quote: Jews are a people and a civilization which recognizes the children of converts who've married into "old families" (i.e. "Israelites") to be part of the nation and as such heirs to all of "Jewish" heritage including the history and rights to tribal lands as laid out in the territorial claims documented in the TN"K (i.e., the original edition of what has been translated into and named "the Bible," the Hebrew Scriptures part only as the Greek Scriptures part is neither recognized or accepted as a continuance of Torah (5 books of Moses, Nebi'iym (the Prophets), and Ketubiym (the Holy Writings).
I didn't even see this post because I would have at least commented on it.
Author Keostler book tells the history of the Jewish empire and show that they don't have any real association to the ancient Yisraelites.
I've read a few of your post alTakruri and you show knowledge in the area of the Yisra'elite yet I'm asking are you claiming that modern day jews have a relationship or even historical claims to the ancient so-called Hebrews?
The Tanakh (i.e. Torah-Neb'ym and Ketubym) does not belong to these modern Jews and I would love for you to show proof other-wise. I mean if you have the proof then I will change my belief on these people but until then
Judaism is a religion and the jewish populations are those who follow this religion. The ancient Yisraelite have no connection to these people or would have followed a religion based off of one so-called tribe of Yisra'el. The ancient Yisra'elites ...
Gives you the histories of these so-called people who prolaimed the HERITAGE of a people they have NO relationship to.
I study the Tanakh as well. Actually its my primary study ... I'm not one of those Hebrew Israelites nor am I one of those who proclaim a heritage that is not mines ... so to speak.
Yet what I do know is that Judaism is a fairly new religion but the Hebrew culture and life-style has been around much longer then this religion.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judaism is well indeed a religion but Hokmath Yisra'el is a tribal way of life and before the advent of Reform Judaism that's all Jews practiced.
I've owned The 13th Tribe for 25 years already. Koestler is way down level. There's current info out there on Khazaria now. I suggest you check into Kevin Brooks' works starting with his webpage http://www.khazaria.com/ , he's a guy who readily embraces the Khazar side of his heritage, his heritage mind you, not the heritage of all Jews.
The impetus is not on me to prove that Hokmei Yisra'el makes every nationalized foreigner (meaning converts) into a member of the tribe.
The onus is on you to disprove the unbroken history of migrations from Israel and Judea to Africa, India, Asia, Europe, the Americas and Australia by `Am Yisra'el (the people/nation Israel) and the genetics in particular of the Ashkenazim you hold in low esteem to show them unconnected to other Levantine and Arabian folk.
None of the Jews from Morocco all the way to Manipur disown Ashkenazim from the Sons of Ya`aqob nor the Tribes of Israel. It's only biased non-Jews who even essay that impossible task.
What do you have that can nullify the fact that Rome conquered Judea (see Windsor's work of similar name), enslaved a good number of that state's population, and transported a massive number of them to Italy where they by travelling north in search of trade laid the foundatons of the very first Ashkenazic communities hundreds of years before Bulan was born and later converted by (most likely) Persian Jews?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read the works of R. Windsor and as you stated a good amount of them were transported to Italy according to what he is teaching.
Yet I don't believe that the so-called Yisra'elite were in the land during this period. If there were indeed Yisra'elite living in the land during this period the numbers were liken to that of the Native Americans in North America of their destruction.
According to the Tanakh they were all removed from their land prior to any European/Med invasion.
Note: according to Y'chizki'el 36:4-6 that lands of Yisra'el was desolate with none inhabiting the land. Then foriegner came and call the land their own ..This is based off of biblical scriptures.
I have so much more to post on this subject dealing with the septuagint and the translators being called from different land but not from Yisra'ar ... Reason being there were no Yisra'elites there.
2KINGS Chapter 17 they were removed from their land ... and different people were placed on the land in that time as well.
have to take my wife to families house ... will respond later ...
P.S. alTukruri once again I believe you are a very knowledgable man in this are and many alike so I hope that we can come to a conclusion this this topic... until then I have to get up before wife goes off on me.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First there was an United Monarchy of Israel composed of all 12 Tribes of Israel but it only lasted through three kings; Shaul, Dawid, and Sh*lomo.
Then there two separate kindoms of `Am Yisra'el resulting from a revolution following Sh*lomo's death. These were the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern kingom of Judah; the former composed of 10 Tribes of Israelites and the latter having mainly members of the Tribe of Judah.
When the northern kingdom fell some of its citizens fled to the still intact southern kingdom where they mingled and married with Judahites to the point of losing whatever tribal identity and affiliation they once held generations ago.
That is how "Israelites" first became "Jews."
Note however that Judaeans are just as much from the original 12 Tribes of Israel as were the members of the destroyed northern kingdom. So, Israelites were indeed in the land at the time of the Roman conquest. And in the writings of the Judaeans they speak of themselves as Israel.
In fact in all the subsequent writings of the Mizrahhi, Mashreqi, Magrebi, Sephardi, Hodi, Teimani, and Itiopi clear from then on up to our times continue to use Israel as a self descriptor rather than Jew. Ashkenazim are the one who embraced this term Jew generally used by Gentiles when they describe `Am Yisra'el.
You and the wife have fun and enjoy your life together and may it be a wonderful one!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: First there was an United Monarchy of Israel composed of all 12 Tribes of Israel but it only lasted through three kings; Shaul, Dawid, and Sh*lomo.
