posted
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.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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?
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
My apologies.
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
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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? Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
"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"??
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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."
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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:" Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)."
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Yatunde Lisa
Right? And he/she always accuses me of doing that lol what a troll
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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..
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^^^ 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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Also... imagine trying to affirm what Abraham's DNA was... without having Abraham's DNA.
LOL.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Everyone on ES and the whole world misrepresents me." --Tazarah
"But if everybody's crazy, you're the one that's insane" --Jay-Z
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
"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.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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/Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic