Question: Ask The Nuwaupians, Was Kish of Mesopotamia the Kush/Cush of the Bible?
Answer: According to their teacher Malachi York Kish and Kush were one and the same.
"Demonstration Beats Conversation"
The following article will show in no uncertain terms that Malachi York and his parroting cult members are clueless on a plethora of topics related to the ancient world, be it Nile Valley Civilizations, or civilizations of the Fertile Crescent region.
Taken from York's The Black Book Chapter 1 No. 2, Kish being Kush is a belief that's held not only by Nuwaupians, but other misinformed ideologues.
The simple answer to this question is NO, Kish and Kush were not the same.
Anyone doing REAL research, and not some lazy form of synonym-word play would see the difference.
ejer a-ma-ru ba-ur3-ra-ta
nam-lugal an-ta ed3-de-a-ba.
kiš-ki nam-lugal
After the flood had swept over the land and kingship had (once again) descended from the sky, the (seat of) kingship was in the city of kiš.
-The Sumerian Kings list tablet one; lines 40-42
The Sumerian Kings list also states that the last ruler of the first dynasty ๐๐ ๐ Lugal-ki-tun3 of Unug (Uruk) was overthrown by the Urim king Mesh-Ane-pada; bringing about the dynasty of ๐๐๐ Urim-ki (Ur). Then Unug was defeated, and the kingship was taken to Urim-ki (Ur).
There were only four documented kings that ruled Urim-ki (Ur) in the official kings list making this the first dynasty of Ur.
๐ฉ๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ Mesh-Ane-pada
๐ฉ๐ ๐๐ฃ Mesh-ki-ang-Nuna
๐๐ป๐ป Elulu
๐๐ป๐ป Balulu
Unfortunately, with the biblical myths, there has never been a Sumerian ruling list to verify as historical by archaeological excavations, epigraphical excavations, epigraphical lexicon inscriptions or otherwise for old testament patriarchs like Abraham.
๐ง๐ kiš-ki - ๐ช๐๐ Ku-u-si
(Kish & Kush)


The inscriptions on the Rassam cylinder of Assur-Bani-pal mentions his first Egyptian war (667 BCE) there he specifically identifies the king of /kmT/ (Egypt) Taharqa king of both Egypt and Kush. This is important because they specifically identify by name kur-ku-u-si (kš) and NOT/kiš/.
๐ป ๐ฃ ๐ Tar-qu-u2 t๊ฃ-h-rw-k Taharka
๐ณ ๐ฌ ๐ซ Kur-Mu-zur /kmT/ (Egypt)
๐ณ ๐ข ๐ ๐ kur-Ku-u-si /kš/ Kush
(erroneously referred to as Ethiopia in early translations)

๐ช ๐ ๐ฉ ๐ป ๐ ๐ ๐จ ๐ป ๐ฃ ๐ ๐ฌ ๐ฌ ๐ซ
๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ก ๐ ๐ ๐ข ๐ ๐ช ๐ก




On a Side note: One outspoken and very misinformed Nuwaupian cult member who goes by the pseudonym "Amun Numa" alias "Kedar" is on record parroting this twisted belief of the Nuwaupians.
In his regurgitation of York's misinformation; without a single line of textual nor archaeological support; he reads from the second Black Book page 293, having no clue on what in the world he's reading, nor the level of falsehoods he's spreading.
"...then you had the dynastic Egiptians, which started when the Pharaoh Menes who is also called Mizraim in your bible (Genesis 10:6), a Khemite or Kemet who came to Egipt from SUMER!!! [the emphasis was his while reading] and took control of both upper and lower Egipt..."
Now I can elaborate more on this as well, and easily debunk this junk found in the Black Book II (maybe in the next article). But someone share this article with the our good brother who means well, but his faith in the teachings of York is unfortunately for him, in vain.
Menes (Narmer) was NOT a Sumerian. He did NOT travel from southern Iraq (Sumer) under the biblical name Mizram and took control of upper and lower Egipt. Maybe that's true in fantasy land because York does utilize the word "EGIPT" and not "EGYPT" for HIS version of history; in other words, it's not based on reality nor the historical records, however, it may be true in the pseudo-theology of Malachi York, be-lie-eved hook-line and sinker by his followers the Nuwaupians.
And (with all due respect) don't even think of jumping to the Narmer Pallett, NOTHING on it suggests any links to ancient Sumer, NO inscription, NO iconography. Maybe you should seek out an ancient Sumerian or ancient Egyptian inscription that mentions Menes/Narmer departing ancient Sumer for ancient Egypt, possibly that would be a start or something to aid you in your defense of your "master teacher's" pseudo doctrine.