Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers

[Ehav4Ever]

In this thread I will present historical and archeological evidence to that modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farms. This is not of course to say that there were no Yadavas who didn't convert to the Torah after Jewish exiles reached India culminating in the Cochin Jewish community, the Bombay Jewish community, and the Benei Menashe.

To prove this point I will using the following sources.

1. Actual Hebrew and Aramaic texts written within the last 3,000 years about Jewish ancestry.
2. Archeological sources that discuss the above ancestral claims.
3. Information local to India about how Jews arrived there and when.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In this thread I will present historical and archeological evidence to that modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farms. This is not of course to say that there were no Yadavas who didn't convert to the Torah after Jewish exiles reached India culminating in the Cochin Jewish community, the Bombay Jewish community, and the Benei Menashe.

To prove this point I will using the following sources.

1. Actual Hebrew and Aramaic texts written within the last 3,000 years about Jewish ancestry.
2. Archeological sources that discuss the above ancestral claims.
3. Information local to India about how Jews arrived there and when.

It should be very easy. Geneticists have determined that Jews are genetically related to Canaanites, not Indians.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

It should be very easy. Geneticists have determined that Jews are genetically related to Canaanites, not Indians.

It is, but it there are some people who fall for anything that appears to go against the grain. Yet, I think there are some other obvious areas that debunk in the case that someone ignores genetics.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

One simple problem with the claim that people who can indentified by the historical terms Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, or Jews should indentified as "Yadava farmers" is the simple problem that early Ivrim never were indentified as being farmers. In the Hebrew Torah on several occasions the early Ivrim identified themselves not as farmers but instead as shepherds. They state the same for their ancestors.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is, but it there are some people who fall for anything that appears to go against the grain. Yet, I think there are some other obvious areas that debunk in the case that someone ignores genetics.

It's even more than that. I've noticed it is becoming more and more common for Indians online (who may or may not be typical of Indians in general) to make outrageous claims of Indian involvement in things utterly unrelated to India, such as Jesus went to India, the Jews being descended from Indians, etc.. It's like nothing of significance can happen in history without it being due to India. Total ethnocentrism.

Are Indians Becoming Increasingly Ethnocentric?

Indians are becoming increasingly ethnocentric. The usual definition of the term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own".

www.linkedin.com

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

One simple problem with the claim that people who can indentified by the historical terms Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, or Jews should indentified as "Yadava farmers" is the simple problem that early Ivrim never were indentified as being farmers. In the Hebrew Torah on several occasions the early Ivrim identified themselves not as farmers but instead as shepherds. They state the same for their ancestors.

View attachment 89743armers and shepherds went together.

One simple problem with the claim that people who can indentified by the historical terms Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, or Jews should indentified as "Yadava farmers" is the simple problem that early Ivrim never were indentified as being farmers. In the Hebrew Torah on several occasions the early Ivrim identified themselves not as farmers but instead as shepherds. They state the same for their ancestors.

View attachment 89743
View attachment 89745

You are perhaps right that Hebrews were yadava shepherds. But farming went together. Thus Hebrews lamented watermelons and cucumbers. The main point is there origins in india.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

to India, the Jews being descended from Indians, etc.. It's like nothing of significance can happen in history without it being due to India. Total ethnocentrism.

Let us talk on merits please. A hypotheses does not become false because it was invented in place x.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are perhaps right that Hebrews were yadava shepherds. But farming went together. Thus Hebrews lamented watermelons and cucumbers. The main point is there origins in india.

Right. And the King of England is a descendent of King David. rolling eyes.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Geneticists have determined that Jews are genetically related to Canaanites, not Indians.

The R.M124 gene got into Ashkenazi from india.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You are perhaps right that Hebrews were yadava shepherds. But farming went together. Thus Hebrews lamented watermelons and cucumbers. The main point is there origins in india.

This post is about the origin of the Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern Jews who descend from all three of these groups. I find that your claims are indentifying a different group of as Hebrews who are not connected to Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern Jews.

Also, your major point was that the people you were talking about were farmers. The actual Ivrith text of the Torah states that the Ivrim were not farmers, but instead shephards. So, since we all agree that just based on the text alone half of your claim was incorrect. I will continue to debunk the other parts.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Let us talk on merits please. A hypotheses does not become false because it was invented in place x.

That is exactly what this thread is about. We have already disqualified half of your claim which you appear to agree with. This was done solely on the actual texts of the Torah in Ivrith.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The R.M124 gene got into Ashkenazi from india.

The Ashkenazim are descended from Jews who migrated to Ashkenazi ( a city in Germany). They have nothing to do with India. R M124 is found ALL OVER THE PLACE. It means nothing.

This post is about the origin of the Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern Jews

All four terms refer to the same tribal people.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Now, addressing the claim that in Ivrith the word Mitzrayim is not referencing Egypt. See the following.

Wikpedia - Egypt

 

[Ehav4Ever]

All four terms refer to the same tribal people.

Not at all times for Ivrim. Yishmael and Esaw both fall under the original term. Of course, after their seperation from the path of Avraham ben-Terahh it because very specific to Am Yisrael. Yet, what I see is that there are people, using English terms, who are trying to redefine what the words "Hebrew-Israel-Jews" meant in western languages.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

All four terms refer to the same tribal people.

Also, the terms as i am discussing are about different eras of history.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not at all times for Ivrim. Yishmael and Esaw both fall under the original term. Of course, after their seperation from the path of Avraham ben-Terahh it because very specific to Am Yisrael. Yet, what I see is that there are people, using English terms, who are trying to redefine what the words "Hebrew-Israel-Jews" meant in western languages.

Each term has an age where it was used more.

From Abraham to Jacob, we were called Ivrim aka Hebrews

From Jacob to the Babylonian exile, we were called b'nei Yisrael, aka Israelites or Children of Israel.

From the Babylonian captivity on, we have been called Yehudim, Jews.

Today we mainly use the term Jews, but also still may use Hebrew, or, effectionately, Bnei Yisrael.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Also, the terms as i am discussing are about different eras of history.

Yes, exactly so. Same identical people, but different ages preferred different labels. Glad we are on the same page

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Each term has an age where it was used more.

From Abraham to Jacob, we were called Ivrim aka Hebrews

From Jacob to the Babylonian exile, we were called b'nei Yisrael, aka Israelites or Children of Israel.

From the Babylonian captivity on, we have been called Yehudim, Jews.

Today we mainly use the term Jews, but also still may use Hebrew, or, effectionately, Bnei Yisrael.

Yes, I know. BUT, if we were to read terms that are originally in Hebrew and transliterate then we would up with the terms Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, and Yehudim. Given that in English there are a lot of attempts to try and use those terms [English ones] to mean something different than what they were used for, let's say, about 100 years ago in the same countries - I prefer to make the point I am making clear by transliterating.

Thus, it avoids the confusion of what exactly "Hebrew" means because some people identify the English term with for example, languages that were never specific to Jews, or to groups like Hebrew Israelites. I.e. replacement theology. Rather than argue with those types about an English term, I go with the original pronuciations. It also helps when I am dealing with the actual documents and how something is correctly pronounced.

The Miztrayim element is one example. Someone claims that ancient "Hebrews" considered this to be in India. Yet, all Middle Eastern texts state it is where modern day Egypt is. It is easier for me to address this by transliteration since the transliteration makes the pronunciation clear.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Miztrayim element is one example. Someone claims that ancient "Hebrews" considered this to be in India. Yet, all Middle Eastern texts state it is where modern day Egypt is. It is easier for me to address this by transliteration since the transliteration makes the pronunciation clear.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Yes, it is ironic that the same Jewish people that are the targets of so much hostility and violence, are also the subject of envy, whether it is British Israelism, or Black Hebrew Israelites, or Christians in the Hebrew Roots movement claiming to be Ephraim. Indeed, we even have a few sundry Christian groups that are still supersessionist, and claim to be the "true Jews." I take none of them seriously.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Yes, it is ironic that the same Jewish people that are the targets of so much hostility and violence, are also the subject of envy, whether it is British Israelism, or Black Hebrew Israelites, or Christians in the Hebrew Roots movement claiming to be Ephraim. Indeed, we even have a few sundry Christian groups that are still supersessionist, and claim to be the "true Jews." I take none of them seriously.

I wouldn't call it a worry. I think it makes the discussion more precise. I also don't take the groups seriously, but I have also encountered people who I met who were one way but by me showing them linquistically and historically how they were wrong they left such groups. One person in particular I remember was a staunch Hebrew Israelite and would go and on about Ashkenazim all the time. I had a conversation on many issues and a few years later I saw her at a Chabad going through a conversion. It made me feel good to see that I was able to show her a more expanded view.