Then there two separate kindoms of `Am Yisra'el resulting from a revolution following Sh*lomo's death. These were the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern kingom of Judah; the former composed of 10 Tribes of Israelites and the latter having mainly members of the Tribe of Judah.
When the northern kingdom fell some of its citizens fled to the still intact southern kingdom where they mingled and married with Judahites to the point of losing whatever tribal identity and affiliation they once held generations ago.
That is how "Israelites" first became "Jews."
Note however that Judaeans are just as much from the original 12 Tribes of Israel as were the members of the destroyed northern kingdom. So, Israelites were indeed in the land at the time of the Roman conquest. And in the writings of the Judaeans they speak of themselves as Israel.
In fact in all the subsequent writings of the Mizrahhi, Mashreqi, Magrebi, Sephardi, Hodi, Teimani, and Itiopi clear from then on up to our times continue to use Israel as a self descriptor rather than Jew. Ashkenazim are the one who embraced this term Jew generally used by Gentiles when they describe `Am Yisra'el.
You and the wife have fun and enjoy your life together and may it be a wonderful one!
quote: You and the wife have fun and enjoy your life together and may it be a wonderful one!
Thanks a lot sir and that is truly appreciated. Secondly, please forgive the typos; I have to get another laptop, I have keys missing so I’m trying to work it out on this computer despite apparent typos.
So that you will know my position on this study, I feel it is only fair to tell you why I feel the way that I do about the Jews. I believe as the Eurocentric’s having tried to do with Egypt, so have they done with Yisra’el but in a more lavish form. I’m of the opinion that the Yisra’elites were simply a sect of Egyptians whom many have tried to pass over as Europeans. I have absolutely no problem with Jews except for their personal roll in the displacement of Africans from Africa which led to the most violent Diaspora in all of history to-date. Never the less, that doesn’t have anything to do with my position on the religion called Judaism verse the actual ancient citizens of Yisra’el.
Since there is very little historical documentation on the Yisra’elites, using the scriptures and Josephus Flavious historical account seems only logical. II Kings chapter 17 it states:
17:23 Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day. 17:24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the citi.
According to the scriptures provided above it is clear that the Northern kingdom of Yisra’el had been removed from what they’ve called their land and replaced by 5 different nations of people. It kind of remind me about Ya’shua’s declaration to the woman at the well when he said:
John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. ………. John 4:12 * Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof * * himself, and his children, and his cattle? …. John 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh *, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
I’m not trying to have some bible lesson or nothing like that because I’m not into that type of stuff but as you can see, the woman living in Samaria called Ya`aqob her forefather in the 12 verse as though they have become so inundated with Yisra’el teaching that they’ve forgotten who they were after hundreds of years living on another peoples land. They had to learn Yisra’el’s customs because they feared that they would be whipped out by the lions and other animal in II Kings 17. From that time to the time of Ya’shua these people have called Ya`aqob their father and they have absolutely nothing to do with Yisra’el.
So now in II Kings 23:27 Yah’wah makes the declaration to remove Y’hudah as he did his brother Yisra’el and he did according to the scriptures. So now we have a desolate Yisra’el with both the Northern/Lower and Southern/Upper Yisra’elites being totally removed from their lands, yet inhabited by outsiders who think they are of the houses of Yisra’el. Now let us make a serious jump in history to the biblical scriptures dealing with the Persian king Darius allowed some of the Yisra’elites passage back to the land of Yisra’el. Well it just so happened that they started partaking of the women and gods of different nations once again and they were punished once again by the removal of their people from their land. Once this last removal was initiated, the land of Yisra’el became desolate once again.
36:4 Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about; 36:5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.
If you keep reading it become extremely interesting and this, my friend is how Yisra’el was repopulated. Those who took over the land of Yisra’el also took the customs of Yisra’el as their own. For example, the modern day Hebrew language is not purely Hebrew, but has strong traces of Yiddish grammar intermingled.
Now we move into the future with this new addition to the scriptures called the NT/New Testament by way of Roman Catholic creation. They tell these stories of the Hebrews existing in the land and historically through Josephus we find that they were being hung upon cross i.e. trees by the thousands. We then learn of the revolutionary Ya’shua who was opposed to the Romans so they killed him (so many think but not according to all).
One of the key points to this subject up to this point is that you said the Northern Yisra’elites moved to the Southern house of Y’hudah but I have shown even in the scriptures that Y’hudah was also removed from his land. Yisra’el was far removed once more after the King Darius era. So who was Ya’shua? I believe that he was the dude that existed in the land a few hundred years earlier then the given date of Christians. His real name was Ya’shua Ben Pandari who was a magician and was stoned for his wonderful works.
Now to the history of the Septuagint which is supposed to be the oldest translation of the Hebrew text was translated by 72 men which was supposed be from the 12 tribes of Yisra’el. These men were called from their foreign land to which they were enslaved. What’s funny is that the temple of Yisra’el was not destroyed at that time i.e. 250b.c.e, so they should have interpret the scriptures from the Hebrew temple, yet they were called to do this in Egypt. What was in the Hebrew temple was holy and not touchable by any Egyptian (so the bible says) or Roman without having to go to war and take it as the story of 70A.D. goes. So then what were they really translating into Greek text? Why didn’t they just go to Yisra’el and get the translators from there if they e.g. Yisra’elites were still in Yisra’el?
I will tell you why, the Yisra’elites were removed from Yisra’el and the inhabitants of the land were not the original people #1 and #2 they Yisra’elites were a sect of Egyptians translating Egyptian literature which is why the translation of the text didn’t take place in Yisra’el.
