quote:About the Genesis Apochryphon
The sentences being read in the film are from a composition entitled Genesis Apocryphon, column XX, lines 2 to 7, in which the biblical description of Sarah's beauty is expounded. According to the biblical narrative in the book of Genesis, when Abraham and Sarah approached Egypt, the patriarch said to his wife, "I know that you are a beautiful woman," (Gen. 12:11). However, as befits the reserved biblical style, the Torah does not elaborate on Sarah's beauty. Therefore, the ancient author, who wrote this scroll in the spirit of similar descriptions in the biblical Song of Songs and in Hellenistic literature, completed what was missing in the Torah and detailed the beauty of the matriarch:
1. ______
2. ... how irresistible and beautiful is the image of her face; how
3. lovely h[er] foreh[ead, and] soft the hair of her head! How graceful are her eyes, and how precious her nose; every feature
4. of her face is radiating beauty! How lovely is her breast, and how beautiful her white complexion! As for her arms, how beautiful they are! And her hands, how
5. perfect they are! How [desirable] all the appearance of her hands! How graceful are her palms, and how long and thin all the fingers of her hands! Her legs
6. are of such beauty, and her thighs so perfectly apportioned!
quote:Tamar Kadari, "The Beauty of Sarah in Rabbinic Literature", Hebrew Texts in Jewish, Christian and Muslim Surroundings, Volume in honour of Alberdina Houtman, eds. Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman & Klaas Spronk, Leiden-Boston: Brill 2018, pp. 65-82.
Sarah's external appearance in the Genesis Apocryphon reflects the authors notion of ideal beauty: Her skin is white, her fingers are long and thin, and her face is radiant. Sarahs white complexion is also alluded to in Genesis Rabbah where it is contrasted with the "ugly and swarthy" Egyptians.
quote:Genesis Rabbah page 328
[Abraham said
to Sarah:] We have traversed Aram Naharaim and Aram Nahor and not found a woman as beautiful as you; now that we are entering a country whose inhabitants are swarthy and ugly, Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake,
quote:Dr Tamar Kadari is a researcher who knows much more about the subject than you. Maybe you should write her a letter and complain that you do not agree to some of her claims in her article.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Next you're going to be referencing Harry Potter and arguing that J.K. Rowling is a valid source on account of the fact that she has written multiple books.
quote:Great, so you have a "dr.'s" opinion on a non-biblical text that the vast majority of scholars do not accept as authentic.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Dr Tamar Kadari is a researcher who knows much more about the subject than you. Maybe you should write her a letter and complain that you do not agree to some of her claims in her article.
quote:Which credentials do you have? Why should anyone listen to you when there are real scholars in the field?
Tamar Kadari is a lecturer for Midrash and Aggadah at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies. She received her PhD in Midrashic literature from Hebrew University and was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at The University of Pennsylvania. In 2009 Dr. Kadari received a grant from the Israeli Science Foundation (ISF) to head a research group preparing a critical edition of Song of Songs Rabbah. Her research interests include biblical women in the eyes of the rabbis, aesthetics and beauty in rabbinic literature and literary readings of midrash.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Arch, you're a clown. A pseudo clown.
You are referencing the genesis apocryphon. A pseudepigraphal work.
Do you even know what the word pseudepigraphal means? Trust me, it's no coincidence that the root word of pseudepigraphal is PSEUDO.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
That's the thing though. The book you are referencing was not even written by Israelites. They can't even confirm who wrote it. And it has embellishments. Do you even know anything about the book you are referencing, other than the fact that it says Sarah was "white"?
You know the ACTUAL Torah/Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) says that white skin is a bad thing... right? Now all of a sudden it's beautiful in this new version of Genesis?
Ha...
NUMBERS 12:10
"10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous."
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
1. The genesis apocryphon is not recognized as a legitimate work, it's pseudo... and has false details in it (embellishments)
2. There is no evidence that Jews/Israelites authored the genesis apocryphon, unless you have some information that we are not privy to... do you?
3. The actual Hebrew Bible says white skin (leprosy) is a bad thing, not "beautiful" (Numbers 12:10) which is a complete contradiction
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Can you form an intelligent response to points 1, 2 and 3 raised here?
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
1. The genesis apocryphon is not recognized as a legitimate work, it's pseudo... and has false details in it (embellishments)
2. There is no evidence that Jews/Israelites authored the genesis apocryphon, unless you have some information that we are not privy to... do you?
3. The actual Hebrew Bible says white skin (leprosy) is a bad thing, not "beautiful" (Numbers 12:10) which is a complete contradiction
quote:Doesn't care what the Bible says... but is constantly crying and complaining about what the people in the Bible looked like
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
I do not care what the Bible says,
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Can you form an intelligent response to points 1, 2 and 3 raised here?
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
1. The genesis apocryphon is not recognized as a legitimate work, it's pseudo... and has false details in it (embellishments)
2. There is no evidence that Jews/Israelites authored the genesis apocryphon, unless you have some information that we are not privy to... do you?
3. The actual Hebrew Bible says white skin (leprosy) is a bad thing, not "beautiful" (Numbers 12:10) which is a complete contradiction
quote:Doesn't care what the Bible says... but is constantly crying and complaining about what the people in the Bible looked like
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
I do not care what the Bible says,
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Your buddies over in Israel already seem to know the truth
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Does this make you mad? Jew-ish people (rabbis included) admitting the truth
Life is good, God is great
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Your buddies over in Israel already seem to know the truth
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Archeotypery doesn't believe in the Bible... but wants the people in the Bible to be white
Archeotypery doesn't believe in the Bible... but references other non-Biblical texts to explain what people in the Bible supposedly looked like
ROOOOOOFFLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
Can't make this sh*t up!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Does this make you mad? Jew-ish people (rabbis included) admitting the truth
Life is good, God is great
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Your buddies over in Israel already seem to know the truth
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Archeotypery doesn't believe in the Bible... but wants the people in the Bible to be white
Archeotypery doesn't believe in the Bible... but references other non-Biblical texts to explain what people in the Bible supposedly looked like
ROOOOOOFFLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
Can't make this sh*t up!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Does this make you mad? Jew-ish people (rabbis included) admitting the truth
Life is good, God is great
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Your buddies over in Israel already seem to know the truth
quote:No ancient Israelite samples though, correct? Proto-semites had paternal haplogroup E... which eliminates the vast majority of the people you claim from being related to Israelites paternally.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I mean we do have people still in Israel that were related to the ancient Hebrews...i.e the Samaratins...Who are probably Jews who broke awaw and did'nt follow the 2nd Temple
https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/PA-5279097.jpg
https://www.timesofisrael.com/inside-the-samaritan-high-priests-fruity-sukkah-literally/
Also just because its a Pseudopigrapha does'nt mean it can't be used for historical research or to draw historical conclusions.
There are Jews all over the world, pretending that one type is "authentic" is a bit ironic. Also, the bible claiming that the Jews won't be restored until a Moschiach returns is the tail wagging the dog, Black Hebrews love playing games.
quote:The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant
The individuals examined here cover a wide geographic span—coming from nine sites in present-day Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. Our analyses revealed that, with the exception of Sidon (and to a smaller extent the individuals of the Baq‛ah), they are homogeneous in the sense of being closer to each other than to other contemporary and neighboring populations. This suggests that the archaeological and historical category of “Canaanites” correlates with shared ancestry (Eisenmann et al., 2018).
quote:
Autosomal DNA proves nothing except for admixture and I'm sure you know this
quote:No that line of logic is not necessarily the case.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] According to genetic methodology, the Israelites would have had some subclade of E since that's what their ancestors (the natufians) had.
quote:That is merely something you made up.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Natufians were the progenitors of the Israelites.
quote:Yes I read stop being rude
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] Do you not read? Or what
According to geneticists, the most likely Judaean progenitors were the Natufians.
quote:^^^ let me emphasize the above. YOU people love to use genetics to tell black people they can't be Jews or Israelites but when it comes down to it the genetics don't even support your racist pseudo arguments in the first place
Originally posted by Tazarah:
You, along with the euronuts, love to use genetics to deny/reject people from being associated with ancient Israel, but not even genetic methodology substantiates your claims.
quote:.
In 1941 he wrote an essay on the Khazars. It was titled
"The Khazar Conversion to Judaism!" This work appeared in the "Zion"
a Hebrew publication. This article was a bombshell that shook the Zionist
pillars of the structure daily referred to as "Jewish heritage." Professor
Poliak's book Khazaria was even more controversial. It is now less and
less available. It was published in Hebrew in Tel Aviv, 1944. The
pretenders to the heritage were indiscriminately unveiled; and they could
not shout their famous battle cry "anti-Semitism" because the author
was more Semitic than they. At the very least, he was much more
honest, he read and wrote pristine Hebrew and was not using the
heritage for political ends. Professor Poliak severed the "mystic tie," that
umbilical cord that tied modern Jewry to the Biblical tribes of Israel.
Since Professor Poliak did not write and publish distortions, his name is
not mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971-2, printing or the
Jewish Encyclopedia 1959.
https://edan.si.edu/transcription/pdf_files/12085.pdf
quote:.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Such migrations occured before any "israelite" existed and jews have never been fully natufian nor were natufians black. Stop embarassing yourself, you're west african not israelite or middle eastern.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Y-DNA markers of the people who lioness, antalas, etc., are claiming to be Jews, prove that their ancestors were not native to the Levant and migrated there.
quote:I agree, they are mentally blocked, so it is meaningless to talk with them.
Anyway we should avoid talking with such people it's a clear waste of time.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Another strawman argument constructed because your euronut pseudoism has been completely debunked
The natufians were the most likely progenitors of the ancient Israelites
The natufians had haplogroup E, therefore so would the ancient Israelites, or at least some subclade of E, like many "west africans"
Not J, like how the majority of jew-ish people have
The natufians were also found to be morphologically negroid
The people you are arguing to be jewish have no relation to native ancient Levantine populations and migrated there, as has been proven to you multiple times via genetic evidence (Y-DNA markers)
I know it hurts to be schooled by a "west african" but facts are facts, nazi boy
_________
* Ancient "middle easterners" were dark-skinned, negroid people. This is old news, literally
"The Arabs: The Life Story of a People who Have Left Their Deep Impress on the World" by Bertram Thomas, page 355 (1937) Doubleday, Doran and Company, Incorporated
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172706
quote:where is a quote that the author was talking about modern Jewish people?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The lyiness says "full context"
Then proceeds to highlight out of context information in an attempt to make the relevant portion contradict itself
The author is clearly comparing the ancient negroid arabs to that of modern jew-ish people. The author says nothing about ancient Jews, only ancient arabs
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Now look at you trying to appeal to a completely different part of the page(s) since your first argument got debunked
Not everyone adheres to the evolutionary timeline
Just because the author believes those ancient arab negroid bones were "prehistoric" does not make that the case
That's simply his personal opinion but the undeniable fact is that the original arabs (semites) were negroid
And even if that were the case, this would still mean that Shem himself (the progenitor of the semitic races) was negroid
So it's a lose-lose situation for you
And to top it all off, there are other non-evolutionary sources that also say ancient Semites (Jews inlcuded) were negroid
* anthropological/archaeological source stating that ancient Elamites (semites) were negroid and so were the Jews and Syrians:
"The Negro in the New World" by Sir Harry H. Johnston, page 27 (1910) Smithsonian Institution
https://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/negroinnewworl00john
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The lyiness says "full context"
Then proceeds to highlight out of context information in an attempt to make the relevant portion contradict itself
The author is clearly comparing the ancient negroid arabs to that of modern jew-ish people. The author says nothing about ancient Jews, only ancient arabs
Lyiness the liar can be seen employing the same deceptive pseudo tactic with another source as well, toward the bottom of page 17 of the following thread:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000431;p=17
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
REPOST
Can you show me where the source says it is speaking about ancient Jews?
Because it only has the word ancient in front of the word arabs.
You must have nothing to do on this saturday night... no friends... no family... etc.
So here you are; being a trolling pseudo instead
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Now look at you trying to appeal to a completely different part of the page(s) since your first argument got debunked
Not everyone adheres to the evolutionary timeline
Just because the author believes those ancient arab negroid bones were "prehistoric" does not make that the case
That's simply his personal opinion but the undeniable fact is that the original arabs (semites) were negroid
And even if that were the case, this would still mean that Shem himself (the progenitor of the semitic races) was negroid
So it's a lose-lose situation for you
And to top it all off, there are other non-evolutionary sources that also say ancient Semites (Jews inlcuded) were negroid
* anthropological/archaeological source stating that ancient Elamites (semites) were negroid and so were the Jews and Syrians:
"The Negro in the New World" by Sir Harry H. Johnston, page 27 (1910) Smithsonian Institution
https://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/negroinnewworl00john
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The lyiness says "full context"
Then proceeds to highlight out of context information in an attempt to make the relevant portion contradict itself
The author is clearly comparing the ancient negroid arabs to that of modern jew-ish people. The author says nothing about ancient Jews, only ancient arabs
Lyiness the liar can be seen employing the same deceptive pseudo tactic with another source as well, toward the bottom of page 17 of the following thread:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000431;p=17
quote:So your source said that this was probably late Pleistocene,
Originally posted by Tazarah:
^^^ Can you stay on topic? Or is that impossible for you to do because your goal is to troll
Nobody denies the arabs are mixed with caucasian ancestry from invading caucasians
quote:This sounds like you are just making it up as you go along. "Nobody denies" , stop bullshitting
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Nobody denies the arabs are mixed with caucasian ancestry from invading caucasians
quote:don't be ridiculous, you posting that above you going off topic trying to get a win about Cochin
Originally posted by Tazarah:
^^^ Can you stay on topic?
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Can you show me where that book says anything about the physical appearance of ancient Jews?
If not then you are just trolling and trying to push a false narrative with non-existent information
It only speaks about ancient arabs
If ancient arabs (semites) were negroid then that logically means their relatives (Jews, Elamites, etc.), which are also semites, were negroid as well
___________
* anthropological/archaeological source stating that ancient Elamites (semites) were negroid and so were the Jews and Syrians:
"The Negro in the New World" by Sir Harry H. Johnston, page 27 (1910) Smithsonian Institution
https://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/negroinnewworl00john
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
So you can't answer the question, correct?
I'm reposting that same post to show how I've asked you to explain where the source in question makes reference to ancient Jews as you implied
But you can't do it, because it doesn't, and you're a lying pseudo troll
Just another regular day on egypt search
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
So you can't answer the question, correct?
I'm reposting that same post to show how I've asked you to explain where the source in question makes reference to ancient Jews as you implied
But you can't do it, because it doesn't, and you're a lying pseudo troll
Just another regular day on egypt search
quote:You're such a pseudo troll, you're trying to make it seem as if the author is labeling negroes as a sub species
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Taz you have that same big image of "Negro Sub-Species" on this page 5 times
Do you realize how retarded that is?
quote:Are you dumb or are you dumb
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:You're such a pseudo troll, you're trying to make it seem as if the author is labeling negroes as a sub species
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Taz you have that same big image of "Negro Sub-Species" on this page 5 times
Do you realize how retarded that is?
When in reality he is classifying the different sub species of the so-called negro race
Pure pseudoism and retardation combined with poor reading comprehension and a host of other issues
This is what trolling egypt search 24/7 everyday of the year for a decade will do to you folks
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Where does the text refer to the appearance or morphology of ancient Jews, troll?
The text I highlighted says ancient arabs were negroid
Can you show me where it says ancient Jews were ____ ?
Yes or no
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
So you can't answer the question, correct?
I'm reposting that same post to show how I've asked you to explain where the source in question makes reference to ancient Jews as you implied
But you can't do it, because it doesn't, and you're a lying pseudo troll
Just another regular day on egypt search
quote:LOL I need to save these. Nice job! Armenoid is prettty much us, but we do have our own distinct look too just saying.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
So you can't answer the question, correct?
I'm reposting that same post to show how I've asked you to explain where the source in question makes reference to ancient Jews as you implied
But you can't do it, because it doesn't, and you're a lying pseudo troll
Just another regular day on egypt search
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172706/page/n371/mode/2up?q=Keith
you are wasting my time there they text mainly mentions ancient Judeans which I have underlined
Right in the first paragraph, p 353 reference is made to
"ancient neighbors the Jews"
Then below that in yellow it talks about the Jews original home and makes reference to Jews being Semitic types of Assyria and Babylonia "not Arabia at all" but Asia Minor. Assyria and Babylonia being ancient
Then on 354 in yellow it says Jews are Armenoid (reference to Armenia) and with referring again to Assyria and Hittites
On 355 it talks about a prehistoric Caucasoid wave in Arabia
And finally on 356 it talks about prehistoric culture spread from the North and points out "there were already physical differences" between ancient Arabs and Jews
I can't believe I wasted my time explaining this
And I see what you are doing. You are probably going around other websites and showing these pages with cut out parts of the pages and highlighting what you select to highlight
This text, to get the point made about ancient Arabs and Jews you need 353-356, highlighting is optional
and as I have shown most of the references to Jews are in ancient context and referring to ancient city-states which no longer exist and that is not changed
by the fact that it doesn't say "Ancient Jews" as a phrase.
It's like if the Romans were being discussed in a sentence with Troy and you saying "how do we know they don't mean modern romans ? "
We know they mean ancient Romans because Troy is referenced and Troy can only be ancient, likewise Assyrians and Hittites. Stop the nonsense, you have been exposed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:You pointed at yourself.... LOL
Originally posted by Tazarah:
^^^ lyiness getting mad now because she got caught being a pseudo as usual, and misrepresenting a source
quote:Plus, some other translations use "shining breast" instead.
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
It's all metaphor
quote:In addition, the version quoted in this book I own uses "gleaning is her complexion" and "resplendent are her breasts" rather than calling her white or fair-skinned.
My one, the sister without peer,
The handsomest of all!
She looks like the rising morning star
At the start of a happy year.
Shining bright, fair of skin,
Lovely the look of her eyes,
Sweet the speech of her lips,
She has not a word too much.
Upright neck, shining breast,
Hair true lapis lazuli;
Arms surpassing gold,
Fingers like lotus buds.
Heavy thighs, narrow waist,
Her legs parade her beauty;
With graceful step she treads the ground,
Captures my heart by her movements.
She causes all men's necks
To turn about to see her;
Joy has he whom she embraces,
He is like the first of men!
When she steps outside she seems
Like that the Sun!
quote:Lamentations 4:7-10, English Standard Version
Her princes were purer than snow, whiter than milk; their bodies were more ruddy than coral, the beauty of their form was like sapphire. Now their face is blacker than soot; they are not recognized in the streets; their skin has shriveled on their bones; it has become as dry as wood. Happier were the victims of the sword than the victims of hunger, who wasted away, pierced by lack of the fruits of the field. The hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children; they became their food during the destruction of the daughter of my people.
quote:There is no side track I'm pointing out the fact that you don't apply your logic to other texts as long as it supports your narrative therefore white as snow is an "hyperbole" but black as coal isn't.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Go reply to elMaestro with ha ha ha why don't you please.
Any post starting with ha ha ha is obviously not serious but delirious.
Ignorance of the ignorant will be ignored. Analysis of the text will be appreciated.
Non-sequitors and strawmans are irrelevant and show the lack of ability to read and process
the given ancient references from the Israelites/Judaeans themselves. They are presented only
to mock and to distract unwary readers or ones as lazy as the ones who employ logical fallacies
who lack basic analytical skill and those who likewise refuse what is plainly presented right in
front of their eyes but too hard for their brain to recognize.
The white skin of Israelite lepers is no hype. Laws were instituted that removed non-Jewish
white people from being classified as clean lepers. Plus we have the non-hyperbole biblical
recordings of Israelite congenital lepers' white skin.
Antalas is an unreasonable "white" pride polemicist. He will never shut up no matter what is
presented to him and must always have the last word. Not worth going back and forth with
him. He will steer clear of what's actually posted and side track the issue with logical fallacies
to try and cover up extensive reference with non thought out one line quips (which he actually
believes trumps anything and everything any black person --excluding elMaestro-- presents).
On ES we see that the black posters and the honest posters disagree with each other but the "white"
melanophobes never ever critique fellow "whites". What does that tell the intelligent unbiased reader?
The majority colour span of ancient Israelites is documented by themselves to range from
Palestinian boxwood to date honey. Of course House of Israel geriym have the complexions
of their original homeland's peoples.
Factual truth hurts some whites (and blacks) pride, too damn bad. I repeat our mother Sarah
was "white". So probably too was the evil Laban, father of Ya`aqob's wives the mothers of all
the Tribes of Israel. Meanwhile the Shulamyth proudly proclaimed I am black and beautiful. No
one tans black unless they are naturally dark brown.
Hebrew descended Israelites were neither Sudani black nor German white, precisely as the ancient rabbis left on record.
quote:Yes some of these Afrocentrics are indeed hypocrites. If some ancient text describes some ancient people as black they never protest but cherish it. But slightest mention of light skin in a positive way, brings out a lot of protests and forced attempts to explain away it.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Strangely he now admits that "white/black" didn't necessarily mean the same thing back then but when I pointed out this and said that we should be careful not projecting our modern labels when he tried to troll me with antalas being black he said " No white people describe other white people as having natural born raven black complexions even in hype."
See the level of hypocrisy ? Thanks for showing your bias.
quote:Exactly and when confronted to undeniable depictions they start with their "blacks come in all shades and colors" "black is only about skin pigmentation" ...
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Yes some of these Afrocentrics are indeed hypocrites. If some ancient text describes some ancient people as black they never protest but cherish it. But slightest mention of light skin in a positive way, brings out a lot of protests and forced attempts to explain away it.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Strangely he now admits that "white/black" didn't necessarily mean the same thing back then but when I pointed out this and said that we should be careful not projecting our modern labels when he tried to troll me with antalas being black he said " No white people describe other white people as having natural born raven black complexions even in hype."
See the level of hypocrisy ? Thanks for showing your bias.
Also they never question artwork that shows what they perceive as "black" people, but always trying to explain away artwork which show people of lighter complexion.
quote:
Originally posted 04 August, 2021 by Tukuler: @ http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000497#000008
I haven't seen any [contemporaneous] authors proposing any kinda 'Anatoli'
or such prime origins for Israel/Judah folk or mistaking LeukSyrians
( http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011453#000018 and its link in passim )
for Judaeans the way they took Judaeans for Aethiopians and Egyptians.
Hmm,
Levant Hazor MLBA
Levant Megiddo IBA
Levant Megiddo IA
Levant Abel IA
Levant Ashkelon IA2
as ancient Judah and Israel![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Confirmation of people leaving the Rock
to enter the Levant and Mesopotamia in
Agranat-Tamir et al (2020) (link)
quote:"distance pseudo-charts" let's see on what these charts are based ; Here one example : The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant
Originally posted by Tukuler:
No one yet has produced peer reviewed professionally published data on any osteo remains of 1300-600 BCE people proven to be "Jews" rather than Aegean origin Phillistines or native and Aegean origin Syrians.
None of your mammy made distance pseudo-charts. Bring it on in a new thread and let's go to the supplemental materials that give date, location, and associated artifacts of each sample in full. Can you find two who could fit the bill?
Most importantly the data on skin hair and eye color genetics are the only thing telling us their colour
not assumptions that black means W Afr imaginary Negroland.
Bring on the reports and quit being a swishy sissy poking fun at what he never intends to seriously entertain after being whupped dead by quotes from the Jewish authorities themselves who lived in the late centuries BCE and early centuries CE.. Skin the colour of Palestinian boxwoox to date honey. You can jump up and down, shake and shout, shimmy about, and go round and round the mulberry bush forever but you can't erase the record the Judaean rabbis themselves wrote down themselves about themselves and Beth Yisra'el the House of Israel. Only an imbecile doesn't know the Bible itself is where the term House of Israel Beth Yisra'el comes from and includes the Tribes plus all of the righteous converts who left their own peoples and nations out of love of the God of Israel to join with His Children of Israel B*nei Yisra'el forming the Nation/Ethnic group of Israel `Am Yisra'el. Beware! You mock Torah, Injil, and Qur'an, an offence to more than half of the people on Earth. Dare you get up in Allah's face to bring ridicule on that of which you are utterly ignorant.
quote:SO NO THESE ARE NOT PHILISTINES AND THE AUTHORS COULD CLEARLY MADE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MOREOVER THE PAPER COLLECTED SAMPLES FROM WELL KNOWN BIBLICAL SITES LIKE SHADUD, HAZOR, MEGIDDO, etc
we generated genome-wide ancient DNA data for 71 Bronze Age and 2 Iron Age individuals, spanning roughly 1,500 years, from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Combined with previously published data on the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant, we assembled a dataset of 93 individuals from 9 sites across present-day Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon, all demonstrating Canaanite material culture. We show that the sampled individuals from the different sites are usually genetically similar, albeit with subtle but in some cases significant differences, especially in residents of the coastal regions of Sidon and Ashkelon. Almost all individuals can be modeled as a mixture of local earlier Neolithic populations and populations from the northeastern part of the Near East. However, the mixture proportions change over time, revealing the demographic dynamics of the Southern Levant during the Bronze Age. Finally, we show that the genomes of present-day groups geographically and historically linked to the Bronze Age Levant, including the great majority of present-day Jewish groups and Levantine Arabic-speaking groups, are consistent with having 50% or more of their ancestry from people related to groups who lived in the Bronze Age Levant and the Chalcolithic Zagros.
quote:
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Yes some of these Afrocentrics are indeed hypocrites. If some ancient text describes some ancient people as black they never protest but cherish it. But slightest mention of light skin in a positive way, brings out a lot of protests and forced attempts to explain away it.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Strangely he now admits that "white/black" didn't necessarily mean the same thing back then but when I pointed out this and said that we should be careful not projecting our modern labels when he tried to troll me with antalas being black he said " No white people describe other white people as having natural born raven black complexions even in hype."
See the level of hypocrisy ? Thanks for showing your bias.
Also they never question artwork that shows what they perceive as "black" people, but always trying to explain away artwork which show people of lighter complexion.
quote:Exactly. When they can't deny that said population(s) in question were black, they try to make black mean something else. It's comical. But even they know they're full of sh. So I just laugh
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
No different than any folks trying to dismiss any description of North Aficans as black as "BlAcK MeAnT SoMeThInG DiFfErEnT" or a pre Modern black population in Europe as Afrocentrism.
quote:Whether or not they would pass for “Black”, I seriously doubt ancient Hebrews would have been pale like Charlton Heston. I recall Tukuler recently proposing that southern Hebrews from Judea may have been darker than northern ones from Israel, and I am open to that possibility. Certainly, the population must have gotten darker the closer you got to Africa, in part due to admixture with northeastern African peoples.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
@Brother Al, what is the Jewish interpretation of the Miracle of the Hand?
Does the "Miracle of the hand of Moses" shows that white skin on Moses was an abnormality?
"And Jehovah said furthermore unto him, Put now thy hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. "Now put it back into your cloak," he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh."
