KEMET VS ISRAEL

[Deleted]

There's no close Natufian-Sub-Saharan African link. If you read that paper by Brace et al, Natufians show closest morphometric affinity to Mesolithic of France, and the Morocco (Taforalt) Epipalaeolithic, not Sub-Saharan Africans:

"In dendrograms such as Fig. 1, the little Natufian sample clusters with the Mesolithic of France, the North African Epipalaeolithic, and the European Upper Palaeolithic, but the lengths of each of these twigs show that the relationships are comparatively remote."

And in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2) the Natufians appear intermediate between the Niger-Congo group and all the other samples.

The study does not support the abstract. Maybe the latter was a mistake, or worded incorrectly.

Note also the Natufian skulls are 10,000-15,000 years old, and this age isn't reliable to determine ancestral-descendant relationships between the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic and modern; Brace caution they are: "noticeably more robust than more recent human groups."

[Deleted]

Mar 5, 2016 23:39:55 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Aramaic Bible in Plain English - Acts 21:37-39

And when he approached to enter the encampment, Paulus said to the Chiliarch, “If you allow me, I shall speak with you”, but he said to him, “Do you know Greek?”

“Are you not that Egyptian who before these days made a disturbance and led four thousand criminal men to the wilderness?”

Paulus said to him, “I am a man, a Jew from Tarsus, the notable city of Qiliqia in which I was born. I beg of you, let me speak to the people.

It's not saying what you think it does. It has nothing to do with skin complexion, but language.

"Do you know Greek"?

Greek at that time was commonly spoken in Egypt. This is why Paul was confused for an Egyptian because not many Jews spoke Greek, but Aramaic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Palestinian_Aramaic

"Josephus also points out the extreme rarity of a Jew knowing Greek."

This is why Paul was confused for an Egyptian.

Btw, if you run a google book search for the correct reading of this passage - what I just posted is what Biblical scholars say. The only sources saying skin colour are from loony Black Hebrew Israelite literature.

[anansi]

Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe.

The above is saying that even Eurasian at that time looked quite different than their more modern counter parts Keita and others saw possible linkages with the Badarians
Of note this was recorded as far back as the 1930ts

BONES OF CANNIBALS: A PALESTINE RIDDLE
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
New York Times 1857; Aug 4, 1932; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003)
pg. 21

ATE BODIES OF ENEMIES
Men, Short of Stature, Burned Bones of Dead After Burial, London Session Hears.

TEETH OF WOMEN DRAWN
Linking relics to Burnt Skeletons from Ur scientist speculate an old cremation custom.

Wireless to NEW YORK TIMES London Aug. 3

Seven or eight thousand years ago in what geologist call modern times a race of negroid cannibals lived In Palestine, burned the bones of their dead after burial, and devoured the bodies of their enemies.

Skulls and thighbones of this race were unearthed within the last four years, first at Shukbah near Jerusalem and later in caves at Mount Carmel, and because they puzzled the excavators who found them they received the new name “Natufians.”

Today the first authoritative account of them was given by Sir Arthur Keith to the congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences and showed them to be one of the greatest riddles of archaeology.

They were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads.

They were short of stature 5 feet 3 or 4 inches tall-and their thighs and legs were remarkably strong. While their arms and shoulders were weak.

Alone Among prehistoric peoples they had a custom of extracting the two upper central incisor teeth of their women. Jagged holes in the fronts of their skulls indicate that they ate human brains.

Note the recognition that the remains of these "Natufians" were "Negro"-like, even as the study of these remains in a socio-cultural context was still in its infancy. Of course, "Negro" is used here in a very restricted, rigid [racialist] and highly idealized taxonomic sense, and entails characteristics like, as the article puts it, "wide faces flat- noses and long large heads". The cranio-facial characteristics are elaborated on further in a later passage of the Times article. It notes:

Several features stand out quite definitely'' he asserted; first the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw.

However no matter the time line, my point is that broad featured folks with tropical body plans are no strangers to the area around the Levant, And if Chis Ehret and Omer Ben Yousef studies still stands, then they at the very least partially derived from the Nile Valley.

A Conversation with Christopher Ehret



Christopher Ehret, UCLA

Interviewed by WHC Co-editor Tom LaicWHC:

WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?

Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ­ the Mushabaeans? ­ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.

Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.

And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/2.1/ehret.html

While dark skinned Broad featured folks were not the sole inhabitants of the area, their presence including linguistic affinities made itself felt through out the region, including that of the Semitic the youngest branch which include Hebrew.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Every ball you pitch I knock out the park.

