nemesis Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 What were they saying?! in a nutshellwhens the next one?as soon as i saw Hilary in the picture i thought nah.......them man there .....thats why i never supported the nation in the uk , Hilary, Ralph Leo all of them got to much dirt under their fingernails for my liking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grafter Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 only men can reach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 What were they saying?! in a nutshellwhens the next one?sunday 2-4pm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Luv Doc Posted December 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Bun the nation of islam, some fake religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpedeum Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 an article that describes the first known inhabitants of mainland china.....Africoid in description. In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places. Taken from the full article"In honor of the Little Black People"Drinking, singing and dancing are expected to take place deep in the mountains of Miaoli and Hsinchu when the "Ritual of the Little Black People" (矮靈祭) is performed by the Saisiyat tribe once again this weekend.For the past 100 years or so, the Saisiyat tribe (賽夏族) has performed the songs and rites of the festival to bring good harvests, ward off bad luck and keep alive the spirit of a race of people who are said to have preceded all others in Taiwan.In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places.Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair.full article here http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/11/27/2003212815Taken from another article describing the most likely origins of the development of the "Negro/Niger/Ni**er" wordIn fact, as Clyde Walters points out, The Chinese language is directly related to the Niger-Congo language which has its roots in the Cameroon region of Africa. In fact, there are thousands of African words from Cameroon to Kenya that have both prefixes and suffixes that are identical to both Chinese and Japanese languages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpedeum Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The Olmecs : The first South americansFebruary 28, 2001The ancient "Olmecs" of Mexico and Mesoamerica are one of the most intriguing civilizations of the Americas. In fact, they are the first civilization in Mexico and it was from them that all other civilizations in Mesoamerica followed.According to an archeologist who recently participated in archeological work in Mexico, One of the most ancient civilizations in the Americas, the Black (Negritic) Olmecs developed a calendar that goes back to about 3,113 years Before Christ. The archeologist who appeared on the Art Bell show made that point.Yet, the fact that the Olmecs were most likely a Black civilization of African origins has not been made public and the "Indian" elements in Mexico have gained more prominence to the extent that the Negroid substrata of the ancient Mexican/Mesoamerican civilizations has been kept hidden. Yet, over the past many years, various levels of proof have been found linking the "Olmecs" to Africans in the Western part of Africa:Linguistic Similarities :Studies done by researchers such as Ivan Van Sertima (They Came Before Columbus), Alexander Von Wuthenau (Unexpected Faces in Ancient America), Runoko Rashidi and others have presented evidence that clearly show that the Olmecs were not Indians with "baby faces," or Indians who looked like Blacks (although a few Olmecs did mix with the later Native Americans). They were Africans no different from Africans found in the Mende regions of West Africa.Studies done by Clyde Winters show that the Olmecs used the Mende script, a writing system used among the Mandinkas and other Africans in West Africa. When the writings on Olmec monuments were translated, it was found that the language spoken by the Olmecs was Mende.Religious SimilaritiesThe Olmecs practiced a religion and astronomical sciences identical to those practiced by Africans in the Mali region and Nigeria today. The Olmecs studied the Venus Complex in astronomy. Today, the Ono and Bambara who are famous sea and river travelers have studied that same complex for thousands of years. In fact, another group the Dogon are well known for their tracking and mapping of the Sirius star system and their accurate results.The Olmecs also had a religious practice of Thunder worship where the ax was a prominent feature. In West Africa, the ax is also a prominent feature in connection with the Shango or Thunder God worship. Both the Olmecs and the Shango worshippers in West Africa placed an emphasis on the religious significance of children in their religious practices.The Olmecs carved about twenty-two collosal stone heads in the southern parts of Mexico and their influence have been found in Guatemala and further south. Olmec type sculptures have also been found in parts of the U.S., (the Washitaw Nation of Louisiana; www.hotep.org ), The Olmecs and Washitaw, Black Californians, Jamassee, Califunami and other pre-columbian Blacks of the Americas were part of a prehistoric trade network that began in Africa and spread worldwide over 100,000 years ago and at various periods afterwards. According to the book, Susu Economics The History of Pan-African Trade, Commerce, Money and Wealth, these Blacks found in the Americas, as well as remnants of their ancient civilizations are not a myth or fairytale.The Olmec heads were carved out of stone, around a time that no metal tools were known to have been in use. They each weigh over 40 tonnes and had to have been moved over 400 miles. How they were moved is unknown, but it would either be by land or by sea. The areas they were found could not have been the same areas where they were carved out. as the only nearest areas where stone existed was some 400miles away. Theres more info about all other Global African presence herehttp://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/runoko.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurious Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 the woman we call Eve was a pygmieThere were some pygmies that were banished up into Ireland aswellThe original leprechauns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Esquilax Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 ...........lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VENOM Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 the woman we call Eve was a pygmieThere were some pygmies that were banished up into Ireland aswellThe original leprechaunsthe thread will be waste if u keep posting tbhuve tried but failed cos u just post like u have that ganja d*ck stuck inside u thesedaysbeg u stop posting....ANYWHERE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurious Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 how is my info less crediblebecause i didnt give u google link/youtube video to followlike i said to esqui, if u cant dispute it then leave it beganja d*ck u know, them tings on ur mind brother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VENOM Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 how is my info less crediblebecause i didnt give u google link/youtube video to followlike i said to esqui, if u cant dispute it then leave it beganja d*ck u know, them tings on ur mind brotheryes actually no google link or youtube videoeve a pygmie? and calling suttin an original leprechaun is like sayingan original elf, pixie, twixie, or saying theres an original santa claus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Esquilax Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I wouldn't take it to the insulting crass extent that Venom seems to, but yes, you can't just say Eve was pygmie and leave it at that.Then as a back up citation say that the original leprechauns were pygmies, like leprechauns exist.Why are you under the impression that Eve, presuming you are talking about biblical Eve born in paradise, was a pygmie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurious Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 boy i never said that eve or leprechauns were any more real than jesus christ but that dosent stop speculations of where he originated, i saw pygmy and decided to lay down some theories i'd encounteredanyways''luacharma'n (Irish for pygmy).'' http://www.wyrdology.com/fairies/celtic/leprechaun.htmladam and eve coming from the watusi tribe and the pygmy tribeshttp://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ314.htmlthese arnt where i got my info from but b'cuz no one can be bothered to utilise google for themselves yet they seem interested in what i had to type, theres some links to set u on ur merry way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Esquilax Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 boy i never said that eve or leprechauns were any more real than jesus christ but that dosent stop speculations of where he originated, i saw pygmy and decided to lay down some theories i'd encounteredanyways''luacharma'n (Irish for pygmy).'' http://www.wyrdology.com/fairies/celtic/leprechaun.htmladam and eve coming from the watusi tribe and the pygmy tribeshttp://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ314.htmlthese arnt where i got my info from but b'cuz no one can be bothered to utilise google for themselves yet they seem interested in what i had to type, theres some links to set u on ur merry wayFrom the second link:"This is racism, a highly prejudicial school of thought that dehumanizes fellow human beings. One cannot say that evolutionists today are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers were. Racism is unpopular today, at least openly, so public acknowledgment of it is rare. However, the theory of evolution provides a rationale to justify racism.3Genesis provides quite a different historical perspective. We are all descended from Adam and Eve and from Noah and his wife. Consequently, we are all cousins. Think what the world would be like if everyone realized that and acted accordingly! "There seems to be an unwarranted fixation on racial prejudice when it comes to evolutionary biology. I don't know where it stems from, but Darwin's theories are purely scientific and are not based on any racial prejudice.http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin%27s%20Racism.htmlThis is an amalgam of poorly interpreted quotes, ergo, someone looking hard for something and finding it.As for all this talk of Adam and Eve being part of some tribe, well... Arguing the veracity of whether they even existed in the first place is more prevalent surely. You seem to be applying real life scientific evidence to metaphysical speculation.Dun't werk yo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurious Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 i didnt say some tribei said Watusi and Pygmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Esquilax Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 My point still remains, you're applying characteristics to potentially non existant people. There's no point taking geographical locations into consideration because these were supposedly the first humans ever created, created in Jehovahs image. Saying they were from sumeria or Babylon or wherever is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skenghis Khan Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I think darwin wrote a book called the races of man, in which he argues that white people are more evolved than others, basically darwin and a lot of his followers believed in white supremacy. Nowadays most evolutionists believe we are all perfectly adapted to the environments we grew in, meaning that the characteristics of the racial group we call black are the perfect solutions to living in africa and the same with the group we call white in europe etc.it doesnt matter if adam and eve are fictional, there is no harm in taking adam and eve metorphorically, we are all sons of adam and daughters of eve because we all come from the same ancestry and the same ancestral home - africa, we all belong to a single race - the human tribe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Anyone see that series a while back called the incredible human journey.Some bitch called Alice Roberts (who would get fully pieced) basically followed the migration (or theoried migration) of humans out of africa, where they went, how they adapted, and the whole program follows our evolution etc.Interesting sh*t.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kfqpsNot on iplayer anymore but you can probably torrent/rapidshare it.The entire planet can trace its ancestry via dna to a group of a few hundred people in africa, and the program goes into detail etc about it.Would recommend.Also lol at leprichauns. The f*ck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Esquilax Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Yeah I saw that, and yeah, Alice Roberts would get the full length plus 42% moar length Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VENOM Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 one thing thats confusing about adam and eve is that it is beleived tha the first humans came from africaand like kurious is saying even if shes wrong about their height lol (about pygmies...smh) its still saying they're from africabut the bible describes what the garden of eden was like and the rivers around it.these rivers still exist today and the description places the garden of eden somewhere in or around Iranso its confusing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Esquilax Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 one thing thats confusing about adam and eve is that it is beleived tha the first humans came from africaand like kurious is saying even if shes wrong about their height lol (about pygmies...smh) its still saying they're from africabut the bible describes what the garden of eden was like and the rivers around it.these rivers still exist today and the description places the garden of eden somewhere in or around Iranso its confusingBut science shows that the movement of tectonic plates across time has shifted land masses dramatically through time, so whether or not the descriptions of Eden resemble modern day Iran, at the dawn of time everything would have been different anywayIt doesn't make sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurious Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ur right esqi''and the name of the second river is Gihon the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia'' -Genesis 2:13eve and adam wernt the first on earththe bible tells us that''...and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth'' - Genesis 1:28re·plen·ish (r-plnsh)v. re·plen·ished, re·plen·ish·ing, re·plen·ish·es v.tr.1. To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply to-To become full againlets use our brains now and stop looking at the bible half asleep, READ and understand what it is saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Ant Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 well replenish was translated from the hebrew word mälā' (H4390)which means to filljust sayin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurious Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 i hear you brotherbut they chose to use that word there for a reasonpeep this''As a matter-of-fact, in the King JamesOld Testament, mâlê was translated replenishor replenished only seventimes. In six of these instances, replenishwas indeed a more appropriate renderingthan fill. The most obvious is atGenesis 9:1, in which God told Noah toreplenish the earth after the Flood.But what about Gods previous commandto Adam? Why did the translatorsdecide to use replenish there whenfill would seemingly have been moreappropriate? Did these good men havesome reason to think there just might havebeen a pre-Adamite population and thereforeit would be on the safe side to usethe alternate meaning replenish?This question becomes more relThis question becomes more relevantwhen we note that they alwayselsewhere used fill or filled orfull or some such variation exceptwhen it was obvious that replenishwas a better choice.It turns out that they translated mâlêby fill no less than 33 times, by filledat least 73 times, by full some 97 timesand even by fulfill or fulfilled at least27 times.So why did they not use fill insteadof replenish in connection with the vitallyimportant dominion mandate recordedin Genesis 1:28? That was the firsttime mâlê was used in the Bible, and itwas surely important to get it right there!Did they actually have some reason tothink they should at least allow the possibilityof pre-Adamites in this beginningchapter of Gods Book?''Aramaic translations go deep "Adam And Eve." The Name ADAMA, In The Akkadian Tongue, Which Is A Dialect Of Cuneiform Means "Earthling Upon Each Reconstruction And Replenishing Of The Planet Earth." ADAM, AS-DAWM In The Aramaic (Hebrew) Language is Merely A Title And Also A Tribe (Genesis 1:27) Meaning "Dark Brown, Of The Earth, Or Life Blood." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Ant Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 well i dont know why it was usedbut i would ask where did they (preadamites) go?i ask this because death was a result of the original sin by adam and eveif theres no original sin then these preadamites wouldn't have died out and would have been around during the time of adam and eve , no?(i am assuming you think they died out) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.