donnie:
Ethiopian Bible is the oldest and complete bible on earth. Written in Ge’ez an ancient language of Ethiopia it’s nearly 800 years older than the King James Version and contains 81-88 books compared to 66.

It includes the Book of ENOCH, Esdras, Buruch and all 3 Books of MACCABEE, and a host of others which were removed from the KJV.



It's time to destroy Roman white Jesus, white Israel lies.

.


It is a fact that Africans( Ethiopia) were first to be Christian before the Europeans.
Even the Catholic church never saw eye to eye with the Ethiopian Church, Greeks and Coptics.
While this is the only sensible materials have seen from you it doesn't still make the IBIBIOS in one of your post Jews
And Jews are not in Africa

nsiba:
.


It is a fact that Africans( Ethiopia) were first to be Christian before the Europeans.
Even the Catholic church never saw eye to eye with the Ethiopian Church, Greeks and Coptics.
While this is the only sensible materials have seen from you it doesn't still make the IBIBIOS in one of your post Jews
And Jews are not in Africa

Na small small, your eyes go soon clear. Keep following the fake people you call Jews, living in that fake land.

donnie:


Na small small, your eyes go soon clear. Keep following the fake people you call Jews, living in that fake land.

.

Ogbeni, when will you ever answer a direct question?

nsiba:
.


It is a fact that Africans( Ethiopia) were first to be Christian before the Europeans.
Even the Catholic church never saw eye to eye with the Ethiopian Church, Greeks and Coptics.
While this is the only sensible materials have seen from you it doesn't still make the IBIBIOS in one of your post Jews
And Jews are not in Africa

The only possibility of Jews in Subsaharan Africa is if the Cushite and Egyptian Jews migrated further south into the Subsahara for trading and other reasons.

But without records, this theory is pretty tough to establish. That’s the only angle I can see that possibility from.

Besides the scriptures the scriptures mentioned something about the Hebrews scattered under the four corners of heaven. Unless I’m quoting the scriptures out of context.

OkCornel:


I’ve asked you a question without an answer from you.

Do you by chance know the name of what the Apostles and Believers at that point in time were practicing if it wasn’t Christianity?

.

donnie where and when were the disciples first called Christians?

OkCornel:


The only possibility of Jews in Subsaharan Africa is if the Cushite and Egyptian Jews migrated further south into the Subsahara for trading and other reasons.

But without records, this theory is pretty tough to establish. That’s the only angle I can see that possibility from.

Besides the scriptures the scriptures mentioned something about the Hebrews scattered under the four corners of heaven. Unless I’m quoting the scriptures out of context.

.

I have followed all your arguments and 100% do I allign with you, this would have been my first time in meeting at a tangent with this my man (donnie) from Isolele but he really knows how to conjure imaginary things here and there

nsiba:
.

I have followed all your arguments and 100% do I allign with you, this would have been my first time in meeting at a tangent with this my man (donnie) from Isolele but he really knows how to conjure imaginary things here and there

I understand, lol.

OkCornel:


The only possibility of Jews in Subsaharan Africa is if the Cushite and Egyptian Jews migrated further south into the Subsahara for trading and other reasons.

But without records, this theory is pretty tough to establish. That’s the only angle I can see that possibility from.

Besides the scriptures the scriptures mentioned something about the Hebrews scattered under the four corners of heaven. Unless I’m quoting the scriptures out of context.

There's a difference between the Kushites and the land of KUSH. You cannot call Israelites Kushites. Bantus/ negroes, the true Hebrews were in the land of KUSH (Babylon/south sudan & Northern Ethiopia even extending to Yemen) at various times in history. They are the ones you're referring to as Ethiopian/Egyptian with same Jacob DNA (E1B1A). It's like one would call black Americans American instead of African, even though they share same DNA as Bantus/Negroes below the Sahara.

The powers that be always try to hide the people of the book (Pslam 83:3-4). Majority of those they promote today as Jews even in Ethiopia and Egypt are not the Isrealites of the bible... Mostly converts. They all stole Bantu culture and spirituality and created the various world religions.

