Topic: In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of 2 "Ancient Israelites"
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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." Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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." Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Like I said.... stick to "genetics".
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ 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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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?
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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? .
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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?
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
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]
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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." Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
"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
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^^^ 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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^^^ 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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@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.
Posts: 2519 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic