Talk:Cush (Bible)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There is no second wife of Moses in the Bible. All references to moses' wife is singluar. It is very clear that Tzipporah is the Kushite wife. Any arguement otherwise is illogical. Let me guess, it's hard to believe that Tzipporah was Black? If not, then pretend Kushite means "white" and re-read the passage. Surely then there is no "question". Please don't put any more of the anti-black theory into this article.

Mozes divorced Zipphorah[edit]

The way I read it, Moses sent his wife back to her own family. My Bible (NRSV) reads:

"After Moses had sent away his wife Zipphorah, his father-in-law took her back, along with her two sons." (Exodus 18:2-3)

Then one doesn't hear much about wives for a long time, until Numbers 12:

"While they were at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had indeed married a Cushite woman); ..." (Numbers 12:1)

But, to be perfectly honest: to me it really doesn't matter whether it is his first wife or second. I read it as a clear sign that there is no difference between the races, and those who judge by the colour of the skin are themselves to be outcast. It is similar to the hadith wherein Muhammad marries a wealthy Meccan girl to a freed black slave. If I remember correctly (anyone knowing where to find this hadith please tell me!) the family of the girl objects, until the Prophet explains that it is really someone's faith that matters - not colour or wealth.

Jacob (

Removed sentence[edit]

The fact that the Afro-Asiatic language family, which includes Hebrew, has been found to have originated in Ethiopia [citation needed], provides substantial support to the Old Testament being likely to refer to the literal Ethiopia and its inhabitants.

First, I don't know that there's any scholarly consensus on this; second, even if it were true, it would refer to events of 5,000 B.C. or earlier, so I don't see how it's too directly relevant to the Bible. AnonMoos 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Cush'[edit]

Cush has had various meanings, principly that it meant "dark" as if referring to an individual with a dark character or dark deeds. Other meanings have been "burnt," "fiery," "impulsive," "forceful," and "chaos." 'Dark' rather than 'black' would be a better meaning. WiccaIrish 04:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you cite your sources? Unfortunately, this sounds a lot like something taken out of a western dictionary that is quite fond of painting eastern peoples with a very wide brush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelinglayers (talkcontribs) 06:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Meaning of 'Cush'[edit]

'Cush' is a Hebrew word that means 'black'. 'Aithiopia' (Ethiopia) in Greek meant 'burnt skin' or 'burnt faces' and referred to the same territory. During ancient times Cush covered present-day Sudan (just north of Ethiopia), the Horn of Africa, as well as parts of southern Saudi Arabia (Yemen, etc). Also, 'Bilad as-sudan' (Arabic for 'Sudan') meant 'land of the blacks'. Enough said. —The preceding comment is by (talkcontribs) 23:21, 7 May 2006: Please sign your posts!

Not quite. Just because these others words mean "black" doesn't make the meaning for "Cush" as "black." -- WiccaIrish 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

cush never ruled a part of yemen or saudia arabia ! saudi arabi was ruled by adnan & qahtan ! yemen was ruled by the sabean who conquered the territory of cush ! so please when u speak about history DONT LIE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Cush[edit]

This information is absolutely horrible, I can't even edit all of it because I'm sure it would be consider vandalism. There really should be some type of supervision to make the sure the info. is correct because wikipedia has a reputation for being unreliable.

Cush refers to the Nubian civilization. It has NOTHING to do with the modern language family of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. All Biblical references to "Cushites" and "Ethiopians" are referring to Nubians of upper Egypt. Modern Ethiopia has historically been called Abyssinia and the Axumite empire wasn't even formed until 500 BCE. 'Ethiopian' is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 'Cushite', it refers to the Egyptian Nubians with dark skin. It certainly has nothing to do with Middle Eastern people.

I cannot stand misinformation. Please, author, edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous IP (talkcontribs)

Huh?? You are saying that Ancient Cush has nothing to do with the modern (Cushitic people or language family??? That sounds kind of like the Aryan theories!! Do you have any reliable basis whatsoever for alleging that Ancient Cush has "nothing to do" with the modern Cushitic people or language family?? (Outside of "Aryanist" literature, that is?) Cushitic people language family has EVERYTHING to do with the Ancient Empire of Cush, the connections are reliably drawn going all the way back, and it is only certain neo-revisionists trying to create an imaginary gulf between the two for their own agenda, but anyone who has looked at the actual ancient records knows better! I suppose now you are going to come up with a new original theory that someone else came along and somehow "convinced" the modern Cushites that that was their name! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

rename article[edit]

Please consider renaming this article Cush, son of Ham as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cush in the time of king david[edit]

2 Samuel 18:21 lists an un-named cushite runner to deliver a message between Joab (the current commander of the army) and David; how would this fit with the discusstion? -- the kingdom of Kush was established 1080bc (according to the other wiki page), and this exchange probably happened around 950bc

andy_t_roo (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cush does NOT mean the modern-day nation of Ethiopia, sorry. Cush primarily means SUDAN and then secondly other Sub-Saharan African countries with no primary focus on the modern-day nation of Ethiopia AT ALL. This is ahistorical as a result of confusion about Greek translations of "Aethiopia" (burnt skin) of the original Hebrew bible word "Cush" (dark or black) and the later appropriation of the word (in the 4th century after destruction of Nubia in Sudan and then later in the 20th century by Haile Selassie). There is no special relationship between the word Cush and the modern-day nation of Ethiopia, this word primarily meant Sudan and at times all of Sub-Saharan Africa IN GENERAL[edit]

There is a ton of confusion and ahistoricity about the meaning and location of Cush caused by confused Christians (no offense) reading their King James Version based on the Latin or Greek instead of the Hebrew (!) that any student of Hebrew or Judaism can clear up in a second. I've added a ton of sources. It really does not get clearer than that. If you dispute the sources that indicate that Cush most certainly did not primarily mean the modern-day nation of Ethiopia, but most certainly Sudan and then other Sub-Saharan countries in GENERAL, with no focus on the modern day nation of Ethiopia (which only started using this name internally after the 4th century invasion and destruction of SUDAN) and externally only by national decree by Haile Selassie in the late 20th century, then please bring sources otherwise. Otherwise, false etymologies and confusion of people who have never learned Hebrew or actually read the Bible in Hebrew (as here we are talking about the Hebrew word 'cush' in the Jewish bible and not the Christian New Testament stuff where it might actually be debatable whether the modern-day nation of Ethiopia is mentioned) are not necessary here. Especially when I bring so many sources showing otherwise. Please, please discuss on talk page and do not weirdly revert or edit what is clearly misunderstanding by arrogant christians who think they know more than Jewish people how to read their own bible.Bold text Thanks. I have added a TON of sources. The rest of the stuff before was just armchair research foolishness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placeatethio (talkcontribs) 06:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is NOT a WP:SOAP-box or a platform for you to expound your political views. All articles on Wikipedia must adopt a "Neutral Point of View". That means, we can cover your point of view insofar as it is sourced and described as a point of view, but we must also recognize the other points of view, without appearing to be trying to play judge and settle the controversy, which is not wikipedia's role. If you want to debate on the location of classical Aethiopia, which is a debate originating in Fascist / Mussolini anti-Ethiopian propaganda historians of the 1930s, designed by Musolini's propagandists to arouse the Oromo peoples embitterment against Haile Selassie who was himself half Oromo, then I suggest you CAREFULLY read all of the material at the article Aethiopia, and if you have any questions, see you on the talk page there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)