Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

http://rense.com/general51/eat.htm

Why Killing Is The Biggest Business Of All
Penalty Of An Ancient Fraud
By John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net
4-14-4

"And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Pick up your swords, go from camp to camp, every man shall kill his brother, every man shall kill his companion, every man shall kill his neighbor."
- Exodus 32:27
 
"Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
- Isaiah 13:16
 
"And you shall eat the flesh of your sons and daughters."
- Leviticus 26:29
 
"Their town is all green graves, and blood under the feet of its men."
- Aneirin, Welsh poet, c. A.D. 660
 
"Who is the third who walks always beside you?
... Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded .... "
- T.S. Eliot, "What the thunder said," A.D. 1922
 
 
When you become aware of a fleeting thought and try to catch it, it always seems to disappear. But if you try to walk away from it, it pursues you like a shadow, an invisible wraith of foreboding that lurks behind your left shoulder. Uneasily, you turn around to face it, and once again it is not there.
 
They are numbers on a newspaper page. Silhouettes on a TV screen. Imaginary insects tickling the back of your neck. Objects of hatred targeted by the pastor's pointing finger. Terrorists lurking in your own neighborhood, aiming to blow you up.
 
Who are these people we feel we must kill in order to assure our own safety, to validate and verify our own lives? Who are these faceless savages who give us nightmares, and accelerate the sales of drugs to calm us down.
 
Yesterday they were the Palestinians. In our minds we were taught to see beasts with dynamite-encased ribcages ready to shatter our lives on a moment's notice. In reality today we see desperate children throwing stones at Apache helicopters, then lying in the street bleeding after Israeli target practice.
 
Before that there were the niggers, coming to rape your white daughters. Subsequent exercises in reason reveal to most of us they were really innocent African abductees dangling from a tree limb in a drunken Southern town.
 
And before that there were those filthy savages called Indians, on whom white Europeans perfected their genocide techniques that became America's principal export, a social technique which - when combined with the latest style in weaponry - provided those in the United States with their much-admired level of prosperity. Subsequent perspective on these forgotten souls - these native Americans - has never evolved, and to this day, they are abused and ravished by the local cops.
 
Today's terrorists du jour are Iraqis (and Arabs in general), the ungrateful recipients of radioactive gifts from that high-tech plantation called America.
 
Wrapped in tiny shawls and speaking an odd language (as enemies usually do), they bring us nightmare bombs that manifest the threat we must overcome to stay alive, that give us our reasons for productivity and ingenuity. Funny how it works that way, how civilization evolves responding to threats, whether real or imagined.
 
Suicide bombers! Splashing the entrails of our own fear all over the front pages of our shrewdly designed existences. Funny how when you see how these creatures of horror evolved, we appear to have invented them ourselves, right in the pages of the Old Testament. You could also call it the Torah, but doing that allows Christians to evade responsibility for this violent horror that grips the world, and it would not be fair to do that, to pin everything on the Jews.
 
The one good thing about both creeds is that they both stress personal responsibility, and that's what we're trying to define here. That's true, even though they both advocate killing those whose property you covet, as the excerpted quotes at the top of this essay so aptly illustrate.
 
Few of us ever contemplate that these terrorist threats are works of fiction, crafted by those with an ulterior motive. Usually that motive, if history is any guide, is about stealing someone's land. When you read about so-called villains, the horror is created to achieve the objectives of someone who gains something from creating that threat. As I said, it's usually about land. Or if not, about a very lucrative commodity.
 
Perhaps it goes back to Cain and Abel, or Abraham and his two sons, one of whom was disinherited and traces directly to the giant wall the erstwhile sons of Isaac are currently building in the West Bank. After all these centuries, still trying to deny the rightful patrimony of their brothers. And murdering their first-cousins at will. And with glee.
 
There are innumerable instances of righteous killing of those who had something we wanted. Our civilization is built on these lessons. We are still practicing them.
 
Justice always takes a back seat to avarice because it is conveniently created and administered by those with power over others.
 
Those who pretend to be religious are only pretending. The laws of God are contrived to facilitiate theft, not forgiveness.
 
Yet the thought is fleeting. When you turn around to face it it's not there, like a faint but painful memory of some childhood sexual trauma.
 
Fleeting. And our lives are wasted with murder and mayhem, scarred on our souls like a planet turned to ash by the poisons of our own desires.
 
Mnemosyne, goddess of memory, what a duplicitous gift you give us. Sweet reverie, how could we kill without you? But we have our Holy Orders!
 
Somehow our well-being is tied up with having enemies: Palestinian grasshoppers, black rapists, Indian savages. And tied into religion. Defeating death. Repelling the infidel. Planting the flag of Christ in some foreigner's land.
 
We know who most of yesterday's enemies are. They're still bleeding, those beleaguered few still left alive.
 
