Were Sumerians Hamites and ultimately related to the Kushites in the bible?

Question

According to the book of genesis Nimrod son of Kush created the world's first civilization Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD." The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehobothir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.
As you can see these civilizations were created by a black man called Nimrod son of Kush grandson of Ham in which Egypt was also a sibling. So then why do people insist on saying that black people have no civilization.

Answer 1

Be careful with HOW you read these chapters. Genesis 10 is called the "Table of NATIONS". It's main concern is NOT with detailing the lives of individuals of telling us about bloodlines. Rather, it is describing the NATIONS of the world surrounding ancient Israel (to whom this book was originally written). The list even includes SEVENTY names of nations, which (like the number seven) is intentionally representative of "the whole", esp. of a family or people group, but not intended to give a complete account of the histories, much less the bloodlines of these groups.

Notice that if you dry a map of these nations [and you may find just such a map in the back of many Bibles] you'll see that it is the "world of Israel" and that the three groups overlap over the land of Israel, the center of attention for the biblical account. Again, it's sketching out the world of the original readers, not all the facts of 'world history'. (For this reason more distant nations -- like India, China, etc -- are not discussed at all.)

[On "seventy" -- Note that, at the end of Genesis the family of Jacob/Israel that migrates to Egypt is made up of seventy people. And this same notion is echoed in Acts 2 which lists seven groups of nations present on the day of Pentecost -- covering the same geographic territory as the table of Genesis 10, and deliberately echoing Genesis 10-11 in other ways in order to show that Pentecost was a "reversal" of the rebellions of the nations [esp. the tower of Babel] and scattering of the nations.]

Along with all this, Genesis 9-10 tells us NOTHING about race, and gives no evidence of any intention to speak of race.. In fact, if you look at the list of the "sons of Ham" it actually cuts across race, and is largely a list of the great empires, esp. those who would be the ENEMIES of Israel (Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia who all took the Hebrew/Israelites captive, and the 'local enemies' of Canaan). Within this collection, Canaan, the Babylonians and Assyrians are, like the ancient Hebrews (people of Israel) all speakers of SEMITIC languages (and were NOT black). And the Sumerians (also not black)) were an entirely separate people who preceded the Semitic ("Akkadian") people in Southern Mesopotamia.

As for Nimrod (whose very name suggests "rebellion" since the Hebrew root mrd means "rebel"), we should not insist his story is simply intended as a personal account of all the exploits of this one individual. Rather, he stands at the head as one who got this empire-building STARTED. (Note, for example, that the Assyrian cities in this list did not even exist until much later than the ones of Southern Mesopotamia.)

All this, by the way, does NOT mean the genealogies are mistaken or inaccurate or that it should simply be dismissed as garbled folk history of mythology. Rather, we should recognize that not every biblical genealogy (nor those of any other culture) is written the same way and for the same purposes that WE use genealogies. (And who says our way is the only way?) Since they do not INTEND to give us that sort of information, it's absurd to fault them for not doing so.

(Other features of the Genesis genealogies, and others in the Bible, show us that their purposes are sometimes a bit different from ours. For example, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 10 are EACH "10 generations" -- a round, representative number to characterize an era [compare the organizing into 70 nations]], NOT an exact account of all the generations of that era.)

Answer 2

It depends on whether you look on the Bible as absolute, accurate history. Many people believe the Bible is a record of stories that were told generation after generation, so that the details got changed.
If you believe archeologists, they have discovered that the Sumerians predated the Biblical Israelites by about 1000 years.

Answer 3

Black ppl have been the object of discrimination since the time that you speak of. They have gone to such lengths to destroy our history. They burned ancient documents & whole libraries, hid them, altered them, and created a false history based on the truth from the "real" history.

Every time I try to make this known.. I've even cited references, there is some sort of illogical argument made about why I'm wrong, and why Africans have no history. And not only do Africans not have history, they also ( according to them) did not contribute anything to society.

One of the greatest webs of deceit in the history of this world is the history they tell you about the African ppl.

You point out some great evidence, but I predict you will get some illogical misinterpretation of it. Many ppl believe blacks are hated just b/c of the color of their skin. That is what the common man hates black ppl for, that is what they believe.

The real truth is that black ppl are hated for something that goes far deeper than that. There is a hatred for us so deep that they have literally tried to wipe us off the earth. Now tell me if hatred that deep doesn't come from something deeper than the color of a persons skin.