"'Adam" and its semantic roots: Hebrews/Phoenicians and the "red/ruddy" issue
- Thread starter leperrine
- Start date
Maleth
Junior Member
- Messages
- 1,917
- Reaction score
- 335
- Points
- 83
- Location
- Malta
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- EV13 A7136 y18675G+
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H
dna has shed a light on the whole of history even since the beginning of human kind. One can chose to ignore it irrelevant to progress on this ever evolving science. Your main theme is Adam (as described in religious text books) was the father of Ruddy people and bringing arguments of what the name means because of the 'dam' (blood)(demm in Maltese) in semetic languages, connecting with a ruddy look.
Well if not mistaken our dna sequences take more then 99% of humans to the same origin (please correct me if I am wrong) and all are related to haplogroup A that has evolved over time to the haplogroups we have today. So if your argument is correct all humans should be ruddy.
please read and take care:- your argument is like my grandfather smoked all his life and never got lung cancer...ignoring the fact how many people that smoke and actually die of lung cancer. Exceptions are not the rule
- Skin tone: Caucasians have a greater risk of developing skin cancer, including melanoma, than non-whites. The risk is also higher for individuals with blond or red hair, blue or green eyes, or skin that burns or freckles easily.
leperrine
Regular Member
Maleth, I'm not arguing against genetics, human origins etc... Not to mention the biblical chronology is only a 7,500 time frame, so arguing about who lived in these areas anytime past that is out of the context of what I'm talking about. The origin of Humans is still not set in stone. I think that's why the study of Haplogroups is exciting. The most widely adopted theory is we all came out of Africa. Clearly in history the mutation for fair skin happened and those that carried the mutation preferred to produce children with this same mutation. This is clearly obvious due to the fact there are hundreds of millions of people in the world today with this characteristic. I think it's Possible this mutation took place either in the Ural Mountains where I believe IJK split, sometime after that split or before this split. No idea. Maybe someone more versed on this matter has insight.
To your point about Caucasians disposition to skin cancer
Quote from skincancer.org
“Anyone can get skin cancer, regardless of race,” she says. While incidence of melanoma is higher in the Caucasian population, a July 2016 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed it is more deadly in people of color. African American patients were most likely to be diagnosed with melanoma in its later stages than any other group in the study, and they also had the worst prognosis and the lowest overall survival rate."
To your point about Caucasians disposition to skin cancer
Quote from skincancer.org
“Anyone can get skin cancer, regardless of race,” she says. While incidence of melanoma is higher in the Caucasian population, a July 2016 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed it is more deadly in people of color. African American patients were most likely to be diagnosed with melanoma in its later stages than any other group in the study, and they also had the worst prognosis and the lowest overall survival rate."
Maleth
Junior Member
- Messages
- 1,917
- Reaction score
- 335
- Points
- 83
- Location
- Malta
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- EV13 A7136 y18675G+
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H
Agree. There is so much more we have to learn even though genetics as a whole has come a long way in the past few years.
I apologize for now being really out of context regarding the title of the thread. But while you are right about anyone can get skin cancer look at the figures who it effects most.
Caucasians and men older than 50 have a higher risk of developing melanoma than the general population.6-7, 11
- The incidence in men ages 80 and older is three times higher than women of the same age.6
- The annual incidence rate of melanoma in non-Hispanic Caucasians is 26 per 100,000, compared to 4 per 100,000 in Hispanics and 1 per 100,000 in African-Americans.6
this is in an age of sunblocks lots of shaded and airconditioned places
....
leperrine
Regular Member
Maleth, the quote I provided isn't to insinuate that Caucasians don't get skin cancer more often. The recent study does say that those with more melanin that contract melanoma are more fatal.
Now regarding sunscreen. More research is coming out that show sunscreen will keep us from burning and reduce the amount of UV penetration into our DNA (what causes the cancer) that it's actually causing cancer. I would assume Caucasians use sunscreen much more than those who have melanin. So could be one of many contributions to inflated cancer rates in caucasians.