Conject, if you will, on whom tomorrow's enemies may be. And the lies that will be used to condemn them. Chances are good, if history is any guide, it will involve land. And precious commodities of some sort.
 
Certainly, Bush/Kerry has the Venezuelans in its gun sights. There is simply too much oil there to be left in the hands of people with such dark skin. And Lula's Brazil would be a natural progression once South Guanatamo is established in Caracas, although the Brazilians are reportedly close to perfecting their own nukes, and we all know the United States doesn't pick on countries which can actually fight back.
 
Which is why - OK, also because of Wal-Mart - that the U.S. will never go after China. Much too tough. Their day is coming. Hell, the U.S. isn't even tough enough to stop the Aztlantics from grabbing San Francisco, Santa Fe and San Antonio, something that will probably happen in the 21st century.
 
But the Lord says it's cool to kill people for their possessions. And the human race is apparently not ready to distinguish between the spoken words of God and the satanic scribblings of the pederastic priests who interpose their deluded dogma and insist it is the wish of the Messiah.
 
I lately have been deluged by letters from "concerned" Christians for blaming their faith in my "Fallujah" piece. (See http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/hallelujah_in_fallujah.htm .) Makes me realize how sick this religion is, in that so many people would be more worried about saving their selfish souls than in the unjust butchery of innocent people. That is not how to save your soul, people, and the principal thing that is absolutely wrong with all religions.
 
Got another note from a feller in Mississippi who actually bought one of my books but had to send me a little comic book illustrating why it was more important to "keep the Lord's holy word" than it was to do good works. It depicted a couple who had spent their lives feeding the poor meeting a man who had committed murder but who had "accepted" Christ. At the end, when they meet their maker, the wrathful God welcomes the reformed killer but sends the altruistic old couple straight to hell, pontificating that it doesn't matter what good works you do - it only matters if you follow the word of God.
 
This may explain why I have such contempt for religion.
 
I have nothing against God, but religions are pure evil. Simply mind control propaganda meant to assure the serene unconsciousness and political ineffectivness of the deceived populace.
 
Why is that bullets and holy men in black cassocks always seem to go together?
 
In this world we try to find someone to look down our noses at, someone who makes us feel that we are better than. Who is it that declares these evil infidels? How many pagans were slaughtered by the fledging Constantinian church?
 
I suggest that the true pariahs are the ones who create these distinctions: the Brahmins, the British, the Americans, the white Europeans who propagandize these falsely discriminatory distinctions and teach our children to kill because of the color of someone's skin.
 
It's all a ruse to begin with. It's not really about lineage; it's about cold hard cash.
 
The true villains on this earth are those who enslave and exploit, who manipulate and massacre to prove to themselves they are the superior ones, when all they are proving is that they are the weak and evil ones. This concept of elite respectability is a sham anyway, since most fortunes in this world were built on illegal activity, from British drug smugglers to Israeli arms merchants to American drug profiteers.
 
So it is with Western history. The people who wrote the Bible were the bad guys, who went around killing everyone and then invented noble-sounding reasons for doing so. And we Americans, with our vaunted Western civilization, are their literal heirs, in every sense of the word. We have perfected killing and destruction as the highest art form of human civilization.
 
All the while marching on subliminal orders from the Old Testament.
 
In Richard Duncan's very scary piece on the savage world he predicts will develop at the shocking end of the age of oil (http://dieoff.com/page224.htm), he foresees it is the indigenous people who will fare the best, because they are well prepared for living close to the land without canned food and automatic can openers. Said the pessimistic geologist, "If God made the earth for human habitation, then He made it for the Stone Age mode of habitation."
 
And I am constantly reminded of Becker's maxim: "The greatest evil in human history is material production."
 
Something to keep in mind when you realize the elite are now trying to kill us all off with biotech food that curdles your insides, with aluminium and barium poisoning from the sky the clogs your lungs with hard mucous, with designer prescription drugs designed to make you more dependent on even more poisonous medications, with brain-numbing flouride in the water, with gene-shattering aspartame in our soft drinks, with radioactive polonium in our cigarettes ... it's all too clear that the preconscious triggers from all our religions and philosophies are predicated on self-destruction over our obsessive guilt that we die - and that our loved ones must die - and we can do nothing about it.
 
It's so clear why we are hellbent to destroy ourselves, and it is best reflected in my favorite Bible quote of all - Deuteronomy 28:56-58:
 
If your mother does not obey all of God's holy laws, she will be forced to eat her own children!
 
 
Come back to Earth, people, before it's too late. If you cling to your hope of heaven, and forget to heal the wounds of those you have injured because of that hope of heaven, it will surely produce exactly what it is aimed at - the death of us all.
 
