Facts for you to consider,

The Abyssinians rulers say their original ancestors were of Semitic (Arab) origins. Their ancestors were migrants/conquerors from what is today the Yemen. They claimed they came from a province of Yemen known as the "Habashat" and the term "Abyssinia" is an English corruption of this Arab name. They ruling Abyssinians and their Arab ancestors founded the ruling dynasty Solomonoid from the biliblical Jewish King Solomon.

However, the Bible has never been proven indisputably to be Black/Africoid. If King Salomon character is illustrated as a White man in a White man Bible, then what Blacks think it doesn’t matter because the whole world knows King Salomon is a Black man?! What Negroes or Blacks believe really doesn’t matter to anyone except Negroes or Blacks! In order for the Blackness of the biblical characters to have any real relevance, Blacks would have to be the writers, producers, manufactures and distributors of the “Holy” Bible in the first place. But, I know too well it would have been a blasphemous insult to the Emperors/Kings of Ethiopia and the White Christians everywhere in the world to present a biliblical Negro Jewish King as Salomon!!! So I would differ with you and your opinion about the Blackness of King Solomon in a White man Bible.

Even, the Holy Piby and the Kebra Nagast are not published and distributed in every imaginable language in a worldwide distribution. Therefore, irrespective of the scholarly accuracy of the Blackness, Africaness or Negroness link in the Bible, African/Black scholars are not the publishers and distributors of the Holy Bible. So the Bible is exactly what the majority of its worldwide readers see, the story of Whites and Jews. The ruling Abyssinians people also formed the very foundation of their ruling ideology based on the fact that their dynasty was of Semitic (Arab) origin… not of Black/Africoid.

B.K