logic? That makes no sense. Obviously, there was a reason they were called Egyptian.
Joseph: We read in Genesis 41 46 how he went to Egypt and that Pharaoh gave him a position of power in Egypt because Joseph had correctly interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams. So technically he was an Egyptian, not because he was descended from an Egyptian, but because he lived there and established his place there.
Moses: He had been raised as an Egyptian prince, so he has the accent, the clothes, spoke their language, etc. And it is the same case that Joseph had. He lived in Egypt, so he is Egyptian by citizenship and not race.
Paul in Acts 21 38: He was mistaken for an Egyptian because he was mistaken for an Egyptian prophet who led an uprising sometime between 52-58 CE. Josephus. The tribune assumes Paul is the Egyptian because he speaks Greek. Most uprisings against the Romans in Judea were led by Jewish revolutionaries (for obvious reasons) so hearing him speaking in Greek, he may assume he's a foreign troublemaker, and given that the Egyptian prophet escaped after his failed attempt, Paul seems like a likely suspect. Note that Paul immediately asserts his lineage,
The Scattering (and Kingdom of Whydah/Juda)
According to Isaiah 11 11, Acts 2 9-11; 11 20; 13 14; 17 1; 18 19; 28 14-15; and 1 Peter 1 1, the 12 Tribes found in multiple places. They also teach that after the events of 70 A.D they all went into Africa and were sold from there. Now, this is partly true. There were Jews who fled to Africa. But that was not the only place. More info on the diaspora can be found here. And while most Hebrew Israelites acknowledge this fact, they usually only provide examples of African countries involved in the diaspora which only proves that generations down the line there may have been black Jews, if any Jews.
No bible verse mentions that they would be taken captive from the land of Africa and sold unto another nation like Egypt. Isaiah 11 11 mentions a few African places such as Cush and Egypt, but it also mentions Assyria, Elam, Babylonia, Hamath and the islands of the Mediterranean. And given the fact that Isaiah 11 12 mentions Judah being in exile and verse 11 mentions Babylonia, this proves that this verse was in relation to the Babylonian captivity. It also says that this is the second time he will regather the tribes, and every Hebrew Israelite I have met or listened to online is well aware of the fact that A) The Jews were taken back to their homeland during the time of Cyrus, making this the second time the Most High returned his people to their land. B) Even if this is referring to the reunification of all 12 Tribes, they too agree that this was fulfilled during the New Covenant ( Hebrews 8 8-11 and Revelation 7 5-8).
They also use this image of the Kingdom of Whydah and use the word Juda in the map to say that these are the real Jews. And as I said before even if this was referencing Judah/the Jews, the fact that there are Israelites in Africa does not prove that the Israelites were black. And the word Juda here is Whydah, which can also be spelled as Hueda, Whidah, Ouidah, Whidaw, and Juda. It was named after the native whydah bird, and to pirate captain "Black Sam" Bellamy's Whydah Gally, a slave ship turned pirate ship. We can see that Judah and Whydah do not even have the same meaning.
Enslavement of the Other Races (Genesis 25 23, Isaiah 14, Amos 9 11-12, and Revelation 13 10)
Because Genesis 25 23 says Esau shall serve Jacob, they take this as saying white people will serve them when their rule is established. But let's take a look at a similar prophecy.
And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.— Genesis 27 40
Notice how it says that Esau will take the yoke off of him and rebel against his brother. He is in servitude during the timeline of this prophecy. Where does Esau shake this yoke off?
In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves.— 2 Kings 8 20
They rebelled against Judah, meaning that they were subject to their brother but not any longer. During the reign of King David, he put garrisons in Edom and made them subject to him. In 2 Samuel 8 14, it says, "And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David's servants. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went."
Now onto Isaiah 14.
They use the first couple of verses to say that all of the other races will be enslaved after the 12 Tribes come back together.
- "And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors."
However, they make a few errors here:
- If you saw my article, "What You Should Know About the Devil", you know that this chapter's use of Lucifer is referring to the king of ancient Babylon. Many of them will say that this is referring to the future ruler(s) of Mystery Babylon but keep reading and we will debunk that.
- Verse 21 says to prepare slaughter for the descendants of "Lucifer", but many of them assume that this is about the other races, or mainly white people (who a majority of them believe to be Edomites, see the link on that at the end). However, if we read up to verse 25 we see a prophecy against the Assyrians who possessed Israel. That was at that time. Not in the future. If it is, how are the Assyrians still in possession of Israel?
