Pop genetics and the Torah

[monfret]

How much does pop genetics affirm or deny the biblical nations found in Genesis?Dos any part of pop genetics affirm the ham,shem,japeth descendancy or refute it in any way or number of ways?I will admit I'm a biblical believer,but certain things make me doubt it like differing rates of neanderthal dna in different populations,albeit that could be due to mixture with them during tower of babel.in any case I'm here to learn from more knowledgeable people .I think the fact europeans have neolithic farmr dna and ane dna refute the japethic linage possibly.I don't know.

is pop genetics and the genome of modern man affirming the table of nations or debunking it?

[Bosniensis]

Romans are children of Japeth
Arabs and Jews = Shem
Africans = Ham

Chinese/Mongols = Magog

[Wadaad]

Pretty useless unless you can also correlate what the Torah says about their ethnonyms and their movement/migration with what modern historians and genetics tell us

[monfret]

Romans are children of Japeth
Arabs and Jews = Shem
Africans = Ham

Chinese/Mongols = Magog

what about native americans?Australoids?Southeastasians?neolithic europeans and natufians?Ancient north eurasian?La Brana people?is thre genetic evidence humans or populations formed or mutated haplogroups before the time of noah?

[monfret]

Pretty useless unless you can also correlate what the Torah says about their ethnonyms and their movement/migration with what modern historians and genetics tell us

Aren't you muslim?you believe in Nuh right?or was nuh a local flood in islamic books?

[Sacrificed Ram]

Most chromossomes Y have a mutation called M91 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_BT). This mutation occured in Africa. Believe in it or cut your dick, if you don't want become a spreader of african genes.

[Wadaad]

Aren't you muslim?you believe in Nuh right?or was nuh a local flood in islamic books?

The Quran speaks of "Qawm Nuh" which indirectly hints at a specific nation that required a specific message and prophethood...the Deluge is never mentioned to be universal in the Quran, but I do acknowledge the existence of an almost universal 'global flood' narrative in many disparate, primitive (and extinct) mythologies the world over.

[monfret]

The Quran speaks of "Qawm Nuh" which indirectly hints at a specific nation that required a specific message and prophethood...the Deluge is never mentioned to be universal in the Quran, but I do acknowledge the existence of an almost universal 'global flood' narrative in many disparate, primitive (and extinct) mythologies the world over.

Would you say based on pop genetics that the universal flood model is false?it seems the hbrews only were familiar with 70 nations in their religious literature.I personally doubt but dont reject the account based on varying levels of archaic hominin dna in different human populations.for example if all creatures were killed in the flood and we all descend equally from noah shouldnt we have equal amouns of hominin infusion,since neanderthals are said by creationists,to be pre-flood men?I could be wrong here,maybe neanderthals were the post flood tribe living in babel.I don't know what to truly believe on this.

[monfret]

Most chromossomes Y have a mutation called M91 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_BT). This mutation occured in Africa. Believe in it or cut your dick, if you don't want become a spreader of african genes.

no need to be hostile.I'm sincerely looking for answers not trying to prove a point.how do we know it occurred in africa?bfore you sting at me,I know its a stupid sounding question but Im trying to be sure here as I dont know who to believe and looking for answers and certainty.would you say neanderthal dna refutes the biblical account?

[Sacrificed Ram]

no need to be hostile.I'm sincerely looking for answers not trying to prove a point.how do we know it occurred in africa?bfore you sting at me,I know its a stupid sounding question but Im trying to be sure here as I dont know who to believe and looking for answers and certainty.would you say neanderthal dna refutes the biblical account?

Because is present in haplogroups that never exited Africa, like B and E1b1a (they exited recently with slave trade), or someone will try to say for you white preople give origin for black people.

[monfret]

Because is present in haplogroups that never exited Africa, like B and E1b1a (they exited recently with slave trade), or someone will try to say for you white preople give origin for black people.Oke,Gottcha.Does E1b1b1 and J originally come from a westafrican haplogroup?where do afroasiatic genetics originate?did J really originate in somalia?Do pop genetics prove a african origin for near easterners?some guy once said neolithic farmers were the result of a rape spectacle including cushite males with cromagnon females?is that bullshit?

[Rethel]

How much does pop genetics affirm or deny the biblical nations found in Genesis?Dos any part of pop genetics affirm the ham,shem,japeth descendancy or refute it in any way or number of ways?


Yes.

1. Bible identify Indoeuropeans, and says, they have one ancestor who will
take the world and belive in jewish God - genetically and historically prooved.
2. Bible indetify Semites and says, they have one ancestor - genetically prooved.
3. Bible indetify Hamites and says, they have one ancestor - genetically prooved.
4. Bible indetify pre-IE inhabitans of Greece, and says, they have one ancestor
and that they are paternaly related to the Egyptians - genetically prooved.
5. Bible indetify all Africans as being related closer and says, they have one ancestor - genetically prooved.
6. Bible says, that on semitic ME were some Hamites - genetically prooved.

If something doesn;t fit, it doesn;t mean that Bible is wrong. Scientists are
interpreting wrongly a lot of stuff, especially, that they based on wrong ideas.

[Rethel]

Chinese/Mongols

It is not known.
There are three different conceptions, so...


Magog

Magog was an ancestor of IE people also,
and his descendants lived on the Steppe
and in Anatolia. Maybe also somewhere
else, but these are guessings.

[Rethel]

what about native americans?Australoids?Southeastasians?neolithic europeans and natufians?Ancient north eurasian?La Brana people?is thre genetic evidence humans or populations formed or mutated haplogroups before the time of noah?

Bible doesn;t say anything about them, except, that all of them
came from Babel, when they where separeted into smal paternal
tribes and scattered across the world. So, obviously, all of them
are descendants of the grandsons and greatgrandsosns of the
three Noah's sons, but we do not know from whom.

We only know about Hamites, Semites, Indoeuropeans,
Negros, small tribes of Middle East and Pelasgo-Philistines.

[monfret]

Yes.

1. Bible identify Indoeuropeans, and says, they have one ancestor who will
take the world and belive in jewish God - genetically and historically prooved.
2. Bible indetify Semites and says, they have one ancestor - genetically prooved.
3. Bible indetify Hamites and says, they have one ancestor - genetically prooved.
4. Bible indetify pre-IE inhabitans of Greece, and says, they have one ancestor
and that they are paternaly related to the Egyptians - genetically prooved.
5. Bible indetify all Africans as being related closer and says, they have one ancestor - genetically prooved.
6. Bible says, that on semitic ME were some Hamites - genetically prooved.

If something doesn;t fit, it doesn;t mean that Bible is wrong. Scientists are
interpreting wrongly a lot of stuff, especially, that they based on wrong ideas.

wouldnt pre grecian neolithics be more closer to modern day anatolians,allegedly japethites than egyptians?how do you account for different rates of hominin dna in different populations?I mean neanderthals and denisovan !?

[Sacrificed Ram]

Oke,Gottcha.Does E1b1b1 and J originally come from a westafrican haplogroup?where do afroasiatic genetics originate?did J really originate in somalia?Do pop genetics prove a african origin for near easterners?some guy once said neolithic farmers were the result of a rape spectacle including cushite males with cromagnon females?is that bullshit?

Guy resume for you:

Imagine Noah had the M91 mutation, we would conclude all human males have M91 mutation, but it isn't true, we have M91 throgout whole world, EXCEPT some guys in Africa don't have M91 mutation (Haplogroup A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_A_%28Y-DNA%29)).

With it we can have two conclusions:

1 - Someone survived deluge, but not from Noah's family.

2 - Noah lived before M91 mutation occurred.

[Rethel]

The Quran speaks of "Qawm Nuh" which indirectly hints at a specific nation that required a specific message and prophethood...the Deluge is never mentioned to be universal in the Quran, but I do acknowledge the existence of an almost universal 'global flood' narrative in many disparate, primitive (and extinct) mythologies the world over.

So:

1. How old is world and humankind?
2. Do all people comes from Noah or Adam?
3. Do you belive or only acknowledge stories about it?
4. Tower of Babel?
5. When "Nuh" lived and where?

And what is the general muslim view on these things?

[monfret]

Bible doesn;t say anything about them, except, that all of them
came from Babel, when they where separeted into smal paternal
tribes and scattered across the world. So, obviously, all of them
are descendants of the grandsons and greatgrandsosns of the
three Noah's sons, but we do not know from whom.

We only know about Hamites, Semites, Indoeuropeans,
Negros, small tribes of Middle East and Pelasgo-Philistines.

I dont know if you can simplify it like that.

[Wadaad]

So:

1. How old is world and humankind?
2. Do all people comes from Noah or Adam?
3. Do you belive or only acknowledge stories about it?
4. Tower of Babel?
5. When "Nuh" lived and where?

And what is the general muslim view on these things?

1) Allah knows
2) From Adam
3) I only acknowledge what is in the Quran...I refute what it refutes and I dont argue what it leaves out
4) Quran does not mention the tower of Babel, but mentions two specific angels "Haroot and Maroot" descending on Babylon to teach the science of magic, along with a precautionary warning.
5) The specifics are left out of the Quran except that the ark descended on a certain "Mt Judi"... but tafseer by scholars claim this to be somewhere Mesopotamia

[monfret]

So:

1. How old is world and humankind?
2. Do all people comes from Noah or Adam?
3. Do you belive or only acknowledge stories about it?
4. Tower of Babel?
5. When "Nuh" lived and where?

And what is the general muslim view on these things?

the general muslim view is one of neither for or against as the quranic context doesn't indicate a global or local flood but it can be interpreted both ways.the bible leaves only a global interpretation(because God promised a worldwide flood would never happen,but local floods happen all the time)

[Rethel]

it seems the hbrews only were familiar with 70 nations in their religious literature.


It is talmudic overinterpretation.

The table of Nations simply contains 70 guys,
fathers, sons and grandsons together. In the
Table of Nations, are countries, small tribes
(like Jebusites) who were even a subdivision
of a subNation, cities, and also this what we
called today "language families" like Hamites,
Semites or the Indoeuropeans.

Basing on racial, linguistic and Y-genetic
evidences there probably was something
about 30 original nations (20-40). But it
is probable, that many original Tribes did
simply die out, so the final amount which
we can know today is only around 30.

So, it could be 70, but it is not from the Table
of Nations, neither from modern evidences, but
if it would be some ancient tradition, then it has
some probability, but we simply can't know it.

[Sacrificed Ram]

More resume:

Noah cursed Cannaan, not Ham. Africans descend from Ham, but not from Cannaan, thus Africans ARE NOT cursed in this case.

I'm from those that take the CROSS.

[Rethel]

wouldnt pre grecian neolithics be more closer to modern day anatolians,

I don;t care, what they would or not.

Bible says, that ancestor of people called Kasluchim (from whom where Philistines)
are paternaly related to Egyptians. They are localized by the Bible in Greece, partialy
from the Kaftor which inhabitants were also related to Egyptians btw) and both of
that groups (Egyptians and Pre-Greeks) are E1, i.e. are closer related, than with other people.


allegedly japethites than egyptians?

Anatolians are not Japhetites, they are probably Hamitoids or Shemitoids.

Japheth is prooved ancestor of Indoeuropeans, and Indoeuropeans are R1.


how do you account for different rates of hominin dna in different populations?I mean neanderthals and denisovan !?

Firstly it is not known, who they where.
Secondly, there were people who could died out as I previously said.
Thirdly, before the Flood existed probably races, which no longer exosts today.

Noah did not give birth himself to all people, but he needed
for that a wife and four daughters in law. So obviously they
could have some different component in themselves. If we
have now blacks, so obviously someone on the Ark had to
be black, and probably it was a Hams wife, maybe even
she was a some multiracial combo.

[Rethel]

I dont know if you can simplify it like that.

Yes I can, becasue it is exactly written


1) Allah knows
2) From Adam
3) I only acknowledge what is in the Quran...I refute what it refutes and I dont argue what it leaves out
4) Quran does not mention the tower of Babel, but mentions two specific angels "Haroot and Maroot" descending on Babylon to teach the science of magic, along with a precautionary warning.
5) The specifics are left out of the Quran except that the ark descended on a certain "Mt Judi"... but tafseer by scholars claim this to be somewhere Mesopotamia

Ok, thanks.

Is it more or less what all muslims can agree about?

[Sacrificed Ram]

If we
have now blacks, so obviously someone on the Ark had to
be black, and probably it was a Hams wife, maybe even
she was a some multiracial combo.

His wife? The translation of word "HAM" shall be "The Swarthy".

[Wadaad]

Yes I can, becasue it is exactly written



Ok, thanks.

Is it more or less what all muslims can agree about?

yes, i gave you the muslim (sunni, shia, ibadi) consensus

[monfret]

I don;t care, what they would or not.

Bible says, that ancestor of people called Kasluchim (from whom where Philistines)
are paternaly related to Egyptians. They are localized by the Bible in Greece, partialy
from the Kaftor which inhabitants were also related to Egyptians btw) and both of
that groups (Egyptians and Pre-Greeks) are E1, i.e. are closer related, than with other people.



Anatolians are not Japhetites, they are probably Hamitoids or Shemitoids.

Japheth is prooved ancestor of Indoeuropeans, and Indoeuropeans are R1.



Firstly it is not known, who they where.
Secondly, there were people who could died out as I previously said.
Thirdly, before the Flood existed probably races, which no longer exosts today.

Noah did not give birth himself to all people, but he needed
for that a wife and four daughters in law. So obviously they
could have some different component in themselves. If we
have now blacks, so obviously someone on the Ark had to
be black, and probably it was a Hams wife, maybe even
she was a some multiracial combo.

so neolithic europeans are tubal?or are they hamites from mizrayim?I'm talking e1b1b1 and j europeans.

[Rethel]

His wife? The translation of word "HAM" shall be "The Swarthy".

Or rather hot.
Maybe he was.
Maybe Ham was from different wife.

We do not know.
From the six important in that matter people
someone had to be white and someone black.
Japhet and his wife rather for sure were not black.
Japheth even can be translated as fair.

So, we have wifes of Ham and Shem
and them themselves on the plate.


yes, i gave you the muslim (sunni, shia, ibadi) consensus

Ok, thanks once again.

[monfret]

Or rather hot.
Maybe he was.
Maybe Ham was from different wife.

We do not know.
From the six important in that matter people
someone had to be white and someone black.
Japhet and his wife rather for sure were not black.
Japheth even can be translated as fair.

So, we have wifes of Ham and Shem
and them themselves on the plate.

Japeth skeptics say,is from iapetos a greek titan.

[Rethel]

so neolithic europeans are tubal?or are they hamites from mizrayim?I'm talking e1b1b1 and j europeans.

It depends which one.

C6 people and E1 from Ham, EV13 from Mizrayim.
I1, I2, J2, J1 people from Sem.

Rest is the matter of disscuss.

There was no one people before Indoeuropeans in Europe.

Tubal is Indoeuropean too, btw...

[Rethel]

Japeth skeptics say,is from iapetos a greek titan.