The only genuine Isrealite lineage in KUSH/Ethiopia would be the decendants of King Menelik; the child Solomon had with the queen of Sheba. Even that lineage has been mixed to a large extent. The percentage of Bantus in Ethiopia is only about 2%. I mean those with the YAKUBI/JACOB dna- E1B1A.

In summary, they fear the awakening of the Bantus/negroes because according to prophecy, that will be the end of their kingdoms and the destruction of EDOM.

nsiba:
.

I have followed all your arguments and 100% do I allign with you, this would have been my first time in meeting at a tangent with this my man (donnie) from Isolele but he really knows how to conjure imaginary things here and there

Lies, you're always united when it comes to donnie and the true children of Israel. And of course you're united in your preference for a eurocentric world view over truth.

donnie:


There's a difference between the Kushites and the land of KUSH. You cannot call Israelites Kushites. Bantus/ negroes, the true Hebrews were in the land of KUSH (Babylon/south sudan & Northern Ethiopia even extending to Yemen) at various times in history. They are the ones you're referring to as Ethiopian/Egyptian with same Jacob DNA (E1B1A). It's like one would call black Americans American instead of African, even though they share same DNA as Bantus/Negroes below the Sahara.

The powers that be always try to hide the people of the book (Pslam 83:3-4). Majority of those they promote today as Jews even in Ethiopia and Egypt are not the Isrealites of the bible... Mostly converts. They all stole Bantu culture and spirituality and created the various world religions.

The only genuine Isrealite lineage in KUSH/Ethiopia would be the decendants of King Menelik; the child Solomon had with the queen of Sheba. Even that lineage has been mixed to a large extent. The percentage of Bantus in Ethiopia is only about 2%. I mean those with the YAKUBI/JACOB dna- E1B1A.

In summary, they fear the awakening of the Bantus/negroes because according to prophecy, that will be the end of their kingdoms and the destruction of EDOM.

.


The Torah, Bible and Apocryphal what makes em different.

Which do you use?

nsiba:
.


The Torah, Bible and Apocryphal what makes em different.

Which do you use?

The TORAH refers to the first 5 books of Moses. Most Bibles include the writings of the prophets and the new testament. Others include the Apocrypha.

I read all that I deem accurate and/or inspired. From the old testament to the so-called new testament.

donnie:


There's a difference between the Kushites and the land of KUSH. You cannot call Israelites Kushites. Bantus/ negroes, the true Hebrews were in the land of KUSH (Babylon/south sudan & Northern Ethiopia even extending to Yemen) at various times in history. They are the ones you're referring to as Ethiopian/Egyptian with same Jacob DNA (E1B1A). It's like one would call black Americans American instead of African, even though they share same DNA as Bantus/Negroes below the Sahara.

The powers that be always try to hide the people of the book (Pslam 83:3-4). Majority of those they promote today as Jews even in Ethiopia and Egypt are not the Isrealites of the bible... Mostly converts. They all stole Bantu culture and spirituality and created the various world religions.

The only genuine Isrealite lineage in KUSH/Ethiopia would be the decendants of King Menelik; the child Solomon had with the queen of Sheba. Even that lineage has been mixed to a large extent. The percentage of Bantus in Ethiopia is only about 2%. I mean those with the YAKUBI/JACOB dna- E1B1A.

In summary, they fear the awakening of the Bantus/negroes because according to prophecy, that will be the end of their kingdoms and the destruction of EDOM.

And some of these people (Beta-Israel)have been airlifted to the Israel since the 70s via operation Aliyah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah_from_Ethiopia


And by the way Edom has been long destroyed. They no longer have any heritage on the earth.

OkCornel:


I see your point.

Do you by chance know the name of what the Apostles and Believers at that point in time were practicing if it wasn’t Christianity?

The apostles were know as teachers of righteousnes/holiness, for Christ is Holy and Christ is Righteousnes so they were called teachers of righteousnes/holiness because that's what they were practicing which is (Christ like which also is the same as to practice righteousnes/holiness).

budaatum:


Christ is a greco/roman understanding of an idea that came out of Egypt.