Dermatologists and medical professionals blame the sun for the increase in skin cancer because it is the largest source of ultra violet radiation (UV). However, many leading-edge doctors and health experts contradict popular dogma about the sun being the main cause of skin cancer.
Lifestyle and diet play a bigger role than sun exposure when it comes to getting skin cancer. Bernard Ackerman, MD, the founding father of dermatopathology, who specializes in the study of cutaneous diseases at a microscopic and molecular level. He’s concluded that evidence that the sun causes skin cancer is inconsistent and inconclusive. “While some studies do show a small association, he says, others show none.”
In addition, a 2004 study in the medical journal The Lancet showed indoor workers were twice as likely to get skin cancer as those who spent more time in the sun: “Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”
Lack of sunlight means lack of vitamin D, which is a necessary nutrient for the body’s immune system to function properly. Low vitamin D levels are linked to health problems, including cancer. Appropriate sun exposure helps maintain adequate levels of vitamin D. Using sunscreen interferes with that exposure and could be contributing to the rise in skin cancer.
Sunscreen prevents sunburn by blocking UVB rays thus disabling the skin, allowing us to be in the sun longer than what is natural. Most major brands of sunscreen block UVB while allowing UVA, which actually causes more damage to the skin. In addition, UVB is required to produce vitamin D, so blocking it seems contradictory to good health and cancer prevention.
Sunscreen often contains cancer-causing chemicals that bake into the skin and get absorbed into the bloodstream, over-taxing the liver with toxins. Here are some of the offenders:
OMC – The main chemical used in sunscreens to filter out UVB is octyl methoxycinnamate (aka “OMC”) which has been shown to kill mouse cells even at low doses. Plus, it was also shown to be particularly toxic when exposed to the sun. And guess what? OMC is present in the vast majority of sunscreen brands!
Titanium dioxide – another common ingredient in sunscreens, has been classified as “a potential occupational carcinogen” by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Oxybenzone – oxybenzone becomes carcinogenic when exposed to the sun and has been found to be a hormone disruptor! The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recommends consumers avoid oxybenzone, and yet it remains in many major brands of sunscreen.
Derivatives of vitamin A such as retinol and retinyl palmitate – AOL News reported that about half the sunscreens tested in a study contained derivatives of vitamin A such as retinol and retinyl palmitate. These ingredients have been found to be photocarcinogenic by the FDA’s own studies, meaning the ingredients become toxic and cancer causing when exposed to sunlight.
Diesopropyl adipate – in 2006, the National Toxicology Program reported that diesopropyl adipate, another ingredient in many sunscreens, increased the incidence of tumors in laboratory animals.
In addition, there are many more questionable chemicals in sunscreen never proven to be safe or effective for use on the skin. Andreas Moritz, a leading practitioner in the field of alternative and integrative medicine, goes so far as to state, “Sunscreen is the leading cause of skin cancer.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21170070
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/artic...nlight-and-Reduced-Risk-of-Cancer-Is-The-Real
http://time.com/3906871/skin-cancer-rates/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24697969
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15005091
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/5466-77-3_508.pdf
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/basal...er/about/what-is-basal-and-squamous-cell.html
http://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/
Now, let's get off the topic of Skin Cancer.
Now regarding sunscreen. More research is coming out that show sunscreen will keep us from burning and reduce the amount of UV penetration into our DNA (what causes the cancer) that it's actually causing cancer. I would assume Caucasians use sunscreen much more than those who have melanin. So could be one of many contributions to inflated cancer rates in caucasians.
Dermatologists and medical professionals blame the sun for the increase in skin cancer because it is the largest source of ultra violet radiation (UV). However, many leading-edge doctors and health experts contradict popular dogma about the sun being the main cause of skin cancer.
Lifestyle and diet play a bigger role than sun exposure when it comes to getting skin cancer. Bernard Ackerman, MD, the founding father of dermatopathology, who specializes in the study of cutaneous diseases at a microscopic and molecular level. He’s concluded that evidence that the sun causes skin cancer is inconsistent and inconclusive. “While some studies do show a small association, he says, others show none.”
In addition, a 2004 study in the medical journal The Lancet showed indoor workers were twice as likely to get skin cancer as those who spent more time in the sun: “Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”
Lack of sunlight means lack of vitamin D, which is a necessary nutrient for the body’s immune system to function properly. Low vitamin D levels are linked to health problems, including cancer. Appropriate sun exposure helps maintain adequate levels of vitamin D. Using sunscreen interferes with that exposure and could be contributing to the rise in skin cancer.
Sunscreen prevents sunburn by blocking UVB rays thus disabling the skin, allowing us to be in the sun longer than what is natural. Most major brands of sunscreen block UVB while allowing UVA, which actually causes more damage to the skin. In addition, UVB is required to produce vitamin D, so blocking it seems contradictory to good health and cancer prevention.
Sunscreen often contains cancer-causing chemicals that bake into the skin and get absorbed into the bloodstream, over-taxing the liver with toxins. Here are some of the offenders:
OMC – The main chemical used in sunscreens to filter out UVB is octyl methoxycinnamate (aka “OMC”) which has been shown to kill mouse cells even at low doses. Plus, it was also shown to be particularly toxic when exposed to the sun. And guess what? OMC is present in the vast majority of sunscreen brands!
Titanium dioxide – another common ingredient in sunscreens, has been classified as “a potential occupational carcinogen” by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Oxybenzone – oxybenzone becomes carcinogenic when exposed to the sun and has been found to be a hormone disruptor! The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recommends consumers avoid oxybenzone, and yet it remains in many major brands of sunscreen.
Derivatives of vitamin A such as retinol and retinyl palmitate – AOL News reported that about half the sunscreens tested in a study contained derivatives of vitamin A such as retinol and retinyl palmitate. These ingredients have been found to be photocarcinogenic by the FDA’s own studies, meaning the ingredients become toxic and cancer causing when exposed to sunlight.
Diesopropyl adipate – in 2006, the National Toxicology Program reported that diesopropyl adipate, another ingredient in many sunscreens, increased the incidence of tumors in laboratory animals.
In addition, there are many more questionable chemicals in sunscreen never proven to be safe or effective for use on the skin. Andreas Moritz, a leading practitioner in the field of alternative and integrative medicine, goes so far as to state, “Sunscreen is the leading cause of skin cancer.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21170070
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/artic...nlight-and-Reduced-Risk-of-Cancer-Is-The-Real
http://time.com/3906871/skin-cancer-rates/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24697969
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15005091
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/5466-77-3_508.pdf
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/basal...er/about/what-is-basal-and-squamous-cell.html
http://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/
Now, let's get off the topic of Skin Cancer.
Maleth
Junior Member
- Messages
- 1,917
- Reaction score
- 335
- Points
- 83
- Location
- Malta
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- EV13 A7136 y18675G+
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H
..............contrary to what people think there are rigorous tests on how dangerous a product is and risks involved to the general human population. Same could be said with preservatives used in food pesticides and chemicals used in generic medicine. If something effects someone in 1 in a million is not a good reason to withdraw it from the Market where its doing much more good then bad......So back to Adam.
Whats your take on the present understanding that our dna takes us all to the same origin with a high probability somewhere in Africa were 'Adam' was created so to speak? At least that is were the highest concentration Haplagroup A live at present. Love to read what you your opinion is.