It takes a little more understanding that that to truly live. It takes understanding that the messages in the holy books are only false justifications for killing our brothers and sisters. And it is in that sense that God has truly become the devil.
 
People are always asking me to stop complaining and suggesting something positive they can do fix the evil in this world. Well, here's an idea.
 
Boycott your churches. Snub your synagogues. Ignore your mosques. Until those preachers come out foursquare for peace and justice, refuse to accept their pitiful propaganda.
 
The minute you start worrying about your immortal soul is exactly the point at which you lose it.
 
Besides, that's not God who resides in most houses of worship anyway. It's Moloch! It's Baal. It's Marduk. It's definitely Mammon. The evil one, posing as your deity, teaching you how to pretend to be good rather than actually teaching you how to be good.
 
Tell your pastor you have a higher standard of morality than he is able to reach, as long as he keeps preaching that Old Testament bigotry and stays silent about America's mass murder of innocents for reasons that are provable lies. What kind of morality is silence about that? Ask him. Tell him. Stand up for what's right.
 
Quit worrying about your soul. It will take care of itself. Besides, if you're an American you've already lost your soul anyway. You have almost no chance of getting it back.
 
The only thing God really cares about is how you treat others.
 
And bombing innocent people in order to steal their land and their valuable possessions, as that fake God in the Old Testament incessantly recommends, doesn't really cut it, does it?

Iyah360

I'm speechless, well almost. Good post. If only more people thought like you and Rense...

"If someone does not accept the bible and its great message they cannot hope for salvation."  Haile I (save in error)

"Africans are in bondage today because they approach religion through there colonizers." Haile I (save in error)

As a youth most people told me, including my parents, that the bible was full on nonsense. When I began to read the Ible for Iself, I found that the claims were completely fallacious. However, I, like InI Empera, accept that the Ible has been corrupted. This can be noticed in Genesis when the book claims that womban was created from the rib of a man. As InI know that the female is not subordinate to a man. However, no matter how many times babylon wanna corrupt the book, the message stays the same. A man with conscience can read, and when he comes across a passage of corruption, an alert will go off. It was not the bible that justified slavery, as well as contemporary murder and brigandage, but the conscience. A man without conscience will lie to themselves, as well as the Lord.

peace and hotep,

meat or flesh eating equals killing. [smiley=lipsrsealed2.gif]
death accepted on the first level of human devilopment  as food.

freedomisahapislave

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness..."  -2 Timothy 3:16

The Bible makes itself clear that it's a 66 package deal.  You either accept all 66 books as inspired and put your utmost faith in JAH's ability to protect his word through his holy spirit, or you set yourself a snare of the wicked one.  

The wording on scriptures can be corrupt, but there are many good translations where there is a literal word-for-word basis with little margin for error.  I don't know what translation you use, but I recommend The New World Translation or the New International Version.  The King James is, of course, always good, too, if you don't mind the antiquated english.  

The most reprehensible thing done is the removal of God's name, Jehovah or Yahweh.  People go around "praising the LORD" and they have no idea who he is.  They think Yeshua was El Shaddai, ALLAH, God Almighty himself.  Bless yourself that you know the difference.  All praise to be to JAH who "[is] worthy...to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because [he] created all things and because of [his] will they existed and were created." (Rev 4:11)  

Peace.

out_of_Zion,

I have a question for you...Since other cultures that pre-existed the cannonized Bible had the exact same stories, millenia prior to it's writing. How is the Bible the word of God? And why are these pre-existing papyri and scriptures never given credit or even akcnowledged by people that want to hold onto the belief that the Helio Biblio isn't a compilation of earlier myths...or dare I say a plagerized version of these earlier myths? Can you explain this?

The reason I ask, is you are saying to go to direct translations...but really the Bible itself even the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic verison is a copy or "versions" of pre-existing texts. If we know the origional texts it was derived from, Why aren't you suggesting we study those? Especially since they are less likely to be tampered with?

Sister, though I overstand your point and certainly respect your spiritual beliefs, that was not the thrust of my post.  I was trying to impress to haileemperor that if one is to accept the Bible and study the Bible, it is imperative that one accept the ENTIRE Bible since scripture alone makes that clear.  

Moreover, since the Bible's prophecies interlock, it is foolish to reject critical elements that are re-asserted later.  For instance, as haileemperor refuses to accept, the fact that in the book of Genesis Moses writes under inspiration that Eve was formed from man, thus called "wo-man."  This is reinforced later in the role of the wife within a Christian relationship.  As Christ is the head of the congregation, so man is the head of woman, Paul asserts.  He also writes that women should not hold positions of teaching.  Whether ANYONE actually agrees with that is not truly pertinent because the point is that it's there and it's a confirmation Biblically of the relationship between man and woman.  Society today has perverted the meaning of what in ideal terms is beautiful.

With regards to pre-existing texts that have the same stories, I fail to see how the Bible could be predated when it begins with the dawn of man and woman, Adam and Eve.  Certainly there weren't sub-humans writing these accounts before the first two humans in the garden of Eden.  How, then, can the Bible be considered a plagery when the accounts spoken of were passed down true acts of Jehovah's chosen ones...from Abel to Abraham to Noah to Jacob to the twelve tribes.  There's no gap.  What you are suggesting then, I presume, is that these accounts are myths that never happened and the entire Bible is fabricated.  There's too much corroborating evidence for me to even consider that.

If that seems closed-minded, so be it, it's both my opinion that those events occured and my spiritual beliefs have become molded by them.  I certainly don't deny the fact Mohammed walked the earth, though I'm not a follower of Islam, so I fail to see why many non-Christians attempt to deride the accounts that are written of in the Bible - much as they are reiterated in the Qur'an.

gman -

don't live in igorance.  Timothy didn't write the books of Timothy.  Paul wrote them TO TIMOTHY.  And the scripture you are speaking of is being misinterpreted by you because women spoke in those very first century congregations that Paul sent Timothy to!  The type of speaking, HOWEVER, is what is being referred to.  They did not publically address the conversation, speak to them, teach them.  The men (usually the elder ones), much as all throughout the Judaic system, exercised the positions of authority within the congregation.

OK fair enough, my bad. But my point remains, Paul is requiring female subservience (along with slaves being obedient to their masters etc) and your idea of the Bible (every single word in it is just as important and true as every single other word) puts Paul's words on a par with Yeshua's.

Different people weigh different scriptures to their own liking.  Every Bible reader (I say Bible reader instad of Christian for accuracy) has favorite scriptures.  Some of us love Psalms whose author we do not even know.   Does that in and of itself not speak volumes?

Now as to whether or not "Paul's words were on par with Yeshua" to paraphrase you isn't really what I was questioning.  I haven't seen any Bibles that feature the words of Paul (as they do with Yeshua's) in red letters, as they are almost all letters to the congregations.  

Paul performed a much different role than Yeshua - and also recall that he, like you and I, was an imperfect human, unlike Yeshua who was determined perfect & unblemished in the sight of JAH.  Jah merely used Paul for a specific purpose - namely to organize and promote the evangelizing in the first century.  He wasn't attempting to overheave the fabric of society, as you saw, he was often jailed for no reason and did not strike out at the jailers, nor even battle his convictions.  So you might chalk up his slaves being obedient to their masters as part of his passive, even weak, nature.  

He made other statements that I certainly don't necessarily AGREE with, but such is the nature of having men write the Bible, you feel the tinge of their own feelings and it makes it that much more real.  I refer to the scripture where he says "I wish that all of you were like myself.  But if a man is given to flames of passion, let him marry."  Now, not only does that statement sound obnoxious and self-righteous, but it's also written by an unmarried man who is obviously ignorant in the ways of marriage.  Why do I say so?  BECAUSE WE DON'T MARRY JUST TO F***!  Our marriage mates our companions, friends, confidants.  Nonetheless, that's part of the scriptures.  So you see there are some things that are a product of the writers that wrote them.  Few Christians will say that marriage is a bad thing - IT WAS ARRANGED BY JEHOVAH HIMSELF!- and yet you have Paul basically saying its a "necessary evil."  

What is the point in all this?  That certain scriptures apply to some people more than others.  The scripture I paraphrased above may incense me slightly at Paul, but it may truly encourage an unmarried brother in that he feels he is giving Jehovah a great gift by focusing on doing his will rather than pleasing himself with a wife and a family.  How many people truly CHOOSE to do this?  Almost none.  There are some who claim to but they are usually undesired mates, to be blunt.  Nonetheless...ha, I think I just negated my own point with regards to that scripture...

The scripture about women not speaking is not meant to demean women obviously, nor do I find many sisters that take offense to that comment.  They raise their hands and answer questions in meetings.  They give parts in the theocratic school where they are in a household ministry situation and they do more than their fair share in the worldwide preaching work, so we're by no means locking them away in the closet.  As to why Jehovah - because it was he who did it first - chose to only have men exercise headship roles, we can only speculate and theorize, but it's hardly a wicked injustice...and it doesn't compromise their freedom in any palpable way.

OK so different scriptures apply to different people... so if that's so essentially you're agreeing with what haileiniemperor said in the first place... that he vibes which scriptures are 'right' and which are 'wrong'... only you're saying they're only 'right' or 'wrong' for HIM, right? (for haileiniemperor that is, I'm not saying HIM like His Imperial Majesty).
Personally my common sense and inner instincts tell me that I am under no obligation to follow every specific law in Leviticus (for eg.), that those laws were intended by Moses to apply to that specific people at that specific time, not by JAH to apply to everyone throughout time. Same way my common sense and inner instincts tell me it's wrong to move into someone's land and kill them all and dash their babies' heads against the rocks etc. (Unless you want to look at those kinds of scriptures metaphorically as saying we need to ruthlessly wipe out the negative parts of ourselves, as some interpret the Bhagavad Gita.)

