Why is the black man scarcely mentioned in the Bible? Were there no black human beings then?

read the bible very well, Blacks were mentioned

I think the bible makes mention of Ethiopians, Egyptians, and many in Northern Africa.

The bible was written by those of Jewish traditions and heritage and therefore focuses on those traditions, and doesn't really acknowledge other important and existing peoples, traiditons, and religions (such as the Yorubas, among many other tribes, )

I've also always maintained the notion that the bible is nothing but a documentation of historical times, and was not inspired by any "holy thing. "

You should be asking why there no "White" people or japanese people or papau new guineans or samoans in the bible?

Exactly, and I give the same response that the bible was written by those of Jewish traditions and heritage and focused more on thier side of things.

madamkoko:

Exactly, and I give the same response that the bible was written by those of Jewish traditions and heritage and focused more on their side of things.

thanx madamkoko

I also noticed that in pictorial rendering of biblical scenes, all characters are usually portrayed as white. Is this not a way of saying the blackman has no place in biblical things?

there is mention of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Egyptian and more black/african people in the bible

coolruler:

thanx madamkoko

I also noticed that in pictorial rendering of biblical scenes, all characters are usually portrayed as white. Is this not a way of saying the blackman has no place in biblical things?

Huh, I don't get the question?

Is this not a way of saying the blackman has no place in biblical things?

I wouldn't go as far as to make such generalization.

The bible records certain historical information that places Africans, in certain places and scenes. You can't look at the bible as a holy book but an history book and its hard for such books to record every tiny bit of information that existed during the time. It needs to have a specific focus, thesis, and purpose.

I think one of the women described in the songs of solomon (aka the book of love) was a black woman.

coolruler:

thanx madamkoko

I also noticed that in pictorial rendering of biblical scenes, all characters are usually portrayed as white. Is this not a way of saying the blackman has no place in biblical things?

the pictorial renderings were not made by the original writers but by white men who translated them.

the pictorial renderings were not made by the original writers but by white men who translated them.

rubbish.

even African Americans have thier own translation which was directly translated from the Hebrew//greek version of the bible.

madamkoko:



rubbish.

even African Americans have their own translation which was directly translated from the Hebrew//greek version of the bible.

dont be stupid in your haste to bash anything christian. I dont remember apostle Paul, Peter, Mark, John or David adding pictorial renderings to their works. If the African-Americans wish to put only white men in their bible so be it . . .

don't be stupid in your haste to bash anything christian.

Not bashing only stating slowpoke, as you obviously cannot read to understand.

Egyptians are black by today's American definition of black and so were cushites or abbysinians so to the poster. Your question has been answered already.

madamkoko:

Not bashing only stating slowpoke, as you obviously cannot read to understand.

i see hypocrites don't like it when their half baked theories slap them back in the face. 

What you stated has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. African Americans have their own translation of the bible . . . English translations of the bible are as old as 900 AD, there were no African Americans then dumbo.

i see hypocrites don't like it when their half baked theories slap them back in the face.

and fanatics like you, making statements with no logical sense. oni ra nu.

madamkoko:

and fanatics like you, making statements with no logical sense. oni ra nu.

questions never "make logical sense" the moment you have no reply to them. I noticed that a lot from the muslims too.

madamkoko:

and what is the question you asked ?

You have asked no questions. you have only made nonsensical statements.

sorry i meant to say "statments". Its funny how my statements are "nonsensical" the minute they expose the hollowness of your own statements.

Yeesh, yeesh. yeesh. I must be speaking with a child.

madamkoko:

Yeesh, yeesh. yeesh. I must be speaking with a child.

stop bawling my dear . . . its ok to be wrong.

Ok here is the crux of the matter dear child - the poster asks why all the pictorial renderings in the bible are white and why the bible has no black characters. What he however misses is the many references the bible ACTUALLY makes to black people, Egyptians and Ethiopians for a start.

Next the poster needs to realise that the jewish people (for whom the OT and parts of the NT are centered around) ARE AND WERE WHITE.

I posit another scenario, the first translators of the bible were all white Europeans . . . considering the history of slavery and racism, it is not difficult to imagine they would have made all their characters white.

Now comes clueless buffons like madamkoko - she says well African-Americans have their own bible translation too . . . what makes this attempt at a rebuttal laughable is:

1. We dont know (she never told us and likely doesnt know) whether there are any pictorial renderings in the african-american bible and what color the characters are.

2. The first English translations of the bible came out as early as 900 AD, a period that America didnt even exist.

Now you ask yourself the question, who's the child here? the answer is very clear. i rest my case.

madamkoko:


rest your case ke ? YOu must be mad.

The question was answered long before you appeared on the thread. stop being frivolous.

There were 2 (TWO) questions on the thread if you bothered to read dear child -

1. why are black people not mentioned in the bible.
2. why are the pictorial renderings in the bible predominantly of white people? (i'm paraphrasing here).

I answered 2 since 1 was dealt with quite decisively by Idinrete (long before you also appeared on the thread) . . . would you also fall into the category of the frivolous?

you see, passing your message across doesnt include calling the other person mad . . . more often than not the person ranting is the one in need of help.

davidylan:

stop bawling my dear . . . its ok to be wrong.

Ok here is the crux of the matter dear child - the poster asks why all the pictorial renderings in the bible are white and why the bible has no black characters. What he however misses is the many references the bible ACTUALLY makes to black people, Egyptians and Ethiopians for a start.

Next the poster needs to realise that the jewish people (for whom the OT and parts of the NT are centered around) ARE AND WERE WHITE.