Anyone can read the passage to plainly and without peregrinations see the Roman mistook Paul for an
Egyptian, one particular Egyptian a gang leader. He
couldn't tell an Egyptian from a Jew of Tarsus.

Go back get your GED attain English comprehension.

Who's more ignorant you or your source? GIGO

Egypt's Jews certainly spoke Greek. Anyone the
least familiar with this topic knows of both the
Septuagint and Aquila TN"K translations.

Will the imbecile further embarrass himself?

Mar 6, 2016 5:18:09 GMT -5 @ancienttomb said:

Mar 5, 2016 23:39:55 GMT -5 Tukuler al~Takruri said:

Aramaic Bible in Plain English - Acts 21:37-39

And when he approached to enter the encampment, Paulus said to the Chiliarch, “If you allow me, I shall speak with you”, but he said to him, “Do you know Greek?”

“Are you not that Egyptian who before these days made a disturbance and led four thousand criminal men to the wilderness?”

Paulus said to him, “I am a man, a Jew from Tarsus, the notable city of Qiliqia in which I was born. I beg of you, let me speak to the people.

It's not saying what you think it does. It has nothing to do with skin complexion, but language.

"Do you know Greek"?

Greek at that time was commonly spoken in Egypt. This is why Paul was confused for an Egyptian because not many Jews spoke Greek, but Aramaic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Palestinian_Aramaic

"Josephus also points out the extreme rarity of a Jew knowing Greek."

This is why Paul was confused for an Egyptian.

Btw, if you run a google book search for the correct reading of this passage - what I just posted is what Biblical scholars say. The only sources saying skin colour are from loony Black Hebrew Israelite literature.

[Deleted]

The context is about the Greek language:

And when he approached to enter the encampment, Paulus said to the Chiliarch, “If you allow me, I shall speak with you”, but he said to him, “Do you know Greek?”

Only language is mentioned, not his physical appearance.

If you want what he looked like, read the 2nd century text I posted --Acts of Paul and Thecla --.

The earliest paintings also shows him like this:


www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5675461/Oldest-image-of-St-Paul-discovered.html

The oldest painting of Saint Paul in existence, from Catacomb of St Thekla, 4th century.



You are thoroughly debunked again.

[anansi]

The above showed how the artist imagined him to be four centuries earlier, it was just as imaginative as the dark skinned nappy haired king David of an 11 cent A.D Greek manuscript.

Or this 5th century painting of the Christ from a Roman church.

Image of the apostle Paul catacombs, now off course these images are cherry picked, for there are alternative white images to pick your cherries from, the point being made is artist are free with their imagination as non of the above sat for a portrait.
And apparently Gamal Nasser had some thing to say on the matter.

George Friedmann in his book, The End of the Jewish People, pointedly states that the Europeans claiming to be Jews, are nothing more then Hebrew speaking Gentiles."The late president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, stated on television, "you (the Jews) will never be able to live here in peace, because you left here black but came back white. We cannot except you!

[thamm1]

I came across this. Just sad.


In 1941 Abraham N. Poliak, an eminent Jewish scholar, born in Kiev in 1910, arrived in Palestine with his family determined to make a valuable contribution to Eretz Israel. Poliak was appointed professor of Medieval Jewish History at Tel Aviv University. He had read the true history of origins and amalgamations of the original Hebrews and other tribes who lived in that area after the Flood. Qualified, secure, honest, and dignified as a scholar pursuing evidence to publish truth, Poliak read books in Sabean, Cushitic, Aramaic, Arabic, and Hebrew. He then began publishing his findings in many books. In 1941 Professor Poliak wrote a book titled The Khazar Conversion to Judaism! His work appeared in a Hebrew publication called Zion.

The article was a bombshell which shook the Zionist pillars of the structure referred to as Jewishness. Professor Poliak’s book, Khazaria, became even more controversial. It is said to be almost unavailable at this time. Khazaria was published in Tele Aviv 1944, and like “Khazar Conversion it unveiled those who pretend to have the authority to decide who are Jews and who are not Jews. The book proved that the Hasidim and other Europeans were, in fact, converts who could not genuinely shout any famous cry of “anti-Semitism” because they were not Semites or of that origin. Poliak was hated and ostracized for this exposure of false identity. He did not write his story (history) the way other so-called scholars often make it relate to their needs, prejudices, and purposes. Poliak did not offer the facts in the normal European, American or Zionist manner of presenting historical data. His style was not biased genre commonly used when non-Caucasians are represented. The Zionist could not find any blaming of the victims, or misstatements that they could quote as facts. The anti-defamation leagues could not appreciate his unselfishness, but could not label him anti-anyone or anti-anything. Poliak was more educated, honest and sincere than the bigots promising brotherhood under false pretenses. They even called other Jews “anti-Semitic” when the latter exposed them. 

Abraham Poliak read and wrote pristine Hebrew. He was not interested in using his deserved Semitic heritage for political or personal ends. But the Encyclopedias omit him and mention the imposter Halevy instead.

We find Joseph Halevy (1827-1917) recorded as a “French Semitic Scholar” ordained by the society of impostors uber alles. This deceiver lauded in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1959 was praised as follows:

He taught at schools of the Alliance Israelite Universelle in Turkey and Rumania and in 1868, went at the request of the Alliance to Ethiopia were he visited the Falashas. Subsequently the Academic des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres sent him to Yemen where, disguised as a native rabbi, he succeeded in collecting 686 Sabean inscriptions (1869-70). He was appointed professor of Ethiopic studies at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in 1879. He wrote many works in Semitic philology, epigraphy, and biblical exegesis. 8.p.826

The writers and editors of the Encyclopedia admitted that Halevy “disguised as a native” obtained Sabean inscriptions for knowledge of Semitic customs and religious teachings under false pretense. There is another form of deception practiced by authentic Zionists. This dishonesty proves that Ethiopian and Yemenite documents on liturgy, ritual, and Semitic culture was urgently needed for general instruction of converts from Europe and surrounding regions aspiring to practice the Hebrew religion. The question to ask is: Why would Europeans go to Ethiopia and Yemen to procure documents and customs of Hebrews if they in fact were original family members of Hebrew tribes so recognized after the Flood?

Jose V. Malcioln Ph.D. The African Origin of Modern Judaism: From Hebrews to Jews. p. 73-75

[samuel]

I can kind of follow Ancienttomb on this. I believe the Ancient Egyptians were Dark black skinned with tightly coiled hair but I believe the Hebrews were maybe a medium brown skin with curly hair like today's Ethiopian or Eritrean. I just don't think they would have been the same. The reason why Jesus and Moses could pass as an Egyptian is because they didn't look at race back then the way we do today. But what really pisses me off is when Black Hebrews today say that modern Jews are Khazar converts which is unbelievably ridiculous and stupid. All one needs to do is look at any Jewish persons hair and you can see the link instantly. Why else do they call it a "Jewfro"? Plus the genetics, DNA. All link modern Jews to Africa and the Middle East so. It just sounds to me like everybody wants to claim to be Jews because we seem to be the most powerful people on earth currently.

[anansi]

Mar 7, 2016 11:53:10 GMT -5 samuel said:

I can kind of follow Ancienttomb on this. I believe the Ancient Egyptians were Dark black skinned with tightly coiled hair but I believe the Hebrews were maybe a medium brown skin with curly hair like today's Ethiopian or Eritrean. I just don't think they would have been the same. The reason why Jesus and Moses could pass as an Egyptian is because they didn't look at race back then the way we do today. But what really pisses me off is when Black Hebrews today say that modern Jews are Khazar converts which is unbelievably ridiculous and stupid. All one needs to do is look at any Jewish persons hair and you can see the link instantly. Why else do they call it a "Jewfro"? Plus the genetics, DNA. All link modern Jews to Africa and the Middle East so. It just sounds to me like everybody wants to claim to be Jews because we seem to be the most powerful people on earth currently.

My opinion is there is no one way to be a Jew/Hebrew they were always a hodgepodge of people who for the most part tended to look more or less like their neighbors.

Ethiopians Jews

Yemen Jews

Ba Lemba Jews

French Jews

The point is all the above are legitimate Jews,one can talk of the differences among them ancient or modern as one would a Muslim from Mali and an Muslim from Chechnya.
Samuel

It just sounds to me like everybody wants to claim to be Jews because we seem to be the most powerful people on earth currently.

That's an over statement everybody would imply even me, and I have no wish to be apart of any cult/religion.

[samuel]

Ok a lot of people then. I do make strong statements you're right. I will watch out for that in the future. Don't forget Chinese Jews.

[thamm1]

Lies

Sale adds: “There is a tradition that Moses was a very swarthy man.” (p. 128)

Sir T.W. Arnold says, “According to Mohammedan tradition, Moses was a black man.” (The Preaching of Islam, p. 106. Westminster, 1896.)

• Islamic tradition flat out calls Moses black:

وَرَأَيْتُ مُوسَى أَسْحَمَ آدَم
“I saw Musa (Moses) and he was a black-skinned man.”
Musnad Imam Ahmed Hadith # 3365

َأَمَّا مُوسَى فَرَجُلٌ آدَمُ جَعْد
“As for Musa/Moses, he is a black-skinned man with very curly hair.”

