There are two kinds of Hittite: the early Indo-European langauge known to students of Indo-European and some strange fantastic mishmash known to people who know little.
There was a language called Luwian which may have been related to Hittite (probably was -it isn't known yet) and monumental inscriptions exist that use a pictorial form.
To equate this with Egyptian hieropglyphics is absurd, to then pretend to draw inferences from it is even more absurd.
One might as well argue that because the Vietnamese use a Roman script they were originally Irish!

Or the Portuguese were originally Vietnamese! One can infer virtually nothing outside of the linguistic from long-gone langauges.

"Kush is synonymous with Kish"
Who says? The "Kish" in the Bible is a person and we are told quite clearly it is a Jew (tribe of Benjamin".

OPr we may prefer Chronicles version: Kish is a Levite.
The afct remains taht this is not in any way shape or form identifies with a place.
Now, all of us with IQ's measured in positive integers know that there was a well-attested centre of Mesopotamian civilisation (Sumerian, perhaps) called Kish, in modern Iraq: and I for one am more than ready to accept that the Biblical name is an example of a common ancient practice whereby an "ancestor" was created to explain what passed for "history"; but to talk as though this is "fact" is simply wrong-headed.

Kish and Kush -are not even related: the initial consonant is different (compare Koran/Quran) which is why the KJV preferred Cush.
But Kush is plainly called a brother of Canaan and father to Nimrod -entirely asociated with Babylon.
Whatever the "folk history" here: there can be no solid claims beyond the obvious: some sort of Mesopotamian connection.

Were not the Babylonians descendants of Sumerians? Kush was Nimrods father and Nimrod began Babylonia. The Bible does equate Kush with the Abyssinians, Ethiopians, etc.

So if the Bible is correct; then the Babylonians and Ethiopians come from the same lineage. If the Bible is incorrect then what was their purpose for this "non-sense"?

What about Mizraim the son of Ham, (Kush's brother) being the Egyptians. Where did they get that idea if it's wrong? If the lineages of the Bible are indeed correct; then it's highly possible that Khemet/Mizraim/Egypt was a colony of Kush/Ethiopia/Abysinnia/Meroe.

Ever heard of the Tamahu?



Peace

What about Mars?


www.mt.net...

Um, I don't care if we came from whites, black, or purple skinned people, but its really absurd to think you can know this....The question of race in relation to "accepted history" is one that is unfortunately ignored. The accepted theories of human origin in no way address why or how the distinct races that we have currently came to be. I am well aware of the working of genetics, yet they really don't provide a sufficient explanation. But, of course, thats just too politically charged to ever be address professional except through brief "this must have happened" bits in passing.

I notice that alot of people in here want to discount the afro-centric point of view. Well I can clearly see with my own eyes by looking at the paintings on their walls that these people are of african descent. I mean the paintings are of dark brown to jet black people. Not of white people the way they are always portrayed in the media. Egypt is in AFRICA! HELLO! It seems to me that the real question here is why people want to discount the afro-centric view when their eyes clearly shows that these people were black by any standards in the world, straight hair or not! Not all white people look alike nor all Asian people. These people were clearly of African stock. According to the bible they came from the line of Ham and he was the father of the ku#es which are black. So stop being racist and be open to all views, because my eyes and yours see the truth. The paintings on the walls of Egypt of are of black people.

B4REAL

[edit on 24-12-2007 by SayWhat!]

If you look at the paintings, you'll notice that some are certainly darker than others. Egypt, being a huge power at the time, could have quite possibly been made up of people from all over the ancient near east and Africa.

I imagine that none but a radical few would suggest that the ancient Egyptians were racially 'Aryan' - one must only look at the people who inhabit the region today to see evidence to the contrary.

It's an interesting topic nonetheless and the mystery of their origin only adds to the allure of their culture.