I posit another scenario, the first translators of the bible were all white Europeans . . . considering the history of slavery and racism, it is not difficult to imagine they would have made all their characters white.

Now comes clueless buffons like madamkoko - she says well African-Americans have their own bible translation too . . . what makes this attempt at a rebuttal laughable is:

1. We don't know (she never told us and likely doesnt know) whether there are any pictorial renderings in the african-american bible and what color the characters are.

2. The first English translations of the bible came out as early as 900 AD, a period that America didnt even exist.

Now you ask yourself the question, who's the child here? the answer is very clear. i rest my case.

Eh davidyln

to interject in your arguement the statement of Jews being always "White". Euroasians are not white by any account. The Herews from the Exodus were not white when they left egypt. After the 12 tribes were divided. Two remained to form the kingdom of Judah. Those people did not become white until many centuries later.

Just to clue you in.

morpheus24:

Eh davidyln

to interject in your arguement the statement of Jews being always "White". Euroasians are not white by any account. The Herews from the Exodus were not white when they left egypt. After the 12 tribes were divided. Two remained to form the kingdom of Judah. Those people did not become white until many centuries later.

Just to clue you in.

then i'd ask my own question . . . how did the kingdom of Judah evolve to become white? Pls i'd be more than willing to see proof of the phrase in highlights.
by the way, semitic people (arabs and jews) are regarded as caucasians NOT euroasians.

It hard to have an argument with a slowpoke. Its just impossible.

Attempting to prove someone else wrong all the time doesn't show how smart you are but how stupid.

Those people did not become white until many centuries later.

good point.

davidylan:

then i'D ask my own question . . . how did the kingdom of Judah evolve to become white? Please i'D be more than willing to see proof of the phrase in highlights.
by the way, semitic people (arabs and jews) are regarded as caucasians NOT euroasians.

They didn't evolve, they simply inter-marriaged, migrated and at the same time retained their religious and cultural practices. the proof is in DNA. I'll give you an example, the colored people that live in South African today are a seperate ethnic group consists of admixtures of khosian peoples, europeans and malays. The have distinctive features that seperate them from the other african tribes that surround them. slowy but surely as they lean towards the Black side becuase of majority rule and power. There is a probability that over generations they will become more akin in phenotype to the black south africans though retaining certain distinguishable features over generations. Like wise if you swing the pendulum to the left and they stay islolated or lean to the whites,slowly but surely they would be akin to Whites though carrying distinguishable features that would no doubt seperate them from their White neighbours. It all depends.


American regards euroasians as caucasians cause they are dumbassess. They also define some tribes in Ethiopia and ancient Egyptians as caucasians or caucasoid. Nothing more that misnomers.

madamkoko:

It hard to have an argument with a slowpoke. Its just impossible.

Attempting to prove someone else wrong all the time doesn't show how smart you are but how stupid.

Fantastic as all you have been doing so far is to PROVE that the christian God does not exist, His bible is a fable and christians need psyciatric help. Good way of diagnosing your own problem. Pls allow space to debate with more serious people like morpheus.

Its difficult to "debate" with me because i dont sit back taking all the puerile woolheaded comments you bandy around. Here is a simple lesson - before you throw stones, protect your own fragile glass house. Its one thing to question the validity of the christian God, its another to bleat about a "higher being" that you cant even prove by a book.

your sad attempt to include[b] morpheus24 [/b]  in your support fan club shows how worthless you are.

No where in anyone's posting have I read about the denial of the existence of the socalled christian god as you put it (People are free to believe in whatever sh$%t they want: Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, Traditionalists etc )  What I bash are the stupid men who call themselves pastors exploiting poor and ignorant folks.

LOL. You don't  debate. you talk out of your ass.

Debating is not about proving someone right or wrong but about showing and clearly relating your ideas.

Lawyers don't prove, they present/relating ideas "beyond reasonable doubts"

morpheus24:

They didn't evolve, they simply inter-marriaged, migrated and at the same time retained their religious and cultural practices. the proof is in DNA. I'll give you an example, the colored people that live in South African today are a seperate ethnic group consists of admixtures of khosian peoples, europeans and malays. The have distinctive features that seperate them from the other african tribes that surround them. slowy but surely as they lean towards the Black side becuase of majority rule and power. There is a probability that over generations they will become more akin in phenotype to the black south africans though retaining certain distinguishable features over generations. Like wise if you swing the pendulum to the left and they stay islolated or lean to the whites,slowly but surely they would be akin to Whites though carrying distinguishable features that would no doubt seperate them from their White neighbours. It all depends.

You have simply run around the question . . . which was plainly - HOW (with concrete evidence) did the 2 tribes of Judah evolve to become white?

1. you claim they intermarried - that is not very true . . . white people have intermarried and it is yet to completely dilute their race ditto for blacks and asians. Now the bible and jewish tradition is VERY strict on forbidding intermarriage. One of the strongest problems with the jews in the wilderness (read the book of Exodus) and those before the exile in Babylon was INTERMARRIAGE.

2. Migration - this is false. The jews of Israel have been on that land for 3000 yrs. There were only 2 distinct periods of migration, the 70 yr exile in babylon (read Daniel, Nehemiah or Ezra) and the roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Where did the jews migrate to?

You say the proof is in the DNA . . . which proof? DNA can say anything you want it to say, like a professor of mine once said - data is data, you can give it whatever meaning you want.

morpheus24:

American regards euroasians as caucasians cause they are dumbassess. They also define some tribes in Ethiopia and ancient Egyptians as caucasians or caucasoid. Nothing more that misnomers.

Euroasia does not describe a race, rather it describes an expanse of land encompassing Europe and Asia.