AL Qurtubi, the famous interprator of the Qur'an says when talking about Musa's (AS) appearance:

وكان موسى أسمر شديد السمرة
"Musa (Moses) was extremely dark brown in skin color."

At Tabari says in the Tafsir about Prophet Musa's sign of his handing turning white:

وكان موسى، فيما ذكر لنا، آدم، فجعل الله تحول يده بيضاء من غير برص، له آية
"According to what we were told, Musa (Moses) was black-skinned and Allah made Musa’s hand turning white, without being affected by leprosy, a sign for him."

Tafsir of the same verse by al Baidawi:

أنه عليه السلام كان آدم شديد الأدمة ، فأدخل يده في جيبه أو تحت إبطه ثم نزعها فإذا هي بيضاء نورانية غلب شعاعها شعاع الشمس
"It is related that Musa (pbuh) was black-skinned. He put his hand in his pocket or under his armpit and took it out and it was white."

[thamm1]

Lies
Reliable scholars of the past have made it very clear to us that when the Arabs of the past described someone as white (abyad), they did not mean what people mean today when they describe someone as white (abyad).

One way that the Arabs of the past used the word abyad (white) was to describe not a person’s complexion, but to describe his/her honor or dignity. Abyad (white) meant to the Arabs of the past that a person had a clean reputation and unblemished dignity and honor.

Tha'alab, the Arabic language scholar of the 9th century AD said:

"The Arabs don't say that a man is abyad (white) because of a abyad (white) complexion. Abyad (White) to the Arabs means that a person is pure, without any faults.”

العرب لا تقول : رجل أبيض من بياض اللون إنما الأبيض عندهم الطاهر النقي من العيوب

Al-Azhari, the well-known Arabic language scholar who was born in 895 A.D., said:

“When the Arabs described a person as abyad (white), it meant that the person had a clean reputation and unblemished honor.”

إذا قالت العرب فلان أبيض، وفلانة بيضاء، فالمعنى نقاء العرض من الدنس والعيوب

“…They don’t mean an abyad (white) complexion, but they mean to praise the person for his/her noble nature, clean reputation, and unblemished honor."

لا يريدون به بياض اللون، ولكنهم يريدون المدح بالكرم، ونقاء العرض من العيوب

Who are these two great scholars of the Arabic language that just told us what the Arabs of the past meant by abyad (white)? They are Aba Al-Abbas Tha’lab and Al-Azhari , two great sources of the Arabic language whom Ibn Mandhour himself quotes so often in his book Lisan Al-Arab.

Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi says the following about Tha’lab in his book Siyar A’laam Al-Nubalaa:

“The learned one
(العلامة), the muhaddith, the Imam of grammar… ”

Al-Khateeb said :

“He (Tha’lab) is reliable, proof, religious, righteous, and known for his ability to memorize.“

Al-Mubarrad said:

“Tha’lab is the most knowledgeable of the people of Kufa.“

Abu Bakr ibn Mujaahid said:

“Tha’lab said to me:

‘The people of the Quran busied themselves with the Quran and they won. The people of Hadith busied themselves with Hadiths and they won. The people of Fiqh busied themselves with Fiqh and they won. I have busied myself with Zaid and ‘Amru (meaning the Arabic language and literature). If only I knew how my situation is going to be.’

“After I left from where we were together, later that night I saw the Prophet (SAWS) in a dream and he (SAWS) said to me: Give Aba Al-Abbas (Tha’lab) my salaam and tell him that he is the possessor of MUSTATEEL KNOWLEDGE (meaning the source of all the other knowledge – the Arabic language).”

Who is this Abu Bakr ibn Mujaahid? He is the one who chose the seven different readings of the Quran that are used until today.

What about Al-Azhari, the other great scholar of the Arabic language? Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi says the following about him in his book Siyar A’laam Al-Nubalaa:

“The learned one (العلامة)… he (Al-Azhari) was a leader in the Arabic language and fiqh. He was reliable, firm, religious…”

As you can see, these two Arabic language expert scholars of the past who were used as sources by other Arabic language experts of the past said that when the Arabs of the past described a person as abyad (white), they DID NOT mean an abyad (white) complexion.

Let's look at what the Arabs meant when they described a person's complexion as abyad (white). Let's first look at what Al-Azhari said that the Arabs meant when they described a person's complexion as abyad (white):

"And when they said he/she had an abyad (white) face, they meant that he/she had a clean complexion without blotches and ugly dark spots.”