The early Egyptians were nomads traveling along routes for trade. It doesn't matter from who they descended. Before them there were a civilized people who lived there and built the great structures the Egyptians later took credit for. They were the Nephilim, the product of cross breeding humans and fallen angelic beings nit from this world. They were huge in stature and prospered for a time before being wiped out by a plague. The nomads entered the deserted cities and dwelt there. They learned things there and became great in their own ways. This is all recorded in the old Testiment of the Bible.

I'm not really that familiar with ATS, but whats the proper course of action when somebody says something completely insane?

[edit on 25-12-2007 by Monger]

i find it funny that even today, there are those who just can't understand
how a dark skinned people could have built egypt with all it's accompanying contributions. all you have to do is follow the nile south from
egypt and you can see the various stages of architectual developement.
there is no big mystery. to even use the term "afrocentric" makes
questionable the obvious truth. i liken current egypt to certain neighborhoods in which a few different ones move in and eventually the
original inhabitants are gone and/or subjugated. those guys you always
see digging and lifting for zawi hawass??? those are the descendants of
the egyptians. the originals were dark skinned with very curly hair. as
time progressed and other peoples were integrated into the mix, skin
color eventually became lighter. no aliens or any other mystic people
built egypt. it is true that history is a lie agreed upon, unless you think,
read and investigate. some of those same egyptian (african) gods are
still revered to this day. there are black madonnas all over the planet.
i might suggest reading herodotus and josephus, unless of course you
consider their writings "afro-centric".

[edit on 25-12-2007 by last time here]

I don't know... have you sought a doctor for that problem..?


Why don't you attempt to give some theories or ideas instand of just blurting out atheistic insults that go nowhere. Sometimes when people have too much bitterness over people that refer to the Bible for some information, it shows a certain amount of fear and hatred towards that person without provocation. How sad that is.

To all following,

The Egyptians were not a single race of individuals, but a mixture of the ancient world’s races. A recent revelatory history includes a description of the origin of the people known as the Egyptians and describes their ethnicity as follows:


“[About 2000 BC] . . . the Nile valley was periodically augmented by the arrival of superior strains of Nodite, Adamite, and later Andite peoples of the Euphrates valley. From time to time, many of the Egyptian civil administrators were Sumerians. As India in these days harbored the highest mixture of the world races, so Egypt fostered the most thoroughly blended type of religious philosophy to be found on Urantia [earth], and from the Nile valley it spread to many parts of the world. The Jews received much of their idea of the creation of the world from the Babylonians, but they derived the concept of divine Providence from the Egyptians.”

For More See the URANTIA Book, Paper 95, Page 1044 found at TMARCHIVES


For a quick reference to the races mentioned, here are some basic definitions of who they were:

NODITES:
The population that emigrated from the legendary land of NOD. Nodites were numbered among the great men of old in pre-history records and Sumerian stories of the Nodite exploits dating back probably over 150,000 years. Nodites were blended human and super-human origin beings resorting to sexual reproduction when, due to a rebellion, they lost their perpetual and life-sustaining energies. The Nodites and the others mentioned in the quote moved south from what is today northern Iraq and portions of Syria due to population pressure.

ADAMITE:
The Adamites were pure-line descendants of the biologic up lifters sent to this planet to improve the original aborigine stock. They were human but carried genes not available in the aborigine population. Also, due to rebellion, the pure-line children of the violet blood were greatly reduced in number, but are responsible for imparting such race characteristics as blue, green, brown, and grey eyes., and various kinds of hair color. This is the originating race that founded the great cities of culture between the two rivers in Mesopotamia. They emigrated due to floods and weather change in addition to population pressure.


SUMERIANS:
The Sumerians race arose from a blend of races, notably the Nodites with the mixed races of the Persian Gulf. Much of the Sumerian racial characteristics were Nodite.

ANDITE:
This race evolved from a blend of Adamites and Andonites. Andonites were the first race ever to evolve on our planet and proudly carry the historical accomplishment of being the first primates to be called human about 1 million years ago when the planet was declared inhabited by our spiritual administrators.


The above is a greatly simplified description of these races. Great detail of the origin of races on our planet may be found in the text referenced above.

Thanks.
Ron

history is much more reliable than fairy tales.....

