ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

Hebrew Israelites: Is It Scriptural?

Updated on April 14, 2018
AF Mind profile image

Given the historical and spiritual significance of the Bible, Kevin has devoted himself to studies through prayer and discernment.

Abba Bivens, who is credited as being the one who would eventually birth the Black Hebrew Israelite groups of today and is the source of a majority of their doctrines.
Abba Bivens, who is credited as being the one who would eventually birth the Black Hebrew Israelite groups of today and is the source of a majority of their doctrines.


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.

  1. Verse That Supposedly State the Skin Color of the Hebrews (Jeremiah 14:2, Lamentations 5 10, Job 30 30, Song of Solomon 1 5, Hosea 7 8, Amos 9 7, etc.)
  2. Simeon called Niger.
  3. The Color of Christ (or God) (Rev 1 14-15 and Daniel 6 10).
  4. The 2/3rds Doctrine
  5. Selling Slaves to Greeks (Joel 3 6)
  6. Psalm 83, 137, and Zechariah 11 5.
  7. Confusion of Faces/ Identity Crisis
  8. Fake Jews
  9. Moses's Leprosy (Exodus 4 6)
  10. Sons of Cush
  11. e1b1a
  12. Zondervan's Definition of Ham
  13. Yah In Slave Names
  14. Were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Black?
  15. Joseph, Moses, and Paul called Egyptian (and Are the Egyptians Black?)
  16. The Migration of the Tribes (70 AD)
  17. Isaiah 14 (Will the other races be slaves?)
  18. Quotes From Others (Abdel Nasser and Adolf Hitler).
  19. The Curses of Deuteronomy 28 are not about the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade (link at the end).
  20. The 400 Years mentioned in Genesis are not in America (link at the end).
  21. 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 believing in a thing called the 12 Tribe Chart and some of them do not. But here is a general belief among them:

  1. All or most Black people are the true 12 Tribes.
  2. 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).
  3. The other races will be sent into captivity or into some type of servitude when the Messiah returns.
  4. 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 then this, stemming from the Civil War era when some slave as well as some former slaves 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.

Skin Color

They claim that these scriptures alone prove that the original Hebrews were black. But with the problem of archaic English, these scriptures have been mistranslated 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."J

— Jeremiah 14:2

6937 qadar: to be dark

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: qadar

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 variations in scripture, 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 and mistranslated. 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. He is getting sick. Second of all, this is about having a fever. He is getting too hot. We can further confirm this by noting how it says his bones are burned with heat.

"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 most wise 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. In 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

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 is about racial mixing, it is not about them mixing with white people. This is not describing their skin color.

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 so called 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

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 in 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."


"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? Obviously 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)

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. 6 9 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. Am I saying he is white? No, but this was not about his earthly skin color. 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.

If these verses are taken literally, then this means that his eyes are literally flames of fire. Does verse 16 mean he actually has a sword coming out of his mouth? Or is this a metaphor for his speech and power? Does he actually have a lot of water coming out of his mouth? Or is this describing something about his voice and/or speech? These are not meant to be taken literal. And if this was about a black man, if 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 wood 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. 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. 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.

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 prophecy, regarding the modern day but the spirit realm and the letters to the seven churches and the prophecy of what would happen to them.

Brass being polished
Brass being polished
Brass being burned in a furnace.
Brass being burned in a furnace.
Pure wool.
Pure wool.

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 Black 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.


  • "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? 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." So these scriptures make more sense if you apply them to the ancient Babylon and not the modern day.

When King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC, the Edomites gave aid and comfort to the enemy (Psalm 137 7) For this, they were strongly condemned by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Obadiah. They took part with the Chaldeans when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, and afterwards they invaded and held possession of the south of Palestine as far as Hebron. At length, however, Edom fell under the growing Chaldean power (Jeremiah 27 3 and 6). Source: (gotquestions)


  • "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.

Identity Crisis

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. 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.