And I am saying, Yapetos is from Japeth.
Hebrews did not know greek mythology,
which wasnt even standarized at that time.

The name of foreforefather was preserved, not
only by Greeks, but probably also by other groups
of people, like Hindu and Italiks. Maybe even one
general tribe name was derived from his name, but
it is my speculation impossible to proof.

[monfret]

And I am saying, Yapetos is from Japeth.
Hebrews did not know greek mythology,
which wasnt even standarized at that time.

The name of foreforefather was preserved, not
only by Greeks, but probably also by other groups
of people, like Hindu and Italiks. Maybe even one
general tribe name was derived from his name, but
it is my speculation impossible to proof.

if Jews and neolithic europeans are e1b1b1 in significant proportions and it itself came from E1b1a wich is west african how do you explain it?Maybe it was from hamite canaanite converts?Eved knaani?

[Wadaad]

His wife? The translation of word "HAM" shall be "The Swarthy".

The protoafroasiatic cognate "(k)-H-M" meant 'rich/fertile black mud' and examples of it can be seen in the ancient Egyptian name for their nation "K-M-T", the Semitic cognate for charcoal "f-7(H)-m", and even the Somali term for fertilizer resulting from waste collected from an outhouse: "Xamaam"

[monfret]

E1b1b1 descends from westafrican E1b1a though,and many menas and pre-indo europeans are e1b1b1 and their derivatives.ham must of been E1b1a.

[Longbowman]

How much does pop genetics affirm or deny the biblical nations found in Genesis?Dos any part of pop genetics affirm the ham,shem,japeth descendancy or refute it in any way or number of ways?I will admit I'm a biblical believer,but certain things make me doubt it like differing rates of neanderthal dna in different populations,albeit that could be due to mixture with them during tower of babel.in any case I'm here to learn from more knowledgeable people .I think the fact europeans have neolithic farmr dna and ane dna refute the japethic linage possibly.I don't know.

is pop genetics and the genome of modern man affirming the table of nations or debunking it?

Debunks.

[Rethel]

Debunks.

I was curious when you arrive :laugh:

[Sacrificed Ram]

The protoafroasiatic cognate "(k)-H-M" meant 'rich/fertile black mud' and examples of it can be seen in the ancient Egyptian name for their nation "K-M-T", the Semitic cognate for charcoal "f-7(H)-m", and even the Somali term for fertilizer resulting from waste collected from an outhouse: "Xamaam"

Migration from Africa to Near East?

[Longbowman]

I was curious when you arrive :laugh:

I thought you'd made the thread.

[Rethel]

if Jews

Israelites were not E1. Only proselytes.


and neolithic europeans are e1b1b1 in significant proportions

No, they weren't.


and it itself came from E1b1a wich is west african how do you explain it? Maybe it was from hamite canaanite converts?Eved knaani?

Meybe.


I thought you'd made the thread.

Sorry, that I disappointed you :pout:

[Rethel]

The protoafroasiatic cognate "(k)-H-M" meant 'rich/fertile black mud' and examples of it can be seen in the ancient Egyptian name for their nation "K-M-T", the Semitic cognate for charcoal "f-7(H)-m", and even the Somali term for fertilizer resulting from waste collected from an outhouse: "Xamaam"

Yes, but kemet is a hamitic word, but I can agree
that it has his original source in the name of Ham.
Simply there is a phonetic corelation between the
name of the country with the egyptian word.

We also do not know, in which language names
of Noah and his sons originally emerged. Genesis
suggests prasemitic, but it can be also a different
original language, maybe even which died out at all
and versions which we know, are only adaptations.

But surrvival of the name Japhet among IEs, and Ham
and Sem among Miautso, tells us, that they sounded
like that. Only the etymology can be different.

[monfret]

Debunks.

how?any specifics?Im really curious about this.it seems rethel just wants the data to fit his pre existing views.

[monfret]

Israelites were not E1. Only proselytes.



No, they weren't.



Meybe.



Sorry, that I disappointed you :pout:

Natufian farmers were e1b1b1,they invaded europe and brought agriculture.

[Rethel]

how?any specifics?Im really curious about this.it seems rethel just wants the data to fit his pre existing views.

How?

Text says, guy X was a father of Y, Z, A, B, C...

We know that Y, Z, A, B, C... are speaking one language, and have a common urheimat.

We know, that these tribes Y, Z, A, B, C... they are descending from one guy, called a haplogroup.

Do you want me to say, that something doesn;t fit?

In addition, the same text says, that people of the
guy X will have a lot of land and will belive in certain God.

After thousands of years exactly these people are conquering
the Earth and even beyond, so there is no doubts left, that they
have a huge territory, and since some point in the future are starting
to belive in that particular God, about whom text is speaking and are
even spreading this belive across the whole World.

So, what do not fit, can you tell me?

Now, you are asking an atheist and hater of
the text, to enlight you. Very clever methodology. :picard2:

[Rethel]

Natufian farmers were e1b1b1,they invaded europe and brought agriculture.

And Bible also says, that they were related to Egyptians.

[Longbowman]

how?any specifics?Im really curious about this.it seems rethel just wants the data to fit his pre existing views.

Yeah, ignore Rethel unless you want some very weird Christian-esque indoctrination.

There are plenty of examples, here's a good one: if everyone is descended from Noah on the male line, and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Yafet, please attribute YDNA types to these three men that actually fit populations. Rethel might give them J, E and R, but we know that's impossible because a) it excludes A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, S and T from even existing as they are all upwind/not descended from these clades.

[monfret]

Yeah, ignore Rethel unless you want some very weird Christian-esque indoctrination.

There are plenty of examples, here's a good one: if everyone is descended from Noah on the male line, and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Yafet, please attribute YDNA types to these three men that actually fit populations. Rethel might give them J, E and R, but we know that's impossible because a) it excludes A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, S and T from even existing as they are all upwind/not descended from these clades.

Can I ask you a question?I've been asking it to others but seemingly get no answers.do neanderthal and denisovan dna debunk noah?different people and countries have different lvels of neanderthal dna while subsaharan africans have none or below zero.if neanderthals were pre flood men and denisovans also(though a creationist could convincely argue denisovans are merely neanderthals)wouldnt all populations have the same amount of neanderthal admixture?if australoids are hamites they should have zero denisovan dna as africans dont have any neanderthal /denisovan dna.

[monfret]

There are plenty of examples, here's a good one: if everyone is descended from Noah on the male line, and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Yafet, please attribute YDNA types to these three men that actually fit populations. Rethel might give them J, E and R, but we know that's impossible because a) it excludes A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, S and T from even existing as they are all upwind/not descended from these clades.

Aren't all haplotypes descended from E?or is that L Im thinking of?

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Aren't all haplotypes descended from E?or is that L Im thinking of?

Thats L

[Longbowman]

Aren't all haplotypes descended from E?or is that L Im thinking of?

All YDNA is from A0. All MTDNA is from L.

[Longbowman]

Can I ask you a question?I've been asking it to others but seemingly get no answers.do neanderthal and denisovan dna debunk noah?different people and countries have different lvels of neanderthal dna while subsaharan africans have none or below zero.if neanderthals were pre flood men and denisovans also(though a creationist could convincely argue denisovans are merely neanderthals)wouldnt all populations have the same amount of neanderthal admixture?if australoids are hamites they should have zero denisovan dna as africans dont have any neanderthal /denisovan dna.

Yes, of course. For them not to then they'd have to exist in the past 5,000 years which we know is not the case.

[monfret]

Thats L

so that means all humans descend from africa according to genetics and the population all humans are descended from are still found within africa bearing the L markings?also would you say archaic hominin dna in varying amounts among different ethnicities outside of africa disprove noahs flood?

[Longbowman]

so that means all humans descend from africa according to genetics and the population all humans are descended from are still found within africa bearing the L markings?also would you say archaic hominin dna in varying amounts among different ethnicities outside of africa disprove noahs flood?

Current thinking is that Sapiens emerged from Africa in OOA yes, it's almost certain. All MTDNA that is not L is technically just downwind from L in the same way YDNA G-T (macrofamily GT) is technically just downwind from F.

[monfret]

All YDNA is from A0. All MTDNA is from L.

interesting.that means we defintely descend from africans.why does and how do intelligent creationists deny or are ignorant of these facts?are creationists just ignorant of population genetics?

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

so that means all humans descend from africa according to genetics and the population all humans are descended from are still found within africa bearing the L markings?also would you say archaic hominin dna in varying amounts among different ethnicities outside of africa disprove noahs flood?

L for maternal Line. On Y the Tree says A after Ydna Adam (A00)

[Longbowman]

interesting.that means we defintely descend from africans.why does and how do intelligent creationists deny or are ignorant of these facts?are creationists just ignorant of population genetics?

I've not seen any decent arguments for the alternative theory, which is multiregionalism, it's ultimately stupid anyway as it doesn't 'solve' the racial aspect of OOA. Some Creationists might say that Noah was black, though.

[monfret]

Current thinking is that Sapiens emerged from Africa in OOA yes, it's almost certain. All MTDNA that is not L is technically just downwind from L in the same way YDNA G-T (macrofamily GT) is technically just downwind from F.

Aha,and this can be poven empirically or is it just a intelligent guess?That would refute out of america theory of german ziebel aswell.is it testable?

[Longbowman]

Aha,and this can be poven empirically or is it just a intelligent guess?That would refute out of america theory of german ziebel aswell.is it testable?

Empirically, this is literally just reading SNPs on YDNA, it's hard science, not theory.

[monfret]

I've not seen any decent arguments for the alternative theory, which is multiregionalism, it's ultimately stupid anyway as it doesn't 'solve' the racial aspect of OOA. Some Creationists might say that Noah was black, though.

Noah couldve been black,but it would be wierd that wed have a whole population retaining his lineage when his three sons were suppossed to be r,e J.phenotype is irrelevant to genotype and if its actually testable that e all come from modern still extant african lineages,then noahs flood would be false,no!?

[monfret]

Empirically, this is literally just reading SNPs on YDNA, it's hard science, not theory.

Oke.gottcha.

or it could be pop genetics are a lie from satan :p

[Longbowman]

Noah couldve been black,but it would be wierd that wed have a whole population retaining his lineage when his three sons were suppossed to be r,e J.phenotype is irrelevant to genotype and if its actually testable that e all come from modern still extant african lineages,then noahs flood would be false,no!?

Of course it's impossible for, if they existed, Shem, Ham, and Yafet to have been J, E and R. 100% impossible.

[Longbowman]

Oke.gottcha.

or it could be pop genetics are a lie from satan :p

Like dinosaur bones.

[Proto-Shaman]

Chinese/Mongols = Magog
totally different DNA.

[monfret]

Magog is likely a caucasian nation.the hebrews didnt know of eastasians until yeshayah's time.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Oke.gottcha.

or it could be pop genetics are a lie from satan :p

Jesus cures, but I use antibiotics because they have strawberrie flavour.

[Proto-Shaman]

Magog is likely a caucasian nation.the hebrews didnt know of eastasians until yeshayah's time.
Yes, they were Turkic. Caucasians with slanted eyes.

[Rethel]

Current thinking is

And this should give you to think a much...

[Rethel]

of these facts

This is (as Longbowman said) current thinking - not facts.

[Longbowman]

This is (as Longbowman said) current thinking - not facts.

Don't be disingenuous. Current thinking - OOA. SNPs that determine clades = empirical. Inb4 'S and M were mixed up once in an era before deep-clade resolutions!' Calm down.

[Rethel]

Don't be disingenuous. Current thinking - OOA. SNPs that determine clades = empirical. Inb4 'S and M were mixed up once in an era before deep-clade resolutions!' Calm down.

Facts are facts - I never disscuss with them.
Interpretation it is another story.
You know very well that whole interpretetion of relation of identyfied
totally different clades are based on the theory that man cames from
Afrcia, and that it was hundrets of thosends of years ago, and that
this MUST remain unchangable, and all new findins are automatically
interpreted in this contexts.

There is not need to much imagination to understand, that when the
first patterns in Y chromosome were detected, and when first GENERAL
deifferences were discovered, they have no slightly idea how old it is,
which group was the oldest, where did it originated and how they all
are related. So, they put it into evolutionic frames with obligatory
origin in Africa, and were making the age methodology on the current
chronology, which was based on millions of years of fictional evolution,
prooved by unchechable methods and contradicting results from the
even XVIII century. If you would be honest, and read the stuff from
behind 10-15 years, you would see this. Lastly I gave you an exqample
of fictional history with the map, which putted R1b in Afrcia 15,000
years ago. There is no even one proof for r1b 100 years ago, but they
"know" that it was 15,000 - and by the same strategy was making
everything since the beginning. Very recently we have any archaic DNA
which was not known through many years since hgs were discovered.

And you knw very well, that places of hgs were changuing during last
years, and you know also very well, than many haplos changed their age.
If error is wrong on 40,000 years and 1,500 generations, that only means
that they had no idea what they were talking about previously.

But you cannot be honest, becasue you would have to either became
and a christian or at least theist, or, you would have to be like many
honest non-christian scientists, who admit, that all of basic evolutionary
assumptions do not make sense, and that you simply do not know, how
look real history of our world. Like for example your tribeman, David Berliński.
But there are thousands like him, people, who are honest, and affraid of
scientific inquisition which does not allow to critisice divine scientists.

[Longbowman]

TLDR dude.

[Rethel]

2 TLDR bullshit posts above.

Of course, as always.
You bahave sometimes like the worst
biggots, only to not face the truth.

[Longbowman]

Of course, as always.
You bahave sometimes like the worst
biggots, only to not face the truth.

The world is not obligated to have exactly the same argument with you 1,000 times. You are hypocritical, stubborn and stupid and it's not worth our time.

[Sacrificed Ram]

There is no even one proof for r1b 100 years ago

R1b found in Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in Latvia (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?202355-R1b-found-in-Mesolithic-Hunter-Gatherers-in-Latvia&highlight=Latvia)

[Rethel]

The world is not obligated to have exactly the same argument with you 1,000 times. You are hypocritical, stubborn and stupid and it's not worth our time.

Now you are the world and everybody :)

[Rethel]

R1b found in Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in Latvia (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?202355-R1b-found-in-Mesolithic-Hunter-Gatherers-in-Latvia&highlight=Latvia)

In Africa. :picard2:
Sometimes it is good to read the context, not only coincidentl pairs of words... :)

Especially, that I am in this linked thread.
Even if context is not read, it is good to think a little. :p

[Longbowman]

Now you are the world and everybody :)

you have no support on the forum or in the world

[Rethel]

you have no support on the forum or in the world

E pur si muove...

[Longbowman]

E pur si muove...

said the pope to galileo

[monfret]

Neanderthal and denisovan varying rates cast doubt on the biblical narrative rethel.unless they were a tribe and each of noah''s sons wives were differing rates of this tribe,but then why are native americans more neanderthal than other japethites(and we know natives cluster to eastasians and westeurasians so they must be japethites)and hamites have no denisovan or neanderthal admixture except the fact australoids can have as high 6%?

I dont deny or affirm the biblical model expressed by you but its hard to interpret in face of the data.

[monfret]

In Africa. :picard2:
Sometimes it is good to read the context, not only coincidentl pairs of words... :)

Especially, that I am in this linked thread.
Even if context is not read, it is good to think a little. :p

Don't all genetic tests show a age longer than 6000 years of key haplotypes?

[monfret]

Don't be disingenuous. Current thinking - OOA. SNPs that determine clades = empirical. Inb4 'S and M were mixed up once in an era before deep-clade resolutions!' Calm down.

is Rethel right that the data can be interpreted to fit a biblical model,or is it affirmative that the two are mutually contradictorary?I'm sorry if I'm pestering you,I just don't know who to believe and don't know much about pop genetics.

[Rethel]

said the pope to galileo

If you would live at that time, you would be among those, who hate him,
and laughed on him, becasue you belive in this what everybody, especially,
what aythorities will say. On everything else you are bilnd, even if you have
black on white something, what contradicts your view, ignoring that. You are
with those inquisitors, you are in the crowd following modern priests. :pout:

[Rethel]

Neanderthal and denisovan varying rates cast doubt on the biblical narrative rethel.

WHy? They could be a pre-deluvian people.


unless they were a tribe and each of noah''s sons wives were differing rates of this tribe,but then why are native americans more neanderthal than other japethites


From the same reasons, why africans have more
negro DNA, and IEs have more nordic DNA.


(and we know natives cluster to eastasians and westeurasians so they must be japethites)

No, they do not have to, becasue whole categorization is done wrongly, but of course they can.



and hamites have no denisovan or neanderthal admixture except the fact australoids can have as high 6%?

Are you aware, that being desendet of Ham or anybody else, is not based on aDNA?


I dont deny or affirm the biblical model expressed by you but its hard to interpret in face of the data.

No, is not.
The only problem is a interpretation based on
indoctrination, which is served to you as facts.

Btw, look at my previous posts, where I did show you, where the Bible was right.
Why do you not look there, insted to atheistic poit of view, as trustfull.
Everything what atheists created 4000 years ago is now piece of shit.
But Bible remains correct - in the part which can be face to the facts.

[Rethel]

Don't all genetic tests show a age longer than 6000 years of key haplotypes?

They are showing whatever evolutionists what you to know they are showing.

Tghey did not say: wow, we discovered haplogroups, lets we check
how old they realy are, and where lived first man, totaly idependently.

No, they don't. Insted they assumed what they allredy "knew":
first people lived in Africa hundrets of thosands of years ago,
so, hg from them we are assuming is the oldest. And to that
algorythm, they fitted everything else.

Firstly, if you would just discover genetic hgs (i.e. some differences
in genetic material) you would have no clue, how to measure their age,
especially, that there was, and still is zero findings from such long past,
but at that times was zero ancient findings at all, so they do not have
even any material to compare with. All was dated according to ideology.

They are dating R1b in Africa on 15,000 years. But they do not have any
proof for that - simply, this is a wishfull thinking, based on ideology and
current measurment of the "age" which has to be old enaugh to fit to the
ideological age of first humans.


They are convincing people, that I1 has 40,000 years. Now they say, that
whole hg can be even 3180 years old. Similar was with EV-13. Now 99%
is dated as 4000 years - and they say only 99% because they can't even
allow the idea, that whole can be so young, becasue they have to fit to
rest of the evolurtionistic tree.

Btw, since I* to I1 still passed 40,000 years according to them in streight
"primogenitural" line during tens of thosands of years, during 1,500-2,000
generations. They probably aren't capable to even imagine, what nonsense
they are talking about, they are hypnotyzed by big numbers - the bigger
the better, and they doesn't even care, if it has any sense at all.

[Rethel]

is Rethel right that the data can be interpreted to fit a biblical model,or is it affirmative that the two are mutually contradictorary?I'm sorry if I'm pestering you,I just don't know who to believe and don't know much about pop genetics.

Do not look in the den of Satan affirmation of the
Bible, the truth about atheism v.s. Bible relevance.

Atheists and evolutionists are not objective and
non-judgemental. The same level of objectivity
you can find probably in ISIS. :laugh:


It is like asking nazis, about humanity of the Jews, or
communists, about betterness of capitalistic system.
They also have scientific proofs and methods, and
were writing fat books about it.

This is not creationist.
Watch the whole interview.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

[monfret]

Do not look in the den of Satan affirmation of the
Bible, the truth about atheism v.s. Bible relevance.

Atheists and evolutionists are not objective and
non-judgemental. The same level of objectivity
you can find probably in ISIS. :laugh:


It is like asking nazis, about humanity of the Jews, or
communists, about betterness of capitalistic system.
They also have scientific proofs and methods, and
were writing fat books about it.

This is not creationist.
Watch the whole interview.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

The main argument against evolution is entropy,but that is just a creationist interpretation of the data.mtdna eve and Y adam didnt mate with each other and didnt even live in the same era,so how can you say adam and eve existed?theres also no conventional bottleneck from adam and eve or noah's family.

I know about Berlinski,behe,et al and the ID movement.personally if I weren't a noahide,I'd follow russellian science wich doesn't rule out evolution but still shows that there is a creator,albeit that creator would be mind and the worldview would be monistic and animistic(its in a sence pantheistic atomism).I don't think materialism is true,but I also don't think the data supports the biblical model,nevertheless I still believe in the Torah.

I think abiogenesis is a insurmounable hurdle for materialists,it simpely couldnt have happened under natural means(think the chirality problem,the hydrolysis problem,the heat racemization problem,sugars and amino cids destroying each other but both being nccassery to form a cell,the oxidation problem,but also oxygen being neccasery for ozone or you get UVed),but life could have come about intact in a form like cymatics.

[monfret]

They are showing whatever evolutionists what you to know they are showing.

Tghey did not say: wow, we discovered haplogroups, lets we check
how old they realy are, and where lived first man, totaly idependently.

No, they don't. Insted they assumed what they allredy "knew":
first people lived in Africa hundrets of thosands of years ago,
so, hg from them we are assuming is the oldest. And to that
algorythm, they fitted everything else.

Firstly, if you would just discover genetic hgs (i.e. some differences
in genetic material) you would have no clue, how to measure their age,
especially, that there was, and still is zero findings from such long past,
but at that times was zero ancient findings at all, so they do not have
even any material to compare with. All was dated according to ideology.

They are dating R1b in Africa on 15,000 years. But they do not have any
proof for that - simply, this is a wishfull thinking, based on ideology and
current measurment of the "age" which has to be old enaugh to fit to the
ideological age of first humans.


They are convincing people, that I1 has 40,000 years. Now they say, that
whole hg can be even 3180 years old. Similar was with EV-13. Now 99%
is dated as 4000 years - and they say only 99% because they can't even
allow the idea, that whole can be so young, becasue they have to fit to
rest of the evolurtionistic tree.

Btw, since I* to I1 still passed 40,000 years according to them in streight
"primogenitural" line during tens of thosands of years, during 1,500-2,000
generations. They probably aren't capable to even imagine, what nonsense
they are talking about, they are hypnotyzed by big numbers - the bigger
the better, and they doesn't even care, if it has any sense at all.

How do you explain varying rates of archaic hominin dna in modern people?Shouldn't we have the same rate of it if they were pre flood men or a pre-flood tribe?and why dont africans have any of it,while their clearly related cousins,the aboriginals and melanesians have 4-7%denisovan.

I'm sure youre gonna ignore this question even though its been asked a few times.

[Rethel]

The main argument against evolution is entropy,but that is just a creationist interpretation of the data.mtdna eve and Y adam didnt mate with each other and didnt even live in the same era,so how can you say adam and eve existed?theres also no conventional bottleneck from adam and eve or noah's family.

Common female ancestor is Eva.
Common male ancestor is Noah.
Obviously, they did not live in the same epoche. Ergo - Bible prooved.

And there was a bittleneck - the Flood - again, it is ageeable with the Bible.

Do not expect from atheists, that they will write you: man, you know, what, Genesis is verbaly true! :picard2:


t think the data supports the biblical model,nevertheless I still believe in the Torah.

I showed you in how many points Bible is correct.
There is much more histprical points, in which Bible was right, and sceintists were wrong.

You can't atheisticly explain, how neolithic beduins from the ME knew
about Indoeuropeans, about their common ancestor and that they will
adopt their religion and will conquer the world. If such big thing is true,
the more the rest. Not for everything you will find a proof, not every
proof will be admitted by atheists, so you need lip of faith, that rest
things, is correct also, like thiose, which were prooved.

[Rethel]

How do you explain varying rates of archaic hominin dna in modern people?Shouldn't we have the same rate of it if they were pre flood men or a pre-flood tribe?

No, I just said it, that it is the same as with any another component.
Amerindians have not so much pygmy DNA as Pygmies, and Pygmies
do not have so much nordic DNA as Europeans. There are differences.
The same here.


and why dont africans have any of it,while their clearly related cousins,the aboriginals and melanesians have 4-7%denisovan.

Why we have X% of WHG and pure melanesians have 0%?


I'm sure youre gonna ignore this question even though its been asked a few times.

And I did few times allready answered you.

And btw - not for everything I know the answer, but not knowing
the anwser for something doesn't mean to be totaly wrong.

[monfret]

No, I just said it, that it is the same as with any another component.
Amerindians have not so much pygmy DNA as Pygmies, and Pygmies
do not have so much nordic DNA as Europeans. There are differences.
The same here.



Why we have X% of WHG and pure melanesians have 0%?



And I did few times allready answered you.

And btw - not for everything I know the answer, but not knowing
the anwser for something doesn't mean to be totaly wrong.

that answer makes no sence,and chromosomal adam and eve diverge by about 100,000 years.genetic data show there was never a bottleneck below 10,000 people in human history.

[monfret]

Common female ancestor is Eva.
Common male ancestor is Noah.
Obviously, they did not live in the same epoche. Ergo - Bible prooved.

And there was a bittleneck - the Flood - again, it is ageeable with the Bible.

Do not expect from atheists, that they will write you: man, you know, what, Genesis is verbaly true! :picard2:



I showed you in how many points Bible is correct.
There is much more histprical points, in which Bible was right, and sceintists were wrong.

You can't atheisticly explain, how neolithic beduins from the ME knew
about Indoeuropeans, about their common ancestor and that they will
adopt their religion and will conquer the world. If such big thing is true,
the more the rest. Not for everything you will find a proof, not every
proof will be admitted by atheists, so you need lip of faith, that rest
things, is correct also, like thiose, which were prooved.

there was never a bottleneck of less than about 15,000 people according to geneticists.thousands not 8 or 2.I dont know how you can get past that.also youre not really answering the question on varying archaic hominin rates.if they were pre deluvian men africans should have neanderthal dna but they don't.we know atleast half of ham's son natons today have neanderthal dna so dont give me that only noah sons wives had partial archaic dna and gave differing rates of it,as then all humans should have it.

[Longbowman]

is Rethel right that the data can be interpreted to fit a biblical model,or is it affirmative that the two are mutually contradictorary?I'm sorry if I'm pestering you,I just don't know who to believe and don't know much about pop genetics.

Of course he's wrong. He would have to totally rewrite Adam and Eve, Noah, and the Biblical chronology, amongst other things.

[Petalpusher]

Natufian farmers were e1b1b1,they invaded europe and brought agriculture.

Natufians were likely in majority E1b but they didn't invade Europe, the first farmers were mostly G not E1b. Europe has little E1b today.

[Longbowman]

Natufians were likely in majority E1b but they didn't invade Europe, the first farmers were mostly G not E1b. Europe has little E1b today.

Well this is not strictly speaking true.

1) Natufians were, as far as we know, all E1b1b1b2, also known as 'Clade Glorious'
2) It is true EEF =/= Natufians but we know E1b had a strong presence amongst Neolithic Europeans
3) Even today E1b is very common in much of Europe, being the dominant type in some parts of the Balkans, Italian Peninsula and Iberia, and even being found at about 10% amongst Germans

[Rethel]

that answer makes no sence,and chromosomal adam and eve diverge by about 100,000 years.genetic data show there was never a bottleneck below 10,000 people in human history.

Ok, so if you belive in this, why do you want explanations
about biblical text, which is clear, that these estimations
are wrong. Are you trolling for fun?

The fact remains, that Eve llived according to the Bible long
before Noah, and the same are telling you genetists, but they
are giving you different numbers of years.


there was never a bottleneck of less than about 15,000 people according to geneticists.thousands not 8 or 2.I dont know how you can get past that.also youre not really answering the question on varying archaic hominin rates.

I am not answering, as you wish to be answerd.
Check Afro-Americans and Griqua - they will have
different amounts of the same componants, some they
will have not at all, some do. This is a basic mendelian stuff.


if they were pre deluvian men africans should have neanderthal dna but they don't.

So, why Eskomos do not have african DNA if they are from Africa? :picard2:


we know atleast half of ham's son natons today have neanderthal dna so dont give me that only noah sons wives had partial archaic dna and gave differing rates of it,as then all humans should have it.

According to your logic all humans should
be negros and nordics at the same time.

One population is loosing something, what another
don't, or maybe never had to since the begining.
You would have to trace early combinations of genes
at the origin of races, to know what and from whom
was inheritedm, and who with whom was mixed.

[Rethel]

E1b1b1b2, also known as 'Clade Glorious'

Not c1a? :pout:

[Rethel]

and even being found at about 10% amongst Germans

Interesting, becasue whole E among Germans it is 5% :)

[Longbowman]

Not c1a? :pout:

b2 is c1a under new terminology. My YDNA is E1b1b1b2a1a.

[Longbowman]

Interesting, becasue whole E among Germans it is 5% :)

More like 8-9% in Austria, Switzerland, Bavaria, everywhere except the far north.

[Petalpusher]

Well this is not strictly speaking true.

1) Natufians were, as far as we know, all E1b1b1b2, also known as 'Clade Glorious'
2) It is true EEF =/= Natufians but we know E1b had a strong presence amongst Neolithic Europeans
3) Even today E1b is very common in much of Europe, being the dominant type in some parts of the Balkans, Italian Peninsula and Iberia, and even being found at about 10% amongst Germans

1&2 ok but that's what i said. There were several waves from the neolithic era to this day but the first and main one was definetly not E1b, what some refer to "Balkan farmers" might have been, late to the party and more "Iran_Neo" shifted as well.
The Anatolian Farmers may have had a common origin at some point going back enough in time, but they were of a different lineage than the Natufians.

I don't find E1b very common but let's say it's relative. It's not that high in Germany, 8% in the south, 2.5% in the North, 5% in my region for example. Most of the core Europe is under 10% (being still highly derived from the neolithic), of course it's higher in the south and most of the time in the far south clearly from other influences than the neolithic itself.