No.  haileemperor was implying certain scriptures are not even inspired, which is a demonic, Satanic statement to make about the sacred scriptures.  Contrasted with that, I was only saying that certain scriptures apply more to some people than others...but no where did I implicate that any scriptures were not written under divine inspiration and thus the word of Jehovah God Almighty.

As for you not keeping Levitical law - you're not supposed to.  Paul tells us "Christ is the end of law," meaning, if you put your faith in the ransom provision, all the Mosaic laws and pre-existing laws are no longer applicable to you.  Notice, though, that even these modern day religious Jews fail to keep the covenant they entered into, i.e., they are not still offering animal sacrifices.  It just further proves that they have lost divine favor and are making a mockery of the Most High.

You are aware that when the Israelites were issued a decree to slaughter people that they were killing people who were subjects for Gahenna, don't you?  When Jehovah told them to kill the Baal worshippers, killing the offspring of the wickedd is a part of it...these people were sacrificing their children by burning them alive and were completely driven by demons.  It is not as though they were slaughtering a calm and peaceful people.

You could not be more innacurate about the Canaanites.  And the fact of the matter is that nobody from Moses on could get the Hebrews to stop worshiping Ba'al. When the Babylonian captives returned in 600BC they saw the benefit of a state religion, having observed the Babylonians, and even having served in the government. They wrote the Bible, borrowing much from the Babylonians, including the whole 'baby in the bullrushes' story, denied priestesshood to women, and tried to shut down the worship of the gods and goddesses who had always been honored side by side with YHWH, who was after all a Midian storm and thunder god. Even Abraham, if he came from Ur as the Bible says, that makes him a Mesopotamian too. The Cannaanites were not even a warlike people, and as for the human sacrifice bit, all you have to do is read the Old Testament and the non-stop slaughter to figure out who was cornering the market on human sacrifice. "We are the Chosen people. Anyone who does not embrace our view of the world is a blasphemer and has to die." From that day to this, the same old story. The world virtually held hostage to a xenophobic ideology.  It's interesting. In pre-Dynastic Egypt the king and all his household would willingly sacrifice themselves for the continuation of the life of all the people. Maybe from our modern viewpoint that seems barbaric, but the fact of the matter is that now millions are sacrificed so that the king can be well-fed, so that he and his can continue.

A group of people needs to kill another group of people for their land, resources, whatever. After this is said and done, they come in, then write a history which makes them look more righteous than the group which they killed.

This is the legacy of colonialism.

"Moloch was represented as a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull. The statue was hollow, and inside there burned a fire which colored the Moloch a glowing red. Children were placed on the hands of the statue. Through an ingenious system the hands were raised to the mouth (as if Moloch were eating) and the children fell into the fire where they were consumed by the flames. The people gathered before the Moloch were dancing on the sounds of flutes and tambourines to drown out the screams of the victims."
__

Today we sacrifice children to the god of money and self-importance which manifests itself in the Bull market on wall street."a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull" They feed us propoganda, titillate our primal natures for sex and violence with movies and T.V. and wrap us up in the trivial petty gossip fostered by sitcoms and the glamerous lives of Hollywood stars, the "dancing on the sounds of flutes and tambourines" which all functions to "drown out the screams of the victims"

Rootsie:  I don't feel the need to defend the veracity of the Bible because it's been done by people with infinitely more knowledge than I who could make the argument much more proficiently, and you obviously don't agree with them.  So for me to reason on the matter would be quite futile indeed.  And I certainly am not the kind of fool to jump on a soapbox and curse you for not agreeing with my stance on the matter, so it's to be left alone.

Iyah - so true.  A friend of mine epitomized it, the phenomenon of which you speak, by saying that "abortion is infant sacrifice to the sex god (Molech)."

What is the punishment for this though?

"And your eye should not feel sorry; soul will be for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."  -Duet 19:21

Simple enough.  Jehovah is not blind to this murder.  

"For the [true] God himself will bring every sort of work into the judgment in relation to every hidden thing as to whether it is good or bad."  -Eccl 12:14

Is this not the policy of the people who claim authorship of the bible as well?

This was a non-answer...good dodge though...
So you think the Bible was written at the dawn of man? You don't agree with the FACT that civilizations existed before the Hebrews? I guess to deny pre-existing text you must CHOOSE to not read any other pre-existing cultures literature...I guess some people like to NOT know. If one's spiritual beliefs can't even stand up to simmple questions...how strong is it? Not answering the question...or answering it with information that is clearly false is disturbing when speaking of spirituality...(especially when so much of the information is given on this site alone).

The reason I asked about sticking to the Helio Biblio is because us Africans authored many of the papyri and spiritual systems it is plagerized from. The system that enslaved and colonized us does not want us to deal with that. Ignoring it is helping the enemy.

Yeshu the historical figure has been intermixed with the mythical Ausar and Heru(as have all other great men of spirit)....The similarities are astounding. How can anyone deny these things?....Should we not want to know the truth? Is God the enemy of knowledge?

Iyah 360 and Rootsie....good points...seems we have an issue dodger in our midst...

You seem to be missing a point here.  There literally can be no pre-existing civilization when the Hebrew line begins with the beginning of man and civilization in the garden of Eden.  I realize you don't like to acknowledge this fact.

The only way to beget your theory is to a) call this a biblical myth in which case you can take that up with El Shaddai JAH himself and tell the Almighty you don't believe his letter to you, or b) say that these "pre-existing" peoples you speak of were ape men and that you believe in evolution.  Sadly enough, though, even the most ardent evolutionists have come to realize that humans came from a single pair originally as they've studied the make up of the sex determinant chromosome, specifically the Y.

Because this fact speaks for itself:

Lineage of the Hebrews from Adam & Eve to Jacob

GOD => Adam, Eve
Cain, Abel, Seth
Seth => Noah,
Shem, Ham, Japeth
Ham => Terach => Abraham, Haran
Haran => Lot => Ammon, Moab
Abraham => Rebecca, Issac, Ishmael
Ishmael => JACOB (and Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah, Esau)
JACOB => 12 TRIBES...and the Hebrews

While there may have been civilizations that pre-existed prior to the Hebrews there were no people that pre-existed the first two Hebrews, namely Adam and Eve.  


"But the lawless one's presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying sings and portents and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of truth that they might be saved.  So that is why God lets an error of operation go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness."  -2nd Thessalonians 2:9-12

You would do well to study the mythologies of the ancient African people such as the Mbuti(Pygmies) who have dwelt in the cradle of mankind since antiquity, as many of the stories that are co-opted in the bible began with these people.

The first creation of man in Genesis 1 precedes the story of Adam in Genesis 2 and this differentiation has been used to justify the subhuman status and exploitation of many of the first peoples of the world.

Could you explain that to me a little more in depth please? I don't understand exactly what you mean.  Are you saying that white imperialists have used Genesis to call the indigenous tribes of Afrika sub-human?

There are 2 accounts of the creation of humans in the book of Genesis. In this story is the reflection of the idea that earlier man(created in Genesis 1) was soulless, as Gerald Massey states: " . . . the spirits of wickedness, the inferior Seven, derived their origin from the great mother alone, who produced without fatherhood! It was in the image, then, of the sevenfold Elohim that the seven races were formed(sic. Genesis 1) which we sometimes hear of as the pre-Adamite races of men, because they were earlier than the fatherhood which was individualized only in the second Hebrew creation(sic. Genesis 2). These were the primitive people of the past,--the old, despised, dark races of the world,--who were held to have been created without souls."

Genesis 1
"26   And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

. . . and then . . . .  

Genesis 2
5   And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6   But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7   And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Notice that in Genesis 2, ADAM, who is the man AS A LIVING SOUL is formed AFTER god moistens the earth "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth."  

This idea is reflected later by Philo in his philosophical interpretations of the stories in the old testament. Note ESPECIALLY the equating of loose earth with that of the Chus(Cushites/Ethiopians):

"81) Why the eldest son of Ham is Chus. (#Ge 10:6). The sacred historian has here produced a word most completely in accordance with nature, saying that Chus was the elder son of evil, Chus being the dissolved and loose nature of the earth, for the earth, when dense and fertile, and moist, is full of herbs, and hills, and trees, and is well arranged for the production of different fruits; but when dissolved and reduced to dust and dry, it is unfruitful and barren; and besides it is tossed about in the air, when it is raised from the ground by the wind, by its dust making the air all alive. Such as this is the first origin and the first shoots of evil being destitute of the generation of good pursuits, and the cause of barrenness to the soul and to all its parts."

You are actually missing my point....Were there not creation stories that were WRITTEN DOWN prior to the Helio Biblio? Do the cultures, especially those AFRICAN cultures, not deserve credit if these stories predate the Helio Biblio?(which they do by thousands of years), And if the stories are extraordinarily similar to those found in the Helio Biblio (that is if one doesn't want to admit the Helio Biblio plagerized the stories) why would anyone choose to not study them and ignore them? Especially considering we are supposed to be trying to recieve some type of enlightenment and consciouseness here?

I'd be much obliged to read them, but I couldn't find anything of value on the Twa searching the web...at all.  Just stupid blurbs filled with crap I already know.  What little there was about their spirituality just explained it briefly.  Their writings were not on there.

So, if you could direct me to a site or type the account (I'm sure it's not too long?)...that'd be great.  I'm not a closed minded fundamentalist nazi-esque Xtian.  I do read the Qur'an and I've read bits of Buddhist writings, Tao te Ching, and tribal myths and parables that I've encountered in books (specifically Joseph Campbell's "Hero With a Thousand Faces").

peace and hotep,




all these facts are allegory.


out of zion the bible has a chronology based on math. the introduction of the patriarchs can not preceed 4000bc. civilizations existed prior to that point.

faith without works is dead?

......and zion comes later.

seth was the god of war
the god of adam and eve was the god of ignorance that  forbade eating of the tree of knowledge which was the knowledge of good and evil. the god of barbarism is ignorance.

jacob/yacub was a hyksos king......
 

remember the rosetta stone
and now the writing on the wall  [smiley=lipsrsealed2.gif]

freedomisahapislave

There is absolutely no solid evidence that civilizations existed more than 6,000 years ago.  The only evidence that does exist lies is the foolish hypothesis of anthropologists who base their entire foundation on the inaccuracies of C-14 dating.  Assyria & Egypt are the two oldest known civilizations and both are thought by most reputable scholars to be about 5,000 years old.

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/timeline_of_assyria.htm

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/TIMELINE.HTM

Both those links show the true beginning of documented civilization.  5000 years ago, 3000 BC, 1000 years after Adam and Eva...



OK, you're quoting James, but why?  Of course faith without works is dead, much as the body without the spirit is dead.



So many make such comments, but what was the purpose of Jehovah telling them not to eat of the tree and the whole account - or parable if you prefer to believe it as allegorical (most do because they've feel it's foolish to accept this as literal since it's so misunderstood)?  It was done to see if Adam and Eve would accept his sovreignty.  We find later in Job that Satan had been "roving about in the earth" (Job 1:7) and we know that before Adam and Eve rebelled, there was the original Satan, which means slanderer.  So Satan then began his attempt to prove that he  could entice others to rebel against  God's sovreignty, not against ignorance itself.  Because how did the fruit change them?  Did it really provide them with what Satan promised it would that their "eyes would be opened and they would BE LIKE GOD" (Gen 3:5)?  No.  Their eyes were opened, but it did not make them "like God!"  No, ironically it made them unlike God!  They lost their pure and holy states and gave way to shame in their nakedness (Gen 3:7).  Whether this is interpreted as literal or as a parable, Almighty God is not attempting to shelter man in ignorance.  Rather, he is attempting to see if his creatures would obey him of their own free will or manifest the rebellious spirit of Satan.

Anything else?   ;)

Note: We both made an errant statement I just realized this morning.  Bible chronology takes us back NEARLY 7,000 years just as the Egyptian link does to 5,000 BC...I think it totals up to like 6800-something, I'd have to research it.  Fact remains, I believe the accounts of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Dueteronomy to be factual not mythological.

Here is a link to a rare book entitled "Egypt, Light of the World" by Gerald Massey . . . this is one of the most thorough accounts available(that I have seen) in the West and North of the mythological and religious systems of the inner African peoples and the evolution of these systems in the Nile Valley civilizations.

http://www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptIntroduction.htm

Also check out "Pygmy Kitabu" by Jean Pierre Hallet & Alex Pelle, another out of print book(which you can purchase as a used copy on Amazon.com ) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394462858/qid=1082466522/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4486950-8448146?v=glance&s=books

It would be good as well to check out books by Albert Churchward available here:

http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/books/african.html

All of these aformentioned authors are white researchers and I have recommended these because in this racist climate, some people tend to discredit Black scholars as being self-interested and incapable of being "objective" enough to take too seriously in these areas. I encourage you to challenge that presumption and also check out books by John Jackson, Yosef ben-Jochannan, Cheikh Anta Diop also available at the previous link. Comparing and contrasting white researchers work with that of Black researchers will also bring to light some racist assumptions of the white researchers, who although thoroughly delve into the subject matter, cannot help but to whiten their findings with their pre-existing racial perceptions.

Thank you Iyah 360 for putting refferences, you beat me to it...I will also give some "Euorpean/White" researchers(for the same reason) and the first one happens also to be an Askenaz Jew, Biblical historian and Egyptologist, who actually has books that lay the Biblical story(old and new testaments) and/or phrases right next to the Babylonian and Egyptian one's they were plagerized from, for all to see...


