The ancient Egyptians were blacks!

[Meathead]

You see that you are not knowledgeable enough, not only regarding the language and the alphabet of the ancient Greeks, but also on the same ancient historiography, that was not pro-European (Eurocentric), but far !!

The philologist and linguist Giovanni Semerano He considered Indo-European reconstructed by traditional linguists an invented language, without a land without a people he'd spoken and theory hypothesis kept alive because functional ethno racist ideology defined (to other non-European peoples) and social class and caste (within European societies).

I think the exact same way!

Post Scriptum:

Even the theories of Theo Vennemann are not unwrapped.

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

 

[Picaro]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

Yes. Phoenician, archaic Greek and Roman were all derived from Sanskrit. I haven't checked lately but there were some site discoveries in Russia of what were alleged to be the earliest evidence of the Aryans, pre-dating their invasions of India, a ruined 'city', iirc. I haven't heard anything new in a while about that, though.

Origin and Development of Sanskrit

Also of interest:

Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe

The Linear A and B weren't spoken languages, as far as I can tell. These are older than Hebrew, though there are Canaanite scripts almost as old as the Linear B's; I don't count those as 'Hebrew', though, and Sanskrit is older as well.

Mycenaeans, Greeks, and the 'Sea Peoples' already had a distinctive culture before they ever came in contact with Egypt, and in fact reduced Egypt to a minor power.

 

[irosie91]

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

I am -----as to being INFORMED ---in the 99th percentile-----wikki is not a source

 

[Meathead]

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

I am -----as to being INFORMED ---in the 99th percentile-----wikki is not a source

If you were well informed you would understand that although Sanskrit is the oldest Indo-European alphabet, it is not in fact the oldest language. As regards wiki, there are links to sources. Your belief in the simplicity that all languages were written is, well, a bit simple minded.

 

[Picaro]

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Written symbols have been around a while; languages like Sanskrit that are both spoken and written are what I would limit the discussion to.

 

[Picaro]

The Nubian 'conquest' of Egypt didn't last long, in fact it was barely a blip in the long history of Egypt. They only made a brief impact on part of the Nile Valley, in any case, in that very short time period. They certainly didn't turn Egypt 'black', and the slave trade from Africa to India was carried on for thousands of years, so yes, there would be dark skinned Indians running around; they are a small demographic, with the upper castes getting whiter and whiter as one gets further up the social scale.

Contrast that with the Arab and later Muslim slave trade, and the distinct lack of black faces in the ME; black slaves were simply killed when no longer useful, and weren't allowed to breed. Muslims only allowed black males who had survived full frontal castration into their lands after a massive slave revolt in Persia around the 11th or 12th century, don't remember the exact century off hand. That's why it's just hilarious to hear idiots like the Nation of Islam types babbling stupid gibberish all about 'evul Whitey N Stuff', and how Islam is the best 'religion' for blacks over Christianity or something.

 

[historycisalpin]

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Are theories from peanuts, protruding from the European academic corporatism and thread Eurocentric - German centrism, and pro occidentalism!

 

[irosie91]

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

I am -----as to being INFORMED ---in the 99th percentile-----wikki is not a source

If you were well informed you would understand that although Sanskrit is the oldest Indo-European alphabet, it is not in fact the oldest language. As regards wiki, there are links to sources. Your belief in the simplicity that all languages were written is, well, a bit simple minded.

If you were anything but a shit pawed lying poster you would not cast your shitty
and utterly untrue statement that I claimed or even came close to claiming
that SANSKRIT is the oldest language In fact, I CLEARLY stated that all
human societies develope language and-----eventually some sort of symbolic
representations of their language. MANY human societies never had an
alphabet-------you friggen idiot

 

[irosie91]

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Written symbols have been around a while; languages like Sanskrit that are both spoken and written are what I would limit the discussion to.

It is reasonable in discussing ancient languages to discuss those that were
either written or recorded in someway AVAILABLE to us now------it works out
better

 

[yiostheoy]

The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European

The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

 

[yiostheoy]

If you were anything but a shit pawed lying poster you would not cast your shitty
and utterly untrue statement that I claimed or even came close to claiming
that SANSKRIT is the oldest language In fact, I CLEARLY stated that all
human societies develope language and-----eventually some sort of symbolic
representations of their language. MANY human societies never had an
alphabet-------you friggen idiot

As far as we can tell Sanskrit is quite old, as old as the oldest other language, which would be Assyrian or Egyptian.