You just do not understand the constant battle for ownership going on in the book itself, and you are not knowledgeable enough to even know the questions you ought to ask. (And do not you dare ignore that I have insulted you and fail to intellectually challenge me, Sonm!)

Go read Genesis 3 to see how that which is good is made to seem like the bad and you just might get it, and that's if you have not got it by the two creation myths that precede that.

Not only Genesis 3 also Hosea13:4 something about Africa (Egypt).

OkCornel:
Mr Donnie, see red indians below.

Stop fooling around with your mongoloid mulatto Indian know as natives in U S A and Donnie's Aboriginals American Indian pictures are the real thing, more pictures.

letu:
Stop fooling around with your mongoloid mulatto Indian know as natives in U S A and Donnie's Aboriginals American Indian pictures are the real thing, more pictures.

And your point is the people in the picture you posted are blacks or what?

Please do me a favor and check if the natives in the Amazon jungles of South America (which have a lot of genetic similarities with their North America natives), google them and check their skin complexion biko.

Dem be blacks abi?

Letu, bring google images of native Indians in North America, let’s check something.

Letu, see Seminole people, the natives of North America in the picture below.

Do they look like blacks to you?

http://www.stofthpo.com/History-Seminole-Tribe-FL-Tribal-Historic-Preservation-Office.html

OkCornel:


Subsaharan Africa

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-people-realize-that-sub-Saharan-is-a-racist-term
I don’t suspect you’ll ever get an honest answer from those who entire worldview is based on African/Black degradation as clearly demonstrated by the responses here. To answer your question, they cannot EVER accept that “sub-sahara” is a racist concoction because then it means they are not responsible for what they claim: building modern civilization. The western world is build on the delusion that nothing happened in the world until Europe rose up however, nothing could be further from the truth. The “sub-sahara” theory and its beginnings are WELL DOCUMENTED. Many Europeans scholars have written extensively on the supposed inferiority of the “negro” (a term making its 1st appearance in mid 1800’s) and it is during the worldwide development of racism/white supremacy that the bogus “sub-saharan” race theory was crafted. The racist theory surmises that Africans had never developed out of barbarism and therefore were too primitive to cross the desert to build Egypt…they didn’t have shoes to deal with the hot sand, one comment even claimed. There is a good 4-part documentary called Racism - A History for those on here claiming sub-sahara is just a geographical marker separate from the race theory that was developed at the same time.


https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/what-exactly-does-%E2%80%98sub-sahara-africa%E2%80%99-mean
The widespread use of ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ makes no sense and is undoubtedly a racist geopolitical signature.

It appears increasingly fashionable in the West for a number of broadcasters, websites, news agencies, newspapers and magazines, the United Nations/allied agencies and some governments, writers and academics to use the term ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ to refer to all of Africa except the five predominantly Arab states of north Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt) and the Sudan, a north-central African country. Even though its territory is mostly located south of the Sahara Desert, the Sudan is excluded from the ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ tagging by those who promote the use of the epithet because the regime in power in Khartoum describes the country as ‘Arab’ despite its majority African population.

But the concept ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is absurd and misleading, if not a meaningless classificatory schema. Its use defies the science of the fundamentals of geography but prioritises hackneyed and stereotypical racist labelling. It is not obvious, on the face of it, which of the four possible meanings of the prefix ‘sub’ its users attach to the ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ labelling. Is it ‘under’ the Sahara Desert or ‘part of’/‘partly’ the Sahara Desert? Or, presumably, ‘partially’/‘nearly’ the Sahara Desert or even the very unlikely (hopefully!) application of ‘in the style of, but inferior to’ the Sahara Desert, especially considering that there is an Arab people sandwiched between Morocco and Mauritania (northwest Africa) called Saharan?

PRE-LIBERATION SOUTH AFRICA

The example of South Africa is appropriate here. Prior to the formal restoration of African majority government in 1994, South Africa was never designated ‘sub-Sahara Africa’, unlike the rest of the 13 African-led states in southern Africa, which were also often referred to at the time as the ‘frontline states’. South Africa then was either termed ‘white South Africa’ or the ‘South Africa sub-continent’ (as in the ‘India sub-continent’ usage, for instance), meaning ‘almost’/‘partially’ a continent - quite clearly a usage of ‘admiration’ or ‘compliment’ employed by its subscribers to essentially project and valorise the perceived geostrategic potentials or capabilities of the erstwhile regime.

But soon after the triumph of the African freedom movement there, South Africa became ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ in the quickly adjusted schema of this representation. What happened suddenly to South Africa’s geography for it to be so differently classified? Is it African liberation/rule that renders an African state ‘sub-Sahara’? Does this post-1994 West-inflected South Africa-changed classification make ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ any more intelligible? Interestingly, just as in the South Africa ‘sub-continent’ example, the application of the ‘almost’/‘partially’ or indeed ‘part of’/‘partly’ meaning of prefix ‘sub-’ to ‘Sahara Africa’ focuses unambiguously on the following countries of Africa: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, each of which has 25-75 per cent of its territory (especially to the south) covered by the Sahara Desert. It also focuses on Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and the Sudan, which variously have 25-75 per cent of their territories (to the north) covered by the same desert. In effect, these 10 states would make up sub-Sahara Africa.

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, the five Arab north Africa countries, do not, correctly, describe themselves as Africans even though they unquestionably habituate African geography, the African continent, since the Arab conquest and occupation of this north one-third of African territory in the 7th century CE. The Western governments, press and the transnational bodies (which are led predominantly by Western personnel and interests) have consistently ‘conceded’ to this Arab cultural insistence on racial identity. Presumably, this accounts for the West’s non-designation of its ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ dogma to these countries as well as the Sudan, whose successive Arab-minority regimes since January 1956 have claimed, but incorrectly, that the Sudan ‘belongs’ to the Arab world. On this subject, the West does no doubt know that what it has been engaged in, all along, is blatant sophistry and not science. This, however, conveniently suits its current propaganda packaging on Africa, which we shall be elaborating on shortly.

It would appear that we still don’t seem to be any closer to establishing, conclusively, what its users mean by ‘sub-Sahara Africa’. Could it, perhaps, just be a benign reference to all the countries ‘under’ the Sahara, whatever their distances from this desert, to interrogate our final, fourth probability? Presently, there are 53 so-called sovereign states in Africa. If the five north Africa Arab states are said to be located ‘above’ the Sahara, then 48 are positioned ‘under’. The latter would therefore include all the five countries mentioned above whose north frontiers incorporate the southern stretches of the desert (namely, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and the Sudan), countries in central Africa (the Congos, Rwanda, Burundi, etc., etc), for instance, despite being 2000-2500 miles away, and even the southern African states situated 3000-3500 miles away. In fact, all these 48 countries, except the Sudan (alas, not included for the plausible reason already cited), which is clearly ‘under’ the Sahara and situated within the same latitudes as Mali, Niger and Chad (i.e., between 10 and 20 degrees north of the equator), are all categorised by the ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ users as ‘sub-Sahara Africa’.

2012 WORLDWIDE CLASSIFICATORY SCHEMA?

To replicate this obvious farce of a classification elsewhere in the world, the following random exercise is not such an indistinct scenario for universal, everyday, referencing:


1. Australia hence becomes ‘sub-Great Sandy Australia’ after the hot deserts that cover much of west and central Australia.

2. East Russia, east of the Urals, becomes ‘sub-Siberia Asia’.

3. China, Japan and Indonesia are reclassified ‘sub-Gobi Asia’.

4. Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam become ‘sub-Himalaya Asia’.

5. All of Europe is ‘sub-Arctic Europe’.

6. Most of England, central and southern counties, is renamed ‘sub-Pennines Europe’.


7. East/southeast France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia are ‘sub-Alps Europe’.

8. The Americas become ‘sub-Arctic Americas’.

9. All of South America, south of the Amazon, is proclaimed ‘sub-Amazon South America’; Chile could be ‘sub-Atacama South America’.

10. Most of New Zealand’s South Island is renamed ‘sub-Southern Alps New
Zealand’.


11. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama become ‘sub-Rocky North America’.