وإذا قالوا: فلان أبيض الوجه، وفلانة بيضاء الوجه، أرادوا نقاء اللون من الكلف والسواد الشائن

Let’s now see what Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi said that abyad (white) means. Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi says in his book Siyar A’laaam Al-Nubalaa :

“When the Arabs say that a person is white-skinned, they mean that he/she has a wheat (hinti) complexion with a black appearance (hilya).”

"إن العرب إذا قالت: فلان أبيض ، فإنهم يريدون الحنطي اللون بحلية سوداء"

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

I wondered if the uneducated one
would continue embarrassing him
self and the answer turns out YES.


Acts 21:27 en passim is exactly about
what it says, Paul's misidentification
as Egyptian which he himself clears.

Jews in Egypt spoke koine Greek in
which they translated TN"K into the
Septuagint. Centuries later another
translation of TN"K into Greek was
made by Aquilas.

Sorry to repeat myself but some
prejudiced idiot didn't get it the
first time.



Over 20 years ago I met the author
of the latest edition of the Kuzaria
at a b*riyth milah in Kutztown PA.

R' Korobkin knew of and like myself
communicated with Kevin Brook the
webmaster of the Kuzari site.

www.khazaria.com/

It is only ignorant or denialist white Euro
Jews who fear their Khazar heritage or
bypass the plain reading of primary
documents for their own feelings
upset over the facts of life.

At that point they fall back on an old
crutch, blame it all upon the darkies,
in this case the Black Hebrew Israelites.

It is particularly irking when a presumed
Jew knows nothing of mesorah qabbala
and imagines the Author of Torah, the
composer of The Song of Songs which is
Solomon's, Rabbi Judah the Prince, the
Tanna'iym & `Amora'iym, Rabbi Nathan
of 13th century France, Nachmanides,
and ibn Ezrs to be Black Hebrew Israelites
when there was no such group until ~1965.

[thamm1]

One possibility is this was taken from a Greek legend about Aspasia... What's allegedly written in the scroll was almost word for word about the narrative a Aspasia... You may find it in a book called "Ancient Fiction"...

Mar 3, 2016 22:51:01 GMT -5 @ancienttomb said:

1QapGen (Genesis Apocryphon) from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

''During the party, the Egyptians must have seen Sarah, and on their return they praised her to the king, saying "How beautiful is her face! How fine are the hairs of her head! How lovely are her eyes! How desirable her nose and all the radiance of her countenance. How fair are her breasts and how beautiful all her whiteness! How pleasing are her arms and how perfect her hands, and how desirable all the appearance of her hands! How fair are her palms and how long and slender are her fingers! How comely are her feet, how perfect her thighs! No virgin or bride led into the marriage chamber is more beautiful than she; she is fairer than all other women Truly, her beauty is greater than theirs Yet together with all this grace she possesses abundant wisdom, so that whatever she does is perfect."

Sarah is described as white skinned, which was the preferred complexion of woman and what was considered most beautiful by the Jews. This is covered in detail by Goldenberg in his book.

Obviously the ancient Jews were not black, and they thought dark skin was ugly (especially for females). Black Hebrew Israelites must be the biggest dumbasses on the planet.

[thamm1]

Another possibility the word that is being used in the ENGLISH for whiteness is translated as purines {Pure/ beauty} the Hebrew word there is לבנא so it is talking about pure beauty. and not "SKIN" the Hebrew word בשר is not in the text.

Mar 3, 2016 22:51:01 GMT -5 @ancienttomb said:

1QapGen (Genesis Apocryphon) from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

''During the party, the Egyptians must have seen Sarah, and on their return they praised her to the king, saying "How beautiful is her face! How fine are the hairs of her head! How lovely are her eyes! How desirable her nose and all the radiance of her countenance. How fair are her breasts and how beautiful all her whiteness! How pleasing are her arms and how perfect her hands, and how desirable all the appearance of her hands! How fair are her palms and how long and slender are her fingers! How comely are her feet, how perfect her thighs! No virgin or bride led into the marriage chamber is more beautiful than she; she is fairer than all other women Truly, her beauty is greater than theirs Yet together with all this grace she possesses abundant wisdom, so that whatever she does is perfect."

Sarah is described as white skinned, which was the preferred complexion of woman and what was considered most beautiful by the Jews. This is covered in detail by Goldenberg in his book.

Obviously the ancient Jews were not black, and they thought dark skin was ugly (especially for females). Black Hebrew Israelites must be the biggest dumbasses on the planet.