Curious as to how this is translated in modern Rabbinic Judaism...Seeing as how I think the closest to the ancient Judeans are the modern Samaratins...seems a darker complexion was the norm at least for the writiers of that passage...
quote:They dismiss it based on concrete evidence not some random sentence taken out of its historical context. If you had any basis in the population history of North Africa you would surely laugh at afrocentrists.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] No different than any folks trying to dismiss any description of North Aficans as black as "BlAcK MeAnT SoMeThInG DiFfErEnT" or a pre Modern black population in Europe as Afrocentrism.
quote:Keep embarassing yourself you can't even understand what I posted nor do you even know what "autosomal dna" is
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Antalas is still pushing the false pseudo argument that autosomal DNA (admixture) can prove ancestry.
The funniest part about it all is that ancient Israelite DNA has never been examined or sequenced. If that were the case, pseudos like antalas would be able to tell us which tribe the specimen in question belonged to, etc, but he can't.
Antalas thinks just because he cites a study about autosomal DNA found in Israel, that automatically means the specimen was an Israelite. Even though it's a well known historical fact that Israelites were not the only people who inhabited Israel or the Levant.
The hypocrisy is amazing because pseudos like antalas are always the first to say "not everyone in Africa is/was black" but according to his logic any specimen found in Israel or the Levant is automatically an Israelite just because he likes what the autosomal DNA looks like.
Pure pseudo. Laugh out loud
quote:wtf ? Yes autosomal dna is more informative than uniparentals ; the latter only giving you information about two ancestors. See ? thanks for further confirming you don't have any clue about what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Isn't this you right here responding to me in another thread, and arguing that autosomal DNA can prove ancestry better than uniparentals?
You didn't appear to be of the train of thought that I "didn't understand what autosomal DNA is" during this conversation
This is what we call backpedaling. Stay pseudo my friend
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=013277;p=6
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
Therefore you imply that judeans were genetically ethiopian ?
quote:What on earth are you talking about? We are talking about autosomal DNA right now, not uniparentals. You've made it undeniably clear that you have severe reading comprehension issues.
Originally posted by Antalas:
??? what is this guy even talking about ? You just literally admitted someone can't be black just because of his uniparentals. Thanks.
quote:Tazarah said this : " firsthand eyewitness accounts which say Israelites in the 7th century could not be told apart from Abyssinians (Ethiopians) and Nubians, which are both what they would call "sub-saharan africans"
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
WTF? What are you talking about? Im honestly confused at how you can even come up with that idea, When I said the people closest to the ancient Jews (IMO) were the modern Samaratins?
Like do you always operate this shady?
quote:The paper literally write explicitely why these samples are not foreigners but local canaanites. As for your dna test that means that most of your ancestors were chinese and we can infer from this that you have a certain type of phenotype.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:What on earth are you talking about? We are talking about autosomal DNA right now, not uniparentals. You've made it undeniably clear that you have severe reading comprehension issues.
Originally posted by Antalas:
??? what is this guy even talking about ? You just literally admitted someone can't be black just because of his uniparentals. Thanks.
And of course the papers don't say what tribe(s) your "Israelite" specimens were from, because there's no proof that they were actual ethnic Israelites.
I have a very important question for you: if I take a DNA test and the autosomal DNA says I'm ___% chinese, does this mean that my ancient ancestors were chinese or that I descend from ancient chinese people? Yes or no.
quote:
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Tazarah said this : " firsthand eyewitness accounts which say Israelites in the 7th century could not be told apart from Abyssinians (Ethiopians) and Nubians, which are both what they would call "sub-saharan africans"
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
WTF? What are you talking about? Im honestly confused at how you can even come up with that idea, When I said the people closest to the ancient Jews (IMO) were the modern Samaratins?
Like do you always operate this shady?
and you replied : "Well the Beta Israel who are the "Ethiopian Jews" who took Alliah to Israel, are thought to descend from the 1st temple population of Judeas stationed at Elephantine Island in Kmt."
So what should I conclude from this ? But if that's not what you meant then ok my bad.
quote:Your answer doesn't even make sense since if most of your ancestry is chinese then you descend from them...anyway I gave a proper answer already.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[qb] @Antalas
1. You didn't answer my question.
quote:The paper in my last answer to Tukuler look above
Originally posted by Tazarah: 2. What paper are you referencing?
quote:I did not question anything about Beta Israel and totally respect them. The claim of Tazarah was simply ridiculous. And since when do AJs have "turkic/iranic" background ? The khazar theory has already been debunked by at least two papers but yes it's undeniable that they have absorbed lots of european converts especially on the maternal side and I've actually fought against those zionists who claim to simply be israelites coming to Israel after 2k years of exile. Like the charts I posted show the closest jews to these ancient canaanites are iraqi jews, egyptian jews and iranian jews with of course the closest being samaritans.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] Its a historical fact that Beta Israel were granted Aliyah to Israel due to their practicing of authentic 1st temple Judaism. Their Judaic origins are authentic, (I posted the scholarly link, how odd you missed it) no need for you or anyone else to Judge their Jewish authenticity.
How can one even come to such a conclusion when my response was about medieval accounts of Kushite/Ethiopian Jews by European Jews. Ashkenazi Jews have a Tuckic/Iranic/European background yet no one questions their authenticity.
quote:Interesting first time I see this paper I will analyse it later and see what jewish members of AG think about it but if what I've quickly read is legit then that's once more an L for zionists.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^What does the Kazar theory have to do with anything, if as you say the Jewish ancestors of the Ashenazi absorbed non Jews?
"Here, we elaborate on the meaning of this term and argue that it acquired its modern meaning only after a critical mass of Ashkenazic Jews arrived in Germany. We show that all bio-localization analyses have localized AJs to Turkey and that the non-Levantine origins of AJs are supported by ancient genome analyses. Overall, these findings are compatible with the hypothesis of an Irano-Turko-Slavic origin for AJs and a Slavic origin for Yiddish and contradict the predictions of Rhineland hypothesis that lacks historical, genetic, and linguistic support
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full
Maybe that DNA study is old, Im not well read on DNA tbh.
quote:Nope their paternal hg will show that they have a distant mexican ancestor but their autosomal will show that they are mostly chinese.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[qb] @Antalas
So if a Mexican man marries a chinese woman and the rest of his progeny marries chinese people for X amount of generations, and his descendants show a large amount of chinese autosomal DNA because of it, this means that they no longer originally descend from a mexican lineage that had nothing to do with chinese people?
quote:You actually didn't pay attention to what I posted nor did you read that paper carefully :
Originally posted by Tazarah: And did you even read your paper? I love when euronuts use that paper because it always shows how pseudo they are. Pay close attention to the third paragraph.
"Introduction
The Bronze Age (ca. 3500–1150 BCE) was a formative period in the Southern Levant, a region that includes present-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and southwest Syria. This era, which ended in a large-scale civilization collapse across this region (Cline, 2014), shaped later periods both demographically and culturally.
The following Iron Age (ca. 1150–586 BCE) saw the rise of territorial kingdoms such as biblical Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, and Aram-Damascus, as well as the Phoenician city-states. In much of the Late Bronze Age, the region was ruled by imperial Egypt, although in later phases of the Iron Age it was controlled by the Mesopotamian-centered empires of Assyria and Babylonia.
Archaeological and historical research has documented major changes during the Bronze and Iron Ages, such as the cultural influence of the northern (Caucasian) populations related to the Kura-Araxes tradition during the Early Bronze Age (Greenberg and Goren, 2009) and effects from the “Sea Peoples” (such as Philistines) from the west in the beginning of the Iron Age (Yasur-Landau, 2010)."
quote:Zionism has no legitimacy and is factually wrong. I prefer a jew who tells me he's there because he has the power to do so than a larper who twist every scientific data to back up his narrative.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^It really does'nt matter though does it, the State of Israel is not going anywhere. Zionism or not, Jews have been persecuted the world over, so in a sense the State of Israel have legitimacy.
quote:Exactly. So autosomal DNA does not prove ancient lineages or ancient ancestry. Now you're starting to get it.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Nope their paternal hg will show that they have a distant mexican ancestor but their autosomal will show that they are mostly chinese.
quote:???
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Exactly. So autosomal DNA does not prove ancient lineages or ancient ancestry. Now you're starting to get it.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Nope their paternal hg will show that they have a distant mexican ancestor but their autosomal will show that they are mostly chinese.
quote:Yes it explicitely says that they were not foreigners but local canaanites :
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Pay attention yall. Antalas said "The paper literally write explicitely why these samples are not foreigners but local canaanites."
[URL=https://postimages.org/]
But the paper actually says: "The genes of Canaanite individuals proved to be a mix of local Neolithic people and the Caucasus migrants, who began showing up in the region around the start of the Bronze Age."
quote:I did not deny its reality and are palestinians responsible for the persecution of Jews ? Anyway I'm well aware these jews are determined, well organized and really attached to their identity but I simply will never agree with their POV which is based on illusions.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I agree that Zionism is a bit silly, but that is what happens when you have religion as a basis for identity. ITs why I can't take BHIs seriously, obssesing over what the ancient Jews looked like when the Ashkenazi and Spehardi Jews control Israel is a nuclear power that is not going anywhere.
I support Israel in the sense of 1) its a reality and 2) the history of Jewish persecution.
Though the question remains will other peoples use the same logic to establish ethnostates?
quote:??? the paper literally says these were not foreigners but canaanites and what do you mean by original people ? Jews were not 100% x or are you saying that paleolithic middle easterners were jews ? XD
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Antalas; you lied and said the paper wrote that the people in question were not foreigners. But it said the exact opposite. That they were not the original people, but a mixture of migrants from the caucusus.
Now you're trying to do mental gymnastics and deflect after getting caught telling a blatant lie and mispresenting a study.
LOL.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
But the paper actually says: "The genes of Canaanite individuals proved to be a mix of local Neolithic people and the Caucasus migrants, who began showing up in the region around the start of the Bronze Age."
quote:Both the Ethiopians & Assyrians were dark skinned
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Despite the fact there is no written account of how the Israelites looked by someone who was alive in their time period,
if hypothetically the Israelites were blacks
Israelite descended blacks would be only a small fraction of all blacks
and it is impossible for anyone today to know if they are descended from the Israelites
And given this Chinese and Mexican scenario
if hypothetically the Israelites were blacks and individuals mixed with generations of white people than some white person might be descended from the Israelites while some random black person might not be
It is impossible for anyone to know if they are descended from the Israelites, certainly not by appearance
And even by genetics, is Israelite remains were identified as belonging to a certain haplogroup, or haplogroupS
they would be only a fraction of the people, Israelite and many more non-Israelite who belong to that same group
So no one can prove by ancestry, "bloodline", genes or appearance, not by any means, that they are a Jew.
The notion is pure silliness
quote:What you posted does not contradict what I posted in the slightest and what's even more funny is that your comprehension skills are so limited that you had to go to a national geographic article to somewhat understand it.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Antalas: "the paper explicitly said these samples are not foreigners but local canaanites"
The paper: "The genes of Canaanite
individuals proved to be a mix of local
Neolithic people and the Caucasus
migrants, who began showing up in
the region around the start of the
Bronze Age."
Long story short: You lied about what the paper said. You lied, just like you do with everything else.
All you can do now is move the goalpost, construct strawman arguments and commit other logical fallacies.
You know you've definitely hit rock bottom when you start to reference the biggest troll on the website as a support mechanism.
Rofl. Just take the L with dignity and move on.
quote:https://www.worldhistory.org/israel/
Israel developed into a united kingdom under the leadership of King David (c.1035-970 BCE) who consolidated the various tribes under his single rule ( having taken over from Israel's first king, Saul, who ruled c. 1080-1010 BCE ).
quote:https://www.livescience.com/56016-canaanites.html
The earliest undisputed mention of the Canaanites comes from fragments of a letter found at the site of Mari, a city located in modern-day Syria. Dating back about 3,800 years the letter is addressed to "Yasmah-Adad," a king of Mari, and says that "thieves and Canaanites" are in a town called "Rahisum." The surviving portion of the letter alludes to a conflict or disorder that is taking place in the town.
Another early text that talks of the people who lived in Canaan dates back about 3,500 years and was written on a statue of Idrimi, a king who ruled a city named "Alalakh" in modern-day Turkey.
quote:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024
we generated genome-wide ancient DNA data for 71 Bronze Age and 2 Iron Age individuals, spanning roughly 1,500 years, from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Combined with previously published data on the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant, we assembled a dataset of 93 individuals from 9 sites across present-day Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon, all demonstrating Canaanite material culture. We show that the sampled individuals from the different sites are usually genetically similar, albeit with subtle but in some cases significant differences, especially in residents of the coastal regions of Sidon and Ashkelon.
quote:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024
"The ADMIXTURE results are qualitatively consistent with the principal component analysis (PCA), suggesting that all individuals but the outliers from Megiddo and the Ashkelon IA1 population have similar ancestry (Figure 1C). "
quote:The ten lost tribes were the ten of the Twelve Tribes of Israel that were said to have been exiled from the Kingdom of Israel after its conquest by the Neo-Assyrian Empire circa 722 BCE.
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:Both the Ethiopians & Assyrians were dark skinned
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Despite the fact there is no written account of how the Israelites looked by someone who was alive in their time period,
if hypothetically the Israelites were blacks
Israelite descended blacks would be only a small fraction of all blacks
and it is impossible for anyone today to know if they are descended from the Israelites
And given this Chinese and Mexican scenario
if hypothetically the Israelites were blacks and individuals mixed with generations of white people than some white person might be descended from the Israelites while some random black person might not be
It is impossible for anyone to know if they are descended from the Israelites, certainly not by appearance
And even by genetics, is Israelite remains were identified as belonging to a certain haplogroup, or haplogroupS
they would be only a fraction of the people, Israelite and many more non-Israelite who belong to that same group
So no one can prove by ancestry, "bloodline", genes or appearance, not by any means, that they are a Jew.
The notion is pure silliness
“A few authorities hold that in the reign of Isis the surplus population of Egypt was evacuated to neighboring lands under the leadership of Hierosolymus and Judas. Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king. There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyrians occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria…”
– Tacitus, Histories 5.2-5
Cherilus also, a still ancienter writer, and a poet, makes mention of our nation, and informs us that it came to the assistance of king Xerxes in his expedition against Greece; for, in his enumeration of all those nations, he last of all inserts ours among the rest, when he says:—
At the last there passed over a people, wonderful to be beheld; for they spake the Phoenician tongue with their mouths: they dwelt in the Solymean mountains, near a broad lake: their heads were sooty; they had round rasures on them; their heads and faces were like nasty horseheads also, that had been hardened in the smoke.
- Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, the Learned and Authentic Jewish Historian, pg. 795, 1st century Jew, Soldier, and Historian
Greek Philospher Celsus
According to Celsus, the Jews were rebel Egyptians who, for no logical reason, abandoned their religious rites and renounced polytheism
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/celsusdeg [/QB]
quote:Do you read it in the original Hebrew?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Occasionally for research purposes I look at Levantine mythology books
How did it come to be that about half of Africa follows this book?
quote:
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Djoser is clearly a NEGRO, why would the original Imhotep be a different race?
quote:you are arguing Djoser is negro based on this statue
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
[qb] I would not have to argue that he had full lips
quote:"It doesn't matter when the mixture happened" yes with such logic no one is indigenous to any parts of this globe anyway I will repost what I wrote so people see how you have difficulties understanding basic informations :
Originally posted by Tazarah:
@antalas
Yes, the actual findinds of the study 100% contradict what you originally said. You said the samples were local canaanites and not foreigners but the study actually said the DNA was a mixture of locals + foreigners from the caucusus. Huge difference.
Now you're trying to act as though you didn't say what you said and deflecting by mentioning the dates when the mixture happened, or by mentioning other information irrelevant to the fact that you lied.
It doesn't matter when the mixture happened because you originally said all these samples were local and not foreign.
That's the whole reason I showed the Nat Geo article. To show how it says the complete opposite of what you said, and prevent you from being able to lie and gaslight about the study's true findings.
You got caught red-handed, just give it a rest already.
quote:https://www.worldhistory.org/israel/
Israel developed into a united kingdom under the leadership of King David (c.1035-970 BCE) who consolidated the various tribes under his single rule ( having taken over from Israel's first king, Saul, who ruled c. 1080-1010 BCE ).
quote:https://www.livescience.com/56016-canaanites.html
The earliest undisputed mention of the Canaanites comes from fragments of a letter found at the site of Mari, a city located in modern-day Syria. Dating back about 3,800 years the letter is addressed to "Yasmah-Adad," a king of Mari, and says that "thieves and Canaanites" are in a town called "Rahisum." The surviving portion of the letter alludes to a conflict or disorder that is taking place in the town.
Another early text that talks of the people who lived in Canaan dates back about 3,500 years and was written on a statue of Idrimi, a king who ruled a city named "Alalakh" in modern-day Turkey.
quote:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024
we generated genome-wide ancient DNA data for 71 Bronze Age and 2 Iron Age individuals, spanning roughly 1,500 years, from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Combined with previously published data on the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant, we assembled a dataset of 93 individuals from 9 sites across present-day Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon, all demonstrating Canaanite material culture. We show that the sampled individuals from the different sites are usually genetically similar, albeit with subtle but in some cases significant differences, especially in residents of the coastal regions of Sidon and Ashkelon.
quote:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024
"The ADMIXTURE results are qualitatively consistent with the principal component analysis (PCA), suggesting that all individuals but the outliers from Megiddo and the Ashkelon IA1 population have similar ancestry (Figure 1C). "
quote:again wtf are you talking about ? I didn't lie those admixture events occured more than a millenia before any jew existed. What's next ? Europeans aren't native to europe because of anatolian farmers mixing with WHG during the neolithic ? Stop being ridiculous idiot + Even before those admixture events no population was black in the levant.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
All of that irrelevant info is nice but why did you lie and say the samples were not foreign and only local when the study clearly says otherwise?
The funny part is you don't think people with a working brain can see the game you're playing now that you got caught lying about what the study actually said.
"OK yeah I lied but hey look! The mixture happened at ____ date!"
quote:It doesn't matter when the mixture happened because you lied and said the samples were only local. So stop gaslighting, it just makes you look like a huge clown.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Pay attention yall. Antalas said "The paper literally write explicitely why these samples are not foreigners but local canaanites."
But the paper actually says: "The genes of Canaanite individuals proved to be a mix of local Neolithic people and the Caucasus migrants, who began showing up in the region around the start of the Bronze Age."
quote:Yes the paper deal with canaanite samples they say it themselves :
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] Wtf am I talking about? I'm talking about how you lied and said the study dealt with canaanite samples that were local when it actually says the samples were a mixture of local + foreign genes from the caucusus. The screenshots of what you said are right there for everyone to see.
quote:
we generated genome-wide ancient DNA data for 71 Bronze Age and 2 Iron Age individuals, spanning roughly 1,500 years, from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Combined with previously published data on the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant, we assembled a dataset of 93 individuals from 9 sites across present-day Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon, all demonstrating Canaanite material culture. We show that the sampled individuals from the different sites are usually genetically similar, albeit with subtle but in some cases significant differences, especially in residents of the coastal regions of Sidon and Ashkelon
quote:
These individuals, who share the ‘‘Canaanite’’ material culture , can be modeled as descending from two sources: (1) earlier local Neolithic populations and (2) populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros or the Bronze Age Caucasus
quote:
We show evidence that different ‘‘Canaanite’’ groups genetically resemble each other more than other populations.
quote:
First, we sought to determine the extent of genetic homogeneity among the sites associated with Canaanite material culture. S
quote:Should I continue ? Jews were not simply natufian but it seems you still can't understand this.
Our results provide a comprehensive genetic picture of the primary inhabitants of the Southern Levant during the 2nd millennium BCE, known in the historical record and based on shared material culture as ‘‘Canaanites.’’ We carried out a detailed analysis aimed at answering three basic questions: how genetically homogeneous were these people, what were their plausible origins with respect to earlier peoples, and how much change in ancestry has there been in the region since the Bronze Age?
quote:Source ?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
1. The ancestors of those canaanites, especially if they had J-Markers, were non-Semitic migrants to the Levant.
quote:natufians were themselves mixed :
Originally posted by Tazarah: 2. The local Semitic population would have been E-Markers, descendants of Neolithic Levantines (Natufians).
quote:Therefore you admits ancient jews couldn't be 100% natufian they are the product of geneflow that occured before their existence.
Originally posted by Tazarah: 3. Yes the mix occurred before the Israelites became a people. Those samples are Bronze Age 3000 - 2000 BC. The Israelites were a Iron Age people 1000 BC.
quote:Like I showed you natufians were themselves mixed so what does "local" even mean ? Ancient jews are the results of multiple Middle eastern populations and their descendents have the same kind of profile. Therefore they were not black nor similar to you.
Originally posted by Tazarah: But you still failed to mention that the samples were a mixture of local + foreign genes from the caucusus, and tried to make it seem like they were simply local.
quote:These are made up theories I don't care about your fancy theories Ancient jews had lots of J clades and also other uniparentals which are not shared with blacks like yourself.
Originally posted by Tazarah: The Canaanites with the J-Markers are non-Semitic Hurrians and would have been the population the Israelites were fighting during the conquest of Canaan.
quote:Then if you don't care about autosomal DNA then you admit these people couldn't be black or similar to you and as for J the spread of this haplogroup in the levant predates the existence of jews :
Originally posted by Tazarah:
You just posted a whole bunch of strawman arguments and other logical fallacies, mainly to get away from the fact that you lied and mispresented your study.
Furthermore, I've made it extremely clear numerous that autosomal DNA (admixture) proves nothing. Yet you're now trying to appeal to autosomal DNA to attack me, as if I ever appealed to aDNA in the first place? Make that make sense.
I'll just leave you with this:
Haplogroup J is not native to the Levant nor is it semitic in origin:
Proto-semites (natufians) had haplogroup E, and J is not native to the Levant or semitic in origin:
quote:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929717302768
We compiled frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups in this geographical area and their changes over time in a dataset of ancient and modern Levantine populations (Figure S12), and note, similarly to Lazaridis et al.,13 that haplogroup J was absent in all Natufian and Neolithic Levant male individuals examined thus far, but emerged during the Bronze Age in Lebanon and Jordan along with ancestry related to Iran_ChL. All five Sidon_BA individuals had different mitochondrial DNA haplotypes49 (Table 1), belonging to paragroups common in present-day Lebanon and nearby regions (Table S5) but with additional derived variants not observed in our present-day Lebanese dataset."
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8445022/
In addition to the local ancestry from Epipaleolithic/Neolithic people, we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners (orange component in Figure 1B; Table 1). Previous studies showed that this ancestry was not present in the Levant during the Neolithic period but appeared in the Bronze Age where 50% of the local ancestry was replaced by a population carrying ancient Iran-related ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2016). We explored whether this ancestry penetrated both the Levant and Arabia at the same time and found that admixture dates mostly followed a North to South cline, with the oldest admixture occurring in the Levant region between 3,300 and 5,900 ya (Table S2), followed by admixture in Arabia (2,000–3,500 ya) and East Africa (2,100–3,300 ya). These times overlap with the dates for the Bronze Age origin and spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa estimated from lexical data (Kitchen et al., 2009; Figure 2). This population potentially introduced the Y chromosome haplogroup J1 into the region (Chiaroni et al., 2010; Lazaridis et al., 2016). "
quote:"semite" is a linguistic term that's it and I just posted a study that demonstrate that J is associated with the spread of semitic languages in the middle east there are no evidence of natufians being "proto-semites".
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I don't admit to any of your pseudo arguments being correct. You're trying to push the false pseudo idea that J has anything to do with the Levant when I've just referenced 2 sources showing that J is not native to the Levant, nor is it semitic in origin.
The sources I referenced also say that proto-semites (natufians) had haplogroup E... yet the Israelites, their descendants, somehow transformed into J according to you? We've discussed this before and your argument failed then as it is failing now.
Y-Dna doesn't change, unless an outside population comes in and interferes. And that's exactly what happened with your haplogroup J people. They came from the caucusus and assimilated into the native Levantine culture, which they had nothing to do with.
It isn't rocket science.
quote:"afro-asiatic" still refers to linguistic nothing else and that's a linguistic family with semitic being a branch of it. Moreover "familypedia" is not a reliable source and the fact that they mention "E3b" clearly shows that the information they share is outdated.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Replace "semite" with "afro-asiatic" and your argument still fails.
Proto-semites had haplgroup E, and E is responsible for the spread of afro-asiatic languages.
Literally just referenced a source which says that, and it also says J assimilated into afro-asiatic culture and abandoned their own.
It's 2,000,000% impossible for haplogroup J to descend from proto-semites, which had haplogroup E.
And that isn't even my personal opinion, it is a genetic fact.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8445022/
In addition to the local ancestry from Epipaleolithic/Neolithic people, we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners (orange component in Figure 1B; Table 1). Previous studies showed that this ancestry was not present in the Levant during the Neolithic period but appeared in the Bronze Age where 50% of the local ancestry was replaced by a population carrying ancient Iran-related ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2016). We explored whether this ancestry penetrated both the Levant and Arabia at the same time and found that admixture dates mostly followed a North to South cline, with the oldest admixture occurring in the Levant region between 3,300 and 5,900 ya (Table S2), followed by admixture in Arabia (2,000–3,500 ya) and East Africa (2,100–3,300 ya). These times overlap with the dates for the Bronze Age origin and spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa estimated from lexical data (Kitchen et al., 2009; Figure 2). This population potentially introduced the Y chromosome haplogroup J1 into the region (Chiaroni et al., 2010; Lazaridis et al., 2016). "
quote:Proto-semites had haplogroup J as demonstrated in the paper I posted. Moreover none of the "proto-semites" or natufians were jews /israelites and Hebrew was only one semitic language among many others.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
It's crazy how much cognitive dissonance you are displaying. You type so much, all to avoid the basic simplicity of the matter.
Proto-semites had Y-DNA haplogroup E. Any people group who does not have a form of haplogroup E is therefore not a descendant of proto-semites, making it impossible for them to be an Israelite or descendant of Israelites.
That's why you like to spam and misrepresent autosomal DNA.
You can play semantics with the word "semite" all you want. Your entire argument is laughable at this point and you know it.
Your pseudo position on the topic is debunked by simple genetics alone.
The historical documents that confirm my position are just the icing on the cake.
quote:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929717302768
This Canaanite-related ancestry derived from mixture between local Neolithic populations and eastern migrants genetically related to Chalcolithic Iranians. We estimate, using linkage-disequilibrium decay patterns, that admixture occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago, coinciding with recorded massive population movements in Mesopotamia during the mid-Holocene.
quote:Um... no they did not.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Proto-semites had haplogroup J as demonstrated in the paper I posted.
quote:How does that contradict anything of what I posted ? Who denied that they had natufian ancestors ? natufians were simply not the only ancestors of judeans.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Um... no they did not.