I'm not a scholar, but i have done hours of extensive research in to egyptian history and culture.

Let me tell you that one of the most interesting facts i know about the egyptians is the architecture of the pyramids, and especially the great pyramid. It is widely accepted that even with all of our engineering technology and computer influenced drafting and blah blah blah... we could not reproduce the great pyramid. The four corners of the building are aligned with the compass, north, south, east, west. There are identical chutes on opposite sides of the pyramid that are both aligned perfectly with the dog star, Sirius. The 3 pyramids are perfectly aligned with Orion's belt. Also all sides of the pyramid are slightly concave; they are perfectly matched to the curvature of the earths surface.

Also the OP is entirely correct. There is no specific time in history that the egyptians were ummmm just starting out.... i don't know how else to put it. Yes there were nomadic races in egypt, but they did not stake claim on the borders of the country that is now egypt, or the ancient borders that were slightly larger than now.

All of the sudden there was a small empire, with a pharaoh and loyal servants that produced some of the most brilliant architecture the world has ever seen.
It all grew from there.

Another interesting tidbit to chew on is that the egyptians probably did not build the Sphinx. The sphinx has been sitting in the same spot for (i don't know the exact number but if you really want to know i could get it) a couple thousand more years than most people think. The sphinx is credited to the egyptians because of the pyramids that were built around it. The sphinx itself shows more signs of wear and tear due to rain, then it does from sand storms (it has eroded from the top down, not from the wind and sand beating on the sides)..... The last significant rain egypt had was about 8000 to 10000 years ago. Also, if you look at the sphinx you'll notice that the head is significantly smaller than the body. Given the degree of architects and engineers that it would take to build the pyramids, something like this shouldn't be over looked. It's very likely that the sphinx was there before the egyptians and that they carved over the original head....... you have to remember that the sphinx wasn't discovered until a couple hundred years later than all of the pyramids, and it was covered in sand for the better part of 3000 years, at least.

It's been speculated that the sphinx was built by Khafre (sp?)... but with the evidence of the rain erosion, and being unable to confirm the face of the sphinx, no one is certain.

One more very interesting piece of information is that in 2000 (or late 1999???) there were two chambers discovered in egypt. One was under the great pyramid, one was under the sphinx. The contents of those two chambers have never been released to the public..... why on earth would you hide an ancient discover from the public??? Unless, maybe, they contain evidence that the egyptians, or the people that were there before them, were not actually of this planet or were brethren of a race different then humans that we know today.

I know its a big post, with a lot more questions than answers... but thats the whole point.... What was really happening in egypt, and who are the egyptians??? Modern archeology suggests that they were far more advanced than we give them credit for....

but modern archeology is also blatantly hiding some facts from us... well the government of egypt is any way.

What they are hiding is the fact that they are not the builders of the pyramids or the Sphinx. When the blocks were placed one on another in the pyramids, a device was used that caused the blocks to become almost weightless. I'm not sure who it was that proved this, but this techknowledgy is being experimented with today. You-tube has a lot on it. When an object is inside the field of influence, it becomes weightless. Another device works when it touches the object rendering it weightless. No modern human tool used today for construction could ever build the pyramids.

BTW proof that the pyramids were not built by the Egyptians is the fact that their attempts to try it were severely lacking. And.. no additional ones like the great ones were ever built. All they did was to find uninhabited cities and occupy them, and learn alittle from them. That's all. The prior inhabitants were cross breed "Nephilim".

i too have studied egyptology and do closely agree with W3, although
the sphinx "appears" to show water erosion, as of this time there has
been only speculation. as to some sort of unknown levitational capability
being responsible for the buildings, there is not one shred of evidence.
i find that unproven conclusion useless, imaginative and totally lacking
common sense. it does however make excellent fodder for a book to sell.

honestly, i can't say anything W3 has stated is incorrect.

If you don'y think it's possible to move heavy blocks using a weightless effect... Then you need to view the following about the Hutchison effect. The link is listed here (outside source material)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNNqj9jQ0d0&mode=related&search=