12. The entire Caribbean becomes ‘sub-Appalachian Americas’.

RACIST CODING

So, rather than some benign construct, ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is, in the end, an outlandish nomenclatural code that its users employ to depict an African-led ‘sovereign’ state - anywhere in Africa, as distinct from an Arab-led one. More seriously to the point, ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is employed to create the stunning effect of a supposedly shrinking African geographical landmass in the popular imagination, coupled with the continent’s supposedly attendant geostrategic global ‘irrelevance’.

‘Sub-Sahara Africa’ is undoubtedly a racist geopolitical signature in which its users aim repeatedly to present the imagery of the desolation, aridity, and hopelessness of a desert environment. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of one billion Africans do not live anywhere close to the Sahara, nor are their lives so affected by the implied impact of the very loaded meaning that this dogma intends to convey. Except this steadily pervasive use of ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is robustly challenged by rigorous African-centred scholarship and publicity work, its proponents will succeed, eventually, in substituting the name of the continent ‘Africa’ with ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ and the name of its peoples, ‘Africans’, with ‘sub-Sahara Africans’ or, worse still, ‘sub-Saharans’ in the realm of public memory and reckoning.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS.

donnie:


You've been programmed by Babylon so you don't seem to see beyond religion.

What the Most High gave His people the Bantus/negroes were commandments and laws.
What the wicked did was to steal these and our culture and turn them into religions. Judaism, Christianity, Islam all stole from Bantu Culture and spirituality.

All those religions make up what is called Mystery Babylon and Bantus must come out of them and be seperate unto YAH.

Revelation 18:4-5
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
For her sins have reached unto heaven, and YAH hath remembered her iniquities.

WOW I'm surprised that you no longer add Egypt alongside your Babylonian when ever you go all out ridiculously on those who disagree with you on one thing or other.

Martian:




https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-people-realize-that-sub-Saharan-is-a-racist-term
I don’t suspect you’ll ever get an honest answer from those who entire worldview is based on African/Black degradation as clearly demonstrated by the responses here. To answer your question, they cannot EVER accept that “sub-sahara” is a racist concoction because then it means they are not responsible for what they claim: building modern civilization. The western world is build on the delusion that nothing happened in the world until Europe rose up however, nothing could be further from the truth. The “sub-sahara” theory and its beginnings are WELL DOCUMENTED. Many Europeans scholars have written extensively on the supposed inferiority of the “negro” (a term making its 1st appearance in mid 1800’s) and it is during the worldwide development of racism/white supremacy that the bogus “sub-saharan” race theory was crafted. The racist theory surmises that Africans had never developed out of barbarism and therefore were too primitive to cross the desert to build Egypt…they didn’t have shoes to deal with the hot sand, one comment even claimed. There is a good 4-part documentary called Racism - A History for those on here claiming sub-sahara is just a geographical marker separate from the race theory that was developed at the same time.


https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/what-exactly-does-%E2%80%98sub-sahara-africa%E2%80%99-mean
The widespread use of ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ makes no sense and is undoubtedly a racist geopolitical signature.

It appears increasingly fashionable in the West for a number of broadcasters, websites, news agencies, newspapers and magazines, the United Nations/allied agencies and some governments, writers and academics to use the term ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ to refer to all of Africa except the five predominantly Arab states of north Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt) and the Sudan, a north-central African country. Even though its territory is mostly located south of the Sahara Desert, the Sudan is excluded from the ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ tagging by those who promote the use of the epithet because the regime in power in Khartoum describes the country as ‘Arab’ despite its majority African population.

But the concept ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is absurd and misleading, if not a meaningless classificatory schema. Its use defies the science of the fundamentals of geography but prioritises hackneyed and stereotypical racist labelling. It is not obvious, on the face of it, which of the four possible meanings of the prefix ‘sub’ its users attach to the ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ labelling. Is it ‘under’ the Sahara Desert or ‘part of’/‘partly’ the Sahara Desert? Or, presumably, ‘partially’/‘nearly’ the Sahara Desert or even the very unlikely (hopefully!) application of ‘in the style of, but inferior to’ the Sahara Desert, especially considering that there is an Arab people sandwiched between Morocco and Mauritania (northwest Africa) called Saharan?

PRE-LIBERATION SOUTH AFRICA

The example of South Africa is appropriate here. Prior to the formal restoration of African majority government in 1994, South Africa was never designated ‘sub-Sahara Africa’, unlike the rest of the 13 African-led states in southern Africa, which were also often referred to at the time as the ‘frontline states’. South Africa then was either termed ‘white South Africa’ or the ‘South Africa sub-continent’ (as in the ‘India sub-continent’ usage, for instance), meaning ‘almost’/‘partially’ a continent - quite clearly a usage of ‘admiration’ or ‘compliment’ employed by its subscribers to essentially project and valorise the perceived geostrategic potentials or capabilities of the erstwhile regime.

But soon after the triumph of the African freedom movement there, South Africa became ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ in the quickly adjusted schema of this representation. What happened suddenly to South Africa’s geography for it to be so differently classified? Is it African liberation/rule that renders an African state ‘sub-Sahara’? Does this post-1994 West-inflected South Africa-changed classification make ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ any more intelligible? Interestingly, just as in the South Africa ‘sub-continent’ example, the application of the ‘almost’/‘partially’ or indeed ‘part of’/‘partly’ meaning of prefix ‘sub-’ to ‘Sahara Africa’ focuses unambiguously on the following countries of Africa: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, each of which has 25-75 per cent of its territory (especially to the south) covered by the Sahara Desert. It also focuses on Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and the Sudan, which variously have 25-75 per cent of their territories (to the north) covered by the same desert. In effect, these 10 states would make up sub-Sahara Africa.

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, the five Arab north Africa countries, do not, correctly, describe themselves as Africans even though they unquestionably habituate African geography, the African continent, since the Arab conquest and occupation of this north one-third of African territory in the 7th century CE. The Western governments, press and the transnational bodies (which are led predominantly by Western personnel and interests) have consistently ‘conceded’ to this Arab cultural insistence on racial identity. Presumably, this accounts for the West’s non-designation of its ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ dogma to these countries as well as the Sudan, whose successive Arab-minority regimes since January 1956 have claimed, but incorrectly, that the Sudan ‘belongs’ to the Arab world. On this subject, the West does no doubt know that what it has been engaged in, all along, is blatant sophistry and not science. This, however, conveniently suits its current propaganda packaging on Africa, which we shall be elaborating on shortly.

It would appear that we still don’t seem to be any closer to establishing, conclusively, what its users mean by ‘sub-Sahara Africa’. Could it, perhaps, just be a benign reference to all the countries ‘under’ the Sahara, whatever their distances from this desert, to interrogate our final, fourth probability? Presently, there are 53 so-called sovereign states in Africa. If the five north Africa Arab states are said to be located ‘above’ the Sahara, then 48 are positioned ‘under’. The latter would therefore include all the five countries mentioned above whose north frontiers incorporate the southern stretches of the desert (namely, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and the Sudan), countries in central Africa (the Congos, Rwanda, Burundi, etc., etc), for instance, despite being 2000-2500 miles away, and even the southern African states situated 3000-3500 miles away. In fact, all these 48 countries, except the Sudan (alas, not included for the plausible reason already cited), which is clearly ‘under’ the Sahara and situated within the same latitudes as Mali, Niger and Chad (i.e., between 10 and 20 degrees north of the equator), are all categorised by the ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ users as ‘sub-Sahara Africa’.

2012 WORLDWIDE CLASSIFICATORY SCHEMA?

To replicate this obvious farce of a classification elsewhere in the world, the following random exercise is not such an indistinct scenario for universal, everyday, referencing:


1. Australia hence becomes ‘sub-Great Sandy Australia’ after the hot deserts that cover much of west and central Australia.

2. East Russia, east of the Urals, becomes ‘sub-Siberia Asia’.

3. China, Japan and Indonesia are reclassified ‘sub-Gobi Asia’.

4. Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam become ‘sub-Himalaya Asia’.

