... it implied descent from Shem when the actual speakers of those languages had no such common ancestry.
"Semite" has developed TWO meanings. One, it means those who were the genetic descendants of Shem (aka "Sem") of the Bible. Two, it has also developed a meaning of those who spoke similar languages, which have come to be known as Semitic languages.
I believe the language aspect was invented by jews to confuse the issue. The true meaning of "Semite" is one who is descended from Shem -- and that does NOT describe the jews.
The people descended from Shem certainly DID have a common ancestry, as the blood lines are detailed in the Bible.
The "jews" of the time were Edomites, who did have SOME Semitic genealogy. It's just that they ALSO were of Ham, due to mixed race marriages by the time of Esau/Edom.
They ALL spoke similar languages in that region (the so-called "Semitic" languages).
Phoenicians and Canaanites spoke Semitic languages but biblical genealogy places them under Ham.
No.
The Bible is pretty clear about the Canaanites. They were descendants of Ham, not Shem. The blood line there is crystal clear.
But the Phoenicians are a different story. We don't get a clear lineage for them in the Bible.
"Phoenicia" is a term for a land area that the Greeks coined -- MANY CENTURIES after the Old Testament times.
So, the "Phoenicians" were a people who lived in a land area that the Greeks would later call "Phoenicia."
This has NOTHING TO DO with whether they were genetic Semites, Canaanites, or something else.
The Phoenicians came from Tyre, and Tyre was a city of the Israelites. Hence the Phoenicians were most likely members of the Israelite blood line, which means they were of Shem, NOT Ham.
Today's jews are not Israelites. They are a mix due to Esau/Edom having race-mixed with the Canaanites (and Hittites, who were of the Canaanite blood line), who had previously race-mixed with the Kenites (descendants of Cain, the evil seed -- offspring of Satan, due to what happened in the Garden of Eden).
Think about it: The Phoenicians are historically famous for being great sailors. They sailed around the Mediterranean, planting olive trees, and establishing civilizations. They called Spain "Iberia," after Eber, who was the patriarch of the Hebrews.
In fact, the Phoenician language was basically the same or almost the same as that of the Hebrews.
These people were of Shem, and the Phoenicians would never have called a land they settled "Iberia" if they were trying to honor the Canaanites. Such an idea is just nonsense.
These people were sailors and farmers -- something jews have never been.
There could very well have been some Canaanites living amongst the Phoenicians in the land that was coined "Phoenicia," but that just means it could have been somewhat of a mixed society, just like the Roman province of Judea was by the time of Christ.
Arabs, Jews, Assyrians, and Babylonians spoke related tongues while remaining genetically, culturally, and politically distinct peoples. The category was incoherent at birth. Modern linguistics keeps the label only as a technical convention for a language family, not as a racial classification.
The Bible CLEARLY gives us the blood line of CERTAIN peoples. "This man begat that son" is not there for no reason. It has a PURPOSE, and that purpose is to give us information about WHO IS WHO in the Bible.
It is NOT about the languages. That concept came MUCH later (and, as I said, I suspect it was jews to inserted this topic into the discussion to deceive and muddy the waters).
You cannot have a scientifically coherent "anti-Semite" because Semite was never a coherent ethnic category.
False. The Bible CLEARLY gives us the blood lines, including the ones descended from Shem.
It was a Genesis-derived linguistic label invented by Enlightenment scholars whose patrons sat in the same elite ecosystem as the era's emerging banking dynasties.
Those "Enlightenment scholars" simply MADE UP the linguistic narrative -- to HIDE the blood line story of the Bible.
Ergo, we CAN (and DO) have "Semites" and "non-Semites." The idea of "anti-Semite" is nothing but a jewish word coined for the purpose of pushing their agenda.
When they want to shut down certain topics of conversation, they throw around the "anti-Semite" word, just like they might throw around "racist!" or "transphobic!" or "homophobic!" etc. These are all just nonsensical terms used to shut down discussion, not anything to do with real world concepts.
For example, people are not literally FEARFUL of trannys, which the term "transphobic" necessarily implies. Rather, people are DISGUSTED by trannys, not fearful of them.
It is word manipulation -- same as "anti-Semite."
This does not mean hatred of Jewish people is imaginary ...
Many jews, over many years, have earned much contempt. It has been WELL-EARNED.
... or that real bigotry should be excused.
More and more people are becoming RACIALLY AWARE, which is what some people don't like, and so they use these nonsensical pejorative terms.
It means the terminology was historically incoherent from the start, the timing of its political activation aligns with the consolidation of the financial networks it most efficiently protects, and a label this misleading deserves the same scrutiny as any other inherited piece of 18th-century pseudo-science.
I would guess that the author(s) of that article (or AI "author" of that article) probably don't like the term "Caucasian," either. But it is a valid term to describe certain people, while also excluding other people in the use of the term.