* The Natufians were the most likely Judean (Israelite) progenitors.
quote:Your source is outdated and talks about an "hypothesis" meanwhile the recent study I posted contradict this hypothesis. The expansion of semite dialects is linked to the expansion of the J haplogroup not E again stop trying to avoid scientific facts :
Originally posted by Tazarah: * And this source, as I've already shown, also says proto-semites had haplogroup E:
[/URL] [/QB]
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8445022/
In addition to the local ancestry from Epipaleolithic/Neolithic people, we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners (orange component in Figure 1B; Table 1). Previous studies showed that this ancestry was not present in the Levant during the Neolithic period but appeared in the Bronze Age where 50% of the local ancestry was replaced by a population carrying ancient Iran-related ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2016). We explored whether this ancestry penetrated both the Levant and Arabia at the same time and found that admixture dates mostly followed a North to South cline, with the oldest admixture occurring in the Levant region between 3,300 and 5,900 ya (Table S2), followed by admixture in Arabia (2,000–3,500 ya) and East Africa (2,100–3,300 ya). These times overlap with the dates for the Bronze Age origin and spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa estimated from lexical data (Kitchen et al., 2009; Figure 2). This population potentially introduced the Y chromosome haplogroup J1 into the region (Chiaroni et al., 2010; Lazaridis et al., 2016). "
quote:Assuming the Natufians were the most likely Judean (Israelite) progenitors.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Um... no they did not.
Originally posted by Antalas:
Proto-semites had haplogroup J as demonstrated in the paper I posted.
* The Natufians were the most likely Judean (Israelite) progenitors.
* And they had haplogroup E.
* And this source, as I've already shown, also says proto-semites had haplogroup E:
quote:No it doesn't
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @Antalas
If you can't understand how proto-semites having E Y-DNA haplogroups makes it physically, literally and logically impossible for Israelites to have Y-DNA haplogroup J, then there is nothing I or anyone else can do for you.
quote:The origin of J is speculative. I have read multiple science journal primary source articles , you haven't
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The origin of J is not speculative, geneticists already established that it originated in the caucusus. Another undeniable fact.
quote:You don't know what you are talking about
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @the lioness
The fact that you guys keep trying to ignore is that proto-semites had haplogroup E. Proto = first of it's kind. The original.
quote:The Israelites were tribes who came many thousands of years after the earliest Semitic speakers.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
That means their descendants would have to have a subclade of E. This is an undeniable fact.
quote:Familypedia is a simplified wikipedia, you don't have the ability to determine what is a good sources. You will delve into ridiculous obsolete 19th c books just to find something you agree with.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I've already referenced the sources.
quote:No you are very mixed up.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
According to your logic, haplogroup A or any other haplogroup could become caucasians like haplogroup J as long as they migrated to J territory (the caucusus) far enough in the past.
It's complete madness.
quote:^^ this is why Tazarah is incapable of a cerain level of reasoning
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Natufians were the most likely Judean progenitors
quote:Your attempts at exclusion make you bad people
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I only appeal to DNA when other people bring up DNA first (like Antalas) in an attempt to exclude anyone who isn't "jewish" from being an Israelite.
quote:Well I hope your realize that if the 12 tribes chart
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I've said this before: DNA is not my primary source for who Israel is. Bible prophecy is.
But not everyone believes in the Bible.
I only appeal to DNA when other people bring up DNA first (like Antalas) in an attempt to exclude anyone who isn't "jewish" from being an Israelite.
quote:yes, to him also
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Ok, be sure to tell all of that to antalas as well
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness
That's great but there was also an E1b1 Natufian sample and E1b1 is the direct parent of E1b1a.
quote:Completely pseudo
Originally posted by Tazarah:
God is the one doing the excluding.
2 ESDRAS 6:54-56
quote:I just did
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Lol!!! Tell that to God
quote:No one is emotional, but I like facts and science and I am not too fond of pseudo history and silly fantasies.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I know how much all of this hurts your feelings and I love it. It causes you to get emotional and make silly threads like "sarah's white complexion"
quote:what is the Rabbis name who is a geneticist?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
One of the rabbis who made the ruling is a geneticist. I already made an entire thread about this and you tried to derail it, remember?
Yawn
quote:
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
All Jewish rabbis do not seem so fond of black Americans, like this one
Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel about black people
Here is another rabbi discussing Black Hebrew Israelites
Debunking Black Hebrew Curses (full version)
Here are more Christians arguing against Black Hebrew Israelites. Many, both Jews and Christians, see Black Hebrew Israelites as an extreme sect of wannabee Jews in funny clothes, spreading all kind of false messages
Black Hebrew Israelites Refuted - 119 Ministries
Black Hebrew Israelites seem to be in line with several other Afro American groups who want to be Egyptians, or Native Americans, or Moroccans or other groups who are not them. Seems African Americans lost much of their own history so some of them want to latch on to other peoples history, claiming to be the real this or that. Rather pathetic and sad.
quote:what is the Rabbis name who is a geneticist?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tazarah:
[qb] One of the rabbis who made the ruling is a geneticist. I already made an entire thread about this and you tried to derail it, remember?
Yawn
quote:He has a Master’s degree in Anthropology and Religious Studies from Florida International University and a PhD in International Law from the University of Amsterdam. As you can see above he titles himself
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] I mistakenly said geneticist because I remembered reading in his letter of endorsement (written by Tudor Parfitt) that he employs the usage of genetics and genealogies to arrive at findings. But he is in fact an anthropologist and ethnologist, and does in fact use genetics to come to conclusions.
So he is a scientist by definition, and not a promoter of "fantasies" as archeotypery was trying to lie and imply.
quote:His tradition goes by the mother so it doesn't matter if Igbo men originated in the Levant basin
Yehonatan Demota:
"Genetic studies of the y-chromosome of Igbo men demonstrate that they originated in the Levant basin, sharing genetic links with Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews alike"
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Sad a good page (on the Black Madonnas of Europe ),that some what relates to this topic has lost almost all of its rare images
Images of Black Madonnas and Dark skinned Christ and 12 Apostles..
Even the link to the Catacomb Art of Early Christians is dead...such good info lost forever...
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002408;p=3
quote:The one who moves the goal post and contradicts himself if Demota
Originally posted by Tazarah:
We already discussed this before in another thread. I showed you the following document, and then you moved the goalpost.
According to the ruling by his organization, Y-DNA was a determining factor in reaching the conclusion that the Igbo are Israelites.
If DeMota went by the mother as you are saying, then he would not have mentioned anything about Y-DNA in the document.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a98cbc3b40b9da93f7c5126/t/61f35b8ad59d991291cab3fa/1643338634761/Teshubah-on-Igbo-Israelites.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1jMPxEjhcJoeCEha0-fhlFi0G2s1FcLx sI3Ks2AZ14pu1viOXDzPKcevA
quote:
Demota
Genetic studies of the y-chromosome of Igbo men demonstrate that they originated in the Levant basin, sharing genetic links with Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews alike. While there is yet an exhaustive academic genetic study of the Igbos, the data of
the majority of those who have reported their autosomal and y-chromosome DNA, supports that
their ancestors migrated from the Levant Basin into East Africa, and then settled in West Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
@ Jari because we've respectfully and objectively collaborated successfully as colleagues in the past
GOOGLE the below in img return mode (lots more N lots better than 11 yrs ago before that thread vanguarded recognition of the facts on the 'net:
Our Lady of Oropa
Our Lady of Meymac
Our Lady of Le Puy
christ-and-apostles-catacomb-domitilla
ETC as @ The big roundup
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/b/black-madonnas-in-various-countries.php
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Sad a good page (on the Black Madonnas of Europe ),that some what relates to this topic has lost almost all of its rare images
Images of Black Madonnas and Dark skinned Christ and 12 Apostles..
Even the link to the Catacomb Art of Early Christians is dead...such good info lost forever...
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002408;p=3
quote:Igbo not Jews reveals DNA report
Igbo not Jews, reveals DNA report
PRESIDENT of Jewish Voice Ministries, Rabbi Jonathan Bernis, yesterday announced that the DNA test result of saliva samples taken in Nnewi, to determine whether Igbo were Jews or not was not positive in the first run.
Saliva samples were collected from Igbo community for Y25, DNA test on February 6 and 7, 2017 in Nnewi Anambra State.
Bernis who read the report from a laboratory based in Houston, Texas, United States of America said the result of the samples taken from Nigeria randomly on some people in Igboland bear no semblance with the ones in the data base of the laboratory.
The Israeli, in company of three of his compatriots said none of the 124 specimens taken from Nigeria matched the samples in the Houston laboratory which is as old as 17 years in DNA business.
quote:Preliminary phylogenetics: Hausas, Igbos and Yorubas of Nigeria are closely related, and are externally related to Guinea, but are not closely related to Egypt, Israeli-Jews or Saudi-Arabia.
The Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo and Fulani are arguably the first to fourth largest ethnic groups of Nigeria respectively. Forensic genotyping of Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) are used in creation of Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) databases and in evaluation of ancestral relationships between ethnic groups. This study computed Alleles Frequencies and phylogenetics of autosomal STRs in Fulanis and Yorubas resident in Ilorin, Kwara State and North-Central of Nigeria, and further compared the results with computed Alleles Frequencies of ethnic groups within and outside Nigeria and Africa. Samples of unrelated 25 Fulani males and 23 Yoruba males whose ethnicity were confirmed by three generations (paternal and maternal) were collected with informed consent. The samples were amplified using SureID®-21G PCR Amplification Kit containing Amelogenin and 20 autosomal STR loci: CSF1PO, D1S1656, D12S11, D12S391, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D19S433, D2S1338, D3S1358, D5S818, D6S1043, D7S820, D8S1179, FGA, PENTA D, PENTA E, TH01, TPOX and vWA; and genotyped subsequent to capillary electrophoresis. Phylogenetics analyses of Alleles Frequencies suggested that Hausas, Igbos and Yorubas are closely related, and are externally related to Guinea. Furthermore, neither Hausa nor Yoruba ethnic group is closely related to Egypt or Saudi-Arabia, and Igbos are not closely related to Israeli-Jews.
quote:***
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I mistakenly said geneticist because I remembered reading in his letter of endorsement (written by Tudor Parfitt) that he employs the usage of genetics and genealogies to arrive at findings. But he is in fact an anthropologist and ethnologist, and does in fact use genetics to come to conclusions.
So he is a scientist by definition, and not a promoter of "fantasies" as archeotypery was trying to lie and imply.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
We already discussed this before in another thread. I showed you the following document, and then you moved the goalpost.
According to the ruling by his organization, Y-DNA was a determining factor in reaching the conclusion that the Igbo are Israelites.
If DeMota went by the mother as you are saying, then he would not have mentioned anything about Y-DNA in the document.
The document also says nothing about mDNA.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a98cbc3b40b9da93f7c5126/t/61f35b8ad59d991291cab3fa/1643338634761/Teshubah-on-Igbo-Israelites.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1jMPxEjhcJoeCEha0-fhlFi0G2s1FcLx sI3Ks2AZ14pu1viOXDzPKcevA
quote:False,
Originally posted by Tazarah:
different genetic markers cannot descend from each other.
quote:.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
That's not what I was talking about, this is a strawman argument.
Can you show where haplogroup E transformed into J, T, or anything else?
Good luck.
J, T, etc., are not descendants of E.
The chart you just posted literally proves that so I have no idea why you posted it; probably because you just wanted to see yourself talk.
quote:yes or no?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
different genetic markers cannot descend from each other.
quote:The Natufian culture dates 15,000 to 11,500 years ago.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
That's not what I was talking about, this is a strawman argument.
Can you show where haplogroup E transformed into J, T, or anything else?
Good luck.
J, T, etc., are not descendants of E.
The chart you just posted literally proves that so I have no idea why you posted it; probably because you just wanted to see yourself talk.
quote:Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 (2021)
Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267
The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene ~ 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Lioness", what Y-marker does this genetic article say proto-semites/proto-afro-asiatics (ancestors of the Israelites) had?
quote:Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 (2021)
Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267
The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene ~ 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.
code:AM BCE Event
2108 1653 Ya`aqob is born
2171 1590 Leah & Rahhel are born
2207 1554 12 Tribes & Diynah
2216 1545 Yosef is sold (begin the Bondage)
2229 1532 Yosef as Vizier of Egypt
2309 1452 Yosef was 110 years old
2368 1393 Moshe is born
2448 1313 Exodus (end of Bondage; 400 years up
2488 1273 End 40 year Wandering (Jericho)
2488 1273 Crossing of the Jordan
2515 1246 Yehoshu`a was 110
2655 1106 Deborah (± 20 yrs prophetess)
2821 940 Shimshon (± 10 yrs judge)
2871 890 Sh*muel (prophet / judge)
2882 879 Kingdom of Judah established
2904 857 Dawiyd (± 20 yrs king)
2944 817 Sh*lomo (± 20 yrs emperor
2964 797 Kingdom of Yisrael secedes
3038 723 Eliyahu (± 4.5 yrs
3069 693 Yehu (± 14 yrs Melek Yisrael
3189 572 Yeshayahu (± 22.5 yrs prophet
3205 556 Yisrael scattered
quote:
In addition to the local ancestry from Epipaleolithic/Neolithic people, we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners (orange component in Figure 1B; Table 1). Previous studies showed that this ancestry was not present in the Levant during the Neolithic period but appeared in the Bronze Age where ∼50% of the local ancestry was replaced by a population carrying ancient Iran-related ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2016). We explored whether this ancestry penetrated both the Levant and Arabia at the same time and found that admixture dates mostly followed a North to South cline, with the oldest admixture occurring in the Levant region between 3,300 and 5,900 ya (Table S2), followed by admixture in Arabia (2,000–3,500 ya) and East Africa (2,100–3,300 ya). These times overlap with the dates for the Bronze Age origin and spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa estimated from lexical data (Kitchen et al., 2009; Figure 2). This population potentially introduced the Y chromosome haplogroup J1 into the region (Chiaroni et al., 2010; Lazaridis et al., 2016). The majority of the J1 haplogroup chromosomes in our dataset coalesce around ∼5.6 (95% CI, 4.8–6.5) kya, agreeing with a potential Bronze Age expansion;
quote:
Second, an allele at rs1426654 in the SLC24A5 gene which is one of the most important determinants of light pigmentation in West Eurasians41 is fixed for the derived allele (A) in the Levant_ChL population suggesting that a light skinned phenotype may have been common in this population
quote:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9
We highlight three findings of interest. First, an allele (G) at rs12913832 near the OCA2 gene, with a proven association to blue eye color in individuals of European descent40, has an estimated alternative allele frequency of 49% in the Levant_ChL population, suggesting that the blue-eyed phenotype was common in the Levant_ChL.
quote:Thank you for confirming this. Another certain individual who is ignorant of the topic tried to label me as a racist for saying this and also rejected information from a jewish source that directly said this.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Beyond them biblical leprosy accounts for white skin in Israel. Instances are recounted in a couple of books in the Nakh collection.
quote:Chalcolithic 4500–3500 BC
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I don't know why it's so hard for certain individuals to understand the fact that ancient proto-semites or proto-afro-asiatics had a certain Y marker and that the people whom they claim to be Jews/Israelites do not descend from them.
quote:Kingdom of Israel (1047 BCE–930 BC )
Originally posted by Tukuler:
there was no Israel in the Chalcolithic.
People need to pay attention to Hebrew timeline when grasping at straw DNA identities for ancient Israel.
There are no samples from anyone of either the United Monarchy, the Kingdom of Israel, or the Kingdom of Judah, none of which existed during the timeframe of the samples.
quote:No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews
No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews
...Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region.
quote:exactly they always think we're trying to depict ancient jews as some kind of europeans meanwhile they were similar to modern levantines which implies a certain diversity in pigmentation.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
No one insists of a purely "white" ancient Israel, meaning in some Northern European way. But it was not either a "black" civilisation. Believe it or not there are actually more skin tones than only black and white.
quote:If we go to the bible
Originally posted by Antalas:
Stop trying to push the "black" narrative no jews was ever black nor similar physically to blacks like you.
We have their DNA results and they were similar to modern levantines who are not "white" nor european.
Do not also avoid the fact that they can easily tan ; here palestinian bedouins :
quote:Tacitus said the Jews were ethiopians as well. As do plenty other historical documents, I've even referenced a lot of them. Antalas, archeotypery, and "lioness" run from all of them and instead try to misrepresent DNA
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Flavious Josephus, Celsus, Tacitus, and Eusebius, believed that the original
Hebrew people were Ethiopians (Africans) and Egyptians who were forced to
migrate to the land of Canaan.
quote:I actually posted a more recent article about the Ashkenazi Jews that said they have ancestry both from the Middle East and Europe. But Tazarah probably did not notice that. He only reads what he perceives as supporting his own opinion.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
I hope everyone notices how arch completely deflected and ran away from the genetic source that confirms the people who he believes are Jews/Israelites are actually the descendants of converts.
Since he wanted to play games with Y-DNA and pretend that the ancestors of the Israelites did not have haplogroup E, I had to hit him over the head with a genetic study that said word for word that the people he claims are Israelites are actually converts.
Game over
quote:https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol/vol85/iss6/9/
No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews
...Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations , and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region.
quote:This is 2020. These are the ancestors closest to The Israelite period
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Kingdom of Israel (1047 BCE–930 BC )
the Kingdom of Judah (930 BCE 587 BC)
The below is Bronze Age, so closer
to the time period to the 2 kingdoms than the Chalcolithic
2020 article here, one of the Supplement files
close in time period to the two kingdoms
Not much coverage for the matriarchal, some H some U some J
The Y Chromosome is a combination including haplogroup J, E1b1b, T and R1b
these are typical for modern Jews also
These could be the ancestors of the Israelites
quote:As I schooled you before E comes form D/E
Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ according to the lioness, E doesn't come from E anymore.
quote:I'll tell you a 4th time I just posted a 2020 article with ancient remains including E
Originally posted by Tazarah:
If the ancestors of the Israelites had E, which they did, then the Israelites must have some clade of E.
quote:No, there is no proof the Israelites are descendants of the Natufians you are lying
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] J, T, R, etc., do not trace back to the ancestors of the Israelites (natufians) which means it's impossible for any of those markers to be Israelite, according to genetic fact.
quote:It doesn't matter
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] "Lioness" and arch; can you guys please tell me what Y-marker this genetic study says the first afro-asiatic populations had?
quote:No, for the 300th time
Originally posted by Tazarah:
So E turned into something else as time went on.
Is this what you're saying?
quote:It doesn't matter, in this subject who proto Asiatics were
Originally posted by Tazarah:
If the first proto-asiatics had E, can you provide a genetic source showing that E split into the Y markers that you are claiming Israelites had?
Ready, set, go
quote:where's a quote of him excluding E?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
He's trying to exclude E
quote:what is the location of the first afro-asiatic speakers ?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The first afro-asiatics had haplogroup E.
quote:You are a real time waster
Originally posted by Tazarah:
the Israelites had some clade of E. Genetic fact
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Israelites were afro-asiatics.
The first afro-asiatics had haplogroup E. So the Israelites had some clade of E. Genetic fact
You can try to play games about the natufians but the first afro-asiatics undeniably had E, and so should their descendants
Regardless of how much time in between
So unless you can demonstrate E splitting into something else like J, T, etc., I can't take you seriously
And neither will anyone else who actually knows the basics of genetics
quote:The Israelites were comprised of different tribes including people carrying E, J, T and R
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Show me E splitting into J, T or anything else.
quote:E , J , T and R all have a common ancestor, Haplogroup CT
Originally posted by Tazarah:
What in the hell? This is a joke right
So you admit J, T and R have no relation to E at all. Correct
quote:
‘Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful
Ham was blessed black like the raven …”
The above written between the 1st to 2nd century AD by Rabbi Eli`ezer of Israel, from the Pirqe, pereq 24 – cited by Yafeu Taom ha Levi (of the Resource Center for African Jews in America)
quote:
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
according to the bible's genealogy for Abram, there is no way for her skin to be white. This is against the book itself, and some of you must not read the bible.
Shem was black...
Ashur: Probably from shachar; black; Ashchur, an Israelite — Ashur.
Names in ancient times often represented physical features or unique characteristics that an individual displayed. This name could indicate this individual was an extremely dark-skinned individual.
In the biblical narrative, Sarah is the wife of Abraham. In two places in the narrative he says Sarah is his sister (Genesis 12:10 through 13:1, in the encounter with Pharaoh, and Genesis 20, in the encounter with Abimelech)
quote:
‘Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful
Ham was blessed black like the raven …”
The above written between the 1st to 2nd century AD by Rabbi Eli`ezer of Israel, from the Pirqe, pereq 24 – cited by Yafeu Taom ha Levi (of the Resource Center for African Jews in America)
quote:Earlier you said there's no proof the Natufians are the ancestors of the Israelites, you said that it was speculation, and called me a liar.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ we see here some Natufians were CT, not just E
The Israelites were comprised of different tribes including people carrying E, J, T and R
the ancestor of all these groups is CT
With no CT,
E, J, T and R would not exist
quote:The Natufians were of haplogroup CT the parent of E and E
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Earlier you said there's no proof the Natufians are the ancestors of the Israelites, you said that it was speculation, and called me a liar.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
see here some Natufians were CT, not just E
The Israelites were comprised of different tribes including people carrying E, J, T and R
the ancestor of all these groups is CT
With no CT,
E, J, T and R would not exist
Now you are double talking and saying they are because you're trying to form an argument that you believe will support your position.
Caught red-handed. This is why I refuse to take you seriously
quote:google
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ never lists sources or URLs
quote:And?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Tazarah I have noticed you do a lot of cheerleading "you go girl" type posts
quote:** And then doubled down:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ we see here some Natufians were CT, not just E
The Israelites were comprised of different tribes including people carrying E, J, T and R
the ancestor of all these groups is CT
With no CT,
E, J, T and R would not exist
quote:But the CT haplogroup given to the Natufian samples was just a placeholder. Further examination determined that the CT was actually E1b.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Natufians were of haplogroup CT the parent of E and E
quote:stop playin
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The whole " you go girl " comment was blatantly racist! RACIST
quote:All E haplogroup carriers are descendants of CT
Originally posted by Tazarah:
* "Lioness" said it once:
quote:** And then doubled down:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ we see here some Natufians were CT, not just E
The Israelites were comprised of different tribes including people carrying E, J, T and R
the ancestor of all these groups is CT
With no CT,
E, J, T and R would not exist
quote:But the CT haplogroup given to the Natufian samples was just a placeholder. Further examination determined that the CT was actually E1b.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Natufians were of haplogroup CT the parent of E and E
Notice how wikipedia has been updated and only includes E paternal markers for all of the Natufian samples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
So... "Lioness" is wrong, again
quote:^^ see this
Originally posted by Tazarah:
According to geneticists, paternal Y-DNA haplogroup J (the most common in modern jewish people) does not have Levantine origins and assimilated into afro-asiatic (semitic) culture. This eliminates them from being ethnic Israelites by blood.
********* CASE CLOSED. *********
quote:https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/39/2/msac017/6516020
Apart from those described above, the majority (n = 11) of other East African PN samples were placed in E1b1b1b2b-V1515 lineages (fig. 3D), a sub lineage of E1b1b1b2-Z830 found in the Levantine proto-agriculturalist Natufians and a pre-pottery Neolithic B Levantine sample (Lazaridis et al. 2016), sister to E1b1b1b2a-Z1145 lineages still found in the Middle East. A subset of those East African PN (n = 7) were further assigned to the E1b1b1b2b2a1-M293 lineage, which is a descendant of the Northeast African E1b1b1b2b-V1515 (Trombetta et al. 2015) and has been proposed to be associated with the spread of pastoralism from East to South Africa (Henn et al. 2008; Prendergast et al. 2019). In our data set, this clade is represented by Bantu from Kenya and South Africa, one Maasai and two Luhya individuals from Kenya. Additionally, one early pastoral and two Pastoral Iron Age individuals from Tanzania were placed in the E2a-M41 clade (supplementary fig. S6, Supplementary Material online)
quote:
After the fall of the kingdom of Judah, Judaism (the Israelite religion) continued to be open to Gentile converts. The book of Esther mentions one such occasion.
“In every province and city, wherever the king’s command and decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a holiday. Then many of the people of the land became Jews, because fear of the Jews fell upon them” (8:17 nkjv).
Soon after the conversions described in Esther, Alexander’s conquests established a common Hellenistic culture around the Mediterranean, exposing pagans to Jewish religion and lifestyle. Judaism became a vibrant missionary faith. Many thousands of Gentiles became God-fearers and converts.2
quote:Do you read the bible?
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Once again:
The people closest in time and place to the ancient Israelites where the people from the 2020 study. They had these E clads:
E1b1b1b2a1
E1b1b1b2a1a
E1b1b1b2a1
Most of them were J and some were T and R
The article from 2020 also concluded that they were closely related to todays Jews and Arabs.
Taking all that into consideration one could infer that the biblical Israelites were close to these peoples.
But we need more samples from securely identified Israelite human remains to be absolutely 100% sure.
This is what we scientifically know. Not what mythological books teach.
Or maybe we should analyze the ancestry of Polyphemos in the Odyssey too?
quote:They are completely delusional and black diaspora like the one in the US do not have the localist tradition from which to derive identity, and are swamped in the dynamics of states, empires, history, and accomplishments from an early age to explain their context. They need North Africa and the Middle East to maintain their world view. It really doesn't matter because their delusion falls apart with the slightest amount of knowledge and critical thinking. I've literally posted the genetic results of these ancient levantine populations yet they are still discussing biblical myths and semantics and try to project their american label unto what ancient people perceived as "black".
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Sometimes I wonder how some Afrocentrics imagine the ancient Israelites. One get the impression they think of the Israelites as some kind of African or black enclave in the Levant surrounded by genetically and phenotypically different peoples (except maybe the Egyptians).
Then at some point in history they disappear from the Levant and are replaced by other peoples, light skinned converts and others.
One gets the impression they maybe envision for example king Solomon like this:
(photo James C Lewis)
quote:You live in the Netherlands, please dude. Your identity is tenous. Do you speak Arabic? Well that is not your native language.. Do You speak English, that isn't it either. Did you learn to speak Dutch?
Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:They are completely delusional and black diaspora like the one in the US do not have the localist tradition from which to derive identity, and are swamped in the dynamics of states, empires, history, and accomplishments from an early age to explain their context. They need North Africa and the Middle East to maintain their world view. It really doesn't matter because their delusion falls apart with the slightest amount of knowledge and critical thinking. I've literally posted the genetic results of these ancient levantine populations yet they are still discussing biblical myths and semantics and try to project their american label unto what ancient people perceived as "black".
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Sometimes I wonder how some Afrocentrics imagine the ancient Israelites. One get the impression they think of the Israelites as some kind of African or black enclave in the Levant surrounded by genetically and phenotypically different peoples (except maybe the Egyptians).
Then at some point in history they disappear from the Levant and are replaced by other peoples, light skinned converts and others.
One gets the impression they maybe envision for example king Solomon like this:
(photo James C Lewis)
No scientific data supports the idea of black egyptians, black moors, black carthaginians, black canaanites, black native american or whatever else. This is why they only rely on some dubious testimonies from the XIXth or XVIIIth century or start to take at face value any mention of "black" or "dark" in ancient literature.
quote:Because it is estimated that
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
[QB] "The Israelites don't have to all come from E."
