Friday, June 24, 2016

Dismantling Outdated Interpretations

Alice C. Linsley

A reader of JUST GENESIS left a comment after reading the article Why Prejudice Against A Scientific Approach to the Bible?  This was the question asked by Manna: "Is archeology biased and based more on a european type of model than facts? Or, is current research and evidence dismantling the bias of the past? Are we closer to a more accurate picture or further away?"

I responded that archaeological findings constitute important physical evidence, but artifacts are often misinterpreted or assigned significance that is not consistent with the larger picture. I have seen many examples of this over the years.

One example is the unfortunate misrepresentation of the solar image overshadowing the queen at the Yazilikaya shrine in Turkey (shown below). This relief of great significance shows the divine appointment of a royal couple. The woman wears the Sun in the horns as a sign of divine overshadowing of the Sun, the Creator's emblem. This is consistent with the image of Hathor, the mother of the "son" of the Creator (shown right). Hathor was known among Abraham's Horite Habiru/Hebrew ancestors as the mother of Horus.

Stone relief dates to 13th century BC
Solar imagery is a key feature of the religion of the archaic rulers (the "mighty men of old") and it involved expectation of a divine ruler who would overcome death and lead his people to immortality.

It is common that interpretations of the past are set aside when fresh eyes investigate the evidence. There is always resistance to new approaches such as Biblical Anthropology which does not rely on a single discipline, but rather seeks to gain a wider picture by looking at multiple sciences, including linguistics, DNA studies, anthropology and climate studies.

The king also wears the horns as a solar crown indicating divine appointment as the Creator's representative on Earth. Unfortunately, archaeologists have missed this entirely. They interpreted this image as Sun goddess (left) and Moon god (right), thus rendering the meaning exactly opposite of what is depicted. Among the peoples of the R1b Haplogroup, the Creator was consistently associated with the Sun and divine insemination.

Manna also wrote,
"I think the reason people ask you "what color was Abraham?" is because your research goes even against the images of Abraham and others in the Old Testament...Those images for many are not African based at all. I grew up down south (the Bible belt of America) and there was nothing of any "red, dark, ruddy, brown, dark, etc" skin tones in images of Abraham, etc. in those early books of Genesis. I think the resistance is so deep that even some researchers and scientist cannot accept such--even despite the clear evidence. Some people will never accept a "ruddy, brown, red, olive or even dark" type of Abraham. Does it matter? For some of us, it does for many different reasons."

To Manna, I responded, "The assertion of a red skin tone for Abraham is strictly based on the data of the Bible."

Let us consider some of the pertinent data of the Bible.

Abraham was a descendant of Adam. Adam refers to the color of blood. Adam is named as the founding ancestor of the rulers listed in Genesis 4 and 5. These are the ruling lines of Kain and Seth, and analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of these rulers reveals that the lines intermarried.

He was also a descendant of Kush, an African of the Upper Nile Valley where red Nubians lived.

His ancestors were Proto-Saharan cattle herders for whom the Sun was a sacred image, the emblem of the Creator who appoints rulers (and the Woman of Gen. 3:15) by divine overshadowing. The image below is actually a Messianic image of the calf of God to be sacrificed to make atonement for the people. This is why Aaron, a descendant of Seir the Horite, fabricated such an image.

One of Abraham's ancestors was Noah, a ruler in the region of Lake Chad. There has been considerable resistance to this assertion, especially among men who have written books in which they present Noah as a Mesopotamian.Yet none who criticized this assertion has attempted to refute or even address the supporting data.

Both Lake Chad and the Upper Nile were populated by people in the R1B Haplogroup. This Haplogroup is usually regarded as European, rather than African, but it is both, as is evident from the map below showing the R1b distribution.

Abraham's territory was entirely in the land of Edom, ruled by Horite Habiru/Hebrew kings. Many are listed in Genesis 36. Edom and Adam share the same dm root which refers to the color red. The ancient Greeks called Edom "Idumea" which means land of red people.

Note that both Hebron (where Sarah lived) and Beersheba (where Keturah lived) are in Idumea. Abraham's territory extended between the settlements of his two wives and was entirely in the region the Greeks called Idumea.

In the Genesis 36 list, diagrammed below, we find Esau who is specifically described as red or ruddy in the Bible.

David was a descendant of Abraham and he also is described as red. He had Edomite blood, as did many of the great rulers of Israel, including Herod the Great whose ancestry is found in Horite Petra.

Related reading; Was Abraham a Black Man?; Two Named Esau; Haplogroups of Interest to Biblical Anthropologists; The Kushite-Kushan Connection; Edo, Edom, Idumea; The Genesis King Lists

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your comments are welcome. Please stay on topic and provide examples to support your point.