When we read it from Isaiah 13 to 14 we see the correct context. These two chapters are not about a future prophecy. Chapter 13 verses 17-20 describes ancient Babylon being overthrown by the Medes and Persians, which we read about in Daniel 5 28-31 This was fulfilled by Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great, who was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, the first Persian Empire. It also says that this place was in Chaldea, and that the Arabs (or nomads as this may have been a cover term for all the nomads in the nomadic tribes of the Bedouin type east and north of Palestine as far as Babylon see Elliot's Commentary for English Readers). And the people being taken captive as servants and handmaids are found in Ezra 2 1-2 and verse 64-65, where the Israelite are returning from their captivity with servants and handmaids. This prophecy had already come to pass. If you read Micah 4 1-8 it further confirms this. And if you read Isaiah 21, this same Babylon is called a desert by the sea. It even says that this Babylon is "the beauty of the Chaldees," which is in reference to Chaldea, the Semitic nation that was absorbed and assimilated into Babylonia (Ancient Iraq p 281 by George Roux). This confirms that this use of Babylon meant the actual land of Babylon.
- "Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;"
- "Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:"
So here we see the return to the kingdom. Isaiah 14 prophesied a return from their captivity. It also said they would bring servants and handmaids.
- "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,"
- "Beside their <<servants and their maids>>, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women."
It says servants and maids, just like Isaiah 14 2 says. Some may argue, "No that's not the fulfillment of the prophecy. See? It says handmaids in Isaiah 14 and maids in Ezra." Let's look in the Strong's Concordance for Isaiah 14 2's use of the word handmaid. What do we get?
We get the word shiphchah: maid, maidservant
Let's see a collection of verses that this same word (handmaid) was used for the word maid. Genesis 16 2, 3, 5, and 6 (and many more occurrences in that same chapter). In fact, throughout the rest of those chapters, the same word translated here in Isaiah 14 as a handmaid is translated as a maid. Do we get this same word in Ezra 2 65? No. But we get a word with the same definition.
In Ezra 2 65, we get amah; maid, handmaid
Where is this word also used? Exodus 23 12. The KJV translates this word as handmaid, meaning while these words (shiphchah and amah), they mean the exact same thing and correlate with each other by their definition and variations of the words used to refer to a female servant.
They also use Amos 9 11-12 to say, "This says we will take what is left of the Edomites after Christ comes back to judge them." They use this in two different ways.
- After the nuclear destruction, whatever is left of the nations will be enslaved and either treated according to the slave laws of the Torah or treated just as bad as the slaves in the transatlantic slave trade were treated.
- The remnant of these nations are the righteous gentiles who must go through a period of servitude to repay Israel, and they will be treated according to the laws of the Torah.
However, verse 11 says the fallen tabernacle of David is fallen and will be restored. Then they shall possess the remnant. David had conquered many places in his time. The Philistines, Moab, Ammon, Aram of Zobah, Damascus, Edom, &c.—which, though they had been conquered by David (2 Samuel 8, &c.), had afterward revolted: these, Amos promises, should again be incorporated in the restored empire of David. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
Finally, they use Revelation 13 10, more specifically the KJV rendering of the verse. Due to the archaic English used in the KJV, it doesn't read the same way it would today. It seems to say, "If someone leads others into captivity, they will be held captive. If someone kills with the sword, they will die by the sword." The sword is taken metaphorically as being guns or conquest by Edom due to the false association with Genesis 27 49 and that they associate Mystery Babylon with America and the whites with Edom. But this is reliant on the false interpretation of Isaiah 14 and it's association with Babylon. According to them, the Mystery Babylon of Revelations and Babylon of Isaiah 14 are talking about the exact same place, America. But as shown, the references to the Medes and Persians, the desert by the sea, and the Chaldeans proves that this cannot be the case. These two passages are talking about two different places.
Quotes From Others
You can see a few of these quotes being used by them to support their claims. The first one we will go over is a quote that supposedly came from the 2nd President of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser.
However, trying to find this quote in any form of media aside from a picture or text online seems impossible. It was also said to have been quoted in the TIME Magazine on Gamel Abdel Nasser, but if you look up this quote using Google Images all you can find is a picture of the cover of the magazine/a photo of him and the supposed quote. There is no picture of the page that it was found on. There is another variation of the quote that says that he stated this on television during an interview. Those who make this claim that he said this always point to this video here. But not once does he say this, nor even imply it. I have read the comments and you can see the confusion there as to when he made this claim. Any links left in the comments either point to a link that either reinstates the idea that he must have said this or is a different topic. Here is that interview. Watch it for yourself and read the comments for yourself.
Another quote they like to use is one that supposedly came from Adolf Hitler. You can read it here, but to summarize it for you Hitler confesses to his soldier that America has taken possession of the "jewels of God" (the African Americans), WW3 will start, and America is desperate because of their use of atom bombs on Japan.
Again, there is still no evidence that Hitler actually said this. If you look it up, all you will see is memes, copies of this supposed quote, and other quotes from Hitler. Also, he supposedly said that America is desperate in its attempt to use atom bombs on Japan. Hitler died (or fled to Argentine as some have claimed), in April 1945, and the atom bomb was dropped August 1945. There would be no way that he would know this.
They also use the book known as The Nazis: World War 2 by Robert Edwin Herzstein.
His use of differentiating Negro and Hamitic is used as proof, as well as Zechariah 9 6 which says a "bastard" shall dwell in Ashdod (modern-day Tel Aviv). However, there are a few things wrong with that statement;
- Bastard was a derogatory term used to describe multiracial children with German mothers who had been fathered by Africans serving with French colonial troops during the Occupation of the Rhineland after World War 1. It had nothing to do with scripture. (Blacks during the Holocaust). He was saying that the modern Jew is a bastard of those races.
- Even if it was about scripture, it was taken out of context as you can read here.
- It only mentions Ashdod, not all of the land.
- This book is a biography, which means it was not written by Hitler himself. Hitler created his autobiography, which was completed in 1925. This autobiography (Volume 1) was called "Mein Kempf", which means "My Struggle" in German. Hitler never stated that "Negroes are the true Jews" from his own writings or recordings. Here are some excerpts from Hitler's own book: "Systematically these black parasites of the nation defile our inexperienced young blonde girls and thereby destroy something which can no longer be replaced in this world” (Page 562). "Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate." -- Vol. 1, ch.XI.
And finally, we have Flavius Josephus (a.k.a Yosef ben Matityahu), a famous Romano Jewish scholar who lived in the 1st century. In 1931 an Austrian Jewish Biblical scholar and art historian named Robert Eisler published "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus' recently rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and the other Jewish and Christian sources." One of the texts reads as follows.
At that time also there appeared a certain man of magic power … if it be meet to call him a man, [whose name is Jesus], whom [certain] Greeks call a son of [a] God, but his disciples [call] the true prophet who is supposed to have raised dead persons and to have cured all diseases. Both his nature and his form were human, for he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked...
prognathous (lit. ‘with a long face [macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose, that the spectators could take fright, with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard.— (*Halōsis, ii.174).”
Source: Meaning of Melanchroes
Let's focus on the word black-skinned, or melagchrous. Herodotus referred to the Egyptians as melanchroes. That term is sometimes translated as “black-skinned,” but Greek historian Herodotus would use a different word to describe people from further south in Africa, suggesting that “dark-skinned” is more appropriate. (How White Were Ancient Egyptians by Brian Palmer).
The Greek words melas and leukos when applied to skin color were usually equivalent to "swarthy" and "fair" rather than the racial terms "black" or "white" as we tend to think nowadays. There are numerous examples of this usage in Greek literature – such as Odysseus regaining his youth (Homer Odyssey 16.172-176). Here, Homer used the word melanchroiês – a form of the same word that other Greeks sometimes chose to describe Egyptians. If taken literally, the word would mean "black-skinned"; however, it is clear from the context that Homer means "of swarthy complexion" rather than racially "black," and intends to describe Odysseus regaining his youthful color. If not then we have to assume that Odysseus was transformed into a black man.
Melanchroes simply means dark(er), which is a word you can use to describe multiple skin colors and does accurately describe the Egyptians and Israelites because they were not white or black, but were of bronze/olive complexions.
Blacks Come From Ham
Note: Most of the searches for evidence supporting this theory led to links related to the Curse of Ham, which teaches that the slavery endured in America was supported by the Bible. I am not supporting this theory and I am not referencing those links.
The Table of Nations shows that Ham's children occupied Africa, with only some exceptions such as the Canaanites.
Coming to the immediate descendants of Ham (Genesis 10:6), the writer begins with those on the South and then goes northward in the following order: Cush or Ethiopia, Mizraim or Egypt, Phut (better Put, the Revised Version (British and American)) by the Red Sea, and lastly Canaan-the Holy Land-afterward occupied by the Israelites. The sons of Cush, which follow (Genesis 10:7), are apparently nationalities of the Arabian coast, where Egyptian influence was predominant.— Topical Bible: Table of Nations
I hope this sheds light on the truth behind these lies. I debunked more of their arguments beforehand in these articles.
The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 are not about the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade: The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 And Other Captivity Verses
2019 marks the 400th year since blacks were first enslaved in America. A lot of these believers believe this will be the time of the Messiah's return. The 400 years of sojourning and captivity is not America: The 400 Years of Genesis 15 13
Esau is not the Caucasian race: Who Is Esau: False Arguments and Who Is Esau: The Book of Obadiah
Peace and blessings, and all praises to the Most High.