So what?
That's life.
That's how the world works.
When a 250-year-old misnomer becomes a shield against scrutiny of present-day institutional behavior, the label itself becomes a fair subject of examination.
It is not a misnomer, but it is a good subject of discussion.
Nice breakdown. I think the misnomer is at the root. You can't be anti-semitic if there's no such thing as a Semite as they're putting it. What are your thoughts?
"Semite" has developed TWO meanings. One, it means those who were the genetic descendants of Shem (aka "Sem") of the Bible. Two, it has also developed a meaning of those who spoke similar languages, which have come to be known as Semitic languages.
I believe the language aspect was invented by jews to confuse the issue. The true meaning of "Semite" is one who is descended from Shem -- and that does NOT describe the jews.
The people descended from Shem certainly DID have a common ancestry, as the blood lines are detailed in the Bible.
The "jews" of the time were Edomites, who did have SOME Semitic genealogy. It's just that they ALSO were of Ham, due to mixed race marriages by the time of Esau/Edom.
They ALL spoke similar languages in that region (the so-called "Semitic" languages).
No.
The Bible is pretty clear about the Canaanites. They were descendants of Ham, not Shem. The blood line there is crystal clear.
But the Phoenicians are a different story. We don't get a clear lineage for them in the Bible.
"Phoenicia" is a term for a land area that the Greeks coined -- MANY CENTURIES after the Old Testament times.
So, the "Phoenicians" were a people who lived in a land area that the Greeks would later call "Phoenicia."
This has NOTHING TO DO with whether they were genetic Semites, Canaanites, or something else.
The Phoenicians came from Tyre, and Tyre was a city of the Israelites. Hence the Phoenicians were most likely members of the Israelite blood line, which means they were of Shem, NOT Ham.
Today's jews are not Israelites. They are a mix due to Esau/Edom having race-mixed with the Canaanites (and Hittites, who were of the Canaanite blood line), who had previously race-mixed with the Kenites (descendants of Cain, the evil seed -- offspring of Satan, due to what happened in the Garden of Eden).
Think about it: The Phoenicians are historically famous for being great sailors. They sailed around the Mediterranean, planting olive trees, and establishing civilizations. They called Spain "Iberia," after Eber, who was the patriarch of the Hebrews.
In fact, the Phoenician language was basically the same or almost the same as that of the Hebrews.
These people were of Shem, and the Phoenicians would never have called a land they settled "Iberia" if they were trying to honor the Canaanites. Such an idea is just nonsense.
These people were sailors and farmers -- something jews have never been.
There could very well have been some Canaanites living amongst the Phoenicians in the land that was coined "Phoenicia," but that just means it could have been somewhat of a mixed society, just like the Roman province of Judea was by the time of Christ.
The Bible CLEARLY gives us the blood line of CERTAIN peoples. "This man begat that son" is not there for no reason. It has a PURPOSE, and that purpose is to give us information about WHO IS WHO in the Bible.
It is NOT about the languages. That concept came MUCH later (and, as I said, I suspect it was jews to inserted this topic into the discussion to deceive and muddy the waters).
False. The Bible CLEARLY gives us the blood lines, including the ones descended from Shem.
Those "Enlightenment scholars" simply MADE UP the linguistic narrative -- to HIDE the blood line story of the Bible.
Ergo, we CAN (and DO) have "Semites" and "non-Semites." The idea of "anti-Semite" is nothing but a jewish word coined for the purpose of pushing their agenda.
When they want to shut down certain topics of conversation, they throw around the "anti-Semite" word, just like they might throw around "racist!" or "transphobic!" or "homophobic!" etc. These are all just nonsensical terms used to shut down discussion, not anything to do with real world concepts.
For example, people are not literally FEARFUL of trannys, which the term "transphobic" necessarily implies. Rather, people are DISGUSTED by trannys, not fearful of them.
It is word manipulation -- same as "anti-Semite."
Many jews, over many years, have earned much contempt. It has been WELL-EARNED.
More and more people are becoming RACIALLY AWARE, which is what some people don't like, and so they use these nonsensical pejorative terms.
I would guess that the author(s) of that article (or AI "author" of that article) probably don't like the term "Caucasian," either. But it is a valid term to describe certain people, while also excluding other people in the use of the term.
So what?
That's life.
That's how the world works.
It is not a misnomer, but it is a good subject of discussion.
"Kenites (descendants of Cain, the evil seed -- offspring of Satan, due to what happened in the Garden of Eden)"
Cain was not birthed in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had no offspring until banished from Eden.
Nice breakdown. I think the misnomer is at the root. You can't be anti-semitic if there's no such thing as a Semite as they're putting it. What are your thoughts?