In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations
HAARETZ Ariel David Oct 9, 2023
(article excerpts)
For the first time, ancient DNA has been recovered from the bodies of ancient Israelites living in the First Temple period, Haaretz has learned.
This story begins in 2018, when the Theft Prevention Unit of the Israel Antiquities Authority discovered a tomb in the village of Abu Ghosh, which is right next to the biblical settlement of Kiryat Yearim, some 15 kilometers west of Jerusalem...
Those interred in the tomb included six adults, three men and three women, and four children, including two babies, one infant, and an adolescent. This is consistent with the high mortality rate of children in ancient times, the researchers note.
Based on the pottery typology used in the funerary offerings it seems that the tomb was used for a prolonged period, around 750-650 B.C.E., placing it in the late Iron Age, or late First Temple period according to the biblical chronology.
The tomb is an important find in its own right, given that burials from this period are rare and tend to be from slightly later times, generally closer to the fall of Jerusalem and the First Temple to the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E., says Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa. Finkelstein was called in to lead the research on the tomb as he was already heading a dig at Kiryat Yearim, a settlement which is mentioned in the Bible as having housed the Ark of the Covenant before it was brought to Jerusalem.
Together with Prof. David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University, and mathematician Dr. Arie Shaus, Finkelstein embarked on a quest to extract DNA from the people interred in the Kiryat Yearim tomb.
“This is only partial data with a more detailed paper coming in the future,” Reich says.
The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup, a group of closely-related DNA sequences that is believed to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, a vast area including modern-day eastern Turkey, northwest Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia.
This is important because, as mentioned, researchers have already mapped the DNA of ancient Canaanites, showing that they had a strong ancestral connection to modern-day Jewish and Arab populations. That research, published in Cell in 2020, also showed that the Canaanites in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (before the emergence of the Israelite identity) descended from a mix of Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant and a group that immigrated from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia.
As for the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the maternal side, the two individuals at Kiryat Yearim displayed two different haplogroups. One, T1a, is a very ancient ancestral haplogroup, with similar counterparts already found in individuals living in Jordan some 10,000 years ago and in southeastern Europe around 7,000 years ago, says Shaus. In later samples it is found in Iran and in those Canaanites sampled in Israel, as well as all the way to the Baltic and Ural Mountains.
The second mitochondrial haplogroup, called H87, hasn’t been previously detected in ancient DNA samples but is found in modern-day Basques, Tunisian Arabs, and Iraqis. This may point to an origin in the Mediterranean or the Near East, perhaps in the Arabian peninsula, he says. If so, this particular haplogroup may have spread with nomadic populations, Shaus concludes. In other words, the samples from two ancient Israelites hint at ancestry from peoples in both Anatolia and Arabia.
Much more data and research are needed to understand how significative these results are, whether they truly represent the ancestry of the region’s population at the time – and what they mean for our understanding of the broader story of the emergence of ancient Israel.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lol, More ammo for the destruction of black Heebism....
quote:The second mitochondrial haplogroup, called H87, hasn’t been previously detected in ancient DNA samples but is found in modern-day Basques, Tunisian Arabs, and Iraqis.
God Damn...lool
WhItEz ArE DuH EdOmItEz
and its from the 1st Temple period so Heebs aint got excuses for this one..
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I was waiting for someone to post this...
"Much more data and research are needed to understand how significative these results are, whether they truly represent the ancestry of the region’s population at the time..."
Sounds like they are playing games. And they're classifying the sample as "Israelite" on the basis of Israelite pottery being found with the remains?
So if I, a black man, go to China and buy some vases, pots, and pans, and then I die and get buried with those Chinese pots and pans, does that make me a descendant of Chinese people?
Also, I'm sure we are all aware of how many different races of people lived in Israel even during that time period (... at least we should be.) I mean that's literally why they said word for word that they can't be sure what they found represents the entire population.
2 KINGS 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 cities thereof."
Let us know when they claim to have "extracted DNA" from one of the notorious Israelite patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, like they've done with Tut and Ramesses. They know where these guys are buried and where there tombs are.
Until then they need to stop playing games because smart people are not stupid
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Is J2 even Semetic?
quote: Quite a few ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilisations flourished in territories where J2 lineages were preponderant. This is the case of the Hattians, the Hurrians, the Etruscans, the Minoans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians (and their Carthaginian offshoot), the Israelites, and to a lower extent also the Romans, the Assyrians and the Persians. All the great seafaring civilisations from the middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age were dominated by J2 men./QUOTE]
[QUOTE]rom then on, J2 men would have definitely have represented a sizeable portion of the population of Bronze and Iron Age civilizations such as the Hurrians, the Assyrians or the Hittites
I think it's a great find!
quote:Ramesses' comments about the scale of the Sea Peoples' onslaught in the eastern Mediterranean are confirmed by the destruction of the states of Hatti, Ugarit, Ascalon and Hazor around this time. As the Hittitologist Trevor Bryce observes, "It should be stressed that the invasions were not merely military operations, but involved the movements of large populations, by land and sea, seeking new lands to settle." [84]
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ nope, according to genetic methodology, J it is not semitic in origin. So I have no idea why certain people are so happy. Especially people who claim to understand genetics?
All this study demonstrates is that foreigners lived in Israel during the first temple period which most of us already know, or should know, because it's in the Bible and plenty of other sources/records.
It doesn't prove or demonstrate that anyone descends from actual, lineal Israelites.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ nope, according to genetic methodology, J it is not semitic in origin. So I have no idea why certain people are so happy. Especially people who claim to understand genetics?
All this study demonstrates is that foreigners lived in Israel during the first temple period which most of us already know, or should know, because it's in the Bible and plenty of other sources/records.
It doesn't prove or demonstrate that anyone descends from actual, lineal Israelites.
These haplotype markers came before the Israelites though and the haplotype marker that we see in one of the Israelite samples aligns with these haplotype markers from the early Bronze Age. So how can they be foreigners when these J lineages go back to the Chalcolithic era? If anyone is a foreigner, it would have been the early Israelites, considering that the exodus story is true.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Baalberth
The problem we have here is that the Bible (ancient text and history of the Israelites) establishes the fact that the Israelite nation had its genesis in Egypt (Africa), not the Caucusus.
Also, J is not semitic according to genetic methodology. That cannot be overlooked.
The early Israelites were foreigners in a sense, but when I say foreign I'm saying that according to genetics, these J lineages would have been foreign to the Israelites.
The most likely Judaean (Israelite) progenitors did not have J markers.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Is J2 even Semetic?
The date of origin for haplogroup J-M172(J2) was estimated by Batini et al in 2015 as between 19,000 and 24,000 years before present (BP).
No haplogroups are Semitic
It's a language classification, haplogroups forming far before Semitic language
The date of origin for haplogroup J-M172 was estimated by Batini et al in 2015 as between 19,000 and 24,000 years before present (BP).[11] Samino et al in 2004 dated the origin of the parent haplogroup, J-P209, to between 18,900 and 44,500 YBP.[12] Ancient J-M410, specifically subclade J-Y12379*, has been found, in a mesolithic context, in a tooth from the Kotias Klde Cave in western Georgia dating 9.529-9.895 cal. BP.[13] This sample has been assigned to the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) autosomal component.[14] J-M410, more specifically its subclade J-PF5008, has also been found in a mesolithic sample from the Hotu and Kamarband Caves located in Mazandaran Province of Iran, dating back to 9,100-8,600 B.C.E (approximately 11,000 ybp).[15] Both samples belong to the Trialetian Culture. It is likely that J2 men had settled over most of Anatolia, the South Caucasus and the Zagros mountains by the end of the Last Glaciation 12,000 years ago.[16]
The term "Semitic" was created by members of the Göttingen School of History, initially by August Ludwig von Schlözer (1781), to designate the languages closely related to Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew.[6][7] The choice of name was derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the genealogical accounts of the biblical Book of Genesis,[8] or more precisely from the Koine Greek rendering of the name, Σήμ (Sēm). Johann Gottfried Eichhorn is credited with popularising the term,[9][10][8] particularly via a 1795 article "Semitische Sprachen" (Semitic languages) in which he justified the terminology against criticism that Hebrew and Canaanite were the same language despite Canaan being "Hamitic" in the Table of Nations:[11]
Semitic languages were spoken and written across much of the Middle East and Asia Minor during the Bronze Age and Iron Age, the earliest attested being the East Semitic Akkadian of Mesopotamia (Akkad, Assyria, Isin, Larsa and Babylonia) from the third millennium BC.[14]
The origin of Semitic-speaking peoples is still under discussion. Several locations were proposed as possible sites of a prehistoric origin of Semitic-speaking peoples: Mesopotamia, the Levant, Ethiopia[15] the Eastern Mediterranean region, the Arabian Peninsula, and North Africa. Some claim that the Semitic languages originated in the Levant around 3800 BC, and were introduced to the Horn of Africa at about 800 BC from the southern Arabian peninsula, and to North Africa via Phoenician colonists at approximately the same time.[16][17] Others assign the arrival of Semitic speakers in the Horn of Africa to a much earlier date[18] according to theory believed by many scholars now Semitic originated from an offshoot of a still earlier language in North Africa and desertization made its inhabitants to migrate in the fourth millennium BC into what is now Ethiopia, others northwest out of Africa into West Asia.[19]
The Israelites were a group of Semitic-speaking tribes in the ancient Near East who, during the Iron Age, inhabited a part of Canaan.[3][4][5][6]
The name of Israel first appears in the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt, dated to about 1200 BCE. Modern archaeology suggests that the Israelites branched out from the Canaanites through the development of Yahwism, a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh.[7][8][9][10][11] They spoke an archaic form of the Hebrew language, which was a regional variety of the Canaanite language, known today as Biblical Hebrew.[12] In the Iron Age, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged. The Kingdom of Israel, with its capital at Samaria, fell to the Neo-Assyrian Empire around 720 BCE; while the Kingdom of Judah, with its capital at Jerusalem, was destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE. Some of the Judean population was exiled to Babylon, but returned to Israel after Cyrus the Great conquered the region.
According to the Hebrew Bible, the various tribes of Israel united in the 10th century BCE and formed the United Kingdom of Israel, under the leadership of Saul, who was later overthrown by David; after the death of David, his son Solomon ascended to the throne and reigned until his death, after which the Kingdom split into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.
Part of the gift-bearing Israelite delegation of King Jehu, Black Obelisk, 841–840 BCE.[109] The historicity of the United Monarchy is heavily debated among archaeologists and biblical scholars: biblical maximalists and centrists (Kenneth Kitchen, William G. Dever, Amihai Mazar, Baruch Halpern and others) believe that the biblical account can be considered as more or less accurate, biblical minimalists (Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog, Thomas L. Thompson and others) believe that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah developed as separate states and there was never a United Monarchy. The debate has not yet been resolved, although recent archaeological discoveries by Israeli archaeologists Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel seem to support the existence of a united monarchy.[20] From 850 BCE onwards a series of inscriptions are evidence of a kingdom which its neighbors refer to as the "House of David. ______________________________________
Thus the origin of a haplogroup is not telling of the history of the nation. For instance the United States was founded by Europeans, not it's original inhabitants
So the Israelites cannot be assumed to be comprised of descendants of the earliest inhabitants of it
If there is testing of more remains of ancient Israelites they may find a mix of haplogroups, on the male side J, E1b1b and T (or others) or not And of course each of these haplogroups in the world are comprised of a lot more people who are not Jewish than are
quote:
Historical evidence marshalled by Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen indicates that a change from a patrilineal to a matrilineal-based principle for the offspring of mixed unions of Jew and gentile took place in the 1st century (c. 10–70 CE) times to Modern times
That someone is of some religious status just by birth is a silly idea to me.
That being said, if someone wants to argue that being Jewish by birth should go by the father (or by both parents) if you look at history looking for a paternal line, for that paternal line to have been maintained over the centuries you would would have to show some ethnic group of Jews somewhere who have maintained a paternal tradition over the centuries.
I propose a better system, if you are to be a full fledged member of a religion ancestry is irrelevant, what you must do is pledge to that religion and follow it's laws and customs
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
We can play semantics over what semitic actually means but I'm not in the mood for games so I'll just post this one last time since it was ignored...
According to Israel Finkelstein (the same man who was the lead researcher in the new "Israelite" study linked in the OP), the most likely progenitors of the Israelites was a civilization that did not have J markers.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bronze Age Levantine DNA is kind of boring, so far. Just more of the same. The Chalcolithic samples with light eyes was interesting, though.
As I predicted in the 3 abstracts thread, Eberites are not standout populations for Egyptian/Semitic ancestry (though they spoke an Egyptian/Semitic language). Already told bloggers this in 2016. One blogger in particular others looked up to (who was active on Anthrogenetica), thought Bronze Age Levantines were going to be "rich in Egyptian ancestry", by which he meant lots of E1b1b, among other things. Apparently the Natufian and Abusir papers had given him some bold ideas about claiming E1b1b for Levantines/Middle Easterners, because Natufians and Abusir with E1b1b were claimed to lack Sub-Saharan ancestry. He thought he could debate me on this, and said I was "going against the aDNA".
Wonder where he is now/what he has to say now as more data shows strong dilution of E1b1b in the Levant, by Bronze Age times. (Although I'm sure some pockets of E1b1b remained, well into the Iron Age).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Since we're unlikely to get it from the Egyptian government, early Mesopotamian DNA would be the next best thing. And of course I'm not talking about Semitic speakers who are mostly just speakers (Eberites, Canaanites, etc), but about Semitic speakers who are actually biologically Egyptian, who were concentrated mostly south of the Caucasus, in and around the Mesopotamian area. (Without necessarily implying they were numerically dominant).
Thus, from North Africa, wave after wave of Semitic migrations would seem to have set forth. The earliest of these migrants, and those who went farthest to the East, were the Akkadians who, journeying along the Fertile Crescent through Palestine and Syria, and crossing over into Mesopotamia, reached Northern Babylonia ca. 3000 B.C. and founded the first Semitic Empire at Kish (§4.2; 5.2; 6.2). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar https://books.google.nl/books/about/Semitic_Languages.html?id=IiXVqyEkPKcC&redir_esc=y
Though I would disagree with him (ie Lipinski) on including Eberites (Edomites, Hebrews, Moabites) and Canaanites as particularly influenced by these migrations. We know from the Naqada/predynastic colonies in Palestine that Levantines and Egyptians at that time didn't really mix] and must have been very different (unlike, for instance cultural compatibility between Egyptians and Nubians). I would also mainly look to the earliest settlers for resemblance to predynastics, not so much the later periods.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ nope, according to genetic methodology, J it is not semitic in origin. So I have no idea why certain people are so happy. Especially people who claim to understand genetics?
All this study demonstrates is that foreigners lived in Israel during the first temple period which most of us already know, or should know, because it's in the Bible and plenty of other sources/records.
It doesn't prove or demonstrate that anyone descends from actual, lineal Israelites.
More history study is needed on top of the genetic discussions. J2 is Greek, Mycenean/ Phillistine origin who may have become a convert to the Judaic religion. This dude was a sea people and their settlements are post bronze age collapse.
He is right were he should be with his tragic stony trailer park house.
J2 is also INDO EUROPEAN and not SEMETIC
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Would be nice to see autosomal data from these samples, even if they turn out not to stand out that much from other Bronze and Iron Age Levantines. Phenotype data would be necessary to test the claims of Israelites being dark-skinned enough to be called "black" even if their autosomes don't plot next to West Africans on a PCA graph.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Exactly Lisa. According to genetics, that is what the evidence demonstrates
"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
J2 is also INDO EUROPEAN and not SEMETIC
The Israelites may have mainly been Indo Europeans who migrated to Israel and spoke Semitic language (that is what makes them Semitic) there OR most Israelites might have been indigenous They may have been a mixture of these groups or not
Until more remains are tested we don't know
The origin of Semitic language is far prior to the Israelites and probably not even in Israel. And it is not synonymous with Israel
Haplogroups are not languages
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@lioness
Nobody claimed that being semitic started with Israel, nor that it was synonymous with Israel. I've already posted a genetic study saying that the most likely progenitors of the Israelites were the Natufians, who were proto-semites.
According to genetics, the Natufians were proto-semites who predated the Israelites.
And the natufians did not have haplogroup J.
No idea why you keep reposting the same thing over and over.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote: We know from the Naqada/predynastic colonies in Palestine that Levantines and Egyptians at that time didn't really mix] and must have been very different (unlike, for instance cultural compatibility between Egyptians and Nubians).
Any studies or papers you have on this?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Tazarah
How do you define Isrealite?
It looks like your using Genetics to retroactively change the definition, I'm thoroughly confused at your position.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Not really stuff we've not heard before. We know from specialists in various fields that Egyptian culture was fundamentally African. This quote right here is simply the flipside of that: Bronze Age Levantines couldn't even connect to Egyptian culture in any profound way, because, all things considered, they have nothing to do with African culture or rather, orientation to major recurring themes in African cultures.
In the same way that Euro traditional martial arts studios or curry houses or yoga studios open up shop in the west but generally can't tune into the culture and are typically not regarded as authentic by people in the know.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I remember Tukuler claiming a while back that the people of Judah, the kingdom of Israel's southern neighbor, could potentially have had darker skin and stronger African connections than the Israelites. Do we have aDNA or skeletal remains from people that could conceivably have represented Iron Age Judahites instead of Israelites?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
BrandonP you're always talking about skin color, skin color doesn't matter
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Tazarah
How do you define Isrealite?
It looks like your using Genetics to retroactively change the definition, I'm thoroughly confused at your position.
I define Israelite the same way the Torah and Tanakh does -- a patrilineal descendant of Jacob/Israel (Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59)
I do not personally subscribe to genetics, I only appeal to genetics to demonstrate that not even genetics supports the claim that modern jewish people are the descendants of the ancient Israelites.
Basically I got tired of anti-black people coming at me with genetics and trying to exclude black people from having anything to do with ancient Israel. So now whenever the issue arises, I say hey -- genetics do not even support a lot of the jewish peoples' claims to Israel when you really dig into things.
Sort of like how a christian might learn the qur'an to try disproving islam in discussions with muslims. That's basically the only reason I have anything to do with genetics. I would never use it to try to support any of my claims or beliefs.
And here's a disclaimer (since I have a lot of stalkers who love to follow me around on the internet in hopes of finding something to slander me with):
* I do not hate jewish people, nor do I wish to harm them or any other race of people, nor do I want anybody else to harm them or any other race of people. All people deserve to live safely and unthreatened.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I remember Tukuler claiming a while back that the people of Judah, the kingdom of Israel's southern neighbor, could potentially have had darker skin and stronger African connections than the Israelites. Do we have aDNA or skeletal remains from people that could conceivably have represented Iron Age Judahites instead of Israelites?
Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
Honest question: how do we know that samples are not being cherrypicked to paint a narrative? How do we know that some samples are not being kept from the public, while other samples are being shown to the public? Are we simply at the mercy of the people conducting the studies and the people in charge of the excavations?
And I'm asking this in general, not just in regards to Levantine samples.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
The samples I see being described as possibly having higher-than-average African ancestry (i.e. the ones from Azor and two sites in the Sinai) appear to be Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age. Ancient Israel and Judah date between the Late Bronze Age (the earliest mention of the former that I know about is the Merneptah stela from 1208 BC) and Early Iron Age, several centuries later. Someone like Tazarah who insists on describing ancient Hebrews as black-skinned and related to Africans could counter that the Hebrews' ancestors had to have entered Palestine sometime between the Early and Late Bronze Age.
Not that I am aware of such a migration, personally, but Keita's old craniometric study on Iron Age Lachish suggesting Egypto-Nubian affinities for some of the samples does come to mind here.
(For the record, though, I don’t actually agree with Tazarah about this issue, but I do find the question of African ancestry in ancient Hebrews to be of some interest even if that African ancestry isn’t as likely to be predominant or outstanding in that time and place as people like Taz claim.)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Swenet
Honest question: how do we know that samples are not being cherrypicked to paint a narrative? How do we know that some samples are not being kept from the public, while other samples are being shown to the public? Are we simply at the mercy of the people conducting the studies and the people in charge of the excavations?
And I'm asking this in general, not just in regards to Levantine samples.
Because in cases where we suspect that has happened, we see samples of interest go missing or get substituted by other samples when it's time for DNA sequencing. So, in such cases we see what seems to be a bait and switch (e.g. Shuqbah sample 'disappears' for decades and Raqefet sample is pushed to the forefront as 'true Natufian' to settle the affinities of this population for once and for all). But in the case of Hebrews, there has never been a bunch of reports that found strong African affinities, that were then never heard from again.
The state of Israel was founded relatively recently, and the notion that anthro findings are potentially national threats is also a recent thing. So Hebrew and Canaanite remains with African affinities had plenty of time (most of the 20th century) to accumulate without official government interference. They never did.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
The samples I see being described as possibly having higher-than-average African ancestry (i.e. the ones from Azor and two sites in the Sinai) appear to be Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age. Ancient Israel and Judah date between the Late Bronze Age (the earliest mention of the former that I know about is the Merneptah stela from 1208 BC) and Early Iron Age, several centuries later. Someone like Tazarah who insists on describing ancient Hebrews as black-skinned and related to Africans could counter that the Hebrews' ancestors had to have entered Palestine sometime between the Early and Late Bronze Age.
Not that I am aware of such a migration, personally, but Keita's old craniometric study on Iron Age Lachish suggesting Egypto-Nubian affinities for some of the samples does come to mind here.
As I hinted in my post, there actually is evidence for Hebrews with somewhat increased African affinities (ie the Bronze Age samples bearing the newcomers who just entered Palestine). But if you read Tazarah's posts, he's arguing for a continuity from Natufian times, and he apparently does not subscribe to the bible's own account of Eberites originating in Mesopotamia and settling Palestine from the east. This is a different scenario that implies sharp discontinuity with Natufians, and it implies J2 would be a normal Y-DNA for these 2023 samples (Y-DNA J comes from that northern region). So, I don't think Tazarah would benefit from that scenario because it opens up this other can of worms.
Either way, I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but recently I posted a Minoan paper that had a rare and nice breakdown of Upper Egyptian phenotypes in the Bronze Age Mediterranean world. Nea Nikomedea had the highest frequency (3/4), and Lachish didn't appear to have any special increase of this phenotype. But the point is all the Bronze Age Mediterranean samples had them. So, the Keita study is not really accurate in making this specific to Lachish.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Is this the chart you’re referring to, Swenet? Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Yes. Do you have the link to that thread?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I remember Tukuler claiming a while back that the people of Judah, the kingdom of Israel's southern neighbor, could potentially have had darker skin and stronger African connections than the Israelites. Do we have aDNA or skeletal remains from people that could conceivably have represented Iron Age Judahites instead of Israelites?
Only a few Bronze Age Levantine samples have been said to stand out for having a noticeable increase in African affinities. They are almost never Hebrews. One or two are mentioned in passing in the 2002(?) Patricia Smith document.
The individuals in the B2 group are found predominantly a t African sites (64/97). The largest single group of crania in the B2 cluster comes from the excavation of the :Egyptian cemetery at Kerma in Nubia (22/37). The Egyptians founded a colony there in J970 B.C., which may explain the mix- ture of B1 and B2 cranla In the sample. All of the specimens from Wadi Ajjial, In a remote area of the North Sahara, isolated until its brief conquest by the Romans in J9 B.C., are in the B2 cluster. Seven cranla from Alisar in the central Anatolian highlands, in the Hittite Kingdom, J69 are in the B2 cluster. Three of four skulls from Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedeia are also In the B2 cluster. Angel originally studied this mat- erial and suggested. that there are African and namely Nubian genes in this population (Angel 1973, J08). This suggestion deserves repeating in view of the present resul ts. The evidence clear ly indicates an Air ican associa- tion for the B2 cluster.
As you can see, that Lachish study by Keita misconstrues the bigger picture of post-Natufian Middle East, where individuals with crania typical of predynastics/Nubians were normal for that time. But a lot of that are atavisms (e.g. phenotypes inherited from older Basal Eurasian admixtures), not necessarily direct migration/new arrivals. Although some sites in the Middle East did have direct Bronze Age migration from Africa (ie some samples in which it wasn't just some individuals, but most of the sample that looked like predynastics).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The state of Israel was founded relatively recently, and the notion that anthro findings are potentially national threats is also a recent thing. So Hebrew and Canaanite remains with African affinities had plenty of time (most of the 20th century) to accumulate without official government interference. They never did.
Thanks for your input. I understand what you are saying but I also believe it would be safe to say that there was motivation for sample interference long before the founding of modern Israel in 1948.
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
Axial Affinities 🤣
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
The individuals in the B2 group are found predominantly a t African sites (64/97). The largest single group of crania in the B2 cluster comes from the excavation of the :Egyptian cemetery at Kerma in Nubia (22/37). The Egyptians founded a colony there in J970 B.C., which may explain the mix- ture of B1 and B2 cranla In the sample. All of the specimens from Wadi Ajjial, In a remote area of the North Sahara, isolated until its brief conquest by the Romans in J9 B.C., are in the B2 cluster. Seven cranla from Alisar in the central Anatolian highlands, in the Hittite Kingdom, J69 are in the B2 cluster. Three of four skulls from Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedeia are also In the B2 cluster. Angel originally studied this mat- erial and suggested. that there are African and namely Nubian genes in this population (Angel 1973, J08). This suggestion deserves repeating in view of the present resul ts. The evidence clear ly indicates an Air ican associa- tion for the B2 cluster.
As you can see, that Lachish study by Keita misconstrues the bigger picture of post-Natufian Middle East, where individuals with crania typical of predynastics/Nubians were normal for that time. But a lot of that are atavisms (e.g. phenotypes inherited from older Basal Eurasian admixtures), not necessarily direct migration/new arrivals. Although some sites in the Middle East did have direct Bronze Age migration from Africa (ie some samples in which it wasn't just some individuals, but most of the sample that looked like predynastics).
Yeah, it definitely doesn't look like Hebrews are necessarily going to stand out from other ancient Levantines by having a larger proportion of African ancestry on average. Of course, Levantine individuals with more African ancestry would have existed, but those could be found almost all over the eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (whether due to atavism like you mentioned or people traveling around as they always have).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^That's basically how I see it.
Just so it's clear I'm not pulling a fast one when I say I think they are atavisms in the case of Lachish, at least. It's because the Lachish sample is typically Middle Eastern in certain traits, like projection of the nasal bone.
This value should have gone down in the case of Nubian migration (see the predynastic, Kerma, and Palestinian [Lachish] simotic indices in table 6).
The fact that the value is so high, tells me this sample is mostly made up of your normal Bronze Age Middle Easterners, which is also supported by the sample's position in PCA, next to late dynastics.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Other ancient Levantines"
As in the J-carrying folk who don't even have Levantine origins?....
Lol. The ancient Israelites were birthed in ancient Egypt by mixing with the ancient Egyptians, according to the Torah.
Brandon draws nothing but black/african ancient Egyptian artwork, yet does not believe ancient Israelites had any "african affinities"
Somebody please make it make sense!
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
^ I just think that, if you're going to assert that ancient Hebrews were some enclave of African migrants (or Natufian holdovers) in the Late Bronze Age Levant, you need to have hard evidence for it. Pointing out gaps in the recovered data, or alleging coverups, isn't going to be enough to support any affirmative claim of African Hebrews. It's one thing to speculate that a population might have looked like this or that if the evidence is equivocal or absent, but positive claims like yours and the BHI types need support from the evidence.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations
HAARETZ Ariel David Oct 9, 2023
(article excerpts)
“This is only partial data with a more detailed paper coming in the future,” Reich says.
The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup,
As for the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the maternal side, the two individuals at Kiryat Yearim displayed two different haplogroups. One, T1a, is a very ancient ancestral haplogroup, with similar counterparts already found in individuals living in Jordan some 10,000 years ago and in southeastern Europe around 7,000 years ago, says Shaus. In later samples it is found in Iran and in those Canaanites sampled in Israel, as well as all the way to the Baltic and Ural Mountains.
The second mitochondrial haplogroup, called H87, hasn’t been previously detected in ancient DNA samples but is found in modern-day Basques, Tunisian Arabs, and Iraqis. This may point to an origin in the Mediterranean or the Near East, perhaps in the Arabian peninsula, he says. If so, this particular haplogroup may have spread with nomadic populations, Shaus concludes. In other words, the samples from two ancient Israelites hint at ancestry from peoples in both Anatolia and Arabia.
Much more data and research are needed to understand how significative these results are, whether they truly represent the ancestry of the region’s population at the time – and what they mean for our understanding of the broader story of the emergence of ancient Israel.
So we have two sampled individuals were one male and one female
Y DNA J2
mtDNA T1a
mtDNA H87
(apparently one of these mtDNA's is of the the J2 carrier)
Now comparing to the below Chalcolithic study below of 22 individuals in a cave in Northern Israel cave (4500-3800 BC) we find no J2. There is one individual E1b1b1b12, this was also found in a Natufian but the rest of the males were Y Haplogroup T1 "This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E24, and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J [24],[26]."
Of the mtDNA we see one individual of the mtDNA group T1a and there is another individual from the below Chalcolithic a female (T1a+152) This is the one haplogroup common to both articles _______________________________________
wiki
Peki'in (alternatively Peqi'in) is a Druze–Arab town with local council status in Israel's Northern District. In 2021 it had a population of 6,026.[1] The majority of residents are Druze (78%), with a large Christian (20.8%) and Muslim (1.2%) minorities.[3]
The former Jewish community of Peki'in maintained a presence there since the Second Temple period,[4][5] with an interruption of presence during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt. Most Jews in Peki'in did not return to the village after the violence, and call themselves the Hadera [city] diaspora. It is believed that the Zinatis are the only family who returned, and this family has dwindled to one member.
______________________
(Y DNA) T-M184 Approximately 3% of Sephardi Jews and 2% of Ashkenazi Jews belong to haplogroup T. T-M184 is unusual in that it is both geographically widespread and relatively rare. T1 (T-L206) – the numerically dominant primary branch of T-M184 – appears to have originated in Western Asia, and possibly spread from there into East Africa, South Asia, Europe and adjoining regions. T1* may have expanded with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B culture (PPNB).
Subclades of T-M70 appear to have been present in Europe since the Neolithic with Neolithic Farmers and the later dispersal of Jews from the Near East. Finally, the moderately high frequency (∼18%) of T1b* chromosomes in the Lemba of southern Africa supports the hypothesis of a Near Eastern, but not necessarily a Jewish, origin for their paternal line.
_______________________
mtDNA T1
Based on a sample of over 400 modern day Iranians,[citation needed] the T haplogroup represents roughly 8.3% of the population (about 1 out of 12 individuals), with the more specific T1 subtype constituting roughly half of those. Furthermore, the specific subtype T1 tends to be found further east and is common in Central Asian and modern Turkic populations (Lalueza-Fox 2004), who inhabit much of the same territory as the ancient Saka, Sarmatian, Andronovo, and other putative Iranian peoples of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. Lalueza-Fox et al. (2004) also found several T and T1 sequences in ancient burials, including Kurgans, in the Kazakh steppe between the 14th-10th centuries BC, as well as later into the 1st millennia BC. These coincide with the latter part of the Andronovo period and the Saka period in the region.[5
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The state of Israel was founded relatively recently, and the notion that anthro findings are potentially national threats is also a recent thing. So Hebrew and Canaanite remains with African affinities had plenty of time (most of the 20th century) to accumulate without official government interference. They never did.
Thanks for your input. I understand what you are saying but I also believe it would be safe to say that there was motivation for sample interference long before the founding of modern Israel in 1948.
Armageddon Time: How Discoveries at Megiddo Retell the Story of Ancient Israel For the first time, archaeologists have dated a complete sequence from the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age. What they found at Megiddo changes the story of the ancient Levant
HAARETZ Ariel David Jan 22, 2023
The chronological mapping of the site was completed last year with the dating of layers from the early Middle Bronze Age, that is, from around 2000 to 1750 B.C.E., says Prof. Israel Finkelstein, the head of the Megiddo expedition and an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa.
"Megiddo is now the only site anywhere in the ancient world, not just in Israel or the Levant, where you have the entire sequence of the Bronze Age and Iron Age represented, excavated and radiocarbon dated,” Finkelstein tells Haaretz.
For decades, the Iron Age gates and palaces of Megiddo, as well as similar monumental structures uncovered at other sites in Israel, were believed to date to the 10th century B.C.E. This is roughly the time of the United Monarchy, according to biblical chronology, and archaeologists saw these magnificent structures as evidence of Solomon’s building prowess, thus confirming the historicity of this biblical kingdom.
But starting in the 1990s, Finkelstein and other researchers have been arguing, first on the basis of pottery typology and then using radiocarbon dating, that those ancient structures in fact date to a century later. They were likely built by the Omride dynasty, the ninth century B.C.E. rulers of the Kingdom of Israel, which was based in the north of the country (as opposed to the Kingdom of Judah, centered on Jerusalem), the Finkelstein camp argues.
The radio-carbon dating drive at Megiddo shows the Middle Bronze renaissance started around 2,000 B.C.E., he says. This may confirm previous theories that connect this age of renewed prosperity to increased links to Egypt, mainly through large numbers of people emigrating from Canaan to the Nile Delta.
This population movement eventually led to a period, in the 17th-16th century B.C.E., during which the descendants of these Levantine migrants – the Hyksos, as they would come to be called by the locals – ruled over Lower Egypt as pharaohs.
Don’t blame the Philistines
The centuries passed; the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt; and Canaan itself came under Egyptian rule in the mid 15th century B.C.E. following the battle of Megiddo – not the last time this site would witness an epic, history-changing battle.
As the Middle Bronze turned into the Late Bronze Age, Megiddo and other Canaanite city states continued to prosper under their Egyptian overlords, profiting from brisk international trade that seems to have stretched as far as Southeast Asia.
But the pendulum of history was about to swing again, and by the early-to-mid 12th century B.C.E. many of the great civilizations that had risen in the Eastern Mediterranean seemingly disappeared in what is now called the Bronze Age Collapse.
Cities across Syria and Canaan went up in flames. The Hittite Empire in Anatolia and the Mycaenean civilization of Greece collapsed. Egypt survived but it was diminished, retreating from its colonial dominions in Canaan around 1130 B.C.E.
Tel Abel Beth Maacah Tel Abel Beth Maacah (Tell Abil el-Qameh) is a large site located in northern Israel, commanding several roads leading to the Lebanese inland Beka҅, the Phoenician coast and Damascus. The town of Abel is mentioned in several Egyptian 2nd millennium BCE sources and also three times in the bible, twice in relation to Aramean and Assyrian conquests in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE, as well as in the story about a rebellion against King David in the 10th century BCE. The sample described here was extracted from a complete skeleton of an adult male excavated in Area O on the western slope of the lower mound.
Tel Hazor Hazor is the largest Bronze and Iron Age site in Israel, covering some 200 acres. The mound is composed of an upper mound (acropolis) adjoining a huge lower mound (lower city) to its north. Occupation began in the upper mound during the Early Bronze Age II (early third millennium BCE), while the lower city was founded in the Middle Bronze Age II (approximately the 18th century BCE). Both continued to be settled until a later phase of the Late Bronze Age (13th century), when the upper and lower cities were violently destroyed or abandoned. Following this destruction, only the upper part of the mound was resettled and fortified, becoming a major city in the 10th to 8th centuries BCE, as part of the Israelite kingdom.
Yehud Tel Yehud (Tell el-Yehudia) is situated on the northeastern side of the Ono valley in the eastern part of the central coastal plain of Israel, ca. 12 km east of the Mediterranean Sea. Rescue excavations were carried out in 2008, followed by an excavation season in 2009 in Areas A and B, in the location of an underground parking lot. Archaeological findings at these areas include a deep shaft filled with refuse dated to the Chalcolithic Period, a cemetery from the Intermediate Bronze Age, a Late Roman-Byzantine pottery workshop, and Early Islamic cist graves.
The human remains analyzed in this study are of 13 individuals from the Intermediate Bronze Age.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Modern, Sephardic Jews in Portugal and Ashkenazi Jews, general
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: ^ I just think that, if you're going to assert that ancient Hebrews were some enclave of African migrants (or Natufian holdovers) in the Late Bronze Age Levant, you need to have hard evidence for it. Pointing out gaps in the recovered data, or alleging coverups, isn't going to be enough to support any affirmative claim of African Hebrews. It's one thing to speculate that a population might have looked like this or that if the evidence is equivocal or absent, but positive claims like yours and the BHI types need support from the evidence.
I'm not asserting that they were "africans", not all black people are africans and there is evidence to demonstrate that.
The samples that are presently available do not even have the same Y markers as the civilization that is said to be the most likely progenitors of the ancient Israelite people, so why are those samples being used to say who does or does not have any links to the actual ancient Israelites? This is the exact reason why I have been posting these studies in this thread.
It doesn't make sense and it's like everyone is ignoring the obvious elephant in the room, whether it be genetic or historic evidence that contradicts what is being pushed.
Then there's the whole thing I mentioned about how the Israelites were birthed in Egypt, according to the Torah.
What evidence are you basing your paintings of black ancient Egyptians on? Are you aware that in addition to the Torah saying the Israelites were birthed in Egypt, the Torah and New Testament also both say that the Israelites were often mistaken as being Egyptian? There are also firsthand eyewitness accounts from the 7th century to support this, as well as Egyptian artwork from 15th century BC demonstrating that ancient Israelites were similar in appearance to Nubians and Ethiopians.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:As you can see, that Lachish study by Keita misconstrues the bigger picture of post-Natufian Middle East, where individuals with crania typical of predynastics/Nubians were normal for that time. But a lot of that are atavisms (e.g. phenotypes inherited from older Basal Eurasian admixtures), not necessarily direct migration/new arrivals. Although some sites in the Middle East did have direct Bronze Age migration from Africa (ie some samples in which it wasn't just some individuals, but most of the sample that looked like predynastics).
Swenet, could you off the top of you head list the Levantine samples that had an African affinity and provide your expertise on which of those samples reflects Basal Eurasian ancestry or recent African intergression?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I have not looked into this for a long time, so I can't be of much help. But I would say all Bronze Age Levantine samples had African affinity via the Natufians and other migrations, albeit in diluted form.
What we're especially talking about is African ancestry associated with the 5.9 kiloyear event, and where it went. Much of it went to oases and places like the Nile Valley, but some of it left Africa and took with it some of the linguistic diversity (Semitic) that was lost in Africa.
The question is, how much of it went into Bronze Age Levantines vs the rest of the Middle East and West Eurasia? I would say relatively little ended up in the Levant. We know this because the Levant at its most African was Natufian and then it went downhill from there (see the E Y-DNAs getting diluted, for instance).
The minority that did end up in the Levant therefore did not bring about any major change in ancestry as far as we can tell from the skeletal and aDNA samples. The Sinai and Azor populations mentioned in the Patricia Smith document seem good candidates for having this 5.9 kiloyear ancestry.
Another reason I think most of it did not end up in the Levant, is because the change seems to be most noticeable, not in the early Bronze Age, but in the Middle Bronze age (MBII). This weird delay for the African ancestry to affect the skeletal data in a clear way, almost certainly means that most of the Semitic migrations did not settle in the Levant, initially.
This indicates to me that most of the Semitic speakers, who were not just speakers, but biologically Egyptian/N. African, passed through the Levant, but settled elsewhere, and then impacted the Levant in a roundabout way after a delay (ie a 'backmigration). By then they looked like their African ancestry was diluted (e.g. they had brachycephaly).
Most of the MBII samples that have been studied are dated to the MBIIB or MBlle. Specimens studied here are derived from Efrat, Nahal Refaim, Tel Dan, Ganei HaTa'arucha, Megiddo, Sasa and Hazar (see Figure 4). They show significant differences from all of the earlier populations in this region in craniofacial characteristics. In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose than in any of the earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurements shown in Figure 5, and the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of micro evolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel. Determination of their exact point of origin is now planned, using DNA analysis. People of the Holy Land from prehistory to the recent past https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PEOPLE-OF-THE-HOLY-lAND-FROM-PREHISTORY-TO-THE-PAST-Patr%C3%ADcia/ac3b6ee13fd0624509af075cd75032c811b34a1e Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Is J2 even Semitic?
Technically no. No haplotype is specific to any one cultural group; however it may occur in high frequencies among a group. J clade in general is highest among Southwest Asians in general but it just so happens that Semitic languages are predominant in those populations.
The two main subclades J1 and J2 and their distributions:
^ Note that while J2 is commonly associated with Jews, J1 is associated with Arabs. Interestingly the Jewish cohen modal halplotype associated with families with the Cohen name i.e. priestly descent is a subtype of J1.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As I hinted in my post, there actually is evidence for Hebrews with somewhat increased African affinities (i.e. the Bronze Age samples bearing the newcomers who just entered Palestine). But if you read Tazarah's posts, he's arguing for a continuity from Natufian times, and he apparently does not subscribe to the bible's own account of Eberites originating in Mesopotamia and settling Palestine from the east. This is a different scenario that implies sharp discontinuity with Natufians, and it implies J2 would be a normal Y-DNA for these 2023 samples (Y-DNA J comes from that northern region). So, I don't think Tazarah would benefit from that scenario because it opens up this other can of worms.
Either way, I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but recently I posted a Minoan paper that had a rare and nice breakdown of Upper Egyptian phenotypes in the Bronze Age Mediterranean world. Nea Nikomedea had the highest frequency (3/4), and Lachish didn't appear to have any special increase of this phenotype. But the point is all the Bronze Age Mediterranean samples had them. So, the Keita study is not really accurate in making this specific to Lachish.
Indeed, the Bible is clear that Hebrews originated in Mesopotamia. And let's not forget the 2005 Carlos Flores et al. study Bronze Age Dead Sea plain (Sodom & Gomorrah) inhabitants: Abstract A high-resolution, Y-chromosome analysis using 46 binary markers has been carried out in two Jordan populations, one from the metropolitan area of Amman and the other from the Dead Sea, an area geographically isolated. Comparisons with neighboring populations showed that whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbors, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its high R1*-M173 frequency (40%) has until now only been found in northern Cameroonian samples. This contrasts with the comparatively low presence of J representatives (9%), which is the modal clade in Middle Eastern populations, including Amman. The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population. These results demonstrate that, at a fine scale, the smooth, continental clines detected for several Y-chromosome markers are often disrupted by genetically divergent populations.
So obviously there has been a population change in the region. I too question Tazarah's claims of continued Natufian presence when archaeology shows that such was not the case.
By the way, the Bible makes it very clear that when the Hebrews (Abraham and his clan) arrived in the Levant there was already a diverse populations living there not only Canaanites.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Yes. The bible speaks of all types of physically diverse populations in the Levant, including tall nations. Kind of puzzling that the Bronze Age Y-DNA in the Levant is so homogeneous.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Exactly Lisa. According to genetics, that is what the evidence demonstrates
"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Correck! J1 is not semetic either...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The Levant and Arabian Peninsula have always been physically diverse. However, even with all the history of the region it is still relatively unsampled in terms of ancient DNA and remains. And of course, Africa has some impact on this historically as the region is a crossroads moreso then that claimed for the Nile Valley, but without larger sample sizes you won't see the variation in any detail.
As for Israel, my understanding is that since the sack of the region by the Neo-Assyrians as seen in the sieges of Lachish, many of the later Jewish people were of Mesopotamian extraction as a result of being taken there after conquest and there are still remnants of Jewish populations in Iraq, Syria, etc. And this continued through the Greco Roman era, up until the final destruction of the Temple by the Romans and dispersal of the Jewish people into wider Eurasia.
But basically this isn't shocking that the population of Israel in that era would have been more like the populations in the surrounding area (as opposed to being of European extraction for example).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:
(KJV) Genesis 15
After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
"Semitic" just means a speaker one of the Semitic languages. It doesn't mean a Semitic person is necessarily ancestrally related to the earliest speaker of a Semitic language.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yet Semitic is a branch of Afroasiatic language phylum which originated in Africa which means the language group was introduced to Southwest Asia at some point by Africans. Similarly Indo-European is a language phylum originating in European subcontinent in the eastern steppes of western Russia, yet there are I-E speakers in Sri-Lanka who are obviously not of European extraction.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Exactly Lisa. According to genetics, that is what the evidence demonstrates
"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Correck! J1 is not semetic either...
Exactly Lisa, but now they're trying to say Semitic or Semite has nothing to do with being a descendant of Shem anymore. Anybody can be a Semite, as long as they speak the language. 🤷🏾♂️
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So obviously there has been a population change in the region. I too question Tazarah's claims of continued Natufian presence when archaeology shows that such was not the case.
I did not assert anything about a continued natufian presence, all I said was that according to the paper I referenced, the natufians were the most likely Judaean (Israelite) progenitors, and they did not have any J markers.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Semitic" just means a speaker one of the Semitic languages. It doesn't mean a Semitic person is necessarily ancestrally related to the earliest speaker of a Semitic language
Isn't it funny how definitions change over time in order to further certain narratives? From a Biblical standpoint, Semitic/Semite = a descendant of Shem. The suffix "ite" in Semite literally denotes lineage.
When jewish people say "antisemitic", they are not talking about being anti language.
I have no idea how people can just change the meanings of words like that in the name of "science".
"Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "Semitic" just means a speaker one of the Semitic languages. It doesn't mean a Semitic person is necessarily ancestrally related to the earliest speaker of a Semitic language.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet Semitic is a branch of Afroasiatic language phylum which originated in Africa which means the language group was introduced to Southwest Asia at some point by Africans. Similarly Indo-European is a language phylum originating in European subcontinent in the eastern steppes of western Russia, yet there are I-E speakers in Sri-Lanka who are obviously not of European extraction.
Is your argument that this means the Israelites were African due to the first location of Semitic language? I'm seeing you started off your statement with the word "yet"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Semitic" just means a speaker one of the Semitic languages. It doesn't mean a Semitic person is necessarily ancestrally related to the earliest speaker of a Semitic language
Isn't it funny how definitions change over time in order to further certain narratives? From a Biblical standpoint, Semitic/Semite = a descendant of Shem. The suffix "ite" in Semite literally denotes lineage.
When jewish people say "antisemitic", they are not talking about being anti language.
I have no idea how people can just change the meanings of words like that in the name of "science".
"Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."
Why not reply to the full context of Lioness' quote? Does the bible state that the Hebrews originated in a place close to what we now know, were Y-DNA J population centers in Mesopotamia, in your view?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: ^ I just think that, if you're going to assert that ancient Hebrews were some enclave of African migrants (or Natufian holdovers) in the Late Bronze Age Levant, you need to have hard evidence for it. Pointing out gaps in the recovered data, or alleging coverups, isn't going to be enough to support any affirmative claim of African Hebrews. It's one thing to speculate that a population might have looked like this or that if the evidence is equivocal or absent, but positive claims like yours and the BHI types need support from the evidence.
I'm not asserting that they were "africans", not all black people are africans and there is evidence to demonstrate that.
The samples that are presently available do not even have the same Y markers as the civilization that is said to be the most likely progenitors of the ancient Israelite people, so why are those samples being used to say who does or does not have any links to the actual ancient Israelites? This is the exact reason why I have been posting these studies in this thread.
It doesn't make sense and it's like everyone is ignoring the obvious elephant in the room, whether it be genetic or historic evidence that contradicts what is being pushed.
Then there's the whole thing I mentioned about how the Israelites were birthed in Egypt, according to the Torah.
What evidence are you basing your paintings of black ancient Egyptians on? Are you aware that in addition to the Torah saying the Israelites were birthed in Egypt, the Torah and New Testament also both say that the Israelites were often mistaken as being Egyptian? There are also firsthand eyewitness accounts from the 7th century to support this, as well as Egyptian artwork from 15th century BC demonstrating that ancient Israelites were similar in appearance to Nubians and Ethiopians.
Putting aside how telling it is that you believe the Torah when it suits your narrative but ignore its claims about Hebrews having roots in Mesopotamia…
During the Middle and New Kingdom, there would have been plenty of Levantines who assimilated into Egyptian society after migrating into the Delta. So someone of Levantine ancestry like Moses could still potentially have been taken for an Egyptian national if, say, he was wearing Egyptian-style clothes and other cultural markers. I imagine the Levantine presence in Egypt would have been even greater during Roman times when the New Testament was written. And where are these New Kingdom depictions of Israelites looking like Kushites?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
According to the Bible, Hebrews were a large family group not exclusive to the Israelites. Hebrews were descendants of Heber. Abraham was a Hebrew, because he was a descendant of Heber. Abraham then begat Isaac, who begat Jacob/Israel. The Israelites were descendants of Israel.
Not all of the Hebrews were the same people. This study is in the OP is supposedly about "Israelite" remains being found.
According to the Torah, the Israelite nation was birthed in Egypt. 66 of them went into Egypt and centuries later over 600,000 of them came out of Egypt.
Furthermore, J originates in the caucusus, not in Mesopotamia.
May I kindly ask why I am being asked to respond to the full context of peoples' comments, yet no one has responded to the main point I raised about how according to a paper I referenced, the most likely Judaean/Israelite progenitors were the natufians... and the natufians had no J markers?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Putting aside how telling it is that you believe the Torah when it suits your narrative but ignore its claims about Hebrews having roots in Mesopotamia…
When did I ever ignore anything about the Torah? Are you sure that you even understand my position? I have no problem with Hebrews originating in Mesopotamia, but the Hebrew family is not exclusive to the Israelites. It was a large group of families (see my above response to Swenet) but according to genetic methodology, J did not originate in Mesopotamia, it originated in the caucusus. So I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
I've also repeatedly pointed out how according to a paper I referenced, the most likely Judaean progenitors were the natufians and the natufians did not have any J markers
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: During the Middle and New Kingdom, there would have been plenty of Levantines who assimilated into Egyptian society after migrating into the Delta. So someone of Levantine ancestry like Moses could still potentially have been taken for an Egyptian national if, say, he was wearing Egyptian-style clothes and other cultural markers.
So if somebody put on a Japanese garment, you would automatically think they were ethnically Japanese even if they looked nothing like actual Japanese people?
Even in the New Testament, Paul (an Israelite) was mistaken as being an Egyptian -- yet at that time he was a Roman citizen and surely not wearing any Egyptian clothing or cultural markers.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: And where are these New Kingdom depictions of Israelites looking like Kushites?
The main issue for people of the Jewish faith is that over time due to various conquests of different empires over time, they have found themselves in various other nations and among other populations. And as such they assimilated into those populations, while still maintaining a "lineage" based on their faith which is tied the history of the temple and the ancient nation of Israel. But if we want to say that the original Israelites were "native" to the Levant at the start of that tradition, then it would make sense that they were of similar genetic lineages to those in the Levant as a Levantine population. And we know that Semitic languages in that area became dominant in or around the same time as the founding of Israel. But I don't see this particular study as proving anything about Semitic languages other than basically saying the Israelites of that time were natives of the area.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
YFull and FTDNA have however failed to find J* people anywhere in the world although there are two J2-Y130506 persons and one J1 person from Soqotra. But Cerny 2009 study found nine J1 persons in Soqotra/Socotra and majority of J* and no J2, hypothesizing a J1 founder effect in Socotra.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Swenet
According to the Bible, Hebrews were a large family group not exclusive to the Israelites. Hebrews were descendants of Heber. Abraham was a Hebrew, because he was a descendant of Heber. Abraham then begat Isaac, who begat Jacob/Israel. The Israelites were descendants of Israel.
Not all of the Hebrews were the same people. This study is in the OP is supposedly about "Israelite" remains being found.
According to the Torah, the Israelite nation was birthed in Egypt. 66 of them went into Egypt and centuries later over 600,000 of them came out of Egypt.
Furthermore, J originates in the caucusus, not in Mesopotamia.
May I kindly asked why I am being asked to respond to the full context of peoples' comments, yet no one has responded to the main point I raised about how according to a paper I referenced, the most likely Judaean/Israelite progenitors were the natufians... and the natufians had no J markers?
It's not true that Hebrew includes other Eberites (e.g. Ammonites, Moabites, Ishmaelites, Joktanites).
I fail to see what your post has to do with the question. I also fail to see how the account of their stay in Egypt puts a restriction on the Hebrew Y-DNA pool, where it would be reasonable to argue Hebrews lacked Y-DNA J2.
But your post/answer works either way. I just wanted to confirm if you would downplay the Torah's account of Hebrew ethnogenesis in Mesopotamia.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
Moabites, Ammonites, and other descendants of Eber/Heber are definitely Hebrews from a Torah/Biblical standpoint. Any descendant(s) of Eber/Heber would have been Hebrews, from a Torah/Biblical standpoint.
"From Shem, through Arpachshad and Shelah, came Eber, the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews; and Eber’s descendant, through Peleg, Reu, Sereg, and Nahor, was Terah, the father of Abram and his brothers Nahor and Haran. It becomes clear that, if “Hebrews” are “descendants of Eber,” then others besides those of Abraham’s line could possibly be included (see Genesis 11:10–26)."
More importantly, why does everyone ignore the point I raised about how according to the paper I referenced, the most likely progenitors of the Judaeans/Israelites were the natufians... and the natufians did not have J markers?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
People ignore your quote because you are not posting evidence. Brandon already explained this to you. Saying Natufians are progenitors is just conjecture. And it doesn't matter if the person speculating is a phd. It's still speculation, and there is still nothing concrete behind it. We have better data now showing that the speculation is incorrect, but for some reason you think the quote remains eternally valid, even as Bronze Age Y-DNAs keep piling up. I very much doubt that your source intended for his quotes to be misused to flout/oppose actual Israelite aDNA.
Same applies to your pedigrees. I don't remember the word Hebrew being a synonym for anything other than the protagonists of the bible: Abraham and his main descendants through Sarai. There are plenty of verses where Eberites were enemies of the Israelites. Hebrew is a term much more intimate to Israelites than whatever connection they had with these other Eberites, and I very much doubt it was ever applied to them.
You're probably going to come back again, for the third time, with some non-evidence (scholar XYZ confirmed my position) rather than quoting an actual verse from the bible proving your point, so I'm going to leave it at this.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I'm going to ignore the first part of Tazarah's last response to me since Swenet has just already dealt with it.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: During the Middle and New Kingdom, there would have been plenty of Levantines who assimilated into Egyptian society after migrating into the Delta. So someone of Levantine ancestry like Moses could still potentially have been taken for an Egyptian national if, say, he was wearing Egyptian-style clothes and other cultural markers.
So if somebody put on a Japanese garment, you would automatically think they were ethnically Japanese even if they looked nothing like actual Japanese people?
If they were raised Japanese and identified as a Japanese citizen, the way Moses in the Book of Exodus was said to have been raised as an Egyptian national, then why not refer to them as a Japanese national even if their phenotype is atypical for that population? Actually, a better analogy for New Kingdom Egypt (and many other circum-Mediterranean empires at the peak of their power) would be the modern US. There are plenty of American nationals whom everyone recognizes as American despite not looking like the stereotypical Anglo-American.
quote:Even in the New Testament, Paul (an Israelite) was mistaken as being an Egyptian -- yet at that time he was a Roman citizen and surely not wearing any Egyptian clothing or cultural markers.
Again, by Roman times, there would have been even more people of Levantine ancestry having settled in Egypt than in earlier periods. So there would have been more phenotypic overlap between Levantines and Egyptians than before. Look at the Fayyum portraits for example. They may not necessarily represent the whole population of Roman-era Egypt (and it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them had partial Greek or Latin ancestry, judging by their clothing), but you cannot deny that there were people of their phenotype living in Egypt during the period of Roman control.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: And where are these New Kingdom depictions of Israelites looking like Kushites?
What evidence is there for these representing foreign workers other than the caption's assertion? The darker ones at least look like typical Egyptian self-representations to me.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
By the way, this earlier statement of yours confuses me.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: According to the Torah, the Israelite nation was birthed in Egypt. 66 of them went into Egypt and centuries later over 600,000 of them came out of Egypt.
Furthermore, J originates in the caucusus, not in Mesopotamia.
May I kindly asked why I am being asked to respond to the full context of peoples' comments, yet no one has responded to the main point I raised about how according to a paper I referenced, the most likely Judaean/Israelite progenitors were the natufians... and the natufians had no J markers?
If you're trying to imply that Israelites had to have been biologically Egyptian based on their nation having its genesis in Egypt (which would be a bit like claiming African-Americans are biologically European based on European colonists in the US holding them in bondage for four centuries, by the way) then why cite the Natufians as representing their ancestors? Especially since you seem intent on portraying the Israelites enslaved in Egypt as somehow separate on a biological level from other Eberites/Hebrews (whom you conceded could have had some Mesopotamian roots).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@BrandonP
I'm going to leave the other arguments alone and just stick to the Egyptian artwork I shared from 15th century BC Egypt. You can click the link to the researchgate article and see all of the scholars, archaeologists, etc., who contributed to the article, as well as their credentials.
According to them, the people in the painting are Israelite slaves working alongside black african Nubian slaves and they have the same skin color.
Also, I'm glad you acknowledged earlier that Kushites/Cushites are black africans (I agree). The Torah says that Nimrod, the first king of Babylon (Mesopotamia), was a descendant of Kush/Cush.
GENESIS 10:8
"8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth."
I only mention this to demonstrate that the Torah places "black" or "african" people in Mesopotamia thousands of years ago. Although they were not Semitic or related to the Israelites.
Lastly, "african-americans" existed long before europeans enslaved us. The Torah says only 66 Israelites went into Egypt, and over 600,000 of them left Egypt.
But do feel free to try reconciling the J "Israelite" markers with the fact that the most likely Judaean/Israelite progenitors did not have any J markers
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @BrandonP
I'm going to leave the other arguments alone and just stick to the Egyptian artwork I shared from 15th century BC Egypt. You can click the link to the researchgate article and see all of the scholars, archaeologists, etc., who contributed to the article, as well as their credentials.
According to them, the people in the painting are Israelite slaves working alongside black african Nubian slaves and they have the same skin color.
That the writers had credentials doesn't mean that they're necessarily right in identifying the brick-makers in that artwork as necessarily representing a mixture of Kushites and Levantines (let alone that the Levantines are necessarily Israelites). They don't even describe their reasoning as to why those workers had to have been foreign. It appears to be an assumption based on a desire to equate what the painting depicts with the Biblical narrative of enslaved people making bricks in Egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish Ranajit Das1 Paul Wexler2 Mehdi Pirooznia3 Eran Elhaik
"The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)
Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N. A. (2002). The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
The reference here to a 20 year old book of Finkelstein's. The book doesn't even mention Natufians. It's not a proper verifiable reference unless it has a page number or quote of Finkelstein supposedly saying something to that effect 20 years ago.
the article is criticized in another article here:
Pitfalls of the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) Approach Applied to Human Genetic History: A Case Study of Ashkenazi Jews Pavel Flegontov,
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@BrandonP
You guys are always talking about going with the evidence, scholars and academia, but when evidence gets presented that you do not agree with you reject it?
Jewish Dr. Henry Abramson also uses the Egyptian artwork in question as evidence of Israelites in Egypt (although he uses lighter, reconstructed versions)
And this Haaretz article asserts the same, and uses the original painting
The paper I referenced was peer reviewed, if you are claiming that it falsely attributes something to Finkelstein that isn't accurate, please reference or quote something explicitly saying so.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @BrandonP
You guys are always talking about going with the evidence, scholars and academia, but when evidence gets presented that you do not agree with you reject it?
Jewish Dr. Henry Abramson also uses the Egyptian artwork in question as evidence of Israelites in Egypt (although he uses lighter, reconstructed versions)
And this Haaretz article asserts the same, and uses the original painting
The second link only says they were foreign. Even if that’s true, that doesn’t necessarily make them any of them Israelites. Then could be representing generic Levantines and Kushites (some of the workers are noticeably lighter than others BTW).
Also, where are the skeletal remains these Africoid Israelites left behind? How come the racist physical anthropologists of the past were able to suppress evidence for Israelites having an Africoid phenotype, yet somehow did not suppress the evidence of ancient Egyptians (and Natufians for that matter) with African-like post-cranial proportions and Northeast African cranial features?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@BrandonP
I think I'll ride with the PhD scholars and archaeologists on this one. They identify the people in the painting as Israelites/Semites and they have decades of expertise and experience.
You pretty much answered your own question... the only thing worth being suppressed is evidence about the Israelites, because that's all that really matters in regards to this topic. They can present natufian remains but then try to play games about who the Israelites actually were.
Although I am aware of a study that says Israelite skulls found at Lachish were "egyptian in nature"
D. L. Risdon in BIOMETRIKA 1939 31:99-166
And I've also shared plenty of times, archaeological studies stating that ancient Elamites (semites, descendants of Shem) and ancient arabs (semites, also descendants of shem) had negroid skulls and negroid skeletal remains.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
The paper I referenced was peer reviewed, if you are claiming that it falsely attributes something to Finkelstein that isn't accurate, please reference or quote something explicitly saying so.
I didn't say it falsely attributes something. I'm saying it might falsely attributes or misinterpreted but the article neither quotes Finkelstein or provides a page number which is proper citation so that one can verify. "here, spend 10 hours reading this book, trust me it's in there" is not sufficient
this is the reference from the article missing a page number/s ____________________________ Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N. A. (2002). The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
______________________________
Here's the whole book, maybe you can find a proper quote that supports what the article claims he said. Also that publisher, Frontier is not one of the more respected journals and the article is considered controversial so I'm not surprised about certain details lacking of the reference
Let me know if you find anything else that actually discredits the paper with legitimacy
Then you can probably email them and ask for a retraction
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Haplogroup E1b1b is considered the prime candidate for the origin and dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages across northern and eastern Africa and south-west Asia. The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b. One specific deeper subclade is surely associated with the development of Arabic language and with J1-FGC12, but it hasn't been identified yet.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ Tazarah
Swenet has already pointed out in this threadthat the remains from Lachish don’t really stand out among populations of the ancient eastern Mediterranean in terms of their affinity with Egyptians. So, even if there were individual Israelites with a more Africoid phenotype than others, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Israelites as a whole represented a uniquely Africoid enclave within the Bronze to Iron Age Levant.
In all honesty, though, it’s not like I even deny there were substantially melanated Israelites. I’m sure there was intermixing with darker-skinned people from the Sinai and the Arabian periphery (regions that, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to produce substantial aDNA samples dating between the Bronze and Iron Age). But that would have been true across the whole of Bronze Age Canaan. At any rate, I doubt the Israelites as a whole were phenotypically interchangeable with Egyptians or Kushites, and the common BHI claim of an affinity to the African ancestry found in modern Afro-Diasporans seems even less likely.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: The second link only says they were foreign. Even if that’s true, that doesn’t necessarily make them any of them Israelites. Then could be representing generic Levantines and Kushites (some of the workers are noticeably lighter than others BTW).
Also, where are the skeletal remains these Africoid Israelites left behind? How come the racist physical anthropologists of the past were able to suppress evidence for Israelites having an Africoid phenotype, yet somehow did not suppress the evidence of ancient Egyptians (and Natufians for that matter) with African-like post-cranial proportions and Northeast African cranial features? [/QB]
So for arguments sake, disregard this second one, just about this one photo above showing in the post and relate it to the thread topic. Could a person bearing the haplogroup J2 look like either of those figures in this post?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
By the way, if anyone wants to know exactly how I think ancient Israelites could have looked, I actually have drawn them a few times.
Swenet has already pointed out in this threadthat the remains from Lachish don’t really stand out among populations of the ancient eastern Mediterranean in terms of their affinity with Egyptians. So, even if there were individual Israelites with a more Africoid phenotype than others, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Israelites as a whole represented a uniquely Africoid enclave within the Bronze to Iron Age Levant.
In all honesty, though, it’s not like I even deny there were substantially melanated Israelites. I’m sure there was intermixing with darker-skinned people from the Sinai and the Arabian periphery (regions that, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to produce substantial aDNA samples dating between the Bronze and Iron Age). But that would have been true across the whole of Bronze Age Canaan. At any rate, I doubt the Israelites as a whole were phenotypically interchangeable with Egyptians or Kushites, and the common BHI claim of an affinity to the African ancestry found in modern Afro-Diasporans seems even less likely.
I actually agree with most of what you said here. I only believe that the Jews, or southern kingdom (3 of the 12 tribes) were "black" or "negro" for the most part (of course some would be lighter due to mixing and/or phenotypical variation), and that the rest of the 9 tribes (northern kingdom) were of a somewhat lighter skin complexion (although not ashkenazi or europeans), but also with some darker skinned people mixed in.
Most "BHI" believe the same (at least the ones in camps), hence, the 12 tribes chart, which has the three southern kingdom tribes as american blacks, haitians and jamaicans while the rest of the 9 tribes are so-called latinos. The chart is only supposed to be a guide for the western hemisphere, though.
All the evidence I've seen suggests that the Jews were an originally black or dark-skinned people to begin with, and did not acquire that trait by mixing with other dark-skinned people
And I believe your Israelite artwork is actually spot on... lol what led you to draw them with those skin complexions when none of the presented or available "evidence" suggests they looked that way????
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
As for your question about whether or not a J2 bearing person could resemble any of the people in the painting... MAYBE a dark-skinned or black arab (if arabs even have J2? I'm not sure).
But I've never seen an ashkenazi or sephardic jewish person who looks anything close to that.
Also, both people in the painting appear to have some "prognathism"
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ Tazarah
I can’t speak for Swenet or any of your other opponents, but it was never my position that ancient Israelites were for the most part pale-skinned. Certainly, they would have been darker than Europeans, including modern Ashkenazi Jews. I just doubt they were as dark on average as Egyptians or other Africans, or even the Epipaleolithic Natufians (whom I recall appear to have had exclusively ancestral alleles for dark skin like that of modern Africans).
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @BrandonP
I think I'll ride with the PhD scholars and archaeologists on this one. They identify the people in the painting as Israelites/Semites and they have decades of expertise and experience.
You pretty much answered your own question... the only thing worth being suppressed is evidence about the Israelites, because that's all that really matters in regards to this topic. They can present natufian remains but then try to play games about who the Israelites actually were.
Although I am aware of a study that says Israelite skulls found at Lachish were "egyptian in nature"
D. L. Risdon in BIOMETRIKA 1939 31:99-166
And I've also shared plenty of times, archaeological studies stating that ancient Elamites (semites, descendants of Shem) and ancient arabs (semites, also descendants of shem) had negroid skulls and negroid skeletal remains.
Tazarah, couldn't you at least agree that the biological history of the Israelites and their predecessors involves fluidity and heterogeneity rather than static continuity since prehistory? Take for instance your own source for example. This morphological trend found in Lachish comes later than what is found in the early Bronze Age, which from Swenet's analysis, isn't reminiscent of African affinity. However, this source could still coincide with the ethnogenesis of the Israelites. Let's apply this hypothetical in a biblical context. Disregarding the biology the progenitors of the Israelites (Abraham) might've had, when Abraham and his people migrated into the Levant, his people could've overtime taken a genetic profile reminiscent of Bronze Age Levantines. This genetic closeness would have involve cultural compatibility between these groups by virtue of local Levantines and the progenitors both being Semitic speakers. However, when they expanded into Egypt, they could have also overtime taken a genetic profile reminiscent of Egyptians, meaning that they required Egyptian ancestry, whatever that entails. This is how important the exodus story is, in that it could prove your point that there was an African substratum involved in the Israelites ethnogenesis. There's actually have genetic information proving this to be the case via modern Jewish groups ironically enough:
quote:A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data, and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (∼2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC. The dates that emerge from our ROLLOFF analysis in the non-Mizrahi Jews could also reflect events in the Greek and Roman periods, when there were large communities of Jews in North Africa, particularly Alexandria. We detect a similar African mixture proportion in the non-Jewish Druze (4.4±0.4%) although the date is more recent (54±7 generations; 44±7 after the bias correction). Algorithms such as PCA and STRUCTURE show that various Jewish populations cluster with Druze, which coupled with the similarity in mixture proportions, is consistent with descent from a common ancestral population. Importantly, the other Levantine populations (Bedouins and Palestinians) do not share this similarity in the African mixture pattern with Jews and Druze, making them distinct in their admixture history.
In this case, you could argue a more stronger case with the exodus story out of Egypt, an analogy for the Hyksos expulsions, as opposed to the Natufians, which is more distant in the past anyway.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Baalberth
The Lachish argument is just one of many that I believe supports what I'm saying, although I do understand how it might seem to undercut the position. I only referenced it to support the fact that the Israelites were birthed in Egypt and had morphological affinities to black africans.
I take into account many different pieces of evidence to reach the conclusion I've reached. I've referenced many diffefent evidences in this thread, although I might not have linked each one (I am willing to do so though, if anyone requests the info).
But most importantly I wanted to focus on how one of the papers I referenced said the natufians were the most likely Israelite progenitors, yet the natufians did not have J markers.
Regardless of how long ago the natufians existed, they are still said to be the most likely Judaean progenitors, and we know they did not have J markers.
So how is the sample from this study being classified as an Israelite?
* Disclaimer: I hold to the Biblical/Torah definition of Israelite, as in a patrilineal descendant of Jacob/srael.
If this study is simply saying the sample is "Israelite" culturally because it was found in Israel during a certain time period with "Israelite" pottery, then I have no problem with that. The only issue I have is people trying to assert that this sample is a biological descendant of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob, when there is zero evidence to support that claim.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
We must keep in mind that the Torah/Bible is an example of folk/ethnic history i.e. history of a people.
Genesis 15: 18–21 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
Unfortunately there are those ultra-Zionists who use the above passage as support for their Eretz Yisrael Hashlema (Greater Israel) plan. It's clear the passage refers to the offspring of Abraham in general and not just Israel. But note all of the peoples listed many of whom are not included in the list of Canaanite tribes. Even the Mishnah that is the oral Torah which is a commentary on the written Torah say that while the land is called 'Canaan' there were other peoples besides the Canaanites.
This is why I don't make generalizations about the genomics of the populations based on only a few samples. The Bronze Age Dead Sea samples show how the genetic landscape of that time is different from what is found today.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:The Lachish argument is just one of many that I believe supports what I'm saying, although I do understand how it might seem to undercut the position. I only referenced it to support the fact that the Israelites were birthed in Egypt and had morphological affinities to black africans.
Ok, that's fair.
quote:But most importantly I wanted to focus on how one of the papers I referenced said the natufians were the most likely Israelite progenitors, yet the natufians did not have J markers.
Regardless of how long ago the natufians existed, they are still said to be the most likely Judaean progenitors, and we know they did not have J markers.
So how is the sample from this study being classified as an Israelite?
But that's the thing, wouldn't it make sense for them to have these genetic markers during this time if the Israelites themselves submerged back into the local Canaanite population after their ethnogenesis? You also said nothing about their maternal markers in how they conflict with the Israelites origins.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This is why I don't make generalizations about the genomics of the populations based on only a few samples. The Bronze Age Dead Sea samples show how the genetic landscape of that time is different from what is found today.
Wasn't the Flores et al study done on modern populations in the region rather than ancient ones? 2005 is a bit early for an aDNA study.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Baalberth
Are you suggesting that the natufians gave birth to the Israelites and that the Israelites then went back and mixed within another population? And that explains why they do not have the same Y markers as their progenitors?
If so, that would mean the Israelite population became something else and were no longer what they originally were (which is not the case).
I don't mention maternal markers because the Israelites were a patriarchal civilization and as soon as a Y marker gets put into a female, the offspring that comes from her is the same Y marker that was put into her, so it's basically irrelevant
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that the natufians gave birth to the Israelites and that the Israelites then went back and mixed within another population? And that explains why they do not have the same Y markers as their progenitors?
I'm suggesting a model that works to contextualize the latest of info we have. In this case, population fluctuation would be a preferable explanation as opposed to static continuity. The genetic history of the Israelites, at least their predecessors, would have initially involve them to be biologically like the first Semitic speakers. However, after Semitic movements into Mesopotamia, it would have involve them to require some admixture with the locals there. Then it would have involve back movements into the Levant and requiring some admixture from the locals there. Then it would have involve movements into Egypt and requiring some admixture from the locals there. Then it would have involve back movement into Levant, well you know the rest. The last part actually coincides to the birth of Israelites themselves. It would also explain the results of this study, hence your case and the analysis from this study is put into perspective. Mind you, none of what I'm saying discredits continuity from the Natufians, but you're looking at population fluctuations that isn't entirely reminiscent of this population.
quote:If so, that would mean the Israelite population became something else and were no longer what they originally were (which is not the case).
But that's the thing, the Israelites were something else. You're not looking at the same population that was in the Levant 12,000 years ago. There would have been some long-term continuity between them and their Epipaleolithic predecessors, but this would apply to early Bronze Age Levantines as well.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Baalberth
I should have asked this earler, but how do you define Israelite?
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
I don't know as that isn't my expertise. All I'm doing is focusing my attention on the results of this study and drawing dots to other info that I'm more familiar with.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Wasn't the Flores et al study done on modern populations in the region rather than ancient ones? 2005 is a bit early for an aDNA study.
It was an nrY study done on both modern and ancient (Bronze Age) populations near the Dead Sea. Abstract A high-resolution, Y-chromosome analysis using 46 binary markers has been carried out in two Jordan populations, one from the metropolitan area of Amman and the other from the Dead Sea, an area geographically isolated. Comparisons with neighboring populations showed that whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbors, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its high R1*-M173 frequency (40%) has until now only been found in northern Cameroonian samples. This contrasts with the comparatively low presence of J representatives (9%), which is the modal clade in Middle Eastern populations, including Amman. The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population. These results demonstrate that, at a fine scale, the smooth, continental clines detected for several Y-chromosome markers are often disrupted by genetically divergent populations.
Here is a reconstruction based on the skulls of a couple found buried together at the Bab edh-Dhra site.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Natufian culture 15,000 to 11,500 years ago
Chalcolithic period 6,300 to 5,300 years ago
Bronze Age / Canaanite period 5,300 to 4,000 years ago
Israelites (Iron Age) starting 4,000 years ago or later
_________________
Progenitors more similar to the Israelite period would be people of time periods closer to it, Canaanite and Chalcolithic
Any scholar or researcher proposing this is wrong and Natufians were more similar would have to present an argument to that effect
______________________________ Proto-Semitic
Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical reconstructed proto-language ancestral to the Semitic languages. There is no consensus regarding the location of the Proto-Semitic Urheimat (origin location): scholars hypothesize that it may have originated in the Levant, the Sahara, the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, or northern Africa.[1]
The Semitic language family is considered part of the broader macro-family of Afroasiatic languages.
The earliest attestations of a Semitic language are in Akkadian, dating to around the 24th to 23rd centuries BC (see Sargon of Akkad) and the Eblaite language, but earlier evidence of Akkadian comes from personal names in Sumerian texts from the first half of the third millennium BC.[2] One of the earliest known Akkadian inscriptions was found on a bowl at Ur, addressed to the very early pre-Sargonic king Meskiagnunna of Ur (c. 2485–2450 BC) by his queen Gan-saman, who is thought to have been from Akkad.[3] The earliest text fragments of West Semitic are snake spells in Egyptian pyramid texts, dated around the mid-third millennium BC.[4][5]
Proto-Semitic itself must have been spoken before the emergence of its daughters, so some time before the earliest attestation of Akkadian, and sufficiently long so for the changes leading from it to Akkadian to have taken place, which would place it in the fourth millennium BC or earlier
______________________________
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
@geometer
is that a question in the form of a gigantic picture?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Natufian culture 15,000 to 11,500 years ago
Chalcolithic period 6,300 to 5,300 years ago
Bronze Age / Canaanite period 5,300 to 4,000 years ago
Israelites (Iron Age) starting 4,000 years ago or later
_________________
Progenitors more similar to the Israelite period would be people of time periods closer to it, Canaanite and Chalcolithic
Any scholar or researcher proposing this is wrong and Natufians were more similar would have to present an argument to that effect
______________________________ Proto-Semitic
Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical reconstructed proto-language ancestral to the Semitic languages. There is no consensus regarding the location of the Proto-Semitic Urheimat (origin location): scholars hypothesize that it may have originated in the Levant, the Sahara, the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, or northern Africa.[1]
The Semitic language family is considered part of the broader macro-family of Afroasiatic languages.
The earliest attestations of a Semitic language are in Akkadian, dating to around the 24th to 23rd centuries BC (see Sargon of Akkad) and the Eblaite language, but earlier evidence of Akkadian comes from personal names in Sumerian texts from the first half of the third millennium BC.[2] One of the earliest known Akkadian inscriptions was found on a bowl at Ur, addressed to the very early pre-Sargonic king Meskiagnunna of Ur (c. 2485–2450 BC) by his queen Gan-saman, who is thought to have been from Akkad.[3] The earliest text fragments of West Semitic are snake spells in Egyptian pyramid texts, dated around the mid-third millennium BC.[4][5]
Proto-Semitic itself must have been spoken before the emergence of its daughters, so some time before the earliest attestation of Akkadian, and sufficiently long so for the changes leading from it to Akkadian to have taken place, which would place it in the fourth millennium BC or earlier
______________________________
So far this is the commonly accepted scenario.
Personally, I believe Semitic is itself a branch of a subfamily that entered Asia, the same way Berber is a branch of a greater subfamily that existed in the Maghreb.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Semitic languages such as Hebrew, Arabic and Amharic are categorized under the Afroasiatic language family. This means that Arabic and Hebrew languages derive from the same language with Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Amharic and Omotic languages of Afro-Asiatic language family in North Africa. Today, we see that the most of Afroasiatic people are of E1b1b haplogroup (especially the lineages of V12, V32, M81). And we see a great variety of E1b lineages among both Semitic and Afroasiatic people whereas only FGC11 lineage of J1 is present among Afroasiatic Semitic people. And it is also impossible to see J1 haplogroup among several Afroasiatic people such as Berberis etc. According to the theory, Afroasiatic languages spread to Asia via E1b haplogroup, not J1 haplogroup.
quote:It is historically known that a ruling elite class of Afro-Asiatic people (Akkadians, Assyrians etc) also invaded the north of Mesopotamia and brought their Afroasiatic languages to the central and northern parts of Mesopotamia during the period of Akkadians and Babylonians. Elite dominance model of E1b1 might be supposed for Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians. In this sense, it might be theorized that Sumerian was the main language of the ancient Mesopotamians before Afroasiatic E1b overwhelmed Mesopotamia (elite dominance model).
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Geometer Stop posting large photos. First warning.
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @geometer
is that a question in the form of a gigantic picture?
Hahahaha 🤣
What happened to my picture though. Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: @ Tazarah
Swenet has already pointed out in this threadthat the remains from Lachish don’t really stand out among populations of the ancient eastern Mediterranean in terms of their affinity with Egyptians. So, even if there were individual Israelites with a more Africoid phenotype than others, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Israelites as a whole represented a uniquely Africoid enclave within the Bronze to Iron Age Levant.
In all honesty, though, it’s not like I even deny there were substantially melanated Israelites. I’m sure there was intermixing with darker-skinned people from the Sinai and the Arabian periphery (regions that, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to produce substantial aDNA samples dating between the Bronze and Iron Age). But that would have been true across the whole of Bronze Age Canaan. At any rate, I doubt the Israelites as a whole were phenotypically interchangeable with Egyptians or Kushites, and the common BHI claim of an affinity to the African ancestry found in modern Afro-Diasporans seems even less likely.
I actually agree with most of what you said here. I only believe that the Jews, or southern kingdom (3 of the 12 tribes) were "black" or "negro" for the most part (of course some would be lighter due to mixing and/or phenotypical variation ), and that the rest of the 9 tribes (northern kingdom) were of a somewhat lighter skin complexion (although not ashkenazi or europeans), but also with some darker skinned people mixed in.
I think that the bolded part is a good tentative theory and I could agree with that.
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
Yeah, Yatunde, I was wondering if there is a 'homologous correspondence' between DNA and the iris pattern of the human eye 😇
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
DNA and iris pattern link Click here Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geometer: Yeah, Yatunde, I was wondering if there is a 'homologous correspondence' between DNA and the iris pattern of the human eye 😇
Oh I don't know you tell me Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: kalonji bx full
Fixed..
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The reconstructions DJ posted, are basically what I was trying to say.
There was a baseline of African ancestry throughout the Bronze Age Middle East, but close examination of certain telling traits that discriminate between most Africans and non-Africans (eg nasal bone projection) reveals they are just Middle Eastern populations showing evidence of a degree of African ancestry that was normal for that time. They are not Africans.
You can clearly see that the prognathism on those individuals is consistent with a degree of African ancestry, but their nasal skeleton is not. So you would have a case of African ancestry that has been circulating and recombining in the Middle East for a longer time, leading to some individuals occasionally presenting Upper Egypt-like measurements, but the sample as whole would not have those affinities, and so the sample as a whole would cluster with thoroughly Eurasianized late dynastics who also occasionally present Upper Egypt-like measurements. But the point is, the individuals with Upper Egyptian phenotypes would not necessarily have genetics different from others in the same sample, that do not have them. Hence, my use of the term atavisms.
Then you have, on top of that, some Levantine samples that had more African ancestry than this baseline. The four Nea Nikomedea, and potentially Patricia Smith's Azor and Sinai samples are examples of that. But Lachish is not. The reconstructions posted by Djehuti may also fit here (ie an increase in African ancestry compared to the Bronze Age Levantine average), although we'd need formal analyses to confirm that. The migrants in the MBII Samples mentioned by Patricia smith, with shorter and broader faces compared to CHalcolitic and Early Bronze age samples, I would also put in this category.
UPDATE: The simotic measurements, giving estimates of the "flattening" of the nasal bridge, are only available for a few series. Comparison with the data for these given by Woo & Morant (1934), shows that the breadth of the nasal bones (SC) is unexceptional for the Lachish type, but the subtense (SS) and index (100 SS/SC) are decidedly larger for it than for the Badari, Kerma, Sedment, and an Ancient Nubian type. The greater curvature of the nasal bones in the Lachish skulls places them within the range found for European populations. A Study of the Cranial and Other Human Remains From Palestine Excavated at Tell Duweir (Lachish) by the Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition https://www.jstor.org/stable/2334978
Then you have this illustration showing Ehret's view of where most Semitic speakers settled immediately after their migration out of Africa. Seems like Ehret is in full agreement with my comments earlier, that there was a backmigration ~4ky ago, of Semitic speakers from the east. I fully agree with Ehret in placing the green triangle (Proto-Semitic, 6ky old) outside of the Levant, and placing the red arrow (Eberites, some Canaanites, 4.5 ky ago), in the Levant, but at a much later date.
Enlargement to see where Ehret places the green 6ky old triangle, which he labeled 'origin'; it's way to the east of the Dead Sea/Jordan Rift Valley (copy the full link and put it in the URL, as the link is not fully hyperlinked):
The Hebrews remembered the migration shown in Ehret as the 4.5ky red arrow, as their account of Abraham and his people coming from the east/Mesopotamia. Although the red arrow is different from how the Hebrews remember it, because the red arrow includes Canaanites (e.g. Ugaritic), and not just Eberites, as the bible has it.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The reconstructions DJ posted, are basically what I was trying to say.
There was a baseline of African ancestry throughout the Bronze Age Middle East, but close examination of certain telling traits that discriminate between most Africans and non-Africans (eg nasal bone projection) reveals they are just Middle Eastern populations showing evidence of a degree of African ancestry that was normal for that time. They are not Africans.
You can clearly see that the prognathism on those individuals is consistent with a degree of African ancestry, but their nasal skeleton is not. So you would have a case of African ancestry that has been circulating and recombining in the Middle East for a longer time, leading to some individuals occasionally presenting Upper Egypt-like measurements, but the sample as whole would not have those affinities, and so the sample as a whole would cluster with thoroughly Eurasianized late dynastics who also occasionally present Upper Egypt-like measurements. But the point is, the individuals with Upper Egyptian phenotypoe
Then you have, on top of that, some Levantine samples that had more African ancestry than this baseline. The four Nea Nikomedea, and potentially Patricia Smith's Azor and Sinai samples are examples of that. But Lachish is not. The reconstructions posted by Djehuti may also fit here, although we'd need formal analyses to confirm that.
By this measure I am not African either Again, think about this... we are deciding " africaness" on nasal bone projection like there is only ONE kind of African nasal bone projection. This is a true negro assertion if I ever saw one.
To be African or related to African people from North to South is MORE than nasal bone projection. It's Biology, Lineage, Culture, Language and Geography. Or a combination there of
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Geometer: Yeah, Yatunde, I was wondering if there is a 'homologous correspondence' between DNA and the iris pattern of the human eye 😇
Oh I don't know you tell me
I don't have no more words for you rofl
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: [qb] @ Tazarah
Swenet has already pointed out in this threadthat the remains from Lachish don’t really stand out among populations of the ancient eastern Mediterranean in terms of their affinity with Egyptians. So, even if there were individual Israelites with a more Africoid phenotype than others, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Israelites as a whole represented a uniquely Africoid enclave within the Bronze to Iron Age Levant.
In all honesty, though, it’s not like I even deny there were substantially melanated Israelites. I’m sure there was intermixing with darker-skinned people from the Sinai and the Arabian periphery (regions that, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to produce substantial aDNA samples dating between the Bronze and Iron Age). But that would have been true across the whole of Bronze Age Canaan. At any rate, I doubt the Israelites as a whole were phenotypically interchangeable with Egyptians or Kushites, and the common BHI claim of an affinity to the African ancestry found in modern Afro-Diasporans seems even less likely.
I actually agree with most of what you said here. I only believe that the Jews, or southern kingdom (3 of the 12 tribes) were "black" or "negro" for the most part (of course some would be lighter due to mixing and/or phenotypical variation ), and that the rest of the 9 tribes (northern kingdom) were of a somewhat lighter skin complexion (although not ashkenazi or europeans), but also with some darker skinned people mixed in.
I think that the bolded part is a good tentative theory and I could agree with that.
It's all bolded, so you agree with both comments?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: [qb] @ Tazarah
Swenet has already pointed out in this threadthat the remains from Lachish don’t really stand out among populations of the ancient eastern Mediterranean in terms of their affinity with Egyptians. So, even if there were individual Israelites with a more Africoid phenotype than others, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Israelites as a whole represented a uniquely Africoid enclave within the Bronze to Iron Age Levant.
In all honesty, though, it’s not like I even deny there were substantially melanated Israelites. I’m sure there was intermixing with darker-skinned people from the Sinai and the Arabian periphery (regions that, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to produce substantial aDNA samples dating between the Bronze and Iron Age). But that would have been true across the whole of Bronze Age Canaan. At any rate, I doubt the Israelites as a whole were phenotypically interchangeable with Egyptians or Kushites, and the common BHI claim of an affinity to the African ancestry found in modern Afro-Diasporans seems even less likely.
I actually agree with most of what you said here. I only believe that the Jews, or southern kingdom (3 of the 12 tribes) were "black" or "negro" for the most part (of course some would be lighter due to mixing and/or phenotypical variation ), and that the rest of the 9 tribes (northern kingdom) were of a somewhat lighter skin complexion (although not ashkenazi or europeans), but also with some darker skinned people mixed in.
I think that the bolded part is a good tentative theory and I could agree with that.
It's all bolded, so you agree with both comments?
I agree that the southern Kingdoms had Egyptian and Kushite influence
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Natufian culture 15,000 to 11,500 years ago
Chalcolithic period 6,300 to 5,300 years ago
Bronze Age / Canaanite period 5,300 to 4,000 years ago
Israelites (Iron Age) starting 4,000 years ago or later
_________________
Progenitors more similar to the Israelite period would be people of time periods closer to it, Canaanite and Chalcolithic
Any scholar or researcher proposing this is wrong and Natufians were more similar would have to present an argument to that effect
______________________________ Proto-Semitic
Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical reconstructed proto-language ancestral to the Semitic languages. There is no consensus regarding the location of the Proto-Semitic Urheimat (origin location): scholars hypothesize that it may have originated in the Levant, the Sahara, the Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, or northern Africa.[1]
The Semitic language family is considered part of the broader macro-family of Afroasiatic languages.
The earliest attestations of a Semitic language are in Akkadian, dating to around the 24th to 23rd centuries BC (see Sargon of Akkad) and the Eblaite language, but earlier evidence of Akkadian comes from personal names in Sumerian texts from the first half of the third millennium BC.[2] One of the earliest known Akkadian inscriptions was found on a bowl at Ur, addressed to the very early pre-Sargonic king Meskiagnunna of Ur (c. 2485–2450 BC) by his queen Gan-saman, who is thought to have been from Akkad.[3] The earliest text fragments of West Semitic are snake spells in Egyptian pyramid texts, dated around the mid-third millennium BC.[4][5]
Proto-Semitic itself must have been spoken before the emergence of its daughters, so some time before the earliest attestation of Akkadian, and sufficiently long so for the changes leading from it to Akkadian to have taken place, which would place it in the fourth millennium BC or earlier
______________________________
No sources to support any of the assertions you've proposed in this comment, yet I referenced an actual paper stating that the natufians were the most likely Israelite progenitors... and you reject it because it goes against what you personally want or believe?
I wish I could get away with saying "any scholar who says ___ is wrong."
It would make life much easier
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: I agree that the southern Kingdoms had Egyptian and Kushite influence
why don't you believe that about the Northern Kingdom?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I referenced an actual paper stating that the natufians were the most likely Israelite progenitors... and you reject it because it goes against what you personally want or believe?
I wish I could get away with saying "any scholar who says ___ is wrong."
It would make life much easier
I don't believe in appeal-to-authority arguments. This means a theory is not proven just because it is made by someone with professional credentials in the field. if anyone claims something they might make a convincing case if they show evidence and proof
The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish Ranajit Das1 Paul Wexler2 Mehdi Pirooznia3 Eran Elhaik
"The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)"
This is the only mention of the word "Natufian" in the whole article, thus in order to prove the theory this is not the article to use to try to
They refer to Lazaridis et al., 2016 who makes no mention of Israelites and Finkelstein makes no mention of Natufians !
So the first thing to do present an argument making the case for the claim and presenting evidence
That could even be done by someone who has no credentials Second to that we do consider credentials, that the person is proven educated on the topic is a plus That helps but does not mean one can't show numerous articles by credentialed people on the same topic, who have theories that disagree with each other
You could dig around in that Lazaridis article or Finkelstein book and maybe find something but that would take work Name drops alone don't prove a theory, not on Egyptsearch Various researchers have various biases also, so their proofs need to be checked I could show you ten articles by credentialed academics that you would not agree with, the credentials don't prove the argument, evidence does, if it's there
what is evidence? It's stuff like the recently reported data in the article, which can be looked at with or without the commentary and theory of the authors The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant, 2020 which I posted on page 1 73 individuals from five archaeological sites across the Bronze and Iron Ages Southern Levant. These individuals, who share the “Canaanite” material culture, (ca. 3500–1150 BCE) including Megiddo and other sites in Israel and including, Y DNA: J, J1, J2, E1b1b1a2 and T
Let me know if you find anything else that actually discredits the paper with legitimacy
Then you can probably email them and ask for a retraction
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I know some individuals here keep bringing up the Lachish crania whose metric traits show African affinities but Lachish has been discussed multiple times in this forum (check the archives). Metric traits can be misleading because the same metric traits can show not just Egyptians and Nubians but even Horn Africans affinities to Europeans.
Nonmetric traits are more reliable in establishing genetic relations or a lack there of.
Keita (1993) in his Studies and Comments Paper cites Berry: Berry et al (1967) showed that numerous Egyptian series from different regions and epochs usually showed greater affinity to one another than to Sudanese, Palestinian (Lachish), and West African (Ashanti) series. Notably missing from their study were the A, C, X, and Meroitic Nubian groups. Numerous inconsistencies were apparent in that successive regional populations sometimes had less affinity to one another than to some from greatly different time periods and regions. For example, early Nakada predynastic crania had less affinity with late Nakada series than the even earlier predynastic Badari did with the late dynastic northern Gizeh groups! Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context, the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have "donated" people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988).
Ullinger & Sheridan et al. (2005) Paper on Dental Nonmetrics of the Southern Levant: The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg etal., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht. Dothan, however, may have had slightly more Egyptian genetic influence than Lachish. The location of Dothan along a major international highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia (as well as the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia) during the Late Bronze Age may shed light on this finding (Mullins, 2002). Teeth from Dothan and Lachish show more resemblance with each other than they did with Iron Age Italy, Byzantine St. Stephen’s, or the Natufians. There were significant differences between Dothan and Lachish in individual traits; however, the two sites showed overall similarity. Dentally, there was no evidence of a markedly different foreign population in the Iron Age southern Levant. These data support the view that material culture changes in the Iron Age cannot be explained simply by the arrival of markedly different peoples into the region. Although dentally similar new groups might have introduced novel cultural traits, this issue cannot be fully evaluated with the present database, as other biological systems need to be considered.
And the genetics confirms this Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Tazarah
I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, just don't fully understand your position.
Particularly why you insist on the direct descendants of Natufians to explain HI origins. As far as the creation story goes, it seems people weren't even aware of the Natufians as they're 12K years old. The lineage that you referenced has almost nothing to do with them. Their direct successors of the Neolithic weren't even pristine.
Then you're using the non Levantine ancestry of modern ethnic Jewish populations to argue somehow that the real Jew's are supposed to be pristine somehow? It's confusing because not even the Torah nor Old testament is in agreement with linear decent form Natufians, Who in fact did not speak a Semitic or even proto-Semitic language and were entirely of a different culture. The ancestry in the region has been continually diluted by migrants East and North well before the culture of which you seek to claim existed. By the time Haber existed we're well into the chalcholithic. By the bronze age the levant was cooked with various Eurasian ancestry particularly Anatolian and Canaanite ancestry.
Help me understand exactly what you believe is going on.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Which likely explains findings like the following. ...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. —Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge. (2006) p. 52-60
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Tazarah
I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, just don't fully understand your position.
Particularly why you insist on the direct descendants of Natufians to explain HI origins. As far as the creation story goes, it seems people weren't even aware of the Natufians as they're 12K years old. The lineage that you referenced has almost nothing to do with them. Their direct successors of the Neolithic weren't even pristine.
Then you're using the non Levantine ancestry of modern ethnic Jewish populations to argue somehow that the real Jew's are supposed to be pristine somehow? It's confusing because not even the Torah nor Old testament is in agreement with linear decent form Natufians, Who in fact did not speak a Semitic or even proto-Semitic language and were entirely of a different culture. The ancestry in the region has been continually diluted by migrants East and North well before the culture of which you seek to claim existed. By the time Haber existed we're well into the chalcholithic. By the bronze age the levant was cooked with various Eurasian ancestry particularly Anatolian and Canaanite ancestry.
Help me understand exactly what you believe is going on.
I do not feel as though you are picking on me. But as I said to someone else before: regardless of how long ago the natufians existed, the paper I referenced says they are the most likely Judaean/Israelite progenitors. So this has to logically mean that the Israelites would have the same Y markers observed in the natufians. You can't be the progeny of a civilization if you do not descend from them, right?
........I'm just going by what the paper says.
If other Y lineages came and replaced what was there already, that is called population replacement from what I understand.
If over the span of 10,000 years, a bunch of R, Q, W and P lineages come and merge into a population that was originally Z, that does not make the R, W, Q and P lineages magically become the descendants of that original Z lineage, no matter how much of the customs/language they adopt from that Z lineage.
The Torah says that lineage is determined through the father (Numbers 1:18) and the Tanakh says the same (Erza 2:59).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: the paper I referenced says they are the most likely Judaean/Israelite progenitors. So this has to logically mean that the Israelites would have the same Y markers observed in the natufians. You can't be the progeny of a civilization if you do not descend from them, right?
The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish Ranajit Das1 Paul Wexler2 Mehdi Pirooznia3 Eran Elhaik
"The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)
If only 5 Natufian males have been tested thus far and they are all from one cave, how do we know that all remains of the Natufian period were of the same haplogroup?
Is this why they say "..some of the most likely Judaean progenitors" rather than "The most likely Judaean progenitors" ?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ ooo now you're thinking... the same logic needs to be applied to the "Israelite" samples found... how do we know those samples were really Israelite or that they represented the Israelite population?
How do we know other samples aren't being hidden and kept from the public in order to further a certain narrative?
How do we know they didn't drag that sample from another location and throw it in that tomb with some "Israelite" pottery?
The rabbit hole is deep and the possibilities are endless.
In genetics, nothing is ever conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt yet at the same time they try to use the studies to make matter of fact rulings about populations, making determinations about who is or isn't.
This has been a scientific field for how long now? Yet this is the first "Israelite" sample they've ever collected? Come on now
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the Tazarah:: ........I'm just going by what the paper says.
The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish Ranajit Das1 Paul Wexler2 Mehdi Pirooznia3 Eran Elhaik
"The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: how do we know those samples were really Israelite or that they represented the Israelite population?
How do we know other samples aren't being hidden and kept from the public in order to further a certain narrative?
Yes, how do we know the 5 Natufian males they found in a cave in Israel were actually E1b1b or the progenitors of the Israelites?
If the J2 might have been fake then that is your argument "the results could be fake", period
> not bringing up some other remains which could also have faked DNA
just say you dont trust any DNA results instead of bringing up more of them
I never suggested anything was fake I just said "5 Natufian males have been tested thus far and they are all from one cave"
According to ultra-orthodox belief, bones of the dead are considered sacred and are to remain undisturbed until their resurrection during the messianic era. Ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel often protest archaeologists digging up graves so it's not always easy for them to excavate
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't think he saying the DNA result is fake but rather some kind of sampling bias. A population inference can go so far based on one select sample. It's like the Late Period Abusir results being used to make generalizations about the entire ancient Egyptian populace for the entire pharaonic era. That said, some sort of inference can be made at least for populations of that specific time period. For example the Bronze Age Bab edh-Dhra samples showing a stark contrast to modern day populations.
I find it odd though how Tarazah seems keen on making some sort of strong African/Natufian presence when the historical texts based on Biblical records show otherwise.
As Swenet says there have been waves of migration into the Levant from other areas besides Africa which is why hg J is predominant there today.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Moreover, as was mentioned before with terms like atavism, the Natufian ancestry was passed down to these same subjects. It wasn't a complete population replacement. These Neolithic and post Neolithic populations have individuals carrying E1b1b just as some of them have some minor African morphological traits. Regardless of the paternal marker these groups carried, they are all still grouped together autosomally. It's the same case with metric and non metric traits characterizing their morphology.
Remember, I stated that their neolithic successors who did carry E1b1b at a higher frequencies(based on ratio) than subsequent Levantine populations already had their ancestry diluted by European ancestors.
For a better understanding of how any of this can work in a way comprehensive to your belief. Can you explain/predict what we would see if the correct samples were sequenced and published? @Tazarah Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
I never said anything was fake. And now you're basically supporting my position with your line of questioning... why reference these studies at all to prove anything when the samples presented never paint the complete picture, or anything close to the complete picture?
Nobody really knows anything for certain because we aren't there digging up the bones with them nor are we in the lab with them. DNA is an excellent tool for finding out who the baby's daddy is and for catching criminals, but when it comes to population genetics and results, we are at the mercy of whoever is in charge of running these studies.
As far the ultra-orthodox jewish people go, there's nothing in the Torah or Tanakh that says supports their supposed reasoning for not wanting to dig up bones.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
I'm just going with what the papers/academia say, that's what we're supposed to do right? I already explained that I do not subscribe to genetics, I only utilize it to point out things I find suspicious and to also point out how it does not align with the Bible in many ways as well.
If the paper I referenced says the natufians are some of the most likely progenitors of the Israelites then what is wrong me standing on that?
If we really wanted we could go through the Bible all day and show how it contradicts things postulated or asserted within the field of population genetics
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
I understand what you are saying, especially about the autosomal side of things. But as I showed in both the Torah and Tanakh, the ancient Israelites determined lineage patrilineally through the father.
I'm not saying J markers are not the "correct" samples, I just don't believe they are being represented properly. Like I said earlier, if by "Israelite" this study is just asserting that the sample was culturally an "Israelite" then that would be understandable. But if they are saying this sample was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- what proof do they have?
Many of the old archaelogical sources I've read say that ancient bones dug up in the Levant and nearby areas had "negroid" skeletons and referred to them as "Ethiopians" based on the composition of their skeletal remains. I'm not saying they ALL would have been like this, but it is extremely odd that the narrative has changed in recent times.
There are also firsthand eyewitness accounts describing what the ancient or early century Jews/Israelites looked like (ancient artwork as well)... yet none of these DNA studies ever point to any modern people groups with the same characteristics.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
I never said anything was fake. And now you're basically supporting my position with your line of questioning... why reference these studies at all to prove anything when the samples presented never paint the complete picture, or anything close to the complete picture?
I'm not supporting your position I'm just saying you changed your position. You entered the thread with images of articles saying haplogroup J is not Semitic supporting your view that J carriers are not the descendants of the Israelites, by implication fake Jews and that Natufians, of the 5 males that have been tested are not J carriers and they are the real progenitors of the Israelites according to the opinion of a study that argues this based on their DNA
Now you switched to we can't trust studies
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: why reference these studies at all to prove anything when the samples presented never paint the complete picture, or anything close to the complete picture?
which is exactly what you did in multiple posts on page 1
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
J's are not the founders of the Hebrew religion.
Moses is the founder of the Hebrew religion which he learned from the midianities/kenites.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @Swenet
I'm just going with what the papers/academia say, that's what we're supposed to do right? I already explained that I do not subscribe to genetics, I only utilize it to point out things I find suspicious and to also point out how it does not align with the Bible in many ways as well.
No worries, I got you. I don't subscribe to gravity, so I know what you mean. As a matter of fact, I don't subscribe to money. I just walk in the store and take what I need. If the police come, I don't subscribe to them either. And, who needs reality and the other facts of life? I think I'll be subscribing to being Peter Parker for the next couple of months.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
You yourself started asking "how do we know the natufians didn't have other Y markers" in an attempt to discredit the information I've been sharing.
So if you suggesting that there were other natufian Y markers then that must mean:
A) We cannot make any conclusive rulings or statements with what we currently have B) They have not shared all the Y markers found in natufian samples
Both are points I have been making the entire time
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: J's are not the founders of the Hebrew religion.
Moses is the founder of the Hebrew religion which he learned from the midianities/kenites. [/QB]
How do you know J's are not the founders of the Hebrew religion and Moses was not J?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
Wasn't there a study that came out from Lund University not too long ago saying that up to 216,000 genetic studies were affected and potentially incorrect due to a flawed methodology that was recently discovered in a popular testing method?
Yeah..... forgive me for not putting my faith into genetics. You don't have to agree with how I feel about genetics but you can't fault my reasoning
Equating genetics to money, police, gravity, etc., is laughable. Money does not change, gravity does not change, nor does the law (for the most part). All of those things are fixed. False equivalence
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: J's are not the founders of the Hebrew religion.
Moses is the founder of the Hebrew religion which he learned from the midianities/kenites.
How do you know J's are not the founders of the Hebrew religion and Moses was not J? [/QB]
Answer: Moses was a descendant of Shem. According to genetics, J has nothing to do with Shem -- not even when it comes to language.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
A) We cannot make any conclusive rulings or statements with what we currently have B) They have not shared all the Y markers found in natufian samples
Both are points I have been making the entire time
No, the point you were claiming on page 1 was according to genetics, J lineages are "foreign to the Israelites"
Now you have changed to "we cannot make any conclusive rulings"
Also there is no evidence more DNA had been successfully tested beyond the published results of six Natufians tested (incl one female)but have not been not shared.
Thus in the future they may test more and would be expected to publish the results
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: According to genetics, J has nothing to do with Shem
another conclusive ruling of yours violating A) on pre-Israelite patriarch Shem whose remains (assuming he existed) have not been tested thus any haplogroup cannot be attributed to him at this time, the statement is purely rhetorical
J is estimated to have originated around 40,000 years ago this is far prior to biblical figures such as Shem believed to have lived under 4,000 years ago
Thus a variety of haplogroups could easily be present in Israel well before the time period of the Israelites and this is proven by the DNA results of 73 individuals of the Bronze age
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
B) They have not shared all the Y markers found in natufian samples
while some Israelites may have had the same haplogroups as the Natufians that is not proof that the Natufians were some of their ancestors although some might be
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
I still stand on everything I've said. According to the available genetic information, J would have been foreign to the Israelites since some of the most likely Israelite progenitors did not have any J markers.
And I haven't changed to anything, I've always felt that genetics are not conclusive and stated multiple times that I don't subscribe to genetics. At this point I'm just explaining what the genetics say, since YOU guys subscribe to genetics.
The Bible does not even support an earth that is 40,000 years old, let alone 200,000 years old (first haplogroup) or 1,000,000 years old. Yet another reason why I do not subscribe to genetics
But don't get confused, I can express my disapproval of genetic methodology while at the same time demonstrating how/why it does not support the claims of people who try to use it to further their narrative(s)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
I still stand on everything I've said. According to the available genetic information, J would have been foreign to the Israelites since some of the most likely Israelite progenitors did not have any J markers.
What in particular claimed in an article suggests that these 6 individuals found in a cave who did not carry J were some of the most likely Israelite progenitors? How did they come to a conclusion that the Israelites were related to these people in the cave?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
A) We cannot make any conclusive rulings or statements with what we currently have B) They have not shared all the Y markers found in natufian samples
Both are points I have been making the entire time
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
J would have been foreign to the Israelites
how is this not a conclusive ruling?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Bible does not even support an earth that is 40,000 years old, let alone 200,000 years old (first haplogroup) or 1,000,000 years old. Yet another reason why I do not subscribe to genetics
How old is the Earth in your opinion and according to the bible? These 6 individuals found in a cave who did not carry J were dated by Lazardis in the article you quoted to 12,000-9,800 BCE.
Is that possible or way off? How do we have nay idea what time period they are from?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
To your first point: you would have to ask the people who compiled the study
To your second point: exactly! It is a conclusive ruling. These studies allow people to make conclusive arguments but as you are now acknowledging, it would be fallacious to do so.
To your third point: the Bible lists the amount of generations from Adam to Christ and there are 76 generations. If we then add up the generations from Christ to now, there is nowhere near enough generations for the world to be as old as the genetic model asserts. But this is all according to the Bible and I know not everyone here subscribes to the Bible.
Genetic methodology is based on an evolutionary timeline.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Instead of postulating Natufian ancestry for Israelites, would it not make more sense to postulate such ancestry for Canaanites?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Instead of postulating Natufian ancestry for Israelites, would it not make more sense to postulate such ancestry for Canaanites?
Which modern population is being as Canaanite descendants?
quote:Genetic studies See also: Genetic history of the Middle East, Phoenicia § Genetic studies, and Israelites § Genetics A 2020 genetic analysis conducted by an international team of archaeologists and geneticists found that the Bronze Age Canaanite population descended from earlier local Neolithic populations together with populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros Mountains and the Bronze Age Caucasus. According to the researchers, this mixture is probably the result of a continuing migration from the Zagros and/or Caucasus to the Levant between 2500–1000 BCE. The study has also shown that the Canaanite population contributed to most present-day Jewish groups and Levantine Arabic-speaking groups. These populations 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. These present-day groups also show ancestries that cannot be modeled by the available ancient DNA data, highlighting the importance of additional major genetic effects on the region since the Bronze Age
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Instead of postulating Natufian ancestry for Israelites, would it not make more sense to postulate such ancestry for Canaanites?
I'm just going by what the paper says. I know that in the world of genetics, the Canaanites are considered ancestors of the Israelites, or that that the Israelites themselves are considered Canaanites. But according to the Torah/Tanakh, the Canaanites were a completely separate people from the Israelites and the Canaanites had different ancestors.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I noticed on this Lazaridis 2016 that had the Natufians on it there is one more sample more recent of an an individual but before the bronze age at the site of Motza Tachti west of the main entrance to Jerusalem dated to the end of the PPNB period, 7300-6750 BCE, rare Y DNA haplogroup was H2 Nakht-Ankh of the 12th dynasty, one of the "two brothers" also carried H2 according to Family Tree https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/H-Z19008/notable Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Good catch. If Nakht-Ankh really is Y-DNA H2, I'm looking forward to the breakdown of its arrival, much like Y-DNA J and CHG in dynastic Egypt. All too often foreign Y-DNAs are presented as Egyptian haplogroups, or its left open to speculation. But if this hg wasn't present in the Palaeolithic, it's not Egyptian. Would then have to be clearly specified as predynastic or even dynastic.
Breakdown of arrival times of uniparentals and associated autosomal admixtures in Egypt is something a lot of commentators don't want specified. We've seen that with claims of light skin in N. Africa, in time periods when Europe and the Levant hadn't even accumulated the major light skin genes, and when N. African rock art shows only dark skin. Some of these claims have got out of hand and have nothing to do with the actual science of their arrivals in Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: when N. African rock art shows only dark skin.
It is rare that the precise age of a rock art panel can be determined.
Rock paintings, Uan Amil, Akakus, Southwest desert, Libya, North Africa, Africa
It is not clear if these figures if the artist had a range of colors available and selected them with intent to accurately represent skin tone Also the figure at left could be of the skin tone of an African or someone from the Middle East, or of how some Romans or Minoans are depicted, tanned or their natural color? It is not even clear if these are intended as silhouettes of some kind and the white figure is symbolic, mythological, someone with body paint or someone with light skin All of that is unknown so I would not take either of these figures as reliable information as to the phenotype here. The rock art in Africa is in different places and time periods. We have seen a few with dotted looking hair somewhat resembling Khosian
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: J's are not the founders of the Hebrew religion.
Moses is the founder of the Hebrew religion which he learned from the Midianities/Kenites.
Actually Hebrew/Ebru ethnicity was founded by Eber the eponymous founder of Hebrew peoples. He had two sons-- Peleg and Joktan. The latter is father of Southern Hebrews who migrated into Arabia, while the former remained in Mesopotamia but his later descendants spread out into the Levant and are thus known as Northern Hebrews.
As far as actual religion, the Biblical and Jewish tradition is that it wasn't a "Hebrew" religion but the true religion of God as passed to Adam down to Seth and so on with most of humanity straying from it hence the Great Flood and then afterwards with Shem and his line, although the Mishnah claims Serug strayed and became apostate while his great-grandson Abraham was redeemed.
Moses is the founder of Israelite religion as revealed to him on Mount Sinai, but his form is merely a stricter form of the the true Godly religion in which he was taught in the household of his biological mother who was his nurse mother for his Egyptian adopted mother. The theory is that Moses may have been taught some rites by his father-in-law the high priest Jethro but Moses already came from the holy family of Amram.
So yes, the Biblical tradition does seem to match up with genetic founder effect by J-carrying ancestors.
quote:Which modern population is being as Canaanite descendants?
quote:Genetic studies See also: Genetic history of the Middle East, Phoenicia § Genetic studies, and Israelites § Genetics A 2020 genetic analysis conducted by an international team of archaeologists and geneticists found that the Bronze Age Canaanite population descended from earlier local Neolithic populations together with populations related to the Chalcolithic Zagros Mountains and the Bronze Age Caucasus. According to the researchers, this mixture is probably the result of a continuing migration from the Zagros and/or Caucasus to the Levant between 2500–1000 BCE. The study has also shown that the Canaanite population contributed to most present-day Jewish groups and Levantine Arabic-speaking groups. These populations 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. These present-day groups also show ancestries that cannot be modeled by the available ancient DNA data, highlighting the importance of additional major genetic effects on the region since the Bronze Age
That's a good question. According to the Bible the Canaanites were comprised of various tribes spread out along the Levant. The popular theory today is that Lebanese are the best representative though I don't know why non-Arab Palestinians/Jews couldn't be also. By the way, are you aware of the studies showing Ashkenazi Jews to carry maternal L2b ancestry?? Ironically this is one lineage associated with Neolithic Levant but is African in origin despite the fact of Ashkenazi being the "whitest" of Jews.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Instead of postulating Natufian ancestry for Israelites, would it not make more sense to postulate such ancestry for Canaanites?
I'm just going by what the paper says. I know that in the world of genetics, the Canaanites are considered ancestors of the Israelites, or that that the Israelites themselves are considered Canaanites. But according to the Torah/Tanakh, the Canaanites were a completely separate people from the Israelites and the Canaanites had different ancestors.
This reminds me of the Hellene/Greek vs. Pelasgian issue. The Pelasgians were the indigenous people of the Greek Peninsula before the Indo-European speaking Hellenes. Yet in the Hellenic myths you have contradictory myths of Greek patriarchs marrying Pelasgian women while at the same time descending from Pelasgians (Deucalion the Noah-like figure). The Attic people (whose capital is Athens) call themselves Hellenes but in other parts of the Iliad say they are Pelasgian by descent. I believe a similar process happened in the Levant.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: when N. African rock art shows only dark skin.
It is rare that the precise age of a rock art panel can be determined.
It is not clear if these figures if the artist had a range of colors available and selected them with intent to accurately represent skin tone Also the figure at left could be of the skin tone of an African or someone from the Middle East, or of how some Romans or Minoans are depicted, tanned or their natural color? It is not even clear if these are intended as silhouettes of some kind and the white figure is symbolic, mythological, someone with body paint or someone with light skin All of that is unknown so I would not take either of these figures as reliable information as to the phenotype here. The rock art in Africa is in different places and time periods. We have seen a few with dotted looking hair somewhat resembling Khosian
While it may be true that there is a lot of symbolism in the rock art, it's also true that the lighter and white pigment increases in the last 5ky, and are found along with domesticates like cattle and horses, indicating they're recent.
To my knowledge, light/white pigment for humans is absent in the Palaeolithic rock art. At the bottom of this pdf (scroll all the way down) you can see palaeolithic rock art from Wadi Sura (Egypt). Pigmentation used is always dark. Again, the images may be symbolic, but that's not the point. The point is that white paint for humans is commonly used in later times. I don't think that the later increase of white/light paint pigment, and the late arrival of light pigmentation genes, is a coincidence.
These people may not have ever seen light skin. So, deities and non-human humanoids (see the headless figures, for instance) from their cosmology having dark skin, simply reflects this lack of a concept of pale skin. So, I feel the scenes with dark-skinned non-human humanoids, only supports dark skin being the norm, in that time. Kind of similar to medieval paintings of Jesus and biblical patriarchs being depicted with Euro features and medieval attire, reflects Euro 'race' and clothing realistically, despite the fact that such art is not realistic.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: While it may be true that there is a lot of symbolism in the rock art, it's also true that the lighter and white pigment increases in the last 5ky, and are found along with domesticates like cattle and horses, indicating they're recent.
To my knowledge, light/white pigment for humans is absent in the Palaeolithic rock art. At the bottom of this pdf (scroll all the way down) you can see palaeolithic rock art from Wadi Sura (Egypt). Pigmentation used is always dark. Again, the images may be symbolic, but that's not the point. The point is that white paint for humans is commonly used in later times. I don't think that the later increase of white/light paint pigment, and the late arrival of light pigmentation genes, is a coincidence.
These people may not have ever seen light skin. So, deities and non-human humanoids (see the headless figures, for instance) from their cosmology having dark skin, simply reflects this lack of a concept of pale skin. So, I feel the scenes with dark-skinned non-humanoids only supports dark skin being the norm, in that time. Kind of similar to medieval paintings of Jesus and biblical patriarchs being depicted with Euro features and medieval attire, reflects Euro 'race' and clothing realistically, despite the fact that such art is not realistic.
It is not clear if these figures from the Egyptian ‘Cave of Beasts’ in Gilf Kebir where some of the other figures are regarded as "stick figures" if any of these figures are to be regarded as a silhouette or not and if not that the artist had a range of colors available and selected them with intent to accurately represent skin tone but since they are quite dark I would say it's a reasonable guess
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You are correct that some of the rock art seems to depict silhouettes, like some figures in dresses I've seen (that are late in terms of dating), that are painted in the same color of brown, throughout.
But when that's not the case, the use of brown pigment remains.
~5.5ky tomb 100, Hierakonpolis:
~5.6ky Gebelein cloth, painted linen:
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So yes, the Biblical tradition does seem to match up with genetic founder effect by J-carrying ancestors.
How is this the case when according to genetics, J is not semitic in origin?
The Bible says Noah and this three sons (and their wives) survived the flood. In a sense, they would have been the first humans to populate the earth (after the flood). Noah's sons were Shem, Ham and Japheth. Shem is the progenitor of the semitic or shemitic peoples, including the Hebrews and Israelites. Shem's descendants would have been speaking semitic or shemitic languages.
According to genetic methodology, J is not semitic in origin and mixed themselves amongst actual semitic peoples, abandoned their own language and customs, and adopted the semitic languages and customs.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
So yes, the Biblical tradition does seem to match up with genetic founder effect by J-carrying ancestors.
bx full When you answer Tazarah keep in mind to keep your answer any information regarding scientists' theories that the earth is much older than 6,000 years and origins of these "haplogroups" or language categories they now call "Semitic"> but have changed and divorced from the biblical timeline, anything they purport to have occurred thousands of years before 6,000 is off the table for your answer, IMO Understand that Tazarahs interpretation of "Semitic" is
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Exactly Lisa, but now they're trying to say Semitic or Semite has nothing to do with being a descendant of Shem anymore. Anybody can be a Semite, as long as they speak the language. 🤷🏾♂️
In other words to be on the same page in order to talk about Semitic in the sense Tazarah is talking about it, take that as a given, he's talking about a language descendant of Shem
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
I have no idea how people can just change the meanings of words like that in the name of "science".
"Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."
I recommend keeping your answer biblical and coordinating with the etymology of the term strictly so you and Tazarah are talking about the same thing
Thus the Semitic language according to it's etymology is the Shemitic language and originates with Shem.
It makes no sense for you to talk about secular concepts like "Afro-Semitic" or "Proto-Semitic" origins or anything that that supposedly does not originate with Shem and then after try to fit it into a biblical paradigm and expect it to make sense. You can use the science but it should be restricted to the past 6,000 years and originate with Shem. To make it make sense keep it all within this boundary, rather than switching whole paradigms to try to make the bible work with secular timelines and secularized language origin theories. Do what you want but I recommend consistency not taping together two hugely different timelines and Urheimats
Similarly form a biblical perspective the idea that Haplogroup J originated 42,900 years ago is preposterous. If you stay within your knowledge of history limited to going back to 6,000 years ago you will be on the same page. So you can consider haplogroup J but just going back 6,000 instead of going by the possibly absurd 'secular humanist' claim that the earth even existed 40,000 years ago
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
1. I never said I believe the earth is 6,000 years old
2. It's very pleasing to see that you understand my position. Secular science does not line up with the Bible, even if we ignore the whole "age of the earth" thing and only deal with topics like what actually constitutes a Biblical Semite.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Swenet To be honest, I'd ignore any claims stating that the Iberomaurasians had "lightskin." I beleive the tabloid started when one of the bloggers categorized them as brown skinned/ or intermediate because of a variation in one of the Melanocortin 1 receptor genes. (MC1R). Such a criteria by their own reporting makes 1/4-1/3 of the Yoruba from Ibadan intermediate/lightskinned. I exposed it on one of these sites but I can't find it atm.
Also. I've been saying over and over since schuenemman 2017 that there is importance in the overlap with the Abusir mummies and bronze age near eastern populations. Using actual academic methods and tools it was discerned that when grouped (The three autosomes of Abusir el Melek) they are near indistinguishable from Bronze age levantines, albeit with minor elevated levels of SSA related ancestry.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
1. I never said I believe the earth is 6,000 years old
2. It's very pleasing to see that you understand my position. Secular science does not line up with the Bible, even if we ignore the whole "age of the earth" thing and only deal with topics like what actually constitutes a Biblical Semite.
Your definition of Semitic seems to be "a people deriving from Shem"
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I have no idea how people can just change the meanings of words like that in the name of "science".
"Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures is an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis, together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."
From what I have read this is incorrect, that the term was first coined by members of the Göttingen School of History to indicate language and racial implications came later, maybe associated with German interest in Aryan purity. Also while a German invention, neither the word "Semite" or "anti-semite" was invented by German Jews. And a wikipedia entry doesn't settle that. You would have to go into sources of the entry and ultimately the primary, and exact quote translated of exactly what members of the Göttingen School of History in terms of how they originally defined it. BUT it's not that important. "this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem" You assume this means a "Semite" is a person literally descended from Shem rather than it's just a word the Göttingen School invented derived from Shem but not literally derived from him as an actual foundational ancestor. You can go about finding the primary source or a book quoting them to clarify if they meant it means people literally descended from Shem or not. but why even bother getting into that? Why even use the word "Semitic". If you want that to mean "descended from Shem" then just use that,"descended from Shem" why get into all this ambiguity about a word made up by some white Germans in the in the 1770s? Writers of genetics articles today are not using the word to mean "literally descended from Shem" so whatever the exact intent was of the the Göttingen School, circa the 1770s may not be synonymous to the word's current usage. Further in the 1770's they would not have any way of testing people to see if they thought they should be deemed "Semites" could be corelated to something biologically measurable.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Bible does not even support an earth that is 40,000 years old, let alone 200,000 years old (first haplogroup) or 1,000,000 years old. Yet another reason why I do not subscribe to genetics
Thus in order to proceed in this dialogue about Semites, if you would like to use the definition "People descended from Shem" (a biblical figure) you will need to inform us of the age or ballpark range of the earth's beginning according to you and the bible otherwise it makes no sense for other people to comment on what you are saying when they are using other definitions of "Semitic" and talking about haplogroups and Semitic being much broader and thousands of years older, which is a different concept of reality. So let us know.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The Bible does not even support an earth that is 40,000 years old,
OK under 40,000 years but how far under? How old is the earth according to the bible?
And why even bring up Semitic which even if you subscribe to a racial interpretation has strong linguistic implications much broader than Hebrew or Canaanite
It's a word some Germans made up in the 1770s. Typically it's used in the 21st and 20th century to describe a long list of languages including Hebrew, Arabic, Canaanite, Edomite, Akkadian, Babylonian, Druze, Moabite and many more and the speakers of these languages so why bother with "Semitic" with all this baggage if it's of Shem, just deal with > descended from Shem < and forget about this made up term "Semitic". The genetics papers don't use a literal Biblical meaning for Semite and often don't use it all to describe a race or people because it is usually mentioned in contemporary articles as a language group
"Israelites" and "Hebrews" is clearly a people
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: what actually constitutes a Biblical Semite.
You can dig for exactly what by members of the Göttingen School of History meant and the word's intended usage in the 1770s but whatever that is why is there any need to use this word they made up in a biblical context?
We have clear words "Hebrews" , "Israelites" "Jews" "Hebrew language" "Aramaic" etc
"Semite" is a modern word, not biblical and why did these German historians even pick Shem to create this new word instead of Noah or even some biblical figure before Noah? It seems arbitrary and not scientific. The answer to this would have to be a deeper source, quoting exactly what some Göttingen School historian said verbatim
Science articles accept this as Semitic but a strict biblical interpretation might argue many of these languages and peoples are not descended from Shem for instance Canaanite, biblically said to have descended from Ham
So if you are going to represent the bible it's for clarity's sake it's better to not use this modern term "Semitic" at all and instead say "descended from Shem" or not even bother with that and talk about Hebrew without this special focus on Shem
The term "Semite" going back to the origins of the word was not intended to be a synonym for Hebrew. The intent of it was to link it with Arabic, Akkadian and Aramaic languages (or racially Hebrews with Arabs, Akkadians, Aramaic speakers etc, this whole chart ) as all part of the same group, Semites
So if if a scientist makes a remark about it in this broader context whatever they say might not apply to a narrower Shem descended definition
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Swenet To be honest, I'd ignore any claims stating that the Iberomaurasians had "lightskin." I beleive the tabloid started when one of the bloggers categorized them as brown skinned/ or intermediate because of a variation in one of the Melanocortin 1 receptor genes. (MC1R). Such a criteria by their own reporting makes 1/4-1/3 of the Yoruba from Ibadan intermediate/lightskinned. I exposed it on one of these sites but I can't find it atm.
Don't you mean, MC1R accounts for 25-33% of skin lightening in Nigerian individuals who possess the gene? I've read similar conclusions before about the oversized effect of well known pigmentation genes. But the literature seems inconsistent in the lightening effect of these genes, so I stopped looking into it. One of the last papers that came to my attention was this one, posted by BBH:
Rather, the remainder of the genome explains the overwhelming majority of the heritability (Figure 3B, σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2Genome=0.82, pGenome=2.7e-5; σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.79, pGenome=3.3e-4; and σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.71, pGenome=2.5e-3, respectively). This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies and indicates that the vast majority of variation in KhoeSan skin pigmentation arises from pigmentation genes yet to be discovered, providing strong evidence for a complex, polygenic architecture. GS3 explains a small but significant fraction of the heritability, as discussed below.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Also. I've been saying over and over since schuenemman 2017 that there is importance in the overlap with the Abusir mummies and bronze age near eastern populations. Using actual academic methods and tools it was discerned that when grouped (The three autosomes of Abusir el Melek) they are near indistinguishable from Bronze age levantines, albeit with minor elevated levels of SSA related ancestry.
Makes sense.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
According to a Biblical website:
"Semites are a group of Near Eastern and African peoples descended from Shem. Called the father of the Semites, Shem was a son of Noah. He and seven other members of his family entered the ark, escaped the flood, and lived to repopulate the earth. Through Shem passed the line of descent to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Shem’s great-grandson Eber was the father of those who were eventually called “Hebrews,” including Abram (see Genesis 10 and 11 for more on Shem’s line)."
According to the Bible, Noah and his three sons (and their wives) repopulated the earth.
If you go to 1 Chronicles chapter 1, there are 7 generations from Noah to Abraham.
Then, Matthew 1:17 says there are 14 generations from Abraham to King David, and 28 generations from King David to Christ.
That's 49 generations from Noah (the repopulation of the earth) to Christ.
Next we calculate from Christ to now. Let's just says 100 generations from Christ to now, just to be generous.
So that would be 149 generations from Noah to now.
There is no way in the world that 149 generations is equal to 200,000 years, which is supposed to be the age of the oldest haplogroup.
And remember, I added extra generations to be generous but even with those extra generations, the math comes nowhere close to 200,000 years, which is the reported age of Haplogroup A (the oldest haplogroup).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
There is no way in the world that 149 generations is equal to 200,000 years, which is supposed to be the age of the oldest haplogroup.
And remember, I added extra generations to be generous but even with those extra generations, the math comes nowhere close to 200,000 years, which is the reported age of Haplogroup A (the oldest haplogroup).
How old is the earth according to the bible?
If not one number, a range approximation
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
According to a Biblical website:
"Semites are a group of Near Eastern and African peoples descended from Shem. Called the father of the Semites, Shem was a son of Noah. He and seven other members of his family entered the ark, escaped the flood, and lived to repopulate the earth. Through Shem passed the line of descent to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Shem’s great-grandson Eber was the father of those who were eventually called “Hebrews,” including Abram (see Genesis 10 and 11 for more on Shem’s line)."
more from that website, defining a non-biblical term "Semite" :
quote: Scholars of philology, the study of language, traditionally classify the Semitic family of languages into three topographical divisions. East Semitic (sometimes classified as Northeast) was used in ancient Babylon and Assyria and includes the Akkadian (or Accadian) language. The Northwest classification takes in Hebrew, Aramaic, Canaanite, Syrian, Phoenician, Samaritan, Palmyrene, Nabatean, Eblaite, and Ugaritic languages. South Semitic languages include Arabic, Sabean, Minean, and Ethiopic. Of the more than 70 different known forms of Semite languages, some contain vast libraries of literature; others have only a small collection, and some remain entirely unwritten. Modern Semitic languages in common use include Hebrew, Arabic, Neo-Aramaic, Amharic, and Maltese.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: according to the Torah/Tanakh, the Canaanites were a completely separate people from the Israelites and the Canaanites had different ancestors.
According to your source both are Semites
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
I would say from 6,000 to 15,000 years.
A lot of Biblical scholars say 6,000 but from what I learned it is more than that.
Regardless, given the generations listed in scripture, it's nowhere near 200,000 years old.
Regarding the second part of your second comment about the Semites, that part is dealing with scholars who study language. It's not saying the Canaanites descend from Shem, or that the Bible asserts that. The Canaanites were Hamites, descendants of Ham.
The part I quoted in my previous comment clearly explains who the Semites were according to the Bible.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness, Regarding the second part of your second comment about the Semites, that part is dealing with scholars who study language. It's not saying the Canaanites descend from Shem, or that the Bible asserts that. The Canaanites were Hamites, descendants of Ham.
The part I quoted in my previous comment clearly explains who the Semites were according to the Bible.
The word "Semite" should not be used by believers of the bible, it's not a biblical word and it is common used to describe this:
Thus word is loosely inspired by Shem But if a strict biblical basis is used, the word "Semite" should not be used at all, instead use "descendants of Shem"
Thus if a science article mentions "Semites" they refer to all the people and timelines of the people on the above chart and some extracted things they says about Semites cannot be expected to match in context to a strict bible inspired definition.
I can't even say biblical definition because the word is not in the bible
And if one were to use such a strict definition, all the more impossible to determine who is a Semite by haplogroup since the haplogroup of Shem or any patriarch of the Hebrews is unknown and impossible to determine if he was or was not of the same haplogroup as the Natufians tested thus far, of males, 5 individuals in a cave in Israel
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
I would say from 6,000 to 15,000 years.
How could you possibly get near 15,000? that is over twice the traditional estimate
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
Almost all Bible-believers would disagree with your opinion on the word Semite.
Why are you more concerned with how I got 15,000 instead of being concerned with how none of the possibilities allow for a 200,000 year old origin of the first haplogroup?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: “from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates and from Mesopotamia down to Arabia, as is known, only one language reigned. The Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews and Arabs were one people. Even the Phoenicians who were Hamites spoke this language, which I might call the Semitic.”
p. 161 Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur. 8. 1781 ~ August Ludwig von Schlözer (b. 1735) a member of the Göttingen School of History.
August Ludwig von Schlözer (5 July 1735, in Gaggstatt – 9 September 1809, in Göttingen) was a German historian and pedagogist who laid foundations for the critical study of Russian medieval history. He was a member of the Göttingen School of History.
His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all were Protestant clergymen. In 1751, he followed them and began his studies in theology in University of Wittenberg, moving in 1754 to the increasingly renowned University of Göttingen to study history.
Schlözer had broad interests. He translated a pedagogical piece by the Frenchman La Chalotais in 1771, as well as a travel book about Jamaica for children and an introductory work on world history (Vorbereitung zur Weltgeschichte für Kinder, 1779).
Schlözer also developed a structure for a universal history, separating it in six epochs:
•Urwelt (primeval world) – from the creation to the Flood
•Dunkle Welt (dark world) – from the flood to Moses and the first written sources
•Vorwelt (preworld) – up to the Persian Empire
•Alte Welt (old world) – up to the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD
•Mittelalter (Middle Ages) – up to the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492 Neue Welt (the new world) – up to the present
Schlözer's most important innovation, however, was his suggestion to count backwards from the birth of Jesus. An incentive for this was the growing disbelief of the biblical Creation and the then generally acknowledged creation date of 3987 BC.
Johann David Michaelis and the Colonial Imaginary: Orientalism and the Emergence of Racial Antisemitism in Eighteenth-Century Germany * Jonathan M. Hess
The specific link between theological antagonism toward Judaism and a racially conceived, politically charged antisemitism, however, is not entirely a nineteenth-century innovation. This connection was forged as early as the 1780s, in the context of the initial debates on the question of Jewish emancipation and at a point when modern concepts of race were first in the process of being formulated. Johann David Michaelis (1717-91), the Orientalist who trained Schlözer and Eichhorn in Göttingen, was not just the author of the standard eighteenth-century work on Jewish law, the six-volume Mosaisches Recht (Mosaic Law, 1770-75). As one of the Enlightenment's foremost authorities on--and admirers of--ancient Judaism, Michaelis also took an engaged role in the early debates on whether to grant contemporary Jews civil rights, vehemently arguing against the systematic proposals for the "civic improvement" of the Jews that the Prussian official Christian Wilhelm von Dohm had set forth in his 1781 treatise Ueber die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (On the Civic Improvement of the Jews). 5
Historians of antisemitism routinely take note of Johann David Michaelis’ polemics against Jewish emancipation.43 In his critical review of Christian Wilhelm Dohm’s Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (1781), Michaelis argued that it was for political reasons that Jews could not be granted citizenship.44 He believed that Jewish dietary laws and the Jews’ adherence to the Sabbath prevented them from becoming soldiers, and that their desire to return to Palestine meant that they were incapable of patriotism.45 He even asserted that Jews were twenty-five times more likely to engage in criminality than other inhabitants of Germany. 46 Anna-Ruth Löwenbrück contends that Michaelis’ review marked a new stage in the history of antisemitism.47 Michaelis did not talk about ‘Jews and Christians’ but rather ‘Jews and Germans’. He recognised that the state had developed into a secular institution, which meant that the Jewish presence in Prussia could not be opposed using theological arguments.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The root word of "Semite" is Shem.
The suffixe "ite" denotes lineage.
Good luck trying to divorce the word from it's actual meaning, especially in a Biblical context.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Don't you mean, MC1R accounts for 25-33% of skin lightening in Nigerian individuals who possess the gene? I've read similar conclusions before about the oversized effect of well known pigmentation genes. But the literature seems inconsistent in the lightening effect of these genes, so I stopped looking into it. One of the last papers that came to my attention was this one, posted by BBH:
Rather, the remainder of the genome explains the overwhelming majority of the heritability (Figure 3B, σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2Genome=0.82, pGenome=2.7e-5; σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.79, pGenome=3.3e-4; and σ2GS1=0.08 vs σ2GS2=0.09 vs σ2Genome=0.71, pGenome=2.5e-3, respectively). This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies and indicates that the vast majority of variation in KhoeSan skin pigmentation arises from pigmentation genes yet to be discovered, providing strong evidence for a complex, polygenic architecture. GS3 explains a small but significant fraction of the heritability, as discussed below.
No, MC1R can't give anything near 25% variation in human pigmentation.
quote:Despite Africa being home to the greatest range of pigmentation globally, remarkably few genetic studies of pigmentation have been published to date in continental Africans (Crawford et al., 2017; Jablonski and Chaplin, 2014; Relethford, 2000). Instead, the genetic basis of skin color has primarily been studied in Eurasians and admixed African Americans (Beleza et al., 2013a, 2013b; Candille et al., 2012; Sturm and Duffy, 2012; Sulem et al., 2007, 2008); selective sweeps in high-latitude populations have been interpreted as resulting from strong environmental selection pressure. For example, the derived Ala111Thr allele (rs1426654) of SLC24A5 that swept to near fixation in western Eurasian populations confers the largest known effect on skin color variability (Beleza et al., 2013b; Lamason et al., 2005). Loci in/near SLC45A2, GRM5/TYR, and APBA2/OCA2 also have divergent allele frequencies between Europeans and Africans, with large lightening effects in Europeans (Beleza et al., 2013b; Norton et al., 2007). Smaller effects, including associations in/near MC1R, TYR, IRF4, and ASIP, contribute to the relatively narrow variation within Europeans (Sulem et al., 2007, 2008). Light skin pigmentation in Eurasians arose through both convergent evolution (e.g., rs1800414 in OCA2 in East Asians) and similar selective sweeps (e.g., KITLG)(Miller et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2016).
10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.015
For reference slc24a5 (homozygous) accounts for around 25% 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003372
No one has evidence that they were light skinned. It was and has always been conjecture like most things in the bio-antro space.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^The 2018 Henn et al paper posted by BBH discusses that Beleza et al 2013 paper, and says the genes have an even smaller skin lightening effect than that (see the Henn et al quote I posted).
This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies ... --Henn et al
The papers are all over the place and the science seems too immature for my taste, so I've not been keeping up after that Henn et al paper.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^The 2018 Henn et al paper posted by BBH discusses that Beleza et al 2013 paper, and says the genes have an even smaller skin lightening effect than that (see the Henn et al quote I posted).
This result contrasts with conclusions from previous studies ... --Henn et al
The papers are all over the place and the science seems too immature for my taste, so I've not been keeping up after that Henn et al paper.
I concur. I actually agree with Henn 2018. Which is why I hinted that cases where the allele is at least homozygous can yield high variance. I mainly was using it as a reference for MC1R.
Skin color is very tricky for non scientific reasons. It was a lil immature when I was studying it but I wouldn't call it that now as we know quite a bit more. Scientifically, very specific causes in terms of ancestry leads to known skin lightening on a global scale. High mutational load in populations bearing a "light-skinned" phenotype was the hint from the get go. Approaching this area of study with a molecular-bio lens brings the most clarity. But most seem to project evolutionary nonsense which seems to make sense under rigid framework.
@Tazarah
Last question.
How does Noah and his sons relate to the Akkadians? Did they descend from them? (In your POV of course)
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ Elmaestro and Swenet
What are your thoughts on this article? I just saw some dude on Twitter with the username "Ancient Europeans" link to it to justify his own artistic depictions of Cheddar Man and earlier Paleolithic Europeans as uniformly pale-skinned.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ come on make a new thread please, you're obsessed with skin color > or one of the other Cheddar cheese threads or reconstruction thread,
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
2008 results of an analysis by Hassan of modern Sundanese entitled Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History[68]
included 39 Nubians found to be of the following Y Chromosome Haplogroups:
J1 41% J2 2% E3b1 (E-M78) 15.3% E3 (E-M215) 7.6% R1b 10.3% B-M60 7.7% F 10.2% I 5.1%
Haplogroup J has been found at a frequency of approximately 18% in Ethiopians, with a higher prevalence among the Amhara, where it has been found to exist at levels as high as 35%, of which about 94% (17% of total) is of the type J1, while 6% (1% of total) is of J2 type.[67] On the other hand, 26% of the individuals sampled in the Arsi control portion of Moran et al. (2004) were found to belong to Haplogroup J.
____________________________________________
Look at this, Nubians their highest percentage is J, 43% For the skin enthusiasts, we know these are dark skinned people, Ethiopians 18% J
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
This period in the Levant involved the devolution of many urban societies at the end of the Early Bronze Age (Richard 2003a) and their replacement with new urban societies that were culturally and morphologically distinct at the start of the Middle Bronze Age ( Ilan 2003). Our analysis suggests that the shift in urban populations during the Early to Middle Bronze Age may be temporally associated with the wider expansion of Central Semitic in the Levant.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
2008 results of an analysis by Hassan of modern Sundanese entitled Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History[68]
included 39 Nubians found to be of the following Y Chromosome Haplogroups:
J1 41% J2 2% E3b1 (E-M78) 15.3% E3 (E-M215) 7.6% R1b 10.3% B-M60 7.7% F 10.2% I 5.1%
Haplogroup J has been found at a frequency of approximately 18% in Ethiopians, with a higher prevalence among the Amhara, where it has been found to exist at levels as high as 35%, of which about 94% (17% of total) is of the type J1, while 6% (1% of total) is of J2 type.[67] On the other hand, 26% of the individuals sampled in the Arsi control portion of Moran et al. (2004) were found to belong to Haplogroup J.
____________________________________________
Look at this, Nubians their highest percentage is J, 43% For the skin enthusiasts, we know these are dark skinned people, Ethiopians 18% J
What are the MTDNA's of the Nubians And while you are at it tell me the significance of J1 being found with MTDNA's of N? Is N autochthonous to North Africa, Arabia & Levant?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
[QUOTE] Urheimat See also: Afroasiatic homeland Since all modern Semitic languages can be traced back to a common ancestor, Semiticists have placed importance on locating the Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language.[6] The Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language may be considered within the context of the larger Afro-Asiatic family to which it belongs.
The previously-popular hypothesis of an Arabian Urheimat has been largely abandoned since the region could not have supported massive waves of emigration before the domestication of camels in the 2nd millennium BC.[6]
There is also evidence that Mesopotamia and adjoining areas of modern Syria were originally inhabited by a non-Semitic population. That is suggested by non-Semitic toponyms preserved in Akkadian and Eblaite /QUOTE]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: What are the MTDNA's of the Nubians
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: And while you are at it tell me the significance of J1 being found with MTDNA's of N? Is N autochthonous to North Africa, Arabia & Levant?
I don't know The Bronze age study I posted on page 3 a quarter down the page shows some males whose DNA was J1 and whose maternal DNA was N but also some other J1 with different mtDNA combinations and also listed some Y groups there other than J
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
MTDNA N is probably indigenous so the incoming J1 from the caucus mated with local women.
Mama teaches the language. This might be how J1 picked up Semetic.
quote:A study (Vai et al. 2019), finds a basal branch of maternal haplogroup N in early Neolithic North African remains from the Libyan site of Takarkori. The authors propose that N most likely split from L3 in the Arabian peninsula and later migrated back to North Africa
Rare unclassified haplogroup N* has been found among fossils belonging to the Cardial and Epicardial culture (Cardium pottery) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.[22] A rare unclassified form of N has been also been reported in modern Algeria.[23]
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
I haven't really done any research into the akkadians and know little to nothing about them, but from my POV if they were actual Semites then they would be descendants of Noah, through his son Shem (the progenitor of the semites)
Not sure if that answers your question, but I don't really know much about them other than the fact that they had an empire of Mesopotamia
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:According to the Bible, Nimrod, a son of Cush , was the founder and king of Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Elmaestro Maybe one day I'll look into it and see how the different reports can be reconciled.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: @ Elmaestro and Swenet
What are your thoughts on this article? I just saw some dude on Twitter with the username "Ancient Europeans" link to it to justify his own artistic depictions of Cheddar Man and earlier Paleolithic Europeans as uniformly pale-skinned.
Article quotes newspaper:
"Large study kills the myth of the blonde viking. He was rather Latino"
First I chuckled at the adjective used. Then I had a smh moment. The media being handed science sometimes is like giving a child a bulldozer.
As for the article itself, I'm not qualified to have an opinion. Might look into Eurasian pigmentation at some later point, but I feel what we've been told so far is not enough to have an opinion about WHG pigmentation levels other than "darker than moderns".
It's not the more simple math that African depigmentation is. In Africa we have the rock art and different clues like proto anthro texts to put side-by-side with the morphological and genetic data.
@Lioness Your thread. Your choice.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: MTDNA N is probably indigenous so the incoming J1 from the caucus mated with local women.
Mama teaches the language. This might be how J1 picked up Semetic.
which language in particular
and when did this incoming occur, in your estimation?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Since all modern Semitic languages can be traced back to a common ancestor, Semiticists have placed importance on locating the Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language.[6] The Urheimat of the Proto-Semitic language may be considered within the context of the larger Afro-Asiatic family to which it belongs .
The previously-popular hypothesis of an Arabian Urheimat has been largely abandoned since the region could not have supported massive waves of emigration before the domestication of camels in the 2nd millennium BC.[6]
There is also evidence that Mesopotamia and adjoining areas of modern Syria were originally inhabited by a non-Semitic population. That is suggested by non-Semitic toponyms preserved in Akkadian and Eblaite.
Levant hypothesis A Bayesian analysis performed in 2009 suggests an origin for all known Semitic languages in the Levant around 3750 BC, with a later single introduction from South Arabia into the Horn of Africa around 800 BC. This statistical analysis could not, however, estimate when or where the ancestor of all Semitic languages diverged from Afroasiatic.[7] It thus neither contradicts nor confirms the hypothesis that the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic occurred in Africa.
Map of Semitic languages and statistically inferred dispersals. One hypothesized location of the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic between the African coast of the Red Sea and the Near East is also indicated. In another variant of the theory, the earliest wave of Semitic speakers entered the Fertile Crescent via the Levant and eventually founded the Akkadian Empire. Their relatives, the Amorites, followed them and settled Syria before 2500 BC.[8] Late Bronze Age collapse in Israel led the southern Semites southwards, where they arrived in the highlands of Yemen after the 20th century BC until those crossed Bab el-Mandeb to the Horn of Africa between 1500 and 500 BC.[8]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I didn't ask about the Urheimat of Semitic languages
Of haplogroup J carriers what was the first Semitic language they spoke and where did this occur?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I didn't ask about the Urheimat of Semitic languages
Of haplogroup J carriers what was the first Semitic language they spoke and where did this occur?
You keep posting the picture from the Bayesian analysis from 2009 but it's obvious you never read it. Anything I say would be speculation because even the experts cannot say definitively but my guess based on geography is East Semitic
The most important point is... so it does not get lost is that J1, J2, H2, & T are NOT the originators of the semetic language.s
quote:Subclade J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of haplogroup J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3500 to 2500 BC. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE.
Camels played an important role in the further diffusion of J1-P58 lineages, notably with the Bedouins in the desertic parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Bedouins now make up a substantial percentage of the population of Sudan (33%), Libya (15%), the United Arab Emirates (8%) and Saudi Arabia (5%).
The two most common Jewish subclades of J1 downstream of P58 are Z18297 and ZS227. The latter includes the Cohanim haplotype. Most of the other branches under P58 could be described as Semitic, although only FGC12 seems to be genuinely linked to the medieval Arabic expansion from Saudi Arabia.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The most important point is... so it does not get lost is that J1, J2, H2, & T are NOT the originators of the semetic language.s
This thread is not about the first Semitic language it's about the Israelites
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Just thought of an aspect of the Biblical view of ancestry and how it corresponds with modern science including genetics.
According to the Bible Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japhet. So Noah was their father and they were brothers. That means they all had the same paternal haplogroup. From the Bible one gets the impression that Noah and his sons were ancestors to all people who came after them. That means that all men should have the same haplogroup as Noah and his sons.
Since we now have very many male haplogroups it means either that not all men descend from Noah and his sons, or that the mutation rate to create all of todays paternal haplogroups must have been exceedingly fast if one shall try try to fit them all into the Biblical time span of maybe 6000 years (or maybe up to 15000 years according to some). Something does not add up.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As a former Christian who has looked into this as a youth, I can tell you that people have already tried to peg haplogroups onto Noah's tree, and that it doesn't work.
People have also tried to put nations distant to the Hebrews, like East Asians and West Africans on the tree of Noah and that doesn't work, either.
This shows the lack of comprehension of people who insist on projecting modern notions into ancient times, arguing that Cush was Africa or that Japhet was Europe.
If you plot all the descendants of Noah on a map you will see they will not extend further beyond a certain point, outward from Palestine, and you will see they are all inside a circle, with the center of the circle being Palestine, and with the southern portion of the circle going no further south that Yemen. Hence, Jesus being quoted in the bible as describing the kingdom of Sheba as being "at the ends of the earth".
So, large portions of the Horn, the Sahara, Europe and Asia are excluded because the table of nations simply reflects the extent of proto-anthropology and proto-geophraphy of learned men among the Hebrews, as well as possibly some more profound meaning known only to the ancient Hebrews (that Christians are ignorant of), but not some divinely inspired tree of human 'races'.
If the Table of Nations were written by Phoenician explorers, it would be much more elaborate as they were the first to circumnavigate Africa (allegedly) and visit many parts of the Mediterranean and beyond, before others (e.g. the Greeks, who put up many colonies in the wider Mediterranean, and had explorers like Pytheas, who visited Britain and other places).
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I always thought "Cush" was the area of Sudan. Either way I stand corrected.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Well, the Sudese Nile basin is within that circle, so it's still better than saying Cush is Africa.
In some verses, Cush really does seem to be more or less the same thing as the area controlled by Kush.
But I think those are younger layers of the bible, dating to the 25th dynasty or later.
If you look closely you can find in the older layers of the bible very large difference in view compared to the younger layers of the bible.
One major example of that is what Ehret correctly points out are hints of henotheisim in the bible, where the Hebrews seem to argue that their deity is not a universal deity, and coexisted with other deities, some of whom were patrons/protectors of other nations. These were acknowledged, but not to be worshiped and were sometimes depicted as being in battle with Yahweh.
Later on this changed completely, as we can see in Christianity, for instance, where the notion of the existence of other deities appropriate for other nations (but not appropriate for Hebrews) is completely lost and replaced with hostility to other religions sometimes seen as the work of the devil.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I always thought "Cush" was the area of Sudan. Either way I stand corrected.
As for it's biblical implications there is a lot of good info in this recent thread
Although this thread is not about the bible or what "Semitic" means (although I did stray into that diversion) It's about the DNA of human remains thought to be Israelites not biblical genealogy
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
[B]@Swenet[B] Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Sahakyan, H., Margaryan, A., Saag, L. et al. Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 Sci Rep 11, 6659 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85883-2
Abstract Human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 is a common male lineage in West Asia. One high-frequency region—encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant—resides ~ 2000 km away from the other one found in the Caucasus. The region between them, although has a lower frequency, nevertheless demonstrates high genetic diversity. Studies associate this haplogroup with the spread of farming from the Fertile Crescent to Europe, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the desert regions of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of the Jews, and the spread of Islam. Here, we study past human male demography in West Asia with 172 high-coverage whole Y chromosome sequences and 889 genotyped samples of haplogroup J1-M267. We show that this haplogroup evolved ~ 20,000 years ago somewhere in northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, and northern Mesopotamia. 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.
Y chromosome haplogroup J-M304 represents the major male lineage in West Asia today. The 12f2a13 deletion and single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) biallelic markers M3049 and P20914 define and characterize this haplogroup. It splits off from haplogroup IJ-M429 at ~ 45 thousand years ago (kya), while the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of haplogroup J-M304 lineages is ~ 33 kya15,16. Studies associate haplogroup J-M304 with the spread of farming from the Near East to Europe . Around the time of the Neolithic demographic transition3, the genome-wide ancestry of West Asian populations was geographically structured into three groups. Among them, haplogroup J-M304 is found in the Caucasus/Iranian and Anatolian hunter-gatherers and farmers, but not in the Levantine ones. Unfortunately, so far aDNA studies are missing from the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, where haplogroup J-M304 is frequent nowadays. This haplogroup splits into J1-M267 and J2-M1729,. While haplogroup J2-M172 is associated more with agriculture in the northern latitudes of West Asia, haplogroup J1-M267 has been connected with the spread of the pastoral economies in the West Asian arid zones
The expansion of haplogroup J1-M267 occurred over a long period—spanning the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Many demographic events in the region could maintain the uninterrupted expansion of this haplogroup. During the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age, people were moving intensively across West Eurasia21,22,57,63,64. At this time, the Levantine Neolithic ancestry increased in the northern areas of West Asia22, where the shared Caucasus hunter-gatherer/Iranian Neolithic ancestry or the Anatolian Neolithic ancestry were prevalent before. At the beginning of the population expansion, people belonging to haplogroup J1a1a1-P58, probably migrated also to the northern regions of West Asia and Europe from the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the Levant. Therefore, in the case of West Asia this evidence—based on the TMRCAs of the shared J1a1a1-P58 branches—mirrors that of genome-wide ancestry22. The migration of the J1a1a1-P58 lineages, though, was less pronounced towards the northern regions of West Asia and Europe, since the frequency of this haplogroup and the number of such branches are low there. During this time and especially thereafter, the spread within the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant was more intense, resulting in a large number of local branches and the high frequency we find today. This expansion resembles the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in West Asia65. Both the spread of J1a1a1-P58 and Afro-Asiatic languages could have been caused by the change of climatic conditions and the emergence of arid pastoralism as suggested earlier23.
Conclusions Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 evolved in the northern parts of West Asia around the LGM. A limited number of founders migrated south—to the Arabian Peninsula, the southern Levant, and southern Mesopotamia, where the J1a1a1-P58 branch evolved in the early Holocene. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age, coinciding with the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages combined with the diffusion of arid pastoralism in the desert regions of West Asia. The spread of Islam did not substantially affect the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 in West Asia.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The most important point is... so it does not get lost is that J1, J2, H2, & T are NOT the originators of the semetic language.s
This thread is not about the first Semitic language it's about the Israelites
...... the Israelites would have descended from those original Shemites.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Yatunda I can't get a clear picture of what you're suggesting with your quotes. But I can say this with confidence though. The Maternal haplogroup profile within the region is quite a bit more diverse that the Paternal. You'd have a better chance arguing E1b1b continuity... And I have a hunch you're getting the bigger picture of why even that's unlikely to explain the lineage by decent of both Semitic speakers and the descendants of Shem.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
No one in this thread said Cush was " Africa " that is a strawman argument
I never suggested that Mtdna N was the only haplogroup in the Levant. Only that it showed up with J1 P58 in that study that lioness posted.
Language does not equal genetics, that is obvious and yet that does not stop geneticists from declaring human remains in the Levant as " Israelites"
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Sahakyan, H., Margaryan, A., Saag, L. et al. Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 Sci Rep 11, 6659 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85883-2
[ haplogroup J-M304 is found in the Caucasus/Iranian and Anatolian hunter-gatherers and farmers, but not in the Levantine ones. Unfortunately, so far aDNA studies are missing from the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, where haplogroup J-M304 is frequent nowadays. This haplogroup splits into J1-M267 and J2-M1729,. While haplogroup J2-M172 is associated more with agriculture in the northern latitudes of West Asia, haplogroup J1-M267 has been connected with the spread of the pastoral economies in the West Asian arid zonesqb]
quote:Subclade J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of haplogroup J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3500 to 2500 BC. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE.
J1 P58 could not have spread in the Arabian peninsula before the domestication of Camels.
quote: , but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1,100 BCE. Camels played an important role in the further diffusion of J1-P58 lineages
Bronze Age expansion of J1-P58 Subclade J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of haplogroup J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3500 to 2500 BC. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE.
J1 P58 could not have spread in the Arabian peninsula before the domestication of Camels.
It says J1-P58 appears to have expanded from the southern Levant to the Arabian peninsula from 3500 to 2500 BC.
But it also says Camels did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1100 BCE You seem to be disputing the idea that J1-P58 from the southern Levant spread to the Arabian peninsula from 3500 to 2500 BC because they did not have domesticated of Camels in the southern Levant until 1100 BC because such a spread would be absolutely dependent on camels? Are you saying they would write this contradicting what they said in their first sentence with their second sentence?
quote:J1-P58, the Central Semitic branch of J1, appears to have expanded from the southern Levant (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) across the Arabian peninsula during the Bronze Age, from approximately 3,500 to 2,500 BCE. Camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia c. 3,000 BCE, but did not become widely used in the southern Levant before approximately 1,100 BCE. Camels played an important role in the further diffusion of J1-P58 lineages, notably with the Bedouins in the desertic parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Bedouins now make up a substantial percentage of the population of Sudan (33%), Libya (15%), the United Arab Emirates (8%) and Saudi Arabia (5%).
It's not exactly clear but they seem to be saying J1-P58 did spread to the Arabian peninsula 3500 to 2500 BC but it didn't get to other places like North Africa or deeper into desert regions of Arabia until after 1,100 BC via camel transport
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Language does not equal genetics, that is obvious and yet that does not stop geneticists from declaring human remains in the Levant as " Israelites"
Thank you.... lol.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A video about the spread of Y-DNA haplogroup J2. One can see that it was spread over a rather large area during the time of the Israelite tomb.
It seems it occurs in what is now Israel already about 2500 BC (we have an example from Yehud).
Disclaimer: I can not guarantee how good of a picture the video gives and I do not know anything about the videomakers credentials.
quote:Haplogroup J was created in Western Asia 42900 years ago, and its direct descendants J1 and J2 are estimated to have formed in the vicinity of J 31600 years ago. The J2 is also referred to as the J-M172. The age of haplogroup J is at the midpoint of the ages of representative Y-DNA haplogroups. In the last episode, I introduced the current distribution and celebrities of the half group J1, phylogenetic trees, and the ancient Y-DNA with J1. In this video, I will introduce J2.
Distribution of haplogroup J2 around 700 BC Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video about the spread of Y-DNA haplogroup J2. One can see that it was spread over a rather large area during the time of the Israelite tomb.
It seems it occurs in what is now Israel already about 2500 BC (we have an example from Yehud).
Disclaimer: I can not guarantee how good of a picture the video gives and I do not know anything about the videomakers credentials.
Yes, thirteen individuals from Yehud (central Israel), dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age are documented in the 2020 article I posted with the DNA chart at link:
Thirteen individuals from Yehud (central Israel), dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age
Tel Yehud (Tell el-Yehudia) is situated on the northeastern side of the Ono valley in the eastern part of the central coastal plain of Israel,
2,500-2,000 BC
six females from Tel Yehud. mitochondrial DNA T1a, Tia2, U1, H40a, J1c2i, N1b1a2
males, J, J, J2b
_______________________________
and Megiddo samples from 1,900 - 923 BC most 1,600 BC there were several J's one was J2 a couple of E's also from these clades: E1b1b1b1b2a1 E1b1b1b1b2a1b One T Two Rs
________________________
Israelite time period 1200 - 1020 B.C. or 2,000 - 587 (Southern Kingdom (Judah) and First Temple destroyed-Babylonian exile 587)
So the region is diverse before and during the Israelite time period
It is impossible to know Jacob's or Abraham's haplogroup unless bodily remains are discovered, the Patriarchs of the Israelites and Hebrews respectively and their ancestors going back not to just Shem but to his father Noah, father of two more sons Japheth and Ham, one 'bloodline and same haplogroup (whatever it was) of Noah Thus impossible at this time to know if any human remains or living people were or are Israelites (if Israelites are only those people descended from Jacob), impossible for anyone to prove they are descendant of Abraham or Jacob. Also the Bible does not exclude Arabs from being descendants of Abraham. Also with this
quote: Genesis 15:1 and 7 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
This suggests an ancestral location that is not even Israel, potentially rendering the biblical Hebrews and Israelites not even wholly indigenous to Israel as a location corresponding to modern Israel, although settled there (but this is unresolved). What language Shem and his father (if real people) actually spoke is unknown and there is no claim Shem invented his own new language
Also from the Bible, it cannot be assumed that descendants of Japheth and Ham are Europeans and Africans these who were blood brothers and along with Shem, sons of Noah.
suggesting such an idea seems ridiculous as Swenet pointed out (I paraphrase) and even saying that haplogroups exist and suggest varying ancestry seems to go against the biblical narrative
It does seem reasonable to speculate that an ancient site of the time period of the Israelites might be a Hebrew burial site based on certain objects, archaeological details and burial type
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This suggests an ancestral location that is not even Israel, potentially rendering the biblical Hebrews and Israelites not even wholly indigenous to Israel as a location corresponding to modern Israel, although settled there (but this is unresolved). What language Shem and his father (if real people) actually spoke is unknown and there is no claim Shem invented his own new language
Also from the Bible, it cannot be assumed that Japheth and Ham are Europeans and Africans these who were blood brothers and along with Shem, sons of Noah.
suggesting such an idea seems ridiculous as Swenet pointed out (I paraphrase) and even saying that haplogroups exist and suggest varying ancestry seems to go against the biblical narrative
Well damn! Look at the lioness making my argument for me
There are plenty examples available to show how and why the field of population genetics actually goes against the biblical narrative
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: and Megiddo samples from 1,900 - 923 BC most 1,600 BC there were several J's one was J2 a couple of E's also from these clades: E1b1b1b1b2a1 E1b1b1b1b2a1b One T Two Rs
Just now had a closer look at your screenshot on seeing the 1,600 BC date you mentioned. Feels good when predictions check out 🗸🗸🗸.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This indicates to me that most of the Semitic speakers, who were not just speakers, but biologically Egyptian/N. African, passed through the Levant, but settled elsewhere, and then impacted the Levant in a roundabout way after a delay (ie a 'backmigration). By then they looked like their African ancestry was diluted (e.g. they had brachycephaly).
Most of the MBII samples that have been studied are dated to the MBIIB or MBlle. Specimens studied here are derived from Efrat, Nahal Refaim, Tel Dan, Ganei HaTa'arucha, Megiddo, Sasa and Hazar (see Figure 4). They show significant differences from all of the earlier populations in this region in craniofacial characteristics. In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose than in any of the earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurements shown in Figure 5, and the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of micro evolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel. Determination of their exact point of origin is now planned, using DNA analysis. People of the Holy Land from prehistory to the recent past https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PEOPLE-OF-THE-HOLY-lAND-FROM-PREHISTORY-TO-THE-PAST-Patr%C3%ADcia/ac3b6ee13fd0624509af075cd75032c811b34a1e [/QB]
According to wiki, Middle Bronze Age II corresponds to 1750 BCE – 1650 BCE. Couldn't post wiki link due to html restrictions. To see the corresponding dates of various Bronze Age subdivisions, Google the following:
List of archaeological periods (Levant)
Translation? Increase of Y-DNA E in MBII-LBI times (Hazor and Megiddo), but (so far) not before MBII times, and also not after LBI times. Amounts to a clear short-lived spike of Y-DNA E that corresponds to similarly short-lived spike in African-like morphological measurements. Have to go back to Chl times and earlier periods to find another E bearing sample.
Of course, does not mean Y-DNA E was not there in between EBI and MBII times. Just means the "intrusive MBII group" involves well known Canaanite sites where the morphological change was already noticed (see Patricia Smith quote above), making it easier to detect.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Couldn't post wiki link due to html restrictions.
if you go to the website tinyurl.com and put in the URL, a shortened version will result work here as a link
The bronze age article, supp data I just posted as URL because there's a regular image of it already in the thread
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
To see the corresponding dates of various Bronze Age subdivisions, Google the following:
List of archaeological periods (Levant)
Translation? Increase of Y-DNA E in MBII-LBI times (Hazor and Megiddo), but (so far) not before MBII times, and also not after LBI times. Amounts to a clear short-lived spike of Y-DNA E that corresponds to similarly short-lived spike in African-like morphological measurements. Have to go back to Chl times and earlier periods to find another E bearing sample.
yes such a study is in the thread page 1 posted 27 October, 2023 01:08 AM (2/3 down) "Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation" Interestingly no J, one instance of E the rest is all Y group T (ponder, possible horn connect but also found in modern Jews + Toubou) but importantly, just one cave location: 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course, does not mean Y-DNA E was not there in between EBI and MBII times. Just means the "intrusive MBII group" involves well known Canaanite sites where the morphological change was already noticed (see Patricia Smith quote above), making it easier to detect.
the E is there with the 5 Natufians, there are many sites but DNA tested just these 5 individuals from one cave (another) (although prior to your between times) their MT DNA : 2 J2s (not the Y version) and an 1 N1.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Will keep tinyurl in mind though people might not click on them due to safety concerns (I know I probably wouldn't in most cases).
Might want to add these Iron Age uniparentals from Beirut (see Table S4):
One Y-DNA E from Hellenic times. No E in Iron Age samples.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: MTDNA N is probably indigenous so the incoming J1 from the caucus mated with local women.
Mama teaches the language. This might be how J1 picked up Semetic.
quote:A study (Vai et al. 2019), finds a basal branch of maternal haplogroup N in early Neolithic North African remains from the Libyan site of Takarkori. The authors propose that N most likely split from L3 in the Arabian peninsula and later migrated back to North Africa
Rare unclassified haplogroup N* has been found among fossils belonging to the Cardial and Epicardial culture (Cardium pottery) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.[22] A rare unclassified form of N has been also been reported in modern Algeria.[23]
Rare unclassified haplogroup N* has been found among fossils belonging to the Cardial and Epicardial culture (Cardium pottery) and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. A rare unclassified form of N has been also been reported in modern Algeria.
Haplogroup N1'5
Haplogroup N1 – found in Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia)
Haplogroup N1b – found in Middle East, Egypt (Gurna), Caucasus and Europe.
N1b ASHKENAZI FOUNDER LINEAGE A haplogroup N subclade, N1b - has been identified as one of four Ashkenazi Jewish founder lineages. This is defined by the transition G to A at the nucleotide position16176 - See: "The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event" D. Behar, et al.
Published online 2006 Jan 11. doi: 10.1086/500307 PMCID: PMC1380291 PMID: 16404693 The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event Doron M. Behar, et al.
Abstract Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.
Hg N1b is virtually absent in Europeans but appears at frequencies of ∼3% or higher in those from Levant, Arabia, and Egypt In total, we have identified four Ashkenazi founding lineages, three within Hg K and one in Hg N1b, deriving from only four ancestral women and accounting for fully 40% of the mtDNAs of the current Ashkenazi population (∼8,000,000 people). The most dominant of these lineages, K1a1b1a, encompasses 62% of the Ashkenazi K mtDNAs, which translates into 19.4% of contemporary Ashkenazi Jews, or ∼1,700,000 people. The second most common lineage is within Hg N1b and corresponds to an additional 800,000 people.
the distribution of Hg N1b in southwestern Asia and North Africa (Rando et al. 1998; Richards et al. 2000) supports a Near Eastern, rather than a European, origin for this Hg. It is noteworthy that our extensive sample set from the Caucasus (table 5) does not offer any hint that the four dominant Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages might have arrived from this region. However, it can be concluded that, irrespective of where exactly the mutations defining these Ashkenazi lineages arose, their expansion clearly took place during the time period of the sojourn of the Ashkenazi population in Europe.
In conclusion, the present study highlights the importance of a combined phylogenetic/phylogeographic strategy that includes complete mtDNA sequence analysis to accurately portray maternal founding events and to infer conclusions relevant to both shared ancestries and population-level effects that shaped the mtDNA gene pool in a given population. In the Ashkenazi Jews, this approach enabled us to reconstruct a detailed phylogenetic tree for the major Ashkenazi Hgs K and N1b, allowing the detection of a small set of only four individual female ancestors, likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool, whose descendants lived in Europe and carried forward their particular mtDNA variants to 3,500,000 individuals in a time frame of 2 millennia. This founding events, established here as a dominant mechanism in the genetic maternal history of the Ashkenazi Jews, is a vivid example of the founder effect originally described by Mayr (1963) 4 decades ago.
_____________________________
^ from the above "The most dominant of these lineages, K1a1b1a, encompasses 62% of the Ashkenazi K mtDNAs, which translates into 19.4% of contemporary Ashkenazi Jews, or ∼1,700,000 people. The second most common lineage is within Hg N1b"
> K also reported in the 2020 18th dynasty Egyptians
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
Fax. ... The more I read the further removed from reality such an insinuation becomes.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Joshua Lipson, Aric Lomes and Leo Cooper: the medieval origins of the Ashkenazim
(table shows two columns Y DNA and two columns mitochondrial, the same DNA with alternate naming in some cases from Y-full site )
Lots of K here but also interesting a male sample #113865 age 18- 25 Y DNA R-Y1947 (sub clade of R-Z2103 aka R1b1a1b a subclade haplogroup of R-M269 clade also found in Yamnaya Steppe culture) the mtDNA of this same male L2a1l2a
an "Ashkenazi-specific" haplogroup, seen amongst Ashkenazi Jews with ancestry in Central and Eastern Europe. It has also been detected in small numbers in ostensibly non-Jewish Polish populations, where it is presumed to have come from Ashkenazi admixture.[43] However, this haplotype constitutes only a very small proportion of Ashkenazi mitochondrial lineages; various studies (including Behar's) have put its incidence at between 1.4–1.6%.
L2a1a Subclade L2a1a is defined by substitutions at 3918, 5285, 15244, and 15629. There are two L2a clusters that are well represented in southeastern Africans, L2a1a and L2a1b, both defined by transitions at quite stable HVS-I positions. Both of these appear to have an origin in West Africa or North West Africa (as indicated by the distribution of matching or neighboring types), and to have undergone dramatic expansion either in South East Africa or in a population ancestral to present-day Southeastern Africans.
2020 Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Yehia Z Gad, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan, Dalia M Mousa, Fayrouz A Fouad, Safaa G El-Sayed, Marwa A Abdelazeem, Samah M Mahdy, Hend Y Othman, Dina W Ibrahim, Rabab Khairat ____________________________
The editor of Archaeology magazine, Mark Rose, reported in 2002 that the work was cancelled “due to concern that the results might strengthen an association between the family of Tutankhamun and the Biblical Moses.” An Egyptologist with close links to the antiquities service, speaking to me on condition of anonymity, agreed: “There was a fear it would be said that the pharaohs were Jewish.”
Specifically, if the results showed that Tutankhamun shared DNA with Jewish groups, there was concern that this could be used by Israel to argue that Egypt was part of the Promised Land.
(Hawass 1997, account of 1990 discovery) The Discovery of the Tombs of the Pyramid Builders at Giza: Dr. Zahi Hawass / Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments https://www.guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm
The claim that Hawass cancelled DNA analysis “due to concern that the results might strengthen an association between the family of Tutankhamun and the Biblical Moses.” is hearsay
But in 2020 his team under Yehia Gad published this result with the 18th dynasty bearing the same mitochondrial DNA as the primary founding group of Ashkenazi Jews (although only part of the Hg K distribution)
(However this was not the Y-DNA (although there is some crossover with the R1b)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
I don't understand this logic, it doesn't really make any sense at all. I don't identify as a "BHI" but how does one J sample being found in Israel nullify anything? All "BHI" I'm aware of acknowledge the fact that other races of people (including those known as ashkenazi) were present in ancient Israel, and the Levant in general. The question is whether or not all these races of people descend from Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
If an E sample is found at a certain time period in Japan does that mean E is the original marker of the original samurai?
...
Also, as we have already established in this thread, genetic methodology is based on an evolutionary timeline that does not line up with the Biblical narrative and actually contradicts it. The primary source of the "BHI" is the Bible. So.... that point is pretty self explanatory.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
People who others call Black Hebrew Israelite or B.H.I do not identify as such.
They may identify as "Hebrew Israelites" or either of those terms, Hebrew or Israelite separately also. - but not "Black Hebrew Israelite" They almost always will not answer to that For some groups this is because they include as Israelites: Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans (specifically those who are descendants of the slave trade or European colonization diaspora of the Americans and Carib, etc). Some of these Hispanics may have various appearances even seen "white" looking to outsiders but are still accepted as members (according to paternal ancestry)They usually identify as "light skinned" if asked will not say they are white.
and if they are of one of the less common Hebrew Israelite groups that are strictly blacks only, they may be proud of their blackness but they still don't call their group "Black Hebrew Israelite". They would consider the blackness of the Israelites a given. They usually say yes, we are black and the Israelites were black but their identity is "Hebrew Israelite" not "Black Hebrew Israelite"
So one can call them Black Hebrew Israelites or B.H.I but they usually won't answer to that
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ Damn, the Lioness knows that they are talking about!
Furthermore, using "BHI" as a blanket term for anyone who believes the ancient Jews were a black race of people is intellectually irresponsible. The "Hebrew Israelite" spectrum is extremely diverse and not all believe the same thing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
I don't understand this logic, it doesn't really make any sense at all. I don't identify as a "BHI" but how does one J sample being found in Israel nullify anything? All "BHI" I'm aware of acknowledge the fact that other races of people (including those known as ashkenazi) were present in ancient Israel, and the Levant in general. The question is whether or not all these races of people descend from Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
If an E sample is found at a certain time period in Japan does that mean E is the original marker of the original samurai?
...
Also, as we have already established in this thread, genetic methodology is based on an evolutionary timeline that does not line up with the Biblical narrative and actually contradicts it. The primary source of the "BHI" is the Bible. So.... that point is pretty self explanatory.
The OP article is in the mainstream Israel news paper Haaretz and they hype the story mentioning "Israelite" all over the place
quote: It’s true that no ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found in the burial confirming that the deceased were Israelites. However, the pottery assemblage is typical of what is found in late First Temple-period burials in Jerusalem, Finkelstein explains.
The article is a teaser for an upcoming yet to be published science journal article which will probably be more careful in how they identify these remains
What is clear by a few different recent articles is that around the time period of the Israelites and a little before there were people in some burial sites in Israel of a variety of haplogroups
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If you still a Black Hebrew Israelite then I don’t know how you can still continue to be one…
However, if you were to have said: "How could one continue to think the Israelites were black? "
that seems to convey the same thing without getting into how certain group categorize themselves
2008 results of an analysis by Hassan of modern Sundanese entitled Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History[68]
included 39 Nubians found to be of the following Y Chromosome Haplogroups:
J1 41% J2 2% E3b1 (E-M78) 15.3% E3 (E-M215) 7.6% R1b 10.3% B-M60 7.7% F 10.2% I 5.1%
Haplogroup J has been found at a frequency of approximately 18% in Ethiopians, with a higher prevalence among the Amhara, where it has been found to exist at levels as high as 35%, of which about 94% (17% of total) is of the type J1, while 6% (1% of total) is of J2 type.[67] On the other hand, 26% of the individuals sampled in the Arsi control portion of Moran et al. (2004) were found to belong to Haplogroup J.
____________________________________________
Look at this, Nubians their highest percentage is J, 43% For the skin enthusiasts, we know these are dark skinned people, Ethiopians 18% J
from page 4,
Here as for haplogoup J one could argue there would be blacks among them
Similarly in the articles I have been posting of these ancient sites there are some E1b1b carriers there who have been Hebrews or related to them
although these are just biological markers not cultures
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The article is a teaser for an upcoming yet to be published science journal article which will probably be more careful in how they identify these remains
I completely agree 100%. You quoted the part of the article that says:
"It’s true that no ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found in the burial confirming that the deceased were Israelites. However, the pottery assemblage is typical of what is found in late First Temple-period burials in Jerusalem, Finkelstein explains."
But how do you feel about the sentence that follows those words?:
"Together with Kiryat Yearim’s proximity to what was then the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, this suggests that the locals can indeed be identified as ancient Hebrews, he says." Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Keep in mind people who other people think are "Black Hebrew Israelites" and who do talk a lot about race probably won't call themselves "Black Hebrew Israelites" but they often do call themselves "Hebrew Israelites"
and to most of them to say "Black Hebrew Israelites" is to leave open the possibility for "white Hebrew Israelites" and this would be rare for them to believe, if not rare to acknowledge. They would say who is or is not an Israelite cannot be explained solely by the term itself
Nevertheless if talking about one of these groups or members of one the vast majority are founded and lead by black people.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The article is a teaser for an upcoming yet to be published science journal article which will probably be more careful in how they identify these remains
I completely agree 100%. You quoted the part of the article that says:
"It’s true that no ancient Hebrew inscriptions were found in the burial confirming that the deceased were Israelites. However, the pottery assemblage is typical of what is found in late First Temple-period burials in Jerusalem, Finkelstein explains."
But how do you feel about the sentence that follows those words?:
"Together with Kiryat Yearim’s proximity to what was then the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, this suggests that the locals can indeed be identified as ancient Hebrews, he says."
To answer that well I would have to study for a while, maybe weeks, or reading a book/s to see if is possible to identify a Hebrew burial site with no inscription but by pottery, objects, burial style and carbon dating. My first impression it is a "might be" not an "indeed" unless they had writing but this awaits what details are in the article
It depends on how you define "Hebrew" and "Hebrews". By date and location this site has a much higher probability of being Hebrew than 5 Natufians in a cave 12,000-9,800 BC ago being their ancestors. You seem to accept what some articles (and bible) say blindly if you like the conclusion but scrutinize highly, conclusions you don't like.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
So this site is more likely to have "Hebrew", even though there is no verified and undisputed "Hebrew" DNA to compare to? All they have is the pottery and that's it? So if I get buried with some chinese vases in a chinese village, that makes me Chinese, without any necessity for more solid evidence? Are you suggesting that is what we are all supposed to believe?
Interesting
And yeah if geneticists are saying the natufians are the most likely Israelite progenitors, I'm pretty sure that holds more weight than a random body found next to some pottery. We're supposed to go with the available evidence and trust the scientists, right?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: How is this the case when according to genetics, J is not Semitic in origin?
I'm not referring to linguistics but ethno-history of the Ebrim/Hebrews themselves. The Hebrews are not the same as Proto-Semitic speakers.
quote:The Bible says Noah and this three sons (and their wives) survived the flood. In a sense, they would have been the first humans to populate the earth (after the flood). Noah's sons were Shem, Ham and Japheth. Shem is the progenitor of the semitic or shemitic peoples, including the Hebrews and Israelites. Shem's descendants would have been speaking semitic or shemitic languages.
According to genetic methodology, J is not semitic in origin and mixed themselves amongst actual semitic peoples, abandoned their own language and customs, and adopted the semitic languages and customs.
You are confusing ethno-history with linguistics. Shemites as the descendants of Shem have nothing to do with the actual linguistic grouping 'Semitic' which belongs to the Afro-asiatic family of languages. Even Biblical scholars and rabbis do not conflate the linguistics with the folk history because there are not a true 'Hamitic' languages or Japhetic languages. Most languages originally called 'Hamitic' are just other Afroasiatic languages spoken in Africa.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
If all that you said is accurate, wouldn't it be safe to conclude that genetics and it's usage of linguistics to determine populations is not actually in line with the Biblical narrative?
It's all confusion. Even if we replace the word "semitic" with afro-asiatic, J still had nothing to do with afro-asiatic culture until J came and adopted the customs.
Proto-semitic, proto-afro-asiatic, these would be the ancestors of the Hebrews/Israelites, which were also afro-asiatic. But J is not afro-asiatic in origin, according to genetic methodology.
Are you simply saying that J in this case is Hebrew/Israelite in terms of culture? Or are you asserting that J is what the ancestors of the Hebrews/Israelites possessed
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Swenet has already explained it. There were scholars centuries ago who tried to use the Biblical Narrative in the Table of Nations to fit with the linguistic and/or genetic findings and it didn't work. Linguistic is different from genetics which is also different from ethno-history which was the Biblical narrative. All I stated is that if anything Y-haplogroup J fits more with the Biblical story of the Hebrews than any other group. Notice I didn't say anything about 'Semitic' or any linguistic grouping just Hebrews spreading from Mesopotamia to the rest of Southwest Asia.
And Hebrew is different from Israelite since the latter was formed in the land of Canaan and then Egypt. You have to separate ethnic identity from linguistics let alone genetics.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Tazarah also keep in mind that whichever geneticist claimed Natufians proper were direct progenitors of the Israelites is likely wrong as such a concept within itself goes against biblical narrative. As been explained by a couple of different posters so far. There's no evidence that the Israelites as defined by the bible were in Natufian succession. There's no actual evidence of that claim on the ground either with genetics or other forms of bio-Anthropology. When asked questions surrounding a possible dispersal of a proto-semitic peopling you and Yatunde did a fine job in distancing those people from Israelites. So by your own logic (which is indeed congruent with scripture), downstream, the idea of any continuity with Natufians has been dismissed.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Swenet has already explained it. There were scholars centuries ago who tried to use the Biblical Narrative in the Table of Nations to fit with the linguistic and/or genetic findings and it didn't work. Linguistic is different from genetics which is also different from ethno-history which was the Biblical narrative. All I stated is that if anything Y-haplogroup J fits more with the Biblical story of the Hebrews than any other group. Notice I didn't say anything about 'Semitic' or any linguistic grouping just Hebrews spreading from Mesopotamia to the rest of Southwest Asia.
And Hebrew is different from Israelite since the latter was formed in the land of Canaan and then Egypt. You have to separate ethnic identity from linguistics let alone genetics.
1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodlogy that scientists use.
2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entireculture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the caucusus region
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Tazarah also keep in mind that whichever geneticist claimed Natufians proper were direct progenitors of the Israelites is likely wrong as such a concept within itself goes against biblical narrative. As been explained by a couple of different posters so far. There's no evidence that the Israelites as defined by the bible were in Natufian succession. There's no actual evidence of that claim on the ground either with genetics or other forms of bio-Anthropology. When asked questions surrounding a possible dispersal of a proto-semitic peopling you and Yatunde did a fine job in distancing those people from Israelites. So by your own logic (which is indeed congruent with scripture), downstream, the idea of any continuity with Natufians has been dismissed.
So the geneticist was wrong, and all of the scholars who peer reviewed that paper are wrong too?
What else have other geneticists been wrong about? And that's a serious question, I'm not being facetious.
I never said the natufians were the *direct* ancestors of the Israelites (I already made this clear, and I doubt that is what the paper is even saying), I said that however long ago they existed is irrelevant because they are an ancestor to the Israelites regardless. There could have been 200 different civilizations between the natufians and the Israelites, that doesn't take away from the fact that they were their ancestors. Your ancestor from 20,000 years ago is still your ancestor (since you guys subscribe to an old earth). If another unrelated civilization with different Y markers comes in and amalgamates, they are not descendants of that original ancestor, regardless of how long ago that original ancestor existed.
And even if natufian > Israelite goes against the Biblical narrative, doesn't my main point stand? That genetics is not in agreement with what the Bible actually says? In other words, we have geneticists putting out peer reviewed papers about Biblical nations, but they are completely wrong?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
games
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: games
You yourself admit on the previous page that the mere existence of haplogroups goes against the biblical narrative. No games being played here, I'm just pointing out everything for what it is
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the game is if the mere existence of haplogroups goes against the biblical narrative and you believe in the bible, then to try to prove statement is true because a geneticist said so is dishonest.
Egyptology forum over the years has members who typically review genetics articles and decide if they agree with them or not, not instantly believe them as if they were high priests or had written an infallible book
And many of these geneticists have different opinions about ancient DNA and may disagree with each other. I made this point already. The game is pretending not to hear certain things and going in circles. This whole forum regularly finds things said by geneticists say that they think are biased or in error and don't subscribe to appeal-to-authority arguments. No matter how expert they are they still need to lay out evidence and a convincing argument. I asked you to outline their argument but you just suggest repetitiously we are to believe whatever a geneticist says (yet at the same time you don't believe in genetics) and this assumes they even actually laid out an argument. Further, science updates all the time. New findings can change the opinion of scientists as time goes on. What may have seemed true yesterday may today be overturned by new information. Also the purpose of peer review is not to agree or disagree with theories presented in an article. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper's quality and suitability for publication and that they are using proper scientific standards and methods, although could still be entirely wrong in their conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Baalberth
The problem we have here is that the Bible (ancient text and history of the Israelites) establishes the fact that the Israelite nation had its genesis in Egypt (Africa), not the Caucusus.
Also, J is not semitic according to genetic methodology. That cannot be overlooked.
The early Israelites were foreigners in a sense, but when I say foreign I'm saying that according to genetics, these J lineages would have been foreign to the Israelites.
The most likely Judaean (Israelite) progenitors did not have J markers.
^ When you showed the article image mentioning Natufians, this was your first comment, not to detail an argument about how the Israelites were supposedly connected to the Israelites but instead to exclude Ashkenazis from being connected to the Israelites
Although the second post in the thread, Jari's was ridicule unfortunately, I'm not sure he knew you would be offended
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: 1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodology that scientists use.
That's because the Bible has nothing to do with linguistics or genetics. It is a collection of narrative books by a specific people. That said, that doesn't meant there is necessarily contradiction between science and the Biblical narrative if one is trying to correlate the two with proper context. This is why most Biblical scholars who know about linguistics and genetics don't make the silly mistake of identifying Shem with the Proto-Semitic.
quote:2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entire culture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the Caucasus region
The Bible makes it clear that Hebrews come from Shinar (Mesopotamia) and that there were two divisions-- southern and northern. The expansion of J from Mesopotamia does seem to correlate with Hebrew expansion that included the Levant. Who said they "abandoned" their culture, especially since Hebrew shows more affinity to Babylonian culture than anything else??
Lioness is right, that the Bible as a narrative has been twisted and distorted to many ends, take for example the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' which presumes the Hamites which includes Egyptians and Nubians to be black-skinned caucasians. So yes the Bible can be perverted to fit any agenda claiming to be scientific. The DNA findings on ancient Israelites stands and just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they contradict the Bible. LOL Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: 1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodology that scientists use.
That's because the Bible has nothing to do with linguistics or genetics. It is a collection of narrative books by a specific people. That said, that doesn't meant there is necessarily contradiction between science and the Biblical narrative if one is trying to correlate the two with proper context. This is why most Biblical scholars who know about linguistics and genetics don't make the silly mistake of identifying Shem with the Proto-Semitic.
quote:2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entire culture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the Caucasus region
The Bible makes it clear that Hebrews come from Shinar (Mesopotamia) and that there were two divisions-- southern and northern. The expansion of J from Mesopotamia does seem to correlate with Hebrew expansion that included the Levant. Who said they "abandoned" their culture, especially since Hebrew shows more affinity to Babylonian culture than anything else??
Lioness is right, that the Bible as a narrative has been twisted and distorted to many ends, take for example the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' which presumes the Hamites which includes Egyptians and Nubians to be black-skinned caucasians. So yes the Bible can be perverted to fit any agenda claiming to be scientific. The DNA findings on ancient Israelites stands and just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they contradict the Bible. LOL
You are contradicting yourself
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
@Lioness why would you add Tut's family dna to that post I have no idea. Are the K's of the AJ & Tut's family even related?
It is pretty clear from that talk with Razib Khan that AJ's are a population descended from Italy, France with some general Mediterranean ancestry. There was not a lot they could say for sure beyond that.
Their best guess is that the AJ's are 20 to 30% near eastern autosomally and in truth they cannot identify the exact origin of the near eastern DNA it could be Syrian, Anatolia, Greece, Israel.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Swenet has already explained it. There were scholars centuries ago who tried to use the Biblical Narrative in the Table of Nations to fit with the linguistic and/or genetic findings and it didn't work. Linguistic is different from genetics which is also different from ethno-history which was the Biblical narrative. All I stated is that if anything Y-haplogroup J fits more with the Biblical story of the Hebrews than any other group. Notice I didn't say anything about 'Semitic' or any linguistic grouping just Hebrews spreading from Mesopotamia to the rest of Southwest Asia.
And Hebrew is different from Israelite since the latter was formed in the land of Canaan and then Egypt. You have to separate ethnic identity from linguistics let alone genetics.
1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodlogy that scientists use.
2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entireculture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the caucusus region
J does not. J2 is new to the levant too late for the biblical narratives. J1 is a " more" likely candidate for some biblical narratives.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:The Ashkenazim are the synthesis of ancient Levantine Jews and various Mediterranean European populations with whom the former mixed. Their origins date back to the fall of Rome, not the fall of Khazaria. -Razib Khan
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @Lioness why would you add Tut's family dna to that post I have no idea. Are the K's of the AJ & Tut's family even related?
Their best guess is that the AJ's are 20 to 30% near eastern autosomally and in truth they cannot identify the exact origin of the near eastern DNA it could be Syrian, Anatolia, Greece, Israel.
It's pretty interesting to me. Looking at the Bronze Age chart at the top of this page, three sites in Israel most of which the maternal DNA is not K but there are two K bearers at one of the sites, Megiddo. K is the most prominent mitochondrial DNA of Ashkenazi Jews 31% of their total maternal lineages (N1 is there second founder lineage). Jews bearing haplogroup K are closer maternally to Queen Tiye and some of the fam then they are to particular Syrians, Anatolians, those of them who do not carry K
•Israelite time period 1200-1020 BC. •2 Megiddo Bronze Age samples of K, 1600-923 BC •Amarna, Egypt 1353-1322 BC
Looking at the other chart below it, the haplogroups of the 14th Century German Jews. Middle Eastern J1 and J2 is there, also E1b1b but unlike the Bronze age where there where no Individuals carrying R1b, several at the German site are R1b (as were Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun)Akhenaten and Tut (but not Amenhotep III were also Hap K on their female side) R1b is not considered Middle Eastern so of the individuals at the 14th century German site who were R1b lowers the paternal percentage of Middle Eastern in these 14th century German Ashkenazi Jews
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The ancient Israelites were birthed in ancient Egypt by mixing with the ancient Egyptians, according to the Torah.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: J does not. J2 is new to the levant too late for the biblical narratives. J1 is a " more" likely candidate for some biblical narratives. [/QB]
The Israelite time period is 1200 - 1020 BC. Looking at the chart of the Bronze age at the top of the page we see an individual of J2 dated 1623-1518 prior to or within the Israelite time period. Other individuals where J1, the earliest 1900-1700 BCE
The exact time J entered the region is unknown but it was in the region before and during the Israelite time period and it is unknown if the ancestors of the Israelites were not migrants themselves at some point as suggested by Genesis 15:1 and 7 Many Jews and Muslims might want to believe that their ancestors were in the "Holy Land" since the world began but that might not be the case, they may not even be aboriginal to the place Also the Y DNA haplogroup T should not be overlooked. One individual at the Megiddo site and another at Abel both in Israel were of T as were some individuals in an Israel cave at an earlier Chalcolithic (Copper Age) period and this haplogroup is also found in Toubou of Chad)
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:The Ashkenazim are the synthesis of ancient Levantine Jews and various Mediterranean European populations with whom the former mixed. Their origins date back to the fall of Rome, not the fall of Khazaria. -Razib Khan
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: @Lioness why would you add Tut's family dna to that post I have no idea. Are the K's of the AJ & Tut's family even related?
Their best guess is that the AJ's are 20 to 30% near eastern autosomally and in truth they cannot identify the exact origin of the near eastern DNA it could be Syrian, Anatolia, Greece, Israel.
It's pretty interesting to me. Looking at the Bronze Age chart at the top of this page, three sites in Israel most of which the maternal DNA is not K but there are two K bearers at one of the sites, Megiddo. K is the most prominent mitochondrial DNA of Ashkenazi Jews 31% of their total maternal lineages (N1 is there second founder lineage). Jews bearing haplogroup K are closer maternally to Queen Tiye and some of the fam then they are to particular Syrians, Anatolians, those of them who do not carry K
Looking at the chart below it, the haplogroups of the 14th Century German Jews, the middle Eastern J1 and J2 is there, also E1b1b but unlike the Bronze age where there where no Individuals carrying R1b, several at the German site are R1b (as were Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun)Akhenaten and Tut (but not Amenhotep III were also Hap K on their female side) R1b is not considered Middle Eastern so of the individuals at the 14th century German site who were R1b lowers the paternal percentage of Middle Eastern in these 14th century German Ashkenazi Jews
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The ancient Israelites were birthed in ancient Egypt by mixing with the ancient Egyptians, according to the Torah.
If you listened to the podcast, it was found that the N1 Mtdna was Khazar/Far eastern
Also, because K is " syrian " you can't say it actually came from a Jewish genetic community
Again, J1, J2 and even E1b1b are generally, Near Eastern, if you listened there where Syrian converts to Judaism, it does not necessarily point to a genetic community def from Israel
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: MTDNA N is probably indigenous so the incoming J1 from the caucus mated with local women.
Mama teaches the language. This might be how J1 picked up Semetic.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: If you listened to the podcast, it was found that the N1 Mtdna was Khazar/Far eastern
Also, because K is " syrian " you can't say it actually came from a Jewish genetic community
Again, J1, J2 and even E1b1b are generally, Near Eastern, if you listened there where Syrian converts to Judaism, it does not necessarily point to a genetic community def from Israel
as you do the two step and throw the E1b1b bearing Natufians out the window at the same time
games
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
lets not get into circular repetitious claims
hard data is needed to support claims. I've been posting some
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
Primary research is everything 😇
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geometer: Primary research is everything 😇
What does this mean in the context of this thread?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the game is if the mere existence of haplogroups goes against the biblical narrative and you believe in the bible, then to try to prove statement is true because a geneticist said so is dishonest.
Egyptology forum over the years has members who typically review genetics articles and decide if they agree with them or not, not instantly believe them as if they were high priests or had written an infallible book
And many of these geneticists have different opinions about ancient DNA and may disagree with each other. I made this point already. The game is pretending not to hear certain things and going in circles. This whole forum regularly finds things said by geneticists say that they think are biased or in error and don't subscribe to appeal-to-authority arguments. No matter how expert they are they still need to lay out evidence and a convincing argument. I asked you to outline their argument but you just suggest repetitiously we are to believe whatever a geneticist says (yet at the same time you don't believe in genetics) and this assumes they even actually laid out an argument. Further, science updates all the time. New findings can change the opinion of scientists as time goes on. What may have seemed true yesterday may today be overturned by new information. Also the purpose of peer review is not to agree or disagree with theories presented in an article. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper's quality and suitability for publication and that they are using proper scientific standards and methods, although could still be entirely wrong in their conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Baalberth
The problem we have here is that the Bible (ancient text and history of the Israelites) establishes the fact that the Israelite nation had its genesis in Egypt (Africa), not the Caucusus.
Also, J is not semitic according to genetic methodology. That cannot be overlooked.
The early Israelites were foreigners in a sense, but when I say foreign I'm saying that according to genetics, these J lineages would have been foreign to the Israelites.
The most likely Judaean (Israelite) progenitors did not have J markers.
^ When you showed the article image mentioning Natufians, this was your first comment, not to detail an argument about how the Israelites were supposedly connected to the Israelites but instead to exclude Ashkenazis from being connected to the Israelites
Although the second post in the thread, Jari's was ridicule unfortunately, I'm not sure he knew you would be offended
^^^^^^^
I made my position on genetics clear earlier in this thread and also clearly explained why I even reference genetics to begin with. You obviously did not comprehend that part. Please go back and read.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: 1. I agree, the Bible does not support the linguistic/genetic methodology that scientists use.
That's because the Bible has nothing to do with linguistics or genetics. It is a collection of narrative books by a specific people. That said, that doesn't meant there is necessarily contradiction between science and the Biblical narrative if one is trying to correlate the two with proper context. This is why most Biblical scholars who know about linguistics and genetics don't make the silly mistake of identifying Shem with the Proto-Semitic.
quote:2. How does J fit more with the Biblical narrative than any other group? The Bible says nothing about the Hebrews or Israelites or their ancestors abandoning their original culture and adopting the entire culture of another civilization. It also says nothing about Abraham and his ancestors coming from the Caucasus region
The Bible makes it clear that Hebrews come from Shinar (Mesopotamia) and that there were two divisions-- southern and northern. The expansion of J from Mesopotamia does seem to correlate with Hebrew expansion that included the Levant. Who said they "abandoned" their culture, especially since Hebrew shows more affinity to Babylonian culture than anything else??
Lioness is right, that the Bible as a narrative has been twisted and distorted to many ends, take for example the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' which presumes the Hamites which includes Egyptians and Nubians to be black-skinned caucasians. So yes the Bible can be perverted to fit any agenda claiming to be scientific. The DNA findings on ancient Israelites stands and just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they contradict the Bible. LOL
You are contradicting yourself
@Djehuti
You are definitely contradicting yourself here as Lisa pointed out.
You assert that the Biblical narrative is not a reliable source but at the same time you try to assert that J markers correlate with the Biblical narrative, and thus J = Israelite. I thought the Biblical narrative is not reliable? Is it only reliable when you decide it is? Only when you believe it supports your position right?
LOL!
Please make up your mind. I knew that all I had to do was ask the right questions to poke holes in this nonsense.
Also, a body being buried in ancient Israel next to pots and pans does not make it an ethnic Israelite. It's wild how someone who tries to present themself as a genius on this website is reckless enough to claim that the first "Israelite" remains found in ancient Israel are the remains of an actual ethnic Israelite (descendant of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob) without any corroborating evidence.
Not even the lioness was silly enough to accept and support such a claim.
Nobody ever denied "J markers" (or people who had "J markers") could or would be found in Israel, as I've said multiple times: ancient Israel had plenty different races of people who lived there. But that does not automatically make them descendants of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
P.S., genetic methodology (not Tazarah) says J carriers abandoned their culture and adopted a culture that was not originally theirs. Nowhere does the Torah/Tanakh/Bible say or even support this as being something that the Hebrews, Israelites, or their ancestors ever did. And if it does then please show us where. Actually you already claimed the Bible is not reliable so don't even bother.
"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@Djehuti and everybody, Tazarah is in repeat mode now. This means any argument you make now has probably been made already in the thread.
He ignores many arguments and proceeds to keep repeating other arguments he has already made in the thread ad infinitum, using genetics when it suits him such as this piece on Haplogroup F, as well as genetics based arguments about Natufians or that Haplogroup J carriers can't have been the Israelites of the bible > and rejecting other genetics based arguments and data when it doesn't suit his desired conclusions
It's tempting to want to have the last word but having the last word is just the doorway to repetition and that's what he wants, an opportunity to say the same thing over and over again, hoping that if he says something 10 times and you say something 4 times, that saying something 10 times wins
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Lioness, you just lied and tried to claim I was using genetics to bolster my position when I clearly and emphatically told Elmaestro that I don't subscribe to genetics and only reference it to point out contradictions in different positions. I've even told you this personally in the past. When you start lying, I stop reading and I start ignoring the remainder of the text in your comment.
Djehuti claims the Biblical narrative is inaccurate and not reliable (when convenient) but at the same time claims J markers correlate with the Biblical narrative and that the Biblical narrative is in agreement with J markers being Israelite.
But Tazarah is the problem? Lioness, stop the nonsense and bs. You were removed from mod duties for a reason.
Djehuti ASKED me "who said J markers abandoned their original culture?" (I literally quoted them asking me in my previous comment) so I posted the source again so they could see it. Try to keep up.
We don't all have to agree on this topic but stop doing the "Tazarah bad" thing, it's silly.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Lioness, you just lied and tried to claim I was using genetics to bolster my position when I clearly and emphatically told Elmaestro that I don't subscribe to genetics and only reference it to point out contradictions in different positions.
Yes but you telling El maestro you don't believe in genetics didn't stop you from trying to use genetics repeatedly make arguments about who is and who is not an Israelite
In other words if someone said "trust me I would never steal from you" and later you find your wallet's missing, the fact that they said that does not mean they didn't steal your wallet.
And if I don't believe in ghosts I should not be arguing that there was a ghost in one house but not in another. That is the realm for believers in ghosts
Now please permit me to exit your repeat mode because nothing relevant is being added to the thread, it's just going in circles
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Read this again, then enjoy the silence from me ignoring you.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: when I clearly and emphatically told Elmaestro that I don't subscribe to genetics and only reference it to point out contradictions in different positions. I've even told you this personally in the past. When you start lying, I stop reading and I start ignoring the remainder of the text in your comment.
What part of I do not subscribe to genetics do you not understand? According to your logic, atheists who use the Bible to try debunking the existence of God and the validity of Christianity are now Bible-believers.
You're trolling now, goodbye.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
If what I was saying, and if my points truly had no merit, you wouldn't even waste your time responding to me or telling others not to respond.
U ain't slick.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
You are definitely contradicting yourself here as Lisa pointed out.
You assert that the Biblical narrative is not a reliable source but at the same time you try to assert that J markers correlate with the Biblical narrative, and thus J = Israelite. I thought the Biblical narrative is not reliable? Is it only reliable when you decide it is? Only when you believe it supports your position right?
LOL!
Please make up your mind. I knew that all I had to do was ask the right questions to poke holes in this nonsense.
Incorrect. I never said the Biblical narrative is "not a reliable source"! In fact, archaeology is proving the Biblical narrative to be correct all along. If you properly read what I wrote, you would see that I said the experts in the past were unreliable in the way they used the Biblical narrative. The narrative is what it is. The problem is when they try to fit linguistics and/or genetics onto the narrative in an unfeasible way.
quote:Also, a body being buried in ancient Israel next to pots and pans does not make it an ethnic Israelite. It's wild how someone who tries to present himself as a genius on this website is reckless enough to claim that the first "Israelite" remains found in ancient Israel are the remains of an actual ethnic Israelite (descendant of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob) without any corroborating evidence.
One can only make assumptions about ancient body based on the archaeological context. That he was a citizen of Israel is likely. Does that mean he was on of the 12 Tribes is another question. The same way the Late Period Abusir mummies are 'Egyptians' does that mean their ethnic roots are entirely Egyptian going back to predynastic times? Of course not.
quote:Not even the lioness was silly enough to accept and support such a claim.
She's just going by what the source is saying. Nothing more.
quote:Nobody ever denied "J markers" (or people who had "J markers") could or would be found in Israel, as I've said multiple times: ancient Israel had plenty different races of people who lived there. But that does not automatically make them descendants of Abraham > Isaac > Jacob.
J is a common marker in the Middle East today and has been for a while. The Biblical narrative says that Abraham-- ancestor of the Israelites-- and his family originally came from Mesopotamia. His migration as well as that of other Hebrews does support the genetic findings of hg J spreading throughout Southwest Asia. So where is the hole in my argument??
quote:P.S., genetic methodology (not Tazarah) says J carriers abandoned their culture and adopted a culture that was not originally theirs. Nowhere does the Torah/Tanakh/Bible say or even support this as being something that the Hebrews, Israelites, or their ancestors ever did. And if it does then please show us where. Actually you already claimed the Bible is not reliable so don't even bother.
Since when does genetics say anything about a culture or its abandonment?? See this is the type of foolhardy thinking that Swenet and I speak of. Again I never said the Bible is unreliable but those who misuse it! Tell us where are you getting this "cultural abandonment" idea from?? Last time I checked the Israelites and even their modern Jewish descendants still maintain Mesopotamian calendar and customs.
quote:"Under the scenario of an African origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, the occurrence of Eurasian Y-chromosome haplogroups J, K, and R among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of North Africa and East Africa would imply Eurasian immigration or gene flow into northern Africa, accompanied by the loss of the Eurasians' ancestral language and assimilation into the indigenous Afro-Asiatic cultures."
Correct. This explains North Africa. What about Southwest Asia? Explain why the vast majority of Semitic speaker carry J.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
* You said:
"One can only make assumptions about ancient body based on the archaeological context. That he was a citizen of Israel is likely. Does that mean he was on of the 12 Tribes is another question. The same way the Late Period Abusir mummies are 'Egyptians' does that mean their ethnic roots are entirely Egyptian going back to predynastic times? Of course not.
^^^ exactly my point. I'm glad we can agree on this right here. The problem is, you called the sample an Israelite (and so does the article). Israelite = descendant of Jacob/Israel. The suffix "ite" denotes lineage.
* You said:
"J is a common marker in the Middle East today and has been for a while. The Biblical narrative says that Abraham-- ancestor of the Israelites-- and his family originally came from Mesopotamia. His migration as well as that of other Hebrews does support the genetic findings of hg J spreading throughout Southwest Asia. So where is the hole in my argument??"
J did not originate in Mesopotamia, it was found in the caucusus before the Levant area. One could argue that Abraham's ancestors migrated from the caucusus since that's near the area where Noah's ark settled after the flood, but then the question arises: why don't all other haplogoups have an origin in the same area -- especially the haplogroups that came before J?
Regarding the remainder of your comment, Lioness was trying to assert that the Bible is unreliable in this conversation for xyz reasons, so why even affirm that position when you yourself are trying to correlate these J markers to what the Bible says?
In regards to the paper I referenced about J adopting a culture that wasn't theirs -- yes, that paper is talking about north africa. But it logically follows that if semitic/afro-asiatic culture wasn't the original culture of J in north africa, it wasn't their original culture anywhere else either. Otherwise, it wouldn't say that they assimilated and lost their original culture.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I do have one question about the scenario Swenet described in which Proto-Semitic peoples passed through the Levant but settled down in Mesopotamia. Wouldn't all these migrations from one region to another have taken several generations? I would think that, once you had a large group of people passing through a region as big as the Fertile Crescent, many of them would "get off the bus" on multiple "stops" along the way. It couldn't have been like one tribe of Proto-Semitic people in the northeastern corner of Africa thought, "Hey, let's all pass through the Levant nonstop before settling down in Mesopotamia" (as if they would have been carrying maps of the whole region back then).
That being said, I can see a scenario in which Proto-Semitic people dispersed across the whole Fertile Crescent, but the subset of them that had settled in Mesopotamia experienced a population explosion thereafter. Mesopotamia, so named because it has two major rivers passing through it, does seem like a more logical location for a population explosion than the Levantine coast.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
What part of the Biblical Narriative is being proven correct? As far as I can tell several aspects of the Biblical mythology is based on distortions, exaggerations, lies, omitions etc. Just off the top of my head the Jewish community at Elephantine contained an older verion of Judaism that was polytheistic, unlike the strict Monotheism that the biblical narriative tries to pretend was the original religion..etc.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB]Incorrect. I never said the Biblical narrative is "not a reliable source"! In fact, archaeology is proving the Biblical narrative to be correct all along.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Brandon
Agreed.
This is why I am careful not to give the impression that the absence so far of Y-DNA E before and after MBII is a real absence, and why I mentioned sites like Sinai and Azor with seemingly more African ancestry than the Bronze Age Levantine average.
There would have been nomadic pastoralists and wandering groups (e.g. like the Habiru) whose bones would be more difficult to find than tombs linked to large settlements that archaeologists have identified as sites of interest due to well known biblical stories. Sites like Megiddo, that have cultural meaning for western people (it's the origin of the word Armageddon), get more attention.
Years ago I moved away from Ehret's concept of a single mass of people corresponding to his Proto-Semitic stage (ie his green 6ky old triangle). I believe that mass of people existed, but I think it was just one of several population centers that were mostly east of Palestine. Some may remember that Bronze Age South Asian sample with E, which matches the mixed Indo-European people in southern Russia posted by Evergreen. At least some of these samples from southern Russia were said to date specifically to the late neolithic and Bronze Age.
I've moved on to Lipinski's position of "wave after wave" of N African migrants, based on the 5.9 kiloyear event. Working with the geological event itself as opposed to linguistic concepts/constructs like "proto Semitic", it becomes obvious that some of these migrants weren't even Semitic speakers. We could have incipient languages getting lost in Africa during this event, and getting absorbed into Egyptian and Semitic. There has been talk of a Lower Egyptian Afroasiatic language, for instance, that was different than the Egyptian that was spoken in Upper Egypt before unification.
I've already hinted at things like this in previous discussion where I noted that the Middle Egyptian language that Afrocentrics claim is Bantu, could be a form of Egyptian that is more stereotypically African than Coptic, for instance. I mentioned modern Egyptian E-M2 that forms a clade with some Fulani E-M2, with the arrival in Egypt dating to the Middle Egyptian language, as well as women like Kemsit in Middle Kingdom tombs, who are more 'southern' in appearance than dynastic Egyptians. So I'm no longer thinking along those lines of languages as self-contained stages that are passed down kit and kaboodle, as linguists often present them. Forms of Egyptian were tied to dynasties, with Middle Egyptian being connected to the Middle Kingdom. Then other dialects of Egyptian could have taken over in later dynasties, that had other admixtures.
Semitic is probably much more like a palimpsest, with the 5.9 kiloyear migrants simply being the biggest or latest contribution to an already existing Afroasiatic presence in the Middle East. E-M123 in the Middle East is older than both Natufians and the 5.9 kiloyear event. This is also why I said in the 3 abstract thread that balance is shifting with the African side of this population (alKhiday, Olduvai Man, Loosdrecht's Taforalt) only being clarified in the last 11 years as being roughly equal in size as the portion that settled Eurasia. I wasn't just thinking of Natufians as the counterpart that settled Eurasia.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I just want to say whether you are atheist or religious lets be respectful to both views.... This is not directed at anyone.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^Sorry don't want to come off as too demeaning against the religious posters, Im honestly curious to the parts of the Bible being proven correct, I just think its a stretch to say it as a whole is...
I Think I might make another thread on Biblical critical research, its blown up on YT in recent years(With channels like Mythvision and Gnostic Informant) and though mostly about being critical to the Xtian narriative, its very interesting. One that stuck with me was Jesus and "The Egyptian" Prophet, connection who Paul is mistaken for in the book of Acts..etc.
But I don't want to destract the thread with OT stuff...so just Ignore me...lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As far as Abraham and his people corresponding to the spread of West Semitic, I agree with both Djehuti and Jari.
On the one hand, aspects of the bible have been confirmed as based on real memories. We have other examples of this, even geological features that didn't exist anymore by the Iron Age, seem to have been accurately remembered by Hebrew scribes (eg river Pishon, and fertile land in the east that was watered by four major rivers, that existed before the time of the Hebrew scribes).
On the other hand, we can also see hints that Hebrew history is the history of protagonists that were not all of the ancestry of the scribes of the bible. That is, the scribes of the bible could have been Canaanite locals, different from Abraham's group/MBII, and different from the Egyptian group corresponding to Moses (Moses could be connected to a historical group of Egyptian refugees connected to Atenism, who may have fled Egypt and settled Canaan).
Rather than being one 100% descended from Abraham, in this scenario Hebrews could have been something like 90% Bronze Age Levantine, 5% Mesopotamian (Abraham, West Semitic, MBII), and 5% Egyptian (Atenism refugees). So, many of the protagonists from the bible could have been Egyptians and Mesopotamians, and different from the people in Iron Age Palestine/authors of the bible.
But that's a different can of worms I'll leave to others to discuss in public.
Also, some of these stories could have been used to convey profound meanings (those in the know will know what I mean), rather than just dry history. Euro Christians took Hebrew religious texts and didn't consult Hebrew authorities on the correct interpretation of the bible. So you have many examples in the bible, like Hebrew numerlogy, that Christians don't understand because they have historically not respected Jews and their culture. And this brings us right back to this topic, because we don't know if these stories necessarily have to answer to scientific revelations.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Sorry don't want to come off as too demeaning against the religious posters, Im honestly curious to the parts of the Bible being proven correct, I just think its a stretch to say it as a whole is...
I Think I might make another thread on Biblical critical research, its blown up on YT in recent years(With channels like Mythvision and Gnostic Informant) and though mostly about being critical to the Xtian narriative, its very interesting. One that stuck with me was Jesus and "The Egyptian" Prophet, connection who Paul is mistaken for in the book of Acts..etc.
But I don't want to destract the thread with OT stuff...so just Ignore me...lol
Being an atheist myself, I personally feel that religious scriptures, and for that matter mythology and legends in general, can have some kernels of truth. In some cases, these stories might be embellishments or abstractions of real events. The King Arthur stories for example could represent the Celtic Britons' resistance to Anglo-Saxon invasions, and then you have the stories of monsters that might have been inspired by real creatures or fossils of such.
Isn't the Bible supposed to be a compilation of texts anyway? Those might have been written by many different people with varying agendas (and perhaps varying devotions to truth and accuracy) over a period of time.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Rather than being one 100% descended from Abraham, in this scenario Hebrews could have been something like 90% Bronze Age Levantine, 5% Mesopotamian (Abraham, West Semitic, MBII), and 5% Egyptian (Atenism refugees). So, many of the protagonists from the bible could have been Egyptians and Mesopotamians, and different from the people in Iron Age Palestine/authors of the bible.
According to the Torah/Tanakh (ancient text of the Israelites), lineage was determined patrilineally. In other words, you are what your father is, and so on, and so on. If your paternal great great great grandfather was not an Israelite, then neither are you.
The scientific community has another definition of what an Israelite is, i.e. how Djehuti pointed out how this J sample was a citizen of Israel and that the ancestry can only be assumed. This is another thing a lot of people have a problem with concerning science when it comes to identifying ancient Biblical populations.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Rather than being one 100% descended from Abraham, in this scenario Hebrews could have been something like 90% Bronze Age Levantine, 5% Mesopotamian (Abraham, West Semitic, MBII), and 5% Egyptian (Atenism refugees). So, many of the protagonists from the bible could have been Egyptians and Mesopotamians, and different from the people in Iron Age Palestine/authors of the bible.
According to the Torah/Tanakh (ancient text of the Israelites), lineage was determined patrilineally. In other words, you are what your father is, and so on, and so on. If your paternal great great great grandfather was not an Israelite, then neither are you.
The scientific community has another definition of what an Israelite is, i.e. how Djehuti pointed out how this J sample was a citizen of Israel and that the ancestry can only be assumed. This is another thing a lot of people have a problem with concerning science when it comes to identifying ancient Biblical populations.
You've stated this over and over. I think most people have that clear. But you've also made it clear that E1b1b was likely not the fathers father father of Israelites. Your round about statements of not subscribing to genetics notwithstanding.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Sorry don't want to come off as too demeaning against the religious posters, Im honestly curious to the parts of the Bible being proven correct, I just think its a stretch to say it as a whole is...
I Think I might make another thread on Biblical critical research, its blown up on YT in recent years(With channels like Mythvision and Gnostic Informant) and though mostly about being critical to the Xtian narriative, its very interesting. One that stuck with me was Jesus and "The Egyptian" Prophet, connection who Paul is mistaken for in the book of Acts..etc.
But I don't want to destract the thread with OT stuff...so just Ignore me...lol
No need to apologize. You good.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You've stated this over and over. I think most people have that clear. But you've also made it clear that E1b1b was likely not the fathers father father of Israelites. Your round about statements of not subscribing to genetics notwithstanding.
Yet nobody has tried to reconcile the fact that a different "scientific" definition is being used to identify an ancient race of people who identified themselves by a completely different standard according to ancient texts that they wrote themselves, about themselves?
Also, in regards to the natufians, all I've done is cite a peer-reviewed paper written by a well known geneticist who came to the conclusion that the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites.
And all you've done is repeatedly set up a strawman by claiming I believe or asserted that the Israelites were DIRECT descendants of the natufians when neither I nor the referenced paper said that. And I have clarified that multiple times.
If it's impossible for the natufians to be the progenitors of the Israelites and so easy to prove that they weren't then please explain why a prestigious geneticist with more credentials, accolades and experience than every person on this website combined wrote a peer-reviewed paper about it that got published by a reputable academic journal/government website?
Sometimes it's easier to quote somebody else (somebody who doesn't have a bunch of code in their comment), insert the comment and then just replace the name with the actual person you are responding to.
In this case I forgot to switch the name to the proper person
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You've stated this over and over. I think most people have that clear. But you've also made it clear that E1b1b was likely not the fathers father father of Israelites. Your round about statements of not subscribing to genetics notwithstanding.
Yet nobody has tried to reconcile the fact that a different "scientific" definition is being used to identify an ancient race of people who identified themselves by a completely different standard according to ancient texts that they wrote themselves, about themselves?
Also, in regards to the natufians, all I've done is cite a peer-reviewed paper written by a well known geneticist who came to the conclusion that the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites.
And all you've done is repeatedly set up a strawman by claiming I believe or asserted that the Israelites were DIRECT descendants of the natufians when neither I nor the referenced paper said that. And I have clarified that multiple times.
If it's impossible for the natufians to be the progenitors of the Israelites and so easy to prove that they weren't then please explain why a prestigious geneticist with more credentials, accolades and experience than every person on this website combined wrote a peer-reviewed paper about it that got published by a reputable academic journal/government website?
1.You don't know my credentials. 2.I haven't mentioned Natufians in that quote. 3.My only point is that you, (not a geneticist, nor the bible or any erroneous, nor any mysterious figurehead) are providing a view-point or belief which disregarded E1b1b being the ancestors of Israelites.
I haven't splashed you with information like other posters have. I only tried to get, as well as give context to your position. It's futile to appeal to the authority of "peered-reviewed" work if you can't understand the concept of falsifiability at the very least. I'm not going back and forth over a genetics paper with someone who doesn't "subscribe to genetics" ... I'm not a fool and value my time.
That being said, you still can't explain in your own words who and where the "E1b1" or African descendants were in region. You're free to explain that to break down your belief for most of us who aren't adverse to logic. If your paper states that the Natufians (for example) were the progenitors of the later Israelites, then where were the intermediate populations for the 6-4 thousand years between the two populations? Make anything you proposed make sense, you're free to do so.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@El Maestro you must have Tazarah confused with Yatunde Lisa
There is not a single quote in this thread where Tazarah even mentions E1b1b
His position is that due to DNA analysis of six Natufians from a cave in Israel that they are the most likely ancestors of the Israelites. I asked him why a few times but he has no idea. He just read it in an article. He just accepts things blindly because they are in articles by geneticists
> but also doesn't believe in genetics
the art of BS
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: please explain why a prestigious geneticist with more credentials, accolades and experience than ...
what's his name?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: El Maestro you must have Tazarh confused with Yatunde Lisa
There is not a single quote in this thread where Tazarah even mentions E1b1b
His position is that due to DNA analysis of six Natufians from a cave in Israel that they are the most likely ancestors of the Israelites. I asked him why a few times why but he has no idea. He just read it in an article. He just accepts things blindly because they are in articles by geneticists
> but also doesn't believe in genetics
the art of BS
He has to know something. He states that the father determined the lineage. Natufians were of that paternal lineage, he must know at least that. I'm only trying to understand what he's presenting at his level.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: 1.You don't know my credentials. 2.I haven't mentioned Natufians in that quote. 3.My only point is that you, (not a geneticist, nor the bible or any erroneous, nor any mysterious figurehead) are providing a view-point or belief which disregarded E1b1b being the ancestors of Israelites.
I haven't splashed you with information like other posters have. I only tried to get, as well as give context to your position. It's futile to appeal to the authority of "peered-reviewed" work if you can't understand the concept of falsifiability at the very least. I'm not going back and forth over a genetics paper with someone who doesn't "subscribe to genetics" ... I'm not a fool and value my time. I have said this ad nauseum.
That being said, you still can't explain in your own words who and where the "E1b1" or African descendants were in region. You're free to explain that to break down your belief for most of us who aren't adverse to logic. If your paper states that the Natufians (for example) were the progenitors of the later Israelites, then where were the intermediate populations for the 6-4 thousand years between the two populations? Make anything you proposed make sense, you're free to do so.
So are you acknowledging that I never said anything about the natufians being the direct ancestors of the Israelites like you claimed I did previously?
And where did I say anything about "africans"?
All I've done is show peer-reviewed genetic research that contradicts the narrative of J being Israelite, nothing more nothing less. The natufian point isn't the only one I've raised either. I'm not obligated to break down any geneticist's research ESPECIALLY when I myself don't even subscribe to it, my only purpose for referencing it is to show that there is conflicting information even within the professional genetics community when it comes to who is or isn't an "Israelite".
If you feel that the paper in question is so flawed (no intermediate populations referenced, etc.) then how did it pass peer review and get published on a government website without any criticism from other geneticists? You mean to tell me no other geneticists specifically pointed out that there is a gap between the natufians > israelites that makes it impossible for them to be the progenitors? Wouldn't that be one of the easiest parts of the paper to debunk?
I've even referenced information showing that J did not originate in the Levant area and that J carriers abandoned their own culture/customs and adopted the culture/customs of actual "Semites", etc.,
Perhaps the best question is, why am I attracting so much heat for pointing out genetic research that contradicts other narratives, regardless of whether or not I myself subscribe to genetics? I've been mostly polite to everyone, not counting small instances where myself and another poster may get a little passionate about what we are saying.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: His position is that due to DNA analysis of six Natufians from a cave in Israel that they are the most likely ancestors of the Israelites. I asked him why a few times why but he has no idea. He just read it in an article. He just accepts things blindly because they are in articles by geneticists
> but also doesn't believe in genetics
the art of BS
This is hilarious coming from you, the most notorious troll this website has ever seen.
Yeah, I read it on a government website it in a peer-reviewed paper written by a geneticist with actual credentials and decades more authority, accolades, credentials and experience in the field than you could ever dream of having.
You have an excuse for everything -- I reference books from different periods in history and your excuse is "old books are fraught with outdated information."
Then when I reference genetic research from not even 6-7 years ago, I need to provide you with a step by step breakdown of how the scientist came to their conclusion in order for you to accept it.
LOL, the art of BS indeed. What a troll.
Wait a minute, aren't you supposed to be shunning me? Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: So are you acknowledging that I never said anything about the natufians being the direct ancestors of the Israelites like you claimed I did previously?
And where did I say anything about "africans"?
All I've done is show peer-reviewed genetic research that contradicts the narrative of J being Israelite, nothing more nothing less. The natufian point isn't the only one I've raised either. I'm not obligated to break down any geneticist's research ESPECIALLY when I myself don't even subscribe to it, my only purpose for referencing it is to show that there is conflicting information even within the professional genetics community when it comes to who is or isn't an "Israelite".
If you feel that the paper in question is so flawed (no intermediate populations referenced, etc.) then how did it pass peer review and get published on a government website without any criticism from other geneticists? You mean to tell me no other geneticists specifically pointed out that there is a gap between the natufians > israelites that makes it impossible for them to be the progenitors? Wouldn't that be one of the easiest parts of the paper to debunk?
I've even referenced information showing that J did not originate in the Levant area and that J carriers abandoned their own culture/customs and adopted the culture/customs of actual "Semites", etc.,
Perhaps the best question is, why am I attracting so much heat for pointing out genetic research that contradicts other narratives, regardless of whether or not I myself subscribe to genetics? I've been mostly polite to everyone, not counting small instances where myself and another poster may get a little passionate about what we are saying.
It doesn't really matter what you said at this point. What matters more is what your going to say.
I'm not going to discuss the paper with you because you don't subscribe to genetics. I wouldn't put you through the trouble of trying to back up something you don't have any idea about.
Speaking of which. The age of J and the expansion of J from any which area, are two different things. Your views on J is irrelevant for two reasons, 1. you don't subscribe to genetics and 2. you don't know what your talking about.
Which leads me to Natufians and their paternal Ancestors. The Natufian paternal ancestors were Africans. But it's okay that you don't know that because ...you don't subscribe to genetics. I thought that it was common enough as well as important enough to know.
But all of that is besides the point.
Cuz the question I'm asking now is where were the descendants of Natufians during the periods not highlighted (Between 12 and 5 thousand years ago)? If you can explain that it'll help all of us understand everything.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You literally said:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: That being said, you still can't explain in your own words who and where the "E1b1" or African descendants were in region. You're free to explain that to break down your belief for most of us who aren't adverse to logic.
You were talking about "african" descendants of natufians and/or acting as if I said or asserted anything about them producing "africans" in that region and that's why I pointed out that I never said anything about any of them having "african" descendants. I was speaking solely in terms of Y DNA markers, which would be E in the case of the natufians. Modern jewish and arab populations have E markers yet neither are "african".
Then when I point out that I said nothing about "africans" you jump to the topic of the ancestors of natufians being "african" when literally nobody ever said anything about the ancestors of natufians. We were talking about intermediate populations between natufians and israelites, remember?....
And even then, being "african" has nothing to do with Y dna markers, which was the main point of contention.
At this juncture I feel like you know exactly the point I'm making and you understand exactly where I'm coming from but still choose to purposely misrepresent what I'm saying and/or muddy the water.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You literally said:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: That being said, you still can't explain in your own words who and where the "E1b1" or African descendants were in region. You're free to explain that to break down your belief for most of us who aren't adverse to logic.
You were talking about "african" descendants of natufians and/or acting as if I said or asserted anything about them producing "africans" in that region and that's why I pointed out that I never said anything about any of them having "african" descendants. I was speaking solely in terms of Y DNA markers, which would be E in the case of the natufians. Modern jewish and arab populations have E markers yet neither are "african".
Then when I point out that I said nothing about "africans" you jump to the topic of the ancestors of natufians being "african" when literally nobody ever said anything about the ancestors of natufians. We were talking about intermediate populations between natufians and israelites, remember?....
And even then, being "african" has nothing to do with Y dna markers, which was the main point of contention.
At this juncture I feel like you know exactly the point I'm making and you understand exactly where I'm coming from but still choose to purposely misrepresent what I'm saying and/or muddy the water.
Well, at this juncture, all the E1b1b pops you mentioned are still descendants of Africans as I stated in my previous post. The Y-DNA marker was produced first by Africans... Natufian descendants carrying their paternal marker are also African descendants.
It seems like you're literally doing everything in your power to avoid clarity. You didn't need to say anything about Africans... It'd be okay for you to not know the paternal markers were African since you don't subscribe to genetics.. but I do. So you don't really have to do anything but explain where these late descendants of Africans were during the time period in question. More specifically, the descendants carrying the African paternal markers of the Natufians.
..You know what? Feel free to even replace the word African with what ever adjective, Noun, pro-noun or placeholder you like. What's actually important here is the logic of the timeline you have in you head.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
If someone is going so far as to deny the entire discipline of genetics because it contradicts their interpretation of a religious text, I doubt any line of empirical evidence is going to change their mind. Some people have chosen to immerse themselves so deep in their personal fantasy world that you just can't pull them out.
I do want to know what Israel Finkelstein would think of the argument that, since Natufians were the "most likely progenitors of the Judaeans" and lacked Y-DNA J, that these First Temple-era remains he studied which did happen to carry Y-DNA J weren't really Israelites. Someone should tell him that, if your Y-DNA is anything other than E, you're not really an Israelite.
Imagine if we sequenced ancient Malian aDNA that was all Y-DNA E, and then someone declared that those samples represented "likely progenitors of African-Americans". Then, upon being confronted with African-American dudes who have Y-DNA R instead of E, that some individual denied that those guys were really African-American. Can we all agree that would be moronic?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
* You said:
"One can only make assumptions about ancient body based on the archaeological context. That he was a citizen of Israel is likely. Does that mean he was on of the 12 Tribes is another question. The same way the Late Period Abusir mummies are 'Egyptians' does that mean their ethnic roots are entirely Egyptian going back to predynastic times? Of course not.
^^^ exactly my point. I'm glad we can agree on this right here. The problem is, you called the sample an Israelite (and so does the article). Israelite = descendant of Jacob/Israel. The suffix "ite" denotes lineage.
Wrong again! The suffix "ite" is Greek and means 'part of' or 'member of' a body or group. You can be a member of a nation without necessarily sharing common descent through a process of civil and cultural adscitition i.e. naturalization. Even the Bible itself gives many examples of individuals and tribes being adopted into the nation of Israel and thus becoming Israelites.
quote:* You said:
"J is a common marker in the Middle East today and has been for a while. The Biblical narrative says that Abraham-- ancestor of the Israelites-- and his family originally came from Mesopotamia. His migration as well as that of other Hebrews does support the genetic findings of hg J spreading throughout Southwest Asia. So where is the hole in my argument??"
J did not originate in Mesopotamia, it was found in the caucusus before the Levant area. One could argue that Abraham's ancestors migrated from the caucusus since that's near the area where Noah's ark settled after the flood, but then the question arises: why don't all other haplogoups have an origin in the same area -- especially the haplogroups that came before J?
That hg J originated in the Caucasus is simply a hypothesis since J branched off from IJ which was presumed to have arisen in the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran etc. Regardless, my point had nothing to do with the origins of hg J but rather it's spread. Genesis is clear that the Hebrew peoples, not just Abraham who is a descendent of Peleg, but the descendants of Joktan who migrated into Arabia-- all came from Mesopotamia. Why do you bring up haplogroup origins when I never said anything about origins, but since you brought it up, it is interesting that Noah's ark was said to come to rest in Ararat near the Caucasus. By the way, even most educated rabbis and Biblical scholars acknowledge that the Biblical story of Noah's Flood was a local event not a global one, or at least the narrative meant to convey an event to one locality.
quote:Regarding the remainder of your comment, Lioness was trying to assert that the Bible is unreliable in this conversation for xyz reasons, so why even affirm that position when you yourself are trying to correlate these J markers to what the Bible says?
The Bible is a story about peoples and events. Nowhere are genetic markers discussed, such things can only be ascertained from the populations described so how it fits or rather doesn't fit with the Biblical narrative depends on the people using the data and NOT the Bible itself.
quote:In regards to the paper I referenced about J adopting a culture that wasn't theirs -- yes, that paper is talking about north africa. But it logically follows that if semitic/afro-asiatic culture wasn't the original culture of J in north africa, it wasn't their original culture anywhere else either. Otherwise, it wouldn't say that they assimilated and lost their original culture.
"J" doesn't adopt anything. J is a genetic signature carried by males. Culture is a process of adoption or assimilation or the opposite-- abandonment of certain aspects or traits with language being a fundamental aspect of culture. Haplgroup J is not native to North Africa but introduced there largely by Semitic speakers from Asia. Semitic is branch of Afroasiatic that developed in Asia. Exactly what culture are you referring to as being "abandoned" or "adopted"??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What part of the Biblical Narrative is being proven correct? As far as I can tell several aspects of the Biblical mythology is based on distortions, exaggerations, lies, omissions etc.
I'm not a religious person, but I've had a religious upbringing since childhood which I am very grateful since it helped instill my sense of scholarship and research. And I'm not just talking about basic Bible study. I'm talking about deep historical and scientific analysis including critiques to refute the Bible. I and others were taught validate the faith through conjecture and not follow blindly to the point of reviewing what atheist scholars wrote. This actually gave me a lot of insight as to how the Bible as a collection of narratives not scientific documents, has withstood the test of time. Suffice to say that the majority of arguments had to do with mistranslations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts. Others were based on mere presumptions and still other scientific claims we take for granted have yet to be proven.
As for distortions or exaggerations, to which are you referring to? Do you mean poetic hyperbole that is common in Jewish poetry that is often taken literally?? As for lies, which claims are you referring to??
quote:Just off the top of my head the Jewish community at Elephantine contained an older version of Judaism that was polytheistic, unlike the strict Monotheism that the biblical narrative tries to pretend was the original religion..etc.
The Biblical narrative tells of a history of peoples including Hebrews falling away from the worship of God and into polytheism. Several times in Israelite history there were reforms to rid even the Temple of Jerusalem itself from idolatry and pagan influence, so I don't see how the Elephantine community refutes any of this. By the way, when the kabbalah is taken into account one must wonder if these Jews truly were polytheistic OR were in fact had a multitarian view of their god Yahu since the alleged goddesses supposedly worshipped along side him had the suffix Bethel-- house of god.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ To Swenet and Brandon, I compare Semitic to Indo-Iranian. Proto-Indo-Iranian was introduced to Central Asia by Indo-Europeans who likely looked European but some of their descendants who made their way into South Asia where they were absorbed by the local population who assimilated their language. I think the same happened to the Pre-Proto-Semites who entered Asia. Remember it was Lipinsky and others who theorized ancestral bilateral root words for Pre-Proto-Semitic while Proto-Semitic itself developed triliteral and in some cases quadriliteral roots. These PP-Semites carried E while the Asiatics who adopted Semitic languages carried J and back-migrated into Africa.
Similarly, the original Indo-Iranian speakers of Central Asia who carried R while most Indo-Aryan speakers of India do not but carry lineages like H which back-migrated into Europe in the form of the Roma (Gypsies).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Well, at this juncture, all the E1b1b pops you mentioned are still descendants of Africans as I stated in my previous post. The Y-DNA marker was produced first by Africans... Natufian descendants carrying their paternal marker are also African descendants.
It seems like you're literally doing everything in your power to avoid clarity. You didn't need to say anything about Africans... It'd be okay for you to not know the paternal markers were African since you don't subscribe to genetics.. but I do. So you don't really have to do anything but explain where these late descendants of Africans were during the time period in question. More specifically, the descendants carrying the African paternal markers of the Natufians.
..You know what? Feel free to even replace the word African with what ever adjective, Noun, pro-noun or placeholder you like. What's actually important here is the logic of the timeline you have in you head.
The thing is, you've repeatedly put words in my mouth like "african" and "e1b1b", and "direct descendants". I've repeatedly pointed that out to you and you just jump to the next topic without even acknowledging the fact that you have repeatedly misrepresented me.
I am speaking solely in terms of Y DNA markers, nothing else. And that's all I have been talking about from the beginning. And I never mentioned anything about any specific subclades.
Even the lioness has pointed out the fact that you are misrepresenting me. The crazy thing is how hostile you are being over the simple fact that I referenced a peer-reviewed genetic paper from a government website that says the E carrying natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites... but you instead choose to attack me. Not the geneticist who wrote the paper, not the government website that published it, none of the scholars who peer-reviewed it.
*** If you don't believe what the paper says then just say that and we can agree to disagree, but nobody can accuse me of not referencing peer-reviewed academia.
If only you would have had this same energy for antalas all those times he was sh*tting on black people. Then maybe I would feel like continuing this dialogue with you, but at this point you have demonstrated over and over that this is a waste of time.
I thought you said you weren't even going to go back and forth with me?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If someone is going so far as to deny the entire discipline of genetics because it contradicts their interpretation of a religious text, I doubt any line of empirical evidence is going to change their mind. Some people have chosen to immerse themselves so deep in their personal fantasy world that you just can't pull them out.
This means absolutely nothing coming from an atheist. You know that right? Nothing wrong with being an atheist. But imagine trying to determine who an ancient group of people is/was while at the same time excluding all of their ancient texts (Torah/Bible/Tanakh) and calling it "fantasy"... Lol... plenty of verified and undeniable historical information all throughout the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I do want to know what Israel Finkelstein would think of the argument that, since Natufians were the "most likely progenitors of the Judaeans" and lacked Y-DNA J, that these First Temple-era remains he studied which did happen to carry Y-DNA J weren't really Israelites. Someone should tell him that, if your Y-DNA is anything other than E, you're not really an Israelite.
If we're going by the actual definition of Israelite according to what the ancient Israelites considered to be Israelite, then yes this is true. If you do not descend paternally from an Israelite, you are not an Israelite. That goes for everyone including myself. Tazarah did not make this up, it's in the Torah and Tanakh.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Imagine if we sequenced ancient Malian aDNA that was all Y-DNA E, and then someone declared that those samples represented "likely progenitors of African-Americans". Then, upon being confronted with African-American dudes who have Y-DNA R instead of E, that some individual denied that those guys were really African-American. Can we all agree that would be moronic?
Major false equivalence because none of these modern populations determine lineage patrilineally. Thanks for demonstrating that you do not even understand the point I have been making over and over again.
I find myself having to repeat the same thing over and over out of necessity and when I do I get told "you already said that."
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Wrong again! The suffix "ite" is Greek and means 'part of' or 'member of' a body or group. You can be a member of a nation without necessarily sharing common descent through a process of civil and cultural adscitition i.e. naturalization. Even the Bible itself gives many examples of individuals and tribes being adopted into the nation of Israel and thus becoming Israelites.
No. In a Biblical context, the suffix "ite" denotes biological lineage.
"2. Used to form nouns denoting descendants of a specified historical person, especially a biblical figure. quotations ▼ Cainite, Ephraimite, Hamite, Japhetite, Lamanite"
There are examples in the Bible where an individual has an Israelite mother but a gentile father, and that individual was not counted as an Israelite.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That hg J originated in the Caucasus is simply a hypothesis since J branched off from IJ which was presumed to have arisen in the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran etc. Regardless, my point had nothing to do with the origins of hg J but rather it's spread. Genesis is clear that the Hebrew peoples, not just Abraham who is a descendent of Peleg, but the descendants of Joktan who migrated into Arabia-- all came from Mesopotamia. Why do you bring up haplogroup origins when I never said anything about origins, but since you brought it up, it is interesting that Noah's ark was said to come to rest in Ararat near the Caucasus. By the way, even most educated rabbis and Biblical scholars acknowledge that the Biblical story of Noah's Flood was a local event not a global one, or at least the narrative meant to convey an event to one locality.
I did not say J originated in the caucusus, I said it was found in the caucusus before it was found in the Levant area. Long before it was found in the Levant area. Rabbis say and do a lot of things that are not in line with the Torah/Tanakh, for example they say jewishness is determined through the mother when the Torah/Tanakh say the exact opposite. Furthermore, the Torah makes it extremely clear that the flood was not local.
GENESIS 7:19
"19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."
So if anyone is going to assert that J correlates Biblically with what the Hebrews/Israelites should have, they would have to explain how all the other haplogroups originate in completely separate places whereas they should all have the same spawning point.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: "J" doesn't adopt anything. J is a genetic signature carried by males. Culture is a process of adoption or assimilation or the opposite-- abandonment of certain aspects or traits with language being a fundamental aspect of culture. Haplgroup J is not native to North Africa but introduced there largely by Semitic speakers from Asia. Semitic is branch of Afroasiatic that developed in Asia. Exactly what culture are you referring to as being "abandoned" or "adopted"??
The source I referenced says word for word that J carriers lost their ancestral language and assimilated into afro-asiatic culture. Meaning their ancestral language was not afro-asiatic or semitic and neither was their ancestral culture.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
There is no reason to be talking about Natufians in this thread for 6 pages Any geneticist saying 5 Natufians from a cave were ancestors of the Israelites does so with no proof, and the fact that they are a geneticist or where they published their article is not proof either, those purporting that to the case take the readers for blind idiots. said article does not even describe such a theory, the remark was made in it with no other mention of Natufians!! (ponder that, there is nothing on the table but smoke and mirrors) and this remark was made in 2017 before the article below> "The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant" came out in 2020 which also shows several people of haplogroup J in Israel at 2 sites and Jordan before and they are much closer to the Israelite period than were the Natufians. To ignore this and keep talking about Natufians is just due to wanting to believe J carrying Jews are fake And ignoring hard evidence out of bigotry Additionally it is not even known if the Israelites were even aboriginal to the location of Israel.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The natufians are not the only point I raised about how J is an unlikely candidate.
Also, saying XYZ sample is closer to the Israelites is a weak argument because populations migrate and assimilate, as was the case with J.
Lioness, what are your credentials/experience again?...
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: If we're going by the actual definition of Israelite according to what the ancient Israelites considered to be Israelite, then yes this is true. If you do not descend paternally from an Israelite, you are not an Israelite.
Where in the Torah or the Tanakh does it say that? Could you please quote some verses here?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: If we're going by the actual definition of Israelite according to what the ancient Israelites considered to be Israelite, then yes this is true. If you do not descend paternally from an Israelite, you are not an Israelite.
Where in the Torah or the Tanakh does it say that? Could you please quote some verses here?
Torah:
NUMBERS 1:18
"18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls."
Tanakh:
EZRA 2:59
"59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:" Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I feel like now would be a good time to throw this out there since a number of people are claiming the natufians were too long ago to have been the progenitors of the Israelites. If that's the case then how in the world are modern semitic speaking peoples of the Levant related to the natufians?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
How many times is Lioness going to cut and paste the same study!
quote: Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East (Lazaridis et al 2016). It says: "Y chromosome analysis showing that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E". They state in the supplementary information that no haplogroup J has been found in Natufian or pre-pottery Levantine samples. The oldest discovery of J listed in their supplementary info is from Jordan in the Bronze Age (1200-2500 BC).
quote: 'Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History' (Haber et al 2017). They say: "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."
quote:'The genomic history of the Middle East' (Almarri et al 2021).
"...we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners... 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)."
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I'm not a religious person, but I've had a religious upbringing since childhood which I am very grateful since it helped instill my sense of scholarship and research. And I'm not just talking about basic Bible study. I'm talking about deep historical and scientific analysis including critiques to refute the Bible. I and others were taught validate the faith through conjecture and not follow blindly to the point of reviewing what atheist scholars wrote. This actually gave me a lot of insight as to how the Bible as a collection of narratives not scientific documents, has withstood the test of time. Suffice to say that the majority of arguments had to do with mistranslations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts. Others were based on mere presumptions and still other scientific claims we take for granted have yet to be proven.
Im not going to question your academic maturity, though I will say that apologetics can be just as "Structured" I should say, around an orthodox narriative as Atheistic critiques. Biblical Critical study is way more in depth than the official narriative, like I said the concept is gaining popularity on places like youtube and is no longer in the hands of a few scholars.
quote:As for distortions or exaggerations, to which are you referring to? Do you mean poetic hyperbole that is common in Jewish poetry that is often taken literally?? As for lies, which claims are you referring to??
Like I said we can make another thread on this subject as it is sort of OT...
quote:Just off the top of my head the Jewish community at Elephantine contained an older version of Judaism that was polytheistic, unlike the strict Monotheism that the biblical narrative tries to pretend was the original religion..etc
The Biblical narrative tells of a history of peoples including Hebrews falling away from the worship of God and into polytheism. Several times in Israelite history there were reforms to rid even the Temple of Jerusalem itself from idolatry and pagan influence, so I don't see how the Elephantine community refutes any of this. By the way, when the kabbalah is taken into account one must wonder if these Jews truly were polytheistic OR were in fact had a multitarian view of their god Yahu since the alleged goddesses supposedly worshipped along side him had the suffix Bethel-- house of god.[/QUOTE]
That could be the case, but I think that is often used as an excuse to explain away polytheistic elements in ancient Judaism. To me the simplest explanation is that the Elephantine colony retained an older version of Judaism with Polytheistic elements.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yeah this is what I think, I think the Hebrews were a mix of various Cannanite Tribes, and other Levantine/Egyptian peoples...
I do find the "Atenist" connection intriguing as well, I remember years ago there was an article where someone broke down all the 10 Plagues of Egypt myth and revealed them to be direct attacks/Mockery against "All the Gods of Egypt"...and we all know how Akenaten and his Aten Cult felt about the gods of Egypt..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As far as Abraham and his people corresponding to the spread of West Semitic, I agree with both Djehuti and Jari.
On the one hand, aspects of the bible have been confirmed as based on real memories. We have other examples of this, even geological features that didn't exist anymore by the Iron Age, seem to have been accurately remembered by Hebrew scribes (eg river Pishon, and fertile land in the east that was watered by four major rivers, that existed before the time of the Hebrew scribes).
On the other hand, we can also see hints that Hebrew history is the history of protagonists that were not all of the ancestry of the scribes of the bible. That is, the scribes of the bible could have been Canaanite locals, different from Abraham's group/MBII, and different from the Egyptian group corresponding to Moses (Moses could be connected to a historical group of Egyptian refugees connected to Atenism, who may have fled Egypt and settled Canaan).
Rather than being one 100% descended from Abraham, in this scenario Hebrews could have been something like 90% Bronze Age Levantine, 5% Mesopotamian (Abraham, West Semitic, MBII), and 5% Egyptian (Atenism refugees). So, many of the protagonists from the bible could have been Egyptians and Mesopotamians, and different from the people in Iron Age Palestine/authors of the bible.
But that's a different can of worms I'll leave to others to discuss in public.
Also, some of these stories could have been used to convey profound meanings (those in the know will know what I mean), rather than just dry history. Euro Christians took Hebrew religious texts and didn't consult Hebrew authorities on the correct interpretation of the bible. So you have many examples in the bible, like Hebrew numerlogy, that Christians don't understand because they have historically not respected Jews and their culture. And this brings us right back to this topic, because we don't know if these stories necessarily have to answer to scientific revelations.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Yatunde Lisa
Right? And he/she always accuses me of doing that lol what a troll
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:'The genomic history of the Middle East' (Almarri et al 2021).
"...we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners... 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)."
Interesting they hypothesize that the spread of Semitic languages in the Middle East and East Africa was potentially introduced by J1 carriers into the region and they had Iran related ancestry
quote:By modeling contemporary populations using ancient genomes, we identified differences between the Levant and Arabia. The Levant today has higher European/Anatolian-related ancestry while Arabia has higher African and Natufian-like ancestries. The contrast between the regions is also illustrated by their population-size histories that diverged before the Neolithic (15–20 kya) and suggest that the transition to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle allowed the growth of populations in the Levant but was not paralleled in Arabia. It has been suggested that population discontinuity occurred between the late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in Arabia and that the peninsula was repopulated by Neolithic farmers from the Fertile Crescent (Uerpmann et al., 2010). Our results do not support a complete replacement of the Arabian populations by Levantine farmers. In addition, our models suggest that Arabians could have derived their ancestry from Natufian-like local hunter-gatherer populations instead of Levantine Farmers. The identification of lithic assemblages in Northern Arabia, some of which appear similar to ones made by Levantine farmers (Crassard and Drechsler, 2013a), in addition to the movement of animal domesticates between the Levant and Arabia, have been suggested to occur either due to population movements or through cultural diffusion (Guagnin et al., 2017; Petraglia et al., 2020). Our results suggest the latter scenario and/or limited migration from the Levant.
In the map the diamond suggesting origin of Semitic is at Iraq but if the people are Iran relegated, the people may have come from Iran and when they got to Iraq developed Semitic language, moved into the Levant and spread to The Arabian peninsula and North Africa
the bible seems to correspond:
quote: (KJV) Genesis 15
After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
__________________________
Ur Kasdim (Hebrew: אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים ʾŪr Kaśdīm), commonly translated as Ur of the Chaldeans, is a city mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the birthplace of Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites and the Ishmaelites. In 1862, Henry Rawlinson identified Ur Kaśdim with Tell el-Muqayyar, near Nasiriyah in Baghdad Eyalet (which is located in modern-day Iraq).[1] In 1927, Leonard Woolley excavated the site and identified it as a Sumerian archaeological site where the Chaldeans were to settle around the 9th century BC.[2] Recent archaeology work has continued to focus on the location in Nasiriyah, where the ancient Ziggurat of Ur is located. Other sites traditionally thought to be Abraham's birthplace are in the vicinity of the city of Edessa (Şanlıurfa in modern south eastern Turkey).
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The thing is, you've repeatedly put words in my mouth like "african" and "e1b1b", and "direct descendants". I've repeatedly pointed that out to you and you just jump to the next topic without even acknowledging the fact that you have repeatedly misrepresented me.
I am speaking solely in terms of Y DNA markers, nothing else. And that's all I have been talking about from the beginning. And I never mentioned anything about any specific subclades.
Even the lioness has pointed out the fact that you are misrepresenting me. The crazy thing is how hostile you are being over the simple fact that I referenced a peer-reviewed genetic paper from a government website that says the E carrying natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites... but you instead choose to attack me. Not the geneticist who wrote the paper, not the government website that published it, none of the scholars who peer-reviewed it.
*** If you don't believe what the paper says then just say that and we can agree to disagree, but nobody can accuse me of not referencing peer-reviewed academia.
If only you would have had this same energy for antalas all those times he was sh*tting on black people. Then maybe I would feel like continuing this dialogue with you, but at this point you have demonstrated over and over that this is a waste of time.
I thought you said you weren't even going to go back and forth with me? [/QB]
You're trying to duck again.
You didn't mention those terms as you don't subscribe to genetics... It's okay.
But, I don't know what you believe happened in the time period between the Natufian culture and the aforementioned Israelites.
Please, engage us with your ideas on what happened.
Leave out the terms E1b1b and African. Don't mention them again. They aren't your words.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
All this documented genetic evidence from that region showing an undeniable continuity of E markers and you mean to tell me you've never seen any of it?
^^^ archaelogical and physical anthropological reason to believe that natufians are related to modern semitic speaking people in the Levant... which would logically include those the Israelites who came before the modern populations in that region...
^^^ the time period in the Levant following the natufians, all the way to the time period of the Hebrews and direct ancestors of the Israelites, was dominated by haplogroup E...
^^^ proto-afroasiatics who were E carriers gave rise to different major populations including current speakers of afro-asiatic languages... which, once again, would also have to include the Israelites who came before the modern populations...
I'm starting to think the problem isn't me or the original paper I referenced about the natufians... because a handful of additional sources seem to corroborate it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Elmaestro
Tazarah's position is like a patchwork rag barely held together, coming apart at the seams.
One wonders, what's the big deal about Hebrews being Y-DNA J since 1) the bible itself says Abraham comes from Mesopotamia, 2) the bible itself considers Hebrews closely related to West Semitic speaking Arabs, who are known Y-DNA J carriers, 3) Tazarah claims Hebrews weren't 'Africans', 4) Tazarah claims to consider African uniparentals to be irrelevant to the issue, 5) Natufians have some sort of distant progenitor relationships with aforementioned West Semitic speakers in Arabia, especially South Arabian speakers from Soqotra.
Tazarah's own positions and sources call to mind a generic Middle Eastern population. So Tazarah is saying, basically:
"Hebrews were like Y-DNA J populations (Abraham, Eberites, West Semitic speakers), but, I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for 6 thread pages, that they were DEFINITELY NOT Y-DNA J."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elmaestro
Tazarah's position is like a patchwork rag barely held together, coming apart at the seams.
One wonders, what's the big deal about Hebrews being Y-DNA J since 1) the bible itself says Abraham comes from Mesopotamia, 2) the bible itself considers Hebrews closely related to West Semitic speaking Arabs, who are known Y-DNA J carriers, 3) Tazarah claims Hebrews weren't 'Africans', 4) Tazarah claims to consider African uniparentals to be irrelevant to the issue, 5) Natufians have some sort of distant progenitor relationships with aforementioned West Semitic speakers in Arabia, especially South Arabian speakers from Soqotra.
Taz' own positions and sources call to mind a generic Middle Eastern population. So Tazarah is saying, basically:
"Hebrews were like Y-DNA J populations (Abraham, Eberites, West Semitic speakers), but, I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for 6 thread pages, that they were DEFINITELY NOT Y-DNA J."
Another expert who does not seem to understand any of the points I've been making... or reading any of the sources I've shared
Beating up strawmen is fun ain't it?
And how am I fighting tooth and nail when Elmaestro has been requesting me to continue this dialogue with him?
Try to be honest at least. You're not only misrepresenting my position but also misrepresenting what is happening in this thread.
*** You want to appeal to the Bible now huh? Explain how all these haplogroups have different origins at different time periods when only Noah and his sons (and their wives) got off the Ark after the flood? Why don't all the other haplgroups originate where J did?
Please answer that. And don't try that local flood bs... because that ain't Biblical.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
List the points I do not understand. If I misrepresented you, I will give you a formal apology. I going to make this offer to you, just to see what kind of patchwork argument you will cobble together, now.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Taz' own positions and sources call to mind a generic Middle Eastern population. So Tazarah is saying, basically:
"Hebrews were like Y-DNA J populations (Abraham, Eberites, West Semitic speakers), but, I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for 6 thread pages, that they were DEFINITELY NOT Y-DNA J."
When did I ever say this? I've been saying the whole time that J is not native to the Levant area and was found in the caucusus long before ever being in the Levant. J carriers abandoned their ancestral language and customs and assimilated into actual afro-asiatic populations and adopted their language and customs.
I've literally said this over and over.
I've even referenced a paper that says the Natufians (E markers) were the most likely Israelite progenitors.
The Hebrews and their ancestors would have been afro-asiatic originally and their ancestors would have been the ones who produced these languages and customs. All the information I've shared literally says this.
And now you want to appeal to the Bible? Explain how all these haplogroups have different origins at different time periods when only Noah and his sons (and their wives) got off the Ark after the flood? Why don't all the other haplgroups originate where J did, and at the same time period? You claim J is Abraham and his ancestors right?
Please answer that. And don't try that local flood nonsense because that ain't Biblical.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Just as expected. Your attempt to quote-mine my post for "strawmen" and "misrepresentations" isn't giving you the hoped for quote material, because none of the 5 points misrepresented you, nor did they misrepresent your own sources..
But don't mind me. Carry on..
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I literally quoted you completely misrepresenting my position in that short summary you typed at the end of your comment.
And I explained in detail how I said nothing of the sort, at all. I've been saying the exact opposite.
And of course you can't reconcile the Biblical flood narrative with that of the existence of all these different aged haplogroups in different locations at different time periods.
Yawn
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Of course you said nothing like that verbatim. It was a paraphrase intended to sum up and mock the internal inconsistencies in your case.
But what is most important, is that you knew very well to stay away from the 5-point summary, which is a correct summary of what you've been saying, and which shows your arguments and sources do not shape up to be what you want it to be.
Imagine the essence of your own positions and sources not helping you and only resulting in a crystal clear description of a typical Y-DNA J population.
^Watch as Tazarah comes back now, telling me I misrepresented him in this last sentence. Apparently, saying what someone's position amounts to, is a strawman attack now.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ clearly has not been reading anything I've been saying or referencing about J markers, and how the information is actually against J.
Also you are unable to reconcile the existence of the different haplogroups, with different origin locations, at different time periods, with that of the Biblical flood narrative which has Noah and his sons repopulating the earth starting at the same location at the same time period.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Also... imagine trying to affirm what Abraham's DNA was... without having Abraham's DNA.
LOL.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
"Everyone on ES and the whole world misrepresents me." --Tazarah
"But if everybody's crazy, you're the one that's insane" --Jay-Z
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Abraham was J but we don't got his DNA!"
That's when I realized I need to stop taking you seriously
Forgive me for not realizing this sooner
Not even the lioness was pseudo enough to affirm that silliness, and that says a lot about you.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elmaestro
Tazarah's position is like a patchwork rag barely held together, coming apart at the seams.
One wonders, what's the big deal about Hebrews being Y-DNA J since 1) the bible itself says Abraham comes from Mesopotamia, 2) the bible itself considers Hebrews closely related to West Semitic speaking Arabs, who are known Y-DNA J carriers, 3) Tazarah claims Hebrews weren't 'Africans', 4) Tazarah claims to consider African uniparentals to be irrelevant to the issue, 5) Natufians have some sort of distant progenitor relationships with aforementioned West Semitic speakers in Arabia, especially South Arabian speakers from Soqotra.
1. The Bible also says Noah and his sons repopulated the earth at the same time period starting from the same location... yet all these different haplogroups and origin locations/dates exist. Let us know when you are ready to explain that.
2. And? I've referenced info showing J are not native afro-asiatic speakers and assimilated into the culture after abandoning their own.
3. When did I say Hebrews were not africans? All I've ever said about africans in this thread was to Elmaestro and I told him "I never said anything about africans" after HE introduced the term "africans" into the discussion. He even acknowledged that right before you responded.... So yeah, for clarification: I never said hebrews were, or were not africans, and I never used the word "africans" AT ALL, to affirm or deny anything.
4. When did I say anything about african uniparentals being irrelevant to the issue? All I said was that I never appealed to any specific subclade and only mentioned E in general. And once again, Elmaestro acknowledged this as well and agreed that I was misrepresented.
5. I just referenced 3 papers attesting to the fact that E had a dominant continuity in the Levant area from the time of the natufians to the Hebrews and/or their ancestors.
My God, have you even been reading the thread?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Back to the subject. It's interesting that this 5.9ky old signal of N. African Semitic speakers in the Caucasus (related to Herodotus' Colchis?), cannot be found in most Middle Eastern populations. Possibly obscured by more recent admixtures. Y-DNA J entering more central parts of the Middle East likely did the same thing with E lineages dating to 5.9ky ago, which seem to be pretty rare today.
The most significantly negative f3 statistics are from a mixture of populations related to Sardinians and Central Asians, followed by several mixtures of populations from the Caucasus, Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, Europe, and Africa. We sought to date these mixture of events using exponential decay of admixture-induced LD. The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3800 bce, followed closely by a mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. Later, several mixture events occurred from 3000 to 1200 bce involving diverse Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820045/ Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
Just as I expected, zero integrity.
Do not engage me again if you are going to blatantly lie about what I've been saying and then try to gaslight your way out of it.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elmaestro
Tazarah's position is like a patchwork rag barely held together, coming apart at the seams.
One wonders, what's the big deal about Hebrews being Y-DNA J since 1) the bible itself says Abraham comes from Mesopotamia, 2) the bible itself considers Hebrews closely related to West Semitic speaking Arabs, who are known Y-DNA J carriers, 3) Tazarah claims Hebrews weren't 'Africans', 4) Tazarah claims to consider African uniparentals to be irrelevant to the issue, 5) Natufians have some sort of distant progenitor relationships with aforementioned West Semitic speakers in Arabia, especially South Arabian speakers from Soqotra.
Tazarah's own positions and sources call to mind a generic Middle Eastern population. So Tazarah is saying, basically:
"Hebrews were like Y-DNA J populations (Abraham, Eberites, West Semitic speakers), but, I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for 6 thread pages, that they were DEFINITELY NOT Y-DNA J."
As far as I can tell, Taz's underlying thesis is that ancient Israelites would have been "black" or dark-skinned. You'll note, of course, that that is a descriptor of phenotype that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what Y-DNA haplogroups they would have possessed or even whether they had more recent African ancestry than other Bronze Age Levantines. One can have melanated skin without necessarily having Y-DNA E or an elevated affinity to African populations.
To avoid a digression into the tired "what does 'black' mean" discourse, I will just say that you shouldn't be looking at Y-DNA or even craniofacial morphology if you want to assess a population's skin tone. You'd be better off looking at their skin color alleles, as has been done with numerous aDNA samples already.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Back to the subject. It's interesting that this 5.9ky old signal of N. African Semitic speakers in the Caucasus (related to Herodotus' Colchis?), cannot be found in most Middle Eastern populations. Possibly obscured by more recent admixtures. Y-DNA J entering more central parts of the Middle East likely did the same thing with E lineages dating to 5.9ky ago, which seem to be pretty rare today.
The most significantly negative f3 statistics are from a mixture of populations related to Sardinians and Central Asians, followed by several mixtures of populations from the Caucasus, Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, Europe, and Africa. We sought to date these mixture of events using exponential decay of admixture-induced LD. The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3800 bce, followed closely by a mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. Later, several mixture events occurred from 3000 to 1200 bce involving diverse Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820045/
RIP
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: @As far as I can tell, Taz's underlying thesis is that ancient Israelites would have been "black" or dark-skinned. You'll note, of course, that that is a descriptor of phenotype that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what Y-DNA haplogroups they would have possessed or even whether they had more recent African ancestry than other Bronze Age Levantines. One can have melanated skin without necessarily having Y-DNA E or an elevated affinity to African populations.
Is this what Tazarah believes about the way ancient Israelites looked? I can't believe I'm saying this but I'll just wait for the lioness to come back and correct you on this because I've made my position on this clear multiple times in the past and this is not an accurate representation of what I believe.
I'm tired of being constantly misrepresented... it gets boring
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Until then, I'll be happy to look at a source that one of you educated gentlemen can provide that actually identifies a civilization likely to have birthed the Israelites (like how I provided) instead of claiming the paper I referenced is wrong just because you don't like what it says.
There is a documented history of E marker continuity in the Levant all the way from the time period of the natufians to the ancestors of the Hebrews and the Hebrews themselves, all the way until now. J is not native to the area and adopted afro-asiatic after abandoning their own, which does not line up with the Biblical narrative.
I've provided a peer-reviewed genetic paper that was published by the government which identifies a population as being the progenitors of the Israelites.... and you guys have not.
I'm also interested in hearing one of you explain how all these different haplogroups have different origin locations at different time periods when the Biblical narrative has Noah's three sons (Shem included) getting off the ark together and repopulating the earth at the same time.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Back to the subject. It's interesting that this 5.9ky old signal of N. African Semitic speakers in the Caucasus (related to Herodotus' Colchis?), cannot be found in most Middle Eastern populations. Possibly obscured by more recent admixtures. Y-DNA J entering more central parts of the Middle East likely did the same thing with E lineages dating to 5.9ky ago, which seem to be pretty rare today.
The most significantly negative f3 statistics are from a mixture of populations related to Sardinians and Central Asians, followed by several mixtures of populations from the Caucasus, Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, Europe, and Africa. We sought to date these mixture of events using exponential decay of admixture-induced LD. The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3800 bce, followed closely by a mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. Later, several mixture events occurred from 3000 to 1200 bce involving diverse Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820045/
RIP
There goes the argument that Proto-Semitic speakers and y-DNA J met for the first time in the Levant , in an encounter between Bronze Age Natufian Y-DNA E leftovers and Y-DNA J Caucasus foreigners who adopted Hebrew culture. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There goes the argument that Proto-Semitic speakers and y-DNA J met for the first time in the Levant [Roll Eyes] , in an encounter between Bronze Age Natufian Y-DNA E leftovers and Y-DNA J Caucasus foreigners who adopted Hebrew culture. [Roll Eyes]
Who made the argument that proto-semitic speakers and J carriers met for the first time in the Levant in the bronze age??
LOL keep beating up your strawman bro.
I used to actually have respect for you but not so much anymore.
This right here is a prime example showing that you either are not capable of comprehending any of what I have been saying, or you just have not been reading it at all.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elmaestro
Tazarah's position is like a patchwork rag barely held together, coming apart at the seams.
One wonders, what's the big deal about Hebrews being Y-DNA J since 1) the bible itself says Abraham comes from Mesopotamia, 2) the bible itself considers Hebrews closely related to West Semitic speaking Arabs, who are known Y-DNA J carriers, 3) Tazarah claims Hebrews weren't 'Africans', 4) Tazarah claims to consider African uniparentals to be irrelevant to the issue, 5) Natufians have some sort of distant progenitor relationships with aforementioned West Semitic speakers in Arabia, especially South Arabian speakers from Soqotra.
Tazarah's own positions and sources call to mind a generic Middle Eastern population. So Tazarah is saying, basically:
"Hebrews were like Y-DNA J populations (Abraham, Eberites, West Semitic speakers), but, I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for 6 thread pages, that they were DEFINITELY NOT Y-DNA J."
As far as I can tell, Taz's underlying thesis is that ancient Israelites would have been "black" or dark-skinned. You'll note, of course, that that is a descriptor of phenotype that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what Y-DNA haplogroups they would have possessed or even whether they had more recent African ancestry than other Bronze Age Levantines. One can have melanated skin without necessarily having Y-DNA E or an elevated affinity to African populations.
To avoid a digression into the tired "what does 'black' mean" discourse, I will just say that you shouldn't be looking at Y-DNA or even craniofacial morphology if you want to assess a population's skin tone. You'd be better off looking at their skin color alleles, as has been done with numerous aDNA samples already.
He was better off going full Clyde Winters and claiming Hebrew populations could have had any haplogroup, including Y=DNA J, R, etc, especially since he's already claiming that Hebrews weren't 'African' and since he claims to not subscribe to genetics. He could then have pretended that this 2023 Y-DNA J hg is still consistent with his views. But his lack of wherewithal and visceral reaction to Y-DNA J among Iron Age Hebrews got him in a weak position he can't get out of, hence the backtracking and cries of being misrepresented in that 5 point summary.
I think it's obvious where this visceral reaction to Y-DNA J comes from.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Still waiting for Swenet to explain where I made this argument:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There goes the argument that Proto-Semitic speakers and y-DNA J met for the first time in the Levant [Roll Eyes] , in an encounter between Bronze Age Natufian Y-DNA E leftovers and Y-DNA J Caucasus foreigners who adopted Hebrew culture. [Roll Eyes]
Let's see if he can show where I said this, or if he just keeps avoiding it while responding to all else who disagree with me to make it seem like he's on top of the world. Why do you lie so much and so confidently?
When/where did I say that proto-semitic speakers and J carriers met for the first time in the Levant in the bronze age??
Anyone else, feel free to help him out.
You don't get points for beating up strawmen bruh, and for giving high fives to other people (brandon) who are also misrepresenting me.
Even the lioness will tell you that brandon's comment is not an accurate representation of my beliefs.
That probably doesn't matter to you though, integrity is obviously not a character trait of yours.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I already gave you a chance on the previous page, but all you did is show you're not worth anyone's time. This post right here just confirms it.
Your posts AMOUNT to saying they met in the Levant for the first time, since Natufians are Levantine population (they aren't found in the Caucasus). So, who cares if you didn't say it verbatim?
And even if they did not meet in the Levant for the firs time, the GIST of that quote is not where they met for the first time. The relevant part of that post is that your Natufian progenitor routine is flagrant bs as Proto-Semitic speakers did not have the distribution of Natufians. They were mainly in the Mesopotamian area, as well as areas immmediately south of the Caucasus. And the Proto-Semitic LD signal is not found in the Levant, but it's found in Armenia. But you want my post to be about trivial meeting place, because you're a waste of time and have nothing mention worthy to say.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
This is the only source I referenced that dealt with J adopting afro-asiatic culture and it says nothing about the Levant or natufians, genius.
And I only used the source to demonstrate that J carriers original culture/language/customs was not afro-asiatic, and that they adopted those things by assimilating which completely goes against the Biblical narrative.
It says nothing about natufians, nothing about the levant, nothing about the bronze age, and nothing about J carriers meeting natufians in the levant or ANYWHERE for that matter.
Then you realized you effed up and attempted to clean it up in real time by admitting I didn't say what you claimed, and then you started to tap dance in a different direction
LOL!!!!!!!!
You can go back to ignoring me now.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: No. In a Biblical context, the suffix "ite" denotes biological lineage.
"2. Used to form nouns denoting descendants of a specified historical person, especially a biblical figure. quotations ▼ Cainite, Ephraimite, Hamite, Japhetite, Lamanite"
There are examples in the Bible where an individual has an Israelite mother but a gentile father, and that individual was not counted as an Israelite.
And again the suffix "ite" itself is not found in the Old Testament but rather in later European translations. It is a Greek suffix meaning part of. It can mean biologically part of but not necessarily. There were many people adopted into the Hebrew fold, but since you are talking about biological descent the Scriptures are clear that the Israelites by and large descend from Hebrews from Mesopotamia so what are you getting at?
quote:I did not say J originated in the caucusus, I said it was found in the caucusus before it was found in the Levant area. Long before it was found in the Levant area. Rabbis say and do a lot of things that are not in line with the Torah/Tanakh, for example they say jewishness is determined through the mother when the Torah/Tanakh say the exact opposite...
If the Torah says the opposite then why is the birthright only given to males born of Hebrew mothers?? Abraham for example had sons older than Isaac but only Isaac born to Sarah was considered his heir similarly, Jacob's line was favored over that of his twin brother Esau because the former married Hebrew wives. So no, tribal lineage is identified with the father but nationality comes from the mother and interestingly enough this follows ancient Akkadian and Eblaite legal codes that a person's nationality comes from the mother.
quote: Furthermore, the Torah makes it extremely clear that the flood was not local.
GENESIS 7:19
"19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."
Do you even know the Hebrew word for "earth" and if that sentence actually means the entire planet?? That you cite this passage tells me you don't.
quote:So if anyone is going to assert that J correlates Biblically with what the Hebrews/Israelites should have, they would have to explain how all the other haplogroups originate in completely separate places whereas they should all have the same spawning point.
This makes no sense. Haplogroups arise from mutations which occurs in different individuals in different points in time.
quote:The source I referenced says word for word that J carriers lost their ancestral language and assimilated into afro-asiatic culture. Meaning their ancestral language was not afro-asiatic or semitic and neither was their ancestral culture.
Well language definitely, but what about the rest of their culture? Do you even know about ancient Southwest Asian cultures and which ones were "abandoned"??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Torah:
NUMBERS 1:18
"18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls."
Tanakh:
EZRA 2:59
"59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:"
Of course these are English translations of the original Hebrew but notice how they use distinct words describing different things-- "pedigrees", "families", "house of their fathers", and "of Israel". While all three are related they are not synonymous. The Hebrews like the Arabs follow a segmented paternal lineage which includes tribe and house, but membership in the nation depended on the mother which explains why the birthright did not always go to the first-born son but to those sons born of Hebrew mothers and wed Hebrew wives.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
1. I just showed how the suffix "ite" does in fact denote lineage in a Biblical context... go look at the Hebrew word for "Israelite" in the Torah and it will always be talking about Jacob and/or his descendants. And like I also pointed out, there are instances in the Torah/Tanakh where people who had an Israelite mother and a gentile father were not considered Israelites
2. You are appealing to modern jewish rhetoric. If nationality is determined by the mother then please explain why Leviticus 24:10-- tells a story about a boy with an Israelite mother and Egyptian father, and the boy was not considered an Israelite or counted as an Israelite?
3. Yes I do know the hebrew word for earth but that's not what I was getting at. The full context shows the entire earth was flooded, it says all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered
4. How does the oldest haplogroup originate in africa when Noah and his sons did not get off the ark in africa?
5. So J gave up their language and assimilated but only adopted the new language and nothing else? Lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: 1. The Bible also says Noah and his sons repopulated the earth at the same time period starting from the same location... yet all these different haplogroups and origin locations/dates exist. Let us know when you are ready to explain that.
Again what is the Hebrew word for "earth" and does that mean the entire planet?? If you're going to cite scripture be prepared to explain it, but doing so means understanding it first.
quote:2. And? I've referenced info showing J are not native afro-asiatic speakers and assimilated into the culture after abandoning their own.
You have yet to explain what these cultures are let alone what you mean by "abandonment". Especially since Genesis shows the Abraham and his people practice customs and rituals associated with Mesopotamia. So where are you getting this "abandonment" of culture?? Are you aware these same Mesopotamian practices are retained by modern Rabbinic Jews??
quote:3. When did I say Hebrews were not africans? All I've ever said about africans in this thread was to Elmaestro and I told him "I never said anything about africans" after HE introduced the term "africans" into the discussion. He even acknowledged that right before you responded.... So yeah, for clarification: I never said hebrews were, or were not africans, and I never used the word "africans" AT ALL, to affirm or deny anything.
4. When did I say anything about african uniparentals being irrelevant to the issue? All I said was that I never appealed to any specific subclade and only mentioned E in general. And once again, Elmaestro acknowledged this as well and agreed that I was misrepresented.
5. I just referenced 3 papers attesting to the fact that E had a dominant continuity in the Levant area from the time of the natufians to the Hebrews and/or their ancestors.
My God, have you even been reading the thread?
The Natufians yes, but where did it say E was dominant during the time of the Hebrews??
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
1. I dealt with the "earth" point you raised in my previous comment.
2. I've cited a peer-reviewed paper published by the government, as well as papers showing strong E dominance and continuity long after the natufians all the way through the neolithic to the time of the ancestors of the Israelites.
Instead of holding me to a standard that none of you have yet to hold yourselves to, how about one of you reference a paper that asserts which population or civilization birthed the Israelites, like how I did?
3. The paper I referenced says E was dominant in neolithic levantine populations. The neolithic was from 10,000 BC to 2,200 BC. Eber, the ancestor of the Hebrews, was born in "2,283 BC". I'm sure that's probably not exact but it's right at the same time period.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He was better off going full Clyde Winters and claiming Hebrew populations could have had any haplogroup, including Y=DNA J, R, etc, especially since he's already claiming that Hebrews weren't 'African' and since he claims to not subscribe to genetics. He could then have pretended that this 2023 Y-DNA J hg is still consistent with his views. But his lack of wherewithal and visceral reaction to Y-DNA J among Iron Age Hebrews got him in a weak position he can't get out of, hence the backtracking and cries of being misrepresented in that 5 point summary.
I think it's obvious where this visceral reaction to Y-DNA J comes from.
Looking back at his earlier posts, I see he claims that three of the twelve Israelite tribes would have been black, but the rest would have been lighter or diverse:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I only believe that the Jews, or southern kingdom (3 of the 12 tribes) were "black" or "negro" for the most part (of course some would be lighter due to mixing and/or phenotypical variation), and that the rest of the 9 tribes (northern kingdom) were of a somewhat lighter skin complexion (although not ashkenazi or europeans), but also with some darker skinned people mixed in.
In which case, yes, his acting threatened by a handful of ancient Israelite samples being Y-DNA J instead of E doesn't make sense. I suppose he could claim that the other Israelite tribes had to have still been homogeneously Y-DNA E given his narrative about Israelites inheriting their nationality from the paternal line, but as DJ has just pointed out, even that narrative about patrilineal descent determining nationality in ancient Israelite culture isn't necessarily true.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^That quote is making it even worse. Trying to reconcile all this blatant bs making me dizzy.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
lol...isn't the paper(or at least one used in this confusing thread) claims that the Semetic Language, the language of the Hebrews spread with J1...?
'The genomic history of the Middle East' (Almarri et al 2021).
quote:"...we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners... 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)."
But Im not making an argument, I learned my lesson in the Catacomb discussion to not deal with fanatics...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That quote is making it even worse. Trying to reconcile all this blatant bs making me dizzy.
Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation Éadaoin Harney et al, 2018
We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East46. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E24, and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J
^^^ the time period in the Levant following the natufians, all the way to the time period of the Hebrews and direct ancestors of the Israelites, was dominated by haplogroup E...
What's your problem? You are quoting an article saying that in a group of Chalcolithic people who followed the Natufians nine out of ten belong to the Y-DNA haplogroup T
Then after that, closer to the period of the Israelites is the Bronze Age study I keep posting that is dominated by haplogroup J
They are saying to predominate in haplogroup E you have to go back further than either of these to the Neolithic and Natufians
And there is nothing that says the Israelites were aboriginal to Israel despite the place being name after them
Who are you more similar to your father or great grandfather? Your father __________________________________________
Iron Age (1,200 - 500 BCE) Israelites (c. 1200 - 586 BCE)
Anything before the Israelites is a potential progenitor and it would be counterintuitive to guess that Natufians were were a closer progenitor to the Israelite than the Bronze or Chalcolithic, that has no basis.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: you can't reconcile the Biblical flood narrative with that of the existence of all these different aged haplogroups in different locations at different time periods.
Thus the Bible purporting that all humans except for Noah, his sons and wives were wiped out by a flood, if taken literally is false
But if we are talking about the genetics of individuals found in a Muslim, Hindu or Christian burial ground they can be dated and identified of these cultures without having to reconcile it with their creation narratives
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
1. I just showed how the suffix "ite" does in fact denote lineage in a Biblical context... go look at the Hebrew word for "Israelite" in the Torah and it will always be talking about Jacob and/or his descendants. And like I also pointed out, there are instances in the Torah/Tanakh where people who had an Israelite mother and a gentile father were not considered Israelites
I already told you there is no Greek suffix "ite" in the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew either uses Yishraeli (Israeli) which is the general term for members of that nation or Beni-Yishrael (Children of Israel) which specifically denotes lineage, however the Bible and Jewish Mishnah makes it clear that many individuals and some tribes are children by adoption.
quote:2. You are appealing to modern jewish rhetoric. If nationality is determined by the mother then please explain why Leviticus 24:10-- tells a story about a boy with an Israelite mother and Egyptian father, and the boy was not considered an Israelite or counted as an Israelite?
LOL No! I actually cite the Tanakh/Bible itself to make my arguments! The book Leviticus is about rites of worship and that passage you cited talks about members of the Edah (Assembly/Church). The passage you cite states how the boy is an Israelite by nationality but not by rite of worship since the Edah is divided into a hierarchy. The nation of Israel itself is divided into regular Israelites, the sacred tribe of Levi, and within the tribe of Levi the priesthood which descend from the House of Aaron. There are 10 classes in the hierarchy comprising 3 categories-- aleph, bet, and gimel. In the last category of gimel are the mamzeri or those not sanctified by birth. Modern Jews have corrupted the term mamzer to mean "bastard" but that is inaccurate. A mamzer can mean someone born to a Jewish mother but a non-Jewish father who did not formerly convert OR it can mean someone born to both Jewish parents whose marriage was not sanctified which ironically would mean the overwhelming majority of Jews today who are unorthodox. Such Israelites as national Israelites only and only allowed to worship in the outer court of the temple or shrine as a proselyte and not be allowed in the inner court as spiritual Israelite.
In the New Testament however, Jesus did away with this division or partition among worshipers and in fact prophesied the destruction of the temple altogether.
quote:3. Yes I do know the hebrew word for earth but that's not what I was getting at. The full context shows the entire earth was flooded, it says all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered
If you know the word, then why didn't you write it? Show me where the passage says the entire planet was flooded. You sound like the flat-earthers who cite the passage of the "firmament" as proof that there is a solid dome above the Earth.
quote:4. How does the oldest haplogroup originate in africa when Noah and his sons did not get off the ark in africa?
Noah and his children are not the origin for all of humanity let alone all the nations of the world after the Deluge. If so then who is the ancestor of East Asians??
quote:5. So J gave up their language and assimilated but only adopted the new language and nothing else? Lol
"J" is a genetic marker that does nothing. People do things. You have yet to specify what language is adopted and what culture is forsaken. I asked you to specify but you haven't done so yet.
Meanwhile explain how South Indians like Sri-Lankans speak Indo-European languages but don't carry the Y- lineage of original I-E speakers.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That quote is making it even worse. Trying to reconcile all this blatant bs making me dizzy.
LOL The problem is his conjectures are based on genetics without cultural context. He talks about language and culture in Southwest Asia only specifying Semitic but not the rest of the cultures.
There are Indo-European speakers in Sri-Lanka and English speakers in Nigeria. How does that prove his claims??
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: lol...isn't the paper(or at least one used in this confusing thread) claims that the Semetic Language, the language of the Hebrews spread with J1...?
'The genomic history of the Middle East' (Almarri et al 2021).
quote:"...we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners... 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)."
But Im not making an argument, I learned my lesson in the Catacomb discussion to not deal with fanatics...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That quote is making it even worse. Trying to reconcile all this blatant bs making me dizzy.
Lioness has shown me something interesting about Tazarah, which explains everything but I'll keep my mouth shut. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Can Tazarah explain exactly what culture did the J-carrying Hebrews abandon and what is his evidence of this cultural abandonment?? What culture did the Hebrews adopt??
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There goes the argument that Proto-Semitic speakers and y-DNA J met for the first time in the Levant [Roll Eyes] , in an encounter between Bronze Age Natufian Y-DNA E leftovers and Y-DNA J Caucasus foreigners who adopted Hebrew culture. [Roll Eyes]
Who made the argument that proto-semitic speakers and J carriers met for the first time in the Levant in the bronze age??
LOL keep beating up your strawman bro.
I used to actually have respect for you but not so much anymore.
This right here is a prime example showing that you either are not capable of comprehending any of what I have been saying, or you just have not been reading it at all.
No one said it
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] There goes the argument that Proto-Semitic speakers and y-DNA J met for the first time in the Levant [Roll Eyes] , in an encounter between Bronze Age Natufian Y-DNA E leftovers and Y-DNA J Caucasus foreigners who adopted Hebrew culture. [Roll Eyes]
Who made the argument that proto-semitic speakers and J carriers met for the first time in the Levant in the bronze age??
LOL keep beating up your strawman bro.
I used to actually have respect for you but not so much anymore.
This right here is a prime example showing that you either are not capable of comprehending any of what I have been saying, or you just have not been reading it at all.
dude don't throw your pearls to swine. You have some great historical info, put together a digital copy and if anyone wants your data make them pay for it.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
From: Black Arabia & the African Origin of Islam
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
From: Black Arabia & the African Origin of Islam
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The above cited book was written by Wesley Muhammad. He is presented like this in Wikipedia:
quote:Wesley Muhammad is an American author and a minister in the Nation of Islam.
President of the Black Student Union in high school, Muhammad attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, where he joined the 5 Percenters and then became a Fruit of Islam while the Nation of Islam was under the leadership of Louis Farrakhan.
Muhammad received a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies from Morehouse in Atlanta, graduating with honors in 1994. In 2003 he received a master's degree in Islamic studies from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), where he also received a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies with a focus on early theological development in Islam.
Muhammad's research has been published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, the Journal of the American Oriental Society, and the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. He has been an instructor on courses on Islamic studies, religious studies, African American religion, and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Toledo and Michigan State University.
In 2013 he was a scholarly aide to Louis Farrakhan at Nation of Islam National Headquarters, Mosque Maryam in Chicago.
In 2021 he made an appearance in the documentary Buck Breaking.
-The Book of God: An Encyclopedia of Proof that the Black Man is God. A-Team Publishing. 2007
-God's Black Prophets: Deconstructing the Myth of the White Muhammad of Arabia and Jesus of Jerusalem. A-Team Publishing. 2010.
-The Truth of God: The Bible, the Quran and the Secret of the Black God. A-Team Publishing. 2007.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The above cited book was written by Wesley Muhammad. He is presented like this in Wikipedia:
quote:Wesley Muhammad is an American author and a minister in the Nation of Islam.
President of the Black Student Union in high school, Muhammad attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, where he joined the 5 Percenters and then became a Fruit of Islam while the Nation of Islam was under the leadership of Louis Farrakhan.
Muhammad received a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies from Morehouse in Atlanta, graduating with honors in 1994. In 2003 he received a master's degree in Islamic studies from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), where he also received a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies with a focus on early theological development in Islam.
Muhammad's research has been published in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, the Journal of the American Oriental Society, and the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. He has been an instructor on courses on Islamic studies, religious studies, African American religion, and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Toledo and Michigan State University.
In 2013 he was a scholarly aide to Louis Farrakhan at Nation of Islam National Headquarters, Mosque Maryam in Chicago.
In 2021 he made an appearance in the documentary Buck Breaking.
-The Book of God: An Encyclopedia of Proof that the Black Man is God. A-Team Publishing. 2007
-God's Black Prophets: Deconstructing the Myth of the White Muhammad of Arabia and Jesus of Jerusalem. A-Team Publishing. 2010.
-The Truth of God: The Bible, the Quran and the Secret of the Black God. A-Team Publishing. 2007.
Whatever, his book is so well sited with academic research, it does not matter if he has written other books that stray to the speculative.
Tackle the info in Black Arabia and don't distort the info with irrelevant objections.
Don't TROLL
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:
Nubians Y Chromosome
J1 41%
J2 2%
E3b1 (E-M78) 15.3%
E3 (E-M215) 7.6%
R1b 10.3%
B-M60 7.7%
F 10.2%
I 5.1%
J-M172 were found to be more frequent in the Afro-Asiaticspeaking groups. J-12f2 and J-M172 represents 94% and6%, respectively, of haplogroup J with high frequenciesamong Nubians, Copts, and Arabs
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History 2008 Hisham Y Hassan
dark skinned J carriers for those obsessed with color
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:'The genomic history of the Middle East' (Almarri et al 2021).
"...we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners... 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)."
/close thread
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
"Israelite" in the context of the article is questionable as there is no such thing as ancient "Isaelite" DNA which would distinguish them from other populations in the regions. All of them were likely speaking semitic languages. Not to mention most modern settlers in Israel have European DNA. So the main context of the original article is to distinguish between the DNA of the current inhabitants of the modern nation of Israel and ancient inhabitants.
Of course given this forums history, it isn't unexpected that a discussion about the origin of semitic languages and the origins of Hebrews would come into question. But this article isn't really trying to cover that.
Another older article from Haaretz echoing some of the other things already reflected in this thread, but that I don't necessarily agree with:
quote: Moving on, Levantines and Iraqis share the same Neanderthal signals as Eurasians, the team found. Arabians on the other hand have less Neanderthal DNA.
The reason apparently lies in origins. Levantines have more ancestry (than Arabians) from Europe and Anatolia. The Arabians have more ancestry (than Levantines) from Africans, who didn’t mix with Neanderthals, and from Natufians, who were the prehistoric inhabitants of the Levant, including Israel.
At issue seems to be the origins of Semitic languages and whether they originated in Africa or originated in Eurasia.
Here is the original paper this article is based on, which pushes the idea of Semitic origins outside of Africa.
quote: By modeling contemporary populations using ancient genomes, we identified differences between the Levant and Arabia. The Levant today has higher European/Anatolian-related ancestry while Arabia has higher African and Natufian-like ancestries. The contrast between the regions is also illustrated by their population-size histories that diverged before the Neolithic (15–20 kya) and suggest that the transition to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle allowed the growth of populations in the Levant but was not paralleled in Arabia. It has been suggested that population discontinuity occurred between the late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in Arabia and that the peninsula was repopulated by Neolithic farmers from the Fertile Crescent (Uerpmann et al., 2010). Our results do not support a complete replacement of the Arabian populations by Levantine farmers. In addition, our models suggest that Arabians could have derived their ancestry from Natufian-like local hunter-gatherer populations instead of Levantine Farmers. The identification of lithic assemblages in Northern Arabia, some of which appear similar to ones made by Levantine farmers (Crassard and Drechsler, 2013a), in addition to the movement of animal domesticates between the Levant and Arabia, have been suggested to occur either due to population movements or through cultural diffusion (Guagnin et al., 2017; Petraglia et al., 2020). Our results suggest the latter scenario and/or limited migration from the Levant.
An additional source of ancestry needed to model modern Middle Easterners is related to ancient Iranians. Our admixture tests show that this ancestry first reached the Levant and subsequently reached Arabia and East Africa. The timings of these events interestingly overlap with the origin and spread of the Semitic languages (Kitchen et al., 2009), suggesting a potential population carrying this ancestry (possibly unsampled yet from the Levant or Mesopotamia) may have spread the language. We found climate change associated aridification events to coincide with population bottlenecks, with Arabians decreasing in size ∼6 kya with the onset of the desert climate while Levantines around the 4.2 kiloyear aridification event. This severe drought has been suggested to have caused the collapse of kingdoms and empires in the Middle East and South Asia, potentially reflected genetically in the signal we identify (Weiss, 2017).
And of course there is the older article claiming the non African origin of Semitic while also indicating the African origin of AfroAsiatic from which Semitic originates:
About Y-DNA Haplogroup J2 which was found in the human remains in the tomb in the OP.
Haplogroup J2 is present in upper Mesopotamia around 8000 BC. *
It is also present in Syria around 5000 BC. And in Yehud in Israel somewhere about 2500 - 2000 BC. So it seems to have been in the neighborhood for quite a while.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "Israelite" in the context of the article is questionable as there is no such thing as ancient "Isaelite" DNA which would distinguish them from other populations in the regions. All of them were likely speaking semitic languages. Not to mention most modern settlers in Israel have European DNA. So the main context of the original article is to distinguish between the DNA of the current inhabitants of the modern nation of Israel and ancient inhabitants.
Of course given this forums history, it isn't unexpected that a discussion about the origin of semitic languages and the origins of Hebrews would come into question. But this article isn't really trying to cover that.
Another older article from Haaretz echoing some of the other things already reflected in this thread, but that I don't necessarily agree with:
quote: Moving on, Levantines and Iraqis share the same Neanderthal signals as Eurasians, the team found. Arabians on the other hand have less Neanderthal DNA.
The reason apparently lies in origins. Levantines have more ancestry (than Arabians) from Europe and Anatolia. The Arabians have more ancestry (than Levantines) from Africans, who didn’t mix with Neanderthals, and from Natufians, who were the prehistoric inhabitants of the Levant, including Israel.
At issue seems to be the origins of Semitic languages and whether they originated in Africa or originated in Eurasia.
Here is the original paper this article is based on, which pushes the idea of Semitic origins outside of Africa.
quote: By modeling contemporary populations using ancient genomes, we identified differences between the Levant and Arabia. The Levant today has higher European/Anatolian-related ancestry while Arabia has higher African and Natufian-like ancestries. The contrast between the regions is also illustrated by their population-size histories that diverged before the Neolithic (15–20 kya) and suggest that the transition to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle allowed the growth of populations in the Levant but was not paralleled in Arabia. It has been suggested that population discontinuity occurred between the late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in Arabia and that the peninsula was repopulated by Neolithic farmers from the Fertile Crescent (Uerpmann et al., 2010). Our results do not support a complete replacement of the Arabian populations by Levantine farmers. In addition, our models suggest that Arabians could have derived their ancestry from Natufian-like local hunter-gatherer populations instead of Levantine Farmers. The identification of lithic assemblages in Northern Arabia, some of which appear similar to ones made by Levantine farmers (Crassard and Drechsler, 2013a), in addition to the movement of animal domesticates between the Levant and Arabia, have been suggested to occur either due to population movements or through cultural diffusion (Guagnin et al., 2017; Petraglia et al., 2020). Our results suggest the latter scenario and/or limited migration from the Levant.
An additional source of ancestry needed to model modern Middle Easterners is related to ancient Iranians. Our admixture tests show that this ancestry first reached the Levant and subsequently reached Arabia and East Africa. The timings of these events interestingly overlap with the origin and spread of the Semitic languages (Kitchen et al., 2009), suggesting a potential population carrying this ancestry (possibly unsampled yet from the Levant or Mesopotamia) may have spread the language. We found climate change associated aridification events to coincide with population bottlenecks, with Arabians decreasing in size ∼6 kya with the onset of the desert climate while Levantines around the 4.2 kiloyear aridification event. This severe drought has been suggested to have caused the collapse of kingdoms and empires in the Middle East and South Asia, potentially reflected genetically in the signal we identify (Weiss, 2017).
And of course there is the older article claiming the non African origin of Semitic while also indicating the African origin of AfroAsiatic from which Semitic originates:
Thank you... lol. It's not rocket science. Especially the first paragraph you wrote.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
At issue seems to be the origins of Semitic languages and whether they originated in Africa or originated in Eurasia.
No, origin of Semitic languages is a diversion. The thread is about the Israelites who spoke Hebrew but what they spoke is not the topic. But if that was the topic, ask yourself > what is the earliest known Semitic language? Perhaps Tazarah can tell us
Semitic languages, Family of Afro-Asiatic languages spoken by more than 200 million people in northern Africa and South Asia. No other language family has been attested in writing over a greater time span—from the late 3rd millennium BCE to the present. Both traditional and some recent classifications divide the family into an eastern and western group. Until recently the sole known East Semitic language was Akkadian; now some scholars add Eblaite, the language of a cuneiform archive found at the ancient city of Ebla, with documents dating from c. 2300 to 2250 BCE. West Semitic contains as one major subgroup Northwest Semitic, which includes Ugaritic, known from alphabetic cuneiform texts of c. 1400–1200 BCE; the closely related Canaanite languages (including Moabite, Phoenician, and Ancient Hebrew); and Aramaic. Further subgrouping is controversial; traditionally, Arabic was placed in a distinct South Semitic subgroup of West Semitic, though a more recent classification puts it together with Northwest Semitic. The South Semitic languages include Epigraphic South Arabian; Modern South Arabian (or Modern South Arabic), a group of six languages spoken in eastern Yemen, southwestern Oman, and the island of Socotra; and Ethiopic.
This is not a linguistics thread. It is about the DNA of ancient humans in Israel
The diversion was not to mention Hebrew but start talking about Semitic language. step 2 find articles where researchers speculate about the origin off all the various Semitic languages and related peoples as mentioned above step 3 then make statements about Semitic and say that "Semitic" means literally of descent from the biblical Shem but paste in the comments made by researchers, leaving out the part that they were not just talking about Hebrew but a whole list of languages they classify as "Semitic". Classified not because they intended them to be literally of descent from Shem but because these various languages have certain important similarities It is this cut and paste context flipping by some posters that has confused others
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
At issue seems to be the origins of Semitic languages and whether they originated in Africa or originated in Eurasia.
That's not the issue, that is the diversion you were lead to. The thread is about ancient DNA found in Israel Some of these remains might have been Hebrews Israelites but that is not proven.
and if we broaden the conversation to the whole of Semitic languages, it's a different topic
Look at how far down the tree Hebrew is
The hustle is to find articles talking about the origins of Semitic, get some quotes and then to pretend "Semitic" means Hebrew only (or at most Hebrew and Arabic only) and make new conclusions based on "bait and switch" definitions
What would be a good first step in guessing the ancestry of ancient Israelites? Dig up some ancient remains in Israel of the same or similar time period and maybe one day they will find some with Hebrew inscriptions
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
1. Ok so you're going to keep ignoring the info I reference about "ite" meaning a lineal descendant in a Biblical context, and how the hebrew word for Israelite literally translates to Jacob, or a descendant of Jacob, and nothing else. Cool
2. Can you back up any of your Biblical claims and notions with actual scripture? You typed a long-winded paragraph about what you claim the Bible means, without any supporting scripture. I on the other hand have referenced scripture showing that lineage is determined through the father and that descendants of Israelite women + gentile men were NOT considered Israelites, in any form or fashion.
Then there are examples of Israelites who had an Israelite father but a gentile mother, like King Solomon's son Rehoboam. Rehoboam had a gentile mother but was an Israelite because of his father Solomon, and Rehoboam reigned as King of Judah.
1 KINGS 14:21
"11 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess."
Earlier you said tribal identity is through the father but nationality is determined by the mother. Yet NOWHERE does the Tanakh say Rehoboam was an ammonite by nationality like his mother, he is identified as an Israelite from the tribe of Judah, all through his father.
*** Then you said "In the New Testament however, Jesus did away with this division or partition among worshipers and in fact prophesied the destruction of the temple altogether"
^^* Jesus DID NOT prophesy the destruction of the temple system, he simply foretold the destruction of the physical temple that was coming by the hand of the romans. Plenty of old testament prophecies about the future kingdom after Christ's return show that the temple system will still be the same.
Bloodline Israelites will be separated from non-Israelites.
REVELATION 11:1-2
"1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
---------
ZECHARIACH 14:20-21
"20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts."
3. Are you seriously trying to pretend that Genesis 7:19 doesn't say ALL the high hills under the WHOLE HEAVEN were covered with water? Who cares about the word earth in that passage? Even if you remove the word earth, the remaining context removes any doubt about the flood not being global. The word games you are playing now are the same word games you play with everything else.
4. If you don't believe that Noah and his sons (plus their wives) are the sole people who repopulated the earth after the flood, then you DO NOT believe in the Bible because the Bible says all other people were killed in the flood.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The people in here who constantly try to misrepresent me are also trying to make it seem as though I am racist or have hatred toward "J carriers" (jewish people) yet a large portion of jewish people also have HAPLOGROUP E, the same haplogroup that I am showing and affirming in literally all the papers I've referenced... so how does that make sense? I thought we were supposed to "follow the evidence and academia?" I didn't write these papers that say these things about J.
It's crazy how the few people in here who repeatedly say "but J came from Mesopotamia just like how the Bible says Abraham did" don't reference or mention ANY information about how actual Mesopotamian civilizations were believed to have had E markers... are y'all trying to bamboozle people or what?
------------------------------------
"The most plausible candidates for Semitic re-migration to the Fertile Crescent with TMRCA-s fitting the arrival of the Akkadians and other early Semitic peoples are certain subclades of both E-V22 and E-V12 with relatively early TMRCA-s present in the middle east could be candidates for such re-migration, such as E-FGC14382 (TMRCA 2200 BCE), E-V3262 (TMRCA 2600 BCE).
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH
-----------------------------------
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
How does the oldest haplogroup originate in africa when Noah and his sons did not get off the ark in africa?
Ask Doug that
the oldest haplogroup is A E and J babies in comparison
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: A lot of the misinformed people in here who constantly try to misrepresent me are also trying to make it seem as though I am racist or have hatred toward "J carriers" (jewish people) yet a large portion of jewish people also have HAPLOGROUP E
Jews are not synonymous with any one haplogroup, yet you think people who carry J are not real Jews
Tazarah Why are you stalking my social media? Member # 23365
Because when someone stalks your social media they discover what you really think
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There goes the argument that Proto-Semitic speakers and y-DNA J met for the first time in the Levant [Roll Eyes] , in an encounter between Bronze Age Natufian Y-DNA E leftovers and Y-DNA J Caucasus foreigners who adopted Hebrew culture. [Roll Eyes]
Who made the argument that proto-semitic speakers and J carriers met for the first time in the Levant in the bronze age??
LOL keep beating up your strawman bro.
I used to actually have respect for you but not so much anymore.
This right here is a prime example showing that you either are not capable of comprehending any of what I have been saying, or you just have not been reading it at all.
No one said it
Right???? And if I would've pulled some bs like that and formed a strawman like that, or blatantly lied like that, they would all gang up on me and talk about how much of an incompetent "BHI" I am.
I never thought I would say this but THE LIONESS has actually been the most honest and objective person in this whole thread, especially when it comes to accurately representing what I have been saying.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
Because according to the Torah lineage is passed through the father which means they would have one lineage.
So you acknowledge that the information that I reference about J is not targeting JEWISH PEOPLE, it is simply in reference to J carriers which encompasses more than just jewish people and also excludes a lot of jewish people, meaning that a lot of jewish people would be included.
Nothing I've said on social media is anything that I wouldn't stand on, but if you want to go there we can definitely do it and take a look at some of the things you've said and done, as well as what a LARGE number of people have said about you all over the internet on different platforms, over the past decade.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ,
Because according to the Torah lineage is passed through the father which means they would have one lineage.
So you acknowledge that the information that I reference about J is not targeting JEWISH PEOPLE, it is simply in reference to J carriers which encompasses more than just jewish people and also excludes a lot of jewish people, meaning that a lot of jewish people would be included.
Without knowing the haplogroup of Jacob or where Noah was born your belief is that people who carry J are not descended from the Israelites
Question, in your opinion (not "according to", your opinion) what is an example of a Semitic language that is not Hebrew, Arabic or Aramaic? (assuming you believe all of those are Semitic)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
And..... the people who hold the to the contrary position about E not being Israelite, without having Jacob's DNA? Nothing to say about them right? It's only wrong when Tazarah does it... lol.
I believe all the languages you just listed are semitic, but amharic would be another example of a semitic language
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@ Tazarah Question, in your opinion are Natufian remains dated properly and are they pre-flood or post-flood?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
There is no way to know if they are dated properly. If they were dated using carbon dating, that isn't even a 100% thing
I do believe the earth is at least that old, but I don't know if they are dated properly
And why are you asking if they lived before or after the flood?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: the Bible says all other people were killed in the flood.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
There is no way to know if they (Natufians) are dated properly. If they were dated using carbon dating, that isn't even a 100% thing
I do believe the earth is at least that old, but I don't know if they are dated properly
And why are you asking if they lived before or after the flood?
Because if you believe all other people were killed in the flood people named in the bible could be "Natufian" (whatever that means, it is not a biblical term) but going by the bible to narrow that down to get a better sense of who the Natufians were, perhaps under a different biblical name, they were either people, including potentially named people in the bible who were post-flood
OR they were people, including potentially named people in the bible who were pre-flood
-So which period were they in?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
There is no way to know if they are dated properly. If they were dated using carbon dating, that isn't even a 100% thing
when you say "that isn't even a 100% thing" that implies carbon dating is somewhat accurate, that it has some value But if in your opinion the earth is 6-15,000 years old (although I don't know how you could get 15K from the bible but maybe) and this carbon dating is a method which is used to date things up to about 50-60,000 years old how can you give any value to it? 50K is over 3 times as long as 15K, thus according to your beliefs the method appears to be wildly inaccurate, coming up with dates 35 - 45,000 years before the earth even existed and this is using the older 15K date rather than the most common biblical creation date about 6,000 years ago
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
I don't know if you realize it but you are only further demonstrating why actual Bible believers like myself should not take "genetics" seriously
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness
I don't know if you realize it but you are only further demonstrating why actual Bible believers like myself should not take "genetics" seriously
I think you even using genetics about J and E, even as rhetoric that you supposedly don't believe is raising some doubts in your mind that some things in the bible may not be literally true But I am not a mind reader
I think an ancient Hebrew burial with several or more bodies and some Hebrew writing in it somewhere would be fairly good evidence of Hebrew burial We have seen that Bronze age Israel, of which the Hebrews were part of, some of the people there were of haplogroups J,E, T and R
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The problem we have here is that the Bible (ancient text and history of the Israelites) establishes the fact that the Israelite nation had its genesis in Egypt
The early Israelites were foreigners in a sense
Your intent with this statement confused people
what were they foreign to Egypt or the Levant? To use the word "genesis in Egypt" suggests original place of origin yet Jacob aka Israel was born in Canaan
It's also not clear in the Israelites time period with these people of various haplogroups and not knowing what Jacob's haplogroup was whether or not that even with a patrilineal tradition if they would exclude people from being of their nationality due to birth of a male being not descending from Jacob (while at the same time the male progenitor not that far back, of all humans at that time, according to the bible, was Noah) And any system of a tribal identity if it is one sided, patriarchal or matriarchal can lead to children of any skin color after several generations, so color is no yardstick
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
Nah, genetic science will never make me doubt anything about the Bible. It's the other way around. I doubt genetic science because of the Bible
When I said the Israelites were foreigners in a sense I meant that they themselves were not native to the land of Israel. It only became Israel after they arrived there
And you already know I don't go by color alone
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
When I said the Israelites were foreigners in a sense I meant that they themselves were not native to the land of Israel.
where were the Israelites native to?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
1. Ok so you're going to keep ignoring the info I reference about "ite" meaning a lineal descendant in a Biblical context, and how the hebrew word for Israelite literally translates to Jacob, or a descendant of Jacob, and nothing else. Cool
What do you mean "ignoring"?? I already addressed it! "ite" is a Greek suffix meaning part of or constituent NOT lineage! The Old Testament was not written in Greek but in Hebrew and therefore did not use the suffix. They either used ethnic or national desginations in the plural as in Ebrim or Yishraelim OR Beni Yishrael which does denote descent but there are exceptions in which individuals or people were adopted.
quote:2. Can you back up any of your Biblical claims and notions with actual scripture? You typed a long-winded paragraph about what you claim the Bible means, without any supporting scripture. I on the other hand have referenced scripture showing that lineage is determined through the father and that descendants of Israelite women + gentile men were NOT considered Israelites, in any form or fashion.
You only cited one passage from Leviticus which talks about rites of worship in the Edah and that sons who had no Israelite fathers were excluded from the inner rites. That does not mean they were not part of the nation itself.
I already cited Genesis showing how Abraham had 9 sons from 4 different women but only the child of one, Isaac from Sarah, was considered Hebrew. If they were solely patrilineal then the first born son would be automatic heir by right of primogeniture. Similarly Isaac had two sons-- Esau and Jacob. The former not only gave up his birthright but married non-Hebrew wives, which is why the younger Jacob became heir. Similarly among Jacob's sons, Judah who founded the royal line had sons by a Canaanite wife, but only his sons by his Hebrew daughter-in-law Tamar continued the royal lineage.
quote:Then there are examples of Israelites who had an Israelite father but a gentile mother, like King Solomon's son Rehoboam. Rehoboam had a gentile mother but was an Israelite because of his father Solomon, and Rehoboam reigned as King of Judah.
1 KINGS 14:21
"11 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess."
Earlier you said tribal identity is through the father but nationality is determined by the mother. Yet NOWHERE does the Tanakh say Rehoboam was an ammonite by nationality like his mother, he is identified as an Israelite from the tribe of Judah, all through his father.
Technically the Ammonites are ethnically Hebrew like the Israelites, but they are considered degraded or degenerate Hebrews via the incestuous origins of their forefather Ben-Ammi. Therefore it is easier for Ammonites to become naturalized citizens of Israel especially if they convert to the faith which would redeem them from their disgraced state. In fact among the ancestresses of the House of David was Ruth who was a Moabite. Again Moabites are technically degraded Hebrews but due to her acceptance of the God of Israel she was redeemed.
Actual instances of non-Hebrew women who married Hebrew men after formally converting is Asenath and Zipporah. The former was the Egyptian wife of Joseph vizier of Egypt. She herself was the daughter of the high priest of On but according to tradition only became Joseph's wife after she renounced her pagan religion and adopted the true faith. But even then her sons Manasseh and Ephraim had to go through a ritual of adoption via Joseph's father Jacob that they would be part of his people via the rite of 'ben-achar-ben' that is strict patrilineage rather than by simple maternal birthright called 'eemah' which has the dual meaning of 'wholeness' and 'of the mother'. This is why Joseph's tribal territory was split between his two sons who were essentially 'half-tribes'. Moses's wife Tzipporah also had two sons-- Gershom and Eliezer, but they never undertook the ritual of ben-achar-ben which is why they were excluded from the genealogy of Levi. In fact they never took part in the Exodus because their father Moses sent them off with their mother Zipporah to their grandfather Jethro in Midian. After the Exodus, they joined their father in the desert and that was the last they were mentioned in the Torah. Their descendants however are mentioned much later in the Book of Chronicles: The sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliezer. The issue of Gershom was Shebuel the Chief. And the issue of Eliezer was Reḥavia the Chief. Eliezer had no other sons, but the sons of Reḥavia were very numerous. [1 Chronicles 23:14-17]
There was one other-- Rahab the Canaanite harlot who aided the Israelite spies, though there is question as to whom she married. Rabbinic traditions say she married Joshua while Christian traditions say she married Salmon and therefore was an ancestress of the House of David.
Furthermore in the book of Ezra, Ezra's polemic was against the Judahite men who married foreign women and were commanded to divorce both their foreign wives and their children by them if they wish to return to the Land of Judah. Note that there is no such polemic against Judahite women who married foreign men because their children are still counted as members of the nation.
quote:*** Then you said "In the New Testament however, Jesus did away with this division or partition among worshipers and in fact prophesied the destruction of the temple altogether"
^^* Jesus DID NOT prophesy the destruction of the temple system, he simply foretold the destruction of the physical temple that was coming by the hand of the romans. Plenty of old testament prophecies about the future kingdom after Christ's return show that the temple system will still be the same.
Yes the physical temple is what I meant hence in Mark 13 "not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down". But as far as "system". Exactly what system are you referring to? Now that the temple is destroyed there is no more blood sacrifices. Of course the worship of God is eternal and unchanging in Heaven but here on Earth which is imperfect there are changes. The system that Christ taught to his apostles which then was taught to their successors was a return to the bloodless offerings of the high priest Melchizedek who originally blessed Abraham. In this system of Jesus there is "no Jew or Gentile" in the ethnic sense.
quote:Bloodline Israelites will be separated from non-Israelites.
REVELATION 11:1-2
"1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
---------
ZECHARIACH 14:20-21
"20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts."
The New Testament makes it clear that with Christ's birth as a man, the priesthood of the Israelites is fulfilled and what counts is spiritual Israel. One can be an ethnic Israelite and not be part of the spiritual kingdom the same way a Gentile having no Israelite ancestry can still be part of the spiritual kingdom all by faith.
That fact that you seem to emphasize blood descent makes you no different from some of the white Jews you criticize.
quote:3. Are you seriously trying to pretend that Genesis 7:19 doesn't say ALL the high hills under the WHOLE HEAVEN were covered with water? Who cares about the word earth in that passage? Even if you remove the word earth, the remaining context removes any doubt about the flood not being global. The word games you are playing now are the same word games you play with everything else.
4. If you don't believe that Noah and his sons (plus their wives) are the sole people who repopulated the earth after the flood, then you DO NOT believe in the Bible because the Bible says all other people were killed in the flood.
And you still have not provided me with the original Hebrew terms you contest. So let me make it simple for you. The word used in Genesis is eretz which means earth or land but NOT the planet Earth itself. So just because it's stated that all the heavens (perceived by the author) poured down and flooded all the eretz (land) does not mean this event applied to the entire planet.
Again, your problem is you think you know the Bible but fail the basic understanding of context which one needs. You don't even go by the original language it was written in for you to make a proper context. So why should I take you serious?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Lioness has shown me something interesting about Tazarah, which explains everything but I'll keep my mouth shut.
I was going to PM for more info, but your inbox is full.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Dejhuti
*** 1. This is ridiculous. Let's look at some Biblical definitions with Biblical context.
"The Israelites are the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob."
***2. You said: "I already cited Genesis showing how Abraham had 9 sons from 4 different women but only the child of one, Isaac from Sarah, was considered Hebrew. If it was solely patrilineal then the first born son would be automatic heir by right of primogeniture. Similarly Isaac had two sons-- Esau and Jacob. The former not only gave up his birthright but married non-Hebrew wives, which is why the younger Jacob became heir. Similarly among Jacob's sons, Judah who founded the royal line had sons by a Canaanite wife, but only his sons by his Hebrew daughter-in-law Tamar continued the royal lineage."
Once again, NO Biblical scripture to support any of your claims. Just rhetoric and conjecture. For example, you said Jacob wasn't chosen as heir because Esau did XYZ but the Bible in fact gives us the exact reason why Jacob was chosen as heir:
ROMANS 9:9-13
"9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
So I'm going to leave this topic alone because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The Bible is clear that lineage passes through the father and I've more than demonstrated it.
***3. Not even going to address what you said about the ammonites because there is no Biblical scripture to support those ideas or claims and nowhere does the Bible/Torah/Tanakh affirm any of the ideas or claims that you are asserting, especially in relation to Solomon's son Rehoboam.
***4. You said: "The New Testament makes it clear that with Christ's birth as a man, the priesthood of the Israelites is fulfilled and what counts is spiritual Israel. One can be an ethnic Israelite and not be part of the spiritual kingdom the same way a Gentile having no Israelite ancestry can still be part of the kingdom all by faith.
That fact that you seem to emphasize blood descent makes you no different from some of the white Jews you criticize."
------- Ah well let's see if this what the Bible actually says.
Paul (25 after Christ's death) wrote in Romans:
ROMANS 9:7-8
"3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
Let's stay in the same book, shall we?
ROMANS 9:7-8
"7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
^^^ The children of the promise are counted as the seed. None of that "spiritual israel" bs.
Let's get one more. I'll use the ESV translation for this one because it better reflects the actual greek language.
Peter, also after Christ's death, wrote that the Israelites were a chosen RACE:
1 PETER 2:9 ESV
"9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."
******* What happened to spiritual Israel? I thought Jesus changed everything? Not to mention all the unfulfilled prophecies that say the SEED (Sperm) of Israel is going to be redeemed and receive the promises.
****5. You want to cling to the word "earth" and you have to add things in like "perceived by the author" because you know the scripture is actually saying the exact opposite of what you want to say. But the word "earth" isn't perceived by the author?............ It says ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOOOLE HEAVEN WERE COVERED... are you telling us under the whole heaven is only talking about a select portion of land????
Then in Genesis 7:4 God himself says he will destroy EVERY LIVING THING he has ever made. Let me guess that's only talking about every living thing on a select portion of land?
Stick to "genetics"!!!!!! The Bible is not your thing. Whatever "the lioness" sent you about me, certainly has not helped you in any way shape or form. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Lioness has shown me something interesting about Tazarah, which explains everything but I'll keep my mouth shut.
I was going to PM for more info, but your inbox is full.
Lioness is supposedly a white man masquerading as a black woman online for the past decade (according to a plethora of different users from different websites for the past 10+ years, who are all familiar with him, and I have posted the screenshots of them all saying it)
And you, Brandon, are a white man who draws ancient Jews/Israelites with black skin, but criticizes black people for affirming that the ancient Jews/Israelites would have had black skin.
Am I missing something here? I'm pretty sure that nothing I've said on any social media platform contradicts any of what I've said here and I'm pretty sure that I am much more rational of a person than both you and "lioness" combined.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
don't worry about that other stuff, it's all public info which you still stand by, nothing to worry about
Djeuhuti, BrandonP, no ganging up on Taz. I'm trying to represent his position right, people gettin his stuff wrong
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
When I said the Israelites were foreigners in a sense I meant that they themselves were not native to the land of Israel.
where were the Israelites native to?
Not for me for the readership. This is an important question
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ yeah just make sure if you're sending DMs of me responding to hate speech and defending myself, that you include the context (including what the person said to me first). I'm sure everyone is already familiar with the way you rip things out of context when you troll, "lioness"
Did you celebrate black history month earlier this year? Or did you just pretend to.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ok, I'll send them that, that retarded dude following you around hating I put in URLs to forum sources for context , not just images, I got your back
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Cool, everything I've said can be backed up with scripture/historical sources and I've said nothing wrong, and have only defended myself from attacks by people calling me out of my name.
Maybe we should start linking screenshots and links to all of the different forums around the web where handfuls of people are pointing out the fact that you are a white man who has been masquerading as a black woman on the internet for the past 10+ years?
.....like I said.... I've nothing to worry about, especially when considering who you are and what you do.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Dejhuti
*** 1. This is ridiculous. Let's look at some Biblical definitions with Biblical context.
"The Israelites are the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob."
Yeah and all of the above is correct, so how is any of it incongruent with what I wrote?? What is ridiculous is your making of nonsense from sense.
quote:***2. You said: "I already cited Genesis showing how Abraham had 9 sons from 4 different women but only the child of one, Isaac from Sarah, was considered Hebrew. If it was solely patrilineal then the first born son would be automatic heir by right of primogeniture. Similarly Isaac had two sons-- Esau and Jacob. The former not only gave up his birthright but married non-Hebrew wives, which is why the younger Jacob became heir. Similarly among Jacob's sons, Judah who founded the royal line had sons by a Canaanite wife, but only his sons by his Hebrew daughter-in-law Tamar continued the royal lineage."
Once again, NO Biblical scripture to support any of your claims. Just rhetoric and conjecture. For example, you said Jacob wasn't chosen as heir because Esau did XYZ but the Bible in fact gives us the exact reason why Jacob was chosen as heir:
And what the hell other than Biblical scripture was I citing?? Also I did say Jacob was chosen as heir for the reasons I provided in the last page!! Are you dyslexic or something or has your ideology warped your brain's ability to think rationally like other trolls??
quote: ROMANS 9:9-13
"9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Yes because Esau sold his birthright for a bowl or porridge and married non-Hebrew women as God prophesied. And?? The birthright was still by eemah.
quote:So I'm going to leave this topic alone because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The Bible is clear that lineage passes through the father and I've more than demonstrated it.
And I never said otherwise! Of course lineage passes through the father which is why the Israelites followed a segmented paternal lineage like Arabs. My point was that their kinship was NOT strictly patrilineal but bilateral taking into account maternal descent as well and I have already proven that to be part of the nation was maternal while tribal and other status came from the father. Of course there were exceptions to this rule via rite of adoption by ben-achar-ben but the common rule was eemah. You have yet to explain why Ezra only commanded those Jewish men married to foreign wives to both divorce those wives and disown the children if they want to return to the Land of Judah but the same command was never given to Jewish women who married and had children with foreign men.
quote:***3. Not even going to address what you said about the ammonites because there is no Biblical scripture to support those ideas or claims and nowhere does the Bible/Torah/Tanakh affirm any of the ideas or claims that you are asserting, especially in relation to Solomon's son Rehoboam.
Or maybe you won't address them because you know I'm right. The Ammonites are ethnically Hebrew descending both paternally and maternally from Ben-Ammi same as the Moabites from Moab. That's why women from these groups were not viewed the same as Canaanite women.
quote:***4. You said: "The New Testament makes it clear that with Christ's birth as a man, the priesthood of the Israelites is fulfilled and what counts is spiritual Israel. One can be an ethnic Israelite and not be part of the spiritual kingdom the same way a Gentile having no Israelite ancestry can still be part of the kingdom all by faith.
That fact that you seem to emphasize blood descent makes you no different from some of the white Jews you criticize."
------- Ah well let's see if this what the Bible actually says.
Paul (25 after Christ's death) wrote in Romans:
ROMANS 9:7-8
"3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
Let's stay in the same book, shall we?
ROMANS 9:7-8
"7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
^^^ The children of the promise are counted as the seed. None of that "spiritual israel" bs.
ROTFLMAO
Everything you just cited supports what I've been saying but you are apparently too deranged to see it.
quote:Let's get one more. I'll use the ESV translation for this one because it better reflects the actual greek language.
Peter, also after Christ's death, wrote that the Israelites were a chosen RACE:
1 PETER 2:9 ESV
"9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."
******* What happened to spiritual Israel? I thought Jesus changed everything? Not to mention all the unfulfilled prophecies that say the SEED (Sperm) of Israel is going to be redeemed and receive the promises.
Who was Peter addressing?? Ethnic Judeans only who were already chosen as a people of God or gentiles who accepted the Messiah?? LOL
And in the very next line he says: Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
So nice try at misrepresenting!
quote:****5. You want to cling to the word "earth" and you have to add things in like "perceived by the author" because you know the scripture is actually saying the exact opposite of what you want to say. But the word "earth" isn't perceived by the author?............ It says ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOOOLE HEAVEN WERE COVERED... are you telling us under the whole heaven is only talking about a select portion of land????
By "earth" it wasn't the entire planet. The Hebrew word eretz means earth as in ground or land. Hence the land of Israel in Hebrew is Eretz Yishrael NOT 'Earth Israel'. Also Biblical narrative especially in the Old Testament was poetry NOT prose thus the language is poetic in nature using many metaphors and hyperbole. The narrative of the Great Flood is one based on the observation of the author. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the events described affected the entire globe. Again most Biblical scholars including Hebrew experts say that there is no evidence Noah's flood was anything but a local or regional event. If so tell me which of Noah's sons is ancestor of Japanese or Indigenous Americans.
quote:Then in Genesis 7:4 God himself says he will destroy EVERY LIVING THING he has ever made. Let me guess that's only talking about every living thing on a select portion of land?
Stick to "genetics"!!!!!! The Bible is not your thing. Whatever "the lioness" sent you about me, certainly has not helped you in any way shape or form.
Again all you've provided is an example of Biblical hyperbole, yet it was every living thing in the eretz (land) NOT planet! LOL
The Bible is not YOUR thing because you are an ignoramus who doesn't even know the original Hebrew context. And you even misrepresent New Testatment writings to say the seed of promise blood only and not by adoption through faith.
This is like idiots saying when Jesus said "Salvation is of the Jews" means that only Jews will be saved instead of salvation coming out of the Jews to everyone else. Since the Samaritan Woman who heard this message from Jesus herself lead others of her community to Christ.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Cool, everything I've said can be backed up with scripture/historical sources and I've said nothing wrong, and have only defended myself from attacks by people calling me out of my name.
Maybe we should start linking screenshots and links to all of the different forums around the web where handfuls of people are pointing out the fact that you are a white man who has been masquerading as a black woman on the internet for the past 10+ years?
.....like I said.... I've nothing to worry about, especially when considering who you are and what you do.
I heard that rumor about lioness being a white man but I never saw evidence of it. What are you saying, no whites allowed? Esau and Jacob had the same father wtf were they Hap E? I was the not one bringing up skin color in the thread and I thought we established some Arab looking types can be darker skinned than LL Cool J but not be considered black and some Hispanic whites can be members of so called "B.H.I." groups, Hap J is common in Nubians, so color is not determinate here
But I hope you are not doing fake mad now to avoid this question:
>>> where were the Israelites native to?
Not for me for the readership. This is an important question. If you don't know just say so
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The guy is frustrated cuz he's being busted on his alleged expertise on the Bible which is shown to be wrong! LOL
Meanwhile Tazarah, how about you explain what exactly was the culture that J-carriers allegedly "abandoned"??
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
1. Israelite in a Biblical context = descendant of Jacob. As I've demonstrated over and over again -- not the secular meaning that you are trying to attach to it. Feel free to provide an actual scripture that calls a non-descendant of Jacob/Israel an Israelite.
2. Can you read? I literally just showed in Romans where it says NOTHING, no good or evil act, was the reason why Jacob was chosen over Esau. Now you want to act like you didn't see it because you've been proven 100% wrong when it comes to why Jacob was chosen over esau, which dismantles your faulty position about how the situation between Jacob/Esau disproves a paternal lineage system. One last time: Romans 9 says there was NOTHING good or bad that Jacob or Esau did to affect who was or wasn't chosen. It was all the will of God and it was set up to go down that way by God.
3. Still no scripture from you to support your Biblical position concerning the ammonites and how it relates to Solomon's son still being a King of Judah (Israelite) although his mother was an ammonite. Them being Hebrew is irrelevant because multiple different nations made up the Hebrew spectrum and Solomon's son was NEVER called an ammonite.
3. All those scriptures I referenced (Romans 9:3-4, Romans 9:7-8) show that God is only dealing with the Israelite seed/bloodline. Not sure how you interpret it to mean anything else, or how it supports your position because it LITERALLY says the covenants and everything else belongs to the Israelites and that only the children of the promise (Israelites, SEED) are counted as children of God.
4. Peter was writing to Israelite foreigners in other lands, and in 1 Peter 2:9 he tells the target audience they are a chosen race and royal priesthood. Where in the HELL does the Bible ever designate any gentile nations as a chosen race and royal priesthood????? And where in the HELL were gentile nations ever called exiles???? The translation that YOU just quoted refers to the target audience as exiles.
In fact the very next line you quoted separates them from the gentiles.
1 PETER 2:12
"12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."
In the book of James, James is writing to the same exact people. Notice the parallels.
JAMES 1:1
"1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting."
COMPARED TO:
1 PETER 1:1
"1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
***** Just because you see the word "foreigner" or "stranger" does not automatically mean gentiles. The Israelites were scattered and also called foreigners and strangers.
5. How many times do you have to be shown that even if the word earth is omitted from Genesis 7:19, it still says allllllllll the high hills under the whoooooooole heaven were covered with water? And do you need to be shown again how in Genesis 7:4, God himself said he was going to kill EVERY living creature?..... it isn't rocket science.
Two chapters later God himself clarifies that he indeed killed ALL living things and says nothing about your made up, isolated portion of earth.
GENESIS 9:11
"11 And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."
You are a SECULARIST, you do not believe in the Bible. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@Tazarah where were the Israelites native to?
It's very peculiar how you won't answer this
If you don't know just say you don't know and we'll leave it at that
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
1. Israelite in a Biblical context = descendant of Jacob. As I've demonstrated over and over again -- not the secular meaning that you are trying to attach to it.
LOL and what "secular" meaning are you talking about?! I never disagreed with the definition of Israelite!
quote:2. Can you read? I literally just showed in Romans where it says NOTHING, no good or evil act, was the reason why Jacob was chosen over Esau. Now you want to act like you didn't see it because you've been proven 100% wrong when it comes to why Jacob was chosen over Esau, which dismantles your faulty position about how the situation between Jacob/Esau disproves a paternal lineage system. One last time: Romans 9 says there was NOTHING good or bad that Jacob or Esau did to affect who was or wasn't chosen. It was all the will of God and it was set up to go down that way by God.
LOL Why Jacob was chosen was explained in Genesis, you idiot! He sold out his birthright for food and even that of his offspring by marrying non-Hebrew women! What you cited in the much later Romans simply states that God foresaw all of it before the twins Esau and Isaac were even born. As far as the paternal system, they both had the same father and mother but here is the irony.. When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a simple man, living in tents. Isaac loved Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah loved Jacob. (Gen 25: 27-28)
Esau was the favorite of the father yet God chose Jacob who was favorite of the mother not to mention the 2nd born. The same way God sided with Sarah when she had Hagar and her son Ishmael banished. So your notion of there being no maternal system at play is a non-starter.
quote:3. Still no scripture from you to support your Biblical position concerning the ammonites and how it relates to Solomon's son still being a King of Judah (Israelite) although his mother was an ammonite. Them being Hebrew is irrelevant because multiple different nations made up the Hebrew spectrum and Solomon's son was NEVER called an ammonite.
The Ammonites were fellow Hebrews who simply had to convert to becomes Israelites. The same is true with the Moabites. Ruth the Moabite was ancestress of the House of David. The House of Judah trace their descent from Judah's sons by Tamar the Hebrew daughter-in-law and NOT by his surviving son by a Canaanite wife.
quote:3. All those scriptures I referenced (Romans 9:3-4, Romans 9:7-8) show that God is only dealing with the Israelite seed/bloodline. Not sure how you interpret it to mean anything else, or how it supports your position because it LITERALLY says the covenants and everything else belongs to the Israelites and that only the children of the promise (Israelites, SEED) are counted as children of God.
Those scripture spoke of the seed of promise. Those who keep the promise of faith are considered seed regardless of blood descent. The very passages you cited state it but you are too what? stupid to realize it!
And here it is straight from the Messiah's (Yeshuah's) mouth And do not presume to say within yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father.' For I say to you that out of these stones God is able to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)
Blood counts for nothing without faith. Similarly it is faith that allows those outside of Israel to be adopted into the Kingdom.
quote:4. Peter was writing to Israelite foreigners in other lands, and in 1 Peter 2:9 he tells the target audience they are a chosen race and royal priesthood. Where in the HELL does the Bible ever designate any gentile nations as a chosen race and royal priesthood????? And where in the HELL were gentile nations ever called exiles???? The translation that YOU just quoted refers to the target audience as exiles.
In fact the very next line you quoted separates them from the gentiles.
1 PETER 2:12
"12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."
In the book of James, James is writing to the same exact people. Notice the parallels.
JAMES 1:1
"1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting."
COMPARED TO:
1 PETER 1:1
"1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
***** Just because you see the word "foreigner" or "stranger" does not automatically mean gentiles. The Israelites were scattered and also called foreigners and strangers.
5. How many times do you have to be shown that even if the word earth is omitted from Genesis 7:19, it still says allllllllll the high hills under the whoooooooole heaven were covered with water? And do you need to be shown again how in Genesis 7:4, God himself said he was going to kill EVERY living creature?..... it isn't rocket science.
Two chapters later God himself clarifies that he indeed killed ALL living things and says nothing about your made up, isolated portion of earth.
GENESIS 9:11
"11 And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."
You are a SECULARIST, you do not believe in the Bible.
LMAO No! You are an EISEGETE (look it up) idiot who just distorts what the actual text says!
God revealed to Peter in a vision (the feast of unclean animals) that the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. Peter taught the gospel to Cornelius and his household and later settled contention among Jewish Saints about the gospel being preached to the Gentiles.
The message of the gospel was not kept amongst ethnic Jews alone or else there wouldn't be Gentile Church Fathers. Peter and other Apostles laid hands and breathed their holy breaths onto Gentile successors!
Even St. Paul (a Pharisee who persecuted the first church) but later converted says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
Unfortunately there came the 1st schism in the Church between the Jewish Church and the Gentile Church (precursor to Roman Orthodoxy) in the year 333 some years after the Council of Nicea.
But make no mistake the promised seed was fulfilled in Jesus and Israelite-Hebrew that is God manifested.
Since you FAILED in your Bible study how about you answer the question as to what culture J-carriers abandoned and what culture did they adopt??
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Bro, this conversation is fruitless.
I show you where the Bible says word for word that no actions committed by Jacob or Esau determined who was chosen.... and you reject what the Bible says.
Then you try to bring up ruth which completely contradicts your position... yes she joined with an Israelite man but none of her descendants were ever classified as moabite in any way shape or form. Same with Rehoboam (Solomon's son with the ammonite woman). Tribe, nationality, everything -- was determined through the father.
And no, the scriptures I referenced in Romans do not say believers automatically become the seed. They literally say that the seed is through Isaac and that none else are counted as the children of God. Paul even said the covenants and promises etc. belong to his "BRETHREN and KINSMEN according to the FLESH--who are israelites..." Word for word it says that, and..... you reject it.
Then you debunk yourself even further by referencing the part of peter where he addresses the target audience as "exiles".... lmao gentiles were never exiled.
I even show you where God out of his own mouth says he killed ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL flesh during the flood... you reject it and accuse me of eisegesis.
Lol
I refuse to continue going back and forth about this, but since I like you I will answer your question about the J's abandonment of culture:
My answer is, it's irrelevant what the culture/customs/language were that they abandoned because their new culture/customs/language was the afro-asiatic culture/customs/language that they adopted. Which logically means that afro-asiatic culture/customs/language was not their original, regardless of where they came from or what they had before.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
When I said the Israelites were foreigners in a sense I meant that they themselves were not native to the land of Israel.
Were Natufians native to the land of Israel?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Bro, this conversation is fruitless.
I show you where the Bible says word for word that no actions committed by Jacob or Esau determined who was chosen.... and you reject what the Bible says.
What you cited was an explanation of millennia after the events saying that it was whom God elected, i.e. prophesied before the two were born! That does not change the fact that Esau did what he did. Only that God foresaw it and God's will is always done in the end.
quote:Then you try to bring up Ruth which completely contradicts your position... yes she joined with an Israelite man but none of her descendants were ever classified as Moabite in any way shape or form. Same with Rehoboam (Solomon's son with the ammonite woman). Tribe, nationality, everything -- was determined through the father.
No dummy! I said, that both Ruth and Naamah (mother of Rehoboam) became Israelites through conversion before they were married and even though they were of different nations, ethnically they were of the same ethnicity that is Hebrew by descent! This is like a Greek person from Sparta marrying another Greek from the Ionian Islands.-- They are all Greek even though they are from essentially two different nations. That's why not only were their sons counted in the genealogy but that their sons did not have to go through a ritual of adoption by their grandfather the way Joseph's sons were.
quote:And no, the scriptures I referenced in Romans do not say believers automatically become the seed. They literally say that the seed is through Isaac and that none else are counted as the children of God. Paul even said his brethren "according to the FLESH--who are Israelites..." Word for word it says that, and..... you reject it.
You are a Bible pervert! The seed that was promised was Jesus you idiot! It is through Him that salvation comes. Israelites are to a priesthood for all the nations of the earth but because they failed in that mission Jesus manifested in Israel in the tribe of Judah of the House of David. This is why the new Edah/Church is no longer confined to Jerusalem but made available to everyone including a priesthood that is no longer confined to Israel let alone the House of Aaron.
quote:Then you debunk yourself even further by referencing the part of peter where he addresses the target audience as "exiles".... lmao gentiles were never exiled.
He says strangers and exiles. Those who are of the faith including Gentiles who live among pagans are essentially like strangers and exiles.
quote:I even show you where God out of his own mouth says he killed ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL flesh during the flood... you reject it and accuse me of eisegesis.
Lol
What part of poetic hyperbole do you not understand?! Do you think every animal in the globe was killed, including fish who can live in flood waters?? LOL This is why when kids in Bible school are taught the proper ways of interpretation. The Jews have even come up with a system called by the acronym PaRDeS:
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) – "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.[2]
Remez (רֶמֶז) – "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense. In the version of the New Zohar, *Re'iah.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) – from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") – the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) – "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
But even non-Jewish scholars and basic researchers know better than to take every word written in Genesis to be literal.
quote:I refuse to continue going back and forth about this, but since I like you I will answer your question about the J's abandonment of culture:
Yeah you are going back and forth like a zombie with its head cut off while I just sit still and present facts.
quote:My answer is, it's irrelevant what the culture/customs/language were that they abandoned because their new culture/customs/language was the afro-asiatic culture/customs/language that they adopted. Which logically means that afro-asiatic culture/customs/language was not their original, regardless of where they came from or what they had before.
Original Afro-asiatic culture had already diversified by the time Proto-Semitic presumably developed in Asia (not in Africa). This explains why the Hebrews from the time of Abraham and onward practiced Mesopotamian customs and rites which differed from the Afro-asiatic speaking Egyptians. So you can't simply say they gave up one culture and adopted another because while Hebrews spoke Afroasiatic language their culture was very much Asiatic and not African!
The same way Indo-European speaking Sinhalese have an entirely different culture from the Indo-European speaking Kalasha of Pakistan who preserved pre-Islamic religion.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
Instead of addressing each of your claims one by one I will just address the main ones that prove your Biblical position is incorrect in more ways than just one... including this false idea that a portion of the lineage was somehow also determined through the mother (P.S., you finally just admit that there was no reason why Jacob was chosen over Esau, which is what I've been saying the whole time... this voids the argument you were trying to build concerning that situation disproving a paternal lineage system.)
In romans 9:3-4. Paul identifies the Israelites as those who are the same race as him. And says all of the things were promised and belong to THEM... his brethren and kinsmen according to the FLESH....
ROMANS 9:3-4 ESV"
"3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."
********
In romans 9:7-8, he is not saying the promised seed is Christ. He is talking about those who descend from Abraham... through Isaac (Israel)........ it literally says children and offspring (plural)
ROMANS 9:7-8 ESV
"7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."
This alone disproves all the remaining arguments you are making from a Biblical standpoint.
I'm not even going to go back and forth about the flood anymore because it's silly at this point.
Lastly, Mesopotamian civilizations were believed to have E markers. Abraham came from Mesopotamia, right? As you all have been saying.... So...
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yeah you are going back and forth like a zombie with its head cut off while I just sit still and prevent facts.
Yes, you are preventing facts
Freudian slip
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Lastly, Mesopotamian civilizations were believed to have E markers. Abraham came from Mesopotamia,
stop making up stuff, thanks
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: It's crazy how the few people in here who repeatedly say "but J came from Mesopotamia just like how the Bible says Abraham did" don't reference or mention ANY information about how actual Mesopotamian civilizations were believed to have had E markers... are y'all trying to bamboozle people or what?
"The most plausible candidates for Semitic re-migration to the Fertile Crescent with TMRCA-s fitting the arrival of the Akkadians and other early Semitic peoples are certain subclades of both E-V22 and E-V12 with relatively early TMRCA-s present in the middle east could be candidates for such re-migration, such as E-FGC14382 (TMRCA 2200 BCE), E-V3262 (TMRCA 2600 BCE).
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH
-----------------------------------
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yeah you are going back and forth like a zombie with its head cut off while I just sit still and prevent facts.
Yes, you are preventing facts
Freudian slip
No it's called a typo, dummy.
If Hebrews were solely patrilineal then why did Abraham say to his servant Eliezer of Damascus (who also happened to his son by another concubine): “Please, put your hand under my thigh [as is customary for affirming a solemn oath], 3 and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, 4 but you will [instead] go to my [former] country (Mesopotamia) and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac [the heir of the covenant promise].” (Genesis 24:2-4)
And why Rebekah said to her husband Isaac, "I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?"
To which Isaac then told his younger son Jacob (the elected by God): “You must not take a wife from the Canaanite women. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father, and take as your wife from there one of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother. 3 God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. 4 May he give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your offspring with you, that you may take possession of the land of your sojournings that God gave to Abraham!”
The promised seed followed a female line as much as a male line.
This is why Moses' sons were not listed in the genealogy but his brother Aaron's sons became the first priests of the tabernacle and later temple.
And why the priests of the inner sanctum of the tabernacle/temple who were eligible for high priest had to be the sons of both kohanim (priests) and banot-kohanim (daughters of priests) or women of the priestly houses.
This is why throughout Genesis references are made to the "seed of the woman" from Eve to Sarah to even matriarchs like Hagar whose seed was not of the promised lineage but still gave rise to many nations. This is why Genesis counts the matriarchs as much as the patriarchs. This is why Joseph's sons had to undergo the ritual of adoption under ben-achar-ben whereas any Hebrew woman (Israelite or not) who is formerly converted her sons are automatically Israelite by birth by rite of eemah.
And again why you are quoting New Testament texts to emphasize Jewish blood lineage is beyond me since the New Testament is clear that the spiritual salvation of the Jews does NOT come from their blood but from their faith and worship! I already busted your ass about Peter spreading the gospel to Gentiles.
The message is to the Jews first and then the Gentiles but those Jews were called the "sick of Israel" i.e. those who are irreligious and lack faith. Them being Israelites by birth won't save them. Which is why question why you are so keen on having Israelite or Jewish blood since I doubt you are a Mizrahi Jew despite your remarks on the Ashkenazi.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
*** To answer your first question about why they did not want their sons to marry daughters from other nations:
DEUTERONOMY 7:1-4
"1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."
^^^^^^ that's why they didn't want their sons marrying women from other nations. Nothing to do with women corrupting the bloodline... lol
*** To answer your second claim about Moses's sons not being listed in the genealogy... um.... yes they were? They were even identified as being from the tribe of Levi (Priests), just like their father Moses.
1 CHRONICLES 23:14-15
"14 Now concerning Moses the man of God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi. 15 The sons of Moses were, Gershom, and Eliezer."
And no... I've more than demonstrated that Paul said word for word that all the blessings, promises and covenants belong to his race and brethren/kinsmen according to the flesh... the Israelites. And Peter identified his target audience as exiles.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
I wasn't lying when I said I like you Djehuti
Please stop making me do this to you
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: And you, Brandon, are a white man who draws ancient Jews/Israelites with black skin, but criticizes black people for affirming that the ancient Jews/Israelites would have had black skin.
To clarify, I don't have a problem with the notion of dark-skinned Israelites. What I find weird is your claiming that any man in Israel who was Y-DNA J couldn't have been a "real" Israelite because "real" Israelites were all descended from Y-DNA E1b1b. That's why you're arguing with Djehuti over whether Israelites reckoned nationality along patrilineal or matrilineal lines, since you think a patrilineal basis for Israelite identity would mean that non-E1b1b people in ancient Israel couldn't be legitimately Israelites.
Why does the presence of Y-DNA J lineages in ancient Israelite remains concern you so? To the best of my knowledge, Y-chromosome haplogroups don't impart skin color (or hair color and texture, or other traits of phenotype) on their carriers. You don't even claim to be that attached to Israelites being "African".
Could they not have looked like these modern Soqotri people? Their men are overwhelming Y-DNA J, and the majority of the mtDNA lineages are derived from N and R. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: To clarify, I don't have a problem with the notion of dark-skinned Israelites. What I find weird is your claiming that any man in Israel who was Y-DNA J couldn't have been a "real" Israelite because "real" Israelites were all descended from Y-DNA E1b1b.
I never said this. You always accuse me of saying/believing things I've never said.
And to address the last part of your comment: if Y-DNA doesn't impart skin color (which I agree with), then that obviously means skin color isn't an issue for me right? I believe I've clarified this as well.
We are dealing with lineage here, according to the science that you all subscribe to.
And why are you asking me if they could have looked like that, when you have drawn your own images of ancient Israelites, and your drawings don't look like that?... your drawings look like "african" people, lol.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Brandon if you want to say Tazarah said something you need to quote him, you are assuming things. He selects only certain very particular details and stitches them together
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I never said this. You always accuse me of saying/believing things I've never said.
This is what I get from your posts in this thread:
1) Israelites, as descendants of the Natufians, would be E1b1b instead of J.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ nope, according to genetic methodology, J it is not semitic in origin. So I have no idea why certain people are so happy. Especially people who claim to understand genetics?
All this study demonstrates is that foreigners lived in Israel during the first temple period which most of us already know, or should know, because it's in the Bible and plenty of other sources/records.
It doesn't prove or demonstrate that anyone descends from actual, lineal Israelites.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I've already posted a genetic study saying that the most likely progenitors of the Israelites were the Natufians, who were proto-semites.
According to genetics, the Natufians were proto-semites who predated the Israelites.
And the natufians did not have haplogroup J.
2) Israelites reckoned Israelite identity according to patrilineage. You are what your father was.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The Torah says that lineage is determined through the father (Numbers 1:18) and the Tanakh says the same (Erza 2:59).
3) Therefore, in order to be an Israelite, you must descend from E1b1b through the male line.
4) Ergo, any man with a Y-DNA haplogroup other than E1b1b is not a real Israelite.
Are these not things you have claimed or implied earlier in this thread?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Brandon if you don't have a quote of Tazarah talking not just about E but specifically E1b1b you have stepped into a trap
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@BrandonP
Actually Brandon, you are correct this time. My apologies. I forgot the natufian sample that was originally E1b1 was changed to E1b1b.
So according to the "evidence" (assuming there are no other samples with other clades of E), that is indeed what I would be implying. But I was moreso speaking from an E in general type of thing.
If it makes you feel any better, chances are most likely that I am E1b1a or some type of R (according to genetic statistics, which I do not subscribe to) so that would eliminate me and almost every other African American from being an Israelite according to the available data (which again, I do not subsrcibe to because it contradicts the Bible in many ways,and nobody has Abraham/Isaac/Jacob's DNA, etc.).
So according to the available information, not only would J markers be excluded but also myself.
So I fail to see what the problem is, especially since I'm just going with what the papers say, and ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY since I myself would most likely be excluded.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Brandon if you don't have a quote of Tazarah talking not just about E but specifically E1b1b you have stepped into a trap
E1b1b is the E derivative we found in Natufians. Taz appears to be presenting the Natufian Y-DNA as the “true” Israelite patrilineage. So it doesn’t matter whether I refer to it as E or E1b1b in the context of this specific discussion.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Lastly, Mesopotamian civilizations were believed to have E markers. Abraham came from Mesopotamia,
stop making up stuff, thanks
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
This appears to be fake since while haplgroup.org exists
"haplgroupS.org with an "s" on the end does not
Taz, stop putting this fraudulent spam in the thread, thanks
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
Go tell these people who were talking about that source that it's fake:
Obviously, the website was recently shut down and no longer exists for whatever reason. Funny how you completely ignored the other source I posted that said pretty much the exact same thing
Go to sleep
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
You don't' know how to cite things properly* or determine what is credible but you think identity by haplogroup is bullshit yet you keep trying to use information about it to win arguments, to prove or disapprove someone's identity by genetics that is pure hypocrisy We all believe that DNA analysis is legitimate but you don't So what are you even doing here?
If you think genetics is bullshit that should be your ongoing position, not saying that and then trying to present it like it's not bullshit, stop the flim flam
*author, publication, date, article title, page number, URL
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
You called me a liar and said there's no evidence suggesting mesopotamians had E markers
Address the other source I referenced or shut up...
Actually, don't address it all. You're literally a nobody to me
And there's nothing wrong with showing how YOUR own science contradicts the narrative(s) you try to push
You're just mad because "BHI" is pointing out all this out and throwing it in your face
Cope
P.S. stop pretending to be a black woman
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Imagine trying to say ANY haplogroup belongs ro Abraham/Isaac/Jacob without having ANY of their DNA...
This is why at the end of the day, it's all a joke.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
You called me a liar and said there's no evidence suggesting mesopotamians had E markers
If I were to go into that and make an argument and it was convincing you would just say "well I don't believe in genetics"
So what's the point if your flim flamming?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
Yeah that's what I thought
You don't believe in the Bible but you've gone back and forth with me about scripture before
You don't have to believe in something or care about it to debate its affirmative or negative
You just know I'm right
lol bye
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Why does it matter if I believe it or not? YOU believe it.
Either it says what it says or it doesn't.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I'm looking into it
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
*** To answer your first question about why they did not want their sons to marry daughters from other nations:
DEUTERONOMY 7:1-4
"1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."
^^^^^^ that's why they didn't want their sons marrying women from other nations. Nothing to do with women corrupting the bloodline... lol
Yes, apostasy or turning away from the religion is one reason. But again, in the national religion of Hebrews there is a blood line in the hierarchy of the Edah. The upper levels especially the Levites and Kohanim have to be of a certain pedigree. This is why the prophetic family from which the Levite tribe comes from descend from both Hebrew men and women. I notice you ignore what I cited about Ezra telling the Jewish men to divorce their foreign wives and disown the children but not the Jewish women because their children though mamzerim were Jewish. Jesus is the fulfillment of that priestly genetic lineage which is why after his incarnation the priestly hierarchy of the Edah is no longer restricted to those of Hebrew descent only either paternal or maternal.
quote:*** To answer your second claim about Moses's sons not being listed in the genealogy... um.... yes they were? They were even identified as being from the tribe of Levi (Priests), just like their father Moses.
1 CHRONICLES 23:14-15
"14 Now concerning Moses the man of God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi. 15 The sons of Moses were, Gershom, and Eliezer."
Now I know you're lying. I already cited Chronicles showing that Moses's sons were sent to their maternal home and were not formally part of Israel. You just cited the first part before the relevant part that I cited in the previous page. Here it is again. The sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliezer. The issue of Gershom was Shebuel the Chief. And the issue of Eliezer was Reḥavia the Chief. Eliezer had no other sons, but the sons of Reḥavia were very numerous. (1 Chronicles 23:14-17)
Members of the tribe of Levi are forbidden from owning tribal land or territory of their own but had to be tenants on the lands of the other tribes. So how the hell can Shebuel and Rehavia become chiefs if they have no territory to rule over?? Answer- they were chiefs in the land of their mother or rather maternal grandfather Jethro.
If simply having an Israelite father makes the children Israelite then why did Joseph's sons have to undergo a ritual of adoption by their grandfather Jacob where both place their hands under his upper thigh and testify that they are now part of his people??? And even after that Manasseh and Ephraim were considered half-tribes only?
quote:And no... I've more than demonstrated that Paul said word for word that all the blessings, promises and covenants belong to his race and brethren/kinsmen according to the flesh... the Israelites. And Peter identified his target audience as exiles.
Yes the covenant went originally to the Hebrews and then the Israelites because they were the priests on behalf of all the nations but now that Jesus has come the covenant has re-extended to Gentiles as it was in the time of Noah and before. This is why the Edah/Ecclesia/Church is no longer limited to Jews but includes Gentiles. Jesus says He is the root, his people are the shoot, and Gentiles who accept him are grafted on. Such is the basis of Christianity.
That you fail to understand this shows your stupidity.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Abraham came from Mesopotamia, right?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
"The most plausible candidates for Semitic re-migration to the Fertile Crescent with TMRCA-s fitting the arrival of the Akkadians and other early Semitic peoples are certain subclades of both E-V22 and E-V12 with relatively early TMRCA-s present in the middle east could be candidates for such re-migration, such as E-FGC14382 (TMRCA 2200 BCE), E-V3262 (TMRCA 2600 BCE).
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH
E-V22 and E-V12 subclades of Haplogroup E-V68, also known as E1b1b1a
Yatunde recently posted a peer review article which speculated otherwise,
'The genomic history of the Middle East' (Almarri et al 2021).
"...we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners... 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)."
Anyway what you have is reasonable speculation written by a historian and geopolitical analyst. but what Yatunde posted is a peer reviewed article published in an important science journal,"Cell" be geneticists that included ancient samples from Bronze Age Israel and Jordan and those are in the other article I posted earlier, many J's with a couple of E1b1b's, R's and T's
but regardless the do fit into a particular time periods and location, Israel We cannot assume that all Mesopotamians were of one particular haplogroup either The remains of ancient Mesopotamians would be needed. Also a few different Mesopotamian cultures existed and we can't assume they were the same or if a mix, of the same proportions
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ If I recall correctly the subclade of E1b1b most common in Mesopotamia as far as Iran and India is E-M34. This is different from the E-M78 common in Egypt and the Balkans.
Interestingly, E-M34 is the type most common in Ashkenazi while Sephardi tend to carry E-M81, while Mizrahi Jews carry E-M78. Of course the predominant lineage amongst Jewish men is J.
This is interesting because if Hebrews/Israelites were as strictly patrilineal as Tazarah claims there wouldn't be as much heterogeneity yet interestingly those Jews of Levi and especially Cohen status are overwhelmingly J.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ If I recall correctly the subclade of E1b1b most common in Mesopotamia as far as Iran and India is E-M34. This is different from the E-M78 common in Egypt and the Balkans.
Interestingly, E-M34 is the type most common in Ashkenazi while Sephardi tend to carry E-M81, while Mizrahi Jews carry E-M78. Of course the predominant lineage amongst Jewish men is J.
This is interesting because if Hebrews/Israelites were as strictly patrilineal as Tazarah claims there wouldn't be as much heterogeneity yet interestingly those Jews of Levi and especially Cohen status are overwhelmingly J.
It sounds to me like those disparate Jewish groups are getting a large proportion of their E1b1b from different sources (Sephardi from the Maghreb, Ashkenazi from Central Asia, and Mizrahi from Egypt etc.) instead of inheriting it all from one common ancestor.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Lioness has shown me something interesting about Tazarah, which explains everything but I'll keep my mouth shut.
I was going to PM for more info, but your inbox is full.
Lioness is supposedly a white man masquerading as a black woman online for the past decade (according to a plethora of different users from different websites for the past 10+ years, who are all familiar with him, and I have posted the screenshots of them all saying it)
And you, Brandon, are a white man who draws ancient Jews/Israelites with black skin, but criticizes black people for affirming that the ancient Jews/Israelites would have had black skin.
Am I missing something here? I'm pretty sure that nothing I've said on any social media platform contradicts any of what I've said here and I'm pretty sure that I am much more rational of a person than both you and "lioness" combined.
BrandonP is a white man? Say what? How am I just learning this after all these years?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yeah you are going back and forth like a zombie with its head cut off while I just sit still and prevent facts.
Yes, you are preventing facts
Freudian slip
Wow! He got caught red handed. By the way, Djehuti's comments to Taz are incoherent.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ If I recall correctly the subclade of E1b1b most common in Mesopotamia as far as Iran and India is E-M34. This is different from the E-M78 common in Egypt and the Balkans.
Interestingly, E-M34 is the type most common in Ashkenazi while Sephardi tend to carry E-M81, while Mizrahi Jews carry E-M78. Of course the predominant lineage amongst Jewish men is J.
This is interesting because if Hebrews/Israelites were as strictly patrilineal as Tazarah claims there wouldn't be as much heterogeneity yet interestingly those Jews of Levi and especially Cohen status are overwhelmingly J.
It sounds to me like those disparate Jewish groups are getting a large proportion of their E1b1b from different sources (Sephardi from the Maghreb, Ashkenazi from Central Asia, and Mizrahi from Egypt etc.) instead of inheriting it all from one common ancestor.
Yes! The Ashkenazi Jews and their E1b1b could be general west med ancestary/ Italian derived as is the majority of the genetic ancestary in total.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Abraham came from Mesopotamia, right?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
"The most plausible candidates for Semitic re-migration to the Fertile Crescent with TMRCA-s fitting the arrival of the Akkadians and other early Semitic peoples are certain subclades of both E-V22 and E-V12 with relatively early TMRCA-s present in the middle east could be candidates for such re-migration, such as E-FGC14382 (TMRCA 2200 BCE), E-V3262 (TMRCA 2600 BCE).
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH
E-V22 and E-V12 subclades of Haplogroup E-V68, also known as E1b1b1a
Yatunde recently posted a peer review article which speculated otherwise,
'The genomic history of the Middle East' (Almarri et al 2021).
"...we found an ancestry related to ancient Iranians that is ubiquitous today in all Middle Easterners... 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)."
Anyway what you have is reasonable speculation written by a historian and geopolitical analyst. but what Yatunde posted is a peer reviewed article published in an important science journal,"Cell" be geneticists that included ancient samples from Bronze Age Israel and Jordan and those are in the other article I posted earlier, many J's with a couple of E1b1b's, R's and T's
but regardless the do fit into a particular time periods and location, Israel We cannot assume that all Mesopotamians were of one particular haplogroup either The remains of ancient Mesopotamians would be needed. Also a few different Mesopotamian cultures existed and we can't assume they were the same or if a mix, of the same proportions
J adopted semetic then spread it, and you know darn well they did not spread it until the domestication of the camel. The beginning of the paraghraph is more interesting than the spread of J. The timing of the arrival of J to the levant is more important.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The timing of the arrival of J to the levant is more important.
yes, it was there in Israel's Bronze age before the Israelites
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
You asked why they were not allowed to join with women from other nations and I showed you word for word where it literally says why. Nothing to do with bloodline. First you were saying the father determines tribal identity and the mother determines nationality. How can a non-Israelite mother give an Israelite nationality? Makes no sense and the scriptures I've referenced demonstrate that, so now you're trying to say the mother just had to be Hebrew, yet there were a handful of other Hebrew nations that were not Israelite.
You're just making it up as you go.
And the ritual Jacob did for Joseph's sons was not to make them Israelites, it was to adopt them as Jacob's own direct sons so that they would be on par with Jacob's actual direct sons instead of just being Jacob's grandsons. It was to give them a BLESSING and make them tribal heads.
"Even though Ephraim and Manasseh were Joseph’s sons, they were considered heads of two of the twelve tribes of Israel because Joseph’s father, Jacob (renamed in later life by God as “Israel”), adopted Ephraim and Manasseh as his own sons (Genesis 48:1-16)."
Lastly, there's no question that the new covenant is for only the Israelites. You keep saying Christ changed this but I've shown you multiple times how even decades after Christ's death and ressurection, Paul was clearly stating all the blessings and promises belonged to the Israelites.
Then we have Hebrews 8:8 (also written after Christ's death) which says the new covenant is only for Israelites, as well as unfulfilled old testament prophecies that speak on how the Israelites are going to possess all non-Israelites in the new kingdom (Amos 9:11-12, etc.,)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yeah you are going back and forth like a zombie with its head cut off while I just sit still and prevent facts.
Yes, you are preventing facts
Freudian slip
Wow! He got caught red handed. By the way, Djehuti's comments to Taz are incoherent.
I like Djehuti
But pay attention to how at first they were all saying J had to be abraham because J "came from mesopotamia"
Now that evidence of Mesopotamians having E has been introduced to the discussion, they are trying to find a way to make it irrelevant
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: BrandonP is a white man? Say what? How am I just learning this after all these years?
Had you ever thought to click on the link he has at the bottom of every post? "Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher" click on that and scroll down. Brandon is not white he's light skinned black and has Beja-esque hair
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The timing of the arrival of J to the levant is more important.
yes, it was there in Israel's Bronze age before the Israelites
So where did the Israelites come from in your opinion and when did they get there?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
But pay attention to how at first they were all saying J had to be abraham because J "came from mesopotamia"
Now that evidence of Mesopotamians having E has been introduced to the discussion, they are trying to find a way to make it irrelevant
True if you don't know the difference between evidence between evidence and speculation
Evidence is a body that has been tested for DNA
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ no evidence of mesopotamians having J yet that doesn't stop you from claiming J is abraham
Hypocrite?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: BrandonP is a white man? Say what? How am I just learning this after all these years?
Never hid it, either. You can find my selfie on my profile page here on this forum.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The timing of the arrival of J to the levant is more important.
yes, it was there in Israel's Bronze age before the Israelites
So where did the Israelites come from in your opinion and when did they get there?
Looking at the period of the Israelites there is Bronze age DNA analysis of Israel and there were people there of J, E, R and T male groups
and in a cave prior to that a group of copper age people of haplogroup T
before that in a cave 5 males of E1b1b
There is no evidence that Abraham existed but he may have. The bible says:
quote: (KJV) Genesis 15
After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
quote: In 1862, Henry Rawlinson identified Ur Kaśdim with Tell el-Muqayyar, near Nasiriyah in Baghdad Eyalet (which is located in modern-day Iraq). In 1927, Leonard Woolley excavated the site and identified it as a Sumerian archaeological site where the Chaldeans were to settle around the 9th century BC. Recent archaeology work has continued to focus on the location in Nasiriyah, where the ancient Ziggurat of Ur is located.
So a person who might be mythological might have come from Iraq there are no bodies recovered from Mesopotamia tested for DNA Many historians and anthropologists provide strong circumstantial evidence to posit that Iraq's Marsh Arabs share very strong links to the ancient Sumerians—the oldest human civilization in the world and most ancient inhabitants of central-southern Iraq.
BMC Evol Biol. 2011; 11: 288. Published online 2011 Oct 4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-288 PMCID: PMC3215667 PMID: 21970613 In search of the genetic footprints of Sumerians: a survey of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in the Marsh Arabs of Iraq Nadia Al-Zahery,1
Discussion Two hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of Marsh Arabs: (i) they could be aboriginal inhabitants of Mesopotamia, correlated to the old Sumerians; (ii) they could be foreign people of unknown origin. Although the origin of Sumerians has yet to be clarified [5], the two main scenarios, autochthonous vs foreign ancestry, may have produced different genetic outcomes with Marsh Arabs being genetically closer to Middle Eastern groups or other populations, for instance those of the Indian sub-continent. Thus, in order to shed some light on this question Marsh Arab population was investigated for mtDNA and Y chromosome markers. Due to their characteristics (uniparental transmission and absence of recombination) and their wide datasets, they are, at present, among the best genetic systems for detecting signs of ancient migration events and to evaluate socio-cultural behaviours [35,36].
To shed some light on the paternal and maternal origin of this population, Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation was surveyed in 143 Marsh Arabs and in a large sample of Iraqi controls. Analyses of the haplogroups and sub-haplogroups observed in the Marsh Arabs revealed a prevalent autochthonous Middle Eastern component for both male and female gene pools, with weak South-West Asian and African contributions, more evident in mtDNA.
Conclusions Evidence of genetic stratification ascribable to the Sumerian development was provided by the Y-chromosome data where the J1-Page08 branch reveals a local expansion, almost contemporary with the Sumerian City State period that characterized Southern Mesopotamia. On the other hand, a more ancient background shared with Northern Mesopotamia is revealed by the less represented Y-chromosome lineage J1-M267*.
Conclusions The analyses carried out on the mtDNA and Y chromosome of the Iraqi Marsh Arabs, a population living in the Tigris-Euphrates marshlands, have shown: (i) a prevalent autochthonous Middle Eastern component both in male and female gene pools; (ii) weak South-West Asian and African heritages, more evident for mtDNA; (iii) a higher male than female homogeneity, mainly determined by the co-occurrence of socio-cultural and genetic factors; (iv) a genetic stratification not only ascribable to recent events. The last point is well illustrated by Y-chromosome data where the less represented J1-M267* lineage indicates Northern Mesopotamia contributions, whereas the most frequent J1-Page08 branch reveals a local recent expansion about 4,000 years ago (Table (Table2).2). Although the Y-chromosome age estimates deserve caution, particularly when samples are small and standard errors large, it is interesting to note that these estimates overlap the City State period which characterised Southern Mesopotamia, and is testified to by numerous ancient Sumerian cities (Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Eridu and Larsa).
Haplogroup J accounts for 55.1% of the Iraqi sample reaching 84.6% in the Marsh Arabs, one of the highest frequencies reported so far. Unlike the Iraqi sample, which displays a roughly equal proportion of J1-M267 (56.4%) and J2-M172 (43.6%), almost all Marsh Arab J chromosomes (96%) belongs to the J1-M267 clade and, in particular, to sub-Hg J1-Page08. Haplogroup E, which characterizes 6.3% of Marsh Arabs and 13.6% of Iraqis, is represented by E-M123 in both groups, and E-M78 mainly in the Iraqis. Haplogroup R1 is present at a significantly lower frequency in the Marsh Arabs than in the Iraqi sample (2.8% vs 19.4%; P 0.001), and is present only as R1-L23. Conversely the Iraqis are distributed in all the three R1 sub-groups (R1-L23, R1-M17 and R1-M412) found in this survey at frequencies of 9.1%, 8.4% and 1.9%, respectively. Other haplogroups encountered at low frequencies among the Marsh Arabs are Q (2.8%), G (1.4%), L (0.7%) and R2 (1.4%).
^^ you are going to reject this because your are wed to the concept that J carriers are fake claimants to being Hebrews
My view is the if Abraham existed he could have been of any of the haplogroups in the region. Biblically this verse about "I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees" may be myth or may be true but I point to that because it raises the possibility that if Abraham existed he MIGHT not have been descendant of Natufians (and where would you even place th Natufians in the biblical time line?)
Might he, if real, had been an E carrier? Yes Or J, maybe even T
Let's say he was X
He migrates to Israel and perhaps the Hebrew culture begins there (maybe) and there are people there already of various haplogroups. Are we to assume the all the tribes of Hebrews practiced a patrilineal descent from Abraham and excluded all other males who were not bloodline relatives? I don't think that is known and the whole ancestry topic in general
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The timing of the arrival of J to the levant is more important.
yes, it was there in Israel's Bronze age before the Israelites
So where did the Israelites come from in your opinion and when did they get there?
They came from Space. 🤣
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Tazarah are Native Americans Israelites?
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
^ hello seggy 😎
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
You asked why they were not allowed to join with women from other nations and I showed you word for word where it literally says why. Nothing to do with bloodline. First you were saying the father determines tribal identity and the mother determines nationality. How can a non-Israelite mother give an Israelite nationality? Makes no sense and the scriptures I've referenced demonstrate that, so now you're trying to say the mother just had to be Hebrew, yet there were a handful of other Hebrew nations that were not Israelite.
It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the differences between ethnicity, nation (state) and church. The concepts are very much related to each other. A non-Israelite woman can become Israelite through naturalization which involves conversion. Such a conversion is easier for women who are ethnically Hebrew i.e. Ammonite and Moabite than it is for an Egyptian. Because ethnic identity comes from the mother, the Hebrew children born after marriage are automatically Israelite. This was not the case for Asenath the Egyptian whose sons had to go through a ritual of adoption. The nation (state) of Israel is intimately tied to its religion which is the edah called in the Greek New Testament 'ecclesia' which means assembly or church. Membership in the edah is tied to membership in the nation. Once you are a member in the edah, there is a hierarchy or rank depending on tribal affiliation which comes from the father. Eleven tribes and their houses pay tithe and sacrificial tribute to the members of the tribe of Levi whose House of Aaron are the priests who conduct the services.
The religion of Judaism teaches since the division between man and God only a select are chosen for priesthood on behalf of the nations of the world. Among the sons of Noah, Shem was chosen, and among his descendants, the Hebrews were chosen, and among the Hebrews, the nation of Israel. Amongst the 12 tribes of Israel, the tribe of Levi did the sacred work which is why as a tribe they have no territory or chiefs of their own but are attached to the other tribes, and within the tribe of Levi the House of Aaron.
Moses was of the tribe of Levi but because his sons were born of a non-Hebrew mother although having honorary Levite status from their father, they never became part of Israel. This despite the fact that Moses is given credit as the Prophet who gave the laws that formed the new nation of Israel after the sojourn in Egypt. There is no record of the prophetess Miriam having a husband or children which suggests the theory that she may have been a hava minha (living offering) i.e. nun. So the only one left is Aaron who did marry and have children by Elisheba an Israelite of the tribe of Judah. Thus Aarons sons founded the priest clans who would make the direct offerings to God.
quote:You're just making it up as you go.
How so? I cite actual scripture. You do the same but distort its meaning.
quote:And the ritual Jacob did for Joseph's sons was not to make them Israelites, it was to adopt them as Jacob's own direct sons so that they would be on par with Jacob's actual direct sons instead of just being Jacob's grandsons. It was to give them a BLESSING and make them tribal heads.
"Even though Ephraim and Manasseh were Joseph’s sons, they were considered heads of two of the twelve tribes of Israel because Joseph’s father, Jacob (renamed in later life by God as “Israel”), adopted Ephraim and Manasseh as his own sons (Genesis 48:1-16)."
Yes because it was to offset the fact they are Gentile because of their non-Hebrew mother Asenath! Why would Jacob do this ritual for Joseph's sons but not his other sons?? Joseph was one of only two sons who married non-Hebrews. The other was Judah, but his patrimony went instead to his twin sons Zerah and Perez by his Hebrew daughter-in-law Tamar who tricked him into sleeping with her, but not to his surviving son Shelah whom he had by his Canaanite wife.
quote:Lastly, there's no question that the new covenant is for only the Israelites. You keep saying Christ changed this but I've shown you multiple times how even decades after Christ's death and resurrection, Paul was clearly stating all the blessings and promises belonged to the Israelites.
Then we have Hebrews 8:8 (also written after Christ's death) which says the new covenant is only for Israelites, as well as unfulfilled old testament prophecies that speak on how the Israelites are going to possess all non-Israelites in the new kingdom (Amos 9:11-12, etc.,)
You idiot, the New Covenant was for ALL people not just Israelites. I never said anything about Christ changing anything! Christ says HE is the fulfillment and the promise. Because the Israelites are the priests of the peoples, the covenant goes to them FIRST and then the Gentiles! That's why Jesus says "I have come to the sick of Israel first" Or when he said to the Canaanite woman who asked him to bless her sick child, "should the master feed his dogs before his children?" To which the Canaanite woman answered, "Yea, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table". But because of her faith in him, Jesus relented and gave his blessing. Thus his blessing is to ALL peoples starting with Israel. The first Church and the first Christians were all Judeans but Gentiles are to be grafted in. The Edah/Ecclesia (Church) is based on faith. Just because one is a Judean/Israelite does not mean he is part of the Edah if he has no faith.
Romans 11:13-22 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as first fruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
Now let's see you try to pervert the above. I don't know why you keep insisting on only Jews having the promise. So you believe that Jews have the promise for simply being physical Jews while there is no salvation for Gentiles?? If so, you sound like one of those Jews of the Zoharist sects. Even Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for claiming to have the blood of Abraham saying "God can turn these stones into men with the blood of Abraham".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Wow! He got caught red handed. By the way, Djehuti's comments to Taz are incoherent.
Who got caught??! Taz is a snake that either takes scripture too literal OR twists and perverts the meaning. How are my comments incoherent?? My statements are clear and I cite examples from the scriptures.
Don't fall into the snake pit with Taz.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It sounds to me like those disparate Jewish groups are getting a large proportion of their E1b1b from different sources (Sephardi from the Maghreb, Ashkenazi from Central Asia, and Mizrahi from Egypt etc.) instead of inheriting it all from one common ancestor.
Yes! The Ashkenazi Jews and their E1b1b could be general west med ancestry/ Italian derived as is the majority of the genetic ancestry in total.
You are correct that Ashkenazi of Central Europe entered through Italy as there are records of this migration as well as genetic evidence, however that does not explain why Ashkenazi carry the E-M34 form which is not endemic to North Africa, but on the other hand is only common to Southwest Asia. And while the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi are even more diverse than the paternal ones showing greater European clades, interestingly the only one associated with the Levant is hg L2b.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
I hope you realize that 85-90% of what you say is conjecture/rhetoric that you can't support with scripture. Which is why you hardly ever reference scripture.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti,: You idiot, the New Covenant was for ALL people not just Israelites. I never said anything about Christ changing anything! Christ says HE is the fulfillment and the promise. Because the Israelites are the priests of the peoples, the covenant goes to them FIRST and then the Gentiles! That's why Jesus says "I have come to the sick of Israel first" Or when he said to the Canaanite woman who asked him to bless her sick child, "should the master feed his dogs before his children?" To which the Canaanite woman answered, "Yea, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table". But because of her faith in him, Jesus relented and gave his blessing. Thus his blessing is to ALL peoples starting with Israel.
Christ never offered the canaanite woman salvation or an entrance into any covenant so why are you lying and adding to the scriptures? He called her and her daughter dogs, and gave her a CRUMB of bread (healing for her daughter) ONLY after she begged and acknowledged that she was below the Israelites, and that she only deserved crumbs.
The fact that you even try to use the scenario with the canaanite woman to support your argument shows that you don't even know that the unfulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament say no canaanites will be allowed in the house of God in the coming kingdom. Another cut to your false doctrine.
ZECHARIAH 14:21
"21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts."
I'm not going to keep going back and forth with someone who will read "all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered with water" and that God "killed all living flesh" but still try to convince people that the flood was local instead of global. Your mind has been diluted by secularity.
Not going to go back and forth with someone who gets shown word for word why God didn't want Israelites marrying women from different nations in Deuteronomy... only to then try making an excuse as to why that's not the reason why.
I'm not going to go back and forth with someone who thinks that Joseph's sons were not Israelites and who tries using the ritual Jacob did to bless them as a way to say they needed to be adopted to be considered Israelites.
You're so silly that you don't even know at least 2 of Jacob's/Israel's wives were of another nation/ethnicity yet the sons he had with those women were still considered Israelites and tribal patriarchs.
How were Jacob's/Israel's sons with those foreign women still considered Israelites and tribal patriarchs if the women were not Israelites you dummy? That alone debunks your entire false doctrine.
And for the last time, Paul himself said that all the blessings, promises, covenants, etc., belong to Israel in Romans 9:3-4.
***** Then you try to quote Romans 11 as all confused christians do, just because you see the word "gentile" there. You're obviously unaware of the fact that Israelite foreigners were referred to as gentiles/strangers in the new testament.
Next time, make sure you read ALL of Romans 11 for the complete context and conclusion.
ROMANS 11:26-27
"26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Tazarah are Native Americans Israelites?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
I hope you realize that 85-90% of what you say is conjecture/rhetoric that you can't support with scripture. Which is why you hardly ever reference scripture.
No. You are a delusional psychopath which is why I all I did is reference scripture but apparently all you did was ignore it.
quote:Christ never offered the Canaanite woman salvation. He called her and her daughter dogs, and gave her a CRUMB of bread (healing for her daughter) ONLY after she begged and acknowledged that she was below the Israelites.
LOL I never said he offered the woman salvation! The Canaanite woman asked to save her sick daughter and he gave it to her because of her faith! He did not call her a dog anymore than he called the Israelites children you nitwit! He compared himself to a master taking care of his household. A master feeds his children before his pets. His point was never to insult the woman but say that his blessing goes to fellow Israelites first but because her faith moved him, he blessed her child anyway.
quote:I'm not going to keep going back and forth with someone who will read "all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered with water" and "killed all living flesh" and still try to convince me that the flood was local instead of global. Your mind has been diluted by secularity.
And I don't care for an idiot who believes that flood water killed every creature and plant in the planet including the fish.
quote:Not going to go back and forth with someone who gets shown word for word why God didn't want Israelites marrying women from different nations in Deuteronomy... only try making an excuse as to why that's not the reason why.
I never contradicted the reasons given in Deuteronomy, liar. I merely added to the fact that their religion was tied to the ethnicity itself which is why Hebrew women were favored over non-Hebrew women and any non-Israelite women had to formally convert before marriage.
quote:I'm not going to go back and forth with someone who thinks that Joseph's sons were not Israelites and who tries. using the ritual Jacob did to bless them as a way to say they needed to be adopted to be considered Israelites.
Because you know you're wrong and can't explain the ritual called ben-achar-ben which the other grandchildren of Jacob did not go through because of maternal birthright of eemah.
quote:You're so silly that you don't even know at least 2 of Jacob's wives were of another nation/ethnicity yet the sons he had with those women were still considered Israelites.
How were Jacob's sons with those heathen women still considered Israelites if the women were not Israelites you dummy? That along debunks your entire false doctrine.
ROTFLMAO
No, you are too freaking stupid to know that there was no nation of Israel since Jacob the founder IS Israel and that his two wives from the nation of Aram were fellow Hebrews who were in fact his maternal cousins!! The 12 tribes of Israel were sons by his maternal cousins and 2 concubines who were their maidservants-- all Hebrews. I just cited a passage 2 pages ago where his mother tells him to marry from her family!
The only so-called "heathen" women were the non-Hebrews like the Canaanites. There were no Israelites at all because to be an Israelite means to be a part of the nation of Israel which did not exist until its founder Jacob/Israel established it through his offspring by his wives and concubines! LMAO
Now I see that I'm dealing with someone lacking rationality of thought and even basic sequential logic.
quote:And for the last time, Paul himself said that all the blessings, promises, covenants, etc., belong to Israel in Romans 9:3-4.
***** Then you try to quote Romans 11 as all confused Christians do, just because you see the word "gentile" there. You're obviously unaware of the fact that Israelite foreigners were referred to as gentiles/strangers in the new testament.
Next time, make sure you read ALL of Romans 11.
ROMANS 11:26-27
"26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."
LMAO Your perversion of scripture sees no bounds. So now "Gentile" refers to Jews also??! Even the talk about branches being torn off and new ones being grafted in does not talk about Jews being cut off for their un-godliness and Gentiles grafted in for their godliness??
And Scion the deliverer is Jesus you idiot! Israel refers to the spiritual Israel no longer confined to Jews alone but Gentiles which is why the Apostles-- all Jews went out to Gentiles and passed the apostolic rites to them! How do you explain the churches outside Israel??
Ladies and gentlemen of Egyptsearch behold another nitwit troll has shown his demented head.
I'm done.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
Exactly... Jacob's/ Israel's sons with the foreign women were still considered Israelites and tribal patriarchs which completely dismantles everything you said concerning the lineage not being solely paternal. In other words, the nation of Israel was formed via Jacob's/Israel's union with foreign women. His sons were 100% Israelite and tribal patriarchs.
Regarding the canaanite woman, I need you to explain Zechariah 14:21... because the fact that you even try to use the scenario with the canaanite woman to support your argument shows that you don't even know that the unfulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament say no canaanites will be allowed in the house of God in the coming kingdom. Another cut to your false doctrine.
ZECHARIAH 14:21
"21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts."
-----------
The entire olive tree parable is referring to Israel, genius. The branches that need to be grafted back in during the new testament era are the northern kingdom tribes of Israel.
JEREMIAH 11:16-17
"16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken. 17 For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal."
-----------
And yes, Israelites are referred to as gentiles in the NT. You didn't know this? Of course not. In corinthians, the target audience is told that they were (past tense) gentiles.
1 CORINTHIANS 12:1-2
"1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led." Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Like I said.... stick to "genetics".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
Exactly... Jacob's/ Israel's sons with the foreign women were still considered Israelites and tribal patriarchs which completely dismantles everything you said concerning the lineage not being solely paternal. In other words, the nation of Israel was formed via Jacob's/Israel's union with foreign women. His sons were 100% Israelite and tribal patriarchs.
WTF?!! Hey moron!! They weren't foreign women, they were his cousins from his mother's side of the family who were Hebrews!! Jacob and his family were foreign to Canaan where they lived, so to preserve the sanctity of his lineage he had to marry women from his family's ancestral home the same way his father Isaac did the same!! LOL
Your argument is lost and everything else you cite from the Bible you just pervert. You are nothing but a Bible pervert which is something common to cults who like to use the Bible for their own gains.
So in your case I suggest you leave the Bible alone since a sacred book must be interpreted properly.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
Can you read? I'm not talking about Leah and Rachel. If you were paying attention I said "at least 2 of Jacob's wives were foreign", not all of them (you even quoted me saying it a few comments ago). I'm talking about Leah and Rachel's slaves/handmaids, Zilpah and Bilhah, who eventually became Jacob's concubines. These women WERE NOT related to Jacob.
"Bilhah and Zilpah were slaves, not wives of a patriarch, but their descendants eventually became the Jewish people."
"The twelve tribes of Israel were conceived by four women. Two of them, Rachel and Leah, are lionized in history as the matriarchs of our people. They are so well known that in the list of the most popular American girls’ names, Rachel and Leah rank 235 and 61 respectively. Lesser known are the other two, Bilhah and Zilpah, mothers to Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Bilhah and Zilpah were originally Rachel and Leah’s handmaids, but when Rachel and Leah struggled to conceive, they proposed that Jacob marry and have children with their handmaids."
Your reading comprehension issues are now shining at the forefront, which explains a lot. Now run away and declare victory while refusing to deal with your misuse of the canaanite woman's situation, the olive tree and Israelites being referred to as gentiles in the new testament.
You know you've been cut when you start running away and accusing people of being in a cult just because you don't have any answers... lol. The christian church is the biggest cult in the world and that's the very institution you've gotten all this false, unbiblical doctrine from.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
This thread is going to get locked if it continues down this road.
Djehuti, stop taking the bait. I don't suggest you argue such subjective concepts. The trap you fell in was trying to ground the mythos of scripture written of a time thousands of years before inscription. Any arguments made in good faith or bad will be conjecture.
And considering the nature of the discussion and how we've moved away from both the OP (J2 represented by Israelites) and the contradictory nature of Tazarahs stance (E1b1b's representing true Israelite lineage) It'd behoove me to not ignore such a massive derailment if we also factor in the fact that there's nothing more to be learned from this back and forth.
Tazarah, your story of what happened from between 10Kya and 4Kya in the Levant doesn't make any sense.
I suggest you start a subscription with genetics before you comment and hold such a bold stance on the subject.
You suggested possible continuity in the region many times in this thread primarily relying on a quote from a geneticist (which you don't fully understand)
Yet you're primarily reliant on scripture, which states that the main descendants of Abraham, to be Israelites (biblical protagonist) were of Mesopotamia post flood
You also claimed the predominant paternal haplogroup among late Semitic speakers wasn't Mesopotamian, to try to prove a point. And your lack of understanding of genetics caused you to overlook the fact that there's a gap between the origin of the haplogroup and its chalcolithic and later bronze age distribution.
If simple things like this can't be touched on then there's no basis for these back and forths. Quit shuffling and ducking when addressed directly resorting to ad-hom and appeals to authorities you don't subscribe to (gentetics) or one's who's own wording you contradict (scripture).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
I agree the thread took a turn for the worse, but Djehuti is the one who like you said tried to say that J markers correlate with the Hebrew/Israelite Biblical narrative when that isn't true, and in reality if we are being honest, no haplgroups correlate with the Hebrew/Israelite Biblical narrative. No bait was provided by me or taken by him. He made the claim and I scrutinized it.
Also, probably most important of all: NOBODY HAS ABRAHAM'S DNA....... so literally any conversation about who his descendants are is speculation.
But in regards to the points I raised about haplogroup E -- I provided peer reviewed research from a government website saying that the natufians were the most likely judaean progenitors. I then provided ample research showing that E was present and dominant in the Levant area all the way from the time of the natufians to the end of the neolithic, when the direct ancestor(s) of the Hebrews (Eber) would have existed. Most importantly I also demonstrated with research that mesopotamian civilizations (where Abraham came from) were believed to have E markers.
So I beg to differ with your assesment of what I've said, especially since you keep talking about a "gap" in time even though I've already filled the gap with research that demonstrates E being in the Levant from the natufian period all the way until the end of the neolithic, as well as the fact that E is believed to have been a marker that mesopotamians had.
With that being said, if you haven't been keeping up with all the information being presented, then it doesn't make sense for you to make a judgement concerning the ability of someone to understand the topic.
You don't have to agree with me but let's stop pretending that there's some unfilled gap in time when it comes to the E markers.
Also, I never said this:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You also claimed the predominant paternal haplogroup among late Semitic speakers wasn't Mesopotamian, to try to prove a point.
....no idea why you feel the need to endlessly say I've done/said things that I've never done/said.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Tazarah, I didn't comment initially but I seen your posts. I know those sources very well.
E wasn't shown to be dominant at the end of the Neolithic. E was found in moderate frequency in PPNB individuals, they by the name, are not late neolithic individuals. They're quite early. Also there's still 3 thousand years to account for, between the late PPNB period and the Abraham. And even if what you said was correct, such continuity was relegated to the Levant area, not Mesopotamia. You're best bet was to link E with an Eastern-Semitic Expansion to Mesopotamia. I even gave you the hint with the inquiry about Akkadians, but it kinda went over your head. Instead your explanation only makes sense if it contradicts scripture.
So I'd have to ask again, that you try to understand what's being shown in these articles you're posting. And also speak with certainty and clarity when explaining what you think happened. for instance...
Why are you referring to these lineages as E and not the refined E1b1b?
Why are you not declaring Abraham was E1b1b if you believe the Natufians passed down the lineage of the patriarchs?
Why are you making statements about proto-Afroasiatic and not proto-Semitic when the former is almost twice as old and the latter predates biblical dating of Noah by around 2 thousand years?
Why are you not linking Semitic languages based on their genetic relationships within the Afro-Asiatic super-phyla?
Why do you ignore the fact that E doesn't dominate Arabs, They share patrilineage with Abraham according to the bible. And in real life their expansion corresponds with their distribution of J?
Why are you not giving estimations on E1b1b's frequency, pervasiveness or distribution in the caucauses or Southern Mesopotamia?
Why are you not addressing the African characteristics passed down with early possibly E-carriers whether genetic or physical? - Furthermore, the fact that African ancestry has been spotted as far as late Neolithic Armenia but has been utterly replaced by later expansion from elsewhere?
Why do you ignore E-lineages in Certain contemporary non-black Jews and why is it that their E lineages are not the very lineages that you're attributing to the patriarch if they happened to carry E? Think about this one.
After 10 pages of a thread where you were the predominant speaker, no one should be questioning you on these relatively simple facets.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
E is shorter than typing E1b1b, and there is no need to get specific about the subclade because J is not E.
And like I said, all haplogroups and their origin, etc., contradicts scripture. So not sure why you even mention that.
There is no 3,000 years to make up for because Eber, the ancestor of the Hebrews (and Abraham) have been alive during the end of the neolithic era, and before the bronze age.
You said a lot, but why are you ignoring the fact that Mesopotamians (where Abraham came from) were believed to have E?
I even highlighted that as the most important part of my previous comment to you.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
You don't have to agree with me but let's stop pretending that there's some unfilled gap in time when it comes to the E markers.
Also, I never said this:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You also claimed the predominant paternal haplogroup among late Semitic speakers wasn't Mesopotamian, to try to prove a point. [/qb]
This ain't you? : J did not originate in Mesopotamia, it was found in the caucusus before the Levant area. One could argue that Abraham's ancestors migrated from the caucusus since that's near the area where Noah's ark settled after the flood, but then the question arises: why don't all other haplogoups have an origin in the same area -- especially the haplogroups that came before J?
Tazarah in 4K
-- why? Stop playing a victim brother.
This point makes no sense, as J1 flooded Mesopotamia long before the flood. And yes the Ship likely was docked and disembarked from Ararat. That is a good point that can further suggest Noah was J by your own logic.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Elmaestro
E is shorter than typing E1b1b, and there is no need to get specific about the subclade because J is not E.
And like I said, all haplogroups and their origin, etc., contradicts scripture. So not sure why you even mention that.
There is no 3,000 years to make up for because Eber, the ancestor of the Hebrews (and Abraham) have been alive during the end of the neolithic era, and before the bronze age.
You said a lot, but why are you ignoring the fact that Mesopotamians (where Abraham came from) were believed to have E?
I even highlighted that as the most important part of my previous comment to you.
The latest PPNB individual carrying E is not of the late Neolithic.... They don't share that time period with Eber even if what you said was correct.
Abraham inherited his ancestry from his father not from "where he came from." be specific. Are you saying Akkadians share patrilineage with Abraham? if so how? if not which E-Lineages are you speaking of?
I think you're tapped brother, cool off and recoup.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ Ok, yes I said that, but the way you worded it made it sound different.
But I'm not the one who made that claim, I literally referenced a paper that said it.
And no, that would not make more sense according to my logic. Haplogroup E is older than J. Yet you suggest J came off the ark and was Noah. If that's the case then how does E exist if Noah and his son's would have been J, and E should have been wiped out in the flood?
Furthermore, I only referenced E's dominance and continuity in the levant to fill the gap that you kept claiming was unfilled, and I filled it. As I said in my previous comment, the most important point is that Mesopotamian civilizations (where Abraham came from) were believed to have E.
You keep conflating the two different points while at the same time failing to deal with the fact that mesopotamians were believed to have E.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
First you say this:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: This point makes no sense, as J1 flooded Mesopotamia long before the flood. And yes the Ship likely was docked and disembarked from Ararat. That is a good point that can further suggest Noah was J by your own logic.
Then you say this:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Abraham inherited his ancestry from his father not from "where he came from." be specific. Are you saying Akkadians share patrilineage with Abraham? if so how? if not which E-Lineages are you speaking of?.
.............. now that I demonsrated E was believed to be the marker that mesopotamians had, it's "not where Abraham came from" that matters.
Lmao.
Peep how the goalpost shifts. And instead of trying to hold me to a higher standard, can YOU demonstrate which J civilizations Abraham would have descended from like how you are requestiong from me?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
E was not "dominant" at the end of the Neolithic.... The samples you indirectly referenced existed before they even had pottery. They're called the Pre-pottery neolitic. There's no evidence that E dominated the region in the late neolithic when and where Eber lived. There is a 3 thousand year gap between the instance you referenced academically and the birth of Eber as well as a geographic one (Modern day Israel/Jordan and Ur, present day Iraq).
Why can't you understand?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: First you say this:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: This point makes no sense, as J1 flooded Mesopotamia long before the flood. And yes the Ship likely was docked and disembarked from Ararat. That is a good point that can further suggest Noah was J by your own logic.
Then you say this:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Abraham inherited his ancestry from his father not from "where he came from." be specific. Are you saying Akkadians share patrilineage with Abraham? if so how? if not which E-Lineages are you speaking of?.
.............. now that I demonsrated E was believed to be the marker that mesopotamians had, it's "not where Abraham came from" that matters.
Lmao.
Peep how the goalpost shifts.
You're getting desperate.
You made a point which damaged your previous suggestion and I pointed it out... I'm not moving the goal post, I'm widening it lol.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Can we stick to the topic of mesopotamians and how they were believed to have E? The mesopotamian civilizations would have been related to Abraham and the Hebrews right?
And for every request you make for me to link Abraham to E carrying civilizations in mesopotamia, can you do the same with J? Or are you just asking me to do it when you know that you can't even do it with J?
And no, you didn't damage anything with that assertion because as I pointed out:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: And no, that would not make more sense according to my logic. Haplogroup E is older than J. Yet you suggest J came off the ark and was Noah. If that's the case then how does E exist if Noah and his son's would have been J, and E should have been wiped out in the flood? .
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
So just to be clear, You believe that Mesopotamians who Noah was a stock of, carried an E lineage that was passed down directly from Natufians?
I'm just making sure I'm not putting words in your mouth. do you commit to this claim!?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I asked you a question. The Mesopotamians and Hebrews/Abraham would have been related, correct?
So are you asserting that Mesopotamians therefore had J markers since they would have descended from Noah's son Shem in the same way that Abraham and the Hebrews would have?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I asked you a question. The Mesopotamians and Hebrews/Abraham would have been related, correct?
Yes they are thanks in part to haplogroup J.
So how about my question?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Great, so it should be no problem for you to provide genetic sources saying that ethnic mesopotamians had J markers, correct?
Like the Akkadians, for example, since they would have been related to the Hebrews/Abraham, and since you believe J would have been Abraham and the Hebrews. Any information you can reference about them being J carriers?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: So just to be clear, You believe that Mesopotamians who Noah was a stock of, carried an E lineage that was passed down directly from Natufians?
Noah would not have been stock of the mesopotamians, the mesopotamians would have descended from Noah.
But to answer your question, I never made a connection between natufians and mesopotamians. Not saying there was or wasn't a connection -- when I dealt with the natufians and E continuity in the Levant, I kept that separate from anything I said about the mesopotamians.
But feel free to demonstrate how J carrying mesopotamians birthed Abraham and the rest of the Hebrews, the same way you are trying to get me to do with E.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Elmaestro, I've given up arguing with the guy. It's obvious he is disingenuous. It's not a matter of "subjective". He is a scriptural pervert who only eisegeses what he wants. So in Genesis when God speaks in hyperbole that "all flesh will be wiped out (except what is on the ark)" he says all animals (and plants?) in the entire globe was wiped out including fish that could survive in flood waters. Meanwhile in Romans when Paul addresses the Gentiles, all of a sudden he says these were Jews! LMAO
You cannot argue with someone so dishonest. Meanwhile he ignores other things like Ezra telling Judean men to divorce their foreign wives and disown their children but not the Judean women who did the same. That's because the children of Judean women are considered Judean by birth. This is why Genesis acknowledges the seed of the woman alongside the man but only the man's lineage is developed into a segmented system of tribe, clan, house etc. We discussed kinship before. That the Hebrews had bilateral descent is the reason why Solomon built the temple with the pillars Yachin and Boaz who were named after a great great grandfather from both Solomon's paternal and maternal side.
Anyway, getting back to genetics. The linguists estimate proto-Semitic to 6kya.
Yet the presence of E-M96 (E1b1b) in Southwest Asia goes back much farther than Proto-Semitic.
The E-M34 found in Ashkenazi Jews as well as Parsi Jews is also found in Ethio-Semites and is derived from E-M123 which in turn derived from E-Z830 which is also prevalent in Middle Eastern people today. The sister clade of E-Z830 is E-V257 which is prevalent in North Africa such as the subclade E-M81.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Tazarah Sure, I take this as a admission of defeat though. As you couldn't even answer a simple yes or no question out of fear of contradicting yourself. Also, trying to question me on Akkadians after saying this to me when I tried to give you the layup on page 4: is quite desperate. ...but eh, not a big deal, I'll take over from here, good try though.
quote:6The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. 7The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 8Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and 12Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.
Genesis 10 verses 6-12
While Scripture sort-of aligns with archaeology giving early African presence to Akkadians and Southern Mesopotamia, they do not have these guys as descendants of Shem, sorry. Shem most closely resembles the fathering of West Semitic languages and corresponding peopling/cultures.
Haplogroup J & Noah?
quote: In addition, the two Sidon_BA males carried the Y-chromosome haplogroups45 J-P58 (J1a2b) and J-M12 (J2b) (Tables 1 and S4; Figure S11), both common male lineages in the Near East today. Haplogroup J-P58 is frequent in the Arabian peninsula with proposed origins in the Zagros/ Taurus mountain region. It forms the vast majority of the Y chromosomes in southwestern Mesopotamia and reaches particularly high frequencies (74.1%) in Marsh Arabs in Iraq. On the other hand, haplogroup J-M12 is widespread at low frequency from the Balkans to India and the Himalayas, with Albanians having the highest pro- portions (14.3%).
10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.013
Neolithic individuals from Early Mesopotamia
quote:Because of missing data among informative SNPs, we could determine only the basal branch “CT” for two individuals (cay012 and cay033). While cay011 was placed onto the haplogroup G branch (supported by 10 derived variants above the branch and 2 derived variants at the assigned branch), the cay007 individual was assigned J2a1a (supported by 152 derived variants above the branch and 4 derived variants at the assigned branch).
10.1126/sciadv.abo3609
More context for J and G
quote:Armenia also contrasts with Anatolia, for which no R-M269 Y-chromosomes are observed at all during the Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, or Ancient (pre-Roman) periods [n =80 unrelated individuals; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0 to 4.5%] and in which haplogroups J (36 individ- uals) and G (17 individuals) are most common. Haplogroup J is still common at a frequency of about one-third in present-day people from Turkey (39), having achieved such prominence despite occurring in only in one in 18 Neolithic male individuals from Barcın and Ilıpınar in the Marmara region during the pre-Chalcolithic period. A likely explanation for the haplogroup J increase is that it accompanied the spread of Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry inferred by our admixture analysis (Fig. 2). This inference is made plausible by the fact that both Caucasus hunter-gatherer individuals from Kotias and Satsurblia (7)and a Mesolithic individual from Hotu Cave (10, 34)in Iran belonged to this lineage, suggesting its very old presence in the Caucasus/Iran region, and in contrast with haplogroup G, which occurred in the majority (10/18) of individuals from the Neolithic Marmara region. By
10.1126/science.abm4247
Also from this same study 3 Mesopotamian individuals got Y-DNA haplotype calls: Shanidar I3882 and I3883: Haplogroups G2a and F Nemrik I6457: Haplogroup J No E yet.
There's direct evidence that J has been there since the Neolithic. And much more evidence on Modern people that J has been in the region for a long time. As you quoted before there was an interruption in Mesopotamia possibly linked to Africans ala Egyptians (Scripture might've been wrong about Cush) bringing early Semitic influences at the time. So you were very smart to duck my question about direct links to the Raquefet Natufians. Cuz telling by your latest question you really had no clue.
So while Noah for example could have been haplogroup E, I see no compelling evidence for it yet. Especially not from you. In fact based on Scripture it is very compelling to believe that if he existed at the time he was dated to by Judeo-Christians and Islam, and the biblical testimant of his lineage was accurate, then he would likely belong to macrohaplogroup J.
Cause while it is true that Afro-Asiatic is likely African and Semitic was only adopted by J carriers, It is also true that such an adoption happened before the flood. It is also true that Noah's Lineage followed the dissemination of J both geographically and temporally. E spreads north, J spreads West and then south. Noah "populated earth" from the North. The Macrohaplogroup of the Arabs, decendants of Ishmael was highly likely J and during that window from the Neolithic to the bronze age, J had been dispersing in a traceable manor, with presence in Mesopotamia, Armenia/Anatolia and the levant by the chalcolithic. And following the bronze age J had entered Egypt which corresponds well with scripture. See Jacob and his sons.
...Class dismissed.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Elmaestro, I've given up arguing with the guy. It's obvious he is disingenuous. It's not a matter of "subjective". He is a scriptural pervert who only eisegeses what he wants. So in Genesis when God speaks in hyperbole that "all flesh will be wiped out (except what is on the ark)" he says all animals (and plants?) in the entire globe was wiped out including fish that could survive in flood waters. Meanwhile in Romans when Paul addresses the Gentiles, all of a sudden he says these were Jews! LMAO
You cannot argue with someone so dishonest. Meanwhile he ignores other things like Ezra telling Judean men to divorce their foreign wives and disown their children but not the Judean women who did the same. That's because the children of Judean women are considered Judean by birth. This is why Genesis acknowledges the seed of the woman alongside the man but only the man's lineage is developed into a segmented system of tribe, clan, house etc. We discussed kinship before. That the Hebrews had bilateral descent is the reason why Solomon built the temple with the pillars Yachin and Boaz who were named after a great great grandfather from both Solomon's paternal and maternal side.
Anyway, getting back to genetics. The linguists estimate proto-Semitic to 6kya.
Yet the presence of E-M96 (E1b1b) in Southwest Asia goes back much farther than Proto-Semitic.
The E-M34 found in Ashkenazi Jews as well as Parsi Jews is also found in Ethio-Semites and is derived from E-M123 which in turn derived from E-Z830 which is also prevalent in Middle Eastern people today. The sister clade of E-Z830 is E-V257 which is prevalent in North Africa such as the subclade E-M81.
Earlier on he didn't realize he was conflating Afro-Asiatic, the megaphyla with Semitic. I actually was tryna help really. but this is just getting out of hand.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Well the last couple of pages have swung wildly between genetics and myth.
I find this an interesting thesis
quote:Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era,[8] and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.[9] It is largely concluded that the Torah, the series of books that includes Genesis, was composed during the early Persian period, c. 500 BC, as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition of the Israelites.[10]
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
See this is the problem with people like you who read a few genetic papers, and then start thinking they know everything about everything else. You hold a "christian" Biblical doctrine while at the same time subscribing to evolution (genetics). A walking, talking contradiction.
The story in Ezra says nothing about those Israelite children with the foreign women being non-Israelite -- the problem with those children were that the foreign mothers corrupted them and caused them to stray away from God just like how he said in Deuteronomy 7:1-4. I've already pointed this out. According to your logic, Moses and Solomon's sons should have been outcasted for having foreign mothers but they weren't because that isn't what the scripture in Ezra is talking about.
***** Then, when it comes to the flood, you now want to talk about whether or not fish survived the flood as if that helps you argument about the flood being local. First of all, the scriptures about the flood say the earth was flooded. The earth = land (you pointed this out in your original comments, although you tried to say it was a local part of land). The earth does not encompass the oceans and seas, genius.
And even IF the fish survived, what in the hell does that have to do with human haplogroups if all the humans (all living flesh) on the EARTH were destroyed? Of course you have to now start throwing fish into the mix to make your argument look better because you already got manhandled when it comes to the fact that all humans were undeniably destroyed in the flood, according to God himself.
My God, I bet you went to college and got a nice education and all that yet these are the types of arguments you make.
You didn't even know Jacob had an additional 2 wives that were foreign or that the olive tree with broken branches is a parable for the nation of Israel. I notice you ran from those topics.
And now I have to school you on the term gentile and how it was also applied to Israelites in the new testament.
You ran from 1 Corinthians 12:2 as well where Paul says the target audience were (past tense) gentiles previously, meaning they were no longer gentiles. And there is also no mistaking that it's Israelites being referred to because in 1 Corinthians 10:1 Paul says that all of their forefathers were under the cloud with Moses in the wilderness after the red sea.
There are plenty scriptures to demonstrate Israelites being referred to as gentiles, in Romans, the same book you referenced, Paul says "our father Abraham pertaining to the FLESH" to the target audience (Romans 4:1) meaning that they were physical descendants of Abraham.
Here's an entry from the zondervan compact Bible dictionary, I tried finding a link to the ebook but couldn't. This is a photo of the hard copy. Notice how it says "gentiles" USUALLY means a non-Israelite people. Which means "gentile" does not always mean a non-Israelite. Tazarah did not write this book.
Here is even more evidence from both the old and new testament:
1 PETER 1:1
"1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the STRANGERS scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
*** As we already know, the word stranger is equal to foreigner or "Gentile". So who are these scattered "strangers" that Peter is referring to?Let's take a look at what James says in the book of James because he wrote a letter to these same people.
JAMES 1:1
"1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the TWELVE TRIBES which are SCATTERED abroad, greeting."
These are the same people that Peter wrote to but while Peter called them "Strangers", James referred to them as the 12 tribes of Israel.
Now let's keep going.
*** Where were the Israelites called Gentiles in the bible? Paul speaks about this in the book of Romans 9.
ROMANS 9:24
"24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Let's see who he is talking about.
ROMANS 9:25-26
"25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."
- Now these "gentiles" Paul is referring to are mentioned in Hosea 1:10-11 (Paul says "Osee" in Romans 9:25, which means Hosea) and these gentiles are identified as the "Children of Israel".
HOSEA 1:10-11
"10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. 11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel."
So we can clearly see that Paul referred to these Israelites as "Gentiles". Paul in Romans 9:26 and Hosea in Hosea 1:10 are speaking about the same exact people. This same quote can be found in 1 Peter 2:10.
1 PETER 2:10
"10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
Who had not obtained mercy, but now has? What it the other nations outside of Israel?
HOSEA 1:6
"6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away."
While God said that he would not have mercy on the house of Israel (Northern Kingdom), he eventually promised that he would have mercy on them in Hosea 2:23...
HOSEA 2:23
"23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God."
...and all of this finally comes to fruition through Christ in the New Testament.
MATTHEW 15:24
"24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
I'm glad you admit that you were trying to cause confusion and deceive me by throwing the Akkadians into the mix, claiming that you were trying to help and "throw me a layup". Good thing I'm not an idiot and I know a setup when I see one. You actually ended up shooting yourself in the foot here.
First of all, Lisa already pointed out earlier in the thread that Accad (Akkadians) descend from Ham's son Cush. So of course they were not descendants of Shem. And I myself already knew this as well. I only brought them up again to see how long you were going to continue trying to BS your way into a "victory" by attempting to cause intentional confusion.
But the thing is, you yourself just acknowledged that Accad was an "african" descendant of Cush, who was the direct son of Ham, who was the direct son of Noah. This would mean that Noah (Ham's father) was one of Cush's and Accad's (Akkadians) recent grandfathers. According to the genetic methodology you subscribe to, this would mean they all had the same Y-DNA. If Accad was E, this would have to mean all his forefathers were E as well, including Ham and Noah. So how in the hell would Noah be J, and giving out J markers if his most recent and direct descendants had E?
And how would Shem have a different Y marker than his brother Ham and Father Noah?
From a genetic viewpoint it would make more logical sense that they were all E and had the same DNA, but again, this is why I do not subscribe to this madness especially when it comes to trying to reconcile it with the Bible.
****** Lastly, I specifically asked you for evidence of an ETHNIC mesopotamian having J markers and what do you do? You provide information about individual samples from the region. I knew this is what you would do and that's exactly why I mentioned the word ethnic.
So let's hold you to the same standard you hold me to -- what mesopotamian civilization did these samples come from (Assyrian? Amorite)? Who were their progenitors and descendants? Etc.
This is the same thing you guys are doing with the "Israelite" sample in the OP.
"Look, J was found in Israel at xyz time period!!!! This must mean that it was an ethnic Israelite just because it was found there in Israel!!!" Even though most people know that plenty different races of people lived in ancient Israel.
According to that logic, any J markers found in ancient China must mean that the J marker found was ethnically chinese.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Look, J was found in Israel at xyz time period!!!! This must mean that it was an ethnic Israelite just because it was found there in Israel!!!" Even though most people know that plenty different races of people lived in ancient Israel.
According to that logic, any J markers found in ancient China must mean that the J marker found was ethnically Chinese.
The Israelites could have been E or J or even T or or something else.
You have no genetic evidence to exclude any of these > but that is what you have tried to do since page 1
Occam's razor is the principle that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one (although not always correct every time)
So if you dig up some ancient bodies in a place you would assume they are local until something clued otherwise.
So if you are in Arabia and discover ancient J and E there it would be expected but if it was O it would look like it might be out of place
So you dig up some other places and don't find any more O it raises the possibility of a foreigner
But if you found O again in more places it raises the possibility that they were a native population that might not resemble the present one
So at a few different Bronze age sites in Israel at or before the Israelites they found J, E, T and R so it looks like all those people were around at that time and any one of them could be Israelites (or possibly more than one if at that time they were not super-strict about a patrilineal lines) Thus you are hypocritical to declare 5 Natufians in a one cave to be ancestors of the Israelites on the basis of DNA
You want to exclude the J carriers because you hate Ashekenazi Jews because many of them carry this haplogroup, be honest, you hate them and argue God hates them too. I have heard people like you argue "I don't hate them, God hates them" and then they start citing Esau like you did
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ I don't hate anybody, and I've never said that you liar.
Look at you trying to tell me what I think and how I feel.
According to your logic, everybody in here (including ashkenazi jewish people) hates black people because they say E markers are not Israelite.
See how stupid that sounds? You probably don't.
Ashkenazi also carry E in large numbers in case you didn't know.
But thanks for admitting that no Y markers can be excluded, maybe you should tell that to Elmaestro and Djehuti instead of obsessing over me 24/7.
Like I've said multiple times, nobody has Abraham>Isaac>Jacob's DNA so everything that everyone is saying (including myself) is speculation.
You are a troll, always hypocritically worrying and obsessing about what I say and think when the people I go back and forth with have the same position, just inverted.
Stop pretending to be a black woman.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^^^ I don't hate anybody, and I've never said that you liar.
you hate them to the core, your whole camp are liars
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Ashkenazi also carry E in large numbers in case you didn't know.
You hate all of them > you don't believe in genetics
"we are not hate group" of course they are, just like KKK
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ what "camp" am I in you idiot?
I'm not in any camps you lying lunatic, stop obsessing over me 24/7 and telling lies.
I'm not apart of any camp nor have I ever been. Get a life and stop trying to tell me who I hate.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
To Elmaestro and others with some sense, when you try to conflate Biblical genealogies with language groups let alone genetics you run into all kinds of problems.
For example, according the Book of Nations Elam is a son of Shem. If one equates Shem with Semitic, the problem is that Elamites were not Semitic speakers but spoke a language of an entirely different family. One must wonder then if there were Semitic speakers in Elam and/or that the ancestors of the Hebrews were genetically related to the Elamites but adopted Semitic language. Though as Swenet pointed out, E-M96 is found as far east as India.
Then you have Nimrod who is a son of Cush (who was son of Ham) and as was pointed out founded Akkad, Calneh, and other cities in Mesopotamia. So according to the Bible there is a Hamitic-Cushite presence in that area.
What language did Nimrod speak? What was his genomics. Again we can only infer what archaeology tells us and not just jump to conclusions.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
I just realized the reason why you don't like camps and obsess over them so much is because they talk about white people and YOU are a white man who has pretending to be a black woman.
Imagine having to lie on me and say I'm in a camp and that I hate jewish people. Seriously, get a life
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Dhejuti
Elmaestro is the one who quoted the scripture about the Akkadians and said they weren't descendants of Shem, not me. Lol, you guys sure are a wild bunch.
Language aside, they akkadians were believed to have E markers and were very recent descendants of Noah.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Ashkenazi also carry E in large numbers in case you didn't know.
Apparently not that large.
You have yet to explain why the modal cohen marker is J1 not E. If we are to identify cohen men as descendants of Aaron, that would make him and is brother Moses J carriers not E.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
I thought I read that it was more (same with sephardim) but I must have been mistaken. Regardless, that doesn't mean I hate them. Do they (or anyone else) hate black people when they claim E is not Israelite and that it is "sub-saharan african"?
Regarding the "Cohen" marker, do we have Aaron's DNA to confirm that this is what he had?
.........
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Ashkenazi also carry E in large numbers in case you didn't know.
Apparently not that large.
You have yet to explain why the modal cohen marker is J1 not E. If we are to identify cohen men as descendants of Aaron, that would make him and is brother Moses J carriers not E.
^^what is the source of that
compare:
Here Portuguese total E is 8.7% Ashkenazis in various studies 16-23% E
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Portuguese crypto-Jews: the genetic heritage of a complex history Inęs Nogueiro1, et al.
Data from the Iberian Peninsula, the original geographic source of Sephardic Jews, is limited to two populations in Portugal, Belmonte, and Bragança district, and the Chueta community from Mallorca. Belmonte was the first Jewish community studied for uniparental markers.
Y Chromosome in Sephardic Portuguese Jews The profile of male lineages in Portugal was drafted in a study comprising 663 male samples from the 18 administrative districts of Portugal and a typical western European composition was demonstrated by the high frequencies of haplogroups R1b1a-M269 (57.7%), I-M170 (6.1%), G-M201 (5.5%), and E1b1b-M81 (5.6%), as well as a Middle Eastern influence, denoted by the presence of J-12f2.1 lineage (10.4%; Beleza et al., 2006). Possible Sephardic contributions to this genetic pool were also addressed in some reports (Goncalves et al., 2005; Pacheco et al., 2005) but very little was known about the Portuguese Jews, even though, in a large scale study of the Iberian genetic diversity, very few Jewish male samples from Belmonte were analyzed (Adams et al., 2008).
The genetic profile of the Portuguese Jewish and non-Jewish male lineages can be seen in Figure 2. The Y chromosome SNPs analyzed allowed the definition of just three different lineages in Belmonte Jews: eleven individuals were classified as J-12f2.1, four as R1b1a-M269 and one as G-M201, with a frequency of 68.8, 25 and 6.2% respectively. The analyses of the STRs DYS19, DYS388, DYS389I-II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS438, DYS439, DYS385a, and DYS385b revealed a total of only four distinct haplotypes. In the R1b1a-M269 haplogroup two different haplotypes were detected, diverging one from the other by one mutation step (DYS389II), inside the J-12f2.1 haplogroup all the eleven individuals presented exactly the same haplotype, reflecting very low levels of genetic diversity among this Jewish community.
A completely different picture of the Portuguese male Jewish lineages was, however, brought to light when the descendants of the crypto-Jews from Bragança district were analyzed (Nogueiro et al., 2010). In this study, 57 unrelated self-designated Jewish males from the Northeast Portugal (Bragança, Argozelo, Carçăo, Mogadouro, and Vilarinho dos Galegos) were selected, using a combination of geographic, religious ethno-historical and affiliation criteria.
The SNPs typed allowed the discrimination of 10 different haplogroups and the analysis of the Y-STR loci revealed 41 different haplotypes. The most frequent haplogroups found were R1b1a-M269, J-12f2.1, and T-M70, adding up to 80.7% of the total sample (Figure 2).
The effect of genetic drift in an isolated, small sized population could explain the high frequency found in Bragança for lineages typically predominant in other Jewish populations, such as J-12f2.1 (36.8%) and T-M70 (15.8%). However, the high haplogroup diversity combined with the high (intra-haplogroup) haplotypic diversity are extremely surprising, as they show exactly the opposite of what is expected, namely a deep genetic diversity loss. Although inbreeding practices were sustained by the Portuguese crypto-Jewish communities, in the light of the obtained results it seems that its effects were less pronounced in the Bragança district compared to Belmonte, due probably to complex mating strategies and/or a very heterogeneous genetic pool in their origin.
Haplogroup J-12f2.1 has a Middle Eastern origin and includes two groups, the J1-M267 and the J2-M172. Lineage J2-M172 is more common and is widely spread over Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean basin (Semino et al., 2004). Haplogroup J-12f2.1 presents a decreasing gradient from its origin toward Europe and is associated with the demic diffusion of the Neolithic farmers (Underhill et al., 2001; Semino et al., 2004) and also to more recent events, such as the Phoenician maritime migrations along the Mediterranean (Hammer et al., 2000; Di Giacomo et al., 2004; Zalloua et al., 2008).
This haplogroup is referred to as being predominant in diverse referenced Jewish populations (Hammer et al., 1997, 2000; Nebel et al., 2001; Adams et al., 2008), reaching in Sephardic Jews, frequencies above 40% (Semino et al., 2004; Adams et al., 2008). While in Portugal it accounts for 3.4% of J-12f2.1 and 7% of J2-M172 lineages (Beleza et al., 2005) in the Portuguese Jews, it reached values of 68.2% for J-12f2.1 in Belmonte, 12.3% and 24.5% for J1-M267 and J2-M172 respectively, in the Bragança district.
The high frequencies of J-12f2.1 haplogroup found in both groups of Portuguese Jews, compared to the non-Jewish Portuguese host population, could therefore represent part of the genetic pool of the ancestral Sephardic population that established the first Jewish settlements in Portugal. For this lineage, again, no exact matches were found between the haplotypes of Belmonte and Bragança district. Three mutational steps apart, one haplotype of Belmonte matches five individuals from Bragança, Carçăo, Argozelo, and Vilarinho dos Galegos.
The presence of the mutation M70 defines haplogroup T. Its origin is attributed to the Middle East (Underhill et al., 2001) and from there it spread along the Mediterranean and East Africa. It is a rather rare haplogroup, displaying a global frequency of around 1% (King et al., 2007), but nonetheless it is found at quite high frequencies in Sephardic Levites (23%) and Sephardic Israelis (13%; Behar et al., 2004).
In Portugal it accounts for just 1.6% (Beleza et al., 2006) but reaches 15.8% in Bragança district Jews, being absent in the Belmonte samples. This lineage probably represents a relic of the original Sephardic male genetic pool, since it appears with similar frequencies in Israeli Sephardic Jews, but is quite rare in the Mediterranean coast and in Iberia.
Several other haplogroups were detected in the NE Portuguese Jews with residual frequencies, namely E1b1b-M78 with 3.5%, E1b1b-M81 with 5.2%, I-M170with 3.5% R1b1-P25 with 1.8%, R1a-SRY10831.2 with 1.8%, and G-M201 with 3.5%.
G-M201 was also detected in Belmonte (6.2%) at about the same frequency as in the non-Jewish Portuguese population. Adams et al. (2008) suggested that this haplogroup could reveal an introgression of Sephardic Jews into the Iberian population. However, the estimated age for this lineage in Portugal (Beleza et al., 2005) is consistent with its introduction during the Neolithic and the results of relative frequencies and STR variance inside this lineage from Adams et al. (2008) does not allow the definition of the gene flow direction.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:
Genesis 11 KJV
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Genesis 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
Nehemiah 9:7 Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
Unlike the East Semitic Akkadian-speaking Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians, whose ancestors had been established in Mesopotamia since at least the 30th century BC, the Chaldeans were not a native Mesopotamian people, but were late 10th or early 9th century BC West Semitic Levantine migrants to the southeastern corner of the region, who had played no part in the previous 3,000 years or so of Sumero-Akkadian and Assyro-Babylonian Mesopotamian civilization and history.
The ancient Chaldeans seem to have migrated into Mesopotamia sometime between c. 940–860 BC, a century or so after other new Semitic arrivals, the Arameans and the Suteans, appeared in Babylonia, c. 1100 BC. According to Ran Zadok, they first appear in written record in cylinder inscriptions of the King of Mari Aššur-ketta-lēšir II (late 12th-early 11th century BC), which record them reaching Messopotamia as early as the 11th century BC. They later appear in the annals of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III during the 850s BC. This was a period of weakness in Babylonia, and its ineffectual native kings were unable to prevent new waves of semi-nomadic foreign peoples from invading and settling in the land.
Though belonging to the same West Semitic speaking ethnic group and migrating from the same Levantine regions as the earlier arriving Aramaeans, they are to be differentiated; the Assyrian king Sennacherib, for example, carefully distinguishes them in his inscriptions.
The Chaldeans were for a time able to keep their identity despite the dominant native Assyro-Babylonian (Sumero-Akkadian-derived) culture although, as was the case for the earlier Amorites, Kassites and Suteans before them, by the time Babylon fell in 539 BC, perhaps before, the Chaldeans ceased to exist as a specific race of people.
In the Hebrew Bible, "Ur of the Chaldees" (Ur Kaśdim) is cited as the starting point of the patriarch Abraham's journey to Canaan.
Language Ancient Chaldeans originally spoke a West Semitic language similar to the ancient Aramaic language.[20] During the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III introduced an Eastern Aramaic dialect as the lingua franca of his empire in the mid-8th century BC. As a result of this innovation, in late periods both the Babylonian and Assyrian dialects of Akkadian became marginalized, and Akkadian influenced Mesopotamian Aramaic took its place across Mesopotamia, including among the Chaldeans, and later, also the Levant. One form of this once widespread Aramaic language was used in some books of the Hebrew Bible (the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra). The use of the name "Chaldean" (Chaldaic, Chaldee) to describe it, first introduced by Jerome of Stridon (d. 420),[21] became common in early Aramaic studies, but that misnomer was later corrected, when modern scholars concluded that the Aramaic dialect used in the Hebrew Bible was not related to the ancient Chaldeans and their language
"Chaldea" came to be used in a wider sense, of Southern Mesopotamia in general, following the brief ascendancy of the Chaldeans during 608–557 BC. This is especially the case in the Hebrew Bible, which was substantially composed during this period (roughly corresponding to the period of Babylonian captivity). The Book of Jeremiah makes frequent reference to the Chaldeans (King James Version Chaldees following LXX Χαλδαίοι; in Biblical Hebrew as Kasdîm כַּשְׂדִּים). Book of Habakkuk 1:6 calls them "that bitter and hasty nation" (הַגֹּוי הַמַּר וְהַנִּמְהָר). Book of Isaiah 23:13 DRB states, “Behold the land of the Chaldeans, there was not such a people, the Assyrians founded it: they have led away the strong ones thereof into captivity, they have destroyed the houses thereof, they have brought it to ruin.
Name The name Chaldaea is a latinization of the Greek Khaldaía (Χαλδαία), a hellenization of Akkadian māt Kaldu or Kašdu, suggesting an underlying /kaɬdu/.[5] The name appears in Hebrew in the Bible as Kaśdim (כשדים)[6] and in Aramaic as Kaśdāy (כשדי).
In the Bible (Book of Genesis 22:22), the name "Kesed"(כשׂד, ancient pronunciation /kaɬd/[10]) , the singular form of "Kasdim"(כַּשְׂדִּים), meaning Chaldeans. Kesed is identified as son of Abraham's brother Nahor (and brother of Kemuel the father of Aram), residing in Aram Naharaim. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) also links Arphaxad and Chaldaea, in his Antiquities of the Jews, stating, “Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans.”
( a lot more at link)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ still doesn't explain why Noah's recent descendants (for example the akkadians) are believed to have had E markers.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ still doesn't explain why Noah's recent descendants (for example the akkadians) are believed to have had E markers.
believed by who?
that's silliness there is a lot more reading to be done, plus the below, the whole thing not just the snippet
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
More in depth about the ancestry of Abraham. This is a long one with a lot of detail You could skip to the conclusions sections the last two paragraphs of it
quote: All things considered, I am in agreement with one archaeologist’s cautious assessment. “Woolley and others quickly linked [Tell el-Muqayyar] to the biblical ‘Ur of Chaldees,’” writes Eric Cline. The fundamental problem, however, is that “there were several sites in the ancient Near East that had the name Ur, just as there are many cities and towns in the United States today with the name ‘Troy,’ and it is not clear which city named Ur, if any, is to be associated with Abraham, just as none of the cities in the United States are actually associated with the original Trojan War.”127 The arguments for placing Abraham’s Ur in the north are rather enticing and, coupled with the added details provided in the book of Abraham, should not be dismissed lightly. Indeed, I am personally compelled in that direction in the search to locate Abraham’s Ur. But the evidence at this point, admittedly, does not definitively settle the debate one way or the other.
Additionally, even if it disputes the conclusions codified by Woolley, the book of Abraham should be given more than incidental deference as admissible evidence in this discussion. I therefore think the wisest course for now is caution and open-mindedness. The latter is especially crucial, for if we are going to satisfactorily answer this question, we must be willing to admit new evidence into the discussion if or when it surfaces, no matter how much it might challenge the scholarly consensus or a venerated tradition.
“In the Land of the Chaldeans” The Search for Abraham’s Homeland Revisited
Stephen O. Smoot is a graduate student at the University of Toronto, where he studies Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations with a concentration in Egyptology. He previously received bachelor’s degrees in Ancient Near Eastern Studies and German Studies from Brigham Young University. His work on biblical and Latter-day Saint topics has appeared in such venues as the Religious Studies Center at BYU, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and the Interpreter Foundation.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
Experts, with more authority, credentials and experience than you.
Even Elmaestro asserted or implied that akkadians had E markers, but that they had nothing to do with Hebrews or Israelites since the akkadians would be descendants of Noah's grandson Cush. But what that ended up also demonstrating is that Noah's most recent descendants were believed to have E markers, which would logically entail that Shem did as well as Noah himself.
IF we follow genetic methodology.
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
stop the nonsense:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
First of all, Lisa already pointed out earlier in the thread that Accad (Akkadians) descend from Ham's son Cush. So of course they were not descendants of Shem. And I myself already knew this as well. I only brought them up again to see how long you were going to continue trying to BS your way into a "victory" by attempting to cause intentional confusion.
flip-flopping more than a fish out of water
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Were you looking in the mirror when you said that? Going along with Elmaestro's setup is not "flip flopping". You should know that because you actually flip flop better than anyone on this site.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
Experts, with more authority, credentials and experience than you.
this comment is of an appeal-to-authority mentality of a religious fanatic
And> I posted several articles by people with more expertise and you simply ignore them.
And there are multiple different theories that are not in accord with each other all by experts, do you not know this?
We all believe in genetics here but anytime after you trying to make genetics based arguments, you remind us that you don't believe in genetics (escape hatch of the forked tongued)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ I'm glad you said this, especially the last part. It's all just theory and nobody is 100% certain. Nor can we be 100% certain.
I think you meant to say you believe in theories that can't be 100% substantiated.
At least I admit I don't buy into it.
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
There's nothing wrong with me pointing out the inconsistencies in what you believe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
Do I need to quote you and then put the above below it and the two fitting like a glove?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
Sure, just make sure you also include a quote of each time I said this is all speculation because nobody has Abraham's DNA
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
You weren't even inquisitive enough to investigate and realize that the J samples of my post were of a 10,000 year old stretch from the 9-8th millenia BC to modern times. That's from the early Neolithic till now. The E markers suggested to have gone to Mesopotamia were Early-Mid bronze age. You have been posting evidence suggesting E wasn't native this whole time. Still we on page 10 you couldn't see the bones I tossed at you smh.
You lost. Stop spamming the thread with information you don't know. Get some rest and study up then restate your opinions or open another thread where you can debate scripture.
Till now you've only helped me realize how realistic it was for Abraham and his many sons to carry macrohaplogroup J
Please don't waste the post count of this thread playing the victim.
//MOD Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
I don't have time to hunt for your easter eggs.
You completely ignored the main point I made in my last response to you about the akkadians supposedly having E markers and how they were recent descendants of Noah (according to the Biblical narrative), which would mean they would have gotten it from him (according to genetic methodology). I mean, you yourself said the akkadians were "african", but ok fam.
And yes, I asked for evidence of ethnic mesopotamians having J because you agreed mespotamians would have been related to the Hebrews/Israelites and Abraham. But you produced no evidence of ethnic mesopotamians having J and are now criticizing me for asking for that evidence, even though you agreed to provide it.
Lastly, 90% of the comments I left in this thread were in response to comments that people made addressing me and engaging me; I don't spam. Am I supposed to not respond to them? Then I would get accused of running away. Claiming that I "don't know what I'm posting" when you don't even address the core points, and have admit to putting words in my mouth on more than one occasion, is funny.
But of course you make the rules and can accuse me of playing victim even though not everybody here even agrees with you. And of course you can declare victory and silence someone whenever you want. So with that being said, shalom.
P.S.......... as Doug intelligently pointed out, and as I have also pointed out: nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Elmaestro
You completely ignored the main point I made in my last response to you about the akkadians supposedly having E markers and how that would relate to them being recent descendants of Noah, which would mean they would have gotten it from him, but ok fam.
And yes, I asked for evidence of ethnic mesopotamians having J because you agreed mespotamians would have been related to the Hebrews/Israelites and Abraham.
Lastly, 90% of the comments I left in this thread were in response to comments that people made addressing me and engaging me; I don't spam.
But of course you make the rules, so shalom.
This response is spam because these points were already addressed and simply restating them doesn't add anything but confusion to the thread.
J had a longstanding history in Mesopotamia since the time E was so called "dominant in the Levant". It dominated the region and had been there since before Abraham, Shem, or Noah... 8000 BC. And yet you question their ethnicity, smh.
Your main point about Akkadians had been addressed. It was addressed before you even knew about them. Do some research on the archaeology of Akkadians and check if the early Semitic settlers were outliers or not. Until you do at least that, I won't take anything you say on the subject seriously. As you yourself admitted you are not qualified to talk about the subject matter.
Also I don't make the rules, I enforce em.
Stop spamming please //Mod Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
I asked you specifically to provide evidence of ethnic mespotamian civilizations possessing J markers, and you agreed to do it but didn't. In other words, an actual mesopotamian civilization (by name) that had J markers. Not individual samples. Once again: you agreed to do it but didn't, and now when I point this out your excuse is that I'm "doubting their ethnicity".
Your reponse about the akkadians doesn't make sense when we consider the fact that they were recent descendants of Noah through Ham according to the Bible, and they were believed to have E markers and were "african" according to you. Doesn't matter how long they had "been around" because they would have inherited that DNA from their ancestor(s) (Noah, etc.). Neither does a comment that I left days ago have any relevance to their Y-DNA.
But I think I'm done now, it's honestly pointless to continue going back and forth at this point when nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA, and especially when I'm starting to get censored and threatened for pointing all of these things out.
Shalom, no hard feelings. SECOND WARNING. the nature of this post is SPAM, See comment below.
[ 13. November 2023, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Elmaestro
I asked you specifically to provide evidence of ethnic mespotamian civilizations possessing J markers, and you agreed to do it but didn't. In other words, an actual mesopotamian civilization (by name) that had J markers. Not individual samples. Once again: you agreed to do it but didn't, and now when I point this out your excuse is that I'm "doubting their ethnicity".
Your reponse about the akkadians doesn't make sense when we consider the fact that they were recent descendants of Noah through Ham according to the Bible, and they were believed to have E markers and were "african" according to you. Doesn't matter how long they had "been around" according to you. Because they would have inherited that DNA from their ancestor(s). Neither does a comment that I left days ago have any relevance to their Y-DNA.
But I think I'm done now, it's honestly pointless to continue going back and forth at this point when nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA, and especially when I'm starting to get censored and threatened for pointing all of these things out.
Shalom, no hard feelings.
Heh, Provide proof that actual Akkadians had E markers and I won't treat this comment as spam. Let's get some actual E possessing Akkadians, not TMRCA's from Modern samples. Hold yourself to the same bogus standard.
1 inane post removed
Please don't spam the thread.
//MOD Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Did you just delete my new comment?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Thanks DJ for being a good ambassador of your faith (though I remember you said you're not a religious person). What's going down here reminds me of a certain embarrassing Christian group in the US coming to the national bible quiz in my country and even losing to the Muslim contestants. They scored even worse than the atheist contestants (who only know the bible from lingering Christian traditions in this country).
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Your main point about Akkadians had been addressed. It was addressed before you even knew about them. Do some research on the archaeology of Akkadians and check if the early Semitic settlers were outliers or not. Until you do at least that, I won't take anything you say on the subject seriously.
The mind boggling audacity of bringing up Akkadians and Mesopotamian E as something that he specifically introduced, and is teaching us about. He actually said that "everyone was ignoring Y-DNA E from Mesopotamia" that he only posted in the last couple of thread pages (note the victim complex he has, where everyone is against him). But he only posted this after several people had already spoken on the subject, starting from page 1 in this thread.
Some people will literally copy your arguments and not only fail to attribute you, but use it against you as something you need to be educated on. Just let it sink in how pathetic that is.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
^^Yikes...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks DJ for being a good ambassador of your faith (though I remember you said you're not a religious person). What's going down here reminds me of a certain embarrassing Christian group in the US coming to the national bible quiz in my country and even losing to the Muslim contestants. They scored even worse than the atheist contestants (who only know the bible from lingering Christian traditions in this country).
The reason why I've been so adamant about correcting his misinterpretations to downright perversion of scriptures is because there is already a lot of division amongst Christians as it is with all the denominations and such, but as you say too many Christians are ignorant about their own religion which leads to other problems. And by other problems not just apostasy but heresy which is even worse. It's worse because heresy is what lead to not only all these divisions and sects in Christianity but especially all these bizarre cults. Without proper doctrine based on the traditions of the church itself, you get all these Biblical perverts including literal sexual perverts like LDS and other sects with polygamy and who knows what else. Without proper doctrinal guidance, one can use the bible to justify almost anything. Are you aware that there are those you use Deuteronomy to justify pedophilia the type found in Islam ala Aisha's marriage??
By the way, more and more research is coming out showing that Islam as we know it today is also a perversion of an original Judeo-Christian Arab religion, but that's another story.
I never wanted this to become a religious argument so much as a historical one because despite the many claims to the contrary the Bible does indeed have a lot of historicity to it.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
Exactly... Jacob's/ Israel's sons with the foreign women were still considered Israelites and tribal patriarchs which completely dismantles everything you said concerning the lineage not being solely paternal. In other words, the nation of Israel was formed via Jacob's/Israel's union with foreign women. His sons were 100% Israelite and tribal patriarchs.
What "foreign" women are you talking about??! LOL Which women were described as foreign?? None of Jacob's wives were described as foreign, yet you say they are. And when Paul addressed "Gentiles" you say he was addressing Jews! LOL It's like forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
Yea... Lets not slur other people's religions here. I do agree that without proper doctrine we do get a lot of mess.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Genesis 11 KJV
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Genesis 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
Nehemiah 9:7 Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
Unlike the East Semitic Akkadian-speaking Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians, whose ancestors had been established in Mesopotamia since at least the 30th century BC, the Chaldeans were not a native Mesopotamian people, but were late 10th or early 9th century BC West Semitic Levantine migrants to the southeastern corner of the region, who had played no part in the previous 3,000 years or so of Sumero-Akkadian and Assyro-Babylonian Mesopotamian civilization and history.
The ancient Chaldeans seem to have migrated into Mesopotamia sometime between c. 940–860 BC, a century or so after other new Semitic arrivals, the Arameans and the Suteans, appeared in Babylonia, c. 1100 BC. According to Ran Zadok, they first appear in written record in cylinder inscriptions of the King of Mari Aššur-ketta-lēšir II (late 12th-early 11th century BC), which record them reaching Messopotamia as early as the 11th century BC. They later appear in the annals of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III during the 850s BC. This was a period of weakness in Babylonia, and its ineffectual native kings were unable to prevent new waves of semi-nomadic foreign peoples from invading and settling in the land.
Though belonging to the same West Semitic speaking ethnic group and migrating from the same Levantine regions as the earlier arriving Aramaeans, they are to be differentiated; the Assyrian king Sennacherib, for example, carefully distinguishes them in his inscriptions.
The Chaldeans were for a time able to keep their identity despite the dominant native Assyro-Babylonian (Sumero-Akkadian-derived) culture although, as was the case for the earlier Amorites, Kassites and Suteans before them, by the time Babylon fell in 539 BC, perhaps before, the Chaldeans ceased to exist as a specific race of people.
In the Hebrew Bible, "Ur of the Chaldees" (Ur Kaśdim) is cited as the starting point of the patriarch Abraham's journey to Canaan.
Language Ancient Chaldeans originally spoke a West Semitic language similar to the ancient Aramaic language.[20] During the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III introduced an Eastern Aramaic dialect as the lingua franca of his empire in the mid-8th century BC. As a result of this innovation, in late periods both the Babylonian and Assyrian dialects of Akkadian became marginalized, and Akkadian influenced Mesopotamian Aramaic took its place across Mesopotamia, including among the Chaldeans, and later, also the Levant. One form of this once widespread Aramaic language was used in some books of the Hebrew Bible (the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra). The use of the name "Chaldean" (Chaldaic, Chaldee) to describe it, first introduced by Jerome of Stridon (d. 420),[21] became common in early Aramaic studies, but that misnomer was later corrected, when modern scholars concluded that the Aramaic dialect used in the Hebrew Bible was not related to the ancient Chaldeans and their language
"Chaldea" came to be used in a wider sense, of Southern Mesopotamia in general, following the brief ascendancy of the Chaldeans during 608–557 BC. This is especially the case in the Hebrew Bible, which was substantially composed during this period (roughly corresponding to the period of Babylonian captivity). The Book of Jeremiah makes frequent reference to the Chaldeans (King James Version Chaldees following LXX Χαλδαίοι; in Biblical Hebrew as Kasdîm כַּשְׂדִּים). Book of Habakkuk 1:6 calls them "that bitter and hasty nation" (הַגֹּוי הַמַּר וְהַנִּמְהָר). Book of Isaiah 23:13 DRB states, “Behold the land of the Chaldeans, there was not such a people, the Assyrians founded it: they have led away the strong ones thereof into captivity, they have destroyed the houses thereof, they have brought it to ruin.
Name The name Chaldaea is a latinization of the Greek Khaldaía (Χαλδαία), a hellenization of Akkadian māt Kaldu or Kašdu, suggesting an underlying /kaɬdu/.[5] The name appears in Hebrew in the Bible as Kaśdim (כשדים)[6] and in Aramaic as Kaśdāy (כשדי).
In the Bible (Book of Genesis 22:22), the name "Kesed"(כשׂד, ancient pronunciation /kaɬd/[10]) , the singular form of "Kasdim"(כַּשְׂדִּים), meaning Chaldeans. Kesed is identified as son of Abraham's brother Nahor (and brother of Kemuel the father of Aram), residing in Aram Naharaim. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) also links Arphaxad and Chaldaea, in his Antiquities of the Jews, stating, “Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans.”
( a lot more at link)
First of all "Ur" is a modernized Western shortening. The original Akkadian word was 'uru' and the Sumerian 'urim' which meant settlement or dwelling, though some try to identiy 'ur' with the Semitic word for light. You are correct though that Chaldeans were a West Semitic speaking group not an East Semitic group like the Akkadians and Eblaites. The closest related group to the Chaldeans are a people called the Suteans but linguistics has shown that the Chaldean language was not the same as Hebrew despite being part of that same sub-grouping as a West-Semitic language.
Also Chaldea is not the same as Kasdim.
And you know what else that many people don't realize?? Many people including myself at one time believed the Leonard Woolley propaganda (lie) that Abraham's Ur was the same as the Sumerian Ur in southern Mesopotamia, yet before Wooley's discovery it was taken for granted that Abraham's Ur Kasdim was located in northern Mesopotamia.
Jewish tradition itself says that the 'Home of the Prophets' was in northern Mesopotamia in the area of Naharin, and I believe there are even traditions of large stone monuments in the area which may very well be non other than Göbekli Tepe! (I wish Tukuler was here.)
But more importantly the Biblical narrative speaks of Abraham traveling in a straight direction from norther to south into Canaan and never from south to north.
What's crazy is that many Biblical scholars today keep perpetuating the southern Ur myth.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Djehuti
I agree and would add as a caution to people coming here to lecture on religion, that familiarity with religion comes from normal religious practices, like bible study and contemplation of biblical ideas and monitoring and modeling oneself after biblical role models. It doesn't come from having a cheap left brain intellectual level understanding that goes no deeper than what is required to pull out scripture on demand to debate and fool people unfamiliar with the bible.
That is to say, as one gives religion a place in ones life for genuine reasons (ie not to virtue signaling or cultural appropriation or claiming patriarchs) they are automatically shaped and changed by its contents. And elaborating and giving takes on the bible then becomes easy and effortless.
So the mettle of people who profess to belong to different faiths is always going to recognized. Might as well not post if you're not the real deal.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Speaking of which in regards to the origins of Abraham's family...
quote: Did the hunter-gatherers of Anatolia have an epiphany and beget the earliest farmers, or were they somebody else entirely?
About 10,000 years ago, the story of humanity reached a turning point, transiting from a life of hunting and gathering to subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry (with some hunting and gathering).
This transition – the “Neolithic revolution” – appeared at different times in different parts of the world (and never even reached Australia, where farming really only began in the 19th century). Agriculture and animal husbandry apparently developed independently in different areas during the Holocene. But leaving China out of it, one of the very first places agriculture and the practice of breeding captive herbivores emerged was the region of Anatolia-Mesopotamia.
The Neolithic revolution changed the trajectory of the human story. The question is: who exactly were the early farmers of Anatolia? Were they locals living there from time immemorial who developed a new lifestyle? Invaders? Something else? All of the above?
Now, analysis of ancient DNA samples from all over the Near East sheds light on that conundrum, report Drs. Iosif Lazaridis, Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Ron Pinhasi and David Reich of Harvard University, and a giant international team, in Science. The early farmers were not pure locals. There were two pulses of migration into Anatolia during the early Neolithic.
The first had already occurred by the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, about 11,000 to 9,000 years ago. It originated in northern Mesopotamia.
“The Mesopotamian admixture is present in all Pre-Pottery Neolithic Anatolians we sampled, but not in an Epipaleolithic individual from Pinarbasi in Anatolia from about 15,500 years ago (which is the one hunter-gatherer data point from Anatolia),” Reich clarifies.
The second migration into early Neolithic Anatolia distinguishes all the Anatolian farmers from the Pottery Neolithic period that began about 9,000 ago from those that preceded them. The source was the Levant, Lazaridis explains.
In other words, the incomers didn’t supplant or extinguish the locals; they admixed. Thus, the early farmers of Anatolia have three distinct deep hunter-gatherer ancestries: Anatolian, Mesopotamian and Levantine, Lazaridis sums up.
Actually, all the sampled Neolithic populations throughout Middle East are a mixture of these three deep sources, Lazaridis says.
“It’s probably more complicated,” Reich qualifies. But for the nonce, we can describe the early farmers of Anatolia as mixes, in different proportions, of these three source populations.
One challenge with studying our origins is the paucity of material. One might think Africa and Eurasia are littered with human remains from our entire evolutionary history, but they aren’t. Even after deep burial emerged, as opposed to shallow burials vulnerable to hyenas, no burial at all or cremation, precious little is preserved over time. Altogether, the paper is based on genomic analysis of just 100 ancient individuals: 42 individuals with new data, and 48 previously published.
From Israel, for example, the team analyzed DNA from two groups: six pre-Neolithic Natufians from about 13,000 years ago, and two Pre-Pottery Neolithic people from about 9,000 years ago. The Cyprus data, which is the first ever reported from this island, was based on the fragmentary remains of three folk who, about 10,000 years ago, were apparently tossed down a well. Tsk tsk.
From Anatolia, the study analyzes 49 individuals – including three newly reported individuals from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Boncuklu Tarla in Mardin, southeast Turkey. Along with two individuals from Nemrik in Iraq dating to a similar time, these represent the first ancient DNA data ever reported from Mesopotamia.
The study also reports two individuals from Armenia who lived around 8,000 years ago – the first Neolithic data from the Armenian plateau – and several more from the previously unsampled northern Zagros mountain range from Iraq’s Shanidar and Bestansur caves.
It would be nice to have more samples but such is life – the sheer number of reports based on analyses of ancient genomes tends to obscure the extraordinary difficulty of the technique.
But the samples sufficed to deduce that before the Neolithic, there were distinct hunter-gatherer populations in Anatolia, Mesopotamia (the Caucasus) and the Levant. Come the Neolithic, the people had become mixes, with varying proportions of the three sources in different places, Reich and Lazaridis explain.
Put otherwise, none of these populations – not in Anatolia or in the Levant or southern Mesopotamia – descended from just one of these three sources, Lazaridis stresses. But the Neolithic people of the Levant have more Natufian than other sources, for example.
All this is from the team’s analysis of ancient DNA. There is also some concrete evidence of contact between these peoples, such as an obsidian blade from Anatolia found in Motza (by Jerusalem) in a 9,000-year-old village, and another found in prehistoric Saudi Arabia. Of course, these blades don’t necessarily attest to direct relations; they could have changed hands over generations as they slowly wound their way from Turkey to Israel and Arabia.
That Neolithic village in Motza is also where one of the two Levantine samples in this study was from; the other was from Kfar Horesh. Both were from the Pre-Pottery period and genetically they seem almost identical to the parallel population in ‘Ain Ghazal in Amman, Jordan, Reich adds.
How large were these two pulses of migration? We have no idea, but they weren’t a trickle. The mixes are showing up as 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent – which suggests much movement, the researchers explain. But they can’t say whether these were “sudden” processes over just a few generations, or a protracted process of exchanges over millennia, Reich says. There just isn’t enough data at this point.
“With richer sampling, we’d begin to learn this. In Britain we have tons of sampling and can pinpoint population change to a few centuries, but we don’t have that here,” he adds.
One wonders at the scantiness of information from Israel, which sometimes seems to have more archaeologists than people.
“Israel is the place in the Near East with the richest data and the archaeology is incredible,” Reich responds. But so far, most attempts to retrieve DNA from skeletal remains in Israel have been frustrating – as said, the technique is a monster, conditions in Israel aren’t necessarily conducive to adequate preservation of DNA in ancient bones, and thus managing to extract DNA from Natufian remains at Rakefet Cave was practically a miracle. However, the technology is improving, Reich says.
Meanwhile, Lazaridis points out that they don’t have data on the Pottery Neolithic period from the Levant (8,000 to 9,000 years ago), so can’t be confident the migration was bidirectional.
Come the Chalcolithic (the Copper Age), there is a “beautiful set of 22 samples” from northern Israel’s Peki’in cave, with extra Anatolian ancestry, Reich says. One site with evidence of Anatolian ancestry in northern Israel 6,000 years ago does not a mass movement make, but it’s intriguing.
Then there’s a gap in the genetic information on the peopling of the Levant from about 6,000 to 4,000 years ago, Lazaridis notes. Not surprisingly, they have no data from any period from Syria or Lebanon.
What the new information can’t do is shed light on the rise and fall of the people who brought us Göbekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe and altogether 16 sites (discovered so far) in prehistoric Turkey. The thinking now is their construction began about 12,000 years ago, by pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers, definitely not early farmers, says Prof. Necmi Karul of Istanbul University.
These hunter-gatherers were not living in small nomadic groups: they had villages and built great monuments that some call “the earliest temples in the world,” and that Karul prefers to call “gathering places.” After about 1,500 years, that culture seems to have disappeared. But there are no pre-Neolithic samples from that area and only one from Anatolia (that person from Pinarbasi who lived about 15,000 years ago), Lazaridis says. At this point, they can’t answer the question of continuity between pre-Neolithic and Neolithic populations in that part of the world.
Also, as Reich points out, Göbekli wasn’t a burial site. “These burials are scarce, especially in the hunter-gatherer period. It’s the rare region where there is a cemetery or cave context. We have every hope of getting such data in future, but for now we don’t have it,” he says.
What we do have is a better picture of the early farmers in the Near East: they were a mix, not pure descendants of local hunter-gatherers, insofar as that could be tested. Where the Levant component originated is not clear; the southern Levant – say, Jordan or Israel, or perhaps Syria – from where there is no data, but where there had been a rich Pottery-period Neolithic culture.
The team adds some caveats about using the word “migration.” When talking about “migration pulses,” it likely wasn’t intentional; likely no master plan of conquest was involved; the dimensions are unclear. As they say, there aren’t many samples, but a pattern is a pattern – and Homo genus seems to have had wanderlust since we had feet.
So what, are we to take these 3 admixed groups as Japheth, Shem, and Ham?? LOL
But the Anatolian connection is no surprise since that is said to be a source of hg J.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is a snapshot from Upper Mesopotamia from the time period c. 8500 to 7500 cal BCE.
One can notice that the Y-DNA haplogroup J2a1a is present at the site.
quote:Abstract Upper Mesopotamia played a key role in the Neolithic Transition in Southwest Asia through marked innovations in symbolism, technology, and diet. We present 13 ancient genomes (c. 8500 to 7500 cal BCE) from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Çayönü in the Tigris basin together with bioarchaeological and material culture data. Our findings reveal that Çayönü was a genetically diverse population, carrying mixed ancestry from western and eastern Fertile Crescent, and that the community received immigrants. Our results further suggest that the community was organized along biological family lines. We document bodily interventions such as head shaping and cauterization among the individuals examined, reflecting Çayönü’s cultural ingenuity. Last, we identify Upper Mesopotamia as the likely source of eastern gene flow into Neolithic Anatolia, in line with material culture evidence. We hypothesize that Upper Mesopotamia’s cultural dynamism during the Neolithic Transition was the product not only of its fertile lands but also of its interregional demographic connections.
Look at you, lying about what I said again. You already got caught blatantly lying when you said I claimed that "J carriers adopted the natufian language/cultufe in the bronze age Levant".
Lmao.
Anyone who was actually reading what I said will know that I never accused anybody of ignoring the supposed E markers in the akkadians, I said they were "trying to make it irrelevant". That's word for word what I said. If someone is trying to make something irrelevant, that logically means they have seen the information in question and are trying to diminish it's importance.
Secondly, when I mentioned akkadians reportedly having E, I was talking about in the context of this thread. I've never seen that thread you just linked. Am I supposed to brief myself on every thread on this website? I can't "fail to attribute" something to someone if I had no idea they'd ever talked about it before. Surely a genius like yourself would not be ignorant of something like this, right?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
You are aware of the fact that Jacob's two other wives (Zilpah and Bilhah) were slaves/handmaids of Jacob's original wives Leah and Rachel, right? And they became Jacob's concubines. The Hebrews had a tradition and custom where they did not enslave each other. Are you suggesting that Rachel and Leah enslaved their own people and made them slaves/handmaids? And that Jacob took fellow Hebrew women CONCUBINES?
Smh! If I am in a cult, we sure do know the Bible better than you do.
I've shown you a reputable Biblical source stating that the word "gentile" USUALLY means a non-Israelite people (not always) and I've also shown you literal examples in the Bible of Israelites being told they used to be gentiles (past tense) and other scriptures that literally identify the gentiles as Israelites and you had nothing to say about any of it except for "omg he thinks gentiles were Israelites".
Hey, you know your boy Paul was also accused of being in a "cult", right?
ACTS 24:14 NLT
"14 But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets." Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I'm just going to leave this here. Dr. Eran Elhak's website says that Israelite samples (yes, the same Israelites whose ancestor(s) came from Mesopotamia) have E1b1 and T1 markers.
Keep in mind, this is the same geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper about natufians being the most likely Judaean progenitors -- the same paper that was published on the government website.
"...This is the only match from prehistoric times to date, but it is reasonable to expect many more to come as ancient DNA from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus will be sequenced. Interestingly, the Y chromosomal haplotypes of the ancient Israelites are typically E1b1 and T1 haplotypes, commonly found today in Africa with lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe."
And from the look of things, he doesn't seem to have a problem dialoguing with "cult members" and explaining how he came to his conclusions. So he would certainly be willing to discuss with one of you. Maybe one of you experts are willing to have a discussion with him and let him know how wrong he is, or at least ask him some questions?
**** Also, in this short 2 minute clip, Razib Khan mentions natufians and states that E markers had high frequences in ancient Arabians, Syrians and Israelites (yes, the same Israelites whose ancestor(s) came from Mesopotamia.)
* Although I will make a disclaimer: he was asked specifically about E1b1a, but at the end of the clip he clarified and made it more clear that he was talking about E in general and not any specific clade.
Why are all of these well established doctorates/scholars and professionals in the genetics community saying that Israelites had E markers? Maybe because they have access to information that nobody on here does? Maybe because it's the truth?
Is ANYONE here willing to discuss this with any of the above mentioned scholars instead of attacking me for simply referencing the information they share and publish? I am eager to see which one of you are willing to tell these professionals that they are wrong and attack them the same way you attack me.
LET ME KNOW if any of you want to set up a LIVE discussion/dialogue with one of these professionals instead of typing back and forth everyday on Egypt Search. No need to even mention me anymore, let's see you go after some actual Ph.Ds and well known scholars/professionals who possess authority in the professional genetics community.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Swenet
Look at you, lying about what I said again. You already got caught blatantly lying and saying that I asserted that "J carriers adopted the natufian language/cultufe in the bronze age Levant".
Lmao.
Anyone who was actually reading what I said will know that I never accused anybody of ignoring the supposed E markers in the akkadians, I said they were "trying to make it irrelevant". That's word for word what I said. If someone is trying to make something irrelevant, that logically means they have seen the information in question and are trying to diminish it's importance.
Secondly, when I mentioned akkadians reportedly having E, I was talking about in the context of this thread. I've never seen that thread you just linked. Am I supposed to brief myself on every thread on this website? I can't "fail to attribute" something to someone if I had no idea they'd ever talked about it before. Surely a genius like yourself would not be ignorant of something like this, right?
The funny part is that Lioness is sometimes feeding into Tazarah's bs, trying to make it seem like there is some kind of "method" to his posts, that people are misrepresenting. And that you have to debate Tazarah "the right way" because there is some method to his insanity.
There is no method or any kind of consistency to Tazarah's posts. When he's talking about Y-DNA E, and you respond to that, he's liable to flip flop AT ANY moment and tell you he doesn't subscribe to genetics or that he's not interested in claiming Y-DNA E in Natufians or that Hebrews weren't 'Africans'. He's done this several times throughout this thread, with several different arguments.
The latest bait and switch is this new angle where Mesopotamians had Y-DNA E all along, even though he's been arguing for several thread pages that Y-DNA J people were supposedly new to Proto-Semitic culture until they adopted it in the Levant. How can they be new to it, if Proto-Semitic speakers already existed in Mesopotamia, as attested by the LD signal in Armenians?
Look at this new conman angle that Tazarah started adopting after being educated on the true distribution of Proto-Semitic (mostly not in the Levant, but to the east), which he's calling me a liar for pointing out:
It's crazy how the few people in here who repeatedly say "but J came from Mesopotamia just like how the Bible says Abraham did" don't reference or mention ANY information about how actual Mesopotamian civilizations were believed to have had E markers... are y'all trying to bamboozle people or what? --New conman angle, a blatant plagiarism now repackaged as "I knews it all along"
Here we have the conman misattributing his source as being Horvath, when his source was Egyptsearch. The same posts he was pushing back against, he's repackaging now as something he learned own his own and that people are trying to bamboozle him.
"The most plausible candidates for Semitic re-migration to the Fertile Crescent with TMRCA-s fitting the arrival of the Akkadians and other early Semitic peoples are certain subclades of both E-V22 and E-V12 with relatively early TMRCA-s present in the middle east could be candidates for such re-migration, such as E-FGC14382 (TMRCA 2200 BCE), E-V3262 (TMRCA 2600 BCE).
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH --New conman angle
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
Again, where did I say anyone was ignoring information that I posted about reported E markers in akkadians? That is literally what you just accused me of saying. Yet all I said is that people were trying to make it irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He actually said that "everyone was ignoring Y-DNA E from Mesopotamia" that he only posted in the last couple of thread pages...
And even in the quote of mine that you just posted in your previous commenrt, I wasn't accusing anyone of ignoring any information I posted about akkadians. That quote is from the FIRST post I made about akkadians reportedly having E markers. So how in the hell could anybody be ignoring it if I hadn't even posted it yet?
Get it together man. Your comments are not even worth addressing in full. Let me know if you are interested in setting up a live dialogue with some actual professionals, since all the information I've referenced is wrong.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here we have the conman misattributing his source as being Horvath, when his source was Egyptsearch. The same posts he was pushing back against, he's repackaging now as something he learned own his own and that people are trying to bamboozle him. [Roll Eyes]
"The most plausible candidates for Semitic re-migration to the Fertile Crescent with TMRCA-s fitting the arrival of the Akkadians and other early Semitic peoples are certain subclades of both E-V22 and E-V12 with relatively early TMRCA-s present in the middle east could be candidates for such re-migration, such as E-FGC14382 (TMRCA 2200 BCE), E-V3262 (TMRCA 2600 BCE).
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH
Swenet is so ignorant, he honestly thinks there aren't any other places on the internet that share sources or discuss genetics. I just MUST have gotten it from egyptsearch. You stay trying to make me look bad but it always horribly backfires on you.
^^^ video is from over a year ago but the person uses the source in previous, older videos as well.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I don't care if Todd from Arkansas used the quote 10 years ago.
Where did YOU use it in this thread when you were trying to claim Y-DNA J "still had nothing to do with afro-asiatic culture until J came and adopted the customs."
Either E was in Mesopotamia all along, and surrounding populations were well acquainted with Afroasiatic people, or Y-DNA J people learned it on arrival in the Levant, from "Natufian progenitors". Which is it?
Watch for more bs and cries about being misrepresented in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
Bruh, you just lied (again) and said I got the source from Egyptsearch. And you tried to attack my character/integrity based on that false statement. There is no escaping the proven fact that you constantly lie on me. Now you're trying to tap dance.
I'm done playing games with you. Let me know if you are willing to set up a live discussion with one of the genetic professionals I mentioned above who both say Israelites had E. Instead of attacking me for simply referencing them.
Otherwise there is nothing left for us to talk about.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
possibly when Abraham came in (assuming he was a real person)
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Ur Kasdim (Hebrew), commonly translated as Ur of the Chaldeans, is a city mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the birthplace of Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites and the Ishmaelites. In 1862, Henry Rawlinson identified Ur;dim with Tell el-Muqayyar, near Nasiriyah in Baghdad Eyalet (which is located in modern-day Iraq).[1] In 1927, Leonard Woolley excavated the site and identified it as a Sumerian archaeological site where the Chaldeans were to settle around the 9th century BC.[2] Recent archaeology work has continued to focus on the location in Nasiriyah, where the ancient Ziggurat of Ur is located
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Wow. This dude literally said he doesn't know anything about Akkadians on the 3rd of November. Akkadians played no role in his argument.
quote:Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on 03 November, 2023 11:58:
@Elmaestro
I haven't really done any research into the akkadians and know little to nothing about them, but from my POV if they were actual Semites then they would be descendants of Noah, through his son Shem (the progenitor of the semites)
Not sure if that answers your question, but I don't really know much about them other than the fact that they had an empire of Mesopotamia
In between the 3rd of November and the 10th of November, something obviously changed, but he's really trying to sit here and tell us it didn't come from ES, and doesn't represent a complete change in his argument, effectively making "Natufian progenitors" obsolete:
quote:Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on 10 November, 2023 11:15: It's crazy how the few people in here who repeatedly say "but J came from Mesopotamia just like how the Bible says Abraham did" don't reference or mention ANY information about how actual Mesopotamian civilizations were believed to have had E markers... are y'all trying to bamboozle people or what?
"The most plausible candidates for Semitic re-migration to the Fertile Crescent with TMRCA-s fitting the arrival of the Akkadians and other early Semitic peoples are certain subclades of both E-V22 and E-V12 with relatively early TMRCA-s present in the middle east could be candidates for such re-migration, such as E-FGC14382 (TMRCA 2200 BCE), E-V3262 (TMRCA 2600 BCE).
Wow.
You can literally see the change as he's being schooled on ES:
quote:Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on 03 November, 2023 11:58: I haven't really done any research into the akkadians and know little to nothing about them, but from my POV if they were actual Semites then they would be descendants of Noah, through his son Shem (the progenitor of the semites)
quote:Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on 13 November, 2023 10:28: First of all, Lisa already pointed out earlier in the thread that Accad (Akkadians) descend from Ham's son Cush. So of course they were not descendants of Shem. And I myself already knew this as well.
The part where he says "and I myself knew this as well", even as he's clearly plagiarizing in real-time, is crazy. Dude literally vacated his position, set up shop elsewhere, refuses to acknowledge it, then turns around and tells us we're trying to bamboozle him, even as he's posting information he got from this site .
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ I literally referenced the YouTube channel that I got the akkadian source from. I even showed you the exact video and time stamp. ALL of the genetic sources I share come from there; feel free to look through the videos on the channel for yourself.
Secondly, (for the last time) I never accused anybody of ignoring any information that I posted akkadians (which is word for word what you accused me of).
The quote of mine that you keep posting does not match up with what you are accusing me of, because you are a liar.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He actually said that "everyone was ignoring Y-DNA E from Mesopotamia" that he only posted in the last couple of thread pages...
Also, please quote me saying that akkadians were the progenitors of Israelites, and thus nullifying the natufian progenitor source/argument. That is also something else that I never said, I was just using that source to demonstrate E being in Mesopotamia. Let's see if we can add another lie to your resume.
You've been caught lying on me so many times, you're now trying to go back and cherrypick select parts of my comments in hopes of convincing yourself that I'm somehow lying about something.
When Elmaestro mentioned the Akkadians, it did not register that they were "Accad" in the Bible until I did some quick looking into them, then shortly after my memory was refreshed, Lisa posted the scripture about them descending from Accad.
They are not called "Akkadians" in the bible, genius. If demonstrating that I had a lapse of memory concerning who the Akkadians were is the best and most damning evidence you have against me then I don't know what to tell you.
Imagine putting all this time, energy and effort into going back and forth with someone you view as a "con man".
I will pray for you my brother.
Let me know if you are willing to set up a live discussion with any of the genetic professionals I mentioned above, they both say Israelites had E markers. Is it safe to say at this point that you are not willing?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Tazarah: I never said this. You always accuse me of saying/believing things I've never said.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @BrandonP
Actually Brandon, you are correct this time. My apologies.
You've falsely accused people of misrepresenting you, several times. Who cares about your attempts at damage control? YOU don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Swenet
Damage control? Nothing I've said contradicts anything else I've said, and Brandon had misrepresented me in a previous comment (even the lioness pointed this out) and he also admit it himself, but the second time he was actually right and you know what I did? I admit I was wrong and apologized.
Have you ever apologized for lying on me, whether it was intentional or not?.... nope.
Damage control is what you are doing right now -- trying to avoid the fact that you are lying about where I get my sources from and how I "accused everyone of ignoring the akkadian source I posted" when I never did.
Or when you lied and said I claimed J carriers met natufians in the bronze age Levant and adopted their customs.
Are you willing to have a live discussion with either of the genetic professionals I've referenced that both say Israelites had E markers? Yes or no? You can even type an email and I'll have it forwarded to them, you can tell them how wrong they are and we can all look at their response afterward.
Are you willing to dialogue/discuss Israelites having E markers with a genetic professional in any form or fashion? Yes or no?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Please respond yes or no to the comment I just made. Anything else you say will be ignored and I will let you have the last word because I'm not in the business of going back and forth with irrational individuals (although I used to be).
Elmaestro is 100% correct when he said that this thread is getting flooded with unecessary posts/comments.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
Experts, with more authority, credentials and experience than you.
Even Elmaestro asserted or implied that akkadians had E markers, but that they had nothing to do with Hebrews or Israelites since the akkadians would be descendants of Noah's grandson Cush. But what that ended up also demonstrating is that Noah's most recent descendants were believed to have E markers, which would logically entail that Shem did as well as Noah himself.
IF we follow genetic methodology.
SOURCE: "How Eurasia Was Born" HOW EURASIA WAS BORN -A Provisional Atlas of prehistoric Eurasia based on genetic data supporting the farming-language dispersal model- CSABA-BARNABÁS HORVÁTH
quote:
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
The same paper postulates that akkadians (recent descendants of Noah) had E markers.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
The same paper postulates that akkadians (recent descendants of Noah) had E markers.
It's not a journal article with a team of researchers testing anything, It's one historian postulating (guessing) in a overview of the history of Eurasia in an obscure Hungarian International relations publication. Also it is dubious that it is known if Abraham came from somewhere east of Israel that his ancestry was specifically Akkadian or that Akkadians were all E bearers, so stop pretending these postulations are facts, thanks
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@Tazarah, have you heard Nathanyel, Yahanna or any of these 1 West camps talk about the implications of Genesis 11:28-31, 15:7 or Nehemiah 9:7 The only one I hear touching on these this is Zion Lexx and his Sumerian Hebrew thing
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
He's not just a historian. But you also just referenced the paper so I thought I would point out what it says about E. I never claimed he had akkadian ancestry... the only reason I appealed to akkadians was to demonstrate E in Mesopotamia. Dr. Elhaik claims Abraham was E1b
What specifically do you want to know about those scriptures?
I'm probably about to stop posting in this thread because I don't want to risk getting censored and having my comments deleted.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
He's not just a historian. But you also just referenced the paper so I thought I would point out what it says about E. I never claimed he had akkadian ancestry... the only reason I appealed to akkadians was to demonstrate E in Mesopotamia. Dr. Elhaik claims Abraham was E1b
It's speculation , no bodies
But for bronze age Israel, they have bodies and DNA: J, E, T and R
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
He's not just a historian.
correct, from the article:
Csaba Barnabás Horváth (1982) is a historian and geopolitical analyst. He obtained his university degrees in History and Political Science at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest in 2010, and his PhD degree at the Corvinus University of Budapest in 2010
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness,
He's not just a historian. But you also just referenced the paper so I thought I would point out what it says about E. I never claimed he had akkadian ancestry... the only reason I appealed to akkadians was to demonstrate E in Mesopotamia. Dr. Elhaik claims Abraham was E1b
What specifically do you want to know about those scriptures?
I'm probably about to stop posting in this thread because I don't want to risk getting censored and having my comments deleted.
Just open a thread in Kemet as regards to bible verses mentioning Chaldees
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
There are so many mixed studies on Ashkenazi I don't know what to think about their connection to mythical antiquity. The standard 23andme makes them 99% European but it only goes back 300 years. GPS Origins gives them 2-9% Southern Levant ancestry. I've only seen a few test. Some companies make them 40%+ Levant but this might be a more ancient OoA ancestry.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: But for bronze age Israel, they have bodies and DNA: J, E, T and R
E in the bronze age? Where did you see this at? Not doubting, just curious
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: But for bronze age Israel, they have bodies and DNA: J, E, T and R
E in the bronze age? Where did you see this at? Not doubting, just curious
Do you not read anybody posts but your one and the replies to them? I posted it 3 times already (Lisa even complained) and have been talking about this Bronze age article many times in the thread
page one 4/5ths down posted 27 October, 2023 11:33 AM
below the chart are short description of the site locations in Israel
E1b1b1b2a1
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
And do you honestly think those are the only bodies they've found there?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: And do you honestly think those are the only bodies they've found there?
I don't know why you are asking this. There are E people at two of those sites and other haplogroups and I would expect more of all of them J, E, T and R to be found at other yet to be excavated Bronze age and Iron Age (Israelites period) sites.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Let me re-phrase:
Out of all the ancient dead bodies in ancient Israel, do you honestly think the ones on that list are the only ones they've found and tested?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Let me re-phrase:
Out of all the ancient dead bodies in ancient Israel, do you honestly think the ones on that list are the only ones they've found and tested?
You think they found a whole bunch of E1b1a and are hiding it?
Maybe, along with King James' and Abraham Lincoln's hap E locked in a safe underground could be
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
That's not what I said. Howcome you can't answer the question? The fact that you can't give a straightforward answer says a lot
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: And do you honestly think those are the only bodies they've found there?
why would I think they are hiding something with no evidence of doing so?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I'm asking you to use common sense. They are constantly digging up bodies and testing bodies. They have people who dedicate their lives to doing excavations. And you honestly think the small amount of bodies on that list are the only ones that have been found and tested from the area?.....
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Tazarahs positions.
-"Natufians are progenitors of biblical Israelites and in turn Hebrews.
- E lineages in Akkadia are representative of Abraham's lineage. Evidenced by the TMRCA of E-V12 and V22
He still has no idea how to answer this question, even after accusing me of trying to trick him. And requested I provide information which was already provided, see Nemrik.as if they aren't ethnic Mesopotamians...
There's no reason to even continue conversation with him as he's on the edge of violating the rules of the section with his constant spam and flamebait.
Like imagine, this guy tries to use my name to shield himself and play the victim. And then tries to tell me I'm not considering the lineages I prompted him to look at.
But worst of all... He's too lazy to do the research required to weld the tidbits of information provided to him. He's too dishonest to critically look at his own stance and realize how they'd contradict. He's to lazy to even continue investigating information that supports him.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I'm asking you to use common sense. They are constantly digging up bodies and testing bodies. They have people who dedicate their lives to doing excavations. And you honestly think the small amount of bodies on that list are the only ones that have been found and tested from the area?.....
I showed you Bronze age E in Israel and you're still not happy?
It's possible they are hiding something but how are we to know?
just assuming this is always the case?
a conspiratorial mindset assumes conspiracy is the norm in any given situation where they don't like the findings.
This is not to assume that there is nothing being hidden or that there never are real conspiracies but to always assume there is is often motivated by wishful thinking and alternative agenda narratives
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Tazarahs positions.
-"Natufians are progenitors of biblical Israelites and in turn Hebrews.
- E lineages in Akkadia are representative of Abraham's lineage. Evidenced by the TMRCA of E-V12 and V22
He still has no idea how to answer this question, even after accusing me of trying to trick him. And requested I provide information which was already provided, see Nemrik.as if they aren't ethnic Mesopotamians...
There's no reason to even continue conversation with him as he's on the edge of violating the rules of the section with his constant spam and flamebait.
Like imagine, this guy tries to use my name to shield himself and play the victim. And then tries to tell me I'm not considering the lineages I prompted him to look at.
But worst of all... He's too lazy to do the research required to weld the tidbits of information provided to him. He's too dishonest to critically look at his own stance and realize how they'd contradict. He's to lazy to even continue investigating information that supports him.
First of all, the paper I referenced says the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites. Those are not my words. If you disagree with this, are you willing to have a discussion with the geneticist who wrote the paper or reach out to him about what he wrote?
You are the one who tried to play the game with akkadians so I followed along, then when you switched it up and started talking about how they descend from Cush, I switched it up too and said that would still mean Noah (their recent grandfather) had E, so either way it worked.
It's WILD how you are trying to make it seem like I'm playing games when you purposely threw Akkadians into the mix to try tripping me up.
And you did say that the akkadians were "african" in the context of E markers when I was discussing E in mesopotamia.
And it's also wild how I'm being accused of stealing information from posters on this website when I linked the exact video and time stamp that I got the akkadian source from -- I get ALL the genetic sources I've shared from that channel and the facebook group that the owner of the channel is apart of.
You guys mean to tell me that I speedily searched through all the videos on YouTube and coincidentally found a video with the same source?....lmfao.
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E, and Razib Khan says Israelites had E in high frequencies.
Please let me know if any of you (including you Elmaestro) are willing to set up a live discussion with any of these individuals (or reach out to them) and tell them how/why all of their research is wrong.
Other than that, there is nothing else left for us to discuss on the matter.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Tazarahs positions.
-"Natufians are progenitors of biblical Israelites and in turn Hebrews.
- E lineages in Akkadia are representative of Abraham's lineage. Evidenced by the TMRCA of E-V12 and V22
He still has no idea how to answer this question, even after accusing me of trying to trick him. And requested I provide information which was already provided, see Nemrik.as if they aren't ethnic Mesopotamians...
There's no reason to even continue conversation with him as he's on the edge of violating the rules of the section with his constant spam and flamebait.
Like imagine, this guy tries to use my name to shield himself and play the victim. And then tries to tell me I'm not considering the lineages I prompted him to look at.
But worst of all... He's too lazy to do the research required to weld the tidbits of information provided to him. He's too dishonest to critically look at his own stance and realize how they'd contradict. He's to lazy to even continue investigating information that supports him.
First of all, the paper I referenced says the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites. Those are not my words. If you disagree with this, are you willing to have a discussion with the geneticist who wrote the paper or reach out to him about what he wrote?
You are the one who tried to play the game with akkadians so I followed along, then when you switched it up and started talking about how they descend from Cush, I switched it up too and said that would still mean Noah (their recent grandfather) had E, so either way it worked.
It's WILD how you are trying to make it seem like I'm playing games when you purposely threw Akkadians into the mix to try tripping me up.
And you did say that the akkadians were "african" in the context of E markers when I was discussing E in mesopotamia.
And it's also wild how I'm being accused of stealing information from posters on this website when I linked the exact video and time stamp that I got the akkadian source from -- I get ALL the genetic sources I've shared from that channel and the facebook group that the owner of the channel is apart of.
You guys mean to tell me that I speedily searched through all the videos on YouTube and coincidentally found a video with the same source?....lmfao.
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E, and Razib Khan says Israelites had E in high frequencies.
Please let me know if any of you (including you Elmaestro) are willing to set up a live discussion with any of these individuals (or reach out to them) and tell them how/why all of their research is wrong.
Other than that, there is nothing else left for us to discuss on the matter.
Are you gonna answer the question or not?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: First of all, the paper I referenced says the natufians were the most likely progenitors of the Israelites. Those are not my words. If you disagree with this, are you willing to have a discussion with the geneticist who wrote the paper or reach out to him about what he wrote?
without an argument being laid about this geneticist who you never name, it's not worth anything
But you could go and get this geneticist if you want and set up a discussion where he lays out some attempt of proving the claim
You seem very gullible to accept a theory with no argument detailing why they even think what their claim is, is true
maybe you can do your homework and try to find where this unnamed geneticist lays out their argument
This is not let a religious script that people often assume to be infallible and literal
Why do people write articles when they could state their theory in a couple of sentences? > because they are expected to prove it by detailed evidence, reasoning and standard method laid out in the article
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
My apologies.
Can you rephrase the question? Because in the original comment that you linked to, you said:
"So just to be clear, You believe that Mesopotamians who Noah was a stock of, carried an E lineage that was passed down directly from Natufians?"
But Noah was not the stock of mesopotamians, they would have been the stock of Noah
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: My apologies.
Can you rephrase the question? Because in the original comment that you linked to, you said:
"So just to be clear, You believe that Mesopotamians who Noah was a stock of, carried an E lineage that was passed down directly from Natufians?"
But Noah was not the stock of mesopotamians, they would have been the stock of Noah
Did Noah and in turn the other Mesopotamians get their E from Natufians...?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
The geneticists name is on the paper (I've also said his name several times) and I referenced another professional who also says Israelites had E in high frequencies.
He talks about a lot of his methodology in the video I linked but I'll be sure to use that same talking point against you in the future
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
The thing is, I'm honestly not sure how to answer that question because of the supposed date that the natufians existed at
My primary source is the Bible and while I don't believe the world is just 6,000 years old, I don't believe it's millions or billions of years old either.
This is one of the main reasons why I don't feel that genetics lines up with the Bible, because the timelines do not match up.
So I can't answer your question in terms of haplogroup in relation to Noah/the natufians.
And that's me being 100% honest.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Tazarah, in your view were the Natufians pre or post Noah?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Tazarah, in your view were the Natufians pre or post Noah?
Please, Lioness, Don't start. It doesn't even matter. please don't promote spam.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Elmaestro
The thing is, I'm honestly not sure how to answer that question because of the supposed date that the natufians existed at
My primary source is the Bible and while I don't believe the world is just 6,000 years old, I don't believe it's millions or billions of years old either.
This is one of the main reasons why I don't feel that genetics lines up with the Bible, because the timelines do not match up.
So I can't answer your question in terms of haplogroup in relation to Noah/the natufians.
And that's me being 100% honest.
How does that work with this model?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
You are aware of the fact that Jacob's two other wives (Zilpah and Bilhah) were slaves/handmaids of Jacob's original wives Leah and Rachel, right? And they became Jacob's concubines. The Hebrews had a tradition and custom where they did not enslave each other. Are you suggesting that Rachel and Leah enslaved their own people and made them slaves/handmaids? And that Jacob took fellow Hebrew women CONCUBINES?
Handmaids yes, but "slaves" and therefore foreigners?? Again, where is that in the text?? The common Semitic word 'abed' has the accurate translation of servant and not necessarily slave. Do you realize that in ancient times bondservants were very common? A person who owes debt or whose family owes debt may work the debt off by servitude. In fact in ancient Israel it was not uncommon for girls from poor families to be sold into bond-service to rich families. Bible perverts try to say these girls were sold into "slavery" by their own fathers when actuality the service was not only temporary but that the girls themselves had opportunity be acquire wealth or be incorporated into the households of their employers even marrying the sons of their employers if not become concubines.
Hence, Deuteronomy 15:12-15 “If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; 14 you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the Lord your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today.
Mind you this was the law given to Moses who then gave to his people the Israelites. The laws for the duration of bond-service varied depending on the amount of debt as well as tribe or nation.
You also missed another important fact of ancient custom, which is that when a concubine is used as a surrogate mother, she does so on behalf of her mistress. Thus by law the children of Bilhah belong to her mistress Rachel and the children of Zilpah belonged to her mistress Leah!
Remember that Sarah used her handmaid Hagar as a surrogate also.
Genesis 16: 1-2 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said.
If not this adoption by the actual wife or matron of the house, then the children born of the handmaids would also be servants in the household of Jacob and not his legitimate heirs! LOL
This is why once Sarah herself bore Isaac, the birthright went to him and NOT Ishmael as he was no longer the legal child of Sarah, and why Sarah could send Ishmael and his true mother Hagar away from their home territory. Ishmael was not a true Hebrew because of his Egyptian mother yet God still blessed him and his mother because he was Abraham's son.
In the case of Bilha and Zilpah the only thing the texts tell us about their background is that they were formerly owned by Laban who bequeathed them to his daughters Rachel and Leah respectively as wedding gifts. But of course there exists stories. In fact the most popular rabbinic tradition suggests they were Laban's daughters from concubines making them Rachel and Leah's half-sisters though this seems like an obvious ploy to keep all of Jacob's relations 'in the family' so to speak. The apocryphal Testament of Naftali says that Bilhah and Zilpah's father was a man named Rotheus who was a foreigner taken into captivity in Haran but emancipated by Laban who also gave him a Hebrew wife named Euna. Though the explanation that seems most plausible to me comes from the Karaite Jewish tradition which claims they were orphans whom Laban did not formally adopt but instead incorporated into his household as retainers. Such was a common practice among families who did not want to divide their inheritance to those not kin. There is nothing overall to suggest that Bilha and Zilpah were themselves non-Hebrew. They come from the land of Paddan Aram which was a Hebrew area, and more importantly they are counted among the Hebrew matriarchs of Israel, in fact all Jewish traditions agree they were buried in the [Hebrew] Tomb of the Matriarchs.
quote:Smh! If I am in a cult, we sure do know the Bible better than you do.
Apparently not. To really know the Bible is to not only know the text itself but also the ancient context on which it is based. You don't know anything about ancient Hebraic or Middle-Eastern cultures which is apparent.
quote:I've shown you a reputable Biblical source stating that the word "gentile" USUALLY means a non-Israelite people (not always) and I've also shown you literal examples in the Bible of Israelites being told they used to be gentiles (past tense) and other scriptures that literally identify the gentiles as Israelites and you had nothing to say about any of it except for "omg he thinks gentiles were Israelites".
Do you even know the Hebrew words translated as "gentile"?? Also how can Israelites once be gentiles unless they became Israelites as I told you can happen through naturalization as I told you before. You even talk about Jacob marrying non-Israelite women, "Israelite" didn't exist because Jacob was the founder of Israel! LOL The ethnicity was Hebrew which comprised different nationalities such as Haranites, Ammonites, and Moabites etc. Both Paul and Peter were told to preach the Gospel to 'the nations', you do realize that is all the nations besides Israel.
quote:Hey, you know your boy Paul was also accused of being in a "cult", right?
ACTS 24:14 NLT
"14 But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets."
Of course he was. All the competing Jewish sects accused each other of being in cults. The Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and especially the Zealots. You do know that Paul was a Pharisee who was a pupil of the sage Gamaliel of the School of Hillel. Did you also know that Paul was not a true Judean by descent but instead an Idumean (Edomite). In the 2nd century BC, the Judean High Priest John Hyrcanus conquered Edom and put the inhabitants in a state of vassalage to Judea. The only way out of the vassalage was to formally convert to the Jewish religion and after 7 generations can they formerly be recognized as a Jew as was the case of Paul's ancestors who were formerly adopted into the tribe of Benjamin. By the way, the same thing happened first to the Canaanites when Joshua conquered Canaan. Not all the Canaanites were wiped out, some tribes became vassals and converted therefore being adopted into Israel after serving for 7 generations so the prophecy became fulfilled that Canaan shall be a servant of servants (Israelites) and the prophecy of Esau/Edom serving the younger brother also came true. So yes, Gentiles can become Jews but the converse can also happen with Jews becoming Gentile if they apostatize and rebel against God's covenant and laws.
The New Covenant is that Gentiles may become part of God's kingdom or Spiritual Israel without becoming an actual Jew and following all the Torah laws that Jews have to follow but instead be baptized and follow Noahide laws instead.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
We can play semantics with servant/slave/handmaid but the unavoidable keyword is concubine. One of the women (Bilhah) is identified as Jacob/Israel's concubine (Genesis 35:22). I'm sure the other one (Zilpah) is too but I don't have time to find it at the moment. Hebrews did not make other Hebrews concubines. I've even shown you jewish sources that say these women were not viewed or seen as the same people as Jacob and his other wives. And there is no evidence that either of the two women were in bondage to pay off a debt, like how the law you referenced in Deuteronomy talks about.
Regarding "gentiles", context supercedes etymology. If you don't believe Israelites were ever called gentiles then I need you to explain why Paul tells the target audience that all their fathers were under the cloud with Moses in the wilderness and passed through the red sea with Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1), only to then tell them 2 chapters later that they used to be gentiles (past tense) in 1 Corinthians 12:1-2.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
open a new thread please this all theology
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It's not an issue of theology so much as exegesis of the text or in some cases basic reading comprehension. The guy can't even differentiate between a concubine and a bonds-maid as the two are not synonymous. LOL
You can't understand the Bible unless you understand its historical and cultural context. This is true of any ancient text or document. Without such context an ignoramus like Tazarah can distort its meaning.
This is why he tells me to "stick to genetics", because he knows I'm wiping the floor on his so-called knowledge of the Bible. So back to genetics. If Abraham's paternal lineage was E, how do you explain that the major clade Jews have in common is J or that the Modal Cohen lineage is J1? Can Tazarah or anyone answer this?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
this is genetics thread, not bible text, figure out some new text based theme, quote Tazarah and react, that's a thread
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
Exactly, no answer.
Anyway, no one has Aaron's DNA so appealing to a "cohen gene" is not a credible argument, and like I've been saying:
Let me know if you would like to have a live discussion with Dr. Eran Elhaik in which you can question him about his methodology. He's the geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper published on the government website which states that the natufians are the most likely Judaean progenitors, and he also says that Abraham had an E marker and that ancient Israelites had E.
We can also try setting up something with the paper's other authors and/or peer-reviewers (Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, and Mehdi Pirooznia).
And/or, we can try setting up something with Razib Khan, who also says that ancient Israelites had E markers in high frequences.
Let me know. At the very least, we can send them an email with questions/oppositions that you or anyone else might have.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
Exactly, no answer.
Let me know if you would like to have a live discussion with Dr. Eran Elhaik... the geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper ... which states that the natufians are the most likely Judaean progenitors
quote:The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)
You are just spamming now, you have said this since page one and have not quoted the authors with proof of the theory, describing evidence for it, have not quoted the authors (assuming it's in the article at all)
And you think whatever a genetics writes we are to accept it as true just because they are a geneticists, that's stupid. It doesn't matter if they are a professional geneticist, just like a lawyer they have to make an argument and show evidence trying to prove their case, You have what is analogous to an allegation but nothing on the table by the authors trying to make the case but you don't have that
It's a religious mindset rather than a scientific one that demand proofs for theories and you are in repetition mode now and trolling
So stop the BS about setting up a discussion, you have nothing on the table attempting to prove Natufians are the ancestors of the Israelites
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness,
You are actually the one spamming. You keep saying "you can't prove this, you can't prove that, it's not true" but I'm literally offering the opportunity for you or anyone else to have a discussion with actual geneticists and/or professionals from the genetics community who do say it's true so that you can question them about their methodology, at least via email.
But instead you choose to keep hounding me for answers and trying to discredit these professionals through me, simply because I reference their work.
That does not make sense and is completely irrational. Especially when taking into consideration that I am actually trying to further the discussion and get you in contact with the actual geneticists themselves.
I've shown proof that they are willing to discuss these things with people but you want to play dumb.
This is my last comment to you in this thread -- it looks like today is a "troll day" on your calendar
Shalom
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness,
I'm literally offering the opportunity for you or anyone else to have a discussion with actual geneticists
How are you offering this?
Have you contacted a geneticist and this person has agreed they are ready to discuss something?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I've repeatedly made it clear that they are reachable (as you can see in the videos I shared), and I know how to get in touch with them if you want to question them the way you have been questioning me. It will likely cost some sort of fee but I will cover that if somebody is actually willing to do it. Or someone could draft an email with questions/oppositions and I could forward it to them.
If you are not interested then there is nothing left for us to talk about.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Stop spamming the thread this is the third warning. Send me a PM I will talk to you and which ever geneticist live or in person whichever maybe. But it's clear that you have nothing more to contribute to this thread, stop spamming. //MOD Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the Haaretz article I cited in the previous page, how many in here remember the 2018 Lazaridis & Reich et ales. study on Chalcolithic Galileans?
Here are some highlights again for those who may have forgotten or have not read it. 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.
Introduction The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant contrasts qualitatively with that of earlier and later periods in the same region. The Late Chalcolithic in the Levant is characterized by increases in the density of settlements, introduction of sanctuaries, utilization of ossuaries in secondary burials, and expansion of public ritual practices as well as an efflorescence of symbolic motifs sculpted and painted on artifacts made of pottery, basalt, copper, and ivory. The period’s impressive metal artifacts, which reflect the first known use of the “lost wax” technique for casting of copper, attest to the extraordinary technical skill of the people of this period.
The distinctive cultural characteristics of the Late Chalcolithic period in the Levant (often related to the Ghassulian culture, although this term is not in practice applied to the Galilee region where this study is based) have few stylistic links to the earlier or later material cultures of the region, which has led to extensive debate about the origins of the people who made this material culture. One hypothesis is that the Chalcolithic culture in the region was spread in part by immigrants from the north (i.e., northern Mesopotamia), based on similarities in artistic designs. Others have suggested that the local populations of the Levant were entirely responsible for developing this culture, and that any similarities to material cultures to the north are due to borrowing of ideas and not to movements of people.
To explore these questions, we studied ancient DNA from a Chalcolithic site in Northern Israel, Peqi’in (Fig. 1a). This cave, which is around 17 m long and 4.5–8.0 m wide (Fig. 1b), was discovered during road construction in 1995, and was sealed by natural processes during or around the end of the Late Chalcolithic period (around 3900 BCE). Archeological excavations have revealed an extraordinary array of finely crafted objects, including chalices, bowls, and churns, as well as more than 200 ossuaries and domestic jars repurposed as ossuaries (the largest number ever found in a single cave), often decorated with anthropomorphic designs (Fig. 1c). It has been estimated that the burial cave contained up to 600 individuals, making it the largest burial site ever identified from the Late Chalcolithic period in the Levant. Direct radiocarbon dating suggests that the cave was in use throughout the Late Chalcolithic (4500–3900 BCE), functioning as a central burial location for the region.
*Previous genome-wide ancient DNA studies from the Near East have revealed that at the time when agriculture developed, populations from Anatolia, Iran, and the Levant were approximately as genetically differentiated from each other as present-day Europeans and East Asians are today*. By the Bronze Age, however, expansion of different Near Eastern agriculturalist populations—Anatolian, Iranian, and Levantine—in all directions and admixture with each other substantially homogenized populations across the region, thereby contributing to the relatively low genetic differentiation that prevails today. Lazaridis et al. showed that the Levant Bronze Age population from the site of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (2490–2300 BCE) could be fit statistically as a mixture of around 56% ancestry from a group related to Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists (represented by ancient DNA from Motza, Israel and 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan; 8300–6700 BCE) and 44% related to populations of the Iranian Chalcolithic (Seh Gabi, Iran; 4680–3662 calBCE). Haber et al. suggested that the Canaanite Levant Bronze Age population from the site of Sidon, Lebanon (~1700 BCE) could be modeled as a mixture of the same two groups albeit in different proportions (48% Levant Neolithic-related and 52% Iran Chalcolithic-related). However, the Neolithic and Bronze Age sites analyzed so far in the Levant are separated in time by more than three thousand years, making the study of samples that fill in this gap, such as those from Peqi’in, of critical importance.
In a dedicated clean room facility at Harvard Medical School, we obtained bone powder from 48 skeletal remains, of which 37 were petrous bones known for excellent DNA preservation. We extracted DNA and built next-generation sequencing libraries to which we attached unique barcodes to minimize the possibility of contamination. We treated the libraries with Uracil–DNA glycosylase (UDG) to reduce characteristic ancient DNA damage at all but the first and last nucleotides (Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Data 1 provide background for successful samples and report information for each library, respectively). After initial screening by enriching the libraries for mitochondrial DNA, we enriched promising libraries for sequences overlapping about 1.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We evaluated each individual for evidence of authentic ancient DNA by limiting to libraries with a minimum of 3% cytosine-to-thymine errors at the final nucleotide, by requiring that the ratio of X-to-Y-chromosome sequences was characteristic of either a male or a female, by requiring >95% matching to the consensus sequence of mitochondrial DNA, and by requiring (for males) a lack of variation at known polymorphic positions on chromosome X (point estimates of contamination of less than 2%). We also restricted to individuals with at least 5000 of the targeted SNPs covered at least once.
This procedure produced genome-wide data from 22 ancient individuals from Peqi’in Cave (4500–3900 calBCE), with the individuals having a median of 358,313 of the targeted SNPs covered at least once (range: 25,171–1,002,682). The dataset is of exceptional quality given the typically poor preservation of DNA in the warm Near East, with a higher proportion of samples yielding appreciable coverage of ancient DNA than has previously been obtained from the region, likely reflecting the optimal sampling techniques we used and the favorable preservation conditions at the cave. We analyzed this dataset in conjunction with previously published datasets of ancient Near Eastern populations to shed light on the history of the individuals buried in the Peqi’in cave site, and on the population dynamics of the Levant during the Late Chalcolithic period.
Results Genetic differentiation and diversity in the ancient Levant A total of 20 Peqi’in samples appear to be unrelated to each other to the limits of our resolution (that is, genetic analysis suggested that they were not first, second, or third degree relatives of each other), and we used these as our analysis set. Taking advantage of the new data point added by the Peqi’in samples, we began by studying how genetic differentiation among Levantine populations changed over time. We replicate previous reports of dramatic decline in genetic differentiation over time in West Eurasia, observing a median pairwise FST of 0.023 (range: 0.009–0.061) between the Peqi’in samples (abbreviation: Levant_ChL) and other West Eurasian Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations, relative to a previously reported median pairwise FST of 0.098 (range: 0.023–0.153) observed between populations in pre-Neolithic periods, 0.015 (range: 0.002–0.045) in the Bronze Age periods, and 0.011 (range: 0–0.046) in present-day West Eurasian populations. Thus, the collapse to present-day levels of differentiation was largely complete by the Chalcolithic (Supplementary Figure 1).
We also observe an increase in genetic diversity over time in the Levant as measured by the rate of polymorphism between two random genome sequences at each SNP analyzed in our study. Specifically, the Levant_ChL population exhibits an intermediate level of heterozygosity relative to the earlier and later populations (Fig. 2).
Both the increasing genetic diversity over time, and the reduced differentiation between populations as measured via FST, are consistent with a model in which gene flow reduced differentiation across groups while increasing diversity within groups.
Genetic affinities of the individuals of Peqi’in Cave To obtain a qualitative picture of how these individuals relate to previously published ancient DNA and to present-day people, we began by carrying out principal component analysis (PCA). In a plot of the first and second principal components (Fig. 3a), the samples from Peqi’in Cave form a tight cluster, supporting the grouping of these individuals into a single analysis population (while we use the broad name “Levant_ChL” to refer to these samples, we recognize that they are currently the only ancient DNA available from the Levant in this time period and future work will plausibly reveal genetic substructure in Chalcolithic samples over the broad region). The Levant_ChL cluster overlaps in the PCA with a cluster containing Neolithic Levantine samples (Levant_N), although it is slightly shifted upward on the plot toward a cluster corresponding to samples from the Levant Bronze Age, including samples from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon, Lebanon (Levant_BA_North). *The placement of the Levant_ChL cluster is consistent with a previously observed pattern whereby chronologically later Levantine populations are shifted towards the Iran Chalcolithic (Iran_ChL) population compared to earlier Levantine populations*, Levant_N (Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists from present-day Israel and Jordan) and Natufians (Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers from present-day Israel).
ADMIXTURE model-based clustering analyses produced results consistent with PCA in suggesting that individuals from the Levant_ChL population had a greater affinity on average to Iranian agriculturalist-related populations than was the case for earlier Levantine individuals. Figure 3b shows the ADMIXTURE results for the ancient individuals assuming K = 11 clusters (we selected this number because it maximizes ancestry components that are correlated to ancient populations from the Levant, from Iran, and European hunter-gatherers). Like all Levantine populations, the primary ancestry component assigned to the Levant_ChL population, shown in blue, is maximized in earlier Levant_N and Natufian individuals. ADMIXTURE also assigns a component of ancestry in Levant_ChL, shown in green, to a population that is generally absent in the earlier Levant_N and Natufian populations, but is present in later Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North samples. This green component is also inferred in small proportions in several samples assigned to the Levant_N, but there is not a clear association to archaeological location or date, and these individuals are not significantly genetically distinct from the other individuals included in Levant_N by formal testing, and thus we pool all Levant_N for the primary analyses in this study (Supplementary Note 1).
Population continuity and admixture in the Levant To determine the relationship of the Levant_ChL population to other ancient Near Eastern populations, we used f-statistics (see Supplementary Note 2 for more details). We first evaluated whether the Levant_ChL population is consistent with descending directly from a population related to the earlier Levant_N. If this was the case, we would expect that the Levant_N population would be consistent with being more closely related to the Levant_ChL population than it is to any other population, and indeed we confirm this by observing positive statistics of the form f4 (Levant_ChL, A; Levant_N, Chimpanzee) for all ancient test populations, A (Fig. 4a). However, Levant_ChL and Levant_N population do not form a clade, as when we compute symmetry statistics of the form f4 (Levant_N, Levant_ChL; A, Chimpanzee), we find that the statistic is often negative, with Near Eastern populations outside the Levant sharing more alleles with Levant_ChL than with Levant_N (Fig. 4b). We conclude that while the Levant_N and Levant_ChL populations are clearly related, the Levant_ChL population cannot be modeled as descending directly from the Levant_N population without additional admixture related to ancient Iranian agriculturalists. Direct evidence that Levant_ChL is admixed comes from the statistic f3 (Levant_ChL; Levant_N, A), which for some populations, A, is significantly negative indicating that allele frequencies in Levant_ChL tend to be intermediate between those in Levant_N and A—a pattern that can only arise if Levant_ChL is the product of admixture between groups related, perhaps distantly, to Levant_N and A35. The most negative f3- and f4-statistics are produced when A is a population from Iran or the Caucasus. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population is descended from a population related to Levant_N, but also harbors ancestry from non-Levantine populations related to those of Iran or the Caucasus that Levant_N does not share (or at least share to the same extent).
The ancestry of the Levant Chalcolithic people We used qpAdm as our main tool for identifying plausible admixture models for the ancient populations for which we have data (see Supplementary Note 3 for more details).
The qpAdm method evaluates whether a tested set of N “Left” populations—including a “target” population (the population whose ancestry is being modeled) and a set of N − 1 additional populations—are consistent with being derived from mixtures in various proportions of N − 1 ancestral populations related differentially to a set of outgroup populations, referred to as “Right” populations. For all our analyses, we use a base set of 11 “Right” outgroups referred to collectively as “09NW”—Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Onge, Chukchi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Natufian, and WHG—whose value for disentangling divergent strains of ancestry present in ancient Near Easterners has been documented in Lazaridis et al. (for some analyses we supplement this set with additional outgroups). To evaluate whether the “Left” populations are consistent with a hypothesis of being derived from N − 1 sources, qpAdm effectively computes all possible statistics of the form f4(Lefti, Leftj; Rightk, Rightl), for all possible pairs of populations in the proposed “Left” and “Right” sets. It then determines whether all the statistics can be written as a linear combination of f4-statistics corresponding to the differentiation patterns between the proposed N − 1 ancestral populations, appropriately accounting for the covariance of these statistics and computing a single p value for fit based on a Hotelling T-squared distribution36. For models that are consistent with the data (p > 0.05), qpAdm estimates proportions of admixture for the target population from sources related to the N − 1 ancestral populations (with standard errors). Crucially, qpAdm does not require specifying an explicit model for how the “Right” outgroup populations are related.
We first examined all possible “Left” population sets that consisted of Levant_ChL along with one other ancient population from the analysis dataset. Testing a wide range of ancient populations, we found that p values for all possible Left populations were below 0.05 (Supplementary Data 2), showing that Levant_ChL is not consistent with being a clade with any of them relative to the “Right” 09NW outgroups. We then considered models with “Left” population sets containing Levant_ChL along with two additional ancient populations, which corresponds to modeling the Levant_ChL as the result of a two-way admixture between populations related to these two other ancient populations. To reduce the number of hypotheses tested, we restricted the models to pairs of source populations that contain at least one of the six populations that we consider to be the most likely admixture sources based on geographical and temporal proximity: Anatolia_N, Anatolia_ChL, Armenia_ChL, Iran_ChL, Iran_N, and Levant_N. Again, we find no plausible two-way admixture models using a p > 0.05 threshold (Supplementary Figure 2 and Supplementary Data 3). Finally, we tested possible three-way admixture events, restricting to triplets that contain at least two of the six most likely admixture sources. Plausible solutions at p > 0.05 are listed in Table 1 (full results are reported in Supplementary Figure 3 and Supplementary Data 4).
We found multiple candidates for three-way admixture models, always including (1) Levant_N (2) either Anatolia_N or Europe_EN and (3) either Iran_ChL, Iran_N, Iran_LN, Iran_HotuIIIb or Levant_BA_North. These are all very similar models, as Europe_EN (early European agriculturalists) are known to be genetically primarily derived from Anatolian agriculturalists (Anatolia_N)31, and Levant_BA_North has ancestry related to Levant_N and Iran_ChL26. To distinguish between models involving Anatolian Neolithic (Anatolia_N) and European Early Neolithic (Europe_EN), we repeated the analysis including additional outgroup populations in the “Right” set that are sensitive to the European hunter-gatherer-related admixture present to a greater extent in Europe_EN than in Anatolia_N (Supplementary Figure 4a)31 (thus, we added Switzerland_HG, SHG, EHG, Iberia_BA, Steppe_Eneolithic, Europe_MNChL, Europe_LNBA to the “Right” outgroups; abbreviations in Supplementary Table 2). We found that only models involving Levant_N, Anatolia_N, and either Iran_ChL or Levant_BA_North passed at p > 0.05 (Table 1). To distinguish between Iran_ChL and Levant_BA_North, we added Iran_N to the outgroup set (for a total of 19 = 11 + 8 outgroups) (Supplementary Figure 4b). Only the model involving Iran_ChL remained plausible. Based on this uniquely fitting qpAdm model we infer the ancestry of Levant_ChL to be the result of a three-way admixture of populations related to Levant_N (57%), Iran_ChL (17%), and Anatolia_N (26%).
The ancestry of late Levantine Bronze Age populations It was striking to us that previously published Bronze Age Levantine samples from the sites of 'Ain Ghazal in present-day Jordan (Levant_BA_South) and Sidon in present-day Lebanon (Levant_BA_North) can be modeled as two-way admixtures, without the Anatolia_N contribution that is required to model the Levant_ChL population. This suggests that the Levant_ChL population may not be directly ancestral to these later Bronze Age Levantine populations, because if it were, we would also expect to detect an Anatolia_N component of ancestry. In what follows, we treat Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North as separate populations for analysis, since the symmetry statistic f4(Levant_BA_North, Levant_BA_South; A, Chimp) is significant for a number test populations A (|Z| ≥ 3) (Supplementary Data 5), consistent with the different estimated proportions of Levant_N and Iran_ChL ancestry reported in24,26.
To test the hypothesis that Levant_ChL may be directly ancestral to the Bronze Age Levantine populations, we attempted to model both Levant_BA_South and Levant_BA_North as two-way admixtures between Levant_ChL and every other ancient population in our dataset, using the base 09NW set of populations as the “Right” outgroups. We also compared these models to the previously published models that used the Levant_N and Iran_ChL populations as sources (Table 2; Supplementary Figure 5; Supplementary Data 6). In the case of Levant_BA_South from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan, multiple models were plausible, and thus we returned to the strategy of adding additional “Right” population outgroups that are differentially related to one or more of the “Left” populations (specifically, we added various combinations of Armenia_EBA, Steppe_EMBA, Switzerland_HG, Iran_LN, and Iran_N). Only the model including Levant_N and Iran_ChL remains plausible under all conditions. Thus, we can conclude that groups related to Levant_ChL contributed little ancestry to Levant_BA_South.
We observe a qualitatively different pattern in the Levant_BA_North samples from Sidon, Lebanon, where models including Levant_ChL paired with either Iran_N, Iran_LN, or Iran_HotuIIIb populations appear to be a significantly better fit than those including Levant_N + Iran_ChL. We largely confirm this result using the “Right” population outgroups defined in Haber et al.26 (abb. Haber: Ust_Ishim, Kostenki14, MA1, Han, Papuan, Ami, Chuckhi, Karitiana, Mbuti, Switzerland_HG, EHG, WHG, and CHG), although we find that the specific model involving Iran_HotuIIIb no longer works with this “Right” set of populations. Investigating this further, we find that the addition of Anatolia_N in the “Right” outgroup set excludes the model of Levant_N + Iran_ChL favored by Haber et al.26. These results imply that a population that harbored ancestry more closely related to Levant_ChL than to Levant_N contributed to the Levant_BA_North population, even if it did not contribute detectably to the Levant_BA_South population.
We obtained additional insight by running qpAdm with Levant_BA_South as a target of two-way admixture between Levant_N and Iran_ChL, but now adding Levant_ChL and Anatolia_N to the basic 09NW “Right” set of 11 outgroups. The addition of the Levant_ChL causes the model to fail, indicating that Levant_BA_South and Levant_ChL share ancestry following the separation of both of them from the ancestors of Levant_N and Iran_ChL. Thus, in the past there existed an unsampled population that contributed both to Levant_ChL and to Levant_BA_South, even though Levant_ChL cannot be the direct ancestor of Levant_BA_South because, as described above, it harbors Anatolia_N-related ancestry not present in Levant_BA_South.
Genetic heterogeneity in the Levantine Bronze Age We were concerned that our finding that the Levant_ChL population was a mixture of at least three groups might be an artifact of not having access to samples closely related to the true ancestral populations. One specific possibility we considered is that a single ancestral population admixed into the Levant to contribute to both the Levant_ChL and the Levant_BA_South populations, and that this was an unsampled population on an admixture cline between Anatolia_N and Iran_ChL, explaining why qpAdm requires three source populations to model it. To formally test this hypothesis, we used qpWave36,37,38, which determines the minimum number of source populations required to model the relationship between “Left” populations relative to “Right” outgroup populations. Unlike qpAdm, qpWave does not require that populations closely related to the true source populations are available for analysis. Instead it treats all “Left” populations equally, and attempts to determine the minimum number of theoretical source populations required to model the “Left” population set, relative to the “Right” population outgroups. Therefore, we model the relationship between Levant_N, Levant_ChL, and Levant_BA_South as “Left” populations, relative to the 09NW “Right” outgroup populations (Table 3). We find that a minimum of three source populations continues to be required to model the ancestry of these Levantine populations, supporting a model in which at least three separate sources of ancestry are present in the Levant between the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age....
Y'all can read the rest, but hopefully everyone can get the big picture of waves of admixture vs. single continuity.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Crickets??
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Damn, you sure dropped a bomb there, DJ! Looks like Taz will have to claim that his “pure Natufian Israelites” weren’t actually in the Levant anymore by Chalcolithic times.
EDIT: Although, to be fair, the Bronze Age Levantines do seem to vary when it comes to affinity with the earlier Chalcolithic populations, with the southern ones showing less affinity than the northerners.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I never claimed the natufians were still in the Levant in the chalcolithic, nor that the Israelites were "pure natufian". I only said the natufians would have passed down E markers to the Israelites..........smh.
Anyways, I referenced 2 different professionals stating that ancient Israelites had E markers and one of them even said Abraham had E.
Also, "Tazarah" did not write any of the peer-reviewed papers I referenced.
It's funny how you can both see that Elmaestro is not letting me comment in the thread anymore (yet Djehuti comments "crickets" for some reason as if I am ignoring him) and it's funny how Djehuti completely ignored the points raised in my 2 previous comments, as well as the invite to discuss this topic with an actual geneticist.
Djehuti, if you want to challenge actual professionals with decades of experience in the genetics community and tell them that they are wrong on this topic, let me know right now. I've already sent Elmaestro a private message about setting something up.
I'm not commenting in here anymore.
They obviously know way more than I do on the topic since genetics isn't something I hold to, so let's set something up so you can correct them.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Getting back to the Haaretz article I cited in the previous page, how many in here remember the 2018 Lazaridis & Reich et ales. study on Chalcolithic Galileans?
Here are some highlights again for those who may have forgotten or have not read it. [i] 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.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I agree, and there was also a recent study that came out about 2 years ago I think. It concluded that professional geniticists do this as well. They use an extremely flawed method to make the data say and represent what they want it to (and the crazy part is that they all know this.) Up to 215,000 genetic papers were supposedly affected.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
LET ME KNOW if any of you want to set up a LIVE discussion/dialogue with one of these professionals instead of typing back and forth everyday on Egypt Search. No need to even mention me anymore, let's see you go after some actual Ph.Ds and well known scholars/professionals who possess authority in the professional genetics community....
I'm literally offering the opportunity for you or anyone else to have a discussion with actual geneticists and/or professionals from the genetics community who do say it's true
People, please ignore Tazarah He will post whatever is convenient at the moment
Let's move on
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The Samaritans also have a clade of J2 according to this presentation:
quote:The Samaritans claim to be descended from the Israelite Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Levi.
According to Samaritan Law and their interpretation of the Torah, Samaritans were forbidden from marrying non-Israelites, and unlike Jews, they did not accept any converts until 1924. Jews too were forbidden according to Jewish Law from marrying Samaritans. All Samaritans today have only four surviving Y lineages. (A fifth, from the Tribe of Benjamin, died out in 1912).
According to the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, many Samaritans are descended from Jews of Jerusalem who left and moved northward for religious reasons before the time of Alexander the Great in 338 BCE.
This would mean that the Y lineages of the Samaritans could be a tiny random sample of the Y lineages present among Ancient Jews in the Second Temple, and earlier. The Bible itself claims that the Samaritan Levites are descended from actual Ancient Israelite Levites.
Any Y matches between Jews and Samaritans within about 3200 years are very likely to date to Ancient Israel.
At least two of the four Samaritan Y lineages (L210/L227 and V22) must have originated west of the Euphrates, the ancient Levant, and so are extremely likely to have been present among the Ancient Israelites. We have yet to determine the closest matches of the other two (L147* and J2a4*).
The only surviving Samaritan mtDNA lineages are in haplogroups T2a1 and U7a1. No one has every gotten a full mitochondrial sequence on these two haplotypes.
Lioness PLEASE stop posting the same study over and over and over, this is disruptive to anyone trying to actually follow this thread.
You should be able with your own words sum up that study in a small paragraph that you can copy and paste.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Stop trolling, The image "Haplogroup F" is in the thread 5 times (!), Origins of M267 4 times The repetitiousness images started on page 1 and you participated in it but you didn't complain
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stop trolling, The image "Haplogroup F" is in the thread 5 times (!), Origins of M267 4 times The repetitiousness images started on page 1 and you participated in it but you didn't complain
What? Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
look at those images on page 1 of an article on M267, that is in the thread 4 times and mainly on page one then look at the image of text describing Haplogroup F also on page 1 is repeated throughout thread, 5 times but you did not whine then?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote: "Recently several genetic studies on the Samaritan population were made using haplogroup comparisons as well as wide-genome genetic studies. Of the 12 Samaritan males used in the analysis, 10 (83%) had Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup J, which includes three of the four Samaritan families. The Joshua-Marhiv family belongs to Haplogroup J-M267 (formerly "J1"), while the Danafi and Tsedakah families belong to haplogroup J-M172 (formerly "J2"), and can be further distinguished by the M67 SNP—the derived allele of which has been found in the Danafi family—and the PF5169 SNP found in the Tsedakah family. However the biggest and most important Samaritan family, the Cohen family (Tradition: Tribe of Levi), was found to belong to haplogroup E."
quote: "Recently several genetic studies on the Samaritan population were made using haplogroup comparisons as well as wide-genome genetic studies. Of the 12 Samaritan males used in the analysis, 10 (83%) had Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup J, which includes three of the four Samaritan families. The Joshua-Marhiv family belongs to Haplogroup J-M267 (formerly "J1"), while the Danafi and Tsedakah families belong to haplogroup J-M172 (formerly "J2"), and can be further distinguished by the M67 SNP—the derived allele of which has been found in the Danafi family—and the PF5169 SNP found in the Tsedakah family. However the biggest and most important Samaritan family, the Cohen family (Tradition: Tribe of Levi), was found to belong to haplogroup E." [108]
Shen, P.; Lavi, T.; Kivisild, T.; Chou, V.; Sengun, D.; Gefel, D.; Shpirer, I.; Woolf, E.; Hillel, J.; Feldman, M.W.; Oefner, P.J. (2004). "Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages of Samaritans and Other Israeli Populations From Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Variation" (PDF). Human Mutation. 24 (3): 248–260. doi:10.1002/humu.20077. PMID 15300852. S2CID 1571356.
The Samaritan community, which numbered more than a million in late Roman times and only 146 in 1917, numbers today about 640 people representing four large families. They are culturally different from both Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Middle East and their origin remains a question of great interest. Genetic differences between the Samaritans and neighboring Jewish and non-Jewish populations are corroborated in the present study of 7,280 bp of nonrecombining Y-chromosome and 5,622 bp of coding and hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences. Comparative sequence analysis was carried out on 12 Samaritan Y-chromosome, and mtDNA samples from nine male and seven female Samaritans separated by at least two generations. In addition, 18–20 male individuals were analyzed, each representing Ethiopian, Ashkenazi, Iraqi, Libyan, Moroccan, and Yemenite Jews, as well as Druze and Palestinians, all currently living in Israel. The four Samaritan families clustered to four distinct Y-chromosome haplogroups according to their patrilineal identity. Of the 16 Samaritan mtDNA samples, 14 carry either of two mitochondrial haplotypes that are rare or absent among other worldwide ethnic groups. Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. Hum Mutat 24:248–260, 2004. r
Of the 12 Samaritan males, 10 (83%) belong to haplogroup J, which captures three of the four Samaritan families. The family Joshua-Marhiv belongs to subhaplogroup J1, while families Danfi and Tsdaka belong to subhaplogroup J2, and can be further distinguished by M67, the derived allele of which has been found in the Danfi family. The paternal ancestry of Ethiopian Jews resembles that of Africans, with seven out of 17 (41.2%) belonging to haplogroup A3b2, and three (17.6%) belonging to E*. Haplogroup E3b1, defined by M78, was found in all nine populations at frequencies of 10–16.7%. The Samaritan family Cohen carries this haplotype. Haplogroup E3b3, defined by M123, was present at 5 to 20% in Ethiopian, Ashkenazi, Libyan, and Yemenite Jews, and in Palestinians. Only two individuals, one Ethiopian and one Moroccan belong to E3b* and carry neither M78 nor M123.
The Cohen family represents an interesting subgroup of the Samaritans. It can be traced to a single individual some 250 years ago [Cazes and Bonne´-Tamir, 1984]. Consistent with a previous report [Bonne´-Tamir et al. 2003], the Samaritan Cohens did not carry the Cohen modal haplotype (data not shown), which is defined by the repeat numbers 14, 16, 23, 10, 11, and 12 at the Ychromosome microsatellite loci DYS19, DYS388, DYS 390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393, respectively [Thomas et al., 1998]. This six-microsatellite haplotype, together with its one-mutation neighbors, form a cluster that is found at frequencies of 69.4 and 61.4% in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Cohanim, while its frequency in the general Jewish population is about 14% [Thomas et al., 1998; Nebel et al., 2001]. The Cohen modal cluster is invariably associated with haplogroup J, which probably originated some 15,000 years ago in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent [Hammer et al., 2000; Quintana-Murci et al., 2001], whence it began its expansion throughout the Middle East 7,500 years ago [Nebel et al., 2001; Quintana-Murci et al., 2001]. To our surprise, all non-Cohen Samaritan Y-chromosomes belonged to the Cohen modal cluster. The single exception was an M67 lineage from the Danfi family. It was two microsatellite mutation steps removed from the Cohen modal haplotype. Based on the classification by Nebel et al. [2001], the Samaritan M172 lineages carried the so-called Muslim Kurd modal haplotype (14-15-23- 10-11-12). The Samaritan M267 lineages differed from the classical Cohen modal haplotype at DYS391, carrying 11 rather than 10 repeats. Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Ychromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Ylineages (Fig. 2A), while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences (Fig. 2B). Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13 microsatellite loci (data not shown), underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.
Interesting pie chart, very unusual. I think hard to read. It has simultaneously Y-DNA indicted across the top as columns at the same time mitochondrial on the vertical rows and then varying size of the circles. The text also talks about the haplogroups in the more conventional way
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is a table from 2013 which shows the haplogroups of Samaritans. As in the Bronze age samples both J1, J2 and E (E1b1b1) are present.
In the Wikipedia article they only mention the study from 2004. One must read both of the studies in detail to see if they came to the same or different conclusions.
Table 1 shows the six distinct Samaritan Y chromosome STR haplotypes. The haplotypes are identical within the Joshua-Marhiv and Tsedaka lineages. There is a single repeat difference at DYS 391 in the Samaritan Cohen lineage, and a single repeat difference at DYS 390 in the Danfi lineage.
Today there are only about 874 Samaritans left (according to Wiki, in the study they say 750).
quote:ABSTRACT The Samaritans are a group of some 750 indigenous Middle Eastern people, about half of whom live in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv, and the other half near Nablus. The Samaritan population is believed to have numbered more than a million in late Roman times, but less than 150 in 1917. The ancestry of the Samaritans has been subject to controversy from late Biblical times to the present. In this study, liquid chromatographyelectrospray ionization quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometry was used to allelotype 13 Y-chromosomal and 15 autosomal microsatellites in a sample of 12 Samaritans chosen to have as low a level of relationship as possible, and 461 Jews and non-Jews. Estimation of genetic distances between the Samaritans and seven Jewish and three non-Jewish populations from Israel, as well as populations from Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, and Europe, revealed that the Samaritans were closely related to Cohanim. This result supports the position of the Samaritans that they are descendants from the tribes of Israel dating to before the Assyrian exile in 722–720 BCE. In concordance with previously published singlenucleotide polymorphism haplotypes, each Samaritan family, with the exception of the Samaritan Cohen lineage, was observed to carry a distinctive Y-chromosome short tandem repeat haplotype that was not more than one mutation removed from the six-marker Cohen modal haplotype
About all these peoples relationship to the buried individual. Since we have an alleged Israelite grave where one individual carried Y-DNA haplogroup J2 then it is what we have. Until we find more tombs, or can access more human Israelite remains everything else just become speculations.
We also have a Jewish grave with DNA from the 1th century AD, but it only yielded mitochondrial DNA.
So we just need more material (preferably from different times and places).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeotypery,: About all these peoples relationship to the buried individual. Since we have an alleged Israelite grave where one individual carried Y-DNA haplogroup J2 then it is what we have. Until we find more tombs, or can access more human Israelite remains everything else just become speculations.
Everything is speculation. Everything I have said as well as everyone else. Because as you just said, the "Israelite" gravesite is alleged. The title of this thread even has "Ancient Israelites" in quotations. Without the DNA of one of the patriarchs, everything is speculation in terms of whether or not anyone is an ethnic Israelite when it comes to DNA.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is a table from 2013 which shows the haplogroups of Samaritans. As in the Bronze age samples both J1, J2 and E (E1b1b1) are present.
In the Wikipedia article they only mention the study from 2004. One must read both of the studies in detail to see if they came to the same or different conclusions.
2013
Genetics and the history of the Samaritans: Ychromosomal microsatellites and genetic affinity between Samaritans and Cohanim
The two articles have 3 of the same authors and use the same data, 12 Samaritans as in the above chart the are all Haplogroup J except 2 Samaritan Cohens who were E1b1b1a1 (aka E3b aka E-M78) (2 Samaritan Cohens, not exactly a big sample of them)
Genetics and the history of the Samaritans: Y chromosomal microsatellites and genetic affinity between Samaritans and Cohanim 2013
Among a number of Jewish populations of either Ashkenazi or Sephardic origin, an important component in the sharing of Y-chromosomes is the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), first described by Thomas et al. (1998). The CMH is defined by alleles 14, 16, 23, 10, 11, and 12 at the STR loci DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393, respectively (Table 3). The CMH was observed 23 times in the present study: in
eight of our 25 Cohanim,
three Ashkenazi,
two Iraqi,
one Libyan and one Yemenite Jew,
as well as three Brahui,
two Turks,
one Baluch,
and one Italian,
respectively.
Nine of our 12 Samaritans (Table 1) were only one step removed from the CMH, as was the case for eight Cohanim, six Bedouins, five Turks, two Palestinians, two Moroccan Jews, two Druze, one Baluch, and one Libyan, Iraqi and Yemenite Jew each.
Y-chromosome similarities reflected the large number of haplotypes in the sample, which was too small to include only those haplotypes that are observed in at least one population (e.g., Thomas et al. 2000 used a threshold of ten percent) in the calculation of identity. It is interesting that in terms of the number of single repeats separating the haplotypes of the Samaritan lineages from the CMH, the distances between CMH and C1 and C2 were 6 and 7, respectively, while the distances between CMH and the other Samaritan haplotypes were 1, with the single exception of D1. This suggests that, contrary to expectation on the basis of their family names, the Tsdaka, Joshua-Marhiv and Danfi lineages share a common ancestor with the paternally inherited Jewish high priesthood more recently than does the Samaritan Cohen lineage.
There are two main hypotheses for the origin of Samaritans. The first, which is argued by the orthodox Jewish authorities and a few modern scholars (Kaufman 1956), is that Samaritans are not Israelites at all but were brought to Israel by the Assyrian king when he conquered Israel (722–720 BC) and exiled its people (II Kings 17: 23–24). If this view were true, assuming that modern Jewish populations are continuous with the ancient Jewish populations, we would not expect similarity of Samaritans and modern Jewish populations. The second hypothesis, which is argued by the Samaritans themselves, is that they are descendants of Israelites who remained in Israel after the Assyrian conquest and diverged from the mainstream more than 2500 years ago. They remained isolated until the present time (although foreign elements from the surrounding Arabic people have been incorporated into their style of life). The Israeli historian S. Talmon June 27, 2013 25 (2002) supports the Samaritans’ claim that they are mostly descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Menasseh that remained in Israel after the Assyrian conquest. His opinion is that the statement in the Bible (II Kings 17: 24) is tendentious and intended to ostracize the Samaritans from the rest of Israel’s people (see also Cogan and Tadmor 1988). In fact, II Chronicles 30: 1 may be interpreted as confirming that a large fraction of the tribes of Ephraim and Menasseh (i.e., Samaritans) remained in Israel after the Assyrian exile. In comparing Samaritans to Jews and to Palestinians, the latter comprise a local neighboring reference population. In his book, Ben Zvi (1957) indicates that under the rule of the Moslems (end of the thirteenth century), the Samaritan population gradually declined and they were moved to Egypt, Syria, and to other Middle Eastern locations. Gene flow from these local populations to the Samaritans could then have occurred.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Damn, you sure dropped a bomb there, DJ! Looks like Taz will have to claim that his “pure Natufian Israelites” weren’t actually in the Levant anymore by Chalcolithic times.
EDIT: Although, to be fair, the Bronze Age Levantines do seem to vary when it comes to affinity with the earlier Chalcolithic populations, with the southern ones showing less affinity than the northerners.
Exactly! Not to mention that Natufians in all studies are an outlier compared to the other populations and the closest populations to Natufians were the PPN people.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I never claimed the natufians were still in the Levant in the chalcolithic, nor that the Israelites were "pure natufian". I only said the natufians would have passed down E markers to the Israelites..........smh.
Anyways, I referenced 2 different professionals stating that ancient Israelites had E markers and one of them even said Abraham had E.
Also, "Tazarah" did not write any of the peer-reviewed papers I referenced.
It's funny how you can both see that Elmaestro is not letting me comment in the thread anymore (yet Djehuti comments "crickets" for some reason as if I am ignoring him) and it's funny how Djehuti completely ignored the points raised in my 2 previous comments, as well as the invite to discuss this topic with an actual geneticist.
Djehuti, if you want to challenge actual professionals with decades of experience in the genetics community and tell them that they are wrong on this topic, let me know right now. I've already sent Elmaestro a private message about setting something up.
I'm not commenting in here anymore.
They obviously know way more than I do on the topic since genetics isn't something I hold to, so let's set something up so you can correct them.
Nobody is denying that ancient Israelites carried E, but what evidence is there that E defines the Israelite lineage proper allegedly from Jacob let alone Abraham?! LOL What "expert" told you Abraham carried E??! Aren't you the same person who said we don't even have the physical remains of the Hebrew Patriarchs, yet you are the one jumping to conclusions about what haplogroup Abraham had!
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
Where do you see the word "expert" in what you quoted?... not saying they aren't experts, but that isn't the word I used.
I already referenced the information and gave a link to the website where a professional says Abraham had E, I am not going to repost it again.
Also, not even 4 comments ago, I said to Archeotypery:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Everything is speculation. Everything I have said as well as everyone else. Because as you just said, the "Israelite" gravesite is alleged. The title of this thread even has "Ancient Israelites" in quotations. Without the DNA of one of the patriarchs, everything is speculation in terms of whether or not anyone is an ethnic Israelite when it comes to DNA.
I have consistently pointed out multiple times in this thread that nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ If you are referring to Dr. Elhaik, you do realize that he promotes the Khazarian Hypothesis albeit in a modified form suggesting that the origins of Ashkenazi Jews lies in Iranian nomads. The problem is that there is no historical basis for his claim much like the historical basis of E since the common haplotype found in ALL Jews besides E is J and that J is associated with Levites and particularly Cohen across all Jewish sects. Not to mention the fact that Ashkenazi genetics debunks his claims.
^ Despite the claims of the person saying they descend from converts, all Ashkenazi show close affinities with populations in the Mediterranean known to have had historical Judean presence.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
How is J associated with Levites ("cohen") when there is no ancient Levite DNA let alone Aaron's DNA?
But speaking to your point, I referenced a source several comments ago showing that the biggest and most important Samaritan family ("Cohens") are haplogroup E and "Levites" according to tradition. And as we know, Samaritans have supposedly never left Israel and have always been there.
But again, no one even has Aaron's DNA or any ancient Levite DNA.
Let me know if you would be interested in dialoguing with Dr. Elhaik though. I find it strange how people take shots at him yet the US government website publishes his peer-reviewed research -- even the peer-reviewed paper he wrote about khazars.
(National Library of Medicine/National Center for Biotechnology Information)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
How is J associated with Levites ("cohen") when there is no ancient Levite DNA let alone Aaron's DNA?..
LOL Are you serious?! I already told you that we have modern DNA from Levites and Cohen from different communities of Jews whether Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Teimani (Yemeni), and Bukhari (Iranian). Do you think this is purely coincidence??
Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 Early splitting of the J1a1a1-P58 branch results in the minor branches and singleton lineages distributed overwhelmingly among the modern populations of the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, southern Mesopotamia, and East Africa (Supplementary Table S4). These are J1a1a1b-Z18315, J1a1a1a2-ZS1280, J1a1a1a3-B2146 and J1a1a1a1b-B2062. In the northern parts of West Asia, they are virtually absent. The ancient distribution of these branches mirrors the current one (Supplementary Table S3). A notable exception is J1a1a1b1-L817, a sub-branch of J1a1a1b-Z18315; while its modern members are found among the Ashkenazi Jews and central and northeastern Europeans, it is also found in a 300–500 CE individual from Rome. The TMRCA of J1a1a1b1-L817—1.5 kya (95% HPD = 0.9–2.1 kya) (Table 1)—corresponds to the age of other Ashkenazi Jewish Y chromosome founders29. The distribution of these branches in the southern regions of West Asia suggests the origin of the J1a1a1-P58 branch there.
A sub-branch of J1a1a1-P58—J1a1a1a1a-Z1853—coalesces ~ 7.3 kya (95% HPD = 5.7–9.0 kya) (Table 1, Supplementary File S1). This branch retains an important phylogeographic mark as the branch to which most of the northern West Asian J1a1a1-P58 lineages belong (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S1). Nevertheless, the J1a1a1a1a-Z1853 branch occurs primarily in the southern regions of West Asia. Most of the ancient members are found in the Levant and Egypt (Supplementary Table S3). Among them is the oldest known aDNA, belonging to haplogroup J1a1a1-P5846 (Supplementary Table S3). Minor branches of the J1a1a1a1a-Z1853 contain samples from Europe as well. These are J1a1a1a1a1b-Z18297, J1a1a1a1a1a2-ZS2524 and J1a1a1a1a1a1b-B2069 (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S1), coalescing ~ 4–6 kya (Table 1, Supplementary File S1). Another sub-branch—J1a1a1a1a1a1a2-B877—is specific to the Jewish Cohens (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S1). Its TMRCA of ~ 3.2 kya (95% HPD = 2.4–4.0 kya) overlaps with the previous estimate (Table 1, Supplementary File S1). It exceeds the TMRCA of J1a1a1b1-L817, another Jewish lineage in haplogroup J1-M267. Intriguingly, an ancient member of the J1a1a1a1a1a1a2-B877 branch is found again in Rome, this time in the Imperial period (27 BCE—300 CE), which is characterized by an increase in genome-wide ancestry from the eastern Mediterranean region...
Haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 in ancient populations was found only in the Bronze Age Levant. It is worth to note that the aDNA studies lack samples from the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, leaving us with only a few male samples of the appropriate age from the southern regions of West Asia. The initial low absolute number of people bearing haplogroup J1a1a1-P58, as we see through our demographic analysis (Fig. 4), further complicates our possibility to find them in the early Holocene assemblages. Ne was increasing starting from the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age periods (Fig. 4), the time when haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 appeared in the archaeological record of the Levant. These are the oldest haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 members found so far in the world, further supporting its origin in the southern regions of West Asia. Thus, the apparent contradiction mentioned above, could be instead the expected outcome. In regions with an insufficient number of human fossils and low preservation of aDNA, demographic studies with contemporary samples are currently the only insight we have.
Abraham's arrival in Canaan dates to the Bronze Age which coincides with the arrival of J1 in the area.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
But no ancient Levite DNA to compare to right? So it's speculation, just like trying to assign a haplogroup to Abraham.
They did not get actual ancient Levite DNA and compare it to these modern populations.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested. But it is an interesting inference that so many Levites and Cohens today from different communities of Jews share that same clade and NOT E. So the circumstantial evidence of today's populations do not favor your desire.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Bro, you are calling modern people "Levites" and "Cohen" without any actual Levite DNA to test and compare against. And your reason is because they share similar DNA. And out of all the other reasons why they might share similar DNA, it just has to be because they are Levites right? Arabs have J too, I guess they are "Levites" as well. Lol.... let me know if you are willing to discuss Dr. Elhaik's peer-reviewed paper with him since you know so much more than him on the topic. I'm not concerned with or troubled by genetic theories that lack "conclusive evidence", in your own words. Especially when genetic methodology does not even line up with the Bible.
Seriously, let me know if you want to dialogue with an actual professional. I'm not going to risk getting banned by going back and forth with you over something that you can discuss with an actual geneticist who has actually researched the topic.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Bro, they are called "Levite" and "Cohen" DNA in the first place because they come from men whose family names are Levi and Cohen who traditionally only marry others of those surnames and are therefore the most endogamous group within the already endogamous orthodox Jewish communities! LOL Oh and the specific J1 marker that modern Cohen and Levi have are different from most Arab J1 types or did you not read the paper I cited earlier??
I know that irks you because their shared haplotype is J NOT E but oh well.
Now here are some autosomal data courtesy of Parahu
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Meanwhile as it pertains to black Jews, the most prominent group is the Beta Israel of Ethiopia yet they lack the Cohen Modal haplotype, but there is another black group that does have it.
The Cohanim (singular: Cohen) are members of a priestly lineage maintained by the mainstream Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewish communities. Traditionally, they are considered to be the descendents of Aaron, the brother of Moses, who served the Israelites as the first High Priest (Cohen Gadol). It is accepted in the mainstream biblical scholarship that the priesthood in ancient Israel has been hereditary (e.g. Exodus 28), passed paternally. Recent DNA studies, as reported in Jon Entine’s 'Abraham’s Children', confirmed the existence of a shared genetic lineage among those who maintain the Cohenic descent today. This lineage scientifically traces to about 3,300 years, which is the most commonly presumed time period of Aaron.
Although the Beta Israel — the Ethiopian Jews, a minority of today’s Israeli population, who mostly came to the country in two waves in the 1980s and early 1990s—maintain the priesthood tradition, they are unique in that they do not consider it to be hereditary. Instead, the Beta Israel priest, called as Kes or Kahin (Cohen), is elected by his community. Traditionally, Keses, as Ken Blady explains, “were for the most part drawn from the general population, and each was selected based on his own merits” (p. 363).
Genetic studies also find no Cohenic genetics among the Beta Israel, which is often considered by scholars as further proof to the theory that the group has no ancient Jewish descent. *The problem with this suggestion is of course the false assumption that the genetics of Cohanim are exclusively determinative for the existence of an ancient Jewish lineage. In reality, this genetic trait reflects only a certain purported family lineage, that of Aaron.*
And the fact that genetic studies have found the Cohenic lineage existent among the Lemba—black African group from Zimbabwe and South Africa — is cited by scholars in context of the Beta Israel as being exceptional among the presumably Jewish black-Africans for not having ancient Jewish genetics. Jessica Mozersky provides an expressive summary of this situation:
Thomas et al. (2000) discovered that some of the Lemba carried the Cohen model haplotype and this was used as evidence that they were likely descended from Jews in ancient Israel, as their oral history suggests. Another group of Jews in Ethiopia who claim also to be descended from Jews in ancient Israel were tested and did not carry the haplotype, and this was taken as proof that they were not Jewish.” (p. 46)
Yet, it is clearly unreasonable to define the Jewish roots of the Beta Israel–whose Jewishness spans all historical, religious, and ethnic ground—against the Lemba, with whom they share nothing in common other than broad continental African origins. The two populations are radically different in genetics, traditions, culture and history...
You can read the rest for yourself. Of course the CM haplotype only shows Aaronic descent from the priesthood and not necessarily Jewish descent in general especially since as was explained before Hebrew/Israelite admittance was primarily from the maternal line. All other lineages of tribe and house came from the father.
And here is more autosomal G25 findings on different Jewish groups:
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
This you?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.
I rest my case. So I'm guessing you are not willing to discuss Dr. Elhaik's peer-reviewed paper with him right? Since you keep ignoring the opportunity. You would rather argue back and forth about theory with me on here. Very telling
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I'm considering locking this thread because at this point we're going in circles and both parties are just frustrating themselves especially when they KNOW they will never come to an agreement of some sort.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I can't speak for Tazarah, but no I'm not frustrated at all. I just cite the evidence as is. He can interpret however he wants.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: This you?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.
I rest my case. So I'm guessing you are not willing to discuss Dr. Elhaik's peer-reviewed paper with him right? Since you keep ignoring the opportunity. You would rather argue back and forth about theory with me on here. Very telling
Funny how you cut off the rest of my post that we instead have the rather strong circumstantial evidence of Cohen Modal Haplotype in living members of Levite and Cohanim families. I just cited another source showing how that haplotype is preserved among *all* communities of Jews which practice endogamy among Cohanim families including Lemba of Southern Africa but NOT the Beta Israel because membership in the Cohanim in that culture is not hereditary. You can hold out on the simple fact that they haven't tested ancient Cohanim yet but when they do and it's confirmed what you gonna do, bro?? There's only so long your wishful thinking can hold out.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
Funny how you keep ignoring my offer for you to discuss your accusations of error with an actual geneticist. You're trying to assign an ancient lineage to a group of people without any of the actual DNA required and in your own words there is no conclusive evidence. Not even the people at the Maury show are this sloppy when it comes to genetics. Why are you asking "what if" when you are ALREADY making matter of fact statements while at the same time admitting there is no conclusive evidence?
What I don't understand is why you are so focused on going back and forth with me (even if it means the thread will be closed) if I'm so wrong about everything?
Ancient archaeology/artwork does not match up with them, Biblical prophecy does not match up with them, historical firsthand eyewitness accounts from ancient times and early centuries do not match up with them, and some of their own higher ups openly admit that they do not descend from the ancient Hebrews. A lot of ordinary jewish people say this as well. The only thing in their favor is "DNA" which as you already admit lacks conlusive evidence, and which can also be maniupated to further narratives because of biases. Most importantly, nobody has any of the patriarch's (Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's) DNA.
Does this mean I hate them? No. Does this mean I wish harm or misfortune on them? No. I strive to live peacefully with all people. But this also does not mean I have to buy into all this, especially when Israeli geneticists like Dr. Eran Elhaik say that tens of thousands of ancient Israelite skeletons that demonstrate the entire history of Israel are being hidden in the basement of some university in Israel for "political reasons". It's the same game that gets played with ancient Egypt.
Anyone who thinks that after all this time and after decades of digging up skeletons in Israel, only 2 "ancient Israelite" samples have been found is gullible and naive. But you can believe what you want, my faith lies in the Bible and genetic methodology does not line up with the Bible at all. Evolution (genetics) and the Bible are not congruent.
*** But Askia is right. We will never agree. While we are both free to believe what we want, there is literally no point in continuing this discussion.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
Funny how you keep ignoring my offer for you to discuss your accusations of error with an actual geneticist. You're trying to assign an ancient lineage to a group of people without any of the actual DNA required and in your own words there is no conclusive evidence. Not even the people at the Maury show are this sloppy when it comes to genetics. Why are you asking "what if" when you are ALREADY making matter of fact statements while at the same time admitting there is no conclusive evidence?
Most importantly, nobody has any of the patriarch's (Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's) DNA.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Djehuti
Let me know if you would like to have a live discussion with Dr. Eran Elhaik in which you can question him about his methodology. He's the geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper published on the government website which states that the natufians are the most likely Judaean progenitors, and he also says that Abraham had an E marker and that ancient Israelites had E.
Eran Elhaik is the Chief of Science Officer of Ancient DNA Origins. Ancient DNA Origins is a private DNA testing company that sells test kits purporting to be able to determine not only someone has DNA matching the ancient Israelites but sells separate testing kits for each of the tribes.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ Thank you for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the website belonged to Dr. Elhaik. Anyway; this would be a good opportunity for Djehuti (or you) to speak directly with Dr. Elhaik (an actual geneticist) and present any opposition. Are you interested?
Keep in mind, Djehuti has claimed multiple times that Levi had J. Are you going to call him out on that? If not, then you should have no problem with the ancient origins website assigning DNA to tribes with little to no evidence.
But of course you won't... because you are a hypocrite who is unecessarily obsessed with Tazarah.
I can 100% guarantee you won't reach out to ancient origins or Dr. Elhaik either, you're just going to type at me.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Maybe you should have a discussion with him. You said "You're trying to assign an ancient lineage to a group of people without any of the actual DNA required" yet he's doing it and selling test kits. The man is selling a commercial product. I would rather speak to a geneticist who doesn't have that extent of conflict of interest. I also have no desire to speak with a geneticist who makes an aside remark on genetics but in an article about historical linguistics. I only care about what the author tries to prove in the article with evidence and test results. If they make some aside remark that is never developed in the article, there is nothing really on the table. It's not worth responding to until there is an article about it. If someone mentions Natufians once in a article and the article is focused on Ashkenazic Jews, Yiddish etc there is no there there. When he writes an article about his theory that the Natufians are the progenitors of the Israelites then I'll look into it as a possibility but thus far you have been like a broken record about this for 10 pages for one aside remark made in an article and it is not even clear if he wrote that or the lead author of the article (although it is fair to assume they agree on it) Why don't you go set up discussion with Elhaik and have him lay out theory with test results and evidence? There is nothing on the table yet to even react to but a one sentence claim in an article. Also the quote is
quote:
"The non-Levantine origin of AJs is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004)"
They say "some of" there They did not say> "an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians, the most likely Judaean progenitors" They leave open the possibility of "not all of" when they said "some of" But since the article is not even about this and this is just a one-off, undeveloped side remark , there is nothing even on the table. You could be the one that interviews him and puts it on the table so he can present evidence and detail and get a cut of any test kits sales that come out of it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ I'm not the one trying to discredit the work of a professional geneticist with a Ph.D and decades of experience in the field so why would I need to say anything to him? You are more than welcome to draft an email and I will forward it to him and we can all see what he says, my bet is that he has access to papers and research that you have never seen or heard of and that you did not even know existed.
Djehuti references information about how J is supposed to be Levi and you say literally nothing about it, how many people are walking around claiming to be Levi and Cohen with 0 ancient DNA to prove it? Yet you are completely silent. I know what your problem is, I see right through you.
Yeah the paper says the natufians are some of the most likely Judaean progenitors, a group of professionals would not say that for no reason and the US government website would not publish it if it had no basis. And I doubt that the people attacking the paper on this website (including you) know more than actual professionals who have dedicated their lives to researching the topic.
Dr. Elhaik also wrote that Abraham would have been an E carrier. You are more than welcome to reference another paper that assigns who the progenitors of the Israelites are and you are more than welcome to private message me with some oppositions that you would like for me to forward to Dr. Elhaik.
Otherwise, there is literally nothing else for us to talk about. I'm not going back and forth with a troll, especially when I'm the only one who gets reprimanded.
**** Do not even respond if you are not interested in talking with Dr. Elhaik.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I think you're mistaken if you think I'm "assigning" any genetic lineage to an ancient population without proof. I am merely making a hypothesis based on the evidence we have now. Again, although we don't have any remains of Israelite priests or Levites, we do have samples from living hereditary Cohanim of various communities and what they all have in common is not E.
As for Dr. Elhaik his thesis is based on the premise that Proto-Semitic speakers carred E. The problem is that there is no evidence that Abraham or even the Hebrew people at large were the original Proto-Semitic speakers. In fact their culture as documented in Genesis is very much Mesopotamian, specifically northern Mesopotamian and their culture shows more affinities to Hurrians than anyone else. Linguistics and population while related are not necessarily the same. You and I speak English does that mean we are genetically descended from Anglo-Saxons??
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ I think you're mistaken if you think I'm "assigning" any genetic lineage to an ancient population without proof. I am merely making a hypothesis based on the evidence we have now. Again, although we don't have any remains of Israelite priests or Levites, we do have samples from living hereditary Cohanim of various communities and what they all have in common is not E.
As for Dr. Elhaik his thesis is based on the premise that Proto-Semitic speakers carred E. The problem is that there is no evidence that Abraham or even the Hebrew people at large were the original Proto-Semitic speakers. In fact their culture as documented in Genesis is very much Mesopotamian, specifically northern Mesopotamian and their culture shows more affinities to Hurrians than anyone else. Linguistics and population while related are not necessarily the same. You and I speak English does that mean we are genetically descended from Anglo-Saxons??
Which passages in Genesis points to the Hurrian origin of Abraham?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, although we don't have any remains of Israelite priests or Levites, we do have samples from living hereditary Cohanim of various communities and what they all have in common is not E.
...which means absolutely nothing. The biggest and most important Samaritan Cohen family (Samaritans "never left Israel" remember?) has E markers and they are also said to descend from Levi. But without actual ancient Levite DNA it's all guesswork.
Are you willing to discuss this topic with Dr. Eran Elhaik, a seasoned geneticist with a Ph.D and decades worth of experience in genetics?
I find it extremely hard to believe that a professional geneticist with that much experience and accolades is wrong while some random person on egypt search is right.
Going back and forth with me literally proves nothing.
Posted by ISeeLuba (Member # 23332) on :
The names "Osiris", "Israel" and "Rameses" were not names nor titles of males.
And the determinative is of a woman, so not a beard on her chin...
Very many different ways Weyzero "Mrs." is mispronounced, misspelled and misapplied to men (ato is "Mr.").
"Eran Elhaik (born 1980) is an Israeli-American geneticist and bioinformatician, an associate professor of bioinformatics at Lund University in Sweden and Chief of Science Officer at an ancestry testing company called Ancient DNA Origins owned by Enkigen Genetics Limited, registered in Ireland.His research uses computational, statistical, epidemiological and mathematical approaches to fields such as complex disorders, population genetics, personalised medicine, molecular evolution, genomics, paleogenomics and epigenetics."
"After completing undergraduate studies in Israel, he obtained a PhD in molecular evolution under the supervision of Dan Graur at the University of Houston in 2009, followed by postdoctoral research fellowships at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and School of Public Health. In 2011 the Genographic Project, after concerns emerged about the retention of private genetic data of individuals in surveyed populations, hired Elhaik and asked him to design a method that would enable analysts to extract only historical information from the accumulating genomic evidence of populations in such a way that individual's right to keep their private health profile was collected from individuals, without infringing their personal health data private. From 2014 to 2019 he worked at the University of Sheffield Department of Animal and Plant Sciences in the United Kingdom. Since 2019 he has been an associate professor of bioinformatics at the Department of Biology at Lund University in Sweden."
The Response:
-- removed by Tazarah
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Over the past week I've been doing research into this topic specifically and in this short amount of time I've learned there is just as much scholarly information out there that goes against the claims of haplogroup J and other things that have been said in this thread. There is no overwhelming consensus in the scientific community.
Dr. Elhaik's mention of autosomal DNA reminded me of this paper I came across 2-3 years ago, also written by an Israeli geneticist (Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin) with a Ph.D in human population genetics and anthropological genetics from Tel Aviv University.
According to this peer-reviewed paper he wrote, eastern european Jews (askenazim included), the majority of whom carry J markers, are all likely the descendants of proselytes/converts according to their autosomal DNA.
And there is so much more information out there like this, it's not even worth posting it all.
But most importantly and as I have been saying this entire time, nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA to begin with. Or any of the other patriarch's DNA -- and there is no reason to fight or get disrespectful over this topic.
DISCLAIMER: I do not and have not ever hated or wished to harm any races or groups of people nor do I or have I ever instructed anybody else to. I simply have an opinion on things just like everyone else. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: *Dr. Eran Elhaik's response*
[i] short bio:
"Eran Elhaik
we don't care. Do we, when we post science articles, and somebody disputes them do we then try to bolster our position by listing the geneticist's resume ten times as if that is proving whatever his opinion is? It's spamming at this point Are you in love with guy or something?
People, if you feel like replying to these letters to Eran Elhaik from Tazarah please use the below,
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:
Re: Question About Your Research Inbox x Eran Elhaik <eran.elhaik@biol.lu.se> to me▾ Hello, I base my arguments on the autosomal DNS signature. Not on imaginary haplotypes that do not exist in the data over time.
12:00 PM (5 hours ago) There is continuity in the data and there is an Israelite signature that is persistent throughout time. So you can not only know who are Israelites but also who are the migrants and what have the groups they brought with them and when. Best, Eran
On Nov 21, 2023 8:44 PM, Greetings Dr. Elhaik, wrote: I hope this email finds you well. I have been studying your work and find it interesting. I wanted to ask some brief questions about one of the papers you wrote titled "The Origins of Ashkenaz, Azhkenazic Jews, and Yiddish". In the paper, it says the Natufians are some of the most likely Judean progenitors. I have referenced this paper in a discussion with other ordinary individuals like myself and they claim it isn't possible for the Natufians to have been the progenitors of the Judeans/Israelites. They claim that haplogroup J is a better fit because it supposedly came from Mesopotamia like how the Torah says Abraham came from, etc. They overall feel that haplogroup J is a better fit for the Judeans and they say that just because proto-semitic speakers were known to have haplogroup E, this does not mean they were the ancestors of the Judeans because proto-semitic is just a language. However, on the ancient origins website I also saw that you wrote Abraham was likely an E carrier. If it won't take too much of your time can you please explain how how/why you believe the natufians were some of the most likely progenitors of the Judeans and also how you came to the conclusion that E is a better fit for Abraham instead if J? Thank you for your time!
All he says here is that he does not go by haplogroups, he goes by autosomal DNA. > but provides zero details. And forget about haplogroup E, J or T he does not go by that
He mentions no data or article of which he proves that the 5 Natufians that have been tested for DNA link them to the Israelites. And a question that would stem from this is what sample of Israelites does he have to compare to?
So like I've been saying in the article "The Origins of Ashkenaz, Azhkenazic Jews, and Yiddish" > he does not mention anything further about the Natufians except for he one remark you brought up 50 million times obsessively in a state of panic. It's an undeveloped side remark, aka nothing on the table except a claim, not deserving of 10 pages of discussion
When he puts out an article on the autosomal DNA of Natufians compared to the autosomal DNA of ancient Israelites remains then it would be worth replying to
There is no point in mentioning his progenitors remark another 50 million times, there is no article yet
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:
to Eran▾ 12:15 PM (5 hours ago) Thank you for your response Dr. Elhaik. I have one last question: What would you say is the best response to those who claim Abraham must have been haplogroup J due to the fact that haplogroup J supposedly came from Mesopotamia to the Levant at the same time period Abraham did?
Eran Elhaik to me▾ This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that. 4:04 PM (1 hour ago) ☆ Using ancient GPS, a tool that I developed and will soon be available on https://www.ancientdnaorigins.com/, we see a migration from Turkey to Israel around the time of the Abraham story. You will also be able to see the haplogroups of those migrants. I am also in the process of uploading some videos to YouTube, which will provide more information on these migrants, but, I don't know the answer now. It will take some time, I suggest following me on YouTube and signing up to https://www.ancientdnaorigins.com/. Best, Eran Thank you for the answer. Thank you for the information. Ok, thank you for your help. ← Reply Forward
All we have here is the obvious, no remains of Abraham for the science minded to me tested
although Ur of the Chaldeans is a city mentioned in the OT as the birthplace of Abraham and his father. Apparently he does not care about bible verses but seems to have an axe to grind with Ashkenazi Jews
Can you stop feeding us nothing sandwiches?
I suggest you by one of his test kits and tests yourself for Israelite DNA > I guarantee it will purport to some, you saw the brother in the video 15% Levite If you believe this guy, put your money where your mouth is. For just $40 you can take the autosomal test for Southern Kingdom, all three tribes
[QUOTE]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
DISCLAIMER: I do not and have not ever hated or wished to harm any races or groups of people nor do I or have I ever instructed anybody else to. I simply have an opinion on things just like everyone else. [/QB]
Your view is that Ashkenazi Jews and anybody you define as a gentile will be servants of people, including yourself you believe are descended from the Hebrew Israelites
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyinass: All he says here is that he does not go by haplogroups
He did not say this. Here we go with the BS as usual.
I offered all who were in opposition (including you) the opportunity to form your own line of questioning for me to forward to him and you all kept ignoring the opportunity. I was begging you to form a line of questioning. You, for example, just want to type and troll, and everybody knows that's all you do 90% of the time.
So no, you don't get to complain about his response or how the conversation went, troll.
You also ignore the other paper I referenced by another Israeli geneticist that supports what Elhaik says when it comes to modern jewish populations, let me guess he also has an "axe to grind"? Both of these men are Israeli and likely ashkenazi themselves.
I listed his bio and accolades to show that he's not a troll who haunts internet forums all day everyday, but an actual professional with decades of experience who is known worldwide.
*** Also, Elhaik mentions Turkey because the Bible says Turkey is one of the locations where Abraham and his caravan lived before he made it to the promised land. Ancient mesopotamia also encompassed this part of modern Turkey.
Lastly, I believe that anyone who is not an Israelite is going to be below the Israelites in the coming kingdom in terms of hierarchy, and that includes myself if I am not an Israelite.
Jewish people believe the exact same thing because it's in the Bible you clown, but that doesn't mean I hate anybody or want to harm them.
Get a damn life already.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Spaz, then just take this Southern Kingdom DNA test Eran Elhaik's company offers for just $40 put your money where your mouth is
then get back to us
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Sure, as soon as you post some evidence of you criticizing jewish people for their religious beliefs. We all know you won't though and we all know WHY...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: All he says here is that he does not go by haplogroups
He did not say this. Here we go with the BS as usual.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
quote: Eran Elhaik <eran.elhaik@biol.lu.se> to me▾
I base my arguments on the autosomal DNS signature. Not on imaginary haplotypes that do not exist in the data over time.
E, J , whatever, out the window
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
First of all, I pointed out several times how he wrote that Abraham is E. Secondly, in the second email I posted he makes reference to the haplogroups of migrants. So how on earth did you come to the conclusion that he doesn't go by haplogroups? He literally said haplotypes, it's right there in the email.
Can't believe you were dumb enough to double down.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Spazarah"
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ok, that was a good one lol.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah: Dr. Elhaik claims Abraham was E1b
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah: I'm just going to leave this here. Dr. Eran Elhak's website says that Israelite samples (yes, the same Israelites whose ancestor(s) came from Mesopotamia) have E1b1 and T1 markers.
Keep in mind, this is the same geneticist who wrote the peer-reviewed paper about natufians being the most likely Judaean progenitors -- the same paper that was published on the government website.
"...This is the only match from prehistoric times to date, but it is reasonable to expect many more to come as ancient DNA from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus will be sequenced. Interestingly, the Y chromosomal haplotypes of the ancient Israelites are typically E1b1 and T1 haplotypes, commonly found today in Africa with lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe."
quote: "people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land." ~ Eran Elhaik
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
P.S.......... as Doug intelligently pointed out, and as I have also pointed out: nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Anyways, I referenced 2 different professionals stating that ancient Israelites had E markers and one of them even said Abraham had E.
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E,
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:
to Eran▾ (Spaz) 12:15 PM (5 hours ago) Thank you for your response Dr. Elhaik. I have one last question: What would you say is the best response to those who claim Abraham must have been haplogroup J due to the fact that haplogroup J supposedly came from Mesopotamia to the Levant at the same time period Abraham did?
Eran Elhaik to me▾ This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that. 4:04 PM (1 hour ago)
quote: "people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land." ~ Eran Elhaik
quote: Eran Elhaik to me▾ This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that.
quote: "people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land." ~ Eran Elhaik
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
P.S.......... as Doug intelligently pointed out, and as I have also pointed out: nobody has Abraham > Isaac > Jacob's DNA....
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.
Let that sink in.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
This is probably my last post in this thread, an actual geneticist with a Doctorate degree who publishes peer-reviewed papers on government sites says that Abraham and Israelites had E,
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Also, probably most important of all: NOBODY HAS ABRAHAM'S DNA....... so literally any conversation about who his descendants are is speculation.
does anybody need to debate you when you and Eran are debating yourselves?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the Lyinass,
The fact that nobody has Abraham's DNA doesn't stop you or anyone else from making and supporting certain arguments does it? Try to stop being a hypocrite. I've already made it clear dozens of times that my faith isn't in genetics.
Dr. Elhaik's response was to the hypothesis or idea that Abraham was a J carrier, as was being claimed in this thread.
You just demonstrated that you do not even know the difference between a haplogroup versus a haplotype, so I doubt you even understand what Dr. Elhaik is saying in his email.
Go back and chop up all the previous comments you want. You literally read a word in his email that was not even there so it's clear that your reading/comprehension skills are not at a level where I should even take you seriously.
Either that or you are being intentionally deceptive. Either way, I don't plan on going back and forth with you any longer. I just wanted to share what an actual genticist said on the topic.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Spazarah:
quote: Eran Elhaik <eran.elhaik@biol.lu.se> to me▾
I base my arguments on the autosomal DNS signature. Not on imaginary haplotypes that do not exist in the data over time.
E, J , whatever, out the window
A haplotype (haploid genotype) is a group of alleles in an organism that are inherited together from a single parent A haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor of this single parent.
Autosomal DNA is a different type of DNA inherited from both parents.
So again, Eran Elhaik bases his arguments on autosomal DNA not haplotype/haplogroup and you have no idea of what you are talking about. And his company and the software he uses to sell DNA test kits is autosomal based
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
A haplotype is not a haplogroup. You were trying to make it seem like they are the same word and can be used interchangeably but they are two completely different things. Haplotypes help predict a haplogroup (keyword: predict). So when he said his arguments are not based on imaginary haplotypes, he is saying that he does not rely on incomplete or speculative data to draw conclusions. He instead analyzes autosomal signatures which show the full, entire picture.
The other Israeli geneticist (Ph.D) that I referenced also said the ashkenazi (whom largely carry J markers) are likely all early century converts according to their autosomal DNA, so don't forget to attack that guy too.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Tazarah. Dr. Eran Elhaik doesn't agree with you. He says that there's a migration from Turkey which can be picked up Autosomally, which corresponds with the movement of biblical israelites. At least three posters have told you something similar.
He also corrected you about his study which you've been misquoting. His study yielded conclusions based on autosomes. I have already broken that down for you.
And dismissing Abraham's paternal lineage inquiry was not a win for you either. He said you can refer to the expansion from the caucus region for their haplogroups after his study is released. (spoiler alert, some of us in this thread already did)
My brother, you ethered yourself.
I'll give you your piece then I'll lock this thread. Please don't drag Dr. Elhaik's name through the mud in the meantime, piece.
//MOD Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Is it even ethical to post screenshots of your email correspondence with a scholar on a public forum without their permission? Even if their emails are publicly available, I don't think most scholars want their private correspondences posted anywhere that all the world can see. I remember a former ES poster named Morpheus (aka Mansa Musa, not to be confused with the later-arriving Mansamusa) would post his correspondences with Keita in various forum debates, but he stopped doing that after Keita told him not to.
The only time I have no qualms with posting a private email correspondence publicly is if it's a troll giving me grief, or it otherwise exposes severe misbehavior (e.g. death threats, slurs, or sexual harassment). That, of course, doesn't apply to this situation.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Elmaestro
Uh... I literally asked him how he came to the conclusion that the natufians were some of the most likely progenitors of the Israelites when taking J into consideration, and how he came to the conclusion that Abraham was an E carrier. I even inserted some of the other arguments people in this thread were making for J and how you guys were trying to say his research was wrong.
I even referenced the paper in which he said the nafufians were some of the most likely progenitors for clarification.
He basically responded by saying that he came to these conclusions by not basing his arguments on haplotypes.
I asked him about his conclusion and he explained how he came to it. I also very clearly referenced in the email how he wrote that Abraham was an E carrier on the ancient origins website.
Nothing that he wrote about the natufians or Abraham being E has changed and he made that clear in the email so I'm not sure why you are trying to make it seem like he somehow did a 180 or that I somehow misunderstood him.
You and others were claiming that he was wrong about his conclusions but now he ethered me? Make that make sense. He explained how he reached his conclusions, basically clarifying and explaining his research methods.
Then you say I'm dragging his name through the mud yet you and others were in here saying that he was wrong the whole entire time while I was defending him?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Is it even ethical to post screenshots of your email correspondence with a scholar on a public forum without their permission? Even if their emails are publicly available, I don't think most scholars want their private correspondences posted anywhere that all the world can see. I remember a former ES poster named Morpheus (aka Mansa Musa, not to be confused with the later-arriving Mansamusa) would post his correspondences with Keita in various forum debates, but he stopped doing that after Keita told him not to.
The only time I have no qualms with posting a private email correspondence publicly is if it's a troll giving me grief, or it otherwise exposes severe misbehavior (e.g. death threats, slurs, or sexual harassment). That, of course, doesn't apply to this situation.
Just to be safe, I removed the photos of the email. I didn't think he would have a problem with it because all he was doing was explaining how he came to the conclusions that he came to, which I assumed would be something that isn't personal or secret.
Also, people in this thread were saying he was wrong and questioning his research so if anything I wanted to give some clarification and input from Dr. Elhaik himself.
But this is a good point that you made Bradon, so I did go back and remove the screenshots.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Pitfalls of the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) Approach Applied to Human Genetic History: A Case Study of Ashkenazi Jews
Pavel Flegontov,1,2,3,*† Alexei Kassian,4,5,*† Mark G. Thomas,6 Valentina Fedchenko,7 Piya Changmai,1 and George Starostin5,8
Abstract In a recent interdisciplinary study, Das et al. have attempted to trace the homeland of Ashkenazi Jews and of their historical language, Yiddish (Das et al. 2016. Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Primeval Villages in the Ancient Iranian Lands of Ashkenaz. Genome Biol Evol. 8:1132–1149). Das et al. applied the geographic population structure (GPS) method to autosomal genotyping data and inferred geographic coordinates of populations supposedly ancestral to Ashkenazi Jews, placing them in Eastern Turkey. They argued that this unexpected genetic result goes against the widely accepted notion of Ashkenazi origin in the Levant, and speculated that Yiddish was originally a Slavic language strongly influenced by Iranian and Turkic languages, and later remodeled completely under Germanic influence. In our view, there are major conceptual problems with both the genetic and linguistic parts of the work. We argue that GPS is a provenancing tool suited to inferring the geographic region where a modern and recently unadmixed genome is most likely to arise, but is hardly suitable for admixed populations and for tracing ancestry up to 1,000 years before present, as its authors have previously claimed. Moreover, all methods of historical linguistics concur that Yiddish is a Germanic language, with no reliable evidence for Slavic, Iranian, or Turkic substrata.
Das et al. (2016) have recently presented an unorthodox interpretation of the history of Ashkenazi Jews, suggesting that they originated from a “Slavo–Iranian confederation”. This claim is essentially based on application of the geographic population structure (GPS) approach (Elhaik et al. 2014) to high-density autosomal single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data.
Conclusions In our view, Das et al. have attempted to fit together a marginal and unsupported interpretation of the linguistic data with a genetic provenancing approach, GPS, that is at best only suited to inferring the most likely geographic location of modern and relatively unadmixed genomes, and tells little or nothing of population history and origin. Using explication of the GPS workflow and examples from the original GPS publication (Elhaik et al. 2014), as well as from the paper discussed here (Das et al. 2016) we find that this inference methodology provides no more information on an individual’s population origin than a few generations of family history. As opposed to GPS and similar tools (Kozlov et al. 2015) operating on highly reduced data, we advocate the use of more data-intensive and sophisticated approaches for the study of population history within the last 5,000 years: Rarecoal (Schiffels et al. 2016), ChromoPainter, fineSTRUCTURE (Lawson et al. 2012), and GLOBETROTTER (Hellenthal et al. 2014), among others.
Das et al. support the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, placing their alleged “Irano-Turko-Slavo Jewish merchants” within the Khazar Empire. Note that Das et al. designate this empire as the “Slavo-Iranian confederation”—a historically meaningless term invented by the authors under review. Having been popular in the mid-20th century, the idea that the Khazars directly contributed to Ashkenazi ancestry is currently abandoned by practically all historians and linguists. To say more, according to a recent analysis of historical sources (Stampfer 2013), the conversion of Khazars to Judaism might have never happened, being a medieval legend. The Khazar hypothesis has previously been advocated in a genetic study (Elhaik 2013) reanalyzing autosomal SNP data from Behar et al. (2010). As no ancient DNA of Khazars was available, modern Armenians and Georgians were chosen by the author as genetic proxies for the ancient Khazar population (Elhaik 2013). This questionable choice of modern proxies may have biased the conclusions of the study, and a further analysis of a significantly extended dataset, spanning Europe, the Middle East, and the region historically associated with the Khazar Khaganate, has found no particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus, including populations in the Khazar region (Behar et al. 2013). A large-scale study based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has also found no evidence for the Khazar hypothesis, estimating that >80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs were probably assimilated within Europe, and virtually no mtDNAs were traced to the North Caucasus (Costa et al. 2013). A study focused on the Y chromosome has found strong support for the Near Eastern origin of a significant portion of Ashkenazi Y chromosomes (Rootsi et al. 2013). In summary, genetic studies support the traditional view on the history of the European Jewish diaspora: its Levantine origin, migration to the North Mediterranean followed by substantial local admixture, especially on the maternal side, and subsequent limited East European admixture in the Ashkenazi community (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2010, 2013; Costa et al. 2013; Rootsi et al. 2013).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ I can link sources where Dr. Elhaik critiques other scholars, or other scholars critiquing other scholars, etc. So what?
Dr. Elhaik is actually the one who published a study showing how most popular/common genetic testing method was extremely flawed, affecting up to 216,000 studies.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And what the hell other than Biblical scripture was I citing?? Also I did say Jacob was chosen as heir for the reasons I provided in the last page!! Are you dyslexic or something or has your ideology warped your brain's ability to think rationally like other trolls??
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
No! You are an EISEGETE (look it up) idiot who just distorts what the actual text says!