[Longbowman]

1&2 ok but that's what i said. There were several waves from the neolithic era to this day but the first and main one was definetly not E1b, what some refer to "Balkan farmers" might have been, late to the party and more "Iran_Neo" shifted as well.
The Anatolian Farmers may have had a common origin at some point going back enough in time, but they were of a different lineage than the Natufians.

I don't find E1b very common but let's say it's relative. It's not that high in Germany, 8% in the south, 2.5% in the North, 5% in my region for example. Most of the core Europe is under 10%, of course it's higher in the south and most of the time in the far south clearly from other influences than the neolithic itself.

I dispute your last sentence, how else did most Balkan E1b get there? ignore [some] Sicilian e1b, it's clearly mostly Neolithic.

[Rethel]

More like 8-9% in Austria, Switzerland, Bavaria, everywhere except the far north.

Regionaly. But not more than 8%, so the more not 10%.
I am glad that you admitted Switzes and Austrians as Germans :)
In general all these three countries have almost 6% - it is even below European average.
Including Lowlands it is even less - the same as in BRD alone.
And I am curious if it is not with recent immigrant or is :)

[Rethel]

I dispute your last sentence, how else did most Balkan E1b get there? ignore [some] Sicilian e1b, it's clearly mostly Neolithic.

Roman relocations, individual migrations, aso.

But as far as now, 60% of neolithic samples in ancient Vasco-Eurabia it is G2.
Secodn place beling to I, i dont remember exactly, but something like 15%.
Rest are C, H, E, J and T.

[monfret]

Ok, so if you belive in this, why do you want explanations
about biblical text, which is clear, that these estimations
are wrong. Are you trolling for fun?

The fact remains, that Eve llived according to the Bible long
before Noah, and the same are telling you genetists, but they
are giving you different numbers of years.



I am not answering, as you wish to be answerd.
Check Afro-Americans and Griqua - they will have
different amounts of the same componants, some they
will have not at all, some do. This is a basic mendelian stuff.



So, why Eskomos do not have african DNA if they are from Africa? :picard2:



According to your logic all humans should
be negros and nordics at the same time.

One population is loosing something, what another
don't, or maybe never had to since the begining.
You would have to trace early combinations of genes
at the origin of races, to know what and from whom
was inheritedm, and who with whom was mixed.

but africans have so little as to be practically none,and what they do have is due to a recent eurasian introgression according to Geneticists.

also https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-big-was-the-human-population-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/ this i what I man a bottleneck of 8 people would show up in the genetic data but it doesnt.

as for me trolling,Im looking for the truth no biased apologetics that make little sence.I said I believe in the Torah,but the genetic data doesnt seem to support it.

[Rethel]

but africans have so little as to be practically none,and what they do have is due to a recent eurasian introgression according to Geneticists.

also https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-big-was-the-human-population-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/ this i what I man a bottleneck of 8 people would show up in the genetic data but it doesnt.

as for me trolling,Im looking for the truth no biased apologetics that make little sence.I said I believe in the Torah,but the genetic data doesnt seem to support it.

Ask Longbowman, if you do not belive me,
how loosing of gens looks. But, in this case,
he is ready to prettend that he does not know :)

Every closed and small populations is less divergent
than whole original population per se, and in addition
is loosing some stuff. You can probably even read in
the primary schools textbooks.

You either trolling, either you do not want to understand.

I gace you another example. Firsts IEs had Amerindian
component in them. Present polish IEs probably do not
have none of it. Why? Becasue they llosed it. The same
Africans can loos this component, about which you are
talking, or even never has it since the begining, when
they were a couple of small inbreeding families.

[Longbowman]

Ethnic Germans in Austria, and southern and eastern Germany, are 8% E1b.

[Sacrificed Ram]

The main argument against evolution is entropy

It would be true if Earth was a closed system, but isn't, the sun a outer space is constantly launching energy in Earth. And we also have a great stock of energy in the heat into the Earth. From these we have enough energy to surpass the entropy, generating more order above the disorder.

If entropy argument is valid agaisnt evolution, how is possible the rain? The disordered state of water vapour in clouds become a more ordered state of liquid water falling with the rain?
http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss279/Zodiark-123/animated-rain.gif

[monfret]

Ask Longbowman, if you do not belive me,
how loosing of gens looks. But, in this case,
he is ready to prettend that he does not know :)

Every closed and small populations is less divergent
than whole original population per se, and in addition
is loosing some stuff. You can probably even read in
the primary schools textbooks.

You either trolling, either you do not want to understand.

I gace you another example. Firsts IEs had Amerindian
component in them. Present polish IEs probably do not
have none of it. Why? Becasue they llosed it. The same
Africans can loos this component, about which you are
talking, or even never has it since the begining, when
they were a couple of small inbreeding families.

losing dna?thats literally batshit insane dude.

[monfret]

I meant genetic entropy ala Sanford.see Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome/

[Rethel]

Ethnic Germans in Austria, and southern and eastern Germany, are 8% E1b.

Ok, but you said 10% and you said Germans per se.
Anyway you were incorrect, and the time is to admit
it, at least once in life, insted of trying to be right no
matter what :p

[Rethel]

It would be true if Earth was a closed system,

Universe is a closed system.


but isn't, the sun a outer space is constantly launching energy in Earth.

Energy, which is destroying
you and everything around, and
the Sun is going down itself also.


If entropy argument is valid agaisnt evolution, how is possible the rain? The disordered state of water vapour in clouds become a more ordered state of liquid water falling with the rain?

So check, if earth is loosing
water, or is gaining, and if is
gaining, thenfrom where is the
ultimate and neverending source?.

[Rethel]

losing dna?thats literally batshit insane dude.

Ok, if you know better, why do you ask? :picard1:

In your sane world races do not exists. If
you call it sane, good for you, live happily.
And please, announce this your revelation
in the local kennel club. They will be very
glad to hear such sane person like you :)

[Sacrificed Ram]

I meant genetic entropy ala Sanford.see Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome/

The rate of mutations are virtually imprevisible because depends also of external/enviromental factors (radiation, Inducer substances, stress, etc). A mutation can occur now, tomorrow, or never.

[Petalpusher]

I dispute your last sentence, how else did most Balkan E1b get there? ignore [some] Sicilian e1b, it's clearly mostly Neolithic.

I dispute the term neolithic that is a very long era, we put many different things in the same basket. Late Balkan Farmers were different, as i said more Iran_N/CHG shifted, it's clear in some places of the Balkan some 30% E1b is not from Anatolian farmers but another wave or more recent influences.

Out of 69 early/middle neolithic samples in Europe (who already had replaced all the population by then), we only find a single E1b, that's the kind of low E1b frequency you don't even have in Scandinavia nowadays, the rest as follows:

61% G2a
16% l2a

6% F
3% T
3% l
3% C1a
3% H2

1.5% l1
1.5% R1b
1.5% E1b

The only E1b was from Cardium Pottery that supposedly originated from the Balkans.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Universe is a closed system.

And if the Multiverse Theory is right? Maybe these multiverse is contributing with us. There are experiences where laser produces electrons and positrons from NOTHING. Maybe this NOTHING is only an other universe opening his doors for us.

[Longbowman]

I dispute the term neolithic that is a very long era, we put many different things in the same basket. Late Balkan Farmers were different, as i said more Iran_N/CHG shifted, it's clear in some places of the Balkan some 30% E1b is not from Anatolian farmers but another wave or more recent influences.

Out of 69 early/middle neolithic samples (who already had replaced all the population by then), we only find a single E1b, that's the kind of low E1b frequency you don't even have in Scandinavia nowadays, the rest as follows:

61% G2a
16% l2a

6% F
3% T
3% l
3% C1a
3% H2

1.5% l1
1.5% R1b
1.5% E1b

The only E1b was from Cardium Pottery that supposedly originated from the Balkans.

According to you, how did EV13 expand? is it selected for, like D?

[Petalpusher]

According to you, how did EV13 expand? is it selected for, like D?

From the people who replaced the Anatolians on their land? if they left in mass they must have been replaced by some other population, highly E1b, that may have followed them later? Im not sure if that's what you ask my opinion about or not. But in Europe it seems everything points to a concentrated source in the Balkan regardless how they got there in the first place.

[monfret]

Ok, if you know better, why do you ask? :picard1:

In your sane world races do not exists. If
you call it sane, good for you, live happily.
And please, announce this your revelation
in the local kennel club. They will be very
glad to hear such sane person like you :)

You implid that africans lost their pre deluvian archaic hominin dna,when thats batshit crazy.you dont ''lose''dna.youre literally making stuff up for jebus.youre an apologetic looking to fit th data with your preoncieved views,Im neither for or against but trying to follow where the data leads me.I believe in the old testament,but that doesn't mean genetics support it or not.

[Longbowman]

Ok, but you said 10% and you said Germans per se.
Anyway you were incorrect, and the time is to admit
it, at least once in life, insted of trying to be right no
matter what :p

OK. 8%, not 10%.

You were wrong, also.

[Longbowman]

From the people who replaced the Anatolians on their land? if they left in mass they must have been replaced by some other population, highly E1b, that may have followed them later? Im not sure if that's what you ask my opinion about or not. But in Europe it seems everything points to a concentrated source in the Balkan regardless how they got there in the first place.

But the EV13 we see today does date to, however small at the time, clades present in the Neolithic.

[Rethel]

And if the Multiverse Theory is right? Maybe these multiverse is contributing with us. There are experiences where laser produces electrons and positrons from NOTHING. Maybe this NOTHING is only an other universe opening his doors for us.

They can't but assuming, that they do,
then the Multiverse is a closed system.



You implid that africans lost their pre deluvian archaic hominin dna,when thats batshit crazy.you dont ''lose''dna.youre literally making stuff up for jebus.youre an apologetic looking to fit th data with your preoncieved views,Im neither for or against but trying to follow where the data leads me.I believe in the old testament,but that doesn't mean genetics support it or not.

:picard2:

Time to retunr to the elementary schooll and to sunday school.
You neither know genetics, neither Bible, but you want to be
competent, to decide, that Bible is wrong because of genetics.

[Rethel]

But the EV13 we see today does date to, however small at the time, clades present in the Neolithic.

V13 has 4,000 years (only 1% 1500 more)
So according to this is irrelevant for Neolithic.

Do you maybe know, how many of european E are V13?

All E it is 6,26%.

[Sacrificed Ram]

They can't but assuming, that they do,
then the Multiverse is a closed system.


If the number of Multiverses are infinite...

[Petalpusher]

But the EV13 we see today does date to, however small at the time, clades present in the Neolithic.

I have no doubt it dates to this time, i know it's tempting to link an era to only one type of people/admixture, we are missing something here, Eurogenes also noted it. E frequency correlates perfectly with SW_Asian admixture, it's striking. From 1-3% in the north to 10-30% in the south, with the usual explonential curve but it doesnt match farmer admixture , and it doesn't have to since they were not E.

[Rethel]

If the number of Multiverses are infinite...

If... then there have to be God, becasue he is ultimate infinitness himself.

And btw, talkning about infinite Multiverse, is not even a reality, so calm down.

But even if it exists, so that means, there exist another
realities so ==>>>> there is a reality, where exists God.

Anyway, you are shooting in your foot.

[Rethel]

You were wrong, also.

Only if it must be a condition for your admitting, that you were wrong... :p

[Sacrificed Ram]

If... then there have to be God, becasue he is ultimate infinitness himself.

And btw, talkning about infinite Multiverse, is not even a reality, so calm down.

But even if it exists, so that means, there exist another
realities so ==>>>> there is a reality, where exists God.

Anyway, you are shooting in your foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

[Rethel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Everything but God... :picard1:

[monfret]

Ask Longbowman, if you do not belive me,
how loosing of gens looks. But, in this case,
he is ready to prettend that he does not know :)

Every closed and small populations is less divergent
than whole original population per se, and in addition
is loosing some stuff. You can probably even read in
the primary schools textbooks.

You either trolling, either you do not want to understand.

I gace you another example. Firsts IEs had Amerindian
component in them. Present polish IEs probably do not
have none of it. Why? Becasue they llosed it. The same
Africans can loos this component, about which you are
talking, or even never has it since the begining, when
they were a couple of small inbreeding families.

longbowman,is this true?Can people lose genetics?

[Sacrificed Ram]

longbowman,is this true?Can people lose genetics?

No, like english is the official language of Nigeria a population can learn a new languange by other means than genetic admixture.

[Longbowman]

longbowman,is this true?Can people lose genetics?

Can people lose genes? No. And even with things like epigenetics your genetic material doesn't magically disappear for the purpose of being read by analysts. But inheritance models make it possible for uneven inheritance beyond the first generation. So it would be possible for one person, somewhere, to be 0% Neanderthal - in the same way it's 'possible' for someone to have 0% of the DNA of his own grandparent (yes, Neanderthal DNA = 3%, Grandparent average = 25% but Neanderthal DNA is far sparser diffused so I'm not sure the likelihood of having 0% Neanderthal DNA is any lower).

TLDR: Rethel is arguing over a technical possibility but practical impossibility, which is better than what he normally does, which is deny facts he doesn't like whilst promoting facts he does like, even from the same author, even from the same paper.

Besides, the Ethiopians might have 1% Neanderthal or so but the Khoi-San and Twa have microscopic levels. His point is invalid.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Besides, the Ethiopians might have 1% Neanderthal or so but the Khoi-San and Twa have microscopic levels. His point is invalid.

And you, is YAP+ an Out of Africa or Back to Africa? Was found some DE* in Syria just sometime before the war, thus we cannot have so deep information about it.

[Longbowman]

And you, is YAP+ an Out of Africa or Back to Africa? Was found some DE* in Syria just sometime before the war, thus we cannot have so deep information about it.

I suspect back into Africa, personally.

[Rethel]

TLDR: Rethel is arguing over a technical possibility but practical impossibility,

The very fact, that one population has more
neanderthal, another less, means, that this
who has less lost more, than this where is
more neanDNA. If one has 5, another 2% it
means, that the second lost 3% more than
the first one, so, another could lost yet 2%.

This is how real selection works. Otherwise, all populations
would have 100% of first humans DNA, but they don;t have,
they have differences, becasue one goup lost something,
another group lost something else.


which is better than what he normally does, which is deny facts he doesn't like

But you are much better in that than me :)


whilst promoting facts he does like, even from the same author, even from the same paper.

No, you do this - in the case of the Bible and Jews,
your genetics is totally different, like some UFO's... :laugh:

Not my fault, that belivers in evolution have wrong, often
idiotic assumption, on which they are basing their assumings,
so, logicly, some of their claims are wrong, and has to be.


Besides, the Ethiopians might have 1% Neanderthal or so but the Khoi-San and Twa have microscopic levels. His point is invalid.

And this an example how you, claiming, that my
point is invalid, actually validate my statement :)
It is always funny, because you do not see this.

[Longbowman]

Do as the rest of the forum does and ignore Rethel's blitherings. If you are a religious man, pray that God give him the power of self awareness. If you are a religious man with a kind heart, pray that God never gives him such a power, for ignorance, it seems, is bliss.

His first paragraph, btw, is hard to decipher but it seems to suggest that he completely misunderstood your point.

ie,

x is 5% n, 95% s
y is 2.5% n, 97.5% s

considering n was once 100% clearly y has lost more than x

but Rethel fails to consider the deluvian nature of your question, as he is an idiot (ie, only one family survived, so n cannot reasonably be considered to have changed across populations since then as no fresh s populations have been added to the mixture. The rest of his post is equally meaningless tripe.

[Rethel]

Longbowman,

you can be butthurt as much as you want and deny the facts,
but real genetists, much better than such selfraised as you,
know better :p And such things, are taught in primary schools,
but you as always must deny everything, what would even a
slightly support jewish history... so pity... :pout:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPuse_5utYQ

[Longbowman]

>posting hour-long youtube videos expecting me to actually watch them

skipped ahead to 17 mins, talking about moths changing colour in the UK. That's selection you're talking about, it doesn't impact the general concept of an inheritance model. All children here are taught this at the age of 6 or 7 (the industrial revolution's impact on their colour).

Rethel, please don't pretend scientists actually agree with you. Don't make me paste screencaps of you criticising scientists in general for not supporting your claptrap.

[Rethel]

skipped ahead to 17 mins, talking about moths changing colour in the UK.

One fragment, not very important btw... :picard1:
Btw, it is not for you, but for Monfred. You do belive, that a mud alived on its own
and built the computer, and you showed many times, that you will do anything, to
maintain that belive of yours, becasue you simply want to, and any argument will
not convinst you, especially, that you in one post deny something, what you did
acknolegde in another. This is wishfull blindness.

[Longbowman]

the thing about muds is, the always alive on their own, my chum, don't try to pull the wool over the eyes of this four by two or I'll fucking gut you.

[Rethel]

I return yet to this, becasue you made here huge error :laugh:



(ie, only one family survived, so n cannot reasonably be considered to have changed across populations since then as no fresh s populations have been added to the mixture.

And what? Why you foolishly assume, that whole family
was genetically uniform, and that in the future sub families
1) did not inherit some things at all 2) did not genetically drift,
3) did not were genetically selected, 4) for example bottlenecked.

If it would be so, then you would have only one race
of people in the surface of the earth today, and if you
belive in evolotion, you would still have fur and tail. :laugh:

It is really interesting, how selectivly your mind works :)

[Profileid]

I return yet to this, becasue you made here huge error :laugh:




And what? Why you foolishly assume, that whole family
was genetically uniform, and that in the future sub families
1) did not inherit some things at all 2) did not genetically drift,
3) did not were genetically selected, 4) for example bottlenecked.

If it would be so, then you would have only one race
of people in the surface of the earth today, and if you
belive in evolotion, you would still have fur and tail. :laugh:

It is really interesting, how selectivly your mind works :)

You know the entire point of trolling is to make OTHER people look stupid, not yourself.
Is there anything you polaks can do right?

[Longbowman]

I return yet to this, becasue you made here huge error :laugh:

Unlikely, but let's see.


And what? Why you foolishly assume, that whole family
was genetically uniform,

because the Bible told me so

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/b6/e1/f4b6e1342aa6c79093a62d1e225e6715.jpg

(uneven neanderthal DNA in groups of supposedly the same origin, far too wild for the Table of Nations to be accurate)


and that in the future sub families
1) did not inherit some things at all

wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance


2) did not genetically drift,

wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance


3) did not were genetically selected,

wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance


4) for example bottlenecked.

wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance


If it would be so, then you would have only one race
of people in the surface of the earth today,

look up 'mutations'


and if you
belive in evolotion, you would still have fur and tail. :laugh:

we have the remains of both, but if you don't believe in evolution then all the concepts you just listed are irrelevant.


It is really interesting, how selectivly your mind works :)

I never really assumed you had a mind, just a very small monkey enclosed in your skull pressing random buttons in exchange for bananas.

[Rethel]

You know the entire point of trolling is to make OTHER people look stupid, not yourself.
Is there anything you polaks can do right?

Do better self-naming (nominal) "christian" :rolleyes:

[Rethel]

because the Bible told me so

Bible told you, that such people as Indoleuropeans exist, by
people, who couldn;t know this, but you can;t absorb it and
say: the Bible was right long before atheistic science.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f4/b6/e1/f4b6e1342aa6c79093a62d1e225e6715.jpg

+/- is accurate, not 100%.


(uneven neanderthal DNA in groups of supposedly the same origin, far too wild for the Table of Nations to be accurate)

You are talking about aDNA basing on Y-DNA :picard1:

Guy, who said, that knows, what he is talking about. :laugh:


wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance
wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance
wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance
wouldn't matter vis-a-vis overall inheritance


Would matter, becasue it was small
inbreeding groups, not necessarly
crossing each other.


look up 'mutations'

:picard1:

Exept doubtfull mutations you do not see enything else.



we have the remains of both,

Still, you do not have the version
of gene, which provide fur and tail.


but if you don't believe in evolution then all the concepts you just listed are irrelevant.

:picard2:

If I do not belive in evolution,
I can;t belive in genetics at all.
And you are calling me insane... :picard2:


I never really assumed you had a mind, just a very small monkey enclosed in your skull pressing random buttons in exchange for bananas.

Banans are tasty :)

It is really a rarity to meet such colseminded
person, really, especially, when has high IQ.
It is an evenement.

[Longbowman]

Actually most of our DNA is junk DNA or DNA that isn't specific to people (ie, the stuff we share with bananas, chimps etc) which is what you're missing. A single mutated SNP wouldn't change the 3% figure, and it's very silly of you to think it would.

[monfret]

Rethel,I just don't think neanderthal or denisovan dna would outright dissappear from a population.how is it that melanesian australoids have such heavy amounts of Denisovan dna but other ethnic groups in africa have none?this shows mixing had to occur post flood with already existant humans but that would go against the global model of the flood wich is supported by the text itself(we know the flood was not local despite was some apologists claim). I think that the fact L and a0 are still present in africa and that ALL haplotypes downwind from them is a huge problem with a literal interpretation of noah account.as Longbowman had stated earlier,how do you account for all the haplogroups that dont descend from J,E1b or R?maybe noah had other sons and daughters that were ommited from the text?How do we also present the fact that canaanites are Hamites when they pretty much are identical to modern day israelis and other levantine peoples?


the rest is derailing the thread,as this is about how modern population genetics agree with the table of nations account or not not if evolution is true or not,thats irrelevant to the discussion.

its very difficult to interpret the Noah account in the light of what is known about haplotypes.

[Rethel]

Actually most of our DNA is junk DNA or DNA that isn't specific to people (ie, the stuff we share with bananas, chimps etc) which is what you're missing. A single mutated SNP wouldn't change the 3% figure, and it's very silly of you to think it would.

would. Watch the lecture for firstgrades ;)

Btw, as I said previously, it can be alsio, that african subgroups
never had neanderthal DNA, so, even if it what you are trying to
sell here would be true (but it is not) then there is still no problem,
in lacking of neanderthal DNA among Africans.

[monfret]

Can people lose genes? No. And even with things like epigenetics your genetic material doesn't magically disappear for the purpose of being read by analysts. But inheritance models make it possible for uneven inheritance beyond the first generation. So it would be possible for one person, somewhere, to be 0% Neanderthal - in the same way it's 'possible' for someone to have 0% of the DNA of his own grandparent (yes, Neanderthal DNA = 3%, Grandparent average = 25% but Neanderthal DNA is far sparser diffused so I'm not sure the likelihood of having 0% Neanderthal DNA is any lower).

TLDR: Rethel is arguing over a technical possibility but practical impossibility, which is better than what he normally does, which is deny facts he doesn't like whilst promoting facts he does like, even from the same author, even from the same paper.

Besides, the Ethiopians might have 1% Neanderthal or so but the Khoi-San and Twa have microscopic levels. His point is invalid.

I agree with this if your parent has 25% of X dna,and they mix with a parentm without any X dna,the child will be 12.5% X dna but the dna never dissappears even if the process of marrying people with 0% X dna occurs for thousands of years it never gets ''deleted''it just becomes microscopic,but in the flood model everyone pre flood is 100% archaic hominin so the children should be equally archaic or if they mutated they should have equal amounts of archaic dna.even among ''Japethites''neanderthal dna varies,it even varies per person within a nation.this is quiet difficult for the biblical inerrantist.it could be noah was just a metaphorical account,some Rabbis(among Hazal and maimonides) considered Be-reshit to be allegorical.

[monfret]

would. Watch the lecture for firstgrades ;)

Btw, as I said previously, it can be alsio, that african subgroups
never had neanderthal DNA, so, even if it what you are trying to
sell here would be true (but it is not) then there is still no problem,
in lacking of neanderthal DNA among Africans.

but how is that possible?How do you explain all haplotypes originating from L and A0 wich are in africa?wouldn't that support a african origin of modern humans?was noah a african?what about all the haplotypes that dont originate from J,R or E1b?where do they come from?other children of noah?

[Rethel]

Rethel,I just don't think neanderthal or denisovan dna would outright dissappear from a population.how is it that melanesian australoids have such heavy amounts of Denisovan dna but other ethnic groups in africa have none?this shows mixing had to occur post flood with already existant humans but that would go against the global model of the flood wich is supported by the text itself(we know the flood was not local despite was some apologists claim).

The same as with neanderthal.
But even if denisovians where postdeluvian population, then
it is even easier. Simply they where allready selected population,
which later mixed with some other groups, but with some didn't.


I think that the fact L and a0 are still present in africa and that ALL haplotypes downwind from them is a huge problem with a literal interpretation of noah account.

Why?


as Longbowman had stated earlier,how do you account for all the haplogroups that dont descend from J,E1b or R?

They are wrongly segregated.

Imagine.
1. You have no idea about hgs.
2. You see, that some populations have something different in their Y chromosome.
3. You call it hg, and every group which you discover, you name agter some letter.
4. Now, you want to know their age, and relation - you have no idea how to do it.
5. But you "know" that people did (and must) came out from Africia X years ago.
6. So you choose african hg as the oldest, and non african as youngest.
7. Now, "knowing" that people has X years, you are estimating rest of the gaes according to that.
8. You "know" also, that people in such and such palces had to be at that and that time, and you are estimating them according to that.
9. Later, it is selfexisting system, which is copied by others and numbers of errors is multuiplying by wrong system.


maybe noah had other sons and daughters that were ommited from the text?

Maybe, but we do not know about it, and text rather clearly says, that whole
mankind descendent from Japheth, Sem and Ham. If something was omitted,
we do not know about it, but it is very doubtfull, that such important matter,
was not even mention by "and he has sons and daughters" or something like
that. So, we must came to the conclusion, that he had not have other sons.


How do we also present the fact that canaanites are Hamites when

Very well: Bible directly says, that they were Hamites, and - Bible was right.
Remeber: lingistic Hamites and Canaanites spoke in different languages, so,
for jewish writer, they sgould not be the same, if he developed it on his own.


they pretty much are identical to modern day israelis and other levantine peoples?

Why they shouldn;t?

[QUOTE]the rest is derailing the thread,as this is about how modern population genetics agree with the table of nations account or not not if evolution is true or not,thats irrelevant to the discussion.

Evolution is very relevant, becasue if is wronbg, then majority
of scientific claims are wrong too, becasue they are based on
the assumtion that evolution is a fact and is true. One of the
examples which is relevant to this disscussion I gave you above.


its very difficult to interpret the Noah account in the light of what is known about haplotypes.

Is very naive to think, that scientists would interpreted some
things, which they had no idea about in the light of the Bible.

BUT, the Bible was right when it said:

1. That Semites had one ancestor
2. That Indeuropeans existed, and had one ancestor
3. that Hamites exosted and had one ancestor
4. that Mankind is segregated according to their patrylineal ancestry
5. that Early inhabiotands of Greece where descended from Hamites
6. That descendants of Japhat were blessed and history showed, thatv they took everything.
7.that every patriarchal group had its own language.

Beduin or slave in Egypt couldnt know such things.
Longbowman is prettending, that he do not read it in my posts.
He foolished himself, becasue he hates the Bible, and he never
will admitt, that it contains any true information, especially not
achievable to the supposedly falsificating jewish writer on the
desert or in slavery. More than that, false jewish writer would
write quite different things as he wrote.

[Rethel]

I agree with this if your parent has 25% of X dna,and they mix with a parentm without any X dna,the child will be 12.5% X dna but the dna never dissappears even if the process of marrying people with 0% X dna occurs for thousands of years it never gets ''deleted''it just becomes microscopic,but in the flood model everyone pre flood is 100% archaic hominin so the children should be equally archaic or if they mutated they should have equal amounts of archaic dna.

No, they would not.
You falsly assume, that all in the ark has equal neanderthal DNA.
But even if they had, they could loose it. Listen to the specialist,
not to Longbowman, who has his agenda.

He is calling me insane about things, which he in another disscussion
admit as true, and is calling people who deny it, insane. He is changing
his views (his private science), according to the topic.


even among ''Japethites''neanderthal dna varies,it even varies per person within a nation.this is quiet difficult for the biblical inerrantist.it could be noah was just a metaphorical account,some Rabbis(among Hazal and maimonides) considered Be-reshit to be allegorical.

If Genesis is allegorical, then everything else has no sense.
Btw, Jesus didn;t think, it was allegorical.

[monfret]

No, they would not.
You falsly assume, that all in the ark has equal neanderthal DNA.
But even if they had, they could loose it. Listen to the specialist,
not to Longbowman, who has his agenda.

He is calling me insane about things, which he in another disscussion
admit as true, and is calling people who deny it, insane. He is changing
his views (his private science), according to the topic.



If Genesis is allegorical, then everything else has no sense.
Btw, Jesus didn;t think, it was allegorical.

they could lose it?do you have any source for that?


Genesis can be allegorical,even some of the early church fathers considered it so.Im a noahide so Im not concerned with what they taught,but among eastern orthodox christians even today evolution is widely accepted.in fact the vatican accepts it too.only protestant people deny evolution.

[Rethel]

but how is that possible?

Neanderthal DNA is autosomal.
If they were not post deluvian population, then even in such
case it is not necessary for all in the ark to have this dna.

In such case, only one person could have it. Lets say, it was Semess.
In the akr you had five other person, which gave bieth to the mankind,
which had not this DNA. Africans are from Ham. He was clean, and his
wife too. They have at least eight children. Jush was a forfather of
the Blacks. So he married his sister (both clean of neanderthal) and
produced 12 children which merried each other and (all or some paris)
gave the beginning of black Africans not mixing with descendants of
other "arkites". And you have exactly what you have - 0% neanderthal.


How do you explain all haplotypes originating from L and A0 wich are in africa?

As I said, they where wrongly putted on the tree - why? I just explained it to you.


wouldn't that support a african origin of modern humans?

No, becasue everything in science is made and interpret for that thesis
and everything what does not fit or cannot be twisted - is ignored.


was noah a african?

Of course not.


what about all the haplotypes that dont originate from J,R or E1b?where do they come from?other children of noah?

The same as above.

Listen, if writer knoew about this things which I showed you
above in the post nr 150, if the blessing of Noah became true
in the unimaginable scale, then rest of the book can and have
to be correct also. You can;t proof everything, but you can
proof something, which is not explainable, so why are you worry
about guys, who belived, that mud alived, surrvied and developed
computer on which do you write on its own? If they belive in such
bizzarness, they would belive/claim everything.

More than that, the story and people from Genesis, even
their names and exactly the same in cultures far awya from
ME, so there you have much more evidences for that.

[Rethel]

they could lose it?do you have any source for that?

Did I not put the video, and tell you to watch it? :picard1:
Watch it, there are presented basic facts in that theme.


Genesis can be allegorical,even some of the early church fathers considered it so.Im a noahide so Im not concerned with what they taught,but among eastern orthodox christians even today evolution is widely accepted.in fact the vatican accepts it too.only protestant people deny evolution.

So Jesus died and resurrected allegorically also? :picard1:

[monfret]

Did I not put the video, and tell you to watch it? :picard1:
Watch it, there are presented basic facts in that theme.



So Jesus died and resurrected allegorically also? :picard1:

https://outreachjudaism.org/crucifixion-resurrection-chart/ I don't think you understand,I'm not a christian,I'm a noahide.I don't believe in jesus or the new testament.I believe in the old testament and Judaism without converting to it.I believe the messiah will sacrifice bulls and have sons like ezekiel says,and that he will be of the lineage of solomon and not the cursed lineage of Jeconiah.in that day the nations will grab every judahite by his dress.

[monfret]

Neanderthal DNA is autosomal.
If they were not post deluvian population, then even in such
case it is not necessary for all in the ark to have this dna.

In such case, only one person could have it. Lets say, it was Semess.
In the akr you had five other person, which gave bieth to the mankind,
which had not this DNA. Africans are from Ham. He was clean, and his
wife too. They have at least eight children. Jush was a forfather of
the Blacks. So he married his sister (both clean of neanderthal) and
produced 12 children which merried each other and (all or some paris)
gave the beginning of black Africans not mixing with descendants of
other "arkites". And you have exactly what you have - 0% neanderthal.



As I said, they where wrongly putted on the tree - why? I just explained it to you.



No, becasue everything in science is made and interpret for that thesis
and everything what does not fit or cannot be twisted - is ignored.



Of course not.



The same as above.

Listen, if writer knoew about this things which I showed you
above in the post nr 150, if the blessing of Noah became true
in the unimaginable scale, then rest of the book can and have
to be correct also. You can;t proof everything, but you can
proof something, which is not explainable, so why are you worry
about guys, who belived, that mud alived, surrvied and developed
computer on which do you write on its own? If they belive in such
bizzarness, they would belive/claim everything.

More than that, the story and people from Genesis, even
their names and exactly the same in cultures far awya from
ME, so there you have much more evidences for that.

I get it.so youre saying L and A0 are not ancestor lineages but new lineages downwind from E1b1?youre saying that geneticists cant see what haplotype descended from wich haplotype and they forge data to support a out of africa model?

[Rethel]

https://outreachjudaism.org/crucifixion-resurrection-chart/ I don't think you understand,I'm not a christian,I'm a noahide.

Ok., christians are also noahids, so this is why I did not automatically get
you as non christian i.e. I thought so, but I hoped that I am wrong. :)


I don't believe in jesus or the new testament.

You should, becasue OT is about NT and Jesus.


I believe in the old testament and Judaism without converting to it.

Ok, but judaism is sensless per se, so it has double no sense.


I believe the messiah will sacrifice bulls

Why bulls?


and have sons like ezekiel says,

Jesus has sons, because he replaised Adam, as Isaiah figured,
when he wrote: I and sons which gave me Jehovah, we are
sighns and wonders in Israel from Jehovah Sabaoth.



and that he will be of the lineage of solomon and not the cursed lineage of Jeconiah.

1. The chief unrabbi of TA argued that Messiah can't be from Solomon, and he said, that this is an argument against Jesus :laugh:
2. Jeconiah is the only royal line, becasue Sedekiah died childless.
3. And at the same time Jesus was and was not his descendant, but was from Solomon.


in that day the nations will grab every judahite by his dress.

And you are doing this :)

Jesus is this judahite.

[Rethel]

I get it.so youre saying L and A0 are not ancestor lineages but new lineages downwind from E1b1?

They missinterpreted it. E itself is a descendantd of
common ancestor of A, B, C, D, E, maybe even further
like G, H, aso. I can't name it, becasue scientists
didn;t name it and did not classyfy it correctly :)


youre saying that geneticists cant see what haplotype descended from wich haplotype and they forge data to support a out of africa model?

They can do this, but they can be sometimes also wrong.
The very "letters" in past years did change their position on the tree.
That means, that they were wrong.
The ages of clades they changed from 40,000 to 3,000 - it is a huge mistake.
Why they were wrong in the skeleton, but not to much in details?
Becasue skeleton was based on wrong assumption and belives, and knowing
nothing, you can;t do this right - and they started from nothing, didn't they?

[monfret]

They missinterpreted it. E itself is a descendantd of
common ancestor of A, B, C, D, E, maybe even further
like G, H, aso. I can't name it, becasue scientists
didn;t name it and did not classyfy it correctly :)



They can do this, but they can be sometimes also wrong.
The very "letters" in past years did change their position on the tree.
That means, that they were wrong.
The ages of clades they changed from 40,000 to 3,000 - it is a huge mistake.
Why they were wrong in the skeleton, but not to much in details?
Becasue skeleton was based on wrong assumption and belives, and knowing
nothing, you can;t do this right - and they started from nothing, didn't they?

so youre saying L and A0 are not the ancestor clades?if noah is true no ancestor clades should exist among hamites.

[monfret]

Ok., christians are also noahids, so this is why I did not automatically get
you as non christian i.e. I thought so, but I hoped that I am wrong. :)



You should, becasue OT is about NT and Jesus.

the NT misquotes the old testament and even attributtes false things to it,Acts 7 says Abraham came to Israel when his father was dead.Looking back in Genesis 11:26, we find that Terah begat Abraham when he was 70. Verse 32 says Terah lived to be 205, and he died. 12:4 says Abraham was 75 when he came to Israel. That means Terah was 145 years old and remained alive for another 60 years. cts 7:4--Stephen tells us that Abraham departed from Haran "after his father died." Had he studied the Book of Genesis (11:26,32; 12:4), he would have realized his error: Abraham departed from Haran at age 75, at a time when his father Terah was 145; since Terah lived for 205 years, he still had another 60 years of life remaining.
*Acts 7:14--Stephen related that 75 of Joseph's relatives were called by him to come to Egypt. Moses saw it differently: see Deut. 10:22, Gen 46:27, Ex. 1:5 (And all the persons who came from the loins of Jacob were 70 in number").
*Acts 7:16--Stephen informs us that Jacob was buried in Shechem, and that the tomb was purchased by Abraham from Emmor .
Genesis, again tells a different story. At the death of Sarah his wife, Abraham purchases the Cave of Machpelah, which is in Hebron, as a burial place. The cave is purchased from Ephron the Hittite, contrary to what Steven says in Acts. (Gen.23) It is here that Jacob is buried, as outlined in Genesis 50:13. It was Jacob who purchased a parcel of land in Shechem from Hamor, but it was purchased as a place to pitch his tent and as a place to erect an altar.

Ok, but judaism is sensless per se, so it has double no sense.
the Torah is a eternal inheritance.la o3lam ve ad.its an inheritance up to a thousand generations(see exodus 20:5-6)Psalms 105:7-11 Many laws of the torah are said to explcitely be eternal


Why bulls?
The messiah will sacrifice bulls and his sons will do so afterhim
http://thejewishhome.org/counter/EzekielPrince.pdf

Jesus has sons, because he replaised Adam, as Isaiah figured,
when he wrote: I and sons which gave me Jehovah, we are
sighns and wonders in Israel from Jehovah Sabaoth.

christian apologetic



1. The chief unrabbi of TA argued that Messiah can't be from Solomon, and he said, that this is an argument against Jesus :laugh:
the messiah WILL be from solomon not thru nathan,Jesus could not be the messiah because he was never anointed (moshiach) as King of Israel by a known prophet with the proper oils(not any oil).
2. Jeconiah is the only royal line, becasue Sedekiah died childless.
for an answer chk (pp. 21-22)http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Genealogies.pdf
3. And at the same time Jesus was and was not his descendant, but was from Solomon.
Thru Jeconiah meaning he wasnt eligible,plus tribal lineage is exclusively paternal so Jesus didnt have a lineage from solomon or any valid lineage anyway.


And you are doing this :)

Jesus is this judahite.
it says Judahites-Yehudim plural

[Rethel]

so youre saying L and A0 are not the ancestor clades?if noah is true no ancestor clades should exist among hamites.

L - could be, Idk, A0 - definitly not, or maybe son or grandson of Noah had no mutations at all.

[Longbowman]

I get it.so youre saying L and A0 are not ancestor lineages but new lineages downwind from E1b1?youre saying that geneticists cant see what haplotype descended from wich haplotype and they forge data to support a out of africa model?

He's empirically wrong, though, as explained earlier. At this point he's essentially making stuff up. He refuses to compromise on 'Shem Ham and Yafet were J, E and R' which makes the existence of all other clades impossible if you believe the Noah story.

[Sacrificed Ram]

They missinterpreted it. E itself is a descendantd of
common ancestor of A, B, C, D, E, maybe even further
like G, H, aso. I can't name it, becasue scientists
didn;t name it and did not classyfy it correctly :)

:clap: Congratulations!

You discredited haplogrupal genetic science but continue to claim a "false" haplogroup named and classified incorrectly by crazy scientists.

You are like a guy saying "Jesus Cures", but uses antibiotics when become sick.

More claps: :clap:

[Rethel]

the NT misquotes the old testament and even attributtes false things to it


No, it's not.
Sometimes verses are paraphrazed, sometimes are from LXX,
and some things are revieled, that they actually told about
messiah. Jews exegesis has a lot of such verses also, which
at first look speak about something esle, than messiah.


he messiah will sacrifice bulls and his sons will do so afterhim

Concrete vers please.

Maybe you are not aware, but Jesus are going to return. Then he
can do a lot of stuff, even build the Temple (but there is no need).
Some millenistic prophecies seems to suggest such possibility.


christian apologetic

Yes, of course, becasue Jews were and are blind.
The Scripture is very clear about that. Btw, Jews
are cursed, Christianity took the World, so logicaly
is blessed beyond imagination - so, why are you
choosing apologetic if guys, who are cursed by
God himself and by their own Law? Isn't it foolish?



the messiah WILL be from solomon not thru nathan,

Aaa.. ok, are was in the hurry.
He was from Salomon. And Messiah has to be from
Zerubbabel, so anyway, he must be from Jehoyachin,
who was cursed. For you, judiazers it is easer, becasue
Jews made up the idea, that he was forgiven in later times.

So you are anyway, wrong.


Jesus could not be the messiah because he was never anointed (moshiach)

Oh, yes, he was, by holy spirit.
But also by oil before he died.


as King of Israel by a known prophet with the proper oils(not any oil).

Not all Kings were annoited this way.
Majority were not.
And show me the scripture which says
that he must be annoited this way.

[Rethel]

He's empirically wrong, though, as explained earlier. At this point he's essentially making stuff up. He refuses to compromise on 'Shem Ham and Yafet were J, E and R' which makes the existence of all other clades impossible if you believe the Noah story.

No. They are simply wrongly placed, Thats all.

[Longbowman]

No. They are simply wrongly placed, Thats all.

You're empirically wrong in saying that because that's not how it works but, please, enlighten us! place them correctly.

[Sacrificed Ram]

The haplogroups A00, A0 and A1 (most males) don't share any mutation, It shows the current humanity descends from three distinct ancestors, but two of them have descendents only in Africa.

[monfret]

No, it's not.
Sometimes verses are paraphrazed, sometimes are from LXX,
the LXX is a christian forgery.the original septuagint was only of the 5 books of moses

and some things are revieled, that they actually told about
messiah. Jews exegesis has a lot of such verses also, which
at first look speak about something esle, than messiah.



Concrete vers please.
see the link I linked

Maybe you are not aware, but Jesus are going to return. Then he
can do a lot of stuff, even build the Temple (but there is no need).
Some millenistic prophecies seems to suggest such possibility.
this contradicts christian doctrine that jesus is the last sacrifice,Jesus according to paul abolished the Torah and the sacrifices.if the prince(wether you see him as moshiach or Aaronid high priest)sacrificing bulls and his sons also during the 3rd beit ha mikdash means jesus was not the final sacrifice


Yes, of course, becasue Jews were and are blind.
Jews are not blind,they are just hated by an imposter religion
The Scripture is very clear about that. Btw, Jews
are cursed, Christianity took the World, so logicaly
is blessed beyond imagination - so, why are you
choosing apologetic if guys, who are cursed by
God himself and by their own Law? Isn't it foolish?
Christianity only took the world through conquest and colonialism,not thru reason or faith.Jesus forbids killing but thats how Christianitry spread.You will find Chruistians among the most opposite of jesus Teachings.especially the Roman catholic church



Aaa.. ok, are was in the hurry.
He was from Salomon. And Messiah has to be from
Zerubbabel, so anyway, he must be from Jehoyachin,
who was cursed. For you, judiazers it is easer, becasue
Jews made up the idea, that he was forgiven in later times.
thats a Rabbinic midrash and midrash doesnt affect theology but evenn if it did,it doesnt mean the curse is lifted,and its a mute point because Joseph wasn't jesus's father according to the New Testament,adoption is NOT aa valid way to pass lineage of David,and the YHWH wouldn't commit adultery with a married woman
So you are anyway, wrong.



Oh, yes, he was, by holy spirit.
But also by oil before he died.
a oil composed of a entirely different substances than the oil outlined in the pentateuch,aka a false oil


Not all Kings were annoited this way.
Majority were not.
And show me the scripture which says
that he must be annoited this way.

ALL were and MUSt be anointed with this and to make a copy like it incures Kareth(cutting off)http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Anointed.pdf Jesus was anointed with a wrong oil by a prostitute and on his feet instead of his head as the text say it should anoint.noone could copy this sacred oil by penalty of Karet,and it was kept in only the Beit Ha mikdash-temple

[monfret]

He's empirically wrong, though, as explained earlier. At this point he's essentially making stuff up. He refuses to compromise on 'Shem Ham and Yafet were J, E and R' which makes the existence of all other clades impossible if you believe the Noah story.

He says they are wrongly placed.I don't know how he can say that or on what basis.

[Sacrificed Ram]

He says they are wrongly placed.I don't know how he can say that or on what basis.

Not only wrogly placed, he also said they are wrogly NAMED, what invalidates any concept of haplogroups.

[Longbowman]

He says they are wrongly placed.I don't know how he can say that or on what basis.

No basis, he just needs it to be true so he believes it is true.

[monfret]

Exodus 29:7
– And then you shall take the anointing oil, and pour [it] upon his head, and anoint him.
Exodus 30:22 25
– (22) And the L rd spoke to Moses, saying, (23) "
And you, take
for yourself spices of the finest sort of pure my
rrh five hundred [sheqel weights];
of fragrant cinnamon half of it, two hundred and fi
fty [sheqel weights]; of fragrant
cane two hundred and fifty [sheqel weights], (24) a
nd of cassia five hundred
5
[sheqel weights] according to the sacred sheqel, an
d one hin of olive oil. (25) And
you shall make it onto an oil of sacred anointment
a perfumed compound according to the art of the p
erfumer; it
shall be an oil of sacred anointment



1 Samuel 10:1
And Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it o
n his [Saul's] head,
and kissed him. And he [Samuel] said, "Indeed, the
L rd has anointed you to be a
ruler over His inheritance."

1 Samuel 16:13
And Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed hi
m [David] in the
midst of his brothers. And a spirit of the L rd pas
sed over David from that day
forth, and Samuel arose and went to Ramah.


Matthew 26:7(KJV)
There came unto him a woman having an alabaster
box of
very precious ointment, and poured it on his head,
as he sat at meat.
Mark 14:3(KJV)
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the l
eper, as he sat at
meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of
ointment of spikenard very
precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on h
is head.
Luke 7:37 38,46(KJV)
– (37) And, behold, a woman in the city, which was
a sinner,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharise
e's house, brought an
alabaster box of ointment, (38) And stood at his fe
et behind him weeping, and
began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe the
m with the hairs of her head,
and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the oin
tment.
(46) My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but th
is woman hath anointed my feet
with ointment.
John 11:2(KJV)
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with o
intment, and
wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus
was sick.)
John 12:3(KJV)
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard,
very costly,
and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet
with her hai

[monfret]

No basis, he just needs it to be true so he believes it is true.

Obviousely its a conspiracy by the atheist genetic establishment to falsely create a lineage coming out of africa.all those lineages outside of J,R and E1b don't truly exist .

[monfret]

Not only wrogly placed, he also said they are wrogly NAMED, what invalidates any concept of haplogroups.

Yeah,anything to save his beliefs.

[Rethel]

You're empirically wrong in saying that because that's not how it works but, please, enlighten us! place them correctly.

Give me full genealogy of nations, and I will tell you.

I can only say you this as always, that E is from Ham or his descendant
(and most likly A, B, C, D, maybe G, H), J from Sem and his descendant
(and most likely I) and R1 from Japheth or his descendant.

I am not a genetist, I never saw a "haplogroup" and I did not invent the
methodology - the same as you, but becasue I see errors in that, there
were made corects in placing and dating, and I am convinst that jewish
writings are true, then obviusly this skeleton based since the beginning
on wrong assumptions, must be wrong, especially, that is not agreeable
with historical record. And if you think, that your arguments against my
statement are brilliant aso, you should know, that all of them work as
well against your statement.


Not only wrogly placed, he also said they are wrogly NAMED, what invalidates any concept of haplogroups.

No, I didn't say that.

[Rethel]

the LXX is a christian forgery.the original septuagint was only of the 5 books of moses

It doesn't matter - I only explained you, why some verses can seems
to be not accurate. Originally NT could be write in hebrew or aramaic,
somebooks certainly were, and then translated into greek with using
LXX or with using self translation of aramaic versions of targums.


see the link I linked

It is so hard for you.
You did made claim, so provide the verse, until I forget what this poit is about.
Maybe next time quote me whole Bible, or commentaty of whole OT to find the answer... :picard2:


this contradicts christian doctrine that jesus is the last sacrifice,Jesus according to paul abolished the Torah and the sacrifices.if the prince(wether you see him as moshiach or Aaronid high priest)sacrificing bulls and his sons also during the 3rd beit ha mikdash means jesus was not the final sacrifice

Jesus was ultimate sacrifice for sin. Not all sacrifices were for
sins, and even those who were, did not delete the sin - and it
is not reveal, what will be later and why, so enviroments for
nonbelivers maybe can change, especially, that Jesus came
to collect the bride, the true Israel, and they are the main
beneficians of his sacrifice. Waht will be later with unbelivers
and heretics - will see in the future. Do not make assuptions,
like Jews, who lived in their fairy-bubble, and lost the chance
to be the Kingdom of Priests.


Jews are not blind,they are just hated by an imposter religion

They are blind as ;anybody else, and even the scripture says it.
In the antiquity they were also blind and deaf, as in the Book of
Isaiah 44:18+ God had said:

Listen, you who are deaf; Look and see, you who are blind.
Who is blind except my servant, So deaf as the messenger
I send? Who is so blind as the one rewarded, So blind as the
servant of Jehovah? You see many things, but you do not
keep watch. You open your ears, but you do not listen.

If Jews are not blind, why do they are not blessed?
Why do they have no Temple? Why they were scattered
among nations? Why they were hated? Why they were killed?
Torah assure Jews, they if they will follow the Book, they
will be bleesed beyond imagination. But insted, this what
they called heresy, and you call an imposter, was blessed.
Christianity took whole Globe. Jews - almost extinct, and
they are going to be decimated in the future for all evlis
which they are doing, the same as was in the past.


Christianity only took the world through conquest and colonialism,not thru reason or faith.

Did Israel took everything between Egypt and the River by faith? :laugh:

Doesn't matter how - the fact is, that did,
and without God's allowance noone can.
If Christianity would be false, it would die
in the very beginning, and Jews would be
prospering, but insted happaend opposite.


Jesus forbids killing but thats how Christianitry spread.

Oh! now you are a specialist from the Jewsus teachings,. Wonderfull.
Guess, what Jesus will do, when he arrive? :laugh:


You will find Chruistians among the most opposite of jesus Teachings.

Yes, even very often, but it does not change the thing, especially,
that Jesus fortold that, and that Jews were much, much, much worse,
but still were the Chosen Nation, until the time came, the faithfull Jews
joind the Chuch, and evel ones, were finally rejected.


especially the Roman catholic church

End especially Roman Catholic Church was
fortold to stay untouchable by "gates of hell".
And he was, and still exists...



thats a Rabbinic midrash and midrash doesnt affect theology

It is not midrash, it is OT that Messiah will be a Zerubbabel descendant. :picard2:


but evenn if it did,it doesnt mean the curse is lifted,

I didn;t say it was, becasue wasn;t, but Jews are saying that.
It doesn;t matter what they think, but it is as that.


and its a mute point because Joseph wasn't jesus's father according to the New Testament,

Yes, he was. It was Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth. Period.


adoption is NOT aa valid way to pass lineage of David,

He wasn;t adopted... :picard2:
He was born as son of Joseph from the House of David.


and the YHWH wouldn't commit adultery with a married woman

:picard2:


a oil composed of a entirely different substances than the oil outlined in the pentateuch,aka a false oil

Show me the vers, were it is written, that Messiah has
to be oiled by particular oil, and by particular person.



ALL were and MUSt be anointed with this and to make a copy like it incures Kareth(cutting off)

No, they had not. If they were - show me a verse.

For example who and where anoited Omri?
He made himself a king over Israel.


Jesus was anointed with a wrong oil by a prostitute and on his feet instead of his head as the text say it should anoint.

You are wrong.


noone could copy this sacred oil by penalty of Karet,and it was kept in only the Beit Ha mikdash-temple

Write in english, and do not try to pretend to be smart by using ununderstandable words.
Mostly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Provide me the verse on that what you wrte here.



He says they are wrongly placed.I don't know how he can say that or on what basis.

:picard2:

We are talking about it since the beginning, and you don;t know?
You even made this thread, and the reason why you did put into the title... :picard2:

p.s. can you learn how to quote?

[Rethel]

No basis, he just needs it to be true so he believes it is true.

Exactly the same can be say about you. I gave
you examples, where Genesis 10 was right. You
did not provide the evidence, that offcial placeing
of hgs is correct. Becasue you don;t have one.

You must belive, that it is correct, the same as you
have to belive in ridiculous belief, that mud self-alived
and became a hamster, and later ape who made the
computer on which you propagate this idiotic belive,
and in addition you call it wisdom :laugh:

[Longbowman]

Exactly the same can be say about you.

but only by you.

[Rethel]

Exodus 29:7
– And then you shall take the anointing oil, and pour [it] upon his head, and anoint him.
Exodus 30:22 25
– (22) And the L rd spoke to Moses, saying, (23) "
And you, take
for yourself spices of the finest sort of pure my
rrh five hundred [sheqel weights];
of fragrant cinnamon half of it, two hundred and fi
fty [sheqel weights]; of fragrant
cane two hundred and fifty [sheqel weights], (24) a
nd of cassia five hundred
5
[sheqel weights] according to the sacred sheqel, an
d one hin of olive oil. (25) And
you shall make it onto an oil of sacred anointment
a perfumed compound according to the art of the p
erfumer; it
shall be an oil of sacred anointment

It is about levitical priesthood.... :picard2:




1 Samuel 10:1
And Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it o
n his [Saul's] head,
and kissed him. And he [Samuel] said, "Indeed, the
L rd has anointed you to be a
ruler over His inheritance."

1 Samuel 16:13
And Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed hi
m [David] in the
midst of his brothers. And a spirit of the L rd pas
sed over David from that day
forth, and Samuel arose and went to Ramah.


Yes he did - but where it is written, that all kings
were annoited by that manner, and that Messiah
has to be annoited exactly by the same manner?


Matthew 26:7(KJV)
There came unto him a woman having an alabaster
box of
very precious ointment, and poured it on his head,
as he sat at meat.

Mark 14:3(KJV)
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the l
eper, as he sat at
meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of
ointment of spikenard very
precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on h
is head.

Do you see now the word head?



Luke 7:37 38,46(KJV)
– (37) And, behold, a woman in the city, which was
a sinner,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharise
e's house, brought an
alabaster box of ointment, (38) And stood at his fe
et behind him weeping, and
began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe the
m with the hairs of her head,
and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the oin
tment.
(46) My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but th
is woman hath anointed my feet
with ointment.

John 11:2(KJV)
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with o
intment, and
wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus
was sick.)
John 12:3(KJV)
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard,
very costly,
and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet
with her hai


This is different event as this above.

[Rethel]

but only by you.

By any sane person, who doesn't belive in self-made
miracles and fairy-tales in which you belive so much.

Even, if the Genesis would be untrue (but it is not), it
would not change the fact, that your belives are insane.

Mud cannot became alive and buid a computer.

[Longbowman]

By any sane person

but on this forum, only you. Why not leave the madhouse?

[Rethel]

but on this forum, only you. Why not leave the madhouse?

Becasue I have still hope :)

[monfret]

It is about levitical priesthood.... :picard2:





Yes he did - but where it is written, that all kings
were annoited by that manner, and that Messiah
has to be annoited exactly by the same manner?



Do you see now the word head?





This is different event as this above.

its not a different event,its a contradiction in the new testament like so many contradictions(see jesus's alleged ressurection,fraught with contradictions). the first verse talks about levites but the second verse talks of what the oil is made of and the other verses show the prophets of israel anointed kings with this oil שֶֽׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ .


ג וְלָקַחְתָּ פַךְ-הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְיָצַקְתָּ עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ, וְאָמַרְתָּ כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה, מְשַׁחְתִּיךָ לְמֶלֶךְ אֶל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּפָתַחְתָּ הַדֶּלֶת וְנַסְתָּה, וְלֹא תְחַכֶּה. 3 Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say: Thus saith the LORD: I have anointed thee king over Israel. Then open the door, and flee, and tarry not.'

as for the portion on ezekiel you wanted See Ezekiel 40-48

its also heretical for you to say Joseph was Jesus's biological dad.if so ,I welcome it,but Christianity stumbles on it that he was the son of God and all that.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Not only wrogly placed, he also said they are wrogly NAMED, what invalidates any concept of haplogroups.


No, I didn't say that.




becasue scientists
didn;t name it and did not classyfy it correctly :)

[Rethel]

the first verse talks about levites but the second verse talks of what the oil is made of and the other verses show the prophets of israel anointed kings with this oil שֶֽׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ .

Show the exact fragment which is talking about it.


Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say: Thus saith the LORD: I have anointed thee king over Israel. Then open the door, and flee, and tarry not.'


And this is partuicular command about Jehu, when he was commanded to replaced previous dynasty.
The same as in the case of Saul and David. Rest of kings where not annoited by tghis manner, and
there is none vers, whuich is telling about Messiah being necessary annoited by oil.


as for the portion on ezekiel you wanted See Ezekiel 40-48

Are you silly? I ask you three times about concret vers, don;t even remember about what,
probably about bulls, and you still have me quarter of the book to read. Are you not normal,
or you do not understand the question?


its also heretical for you to say Joseph was Jesus's biological dad.

And where I said it? :picard2:


if so ,I welcome it,but Christianity stumbles on it that he was the son of God and all that.

And jewuish literature at that time, also was
saying that he should be Son of God, Son of
David and Son of Joseph. And probably still do.

So, you have a big problem, becasue since 70AD
judaism is banqrupted and never will be possible
for another Messiah to come as he should be.

But you have every sign biblical and practical, which
is showing you, that judaism, which was invented in
III-V CE is not the true religion, and that Christianity
is lawfull contuinity of israelitish tempelism. But insted
of realizing that, you prefer lying interpretations of the
seed of Satan, people, who rejected and killed the very
Messiah, whom they should acknowlegde. Exactly the
same you do with the topic of this thread. I showed you
where Genesis geneticly was confirmed, and you totaly
ignore this, pretendingm, that things never happend,
prefering evolution. Ergo - you show that on two filed
you want to lie to yourself - but it is not so wise.

Judasim is false religion, judasits were touched by almost
every curse which is written in the Torah, they do not even
obey the Torah, neither fullfill her, so it is even impossible to
consider this self-abolishing religion, which is totaly bbanqrupt,
as the true religion, becasue there is nothing, true in her. They
do not een belive in the God of Torah, so, it is insanity, the same
or even maybe more, that belive in evolution. You also do not do
what noahids, under the Torah should do, so what is the sense of it?

[Rethel]

Not only wrogly placed, he also said they are wrogly NAMED, what invalidates any concept of haplogroups.

No, I didn't say that.



I can't name it, becasue scientists
didn;t name it and did not classyfy it correctly :)



And where I said, that they wrongly NAMED them?

p.s. Read please the wider context.

[Sacrificed Ram]

And jewuish literature at that time, also was
saying that he should be Son of God, Son of
David and Son of Joseph. And probably still do.

So, you have a big problem, becasue since 70AD
judaism is banqrupted and never will be possible
for another Messiah to come as he should be.

But you have every sign biblical and practical, which
is showing you, that judaism, which was invented in
III-V CE is not the true religion, and that Christianity
is lawfull contuinity of israelitish tempelism. But insted
of realizing that, you prefer lying interpretations of the
seed of Satan, people, who rejected and killed the very
Messiah, whom they should acknowlegde. Exactly the
same you do with the topic of this thread. I showed you
where Genesis geneticly was confirmed, and you totaly
ignore this, pretendingm, that things never happend,
prefering evolution. Ergo - you show that on two filed
you want to lie to yourself - but it is not so wise.

Judasim is false religion, judasits were touched by almost
every curse which is written in the Torah, they do not even
obey the Torah, neither fullfill her, so it is even impossible to
consider this self-abolishing religion, which is totaly bbanqrupt,
as the true religion, becasue there is nothing, true in her. They
do not een belive in the God of Torah, so, it is insanity, the same
or even maybe more, that belive in evolution. You also do not do
what noahids, under the Torah should do, so what is the sense of it?

"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:" - Romans 11:26 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11%3A26&version=KJV)

No chance against jews.

[Rethel]

No chance against jews.

:picard2:

Israel = faithfull belivers, Christians.
The same chapter is clearly saying about it.

NT is also clear, that Jews-judaists were left alone, are enemies
of truth, are Synagoge of Satan, are Children of Devil, murderers
of Jesus, are against the good of all Mankind, they arent pleasing
God, and that wrath of God is upon them. The later history show
who was who. If they do not convert, they all will die in their sins,
becasue they do not even make sacrifices, which could temporally
cover their sins - since almost 2k years they all are dying like that.

[Rethel]

Longbowman butthurtness = how atheists care about "fairy tales" :laugh:

Man, can you fianly decide, who you want to be: atheist or judaist? :picard2:

[Longbowman]

Longbowman butthurtness = how atheists care about "fairy tales" :laugh:

Man, can you fianly decide, who you want to be: atheist or judaist? :picard2:

I know where I stand in the eyes of your kind, Rethel. You don't fool me, or anyone.

[monfret]

Rethel the messianic era will be one of following the ordinances of the Torah as it says:

Ezekiel 37:24-26 RSV
“And My servant David (a) king over them, and one shepherd shall be for all of them, and they will walk in My statutes, and they will keep My laws and observe them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to My servant Jacob, that your forefathers dwelt there, and they will dwell upon it, them, their children, and their children’s children, unto eternity, and My servant David (a) prince for them forever. And I will make with them a covenant of peace an eternal covenant it will be with them, and I will set them down and I will increase their number, and I will place My sanctuary in their midst forever.” (Ezekiel 37:24-26)

Ez 45:21-22 RSV

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the feast of passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. On that day the PRINCE SHALL _PROVIDE FOR HIMSELF_ and all the people of the land A YOUNG BULL FOR A SIN OFFERING."

Ez 45:23-25 RSV

"And on the seven days of the festival HE SHALL PROVIDE AS A BURNT OFFERING to the Lord seven young bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days; and a he-goat FOR A SIN OFFERING...In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the feast, HE SHALL MAKE THE SAME PROVISION FOR SIN OFFERINGS, burnt offerings, and cereal offerings, and for the oil."

similarly the messiah will purify the israelite levites so that they may offer sacrifices in righteousness

Malachi 3:1 ►

New International Version
"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.

Malachi 3:2 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap.


Malachi 3:3 ►

New International Version
He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,


these are not the only verses wich speak of Torahot being followed in the messianic era or the reestablishment of Qorbanoth(Sacrifices).


Israel will dwell in safety in that period

“in his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell securely” (Jeremiah 23:6)

[Rethel]

I know where I stand in the eyes of your kind, Rethel. You don't fool me, or anyone.

If you are an atheist, you can;t be butthurt about religios belives. :picard2:

Imagine Dawkins being butthurt about catholic vs. anglican belives... :picard1:


Rethel the messianic era will be one of following the ordinances of the Torah as it says:

Wonderful, but it would be more wonderfull, if you
would answer on previous questions and statements.

I do not like to talk with bots. Especialy
judaizers, idk why, are specialists in that...
No matter what nationality, sect or language... :rolleyes:

[monfret]

If you are an atheist, you can;t be butthurt about religios belives. :picard2:

Imagine Dawkins being butthurt about catholic vs. anglican belives... :picard1:



Wonderful, but it would be more wonderfull, if you
would answer on previous questions and statements.

I do not like to talk with bots. Especialy
judaizers, idk why, are specialists in that...
No matter what nationality, sect or language... :rolleyes:

I just gave you my references that the real messiah will offer a sin offering for himself and the people as you asked.and the sanctuary will be among israel forever.the whole book of Ezekiel contradicts Christian claims.the Torah is eternal and unto a thousand generations in love as it itself says.the Bible says his ordinances are forever(le olam ve ad)and le olam(eternal) .

[Longbowman]

If you are an atheist, you can;t be butthurt about religios belives. :picard2:

That's simply not true. If you earnestly believe that Jews actively follow the devil, you are insulting a lot of my immediate and extended family, and friends. You are also being a moron. Ergo I thumbed you down. Plus we all know that when idiots believe that, it leads to bad things for all ethnic Jews...

[Longbowman]

I just gave you my references that the real messiah will offer a sin offering for himself and the people as you asked.and the sanctuary will be among israel forever.the whole book of Ezekiel contradicts Christian claims.the Torah is eternal and unto a thousand generations in love as it itself says.the Bible says his ordinances are forever(le olam ve ad)and le olam(eternal) .

He can't argue with you so he's trying to duck out. You win. Congrats.

[monfret]

Rethel,this is my last post to you on wether judaism is right or not but consider that the Messiah will have children and bequeuth his inheritance to his children see Ezekiel 46:16-18,consider that Jesus was not of the lineage of solomon(whos throne but not kingdom shall be forever) but of nathan and that his adopted father joseph was thru the accursed lineage of King Jeconiah,consider that the tanakh in two places declares the statutes of god binding for a thousand generations,and that the Torah says in many places about its ordinances it is le olam ve ad(eternal)and olam(forever)and for all Generations in all places.
Consider the Texts dealing with the alleged ressurection of Jesus,it is fraught with contradictions and narrative discrepancies
https://outreachjudaism.org/crucifixion-resurrection-chart/ consider how stephen gets many details about Terah,Abraham's father wrong and about the tomb of the patriarch's and other details while writing allegedly under the''holy spirit'',and you can see why Jews don't accept Jesus despite the Christian persecution you boast of.

[Sacrificed Ram]

:picard2:

Israel = faithfull belivers, Christians.
The same chapter is clearly saying about it.

NT is also clear, that Jews-judaists were left alone, are enemies
of truth, are Synagoge of Satan, are Children of Devil, murderers
of Jesus, are against the good of all Mankind, they arent pleasing
God, and that wrath of God is upon them. The later history show
who was who. If they do not convert, they all will die in their sins,
becasue they do not even make sacrifices, which could temporally
cover their sins - since almost 2k years they all are dying like that.

Israel is the True Olive Tree, gentiles are only zambujeiro tree branches grafted in the True Olive Tree. Now many jews are unbelievers and thus broken branches of the True Olive Tree, but God will graft them back for their original True Olive Tree.

Romans 11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=KJV)

[Rethel]

Rethel the messianic era will be one of following the ordinances of the Torah as it says:

Ezekiel 37:24-26 RSV
“And My servant David (a) king over them, and one shepherd shall be for all of them, and they will walk in My statutes, and they will keep My laws and observe them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to My servant Jacob, that your forefathers dwelt there, and they will dwell upon it, them, their children, and their children’s children, unto eternity, and My servant David (a) prince for them forever. And I will make with them a covenant of peace an eternal covenant it will be with them, and I will set them down and I will increase their number, and I will place My sanctuary in their midst forever.” (Ezekiel 37:24-26)

1. It is about David - as well can be he personally, when he will be resureced.
2. Ezekiel is about the future from his point of view - and majority of his future
prophecying was fullfield after return from Babulon.
3. Zerubbabel was also a descendant of David.


Ez 45:21-22 RSV

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the feast of passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. On that day the PRINCE SHALL _PROVIDE FOR HIMSELF_ and all the people of the land A YOUNG BULL FOR A SIN OFFERING."

Ez 45:23-25 RSV

"And on the seven days of the festival HE SHALL PROVIDE AS A BURNT OFFERING to the Lord seven young bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days; and a he-goat FOR A SIN OFFERING...In the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the feast, HE SHALL MAKE THE SAME PROVISION FOR SIN OFFERINGS, burnt offerings, and cereal offerings, and for the oil."

The same as above, plus chapter is saying about many princes who should fullfill their obligations.


similarly the messiah will purify the israelite levites so that they may offer sacrifices in righteousness

The same as above, there is no clearly about messiah, and levites do not longer exist
and can;t prove their claims. The very fact, that majority of them are not descendants
of Levi, is a fiasco. The same, there is no any successor of the high priest, and there is
no tribes at all, especially 12. These fragments are about return of Jews after Babilon falled.


New International Version
"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.

Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap.

He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,

And he allready came, when second temple existed.
Levites - for example Isaiah is talking about people from nations who will be Levites.
And under New Covenant, is achiefed the porpose of Torah, that all belivers are/will
be the Kingdom of Priests, i.e. all will be Israelites, Levites, Priests and Kings.
There is no need for non existed semitic Levites.


these are not the only verses wich speak of Torahot being followed in the messianic era or the reestablishment of Qorbanoth(Sacrifices).

I allready told you, that use of nonunderstandable words, that not makes you
smarter - rather stupider, if you really think, that normal people understand it.


Israel will dwell in safety in that period

Israel = Christians.
as long as you are blind, you will not get it properly.
Real Israel doesn;t exosts any more, and judaists doesn;t fullfile even the Torah.
They are banqrupts.


“in his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell securely” (Jeremiah 23:6)

Of course it will be - but it is not about judaists, who are neither Judahites
neither Israelites in overwhelming majority, and these who are, stick in apostasy.

[Rethel]

I just gave you my references that the real messiah will offer a sin offering for himself and the people as you asked.and the sanctuary will be among israel forever.

Ok, so now I read.


the whole book of Ezekiel contradicts Christian claims.

No, it contradict in majority jewish claims, becasue
almost all was fullfiled when second temple was build.


the Torah is eternal

The Law of Moses is not eternal, becasue didn;t existed vefore Moses. Such simple.


and unto a thousand generations in love as it itself says.the Bible says his ordinances are forever(le olam ve ad)and le olam(eternal) .

No. Verbaly it is: for the time not measured, not determind.

[Rethel]

That's simply not true.

Yes, it is.If you think, that religious belives are fairy tails, and
you do not belive in it, you canl;t be butthurt about it. I am not
butthurt about polish atheists when someone is making fun of them,
or of polish catholics, when someone is ridiculized their silly believs.
And I am baptized catholic, and beliving in addition.

You said, that whole jewish writings are fairy tails and even worse,
so now you canl;t be butthurt, that there is something written.
It is hypocrisy.


If you earnestly believe that Jews actively follow the devil,

Jews belies that we folloed a heretic and a child of a whore - so, why are you not butthut about this. They also were Jews.


you are insulting a lot of my immediate and extended family, and friends.

You think yourself that they are morons, becasue they belive in moronic stuff. :picard2:
So, now it is forbidden for faiths to be argued about, becasue atheist said so? :picard1:


Plus we all know that when idiots believe that, it leads to bad things for all ethnic Jews...

First clean jews from religious belives, and then have some pretensions. You are
a hypocryte, when you claim to be an atheists, and then you are butthurt about
religious disscussions. It is nobody fault, that you have problems with your own
folk, and that your foprmer religion pretend to be a ethnic group. Nobody here
was disscuss etnical Jew, but judaists. If you can;t recognize difference, don;t read.

[Rethel]

Rethel,this is my last post to you on wether judaism is right or not but consider that the Messiah will have children and bequeuth his inheritance to his children see Ezekiel 46:16-18,

There is no said explicite, that it is about Messiah, and
this whole pasage is about Jews returning from babylon... :picard1:
Btw, Chief, who is mentiond there, it has not to be the
Messaih, esopecially, that in the same fragment is talk
about many chiefs.


consider that Jesus was not of the lineage of solomon(whos throne but not kingdom shall be forever) but of nathan and that his adopted father joseph was thru the accursed lineage of King Jeconiah,

He was from Salomon and from Jechoniah, becasue had to be.
Jews simply in their falt thinking, can;t understand, how he can
be both at the same time. This is why, never any new Messiah,
exept Jesus, will come, and nobody is able today to proof, that
he is from Solomon or any other guy. More than that, as Long
explained once, they have some claimers of true lineage, but
it is from jehojachin anyway,.


consider that the tanakh in two places declares the statutes of god binding for a thousand generations,

Nope.


and that the Torah says in many places about its ordinances it is le olam ve ad(eternal)and olam(forever)and for all Generations in all places.


Nope. But abyway - if so, then why do you not obey them and fullfill, and why Jews do not do that?


Consider the Texts dealing with the alleged ressurection of Jesus,it is fraught with contradictions and narrative discrepancies consider how stephen gets many details about Terah,Abraham's father wrong and about the tomb of the patriarch's and other details while writing allegedly under the''holy spirit'',

No, he was not telling what holy spirit was telling, but was
talking about history on his own words, mostly based on
Septuagint, and it is simply recorded what he said.
There is no doctrines.


and you can see why Jews don't accept Jesus despite the Christian persecution you boast of.

They did not accepted, mostly becasue they were evil, and they
wanted someone who will fit to their own concepts, not according
to God's. And the same do today. More than that -they are saying,
than they will accept Messiah, who will be allready acknowledge by
whole world - when it should be otherwise - they should be first.
This was the whole point in their existance.

Today, they are probably even worse, than those in I century, they
do not obey Torah, they do not belive in the God of the Bible, they
do not even belve at all (as Longbowman), they are not even in the
majority the Israelites, they do not have genealogies, they do not
have tribes, they do not have the Temple to which Messiah would
be able to come, they do not have piesthood, and they dont offer
sacrifices -so why and how Messiah should come to them at all? :picard2:

[Longbowman]

etc

Believing Christianity is bullshit =/= believing Judaism is actively malicious. If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

[Rethel]

Believing Christianity is bullshit =/= believing Judaism is actively malicious. If you can't tell the difference, that's on you.

Idk exactly what you mean, but
in your case, it does not matter.

If buddhists would belive, that hinduists are apes,
and hinduists would belive that bioddhist are, that
wouldnt be of your concern, and exactly the same
should be with judaistic and christian belives, which
context for you is not even correctly understanable.

Simply, as atheist - it is not your bussiness.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Simply, as atheist - it is not your bussiness.

Yes, it is our bussiness when the state uses religious beliefs to impose rules and laws for whole society.

And before you say anything about "you are minority", know everybody is minority in something, the next victim can be you.

[Rethel]

Bump.