The Black Man, the Father of Civilization, Proven by Biblical History — John Shaqi
The Black Man, the Father of Civilization, Proven by Biblical HistoryWebb, James Morris
History
The Black Man, the Father of Civilization, Proven by Biblical History
Webb, James Morris
Black people in the Bible; Civilization, Ancient; Theological anthropology
Cush located in South Egypt on the River Nile. He became the father of the
Ethiopians as well as the father of the Cushites through Nimrod who
located on the Southern part of the Euphrates River. It is to be
remembered that Nimrod is the founder of the Babylonian kingdom (Genesis
10th Chapter, 10th verse.) Mizriam located on the upper part of the River
Nile, and he became the father of the Egyptians. Phut located in the
Northern part of Africa. Canaan located in the land known as the old
Palestine country, which is modern Turkey. Canaan became the father of the
Canaanites (Genesis 10th Chapter, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th verses).
According to the Bible the above is the exact location of the first sons
of Ham, and the question which naturally follows is, "Was civilization
born in their land and given birth by Ham's first offspring?" It is
conceded by John Clark Ridpath and a few other writers on ancient history
that the Egyptians were the fathers of civilization, according to the
chronology of Manetho, an Egyptian priest. Egypt was founded in the year
B. C. 3892, and Menes was the first mortal King. The all important
question now arises, "Were the Egyptians descendants of black men, or were
they descendants of white men? Were they descendants of Ham or Shem?" It
is well known that students claim to be divided in their opinion as to the
original stock from which the ancient Egyptians came. Ridpath, among
others, says they were neither Semitic nor Negro, but concludes his
remarks on the origin of the Egyptians by saying that the ancient
Egyptians were considered a branch of that part of the Cushite family,
which settled in Asia. Probably the little matter of the Cushites being
the grand-children of Ham slipped Ridpath's mind, else his statements
would not have been so conflicting, because he just says that they were
not Negroes, but ends his argument by saying that they were a branch of
the Cushite family of Asia.
It requires no laborious research to establish the facts that Cush was the
father of all Cushite nations. He was also the first son of Ham (Genesis
10th Chapter, 6th verse). Now then, if the Ethiopians and all other
Cushite nations who sprang from this first son of Ham were not Negroes,
will some of our historians omit the word "probably," so much used by
them, and say _what_ they were. It is fair to assume that with their
boasted intelligence and superior brain power, by this time they would
have been able to search out and connect at least some of the many facts,
and plain, indisputable records in the Bible which leaves no room for
doubt or "probably."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account