Zi’on is two words which is supposed to be the holy city of the Yisra’elites. Example:
quote: Zion consists of the components On (Hebrew for the holy city of On/Heliopolis in Egypt) and the Hebrew word zi (meaning arid place). Literally translated, Zion appropriately becomes "Holy City of the Desert." –
The holy City of the Desert is who of Yisra’el most sacred places (Psalms 48) 48:2 “ Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. “
City of the great King, great is the Lord is what the scripture say prior, and lord usually represents master. I say that the modern people proclaiming heritage to the Original Yisra’elites cannot be the originals. This is in fact based on Scriptures and not the fact that Koestler implies that they are not the originals. I’m not a real fan of the NT but even the NT makes such a claim as well.
Revelations 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, * (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Because we don’t have a lot of historical information in concerns to the Yisra’elites period, we have to use biblical text for these so-called histories. I personally believe the euros created this society outside of Egypt to separate these people. This is why they created such lies as the enslavement of the Yisra’elites to the Egyptians. This is another reason why I think they are trying to convince the world of a European Egypt because the very essence of Hebraism is Egypt/African at its root.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really not much interested in countering what you wrote. It has next to nothing historically, archaeologically, or genetically to support it. But if at least three other regular contributors want to get into this perhaps I'll take up a response to it piece by piece even though it'll consume much time I'd rather place elsewhere on more pertinent matters.
I'll just leave you with this for now. If you line of thinking holds water then one of its own pieces of evidence is flawed because if all Israel was destroyed before Greco-Roman times than your precious Yesh"u must have also been the spawn of the "synagogue of Satan" too.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Historical evidence is in the very essence of Egypt because you really wont find evidence of these socalled Jews outside of the bibe, except for what they've done recently.
This is why I'm even interested in this subject in the first place. When it comes to the Hebrew Israelites, they use a faulty evidence to verify their claim. When it come to these Jews they have no evidence of their claim.
The only real thing that is evident is the Yisra'elite history is as fictious as its originators. The historical evidence of the People called Yisra'elite is not separate from the Egyptians history because they are one in the same.
I totally understand why you wouldn't want to post a reply to this post because this whole post was based off of scriptures. I chanellege anyone to find legit historical, archaeological histories on the Yisra'elites. There is Linguistic evidence of the Hebrew language being African in origins but these people as a people out side of Egypt prior to the 18th dynasty is unheard of.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I have a pretty complete set of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine but can't remote access it. The companion mag, also published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible Review is ok too.
Check 'em out, if you ain't already, I think you might like 'em.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well I have a pretty complete set of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine but can't remote access it. The companion mag, also published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible Review is ok too.
Check 'em out, if you ain't already, I think you might like 'em.
where can I find them at? R they on the biblica-archaeology website?
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
An OT like me got the real slick paper mags and storing 'em in a box. But I guess the best thing real time is to go to http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbMktBack.html and handle it there. $135 is cheap considering what you get (and that I paid more than that for more than a box full of magazines that only covered 20 years. And I can't tote around all them 'zines as easy as you can slip a CD into a wallet).
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well I have a pretty complete set of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine but can't remote access it. The companion mag, also published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible Review is ok too.
Check 'em out, if you ain't already, I think you might like 'em.
where can I find them at? R they on the biblica-archaeology website?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: An OT like me got the real slick paper mags and storing 'em in a box. But I guess the best thing real time is to go to http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbMktBack.html and handle it there. $135 is cheap considering what you get (and that I paid more than that for more than a box full of magazines that only covered 20 years. And I can't tote around all them 'zines as easy as you can slip a CD into a wallet).
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well I have a pretty complete set of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine but can't remote access it. The companion mag, also published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible Review is ok too.
Check 'em out, if you ain't already, I think you might like 'em.
where can I find them at? R they on the biblica-archaeology website?
I'm on my way there now ... Thank you.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's confusing, first, you say there was an yisra-el, then you say they were really egyptians and their languages and stuff is derived from there.
Yes, I know they were in A Egypt, but egyptians mixed with other mid-easterners at the time, and alot of things come from egypt. What used to be called Semetic is now Afrasan.
Some is the ancient hebrew culture Egyptian in a vague sense, or are you saying they ripped off kemet's culture or what?
I mean, what are you basing all this on, because I think it was you who in another thread said that the Native Americans are africans with straight hair, not related to europeans because they have dark skin.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker: R U 2 and all, how were they from egypt?
It's confusing, first, you say there was an yisra-el, then you say they were really egyptians and their languages and stuff is derived from there.
Yes, I know they were in A Egypt, but egyptians mixed with other mid-easterners at the time, and alot of things come from egypt. What used to be called Semetic is now Afrasan.
Some is the ancient hebrew culture Egyptian in a vague sense, or are you saying they ripped off kemet's culture or what?
I mean, what are you basing all this on, because I think it was you who in another thread said that the Native Americans are africans with straight hair, not related to europeans because they have dark skin.
Good question and it desires attention.
First, that wasn't me who said Native Americans are Africans with straight hair ... lol. Nope not me.
When it comes to the Yisra'elites there is no strong historical foundation to them but what we see today and what we've read up to this point.
What we know from the scriptures is the Abraham comes from Ur of the Chaldees, but the problem with that is Ur of the Chaldees didn't exist in the time of Abraham. As a matter of fact Abraham had been dead for 900 years when Ur became a nation.
So then why does the scriptures say he came from Ur when he didn't? This is what started my journey.
I will respond to me later ...
Got get ready for my trip to Chicago.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one could ask what particular scriptures of which people, but to avoid being obtuse:
The scripture employing the Ur Hhas*diym terminology suggests that it wasn't written in Abraham's time (neither believing Jews nor academia posit such an idea) but in a time period when that region was indeed ruled by Chaldeans. The question then devolves to, was Moshe Rabbeynu (the traditionally proposed writer) living before or after that time.
Of course those who don't cotton to Hokmath Yisra'el are convinced that none of the Five Books of Moses was neither written by Moses nor anywhere as early as the 13th century BCE.
posted
Very valid point AlTakruri, I'm one of them that do not ascribe to the Hokmath Yisra'el. In Duet the Torah tells ou that Moshe was dead and that until that day no one knew where he was buried. That admission in the scripture let us know that he couldn't have possible written the Torah and then wrote about his death.
That is why many believe that it was Nehimiah and Ezra who wrote the scriptures ... Yet there is a problem with that theory as well because their writing don't exist and neither is there anything historical which would validate such a tale.
Again, another reason why I believe that the called to translate the writings were translating Egyptian text ... in Egypt.
Those who want to believe in Judaism or the Hebrew Israelites will look past this because this is unheard to them and they will find a million and one ways to debate it but when you ask for legit archaeological, anthropological and historical information, they are void of proof.
What I have researched up to this moment is really nothing to sneeze at or take lightly. I believe that within the next few years I will be able to prove without a doubt (note: there will always be doubters), that Yisra'el was a priestly SECT of the Egyptians who hel praises for the MOON deity Yah-wah.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an interesting thread. So much talk is done about the features in Africa, I would like to know more about the rest of the world especially the Middle East.
The light-skin in North African and Southwest Asian inhabitants does not seem to suit the climate at all so it is interesting to learn why they are there.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, my last post was grammatically disturbing at best. I was in the hotel using that tv internet system and let me tell you... I should have brought my laptop; it would have been a margin better but readable.
Moshe, according to Devarim 4:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
We know that it is physically impossible to speak of your own death in the manner that these scriptures describe Moses/Moshe/Thutmoses i.e. Akhenaton's brother. Whats even worse is that the 34:6 version of the Devarim states that no man know of his sepulchre unto this day. The original word for sepulchre is 'hrwbq' which means burial or grave.
Moshe couldn't not have written was is currently known as the Torah. What was exstablished is that whatever was translated was translated in Egypt. The holy scrolls of the Hebrew would have been in a Hebrew temple in Ya'ruwshalaim and the translation should have taken place there, but their is neither any record of the Greeks taking Hebrew lit from the temple but to the Roman in the year 70 A.D. This is not before the writing of the Septuagint in 250 B.C.E.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why doesn't relatively lighter skin not fit North Africa, particularly the littoral where the average monthly temperatures are in some places LOWER than the monthly average for the South Europe littoral?
One would shiver just as much on a night in Tunisia as they would on the northern shores of the Mediterranean especially from November through April. Notice that except for the months of December and January the average temperature in Tunisia is colder than that of Greece.
Average temperatures from http://www.themed.net for the countries Greece (top) and Tunisia (bottom)
posted
Hhz"l has a mahh*lokhet that either Moshe Rabbeynu prophetically penned his death or Y*hoshua` wrote the last few lines of D*bariym.
If either the Jews in Egypt or the Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt desired a translation there's no reason for it to have to have been done elsewhere than in Egypt.
Every miqdash me'at from Tunis to Afganistan had copies of all necessary scrolls. No one had to go to the Beth haMiqdash for a Torah or any other scroll of TN"K.
Not to mention that at least two authorized (and one unauthorized) temples were established in Egypt long enough before Ptolemaic rule.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why doesn't relatively lighter skin not fit North Africa, particularly the littoral where the average monthly temperatures are in some places LOWER than the monthly average for the South Europe littoral?
Depends on how light "relatively lighter skin" is supposed to be, as it pertains to climate in North Africa.
Exposure to UV solar radiation is an instrumental determining factor in melanin synthesis regulation. UV radiation intensity varies across latitudes...
This map is provided courtesy of the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).The Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University has been designated by NASA to operate and maintain SEDAC.
Data Description: This map represents local noon near-real time estimates of the UV Index (UVI) using total column ozone abundances measured by NASA's Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) carried by the Earth Probe satellite. Cloud cover is not incorporated.
And what skin tones might look like based on "prediction" of skin melanin synthesis in response to UV solar radiation...
"Both adaptations, paleness and darkness, are positively selected for by natural selection to allow only the most beneficial amount of solar UV to penetrate the skin. The map below (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000) depicts: “Predicted shading of skin colors for indigenous humans based on the results of a linear regression model in which skin reflectance (at 685 nm) for indigenous peoples in both hemispheres was allowed to respond to annual average UVMED for both hemispheres.” In other words, it shows what the regional variation of complexion would look like, if skin tone depended solely on solar ultraviolet radiation. The cited paper argues that both skin tone extremes are adaptations to solar UV, and so the trait’s regional variation depends only on sunlight intensity at ultraviolet wavelengths. On the plus side, the paper is extremely persuasive." - Frank W. Sweet.
Note: The shortcomings of the practicality of these sort of predictions was also examined in the link below.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Hhz"l has a mahh*lokhet that either Moshe Rabbeynu prophetically penned his death or Y*hoshua` wrote the last few lines of D*bariym.
If either the Jews in Egypt or the Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt desired a translation there's no reason for it to have to have been done elsewhere than in Egypt.
Every miqdash me'at from Tunis to Afganistan had copies of all necessary scrolls. No one had to go to the Beth haMiqdash for a Torah or any other scroll of TN"K.
Not to mention that at least two authorized (and one unauthorized) temples were established in Egypt long enough before Ptolemaic rule.
interesting ...
I do understand that the library of Alexander was a wonderous library, filled with all writings from nations round about ... The next problem would be ... as the Egyptian text still survive why is it that the Hebrew text has been totally lost? In order for many to understand Egyptian Hieroglyphs the Greeks had a translation for the Egyptian lettering system.
The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Tanakh yet their is no Hebrew text older then the Septuagint.
It doesn't make sense. All other people has had their writings maintained except the Yisra'elites. The modernist have come through with a new teaching and has totally removed the old by giving us their personal home-made version of what the original text should have said whih we know they really don't know just as much as we don't know.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why doesn't relatively lighter skin not fit North Africa, particularly the littoral where the average monthly temperatures are in some places LOWER than the monthly average for the South Europe littoral?
Depends on how light "relatively lighter skin" is supposed to be, as it pertains to climate in North Africa.
Exposure to UV solar radiation is an instrumental determining factor in melanin synthesis regulation. UV radiation intensity varies across latitudes...
This map is provided courtesy of the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).The Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University has been designated by NASA to operate and maintain SEDAC.
Data Description: This map represents local noon near-real time estimates of the UV Index (UVI) using total column ozone abundances measured by NASA's Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) carried by the Earth Probe satellite. Cloud cover is not incorporated.
Speaking of which, I see no reason why this particular Wiki piece cannot be deemed reasonable, given that this is info generally accessible in high school level physics...
On Earth, solar radiation is obvious as daylight when the sun is above the horizon. This is during daytime, and also in summer near the poles at night, but not at all in winter near the poles. When the direct radiation is not blocked by clouds, it is experienced as sunshine, a combination of bright yellow light (sunlight in the strict sense) and heat. The heat on the body, on objects, etc., that is directly produced by the radiation should be distinguished from the increase in air temperature.
The amount of radiation intercepted by a planetary body varies as the square of the distance between the star and the planet. The Earth's orbit and obliquity change with time, sometimes achieving a nearly perfect circle, and at other times stretching out to an eccentricity of 5%. The total insolation remains almost constant but the seasonal and latitudinal distribution and intensity of solar radiation received at the Earth's surface also varies (for example see a graph). For example, at latitudes of 65 degrees the change in solar energy in summer & winter can vary by more than 25% as a result of the Earth's orbital variation. Because changes in winter and summer tend to offset, the change in the annual average insolation at any given location is near zero, but the redistribution of energy between summer and winter does strongly affect the intensity of seasonal cycles. Such changes associated with the redistribution of solar energy are considered a likely cause for the coming and going of recent ice ages (see: Milankovitch cycles).
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why doesn't relatively lighter skin not fit North Africa, particularly the littoral where the average monthly temperatures are in some places LOWER than the monthly average for the South Europe littoral?
Temperature is actually irrelevant to skin color, what is relevant is UV radiation.
quote:One would shiver just as much on a night in Tunisia as they would on the northern shores of the Mediterranean
Shivering is a response to cold, and has nothing to do with skin color as response to solar radiation.
If you want and accurate picture of native skin color adaptation in Africa examine the range that exists between native southern sudanese and native cape Khoisan.
Remember - South Africa is just as far south of the tropics as North Africa is North of it.
The difference is there is no continent still further south of Africa for southern leucoderms to develope. And thus there are no leucoderms [current Euro-settlers notwithstanding] in Southern Africa.
Native Africans have lived in Southernmost Africa possibly since 90kya ~ [Blombos cave] or, far longer than *any* population has lived in North Africa.
Human beings originate in tropical Africa. The basis of the original human pigmentation is melanoderma, or dark skin.
The case is not that human beings originate - nowhere in particular - and then 'turn black' or white as a frivilous response to a localised climate.
Rather the case is that there are no leucoderms until human being migrate into Northern Eurasia.
Comparing the northernmost tip of Africa to the Southernmost tip of Europe is also fallacious in any case, as Europeans did not migrate from Africa to Southern Europe, but rather from Northern Eurasia into Europe and thence the southern coast.
According to anthropologist and skin color expert Nina Jablonski it took and estimated 20 thousand years of high latitutude living for the depigmentation levels of Northern Europeans to develop.
As for modern North Coast African leucoderms, they have more recent Eurasian ancestry than African.
They also have high skin cancer rates, surpassed primarily by white South Africans, white Australians and white European Jews of Israel.
Their male ancestry is actually *not* native to North Africa - but mainly - East African, secondarily European and SouthWest Asian. Their female ancestry is mainly *recent European* and also not North African.
This is the basis of the title of the famous [and infamous]: Predominently Neolithic Origin of North African Y chromosome, genetic study from Barbara Arredi which states:
Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a proto–Afro-Asiatic language.
These people could have carried, among others,the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans.
Leucoderm is not native to Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course leucodermy ("pink-white skins" etc.) isn't native to Africa.
Mansa Musa posed his question thusly
quote:The light-skin in North African and Southwest Asian inhabitants does not seem to suit the climate at all so it is interesting to learn why they are there.
so I gave temperature figures.
Vitamin D as well as UV radiation played a role in humanity's initial adaptation of leucodermy.
Obviously the rose and white complexioned inhabitants of the southern and eastern Mediterranean acquired that genetic factor from people who carried it.
quote: Originally posted 10 June, 2006 06:58 PM by Supercar (after Frank Sweet): ... Baltic Seas, keeping temperatures moderate despite dim near-Arctic sunlight. Around the planet, only circum-Baltic farmers could switch to a grain diet devoid of vitamin D, in a place where sunlight also lacked UV. And so, the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only within 600 miles of this unique spot on earth.
. . . .
Since 1910, researchers have known that human skin pigmentation is polygenic, depending on just a few codominant additive genes of essentially two alleles each. We have known that complexion is polygenic, rather than the result of one gene with many alleles, because breeding of palest with darkest yields a spectrum of offspring genotypes from the same parents, not just the four Mendelian ones. We have known that human pigmentation genes are additive and codominant because half the offspring of differently skin-toned parents have a complexion between that of their parents, no matter how similar the parents. We have known that at least three genes are involved because histograms of population skin reflectance yield continuous, not discrete, values (Stern 1973, 443-65), (Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer 1971, 527-31).
Where knowledge has improved over the past century has been in precisely how many genes are involved and their specific loci. As of 1998, five human pigmentation genes had been identified. Their symbols and genome loci are: “TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3 (Sturm, Box, and Ramsay 1998).
Subsequent work has identified five non-synonymous polymorphisms at the MC1R site (Rana and others 1999). Polymorphisms have been related to phenotype (Harding and others 2000). And gene-enzyme-protein reaction chains have been identified (Kanetsky and others 2002).
Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation.
. . . .
This essay suggests that as modern humans migrated into northeastern Asia, they became lighter in response to two selective pressures. Less darkness was needed to protect against folic acid destruction by solar UV penetrating the dermal layer and causing neonatal neural defects. And more paleness was needed to enhance vitamin D synthesis which, together with calciferol ingested in meat, prevented neonatal skeletal malformations. But these adaptations functioned by the loss of genetic coding for dark complexion.
What I wonder is did some part of the indigenous North African population loose the genes necessary for dark extreme colour before the great flux in enslaved women happened. Just when did the Eurasian mtDNA bearing women effect the complexion of their North African offspring.
Greco-Latin and Arabic writers both note North Africa as among the places with a "coloured" population -- the lightest of people of colour they knew of --whereas by their accounts, South Europe folk ranked as "palloured" people.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Arredi et al. had already stated that there is no substantial "Paleolithic" contribution in North African west Afrasan-speaking groups (otherwise known as "Berbers"), even though the lineages themselves derive from ancestral lineages of Paleolithic extraction; whereas the Bosch et al. study sees E3b lineages in Berbers as of Upper Paleolithic extraction. Arredi et al.'s study post-dates (2004) that of the Bosch et al. study (2001). Moreover, Bosch et al. idea of what constitutes "sub-Saharan" Africa is messed up, judging from their seeming incapacity to note that E3b-M35 is of sub-Saharan origin. Nonetheless, Wikipedia claim is a far cry from what is actually presented in the Bosch et al. study:
Group IX haplotypes (fig. 2gi) are found in the Middle East and are most prevalent in Europe (Underhill et al. 2000). Group IX also contains three local Iberian haplotypes: H101, H102, and H103. The latter, which is defined by derived mutation M167 (also known as "SRY-2627"), is equivalent to Y-chromosome haplogroup 22 as described by Hurles et al. (1999). These authors examined haplogroup 22 worldwide and showed that it has a geographical distribution almost restricted to northern Iberia. Moreover, on the basis of the dating of microsatellite and minisatellite diversity within haplogroup 22, they suggested that it arose in Iberia a few thousand years ago.
Group IX is found at a low frequency **(3%)** in NW Africa. In Iberia, 56% of the Y chromosomes carry H104, which is found across Europe, with increasing frequencies toward the west; its defining mutation, M173, may have been introduced by the first Upper Paleolithic colonizations of Europe (Semino et al. 2000). It may not have been the only lineage introduced into Iberia during the Upper Paleolithic, but it seems to have been the only one that has persisted in the extant Iberian gene pool. Of five H104 NW African chromosomes, one had an STR haplotype identical to that in an H104 Iberian chromosome, one was one mutation step away from Iberian H104 chromosomes, and the remaining three were two mutation steps away. Moreover, the mean repeat-size difference within 53 H104 Iberian STR haplotypes was 2.8 (range 011). The phylogenetic relations among H104 STR haplotypes is shown by a reduced median network (fig. 3c), in which the NW African chromosomes appear to be clearly embedded within the Iberian diversity. The time necessary to accumulate the STR-allele differences between NW African and Iberian H104 chromosomes was estimated at 2,100 ± 450 years. This close STR-haplotype similarity seems to indicate that H104 chromosomes found in NW Africa are a subset of the European gene pool and that they may have been introduced during **historic times.**
...meaning that European, more precisely Iberian male mediated gene flow, is much more recent in coastal North African west-Afrasan speakers, who are specifically the following:
H50 found in one Moroccan "Arab", and H104 found in one southern Moroccan "west-Afrasan/"Berber"" speaker, three Moroccan "Arab" speakers, and one north-central Moroccan "west-Afrasan" speaker.
Bosch et al. go onto conclude that:
So far, our analyses have allowed a clear dissection of almost all NW African and Iberian paternal lineages into several components with distinct historical origins. In this way, the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (H35, H36, and H38), 13% Neolithic (H58 and H71), **4%** historic European gene flow (group IX, H50, H52), and 8% recent sub-Saharan African (H22 and H28). In contrast, the origins of the Iberian Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 5% recent NW African, 78% Upper Paleolithic and later local derivatives (group IX), and 10% Neolithic (H58, H71). No haplotype assumed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa was found in our Iberian sample. It should be noted that H58 and H71 are not the only haplotypes present in the Middle East and that the Neolithic wave of advance could have brought other lineages to Iberia and NW Africa. However, the homogeneity of STR haplotypes within the most ancient biallelic haplotypes in each region indicates a single origin during the past, with possible minor reintroductions, with the Neolithic expansion, from the Middle East. Thus, Neolithic contributions may be slightly underestimated.
^^Whereby Hg E is denoted by the following:
H35=E3b-M78, H38=E3b-M81, and H36=E3b-M35; H22=E3a-M2, and H28=E1-M33
Hg J denoted by the following:
H58=J2*-M172
Hg F denoted by the following:
H71=F*-M89
Hg I denoted by the following:
H50=I1b2-M26, and H52=I*-M170.
Hg R denoted by the following:
H104=R*-M173
Thus note that the "4%" "historic", NOT pre-historic, European contribution quite likely from the Iberian peninsula, is a combination of I lineage (.6%), which was found in only one Moroccan "Arab" speaking individual AND R lineages (2.8%) found in five Moroccan individauls; three of them "Arab" speakers, and two of them "west-Afrasan" speakers.
If anyone wants to know what 'old Berber' groups likely appeared, just look at the Siwa group. Also look at examples in Tunisia itself; from the members of the Kesra group that I've seen, many exhibit the light brown in skin tone. These visible variations, while clinal in coastal North Africa, should be instructive about the role of 'climate' on skin tone; temperature has little do with native skin tone gradients, while UV radiation and complimentary dietary vitamin D certainly do. The "lightest" in coastal North Africa, particularly in the west African portions, is very likely secondary to gene flow from their northern neighbours in southern Europe.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
The light-skin in North African and Southwest Asian inhabitants does not seem to suit the climate at all so it is interesting to learn why they are there.
quote:so I gave temperature figures.
Understood. My post was not a criticism. It just denoted the fact that temperature really has nothing to do with skin color.
Did you know that polar bear have black skin under their fur?
Moreover their fur isn't actually white it's translucent.
It reflects some light which allows it to appear as white for purposes of camoflouge, and it permits other light to pass thru to it's skin - which allows the light to warm up it's skin.
The skin is dark which actually helps it to absorb heat.
There is no evolutionary advantage to white skin in cold climates. It's only the lack of sunlight that leads to leucoderma.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I hadn't really thought about UV radiation vs. temperature being the cause of skin depigmentation.
That being said the climate of a region also effects UV radiation exposure and since North Africa and the Middle East recieve alot of sunlight I'd expect the inhabitants to be no more significantly darker-skinned than the Khoisan brings up the interest of where these light-skinned inhabitants came from.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Agreed, I used to ponder when I was younger when the same people who knew
(at football we all knew)
better to wear white than to wear black when the sun was beaming, would say that black skin protects you/us from the heat - without giving it a second thought.
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: Excellent insight guys.
I hadn't really thought about UV radiation vs. temperature being the cause of skin depigmentation.
That being said the climate of a region also effects UV radiation exposure and since North Africa and the Middle East recieve alot of sunlight I'd expect the inhabitants to be no more significantly darker*-skinned than the Khoisan brings up the interest of where these light-skinned inhabitants came from.
* Did you mean lighter-skinned?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: Excellent insight guys.
I hadn't really thought about UV radiation vs. temperature being the cause of skin depigmentation.
That being said the climate of a region also effects UV radiation exposure and since North Africa and the Middle East recieve alot of sunlight I'd expect the inhabitants to be no more significantly darker*-skinned than the Khoisan brings up the interest of where these light-skinned inhabitants came from.
* Did you mean lighter-skinned?
i think he meant darker skinned.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a thought Al: If you are a Black Catholic, does that mean that you can go to the Vatican and demand land?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Have a significant number of North Asians ever moved South, and what about the Turks?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
80-90% of todays jews are Ashkenazi. They consider themselves "the real thing", and they take blood samples from other jews and compare these results to thwmselves when they want to determine who's a real jew. It's like modern australians taking blood samples from aborigines and comparing it to themselves and those aborigines who have most similar result to english speaking australians are branded as a more authentic australian.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
If fact white skin is a relative recent phenomenon.
From biblical text/ancient writings and archaeology, it can be hypothesised whites entered the middle east (from around 4000bc) if not later.
Even Jewish mythology admits to this fact originally Canaan was inhabited by blacks (children of Ham) who most probably spoke a Semitic language (these may have been the earliest proto semites)
The land belonging to these blacks was taken by 'israelis'(who may have been mixed with blacks themselves)- Hence the curse of Ham.
I remain to be corrected.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
If fact white skin is a relative recent phenomenon.
From biblical text/ancient writings and archaeology, it can be hypothesised whites entered the middle east (from around 4000bc) if not later.
Even Jewish mythology admits to this fact originally Canaan was inhabited by blacks (children of Ham) who most probably spoke a Semitic language (these may have been the earliest proto semites)
The land belonging to these blacks was taken by 'israelis'(who may have been mixed with blacks at this time)- Hence the curse of Ham.
I remain to be corrected.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: 80-90% of todays jews are Ashkenazi. They consider themselves "the real thing", and they take blood samples from other jews and compare these results to thwmselves when they want to determine who's a real jew. It's like modern australians taking blood samples from aborigines and comparing it to themselves and those aborigines who have most similar result to english speaking australians are branded as a more authentic australian.
I agree that genetic testing methods for Jewishness isn't expedient.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
From biblical text/ancient writings and archaeology, it can be hypothesised whites entered the middle east (from around 4000bc) if not later.
Even Jewish mythology admits to this fact originally Canaan was inhabited by blacks (children of Ham) ...
Evergreen Writes:
EBA Levant archaeological material is coextensive with a Mesopatamian sphere of influence. Certainly by 2000 BC the southern Levant was impacted by Chariot riding populations from Central Asia. These populations probably adopted the Semitic languages extant in this region before some of these EURASIAN tribes made their way into Egypt escaping famine. In Egypt they likely mixed with indigenous Africans, hence they would be primarily EURASIAN with an African component. In the Delta some of these Foreign Shepard Kings may have formed Dynasties. Eventually these Dynasties may have challenged Upper Egyptian dominance until they were expelled across the burning sands back into the Levant.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who are these whites you guys are talking about, you surely don't consider a palestinian or a Syrian to be "white", or?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^'Black' is in reference to skin color
not only skin color, but features also.because Mulattos and black mixed people aren't black colored.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I am well aware of that fact but it should be known that 'black' originally was a reference to color. And it would be inaccurate to use the label for any other feature besides color.
As for Mentu and Evergreen. I am still puzzled by the identity and/or origins of the Canaanites. What is certain is that the Canaanites were described in all historical texts as the original people or natives of Canaan. Besides that, I know that in Biblical (Hebrew) texts they were indeed described as a nation of Ham whose brother nations were Egypt, Kush, and Phut. All of these sibling nations are in Africa except for Canaan. So exactly how did the ancient Cannanites look like? Were they black? We know from skeletal remains that the Neolithic peoples of Canaan, the Natufians, possessed traits that were described as "negro". But how exactly did they look like? Unlike the Egyptians, they did not leave many depictions of themselves. What little depictions they did leave were small sculptures that date to the late Bronze Age which was the exact time period which historians say Canaan assimilated nomadic, presumably Semitic speaking groups who entered their territory. If the Natufians represented the people who introduced Afrasian languages into the Levant and probably Southwest Asia in general, were their languages proto-Semitic or some other language that preceeded proto-Semitic?? Again, linguists hold theories that Afrasian may have entered Southwest Asia in multiple waves, not just one. Or, if it did enter in one wave, it did so in a pre-proto-Semitic form only to have been modified and then expanded in situ Southwest Asia. Was the original Canaanite language even an ancestor to Semitic at all, even though historical Canaan was Semitic speaking??
Can anyone answer these questions? (Takruri and Yom, particularly)
Also, what about other neighboring peoples of the Hebrews such as the Midianites and Amalekites who dwelled from the southern regions of the Levant to northern Arabia?? What did these people look like? I know the whole Midianite/Cushite issue was discussed before, but I want to get further answers about this so as to have a better idea about the populations of this region.
It's Christmas, so I just want to get a better, more accurate picture, of the populations who inhabited the 'Holy Land'. LOLPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what about the land that connects Egypt to the Levant-- the Sinai??
The earliest known inhabitants of that area were a people called Monitu. What do we know about these people??
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember those sets of art books I used to mention?
Michael Avi-Yonah co-editor Views of the Biblical World many published editions
Andre Parrot Sumer France: Libraire Gallimard, 1960
More books later. It's time to hit the door and get on the floor!!!
Look to the depictions of the A3mw, the "Megiddo Ivories," Sennacherib's palace wall, and the like for what Canaanites thought they looked like and how others saw them. A very heterogenous lot with, in my eyes, a predominant African base.
By the time there was a 'Holy Land' the Canaanites had been absorbed -- primarily by the Judaeans -- and many an other people fused into the body that became Roman Palestina.
quote:The eastern Mediterranean is a nexus of three continents. It and the Arabian Peninsula were peopled by other migrant invaders who didn't originally speak in Afrasan. Semitic speakers were among the first but weren't the only inhabitants of the region. Kushitics preceded them. Indo-Europeans, Caucasics, Altaics, etc., came after them probably via the Daryal Gorge through the Caucasus Mountains.
From this can be gathered, if anything, that "Semites" are North East Africans who migrated into the Arabian peninsula and moved northward (as far as up to Turkey1) where they met and mingled with and were maybe blocked from further spread by southward invading Eurasian peoples (Altaic and Indo-European speakers) in pre-historic times. Upon the eclipse of the southerners the hybrids and assimilated settlers (beginning circa -1800 with the maryannu caste) became heir to the names and languages of the original people they married into and whose culture they emulated.
The Semitic speakers worked their way up from the Bab-el-Mandeb crossing over from the Horn to the Arabian peninsula and from there moved northward ending their trek at the foot of the mountains of Turkey. If anything, Caucasic, Altaic, and Indo-European speakers moving southbound across the Caucasus met and mingled with the Semitic speakers giving then a much lighter color than their southern ancestors had and still have today.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic