Monday, June 26Spiritual Warfare and Other Cool Bible Stuff

Images of Deception: David and Goliath – Part 2


"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." - Hosea 4:6

Please like, share, comment, and subscribe.

CLICK HERE TO GET BIBLE STUDIES SENT TO YOUR EMAIL


The next Biblically inaccurate picture we’re going to look at is the battle between David and Goliath. This is perhaps one of the most well known giant stories in history. However, the depictions are always wrong:

There are so many things wrong with this picture that I actually had to think about where to start. So let’s just start with location: According to the Bible and geography, this battle took place in Arabia, near the Egyptian border. Egypt is in Africa and before it was renamed “The Middle East” in the 1800s, Canaan (Israel) was also considered to be part of Africa. The proper term for the area is Arabia… which is why we refer to the people there as Arabs.

But before anyone decides to respond that Arabs had olive skin or brown skin… no they did not before the Greek and Roman invasions. Here’s a picture of some of the original Arabs that the media does not show. Arabs were black before many of them mixed with the Greeks and Romans.

The Lineage of Goliath

In the picture, Goliath is depicted as white, but the Bible and Bible scholars tell us that he was from the lineage of Ham, the origin of the black African tribes.

  • Goliath lived in Gath (1 Samuel 17:4).
  • Gath was located in the land of Canaan (1 Samuel 17).
  • Goliath was a Philistine from the line of Philistim (Genesis 10:14).
  • Philistim was the grandson of Mizraim (Genesis 10:14).
  • Mizraim was one of the sons of Ham (Genesis 10:6).

Goliath descended from the father of the Egyptians (Mizraim), but his tribe, the Philistines resided in Canaan, which shares a border with Egypt. The vast majority of Bible scholars accept that Ham is the origin of black people in Africa and much of the Middle East according to scripture. If that’s the case, then there is no way Goliath nor the Philistines behind him could’ve been European as depicted in the picture above.

Suggested Reading



Read More About Ethnicity & The Bible In My Book

God Couldn't Have Done It Without Africa: Earth's Final Great Awakening


The Lineage of David

For those that have studied the lineage of King David, we know that Judah had five children with two different Canaanite women. Here are the facts according to the Bible:

  • Judah had two sons with Tamar (Genesis 46:12).
  • Tamar was a Canaanite (Genesis 38:1-6).
  • Canaan was a son of Ham (Genesis 9:18).
  • Ham was the originator of the black race in Africa and parts of Arabia (Genesis 10:6-20).

There is no way that the lineage of Judah starts off half Hamite and ends up with a European looking King David near Africa. Those that disagree will often defend their point by mentioning that David was ruddy, but what they don’t often like to admit to is that “ruddy” was used to describe various shades of reds and browns.

This is why it’s important to always do the research for yourself and not just take anyone’s word for it. Feel free to check every single reference and suggested reading article, and you’ll see that we are being fed a constantly lie about the true identity of Israel (Psalms 83).

Suggested Reading

Get More Bible Studies In Your Inbox

Enter Your Email Address

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

4 Comments

  • Michael Coffey

    Minister Fortson,
    It has been over a week since I posted this comment and you have not acted on it in order for it to be posted. I have always seen you as a truth seeker. I’m wondering if this is an oversight, or are you purposely censoring the comment? If this is an oversight, accept my apologies for wondering, but if not, I don’t know what to think. Are you not open to discussion of scientific information? I realize that this genome research isn’t an end all to the subject at this time until much more genome study is done, but it should certainly open the door to discussion for anyone who is interested in truth. Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight (I don’t have an agenda either way), but to me, it’s easy to see how ancient Egyptians could have been any mixture of lineage ranging from sub-Saharan to European, given its geographic location north of the Sahara and with the Mediterranean Sea on its northern border. It’s well known that the Egyptians were navigating the Mediterranean at least 4,000 years ago, and of course, land migration from all directions could have happened in pre-historic and early recorded historical times. Do you seek truth, or do you have an agenda that you are willing to ignore empirical science? This is a fair question.

    • Minister Fortson

      Michael,

      I run 4 websites with tens of thousands of followers total. Sometimes it takes me more than a week to read through, research, and answer.

      I actually addressed your article on Facebook, so I’ll address it here too. If you read the research, they tested 151 individuals from a small area. Of those 151 only 92 had mitochondrial DNA (the mother’s DNA). Of those 92 only 2 had full genome from both father and mother.

      The test results only accounted from an 8% difference in European DNA, which isn’t surprising because scripture names “Harosheth of The Gentiles” as a settlement near the area. Harosheth is believed by archaeologists to have been established by the “Sea People”, who were warriors and explorers from Europe. It’s construction is European, showing that Europeans did interact and mix with people in the area. But they certainly leave that out of their findings.

      There’s a reason they targeted a very specific area to test. We know why this deception is occurring. Hebrews looked like Egyptians and Egyptians painted themselves as black people. Egyptians sculpted themselves as black people. If 1 + 1 = 2… then science has to grasp at straws to try to re-define 2 into something European.

      Read Psalms 83 or this study I did on the plot to hide Israel and deceive them and the world into forgetting who they are:

      Hiding Israel: How The Hebrews Disappeared From History – Part 1

      This deception is part of the reason I started studying culture and why certain places were renamed around scripture. The Middle East use to be North Africa and Arabia. The Atlantic Ocean used to be called The Ethiopian Ocean. The slave coast of Africa was called The Kingdom of Juda.

      The deception is huge.

      • Michael Coffey

        My apologies if I jumped the gun. I didn’t know it took a week or more for you to reply to a comment. I am not a fan of Facebook for reasons I won’t get into here and don’t use it. As I said, this is certainly not an authorative DNA representation, however, I believe it is certainly worth taking note of for discussion in our quest for the truth. Actually, although the final verdict is still out, I suspect the Israelites were a mixed bag of skin colors. The ‘grafting in’ (adoption) principle goes all the way back to Abraham (Gen 17:23-27; also this outreach during the exodus for the huge mixed multitude at the time and their posterity; Exo 12:48-49). This falls in line with the principle that all humans have always been welcome in God’s (YHWH’s) family from the very beginning, if they choose to follow Him. Yeshua’s mission was/is an extended outreach of that same principle. I believe scriptural principles are in total agreement with each other from Genesis to Revelation when understood properly. The necessity for a direct genetic line (physical descendency) back to Abraham was always more the thinking of some of the ‘religious’ bunch, not of God himself, i.e. the Godly zerah (seed) was more spiritual than DNA, as long as it was human DNA. When it came to Messiah, it was necessary for His lineage to be established, although you will find goy blood (the nations) in His bloodline. Of the four women mentioned in Matthew’s geneology of Yeshua, at least three were of goy ancestry. Tamar was a Canaanite, Rahab was a harlot of Jericho, Ruth was a Moabite. Bathsheba was married to Uriah the Hittite (a Canaanite). Her ethnicity is not established with certainty, as far as I know, although she might have been Israelite.

        A very interesting recent archaelogical discovery is what appears to be the headquarters of the Israelite settlement in the Egyptian Goshen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm9ATLhkujY). A much better documentary on this, IMHO, is found on Netflix, “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus”. A tomb was discovered there that appears to be consistent with Joseph’s temporary tomb before his body was taken to Canaan with the Israellites. In it was a large statue with remnants of paint that covered the subject’s face and garments. This could possibly be an indication of what Joseph might have looked like, not necessarily his brothers. Jacob had sons by four women. As far as I know, the lineage of his concubines Bilhah and Zilpah is not definitively known, although Genesis says they were Rachel’s and Leah’s handmaidens, meaning they would not have been Laban’s family/kinsmen.

        In conclusion, I believe we should keep our minds open on this subject. The full truth might surprise us all.

        • Minister Fortson

          The time it takes depends on what all I’m doing. Some days I don’t even check comments. But I’m going to address your response point by point. There’s actually a lot of good points made. I also have some links for you to research as well.

          “Of the four women mentioned in Matthew’s geneology of Yeshua, at least three were of goy ancestry. Tamar was a Canaanite, Rahab was a harlot of Jericho, Ruth was a Moabite. Bathsheba was married to Uriah the Hittite (a Canaanite). Her ethnicity is not established with certainty, as far as I know, although she might have been Israelite.”

          There are several wrong statements here. Goy refers to Gentiles, which is very debatable that Gentiles were considered to be Japheth. Genesis 10, his line is referred to as Gentiles from the very beginning. When Paul claims to be the apostle of the Gentiles, he goes only to Europe and Asia to preach the gospel. Here’s the link to a series I’m doing on Gentiles:

          Let’s also be more specific. Tamar was from the lineage of Ham. Rahab was from the lineage of Ham. Ham is widely accepted to be the origin of black Africans, but according to the Zondervan Bible dictionary he was not the father of the Negroes. That only leaves Shem and Japheth. We know that Japheth went toward Europe. So if Tamar and Rahab were descendants of Ham they were likely black. Any children with them would result in darker children even if the Hebrews were full European, which they weren’t.

          Ruth was a Hebrew, but she was not an Israelite. She descended from Lot’s son Moab, whom he had with his oldest daughter. Lot was Abraham’s nephew so he was Hebrew just like Abraham. Moabites did not practice Judaism as a whole, but Ruth likely did. As for Boaz, he was from Judah, and as I just pointed out above, Tamar was descended from Ham. So it makes sense that Boaz would have Hamite in his blood, since it is through Pharez, the son of Tamar, that Boaz descended.

          Bathsheba was a Gilonite. When know this because her grandfather Ahithophel is a Gilonite. Giloh was located in Canaan (Ham’s descendants), and she was married to a Hittite as you pointed out. Hittites were also descendants of Ham. Unless we’re going to try to be inconsistent here, Bathsheba was a black descendant of Ham. This would mean that Solomon also had Hamite blood. Here are a couple of articles for you to read.

          “Jacob had sons by four women. As far as I know, the lineage of his concubines Bilhah and Zilpah is not definitively known, although Genesis says they were Rachel’s and Leah’s handmaidens, meaning they would not have been Laban’s family/kinsmen.”

          Scripture tells us that Laban was Syrian so we know that Rachel and Leah were Syrian as well. Most scholars agree that Syrians descended from Aram, a descendant of Shem. Even after thousands of years of mixing, due to their proximity to Europe and Asia, you can still see dark ethnicity in many Syrians. This means that they were either light and got dark from mixing with dark people, or they started off dark and got lighter by mixing with lighter people.

          However, scripture tells us that Joseph, Moses, all of Israel, and Paul were mistaken for Egyptians, which were descendants of Ham. Egyptians painted themselves as dark people, which means that Syrians, who come from the same lineage as the Hebrews, most likely started off dark and became lighter due to mixing. Here’s a picture of Hebrews and Egyptians side by side. They look the same. I covered this pic in detailed in my article: Images of Deception: Hebrew Slaves In Egypt.

          These are not things that we need to guess at. If we are willing to look honestly at the situation, we just don’t see mixing with Japheth , but we do see mixing between Ham and Shem’s descendants, which would’ve have resulted in a dark skinned nation. Do we ignore that and just say they were all colors because it makes people more comfortable or do we say the truth? They were mistaken for and depicted as black people, but suddenly it’s not OK, according to some, to point out that they were black people. We now have to be politically correct and say Hebrews were all colors which makes no sense.

          I’m currently finishing up a study on Hebrew and Hamite intermarriage that shows how often Hebrews mixed with black people from the line of Ham.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 − 11 =

Get Weekly Bible Studies In Your Email - Free

Just enter your email address: