Out Of Africa? - Destiner Press Topics

Back to Home






IMPORTANT NOTE: This topic should be read in conjunction with chapters 1, 2 and 11 of The Dark Powers That Bind. 

It was prepared partly for clarification and also in response to letters from several readers.

With thanks to those who pointed out grammatical errors and various notes and references requiring attention.



Origins and Destinies "In the beginning..." (first three words of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, the word genesis meaning beginnings)

"Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood..." (Genesis 10:1)

"Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman..." (Numbers 12:1)

Out Of Africa?

Were the ancient Egyptians black? Was Africa the cradle of mankind? Was Moses black? Did Moses have a black wife?

This topic must be considered very carefully in conjunction with, and preferably after reading chapters 1, 2 and 11 of The Dark Powers That Bind, concerning Mesopotamia, Egypt and Africa. There are readers who see less than half the picture because they have read the chapter on Africa but omitted, or declined, to read the first two chapters. This has usually been on account of a preconceived notion that Africa was the cradle of mankind, that the original Egyptians were all black, even that the Hebrews and Israelites were black, that Moses was black, and in the extreme, that white skin is a curse and therefore that Jesus must have been black. Much of this is of course claimed out of racial bias, anger or frustration. In other words this a matter that evokes deep emotions; it calls for cool and rational heads to sift the evidence and arrive at the truth. The above points will all be addressed in the order mentioned.

Reading the first 2 chapters of The Dark Powers That Bind (Mesopotamia and Egypt) carefully and dispassionately will reveal to you, from many references in archaeology as well as Scripture (especially Genesis chapter 10), that Mesopotamia was the cradle of mankind, including the first god/king and the first cities, located in Sumer, Chaldea and Akkadia. Egypt was not first; Mesopotamia led the way. Mesopotamian culture, buildings and hieroglyphs predate those of Egypt, but only "slightly" from our point of view, debated to be somewhere between 100 and 200 years. That is a long time in the beginning, for the first families of the earth to migrate to Egypt, Canaan, Lybia, Kush and elsewhere, but compared to where we are now it is a very tiny fraction of man's history.

In other words, DNA is not really going to help us much here because it was all happening almost, but not quite, concurrently. The trade routes through the curve of the Fertile Crescent, joining Mesopotamia to Egypt through Canaan, were opened, culture passing back and forth, and therefore representatives of each race would have died in each region. As well as this, Mesopotamia did not engage in the massive mummification of bodies that so infatuated Egypt, so we do not have that accumulation of evidence to compare. We do know that the buildings of the Sumerians and Chaldeans were first. But the structures that were erected soon afterward in Egypt were built, quite literally, by their next of kin.

We know that of the three sons of Noah (Shem, Ham and Japheth) Ham was black, and his son Cush was black, and that Nimrod, the son of Cush, was black. Ham also had three other sons, Egypt, Phut (Lybia) and Canaan, the descendants of whom migrated to the lands bearing their names. But it is Cush that is specifically connected with the black race, including his descendants in the kingdom of Kush (later Nubia, Ethiopia) to the south of Egypt. The racial features of the Canaanites, Egyptians and Lybians are not so clearly spelled out. To be sure, they were brothers of Cush, but then, in the generation before them, Shem and Japheth were brothers of Ham, and they were distinct from each other, Shem in particular being the origin of the Shemites, or Semites.

We can expect the Egyptians therefore, to be different from Semites, but how different were they from the Cushites? Were the original Egyptians black like the Ethiopians? At least a strong similarity must be assumed. We know (please read chapter 1 and 2 of the Dark Powers That Bind if you have not yet done so) that in the list of the first 5 mythical god/kings of Egypt (cloned from the first 5 mythical god/kings of Mesopotamia) that Osiris (number 4, reborn as Horus, number 5) in particular is often portrayed black, and he is the copy of Nimrod/Dumuzi of ancient Mesopotamia.

But what of the first real pharaohs in Egypt? Were they black? In countless statues, stone reliefs and especially in the wall paintings in the tombs of the Valley of the Kings, where they are often depicted with light or reddish-brown skin, they appear both with and without distinct negroid features. The first pharaoh of the first dynasty of Egypt (c.3100-2890 BC) is held by some to be Narmer. This is not at all clear. The problem is that he cannot be identified with any real king. Some identify him with the mythical Ka (Scorpion) of the pre-dynastic legends. Others consider him to be one and the same as Menes, whom the Greek historian Manetho said was the first king of Egypt, the unifier of the nation. Still others equate him with Horus-Aha, the second king of the first dynasty, and therefore the first king in fable only.

Like that of Osiris, Narmer's name is certainly found in many very early references, especially in upper Egypt. His name means Smiter or Striker, again associating him with Horus the Striker. And like Osiris, Narmer was indeed black, if that is who the images represent; having distinctly negroid features. We know that the mythical Osiris is a clone of the mythical Dumuzi of Mesopotamia (and Dumuzi was the black Nimrod deified). Therefore it is quite possible that Narmer, whose name sounds very like that of Nimrod, and whose real identity is shrouded in myth, could be a representation of Nimrod, an Egyptian clone. As you will have discovered in Chapter 2 of The Dark Powers That Bind, ancient Egypt is packed full with the clones of Mesopotamia.


Narmer?      Thutmose III,       Akhenaten,       Ramses II.

So then, let us move on to later kings of Egypt whom we know truly did exist. Khufu (Cheops) and Khaphra (Chephren) of the fourth dynasty (c.2613-2494 BC, and of the great pyramids) and Akhenaten, Thutmose III and Tutankhamun of the eighteenth dynasty (c.1540-1295) are all portrayed both with and without "black" features, depending on the statue or relief. So too the artistic renditions vary for Ramses II of the nineteenth dynasty (c.1295-1188), held by some to be the pharaoh in the time of Moses. Ramses III of the twentieth dynasty (c.1188-1069 BC) looks more oriental.

In 1975, the Egyptian government actually permitted the mummified remains of Ramses the Great (II) to be taken to France for scientific examination. The reported results were that he was a red-headed Berber of Mediterranean North Africa, closer to white, not a black man as was being claimed at the time by a very racist writer, Cheikh Anta Diop of Senegal. The event can be read about in detail here: http://www.white-history.com/earlson/rameses.htm. Similar forensic tests were conducted on Tutankhamun, including a rebuilding of his face by researchers who were not told the identity of the person they were reconstructing: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_051005_tutsface.html.

In the case of Ramses, there could be a cover-up, as some observers have suggested. Ramses' body has been virtually under lock and key ever since. This matter came up again in 1989, indicating some embarrassment on the part of Egypt. "The ancient Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II was neither black nor white, says Egypt's cultural emissary to the United States, who is wondering how his country even got involved in an American dispute over the question. Ramses II was strictly Egyptian, said Abdel-Latif Aboul-Ela, who made the declaration last week while bemoaning the need to do so." (The Washington Post, 3/23/1989)


The twenty-fifth dynasty (c.712-671) is definitely one of black faces, such as that of Taharqa, because this is when the Nubians (Cushites) invaded from the south and ruled Egypt. But that was a very long time after the beginnings of Egypt, and it is the origins that we are most interested in, not what came much later. We do know that the ancient Egyptians had very close black connections, as would be expected since Egypt and Cush were brothers, but it would appear that the Egyptian features were not as strong or distinct as those of Cushites, or else that the sculptors often toned them down. That is unlikely, Egyptians depicted themselves, and others, like the Hittites, with considerable accuracy.

It is this author's personal conviction that the very earliest Egyptians were indeed black, but not initially from Africa. In the very beginning they came from Mesopotamia, exactly where the Scriptures tell us that Egypt himself originated. The same is true for the other two brothers of Cush, namely Lybia and Canaan. The very first Lybians and Canaanites were black, or very dark. And the Baal of Canaan is portrayed in a remarkably similar manner to the half-mythical Narmer of Egypt, in the pose of striker or smiter, a stance adopted by most of the pharaohs in depictions of their supremacy and rulership.


The Narmer Palette, 2 images of Baal of Canaan

And what if we are finally and fully convinced that the first Egyptians were black? Whether black or white or in-between, it is hardly grounds for racial vanity. We are talking about one of the most animal-worshipping cultures in history, trying in vain to preserve their dead bodies as a means to an afterlife, a society of unspeakable inequalities, where a tiny and elite group aided by their superstitious priesthoods ruled the vast populace who had no say in the matter. They perfectly fit the description by the apostle Paul of the lost souls who previously lived in darkness. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness… Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:18-23) Ancient Egyptian "culture" is not a particularly great claim to fame for any race, especially when we consider that this was eventually the extremely idolatrous civilization from which God rescued the Israelites to bring them back toward the true Light.

So then, to Moses, descendant of Shem the original Semite, certainly not a black man at all. Through Shem (the first son of Noah) on down through Heber (the Hebrew) and down to Abraham (who came from Ur in Mesopotamia to Canaan) and on down to Abraham's son Isaac and Isaac's son Jacob, we arrive at Israel, Jacob being renamed Israel. This family tree is given to us in great detail in Scripture. Originally living in Canaan, Israel and 11 of his sons were forced in time of famine to seek food in Egypt (Genesis 42:1; 43:1), his youngest son already having been sold via Ishmaelites (Arab traders) to an officer of Pharaoh in Egypt. (Genesis 39:1) And so all 12 sons of Israel ended up in Egypt, first as privileged residents and later their descendants becoming ensnared as slaves (Exodus 1:1-14). Thus these 12 families (tribes) remained for 430 years (Exodus 12:40) until freed by God, Who used Moses as his principal instrument and Moses' brother Aaron as prime spokesman, because Moses was a very humble man by nature, and slow of speech. (Exodus 4:10, Numbers 12:3)

Moses was raised by Egyptians, but he was a Hebrew, a Levite, taken into the protection of a daughter of Pharaoh and adopted by her. (Exodus 2; Acts 7:17-22) This imprint on his early life is shown by the fact that the Midianites he met in his exile at first mistook him for an Egyptian. (Exodus 2:19) Moses and Aaron were from the tribe of Levi, a son of Israel (Jacob). They were Semites, descended all the way from Shem. That they were not black can easily be deduced from Scripture. Moses was criticized by his sister and brother for marrying a black, a Cushite - not even an Egyptian, but a Nubian. If Moses had been black, so would Miriam and their brother Aaron have been black. They would have had no possible objection to Moses marrying a black. They did not object to his marriage to Zipporah, because she was a Semite, a Midianite, descendant of Midian; the son of Abraham and Keturah, his last wife. (Genesis 25:1-2) But they did object to Moses being married to a Cushite. They objected to the mixed marriage because Moses was a Semite, a descendant of Shem, and Hebrews or Israelites were instructed to marry women of "their own people." (Genesis 24:3-4; 26:34-35; Leviticus 21:14)

This ancient doctrine, spelled out in Deuteronomy 7:1-4, declared a prohibition on Hebrews marrying into the tribes descended from Ham, especially those of his son Canaan (brother of Cush and Egypt) - including the Amorites, Hivites, Jebusites and Girgashites - collectively called the Canaanites, whose early territory extended from Gaza southward to Sodom and Gomorrah. (compare the list in Genesis 10:15-20 with the list of tribes banned from marriage to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:1-4) In other words, Aaron and Miriam had a Hebrew precedent for objecting to Moses' marriage.

Abraham had already made this mistake of taking a wife outside his own people. Instead of faithfully and patiently waiting for God's promise of a son , Isaac, through his Semitic wife Sarah, he took an Egyptian handmaid, Hagar, to attempt to preempt the LORD and produce a substitute son, Ishmael. The world is still reeling from the consequences of that union. (see: Prophet of Terror and Chapter 10, The Dark Powers That Bind) Solomon did the same thing a few hundred years later, except that he married an Egyptian pharaoh’s daughter for political reasons, and other foreign women, and in his case it brought him to a very bad end. (1 Kings 3:1; 11:1-8)

But Moses' case is different in one critical factor, something Aaron and Miriam should certainly have taken into account. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing much later, says that Moses, before he was called to free the Israelites, was engaged in several battles with the Cushites on behalf of Egypt, including conflict with the descendants of Sheba (a grandson of Cush, Genesis 10:7), and that after one such clash and victory he "consummated a marriage" to a Cushite, named "Tharbis," a daughter of an Ethiopian king.  (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 2, chapter 10) We do not know Josephus' source for this information, only that he was a notable historian in the first century AD, and would have had access to many texts no longer extant, like the great library of Alexandria in Egypt (his third wife was an Alexandrian), which was destroyed by both the Romans and Christians. (see Chapter 5, Greece, The Dark Powers That Bind)

Note again, this marriage took place before Moses went into exile from Egypt, before the LORD revealed himself to Moses and sent him back to Egypt to free the Israelites. The story of Moses' early life is very condensed in Scripture, just as it is for Jesus Christ until he openly began the mission for which he was born; we are simply and neatly given a compressed version, the few essentials that we need to know. Moses lived his first 40 years as an Egyptian prince through adoption, but he returned from exile as the Hebrew of his true birth, with Hebrew values. It is not credible that he would have returned as the appointed redeemer and then married a Cushite in front of all the Israelites, in contradiction to Hebrew law. The woman to whom Miriam and Aaron objected was Moses' wife from his previous and privileged life in Egypt; he had fled in haste into hiding and exile without her, on account of his killing of an Egyptian oppressor, a deed for which Pharaoh sought to kill him (Exodus 2:11-15), not knowing that he would ever go back to Egypt, but God sent him, so he was reunited with that wife upon his return, and therefore he did not disown her but took her with him in the Exodus.

And this is the reason why in Moses' case God overruled and corrected the objectors. They were quite right in holding that Hebrews at that time should not marry into another race, but they spoke against a woman he had already married while living as an Egyptian, a long time beforehand, and therefore was not prepared to divorce or leave behind. "Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman...So the anger of the LORD was aroused against them, and He departed. And when the cloud departed from above the tabernacle, suddenly Miriam became leprous, as white as snow. Then Aaron turned toward Miriam, and there she was, a leper." (Numbers 12:1,9,10) Although they had both spoken against God's appointed leader, it would seem very likely that Miriam was the instigator of this affair, probably dragging her brother into this legal wrangle, because Aaron was not struck with leprosy. Miriam was healed of the disease after 7 days.

A similar event concerning leprosy being a punishment for error is that of Gehazi, the servant of the prophet Elisha, found in the second book of Kings, chapter 5, except that Gehazi's sin was much greater than that of Miriam's poor judgment. Gehazi was greedy and sought monetary gain from the healing of the leper Naaman by Elisha. He also lied about his greed to his master. Therefore he was punished with a disease, not a change of race, but a disease of the skin. Elisha said, "'Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and your descendants forever.' And he (Gehazi) went out from his presence leprous, as white as snow." (2 Kings 5:27)

The reason that I am dwelling on the subject of leprosy, reader, is that these Scriptures are sometimes used in the most ugly, racist assertion I have ever had the unpleasantness to encounter or discuss, that the white race is descended from lepers. Yes, you read that correctly. Extreme racists will also point to Leviticus, chapter 13, concerning the treatment of various conditions of the skin cause by leprosy or similar afflictions, as grounds for this being the origin of the white race. The Hebrew term used here is tzaraath. It is not necessarily leprosy (from the Greek lepra) but includes a number of diseases that whiten the skin. Tzaraath is defined as a disfigurative condition, a disease, a whitening of the skin and hair accompanied by sores. A comprehensive article on this subject can be found here.

Leprosy is a disease, it turns the skin that it kills white, whether black, brown, yellow or pink, as well as destroying nerves and causing the loss of extremities like fingers. There is no such thing as pure white skin, we all have color, unless it be by a rare DNA malfunction or omission (such as albinism, from the Latin albus, meaning white), or by disease. I know, because I was given a job as an architect many years ago for a foreign aid organization to rebuild a leprosy clinic in Bangladesh that had been damaged in war. I have seen leprosy and similar skin conditions first hand. Such afflicted skin is nothing like healthy skin of any color. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that Gehazi (who was never healed) or Miriam (who was healed after seven days) or any other leper was the origin of the white race. Gehazi's family was leprous, but there is nothing to say that Gehazi was the father of the white race, merely of a family of lepers. To equate whites (who are various shades of pink and olive and tan) with lepers is the most racist aspersion I have ever heard in my life, bar none, and I have heard many.

The whiter races are descendants of Japheth, the third and youngest son of Noah. One can easily recognize the names of peoples to the north of Canaan, of the European Mediterranean and Asia Minor (now Turkey), in the list of Japheth’s sons and grandsons, such as Magog, Gomer, Ashkenaz and Tarshish. "From these the coastland peoples were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations." (Genesis 10:1-5) The darker nations are then listed in verses 6 and 7. The whiter peoples originated from Japheth, not from diseased blacks; that latter assertion is a repulsive insult to both black and white people, indeed, to any person of any color afflicted with such terrible skin ailments.

There are similar racial fabrications that are less racist and based more on nationalistic pride and identification, such as blacks trying to make Moses or Jesus black, or Indians and Orientals portraying them with Asian features. Jesus was a Jew, descendant of Israel, neither "white" nor "black," and he lived at the time when Tiberius Caesar ruled the Mediterranean. If the Jews of that day had been black we would surely know it. This is an error perpetrated by those who would make Jesus "one of them." Even if it were proposed with the best of intentions, to identify with him, it is false. Jesus is the Son of Man (the title he most used of himself) and though he came by birth and divine task first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, his message was for all men, as he said it would proceed into the world just so.

Portraying Jesus as being of another race is as silly as saying that he was a Democrat or Republican, and yes, I have heard both those inane arguments. Jesus is the Son of Man, and the only begotten Son of God, and he did not get drawn in to questions of race or partake in worldly political affiliation; he said, even to the Roman governor's face, that his kingdom was not of this world. (John 18:36) Nowhere is this clearer than in his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. (John 4:1-42) Jesus Christ rescues from racial bias and political preference and social division, yes, and from sects and cults and denominations and churches, from all religion, all of it, including Christianity. If you do not comprehend this, then it is time to read The Truth Which Sets Free from start to finish.

To conclude then, if the ancient Egyptians were black, what of it? Their idolatrous culture is no more worthy of acclaim than the "civilization" which it copied in Mesopotamia. The True Light, the Son of the kingdom that is not of this world, came to rescue his elect people from such spiritual darkness, from all of Babylon's soul-destroying superstition, just as Moses was appointed to lead the Israelites out of Egypt’s version of it.

Fabricating mankind's origins for any reason does not help; it blurs the picture and causes people to miss the Way and stumble. The Hebrews and Israelites thought they had a monopoly on God because they carried with them the original Scriptures. But they are described throughout the Old Testament as a stubborn, stiff-necked and hard-headed people, so disobedient that only two of the original adults in the Exodus were permitted to reach the promised land! (Numbers 14:26-32; Acts 7:44-53) Joshua was one of them, taking over the leadership of Israel from Moses, and one of his first tasks was to drive out the pagan nations already in the promised land, no matter what color they were, Hittites as well as Amorites and Canaanites. (Joshua 3:10)

And after possessing the land, the Israelites continued in their faithless behavior, exactly as Moses said they would do, even more so after his death (Deuteronomy 32:24-29), a wayward people needing to be constantly punished by other nations or jolted back to the truth by prophets. They pushed aside the Scriptures and turned to classic churchmanship, engaging in a mess of legalism, like endless wrangling over what constituted work on the Sabbath, or outright superstition, such as how to pronounce the name YHWH, or if it should be pronounced at all (this comes from the Talmud, not the Word of God). As a result, the majority of them missed their own LORD when he was staring them in the face. The "rabbis" missed The Rabbi, even as they were destined to do, criticizing his use of the day of rest, gnashing their teeth at his ability to heal, jealous of his attentive listeners. They called themselves children of Abraham; he said their father was the devil. (John 8) These churchmen tried to hassle and catch him at every turn, and then plotted his death, handing him over to Rome to finish the job.

Churchmen will do the same thing today, being so engaged in their traditions that they become enraged when encountering a disciple set free and unencumbered by their dead pagan customs, but fortunately they are not so free to execute such "non-conformists" as they once did, in great numbers. Being of some denomination or sect is of no avail. Likewise, being Hebrew, Israelite, black, white, brown, red or yellow does not mean superiority, nor does it guarantee enlightenment or a destiny of salvation, especially not to those who would try to claim it on racial or national grounds, and not to those who would fabricate their origins and the origins of others. And this website is dedicated to the truth about origins and destinies. What is yours, reader? If you are not absolutely sure, then you should read in full the twin books, The Dark Powers That Bind and The Truth Which Sets Free. And if you are indeed thirsty for truth, God bless you in your quest. (John 8:12; 9:39; 12:46)

Back to the top