So which is it? If all Israelites don't have to descend from E and can be J, T & R...
Then why not E1b1a?
Why only exclude West Africans from being Jews?
quote:I think you just told on yourself
Originally posted by Antalas:
I don't live in The Netherlands nor is there any one- drop rule here but ok...
quote:I never said Natufians weren't ancestors of the Israelites. Stop lying
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @the "lioness"
CT is just a placeholder for the Natufians, it's not their actual haplogroup. More studies are on the way that will further confirm this just like with the other "CT" that was actually E.
This is like why wikipedia has since been updated now says nothing about CT.
Asheknazi jewish people have J markers, and J descends from CT. If CT were the actual Y-DNA marker of the Natufian then this 2017 study wouldn't have came out saying that ashkenazi jewish people have non-Levantine origins and are not related to the Natufians.
It's no wonder that handfuls of genetic sources only say that proto-semites had E markers, and not CT, J, T, or anything else.
E is also noted as being responsible for distribution of afro-asiatic languages. J is not, and assimilated into E culture and territory.
At first you were saying the Natufians weren't ancestors of the Israelites, now you're saying they are because you're trying to push this pseudo CT argument that doesn't even make sense when you add everything up
quote:again you are lying again
Originally posted by Tazarah:
J is not, and assimilated into E culture and territory.
quote:CT doesn't matter
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] Now you're backpedaling. You've spent plenty of time trying to discredit the Natufians as being ancestors of the Israelites and now you're trying to argue that one of them had CT so you can insert J, T, R and whatever else into their lineage.
Let's get straight to the point, can you reference any studies confirming that proto-semites or proto-afro-asiatics had any Y markers other than E, like how I've cited material unequivocally stating they had E?
quote:^^^Facts
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:CT doesn't matter
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] Now you're backpedaling. You've spent plenty of time trying to discredit the Natufians as being ancestors of the Israelites and now you're trying to argue that one of them had CT so you can insert J, T, R and whatever else into their lineage.
Let's get straight to the point, can you reference any studies confirming that proto-semites or proto-afro-asiatics had any Y markers other than E, like how I've cited material unequivocally stating they had E?
proto-semites don't matter
proto-afro-asiatics don't matter
All that matters is who were the biblical Israelites
because they came thousands of years after the origins of these languages, these hypothetical protos
So to talk about the origin of Semitic languages is a separate topic and try to divert by talking about it is called a red herring
It is simple to answer who the biblical Israelites were. You find some of their human remains and examine them.
It's that simple
And the next best thing to having their remains is having remains slightly before them
and the found such remains
and their DNA was tested in 2020 and their DNA was E, J, T and R
quote:E did not split into J, T, R, it does not work that way. But for example J can replace E (or at least become more dominant) in a population.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
If the two of you can't demonstrate E (haplogroup of the proto-semites) splitting into J, T, R or anything else, then that means you are pseudo gaslighters.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
You keep making strawman arguments, of course the Israelites did not exist yet but their ANCESTORS did...
Now let me get this straight: proto-semites (ancestors of the Israelites) had haplogroup E.
J, T, R, etc., are not related to E.
So are you admitting that Y markers which have no relation to that of proto-semites, let alone semites, gave birth to a semitic population?
LOL!!!
quote:All these peoples are ancestors to Israelites, otherwise you would not find their genetic markers among Israelites (or to be correct, Canaanites).
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Can you please answer this, so that I can have your answer on record?
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
You keep making strawman arguments, of course the Israelites did not exist yet but their ANCESTORS did...
Now let me get this straight: proto-semites (ancestors of the Israelites) had haplogroup E.
J, T, R, etc., are not related to E.
So are you admitting that Y markers which have no relation to that of proto-semites, let alone semites, gave birth to a semitic population?
LOL!!!
quote:^^ Agreed
Originally posted by the lioness,:
proto-semites don't matter
proto-afro-asiatics don't matter
All that matters is who were the biblical Israelites
because they came thousands of years after the origins of these languages, these hypothetical protos
So to talk about the origin of Semitic languages is a separate topic and try to divert by talking about it is called a red herring
It is simple to answer who the biblical Israelites were. You find some of their human remains and test their DNA
It's that simple
And the next best thing to having their remains is having remains slightly before them
and they found such remains
and their DNA was tested in 2020 and their DNA was E, J, T and R
quote:What an idiot!!! Do you know how many white jewish people have E markers? What a trolling failure
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why didn't they find anybody E1b1a ?
probably because E1b1a people had settled in the Western half of Africa below the North far before
the biblical Israelites
and the fact that they don't speak Afro-Asiatic?Semitic languages further attests to this although Mali has a sizable Arabic speaking population
Archeopteryx agrees E, J, T and R are most likely the Israelite tribes DNA because the remains found are close in time period to them, yet before them
within E1b1b includes a lot of black Africans and some in the sub-Sahara
But Tazarah is hell-bent on excluding as many white Jews as he can
That's his goal
To me any West African who practices Judaism is a Jew but he insist on this DNA stuff
The problem is that if you look at E, J, T and R
the Israelites wee were only a tiny tiny portion of each of those "tribes"
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:What an idiot!!! Do you know how many white jewish people have E markers? What a trolling failure
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why didn't they find anybody E1b1a ?
probably because E1b1a people had settled in the Western half of Africa below the North far before
the biblical Israelites
and the fact that they don't speak Afro-Asiatic?Semitic languages further attests to this although Mali has a sizable Arabic speaking population
Archeopteryx agrees E, J, T and R are most likely the Israelite tribes DNA because the remains found are close in time period to them, yet before them
within E1b1b includes a lot of black Africans and some in the sub-Sahara
But Tazarah is hell-bent on excluding as many white Jews as he can
That's his goal
To me any West African who practices Judaism is a Jew but he insist on this DNA stuff
The problem is that if you look at E, J, T and R
the Israelites wee were only a tiny tiny portion of each of those "tribes"
And do you know how many BLACK people I am also excluding by sticking to the data, which restricts semites to E?
And there you go trying to exclude E1b1a from their parent lineage (E1b1) again, while crying about me trying to exlude people.
The problem is you are a pseudo hypocrite, and the data is on my side. I'm not pulling any of this out of my ass, but you are.
You're such a pseudo hypocrite, you have no problem with arch excluding black people from being Jews/Israelites but want to cry when I reference data?
LOL.
quote:I question the intelligence of someone who complains about E3a (aka E1b1a) being excluded
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Archeotypery just basically admit that people who did not have the same ancestry as the Israelites MIXED into the culture... meaning they do not descend from the same people as the Israelites and were not related to the Israelites, although they mixed in.
Kind of sounds like what I've been saying all along.
The craziest part is he's now trying to act like I never said it.
You guys wonder why I always re-post relevant sources, and this is a prime example of why. You people DO NOT READ
Read the parts highlighted in red, then pay close attention to the yellow.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Lioness" is such a lying pseudo hypocrite: he accuses me of trying to "exclude as many white jews as possible" simply because I cite genetic articles saying that proto-semites and their descendants had E.
PLENTY of white jewish people have E markers, so they are not excluded.
Archeotypery and antalas on the other hand try to exclude ALL BLACK PEOPLE from being Jews/Israelites
They constantly post BS like this in the thread/forum and "Lioness" is NOWHERE to be found when they say it and never complains, "Lioness" only pokes his head out and starts to cry when Tazarah says Semites had E, which is a genetic fact backed by scholastic data.
quote:You can't exclude E because you would have to exclude yourself, you are on a mission to exclude
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] "Lioness" is such a lying pseudo hypocrite: he accuses me of trying to "exclude as many white jews as possible" simply because I cite genetic articles saying that proto-semites and their descendants had E.
PLENTY of white jewish people have E markers, so they are not excluded.
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ E1b1a is the direct descendant of a E1b1, and one of the natufian samples were E1b1.
Thus, E1b1a is semitic.
Not too long ago you were trying to say J, T and R were related to the Natufians because you thought it had CT.
Now you're abandoning that logic and trying to separate E1b1a from it's parent (E1b1) when you were JUST using that logic to try inserting J, T and R into the Natufian lineage.
LOL, fail.
quote:just you, a dog chasing it's tail
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Are we really going in circles?
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Lioness" is such a lying pseudo hypocrite: he accuses me of trying to "exclude as many white jews as possible" simply because I cite genetic articles saying that proto-semites and their descendants had E.
PLENTY of white jewish people have E markers, so they are not excluded.
Archeotypery and antalas on the other hand try to exclude ALL BLACK PEOPLE from being Jews/Israelites
They constantly post BS like this in the thread/forum and "Lioness" is NOWHERE to be found when they say it and never complains, "Lioness" only pokes his head out and starts to cry when Tazarah says Semites had E, which is a genetic fact backed by scholastic data.
quote:What do you know about that? Do you know her personally?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Racist and hypocritical white man prentending to be a black woman award of the year goes to....
quote:Because a Semitic people (Canaanites) had J.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
How is J semitic when proto-semites had E?
quote:Not true because I've literally referenced genetic articles that say proto-afro-asiatic populations (proto-semites) had E markers. And it wasn't referring to language.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Semitic is a group of languages. There are no Semitic genes or a Semitic race. Same with Indoeuropean languages, there are no Indoeuropean race. The only thing is that some genes are more common among certain languages, because these languages originated in a certain area. But nothing hinders people to change language, or mix with each other.
And if Canaanites were not a Semitic people then Israelites were not either since Israelites most probably descended from Canaanites.
quote:J is not semetic KORRECK
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Not true because I've literally referenced genetic articles that say proto-afro-asiatic populations (proto-semites) had E markers. And it wasn't referring to language.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Semitic is a group of languages. There are no Semitic genes or a Semitic race. Same with Indoeuropean languages, there are no Indoeuropean race. The only thing is that some genes are more common among certain languages, because these languages originated in a certain area. But nothing hinders people to change language, or mix with each other.
And if Canaanites were not a Semitic people then Israelites were not either since Israelites most probably descended from Canaanites.
The term Semite is literally dealing with a bloodline. The suffix "ite" denotes lineage.
And I've referenced multiple sources showing that J is not semitic as well.
quote:Good source
Originally posted by Tazarah:
And continuing to follow that logic, tomorrow I'm going to decide to be central asian (2200-1700 BC) simply because E1b1a was found there.
quote:Exactly. My speaking english does not make my ancestors european.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
You talk English, does that mean you do not have African ancestors?
quote:The OP was really about a c 2000 year old writing that described Sarahs white complexion. Obviously the author of that book imagined Sarah as white. If she really was white, black or brown is another subject. Also how the Bible describes her is another subject.
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Ok.. but the title of this thread is the white complexion of Sarah.
We are not talking about all the eventual converts to the "Israelites" we are talking about it's foundational population and culture. Which came to include a late bronze age arriving J & R
Abraham & Sarah, their son Issac whose name was changed to Israel and his son Jacob.
quote:J's were cultlure vultures, raiders and thieves
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Canaanites spoke a Semitic language, still their dominating male haplogroup was J.
Here is the distribution of male haplogroups in the Canaanite samples from the study from 2020. They spoke a Semitic language but J was the dominating male haplogroup.
People can change language when they mix with another people.
quote:Well then the ancient Israelites were not Semitic since they after what we can infer shared their genetics with the Canaanites. Also Jews and Arabs of today share much of that genetic ancestry.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Exactly. My speaking english does not make my ancestors european.
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
You talk English, does that mean you do not have African ancestors?
The canaanites or other J populations speaking semitic languages does not mean their ancestors were Semites.
Just as the genetic sources I've referenced have been saying
quote:
Among the Sephardic Jews, Y chromosomes from a
diverse background can be found. The majority come from
haplogroup J (strongly associated with Middle Eastern
peoples). But others are from E1b1a and E1b1b (common
in Africa and other places), R1a (up to 30% in Ashkenazi
men), R1b (the most common lineage in Europe), Q (Asia),
I (Europe, but rare), and G (mainly Western Asia).6
The
distribution of haplogroups found among the Spanish
Sephardim was similar to a Jewish population in Turkey
(sometimes included within the term ‘Sephardim’). This
pattern also held for Jewish men from NE Portugal. Nearly
one third of the Y chromosomes were European (R1b,
common in Eastern Europe), and over one half were ‘Middle
Eastern’ (37% J and 16% T).7
Note that the ‘Middle Eastern’
chromosomes come from diverse lineages. Thus, all Jewish
men do not all trace back to ‘Jacob/Israel’ and which lineage
might represent him is a matter of debate.
quote:Accad = Akkadian
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
And CUSH begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad , and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city (Genesis 10: 8-12).
quote:The word Cushi or Kushi (Hebrew: כּוּשִׁי Hebrew pronunciation: [kuˈʃi] colloquial: [ˈkuʃi]) is generally used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to a dark-skinned person of African descent, equivalent to Greek Αἰθίοψ "Aithíops".
The Afroasiatic languages (or Afro-Asiatic), also known as Hamito-Semitic ,[2] or Semito-Hamitic,[3] and sometimes also as Afrasian or Erythraean,[4] are a language family of about 300 languages that are spoken predominantly in Western Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of the Sahara/Sahel.[5] With the exception of its Semitic branch, all other branches of the Afroаsiatic family are spoken exclusively on the African continent.
quote:
Abstract
The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic. The Peqi’in population also appears to have contributed differently to later Bronze Age groups, one of which we show cannot plausibly have descended from the same population as that of Peqi’in Cave. These results provide an example of how population movements propelled cultural changes in the deep past.
quote:Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation
We highlight three findings of interest. First, an allele (G) at rs12913832 near the OCA2 gene, with a proven association to blue eye color in individuals of European descent40, has an estimated alternative allele frequency of 49% in the Levant_ChL population, suggesting that the blue-eyed phenotype was common in the Levant_ChL.