101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History
by Gary Greenberg

The Moses Mystery: The African Origins of the Jewish People
by Gary Greenberg

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
by Acharya S

Kersey Graves: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
the online version(so convenient)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/index.shtml

By the way...The entire scene of a man eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and a woman giving the fruit to the man is depicted in stone on the Philae Temple to Auset(Isis) at Aswan in Egypt...of course it wasn't a negative story then...The woman/goddess was bestowing knowledge upon the king/pharoh...meaning only could the king be legitamate through the knowledge of the woman/goddess Auset...quite powerful, so the patriarchal Hebrews had to twist it...and make the feminine principle evil and suspect...Khnum(creation Neteru) can also be seen fashioning man out of clay...Any of this sound familiar?

If you want the visual you can order videotapes of it through this site(they are done by an African who studied under Dr. Ben) ...or of couse you could travel up(south) the nile(Hapi) yourself...KNOW THYSELF.

http://www.kemetnu.com/videos/page2.html

Did anyone know that "Ra" in Hebrew means "bad"....just an interesting side note.

By the way Out of Zion...I understand you don't want your faith to be shaken...but God gave us brains to question things...I noticed you completely ignored my questions. I find that a little suspect. I'm not trying to insult you, but we are on a site called Africa Speaks...and this African will continue to do so...and bring justice to my African ancestors Stolen Legacy(pun intended for the well read)...

Mo fi sin Olorun!

peace and hotep,



"but why?", out of zion asks.

wasn't lucifer kikked out of zion? [smiley=lipsrsealed2.gif] or was that just heaven?

i alway hear people talking bad about scientific methods while they type away on laptops or pc's which are generated by scientific methods that include mathematics.

dating methods are  math-based, not faith-based.

please do not take advantage of logic on one hand and then retreat to illogic on the other hand unless you are admitting that technology is really SUTECHnology.

just resign yourself to the primitive culture of ignorance reserved for the  worshippers of the barbaric culture of adam and eve.

nakedness refers to naked.

naked. adj
1 witheout clothing, nude
2 witheout covering esp the usual covering: a naked sword
3 DEVOID of vegetation, stripped bare
4 witheout ADDITION, concealment, disguise or
  or embellishment: the naked FACTS
5 DEVOID  of something specified: naked of all pretense/act
  pretending
6 defenseless, vunerable
7 LAW- UNSUPPORTED OR UNCORROBORATED BY AUTHORITY  
  ,EVIDENCE, OR PROOF [smiley=lipsrsealed2.gif]




a barbarian god only require the services of ignorant warriors.  adam and eve only marks  the reintroduction of an anthropomorphicly challenge africans who are re-entering the southern hemisphere. withe their deprived butts.




who in the heck is we? alright third person thingy.....huh

does ones worship a creator that is not in absolute control?
a fearful but sometimes merciful  GAD?

i do not.

freedomisahapislave

Referring to the thing about how there is no evidence of civilization over 6000 years ago... civilization has existed ever since there were human beings which is much, much longer than 6000 years. Unless you define civilization as building gigantic buildings and writing things down. I guess my definition is a bit broader.
Now referring back to an earlier thread where outofzion justifies the slaughter of Israel's old enemies by saying they "were not peaceful people"... let me tell you a story Out of Zion, it's an ugly story but it's true, you can tell me your opinion later.
In the early 60s in Guyana there were what are referred to as "race riots" between persons of African descent vs. people of East Indian descent. Really it was more like a civil war than 'riots'. I won't bother going into the background other than to say that the British had done a good job of pitting us against one another, politicians on both sides didn't help, and people were basically fighting over who would get to control the soon-to-be independent country.
OK here is the story- when she was a little girl, an acquaintance of my family lived in an all-African village in Guyana, situated next to an all-Indian village. One night people came from the Indian village and started setting everyone's houses on fire with them still inside. The little girl and some of her family escaped by jumping out the window. Later on the survivors regrouped and planned a counterattack. They gathered all their cutlasses, knives and firearms, entered the Indian village, and killed every living thing larger than an insect in that village. Men, women, children, dogs, cats, chickens, everyone and everything that breathed in that village was hacked to death.
So Outofzion, were they justified in that? After all, these were not "peaceful people". They had just tried to burn them alive. Oh, and they worshipped strange gods too, just like the canaanites etc.
Hmmm but then again maybe the Indians were retaliating for some previous attack on them when they burned everyone's houses... maybe they were justified huh? Maybe the little girl's family weren't "peaceful people" either so the Indians were justified in roasting them alive?
So Outofzion, who was right here... the Africans or Indians? Or could it be... perhaps... that they were both wrong, and that indiscriminately slaughtering whole families of people is unjustifiable, whether you're in biblical times or the present day???
[I can think of one exception to this, which was Nat Turner and other slave revolts, I could explain why I think they are exceptions some other time if you like, but now... I must sleep.]