...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: [qb] All and I mean all of the bronze age patriarchal ancestors are legends, myths, eponymous ancestors. And how many times you gonna make me debunk this claim.[/qb][/QUOTE]Yes the patriarch narratives are indeed legends not myths. Maybe you need to know [URL=https://www.diffen.com/difference/Legend_vs_Myth]the difference[/URL] between these concepts. Legends have the greatest historicity next to actual historical documents themselves unlike myths. As far as eponymous ancestors are concerned, most scholars agree that the patriarchs are either based on ancient tribal leaders. Like all Semitic speaking peoples in the Middle East especially Arabs where tribes are named after their founders as they are in many cultures in around the world including in Africa. What is there to debunk? Aside from myths of unions between gods and mortals, are you saying there is no basis in the Greek legends of their own matriarchs and patriarchs like Helen forefather of the Hellenic (Greek) nation or the 4 tribes who comprise that nation which is reflected in the 4 ancient dialects such as Dorian, Ionian, and Aeolian? Is there no truth to the ancient Egyptian legends about their own ancestors-- the Anu and Mesinitu? What about the Hindu legends of the 5 Aryan ethne descending from the 5 patriarchs of Chandravamsha (lunar race)? Or the Chinese tradition of descent from the 5 tribes of Huaxia? Even Western anthropologists, specifically ethnologists, are realizing that folk legends about ancestral origins held more accuracy and truth than what was originally believed, but doesn't mean every detail of the legend was accurate. How plausible is it that the 'War of the 9 Kings' a.k.a. 'Battle of Siddim' described in [i]Genesis[/i] in which Abraham and his family was involved in was a total fabrication? About as plausible as the Rig-Vedic 'Dāsharājñá yuddhá' (Battle of the 10 Chiefs) yet I find it funny how many Western historians and philologists find the Vedic tradition more believable than the bible. [QUOTE]The Nuzi texts are ancient documents found during an excavation of Nuzi, an ancient Mesopotamian city southwest of Kirkuk in modern Kirkuk Governorate of Iraq, located near the Tigris river. They were found on cuneiform tablets written in the Akkadian language.[1] The site consists of one medium-sized multiperiod tell and two small single period mounds. [b]The texts are mainly legal and business documents. They have previously been viewed as evidence for the age and veracity of certain parts of the Old Testament, especially of the Patriarchal age, but that attribution is now doubted by most scholars[/b] [/QUOTE]Of course the attribution is doubted because the Nuzi texts date to the late part of the Bronze Age (1450-1350 BC). Nobody is saying that the Hebrews received their customs from Nuzi, but what the texts indicate is that such customs did exist and it's not just Nuzi. The same Hebrew customs are found in the Code of Hammurabi (1755–1750 BC), and the Code of Lipit-Ishtar (1934–1924 BC). The point is that Hebrew customs show more affinities to Mesopotamia than anything else. In fact, I remember reading a paper from a Jewish female anthropologist whose thesis was that part of the conflict between the Israelites and Canaanites was a clash of cultures in which the former rejected certain customs of the latter not just religious ones. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tazarah: [qb] I never said the Hebrews originated in Africa, and there are geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier who came from Turkey (Mesopotamia) during the same time period that the Biblical narrative records. The chosen lineage that the Bible gives us is: Adam > Seth > Noah > Shem > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem. [/qb][/QUOTE]That's the problem!-- Even though name of the language group 'Semitic' was named after the Biblical ancestor Shem, NO educated Jew accepts this linguistic correlation with the Biblical lineage. Semitic is as branch of so-called Afroasiatic which originated in Africa. In fact the older name for the language phylum is Hamito-Semitic named after both Ham and Shem but "Hamitic" is used for all the branches of Afroasiatic that are spoken in Africa with Semitic being the only branch that developed outside of that continent. Therefore the genetic relations of the language do NOT reflect Biblical genealogy. At the same time according the same genealogy one of Shem's sons is Elam yet the historical Elamites spoke an entirely different language that is genetically unrelated to any other known language. Either the Bible is wrong about genealogy OR that genealogy has no correlation to linguistic genealogy. Genetics shows that haplogroup E originated in Africa and traveled into Asia how then is E from Turkey unless it's a back-migration. Also that does not explain the modal-Cohen marker hg J which is found in Cohens and Levites who are allegedly male descendants of Abraham and we know that J originated somewhere near Turkey. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3