Wheal
Regular Member
- Messages
- 373
- Reaction score
- 87
- Points
- 28
- Location
- Illinois
- Ethnic group
- a true mutt
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- Pat-U106-H11a10
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H5a1b
You also have to consider that the assignment of a "group" is based on what lay people have reported as their ancestry. For instance, my brother has 9% Sephardic, but my parents have O%, and none of the other 5 siblings have any Sephardic, although two of us have less than 1% Ashkenazi, but again my parents have none. So it's the combination within an individual that will match other reported ancestry from people that have always been told they were from one group or another.
leperrine
Regular Member
maleth, The Biblical Adam and the Out of Africa Adam are two completely different things. Adam in the Bible is a story about the creation of a group of peoples ancestors some 7000+ years ago. At least according to the chronology.
Maleth
Junior Member
- Messages
- 1,917
- Reaction score
- 335
- Points
- 83
- Location
- Malta
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- EV13 A7136 y18675G+
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H
Thats not possible leperrine. According to the Torah (old testament) the earth was void. No people anywhere else
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.3 And God said, “Let there be light,” .................
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
the catholic church does not take the narration of the creation of the world literally, however I am aware lots of break away religions do.
leperrine
Regular Member
Maleth, I think you're over complicating this. People living thousands of years ago didn't know how the world was created. It's a story that aims to explain their origins. Their world view is much different than ours now. Their view of the Cosmos was way different than ours now. They didn't create a story that tries to explain the origin of every person on this planet. They didn't know about all the people on this planet. The Genesis story is about the creation of THE Adam (eth ha-Adam) that all the characters in the Bible are descendants of. Not all people are part of this family tree. Go read all the genealogies. Go back and read my break down of the Hebrew in my earlier posts. I break down the grammar. man, mankind, Adam etc... are all the exact same word. (eth-ha Adam). Yahweh formed THE Adam in his own Image. The only reason English and modern translations render these passages as man or mankind is because they have to force these meanings in order to support their Universal Religion. That way they convince everyone that we all descended from Adam 7-8,000 years ago which is nonsense. They say Ham was black, Shem was Asian and Japheth was White... How can one man and woman create all the races on earth in 6,000 years. No, Shem, Ham and Japheth would of all looked like their parents. This is common sense.
I can show you in other passages where they refer to other peoples as beasts. To be a man = being a descendant of Adam. Anyone not in this tree wasn't considered a man or belonging to mankind. I know these things seem racists, but this is the problem when reading ancient texts. We can't inject our modern views, beliefs or understandings onto ancient peoples. You have to read these things in the right context and perspective. Here's just a few examples.
2 Peter 2:13 vs 10-16
10But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
Jeremiah 31:27
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man(adam), and with the seed of beast." note: the word man in this passage is the same exact word for Adam in Genesis. Basically this passage is saying the Israelites will get spread into other Adamic nations and the nations of (beasts) non Adamic.
For before those days there was no hire for man, nor hire for beast
(Bahemah)... - Zech. 8:10 (KJV)
...but, what kind of animal out there actually gets hired, or paid?
But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry
mightily unto God: let them turn every one from his evil way.
- Jonah 3:8 (KJV)
...but, what animal knows that he's evil, and cries out to God?
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD they God; in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle (Bahemah), nor thy
stranger that is within thy gates. - Ex. 20:10 (KJV)
...as we see, this verse seems to be referring only to people.
...Let neither man nor beast (Bahemah), herd nor flock, taste any
thing... - Jonah 3:7 (KJV)
...if we notice, humans and animals seemed to be grouped together.
Putting this here again even though I already wrote this in a previous post. .
Genesis 2:7-8
וייצר יהוה אלהים את-האדם עפר מן-האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים 7 ויהי האדם לנפש חיה
ויטע יהוה אלהים גן-בעדן מקדם וישם שם את-האדם אשר יצר 8
7 And the LORD God formed man (The Adam) of the dust of the ground(Red Arable Ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man(Adam) whom he had formed.
את = eth, - = MAQAF, ה = ha, אדם = adam
This is what is known as a “noun common masculine singular absolute”, according to the electronic program “Bible Works”. Each one of these component parts of this Hebrew word is very important to fully understand the meaning of the noun (or name). I'm pointing this out to also demonstrate that Adam and man in the Bible is the same creation and person. Gen 1 & 2 is the telling of the same creation. I can break this down verse by verse.
853. את ’êth, ayth; apparently contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely.
226. אות ’ôwth th; probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literal or figurative), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence
eth-ha Adam ha is the article particle. "The Adam" is the closest we can get in English.
So in the example above it's properly rendered. Yahweh Elohim created THE Adam in his own image. He formed THE Adam from the Dust of the Red Arable Ground/Clay.
I can show you in other passages where they refer to other peoples as beasts. To be a man = being a descendant of Adam. Anyone not in this tree wasn't considered a man or belonging to mankind. I know these things seem racists, but this is the problem when reading ancient texts. We can't inject our modern views, beliefs or understandings onto ancient peoples. You have to read these things in the right context and perspective. Here's just a few examples.
2 Peter 2:13 vs 10-16
10But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
Jeremiah 31:27
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man(adam), and with the seed of beast." note: the word man in this passage is the same exact word for Adam in Genesis. Basically this passage is saying the Israelites will get spread into other Adamic nations and the nations of (beasts) non Adamic.
For before those days there was no hire for man, nor hire for beast
(Bahemah)... - Zech. 8:10 (KJV)
...but, what kind of animal out there actually gets hired, or paid?
But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry
mightily unto God: let them turn every one from his evil way.
- Jonah 3:8 (KJV)
...but, what animal knows that he's evil, and cries out to God?
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD they God; in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle (Bahemah), nor thy
stranger that is within thy gates. - Ex. 20:10 (KJV)
...as we see, this verse seems to be referring only to people.
...Let neither man nor beast (Bahemah), herd nor flock, taste any
thing... - Jonah 3:7 (KJV)
...if we notice, humans and animals seemed to be grouped together.
Putting this here again even though I already wrote this in a previous post. .
Genesis 2:7-8
וייצר יהוה אלהים את-האדם עפר מן-האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים 7 ויהי האדם לנפש חיה
ויטע יהוה אלהים גן-בעדן מקדם וישם שם את-האדם אשר יצר 8
7 And the LORD God formed man (The Adam) of the dust of the ground(Red Arable Ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man(Adam) whom he had formed.
את = eth, - = MAQAF, ה = ha, אדם = adam
This is what is known as a “noun common masculine singular absolute”, according to the electronic program “Bible Works”. Each one of these component parts of this Hebrew word is very important to fully understand the meaning of the noun (or name). I'm pointing this out to also demonstrate that Adam and man in the Bible is the same creation and person. Gen 1 & 2 is the telling of the same creation. I can break this down verse by verse.
853. את ’êth, ayth; apparently contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely.
226. אות ’ôwth th; probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literal or figurative), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence
eth-ha Adam ha is the article particle. "The Adam" is the closest we can get in English.
So in the example above it's properly rendered. Yahweh Elohim created THE Adam in his own image. He formed THE Adam from the Dust of the Red Arable Ground/Clay.
Well, some upcoming ancient DNA from Iron Age Syria/Lebanon does indicate EHG type of admixture moving into the Levant that was not previously there in the Bronze or Neolithic periods. That could have introduced lighter colourings that exist in a minority of the population.
But, no offense, J2a1 males were unlikely to have pale complexion or light hair, just sayin'.
leperrine
Regular Member
Based on what?
O Neill
Banned
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 31
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-M222
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1A
I think this is the most interesting thread ive read for ages. I commend your writing ability and hours of research you must have put in on this subject. I too have spent many many hours trying to unravel some of the topics in your thread, Regarding biblical history.
I could bounce ideas off you all day long.
But you wont find any friends on here. I got my post deleted and called an alien nut. Swiftly followed by a 4 month ban.
Not sure how you mix up Josephus and Von Daniken but anyway good luck Leperrine.
I could bounce ideas off you all day long.
But you wont find any friends on here. I got my post deleted and called an alien nut. Swiftly followed by a 4 month ban.
Not sure how you mix up Josephus and Von Daniken but anyway good luck Leperrine.
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
the highest % of j2a1 in the world is from this region:
Light complexion and mix of hair and eye color.
Where did you hear this? Where's your link?
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
And creation was created in six/seven 24 hour days, with zero evidence to counter science. And there was a worldwide flood of exactly 40 days and nights of rain approx. some 5000 years ago, with zero evidence.
And Shem was born of Noah on Noah's exact birth year of 500. Not one year before or one year after, but exactly, these numbers that end in 0 or 00, like most numbers in the bible.
The numbers are symbolic. Not to be taken literally.
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
the highest % of j2a1 in the world is from this region:
Light complexion and mix of hair and eye color.
Not as good an example as it could've apparently been because the J2a frequency is in fact so, so, so high that it's unlikely to be a remnant from the same demographic makeup that existed several thousands of years ago, instead of a founder effect coupled with genetic drift. Also, we certainly don't know if the autosomes of this Chechen population are really similar to that of their first, ancient J2a1 male ancestors. Skin, light and eye complexion unfortunately are not determined by Y-DNA haplogroups nor are particularly correlated with them.
But I don't doubt for a second Hebrews could've identified themselves and lighter skinned and possibly also carrying higher (though I'm certain not dominant) frequencies of lighter hair and eyes. They didn't need to be like Europeans to notice that they themselves were noticeably much paler and more able to get ruddy than some of their neighbors to their south and east, especially the most powerful of them, Egyptians. Even today the average Lebanese or Syrian (especially non-Muslims, who seem to have mixed less extensively in the last milennia) looks much lighter than the average Yemenite or Egyptian. Semitic Levantines (e.g. Central Semites) in the historic evidences seem to have expanded from Syria southward, and even today there is a very clear autosomal and Y-DNA cline differentiating North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula from the Northern Levant. The populations from northern Levantine look reasonably more shifted to Anatolian, Caucasian and Iranian populations, and the first unquestionably Semitic states and cities were found near the highlands and plateaus of West Asia (southeastern Anatolia, northwestern Iran).
RobertColumbia
Elite member
- Messages
- 328
- Reaction score
- 75
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Virginia
- Ethnic group
- Scots Appalachian ("Hillbilly")
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-M222 (NW Irish)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1bi
US General Norman Schwartzkopf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Schwarzkopf_Jr.) must be some guy with a black head who is from the North. At least, that's what his name means in German. Also, I'm pretty sure that Celine Dion is from the moon - why would she have a name like that if she wasn't?
Dockers2015
Junior Member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Late to the party
I know I'm late to this post,but in my biblical research it's exactly what I have come up with.
But the conundrum I see is that after Christ ascended we have all the world including all races claiming Christianity as their primary religion ,
Most Christian Identity proponents believe that only the white show blood in the face people are only capable of coming to Christ, but this has its problems with Europeans race mixing with all other races .So if you happen to be one of these Europeans who have raced mixed with other races ,you are not capable of salvation in Christ.
But the flesh profits nothing after the cross .
But as we see today ,the Jews are behind the push for multiculturalism in European based white Countries, so why are these Jews(edomites) so interested in mixing the seed of Europeans with other races .
I know I'm late to this post,but in my biblical research it's exactly what I have come up with.
But the conundrum I see is that after Christ ascended we have all the world including all races claiming Christianity as their primary religion ,
Most Christian Identity proponents believe that only the white show blood in the face people are only capable of coming to Christ, but this has its problems with Europeans race mixing with all other races .So if you happen to be one of these Europeans who have raced mixed with other races ,you are not capable of salvation in Christ.
But the flesh profits nothing after the cross .
But as we see today ,the Jews are behind the push for multiculturalism in European based white Countries, so why are these Jews(edomites) so interested in mixing the seed of Europeans with other races .