Fake Jews

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 prophecy 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 2 7

This is not about current times saying that there would be impostors. This is about the time when people who believed in the word of Christ were still being persecuted. They 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 descent from Jacob and being circumcised, were not doing what the Jewish people were called to do. Do we need more proof? Read the entirety of Revelations 2 and 3. Which seems more fitting? A current event or a prophecy to happen over a thousand years later?

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 descent of Jacob. It is about the Almighty's promise to Jacob and his children. And finally, Deuteronomy 32 21, which says that the Almighty will provoke the 12 Tribes with those "who are not a people." They take this as saying for their sins, the Almighty is going to temporarily call someone else his people until they repent. Where is this fulfilled? In the New Covenant.

But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

— Romans 10 19

They use this verse to say that Moses could not be white because she is turned white, so he must obviously be black. 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.

This young girl is Indian (, and she is not black. But according to BHI logic white spots can only appear on black people.
This young girl is Indian (, and she is not black. But according to BHI logic white spots can only appear on black people.

Sons of Shem, or Sons of Ham?

According to them, they are the true descendants of Jacob due to the curses of Deuteronomy 28, which I posted a link for at the end. Please read that when you finish. We are going to prove that blacks come from Cush. Ham's son Cush is the ancestor of the Cushites. The Cushites who inhabited the ancient land of Cush were the ancient blacks. This land also went by the name of Nubia and Ethiopia in ancient times. Although the BHIs quote the Zondervan Dictionary to say that Ham is only the progenitor of some dark races "but not the Negroes" as it states,, that same book nowhere states that Shem was the progenitor either.


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 Eurocentrics, who were 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 Semetic 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 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 12 Tribes black?

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. It is geographically situated in the subtropical Mediterranean zone in West Asia.

Ancient depictions of Shemites, Hamites, and Japhites.
Ancient depictions of Shemites, Hamites, and Japhites.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Siege of Lachish
Siege of Lachish

"...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 potrayals 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 a hooked 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 on 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.

"The Story of a Nubian King Etched in Stone." (
"The Story of a Nubian King Etched in Stone." (

Were the Ancient Egyptians Black?

An Ancient Egyptian relief of a Nubian prisoner.housed in the St. Lewis Art Museum. Compared to how they depicted the Egyptians and the Nubians, we can see a clear difference between the two.
An Ancient Egyptian relief of a Nubian prisoner.housed in the St. Lewis Art Museum. Compared to how they depicted the Egyptians and the Nubians, we can see a clear difference between the two.
"The Wooden Chest of Tukankhamun", created between 1417 and 1379 B.C. It depicts the Egyptian king defeating the Nubians. Again, there is a clear difference.
"The Wooden Chest of Tukankhamun", created between 1417 and 1379 B.C. It depicts the Egyptian king defeating the Nubians. Again, there is a clear difference.
 Look very closely and you can see the facial image of the Nubians is the same as the Nubian slave above. These photos also depict the Egyptians with straight hair and light brown skin.
Look very closely and you can see the facial image of the Nubians is the same as the Nubian slave above. These photos also depict the Egyptians with straight hair and light brown skin.

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, 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;t he 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 head dress 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 descent 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

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, they were found in multiple places. Not the Americas like a majority of them teach. 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 ytue. There were Jews who fled to Africa. But that was not the only place. More info on the diaspora can be found here.

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:

  1. If you saw my article, "What You Should Know About the Devil", you know that this chapter's use of Lucifer is referring to 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.
  2. 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.

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 17-19 describes ancient Babylon being overthrown by the Medes and Persians, which we read about in Daniel 5 28-31. 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.

EZRA 2:1-2,64-65

  • "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 handmaid is translated as 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.

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.

No page number under the quote.
No page number under the quote.

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 by 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 believe), 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;

  1. 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.
  2. Even if it was about scripture, it was taken out of context as you can read here.
  3. It only mentions Ashdod, not all of the land.
  4. 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.


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

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

Peace and blessings, and all praises to the Most High.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • AF Mind profile image

      AF Mind 9 months ago


      You're welcome. If you have anymore questions, let me know.

    • profile image

      9 months ago

      All right thanks, I probably should have re-read your article, so that was my fault. I have been trying to find out the truth behind the BHI for the past few days and this article has been a real help. So thank you again.

    • AF Mind profile image

      AF Mind 9 months ago


      I watched the video, Every argument he presented is addressed in the following sections of my article.

      "Gen 42 Joseph could not be recognized by his brothers because he 'blended' in with the Hamites (Egyptians). He also spoke on how Yeshua Mary, and Joseph went to Egypt in order to 'blend' in. Or how Paul was mistaken for one. "

      See section 15 Joseph, Moses, and Paul called Egyptian (and Are the Egyptians Black?). I provide DNA evidence as well as pictures to prove that Egypt was not an all black society, as well as why Joseph, Moses, and Paul were mistaken for Egyptians.

      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 descent 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.

    • profile image

      9 months ago

      There is a youtube video by a youtuber called 7 Trumpets Prepper and he in that video 'proves' that the African American is the Isrealite from the bible. He uses some of the points you spoke about above and in other articles, but he refrences how in Gen 42 Joseph could not be recognized by his brothers because he 'blended' in with the Hamites (Egyptians). He also spoke on how Yeshua Mary, and Joseph went to Egypt in order to 'blend' in. Or how Paul was mistaken for one. Could you please watch the video ( and respond with your thoughts on this?

    • AF Mind profile image

      AF Mind 9 months ago


      Yes, but:

      1. Not because the scriptures say so or because of the Deuteronomy 28 curses.

      2. Only because there were some Jews (keyword some, not all like they tend to claim) who went into Africa in the Diaspora, so there may be some of them with legitimate lineage. But not all of them. A small number, most likely,.

    • profile image

      9 months ago

      So you're saying that some members of the BHI could be actual descendants of Isrealites?

    • AF Mind profile image

      AF Mind 9 months ago

      Hi J,

      I don't believe any particular race of people are the real 12 Tribes. I believe that the 12 Tribes were scattered all over the world and that their descendants can be found in all groups of people

    • profile image

      9 months ago

      Who are the real jews?

    • AF Mind profile image

      AF Mind 10 months ago


      That is abaolutely true. I am only using the words black and white since those are the terms most known. Let me rephrase it: they do not have Caucasian or Negroid features. Look up a picture of Yemenite Jews. That is what I mean.

    • profile image

      Jay 10 months ago

      "They weren't white, but they weren't black either." That doesn't say much about anything. Technically blacks aren't black either. They are multiple shades of brown.

    • AF Mind profile image

      AF Mind 10 months ago


      When did I say they were "pale faced"? I didn't. They weren't white, but they weren't black either.

    • profile image

      Dorothy 10 months ago

      Why does it bother you so much ? Common sense tell you the place all this happened they could not have been pale face.

    • AF Mind profile image

      AF Mind 15 months ago

      hll "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil."

      If they were the same color as they erroneously say Amos 9 7 says, why is there so much emphasis on the color of the Ethiopians if they were the same color? Why didn't Jeremiah just refer to his skin color if they are the same color? Why didn't he say, "Can you change the color of your skin or the leopard his spots"? Obviously there is something very different between the color of the Ethiopians and the Yasharalites.

      You also have to take account of the earlier evidence I showed that does show differences between the Africans and Shemites,

      I am familiar with a lot of the literature outside of the Bible used to justify these claims. However all of the evidence has been refuted as you can see in my article. I hope you have read all of it and will consider it. Shabbat shalom.

    • profile image

      hll 15 months ago

      please provide us with those scriptures. DNA testing are providing that the hebrew Israelites are black. Also, he is a great book to read

      The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Or Gustavus Vassa, The African

      This book provides a autobiography of a Hebrew Israelite who was kidnapped and sold as a slave. But he bought his freedom at age 20 and told the story of our people.