We just don't know.

 

[irosie91]

The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European

The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

It is not at all clear to me that Moses wrote the whole first five books. I do not
believe he just INVENTED stuff------the stuff in the first book seems to be
traditional belief-------lots of that a guy like Abraham would have brought from
"UR" ------somewhere in Iraq-----near the two rivers-----that it seems-----liked to flood the place now and them and------actually had a written language. The traditional belief is that Abraham was literate.-------

 

[yiostheoy]

As it regards the peoples Dravidian to India, the Telluric Indus Valley civilization, It was exclusively colonized by Mesopotamian peoples belonging to the strain Semitic / Arabic.

Indian Mesopotamian strain / Arabic:

Mesopotamian populations - Saharasian the Arabian strain:

Natives - telluric India:

ROFLMAO "Mesopotamian -----in the mind of maniac means "ARAB" ""

The Arab Conquest in the 7th Century AD spread Arab influence and genetics to the formerly Assyrian/Babylonian area of Mesopotamia.

But originally these various peoples before the Arab Conquest were completely different.

Around the world we see a handful of unique ancient racial groups --

- Assyrians and Babylonians

- Aryans

- Egyptians and Arabs

- Black Africans south of the Sahara

- Chinese northeast of the Himalaya

- Meso Americans in Central America and Mexico.

- Japanese

 

[historycisalpin]

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Written symbols have been around a while; languages like Sanskrit that are both spoken and written are what I would limit the discussion to.

It is reasonable in discussing ancient languages to discuss those that were
either written or recorded in someway AVAILABLE to us now------it works out
better

The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European

The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

The sons of Japheth (according to my thinking), thus partially mixing with European women (indigenous native), going to create what would later become the so-called people "Nordic".

 

[yiostheoy]

The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European

The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

It is not at all clear to me that Moses wrote the whole first five books. I do not
believe he just INVENTED stuff------the stuff in the first book seems to be
traditional belief-------lots of that a guy like Abraham would have brought from
"UR" ------somewhere in Iraq-----near the two rivers-----that it seems-----liked to flood the place now and them and------actually had a written language. The traditional belief is that Abraham was literate.-------

I DO believe Moses invented stuff. All evidence points to it.

We are told by himself and by Josephus that Moses was raised as a Prince Of Egypt and as such he would have been well educated by temple scribes. Moses seems to have adapted elements of ancient history prior to himself into his own stories -- their Gods, demons, a flood, river infanticide, and so forth. He mentions the Hittites and we have since discovered archaeology about the Hittites. He could not have made this up. And the Jews could not have made it up either.

Whether it was a sky god named YHVH or schizophrenia that compelled Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt we will never know. But once he did it the Hebrews became quite hostile towards him and so he had to invent stories to keep them under control.

That he did.

 

[yiostheoy]

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Written symbols have been around a while; languages like Sanskrit that are both spoken and written are what I would limit the discussion to.

It is reasonable in discussing ancient languages to discuss those that were
either written or recorded in someway AVAILABLE to us now------it works out
better

The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European

The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

The sons of Japheth (according to my thinking), thus partially mixing with European women (indigenous native), going to create what would later become the so-called people "Nordic".

Correct -- Japheth is Hebrew/Aramaic for "beautiful". Jaffe the city has the same name. By coincidence its location on the rocky cliffs of the Eastern Med makes it a very beautiful city, perhaps the most beautiful in the world.

Japheth's bride was probably a blonde. Shem's bride was probably an Assyrian/Babylonian. Ham's bride was probably Egyptian. But you need to remember this is just one of the stories that Moses dreamed up because Moses did not give us an honest report of where he learned of these things. It would have been nice to know which Egyptian scribes taught him this story and why?

 

[historycisalpin]

As it regards the peoples Dravidian to India, the Telluric Indus Valley civilization, It was exclusively colonized by Mesopotamian peoples belonging to the strain Semitic / Arabic.

Indian Mesopotamian strain / Arabic:

Mesopotamian populations - Saharasian the Arabian strain:

Natives - telluric India:

ROFLMAO "Mesopotamian -----in the mind of maniac means "ARAB" ""

The Arab Conquest in the 7th Century AD spread Arab influence and genetics to the formerly Assyrian/Babylonian area of Mesopotamia.

But originally these various peoples before the Arab Conquest were completely different.

Around the world we see a handful of unique ancient racial groups --

- Assyrians and Babylonians

- Aryans

- Egyptians and Arabs

- Black Africans south of the Sahara

- Chinese northeast of the Himalaya

- Meso Americans in Central America and Mexico.

- Japanese

You forgot to add the Jews, as part of the same strain.

There are characteristics ethno anthropological of African/Semitic, Semitic / Asian, Semitic / European, as indeed there are characteristics African/European and African/Asiatic.

 

[yiostheoy]

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Are theories from peanuts, protruding from the European academic corporatism and thread Eurocentric - German centrism, and pro occidentalism!

Pro-Occidentalism evolved from the British Empire and conquest of the known world. It came on the heels of the Spanish Empire and conquest of the Western Hemisphere.

German evolution as far as we can tell is from Persia according to Herodotus who also calls the Persians and Indians "Aryans".

 

[irosie91]

The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European

The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

It is not at all clear to me that Moses wrote the whole first five books. I do not
believe he just INVENTED stuff------the stuff in the first book seems to be
traditional belief-------lots of that a guy like Abraham would have brought from
"UR" ------somewhere in Iraq-----near the two rivers-----that it seems-----liked to flood the place now and them and------actually had a written language. The traditional belief is that Abraham was literate.-------

I DO believe Moses invented stuff. All evidence points to it.

We are told by himself and by Josephus that Moses was raised as a Prince Of Egypt and as such he would have been well educated by temple scribes. Moses seems to have adapted elements of ancient history prior to himself into his own stories -- their Gods, demons, a flood, river infanticide, and so forth. He mentions the Hittites and we have since discovered archaeology about the Hittites. He could not have made this up. And the Jews could not have made it up either.

Whether it was a sky god named YHVH or schizophrenia that compelled Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt we will never know. But once he did it the Hebrews became quite hostile towards him and so he had to invent stories to keep them under control.

That he did.

if there is anything schizophrenic about the first five books of the bible ----it is
your reconstruction of Moses. What we do know is that Josephus never met
Moses

 

[yiostheoy]

The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European

The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

It is not at all clear to me that Moses wrote the whole first five books. I do not
believe he just INVENTED stuff------the stuff in the first book seems to be
traditional belief-------lots of that a guy like Abraham would have brought from
"UR" ------somewhere in Iraq-----near the two rivers-----that it seems-----liked to flood the place now and them and------actually had a written language. The traditional belief is that Abraham was literate.-------

I DO believe Moses invented stuff. All evidence points to it.

We are told by himself and by Josephus that Moses was raised as a Prince Of Egypt and as such he would have been well educated by temple scribes. Moses seems to have adapted elements of ancient history prior to himself into his own stories -- their Gods, demons, a flood, river infanticide, and so forth. He mentions the Hittites and we have since discovered archaeology about the Hittites. He could not have made this up. And the Jews could not have made it up either.

Whether it was a sky god named YHVH or schizophrenia that compelled Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt we will never know. But once he did it the Hebrews became quite hostile towards him and so he had to invent stories to keep them under control.

That he did.

if there is anything schizophrenic about the first five books of the bible ----it is
your reconstruction of Moses. What we do know is that Josephus never met
Moses

Josephus was drawing from his own historical sources at Rome.

His own narrative is much more extensive than the Tenakh itself.

As such Moses was clearly a historical figure.

Where he got his stories from is still a mystery.

Jews are believing him less and less.

Christians are starting to get smarter too.

Mooseleems don't really give a sh!t because they have Mo their own schizophrenic prophet and his angelic messenger plagiarized as Gabriel from the Tehnakh and New Testament.

In the Tenakh Gabriel informs Abraham his wife Sarah will have a child. Then Gabriel goes on to accompany Michael the Archangel to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Greek New Testament Gabriel informs Mary Of Nazareth she will give birth to Jesus, as we all have read.