Second, an allele at rs1426654 in the SLC24A5 gene which is one of the most important determinants of light pigmentation in West Eurasians41 is fixed for the derived allele (A) in the Levant_ChL population suggesting that a light skinned phenotype may have been common in this population, although any inferences about skin pigmentation based on allele frequencies observed at a single site need to be viewed with caution.
quote:Again... do you read the bible at all?
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
When cultures and people mix, new interesting combinations are often created. Thus in the meeting between Neolithic Levantines and people from the Zagros mountains and the Caucasus, new cultural patterns and new genetic combinations arose. This gave rise to the Canaanite culture and most probably the Israelite culture. New fresh combinations of both thoughts and genes were created. And these cultures have fascinated the world since then.
quote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOdEJPdD6q0
sometimes it's biblical scholars tend to remove cushites from the Hebrew bible from the ancient earth during context and just to kind of go a bit further than what has been discussed here kushites were not even just restricted to to Egypt but that they had a influence as far as the ancient eras as far as in Jerusalem way before David set it up as his kingdom his capital there are cushits mentioned in the amarna letters um as oppressing some of the Canaanite citizens and
they are soldiers are being requested from kush Meluha or kashi to to to defend or protect
many of these um sites many of these cities from the um from incursions from from from uh foreign groups and and groups uh that were were threatening the Canaanites so the roof for example so the new presence was not just um in Nubia and in Egypt but extend beyond that those borders into the ancient near east in significant ways especially uh as uh in the new kingdom uh rather especially in the napatan period in the 25th dynasty when we have uh taharka and the Nubian pharaohs which are recognized in the bible as the pharaohs as pharaohs of Egypt making uh a bid for the for for control uh with Assyria for the ancient areas uh for the Levant and there's conflicts between these these groups Nubia
was at its height that it's zenith at this particular point and was a significant power that in many ways and many scholars would say even rescued or came to the rest of Jerusalem and potentially negotiated peace settlement that saw the preservation of Jerusalem at a critical historical period so we see Nubian not merely um in the Egyptian scene but beyond that and um you know exerting influence into as far as into the ancient near east into the Levant
quote:Why are you here?
Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes, one wonders why so many people are so obsessed with Egypt and the Middle East but often show less interest for the West African cultures that many African Americans descend from. And why spend endless time on a few West African Jews when the traditional native religions are so fascinating and intriguing?
quote:who cares about the "proto Semites"?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Antalas; can you quote a genetic source saying "proto-semites had haplogroup J" like how how I've quoted a genetic source saying proto-semites had haplogroup E" ?
quote:Taz, is this true, that the Israelites didn't come from Israel ?
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The Biblical Israelites were from Egypt
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Of course it's true. The Israelite nation was birthed in Egypt amongst the Egyptians. AKA the land of Ham in the Bible, which is Africa.
That's why it's extremely laughable how you keep trying to say Israelites or proto-Semites had J, which originated in the CAUCUSUS.
quote:
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The Biblical Israelites were from Egypt
quote:what about this?
Exodus 1:13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:
14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.
quote:Not sure I understand your question. The Israelites were in Egypt for over 400 years and for about half of that time they were slaves to the Egyptians
Originally posted by the lioness,:
what about this?
why is reference to Israel being made ?
quote:
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The Biblical Israelites were from Egypt [/QB]
quote:So the Israelites arrived to
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] *** ISRAELITES ARRIVING IN EGYPT (70 TOTAL):
quote:you just said
Originally posted by Tazarah:
They didn't end up going to Israel until after they left from Egypt
quote:This!
Originally posted by Tazarah:
They didn't end up going to Israel until after they left from Egypt
quote:where did the 70 people called Israelites who came to Egypt come from right before arriving in Egypt?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] P.S. just because they were called "Israelites" before arriving in Egypt doesn't mean they came from Israel.
quote:Facts. Yet they try to tell us who the people in the Bible are or aren't. Archeotypery, antalas and the "lioness" don't even believe in the Bible
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
This!
These people don't read the Bible,
quote:Facts! They are ASSUMING the Bible must be about white folks..
Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Facts. Yet they try to tell us who the people in the Bible are or aren't. Archeotypery, antalas and the "lioness" don't even believe in the Bible
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
This!
These people don't read the Bible,
"Lioness" is just trolling at this point
quote:I've already posted it but you ignored it and fled
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Antalas; can you quote a genetic source saying "proto-semites had haplogroup J" like how how I've quoted a genetic source saying proto-semites had haplogroup E" ?
quote:
In addition to the local ancestry from Epipaleolithic/Neolithic people, we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners (orange component in Figure 1B; Table 1). Previous studies showed that this ancestry was not present in the Levant during the Neolithic period but appeared in the Bronze Age where ∼50% of the local ancestry was replaced by a population carrying ancient Iran-related ancestry (Lazaridis et al., 2016). We explored whether this ancestry penetrated both the Levant and Arabia at the same time and found that admixture dates mostly followed a North to South cline, with the oldest admixture occurring in the Levant region between 3,300 and 5,900 ya (Table S2), followed by admixture in Arabia (2,000–3,500 ya) and East Africa (2,100–3,300 ya). These times overlap with the dates for the Bronze Age origin and spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa estimated from lexical data (Kitchen et al., 2009; Figure 2). This population potentially introduced the Y chromosome haplogroup J1 into the region (Chiaroni et al., 2010; Lazaridis et al., 2016). The majority of the J1 haplogroup chromosomes in our dataset coalesce around ∼5.6 (95% CI, 4.8–6.5) kya, agreeing with a potential Bronze Age expansion;
quote:where did the 70 people called Israelites who came to Egypt come from right before arriving in Egypt?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The certified troll "lioness" can't stop begging for my attention and lying about what I believe
Elamites, arabs, persians, etc., were/are semitic but are not hebrews or Israelites
Why are you so obsessed with me, and lying about what I believe?
Are you going to call arch and antalas out for trying to exlcude all black people from being Jews or Israelites?
Or do you FOR SOME REASON only have a problem with what Tazarah says and believes, because I'm black and identify as a Jew?
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Racist and hypocritical white man pretending to be a black woman award of the year goes to....
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Lioness" is such a lying pseudo hypocrite: he accuses me of trying to "exclude as many white jews as possible" simply because I cite genetic articles saying that proto-semites and their descendants had E.
PLENTY of white jewish people have E markers, so they are not excluded.
Archeotypery and antalas on the other hand try to exclude ALL BLACK PEOPLE from being Jews/Israelites
They constantly post BS like this in the thread/forum and "Lioness" is NOWHERE to be found when they say it and never complains, "Lioness" only pokes his head out and starts to cry when Tazarah says Semites had E, which is a genetic fact backed by scholastic data.
quote:were they native Egyptians?
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The Biblical Israelites were from Egypt [/QB]
quote:You mean like how when I'm talking to antalas/archeotypery, and you respond and attack me for "excluding people" when I wasn't even talking to you in the first place?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
This dude is talking to you and I am supposed to respond, and I'm the one begging for attention?
I have already stated numerous times, the E3b that is carried by some of the world's Jewish populations originates in East and North Africa and includes black African people
by the way
where did the 70 people called Israelites who came to Egypt come from right before arriving in Egypt?
quote:Read the Bible all that simple info is right in Genesis
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:where did the 70 people called Israelites who came to Egypt come from right before arriving in Egypt?
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The certified troll "lioness" can't stop begging for my attention and lying about what I believe
Elamites, arabs, persians, etc., were/are semitic but are not hebrews or Israelites
Why are you so obsessed with me, and lying about what I believe?
Are you going to call arch and antalas out for trying to exlcude all black people from being Jews or Israelites?
Or do you FOR SOME REASON only have a problem with what Tazarah says and believes, because I'm black and identify as a Jew?
quote:We know that some central figures in the biblical account have Egyptian names: Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Hophni, Merari, Pashhur, Hur, All eight such names, belong to Levites.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:were they native Egyptians? [/QB]
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The Biblical Israelites were from Egypt
quote:were the biblical Israelites native Egyptians though?
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:We know that some central figures in the biblical account have Egyptian names: Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Hophni . All eight such names, belong to Levites. [/QB]
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:were they native Egyptians?
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The Biblical Israelites were from Egypt
quote:Was Ydna J or R native Canaanites, Israelites or original Semetic speakers?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:were the biblical Israelites native Egyptians though? [/QB]
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:We know that some central figures in the biblical account have Egyptian names: Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Hophni . All eight such names, belong to Levites.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:were they native Egyptians?
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
The Biblical Israelites were from Egypt
quote:I asked you first I need yes or no please,
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Was Ydna J or R native Canaanites, Israelites or original Semetic speakers?
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
West Africans practiced their own native African religions until the spread of Islam gradually beginning around the 9th century AD.
Reading the bible in West Africa began around the
19th century
quote:Europeans who purported to have discover Judeo-Christian traditions in West Africa had a colonial agenda.
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
And?
You know, Joseph John Williams a white man, PHD, Christian knew more about the Bible/Hebrews/Jews than you @lioness troll. I bet because he read the Bible he knew how to identify Hebrew practices, and at the time training in classics was de rigour.
quote:Have you read the book, Hebrewisms of West Africa, from the Nile to Niger with the Jews?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Europeans who purported to have discover Judeo- Christian traditions in West Africa had a colonial agenda. The idea was>
Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
And?
You know, Joseph John Williams a white man, PHD, Christian knew more about the Bible/Hebrews/Jews than you @lioness troll. I bet because he read the Bible he knew how to identify Hebrew practices, and at the time training in classics was de rigour.
your traditional African religions
are not really African
You (Africans) are actually part of the religion "we" practice, Christianity
You are not on our par of course but you still are part of our first book, Jews.
That's a good start now you just have to learn the bible book 1 and 2 and be saved by Jesus.
Isn't it fabulous that "we" discovered who you are.
Read the Ashanti's account of their own religion >
https://www.ashantibiz.com/religious-ideology-of-asantes/
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The debate is over. Lisa just referenced a DNA study that confirms Sephardic Jews had E1b1a
quote:Deflect and Distract is the name of the Lioness Troll's game.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
@Yatunde Lisa
Notice how "Lioness" is running away from that DNA study that says Sephardic Jews had E1b1a.
"Lioness" tried so hard to separate Sephardic Jews from AA's and now "lioness" has major egg on his face
quote:No, 3 days ago I thought to myself, let them think Sephardi go by the the father. just let them fantasize
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Took you 3 days to come up with
quote:Please get it right
Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] OK then by your goal post moving logic, all J Sephardic jewish people had non-jewish fathers. See how that works?
quote:Until human remains carrying E1b1a are found in Israel at or close to the time period of the biblical Israelites there is no evidence of the biblical Israelites carrying this group
Originally posted by Tazarah:
After finding out they had E1b1a, you're now saying it probably came from a non-Israelite/Jew father
quote:nevertheless E3a and E3b are different
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Strawman argument. The direct ancestor of E1b1a was found in Israel (E1b1). You can't separate the two
You got caught being a double talking liar as usual
Sephardic Jews had E1b1a and you said they didn't. Now it's a new excuse
Yawn
quote:so stop doing that also
Originally posted by Tazarah:
So is lying and contradicting yourself
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
The study confirms that the E3a's were Sephardic Jews and says nothing about them being the descendants of fathers who were not Jews.
Historical documents also say the Sephardic Jews were always known to marry amongst themselves.
You're just pulling anything out of your butt at this point
quote:False
Originally posted by Tazarah:
Genetic study : these people were Jews
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness
I hope you realize that the president of the sephardic organization (Obadyah) that made this ruling about the Igbo in the rabbinical courts is a "black" sephardic Jew, who also happens to be a rabbi. And his Y haplogroup is E1b1a.
upload pictures
https://www.academia.edu/21395422/Phylogeographic_analysis_of_paternal_lineages_in_NE_Portuguese_Jewish_communities
Here we have a 2009 study of 57 unrelated self-designated Jewish males from Tra´s-os-Montes in Portugal
............
quote:There's no need to misrepresent what I said and say I guess they....
Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Lioness" referenced this study about Sephardic Jews back in February to try disproving the fact that Sephardic Jews had E1b1a lineages
On page 3 of the document referenced by "Lioness", it says these Portuguese Jews were "self-designated"
I guess they weren't real Jews, according to "Lioness's" newfound logic.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000555
quote:again you are guessing wrong. It doesn't mean the weren't real Jews.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Lioness" referenced this study about Sephardic Jews back in February to try disproving the fact that Sephardic Jews had E1b1a lineages
On page 3 of the document referenced by "Lioness", it says these Portuguese Jews were "self-designated"
I guess they weren't real Jews, according to "Lioness's" newfound logic.
quote:Again, calling someone a troll who is debating you is meaningless desperation
Originally posted by Tazarah:
You're a troll
quote:from the above article:
Originally posted by Tazarah:
https://www.academia.edu/21395422/Phylogeographic_analysis_of_paternal_lineages_in_NE_Portuguese_Jewish_communities
Here we have a 2009 study of 57 unrelated self-designated Jewish males from Tra´s-os-Montes in Portugal
............
quote:wrong, there are 2 options
Originally posted by Tazarah:
You then argue that it's because the mother married men who were not Jews
quote:yes even back in February I was pointing out that these studies are based on people saying they are Jews. That is what "self designated" means.
Originally posted by Tazarah:
You use a part of the study that says they were "self described" Jews to back up your claim
THEN, come to find out, a study that you referenced back in February that dealt with non-black Jews also said they were "self-defined"