5. All of Europe is ‘sub-Arctic Europe’.

6. Most of England, central and southern counties, is renamed ‘sub-Pennines Europe’.


7. East/southeast France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia are ‘sub-Alps Europe’.

8. The Americas become ‘sub-Arctic Americas’.

9. All of South America, south of the Amazon, is proclaimed ‘sub-Amazon South America’; Chile could be ‘sub-Atacama South America’.

10. Most of New Zealand’s South Island is renamed ‘sub-Southern Alps New
Zealand’.


11. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama become ‘sub-Rocky North America’.

12. The entire Caribbean becomes ‘sub-Appalachian Americas’.

RACIST CODING

So, rather than some benign construct, ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is, in the end, an outlandish nomenclatural code that its users employ to depict an African-led ‘sovereign’ state - anywhere in Africa, as distinct from an Arab-led one. More seriously to the point, ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is employed to create the stunning effect of a supposedly shrinking African geographical landmass in the popular imagination, coupled with the continent’s supposedly attendant geostrategic global ‘irrelevance’.

‘Sub-Sahara Africa’ is undoubtedly a racist geopolitical signature in which its users aim repeatedly to present the imagery of the desolation, aridity, and hopelessness of a desert environment. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of one billion Africans do not live anywhere close to the Sahara, nor are their lives so affected by the implied impact of the very loaded meaning that this dogma intends to convey. Except this steadily pervasive use of ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is robustly challenged by rigorous African-centred scholarship and publicity work, its proponents will succeed, eventually, in substituting the name of the continent ‘Africa’ with ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ and the name of its peoples, ‘Africans’, with ‘sub-Sahara Africans’ or, worse still, ‘sub-Saharans’ in the realm of public memory and reckoning.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS.

A simple google search on the meaning of Sub-Saharan Africa would have saved you all this long story you typed here.

Subsaharan Africa simply means the region south of the Sahara desert.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa


Stop calculating further maths on an arithmetic question

OkCornel:


A simple google search on the meaning of Sub-Saharan Africa would have saved you all this long story you typed here.

Subsaharan Africa simply means the region south of the Sahara desert.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa


Stop calculating further maths on an arithmetic question

Read what I posted and do some research. Is there any other continent that is arbitrarily divided based on a single feature?

OkCornel:
Letu, see Seminole people, the natives of North America in the picture below.

Do they look like blacks to you?

http://www.stofthpo.com/History-Seminole-Tribe-FL-Tribal-Historic-Preservation-Office.html

When will you learn from the truth behind these things, okay let me play along with you with the pictures below.

OkCornel:


Stop calculating further maths on an arithmetic question

About time you stop thinking the world is arithmetic and take the first step in understanding calculus.
Start from here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

donnie:


They kept the laws commandments and statutes of YAH.

Yes they did, that's why in different scriptures points to different location or places where YAHWEH comes from like Hosea 13:4 and others.

donnie:


The TORAH refers to the first 5 books of Moses. Most Bibles include the writings of the prophets and the new testament. Others include the Apocrypha.

I read all that I deem accurate and/or inspired. From the old testament to the so-called new testament.

TO RAH OR TO RA that was crafted, edited and manufactured by the same Jews that you've been fighting against and also accusing them along with everything associated with them of being a Babylonian product, seriously when will you wake up from this because this is an honest truth that your ISOLELE will not tell you.

letu:
TO RAH OR TO RA that was crafted, edited and manufactured by the same Jews that you've been fighting against and also accusing them along with everything associated with them of being a Babylonian product, seriously when will you wake up from this because this is an honest truth that your ISOLELE will not tell you.

They did not craft it, they did not edit it, they did not make it, Mr. fake Jew, White Jesus worhipper. They stole the original Bantu scrolls from Africa and pretend to find them in that fake land. The Bantus still have the original scrolls and even the ark of the covenant hidden, and with which they will shock this Satanic world with in these last days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2brxOuGFkb4

Not only is Judaism Babylonian (from KUSH/Ethiopia), MESSIAH himslef called them fake Jews the Synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9,3:9). And that's what they are. The reason we are still able to find many ancient artifacts in Ethiopia is because they were able to fight away these devils. That's one country that was not colonized.

The fake Jews are not blood descendants. Read the work of their own scholar Arthur Koestler, THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE. What they have is a religion, but the Bantus/negroes are the blood descendants of YAKUBI/JACOB.

Many Bantus will be fooled into taking this Covid19 vaccine so their DNA will be altered forever. They will not only loose their eternal inheritance as Abraham's direct descendants but they'll seize to be pure humans. It's all a plan.

letu:
Stop fooling around with your mongoloid mulatto Indian know as natives in U S A and Donnie's Aboriginals American Indian pictures are the real thing, more pictures.

Gbam

OkCornel:


And some of these people (Beta-Israel)have been airlifted to the Israel since the 70s via operation Aliyah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah_from_Ethiopia


And by the way Edom has been long destroyed. They no longer have any heritage on the earth.

You're just putting out info anyone can easily get from CNN or a simple Google search...it's all lies! The Beta ISRAEL are fake and so is the so-called operation Moses. It's all meant to deceive, distract and mislead the world. Has MESSIAH returned? Is there world peace today? Is that region not a war zone? Is MESSIAH not the one to bring his people to their land from THE FOUR CORNERS of the earth according to scripture? Not Germany Russia and Ethiopia. That can only be the children of Jacob (the Bantus/Negroes) who were dispersed to the four corners through various captivites and slavery.

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

EDOM of scripture today is ROME which also peopled Italy, Spain Portugal, France Britain, U.S. etc.
Bible scholars know this but hide it because EDOM owns and controls the bible schools and seminaries. They lie about EDOM to divert attention from their impending doom. They are the Kingdom our black MESSIAH is coming to destroy and overthrow. The judgement of ESAU/EDOM shall come in the day of the Lord (the day of YAHUAH), the day of vengeance and that is at the end of this age.

Obadiah 1:8,10,15
[8]Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
[10]For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
[15]For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.


EDOM shall not escape judgement.

donnie:


You're just putting out info anyone can easily get from CNN or a simple Google search...it's all lies! The Beta ISRAEL are fake and so is the so-called operation Moses. It's all meant to deceive, distract and mislead the world. Has MESSIAH returned? Is there world peace today? Is that region not a war zone? Is MESSIAH not the one to bring his people to their land from THE FOUR CORNERS of the earth according to scripture? Not Germany Russia and Ethiopia. That can only be the children of Jacob (the Bantus/Negroes) who were dispersed to the four corners through various captivites and slavery.

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

EDOM of scripture today is ROME which also peopled Italy, Spain Portugal, France Britain, U.S. etc.
Bible scholars know this but hide it because EDOM owns and controls the bible schools and seminaries. They lie about EDOM to divert attention from their impending doom. They are the Kingdom our black MESSIAH is coming to destroy and overthrow. The judgement of ESAU/EDOM shall come in the day of the Lord (the day of YAHUAH), the day of vengeance and that is at the end of this age.

Obadiah 1:8,10,15
[8]Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
[10]For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
[15]For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.


EDOM shall not escape judgement.

Bros Edom no longer exists.

The prophecies in Malachi 1 v 3-5 and the book of Obadiah concerning the destruction of Edom has long been fulfilled.

I understand you have a disgust for the Caucasian race, but in the context of the scriptures and historical evidences available, Edom no longer exists. The Caucasians are not Edomites.

Malachi 1 v 3-5;
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.

5 And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.



The country where Edom used to exist is now occupied by Jordanians. These guys are not Edomites as the heritage of Edom is forever destroyed.

Martian:


About time you stop thinking the world is arithmetic and take the first step in understanding calculus.
Start from here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Can you kindly show us where exactly in this link you put up describing Subsaharan Africa as a racist language rather than a geographical description?

letu:
The apostles were know as teachers of righteousnes/holiness, for Christ is Holy and Christ is Righteousnes so they were called teachers of righteousnes/holiness because that's what they were practicing which is (Christ like which also is the same as to practice righteousnes/holiness).

MrPresident1 answered this. It’s called “the way of truth” as Apostle Peter described it in 2 Peter 2 v 2.

I just wanted to hear what Donnie’s description is as well.