Why can't some people accept that the Israelites were black?

[Curious George]

The only other alternative option is that they come from African converts, or that 97% of Jews are liars and fakes or that 97% of Jews come from converts and the 3-5% of Jews who have Sub-Saharan DNA are the "True Hebrews".

If you have any other alternatives, present them, or continue to showcase your militant ignorance and obvious bias and unwillingness to address other sides of the argument that go against your own confirmation bias.

Really, what exactly is my biased perspective? I do not believe that I have said anything that suggests a confirmation bias. I already told you that I understand too little of the history and time period.

I am not sure if you are aware of this, but just because one, two, or several options are offered does not mean that any one is correct or the complete story. Life is not some high school multiple choice test. Moreover, if someone does not jump on your bandwagon they are not necessarily a biased naysayer. Rather, I do not have an obvious conclusion on the matter like you. I reserve my judgement and seek to learn more.

I understand that concept bothers you enough to insist on my militant ignorance, but I assure you: it is okay.

 

[Shermana]

Really, what exactly is my biased perspective? I do not believe that I have said anything that suggests a confirmation bias. I already told you that I understand too little of the history and time period.

I am not sure if you are aware of this, but just because one, two, or several options are offered does not mean that any one is correct or the complete story. Life is not some high school multiple choice test. Moreover, if someone does not jump on your bandwagon they are not necessarily a biased naysayer. Rather, I do not have an obvious conclusion on the matter like you. I reserve my judgement and seek to learn more.

I understand that concept bothers you enough to insist on my militant ignorance, but I assure you: it is okay.

You concluded that it was offensive, you bothered to tell me that you find my view offensive and that you don't understand why I would say its an obvious conclusion. I asked you to provide a counter view. You have none.

There's only so many explanations for something. By what entails with your logic, there's no such thing as deductive, or inductive reasoning. There can be ANY number of answers. There's no such thing as what's "likely". If everyone thought like you, there'd be no such thing as an efficient Criminal Justice system. Or scientific theories.

If your argument is that you can't make up your mind but CAN make up your mind that a conclusion is wrong about something just because you can't think of something, then do try not to smear a person's view if you don't have an alternative. Just some advice. I'd suggest you stay a neutral observer if you don't have anything to contribute but whine about a view offending you. As well if you want to simply write off a source without actually addressing anything it says or the critiques involved. If I write off Elhaik, I do so with critiques from people who actually have something to say about it. For some reason, you don't seem interested at all in even examining the counter points of view to Elhaik. Why is that?

 

[Shermana]

"and Judaism is past through the Matriarchal line"

I also wanted to touch on this real quick.

The concept of it being Matriarchal and not Patriarchal is most likely a later development. There is much reason to believe the Tanakh exclusively implies Paternal descent. It may be a mainstream Rabbinical standard, but was likely not always the case. The Jews of the Caucusus and Central Asia have preserved this tradition and likely didn't change it.

Now this however, opens up an interesting can of worms regarding "Who is a Jew" regarding whether what the Rabbis have allowed and whether it's what the Forefathers in the Tanakh era envisioned, but I'm not sure if that's in the scope for this thread.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

I also wanted to touch on this real quick.

The concept of it being Matriarchal and not Patriarchal is most likely a later development. There is much reason to believe the Tanakh exclusively implies Paternal descent. It may be a mainstream Rabbinical standard, but was likely not always the case. The Jews of the Caucusus and Central Asia have preserved this tradition and likely didn't change it.

Now this however, opens up an interesting can of worms regarding "Who is a Jew" regarding whether what the Rabbis have allowed and whether it's what the Forefathers in the Tanakh era envisioned, but I'm not sure if that's in the scope for this thread.

I have discuss this subject in few christian forums , Let see who know what here Knowldge wise without geting into the Anti-game/ Excuses shall we .

Let me stress the point that Jew is not synonymous to Israelite or Yahuwdiy - arabic - as you have been let to Believe . First you must know that the letter '' J '' did not exist in English , Latin or Greek until 1565 A.D. The modern English '' J '' , was created by Peter Galatin in the year 1565 . Before that , the letter '' G'' took the place of the letter ''J '' so the word ''Jew '' which was created in 1514 A.D. was spelled ''Gew '' and was short for Greeks . There was no ''J '' sound so there could not have been a word '' Jew '' as the Euro-Jews try to make you Believe .

The Torah never spoke of these Euro-Jews . The evil-one took the name Judah , who was the fourth son of Yaqov , Ya'aqub , Jacob ( Israel ) , and made up a new nationality . They took the first part of the title Judah and cut of the last pronunciation ''Ju-dah'' and the labeled themselves ''Jews '' or ''Jewish '' , Jew is mot a Hebrew word their language is Yiddish ( a dialect which is a mixture of German and Hebrew ) , not Hebrew .

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. When you see it in the Holy Qur'aan you are being deceived . When you see it in the Bible you are being deceived . Find out what the word Jew means in the Scriptures . In most cases it refers to Yehudaw , Yahudah , Judah . They call themselves Jews because they didn't have a place in the 12 tribes of Israels , so they call themselves Jews , Jewish and they speak Yiddish . These Euro-Jews are trying to authenticate their existence by tying in to the people and cultures that actually existed , such as the Tribe of Judah . Any books referring to the past saying Jew or Jewish , Know that was not the word that was there .

I'll stop here and see what happen ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First you must know that the letter '' J '' did not exist in English , Latin or Greek until 1565 A.D.

Well, that pretty much settles it ...

But, just to be picky ...

The letter 'J' originated as a swash character, used for the letter 'i' at the end of Roman numerals when following another 'i', as in 'xxiij' instead of 'xxiii' for the Roman numeral representing 23. A distinctive usage emerged in Middle High German.[3] Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478–1550) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds, in his Ɛpistola del Trissino de le lettere nuωvamente aggiunte ne la lingua italiana ("Trissino's epistle about the letters recently added in the Italian language") of 1524. [source]

You couldn't even get the date right. :biglaugh:

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

Well, that pretty much settles it ...

But, just to be picky ...You couldn't even get the date right. :biglaugh:

I don't expect you to agree with anything I post because you think you know everything lolol I told you before you can't pick out certain part of my post to make your point . The Whole post is what count . Being your caught up in this Judaism thing you have to Believe in it , Just like any other Belief's System ?

 

[Asante]

like Neo-Nazis and Islamist groups...Until then, "Nuh uh".

Funny, so because I present a peer reviewed study that validates the Khazar theory (through proper sampling), and reject the sourceless rant of Jewish themed blog I according am like a Nazi :no:.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

Funny, so because I present a peer reviewed study that validates the Khazar theory (through proper sampling), and reject the sourceless rant of Jewish themed blog I according am like a Nazi :no:.

You know it funny how they always use that anti-line when its a know fact that Hitler was a Jew himself and a Christian , I guess it's an unspoken word , Wonder why ??

 

[outhouse]

Funny, so because I present a peer reviewed study that validates the Khazar theory .

Doesnt matter, what you posit. It does not validate that garbage. :slap:

Khazar guesses are mainly used by those opposed to Judaism and their right to the land.

Stop the utter nonsense

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Whole post is what count . Being your caught up in this Judaism thing you have to Believe in it , Just like any other Belief's System ?

And what's interesting about the "Whole" post - other than its antisemitic agenda and general absurdity - is that it's grammar seems far superior to what we've come to expect from you. Why might that be?

 

[Curious George]

You concluded that it was offensive, you bothered to tell me that you find my view offensive and that you don't understand why I would say its an obvious conclusion. I asked you to provide a counter view. You have none.

There's only so many explanations for something. By what entails with your logic, there's no such thing as deductive, or inductive reasoning. There can be ANY number of answers. There's no such thing as what's "likely". If everyone thought like you, there'd be no such thing as an efficient Criminal Justice system. Or scientific theories.

If your argument is that you can't make up your mind but CAN make up your mind that a conclusion is wrong about something just because you can't think of something, then do try not to smear a person's view if you don't have an alternative. Just some advice. I'd suggest you stay a neutral observer if you don't have anything to contribute but whine about a view offending you. As well if you want to simply write off a source without actually addressing anything it says or the critiques involved. If I write off Elhaik, I do so with critiques from people who actually have something to say about it. For some reason, you don't seem interested at all in even examining the counter points of view to Elhaik. Why is that?

My contribution is that your specific theory is contrary to logic and naive. I am not trying to say your theory is wrong, only the portion of your theory where you assert that there is only one obvious conclusion to be drawn from the facts.

 

[Curious George]

And what's interesting about the "Whole" post - other than its antisemitic agenda and general absurdity - is that it's grammar seems far superior to what we've come to expect from you. Why might that be?

Why not just tell him/her to cite his quotes? I agree that there is a language barrier that this last post of his/hers seemed to overcome, but I learned more from your and other's refutations rather than when people get banned for plagiarism.

 

[Shermana]

My contribution is that your specific theory is contrary to logic and naive. I am not trying to say your theory is wrong, only the portion of your theory where you assert that there is only one obvious conclusion to be drawn from the facts.

There you go, you're saying my view is "Contrary to logic and naive", yet you can't be bothered to provide an alternative. You just want to smear my view but then absolutely refuse to provide a view that IS within logic and not naive. You can't even demonstrate why my view is illogical or naive. You have absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute here and you're simply demonstrating that you like to talk about things you know jack nothing about. Carry on. If you're going to naysay my view, you better be able to back it up. Otherwise, it's just ramblings.

You see, I think my view IS logical, and I think those who are against it are incredibly naive, if not downright intellectually dishonest if they have a basic understanding of the culture of the time. For someone who admits he knows nothing about the time period, you sure seem to have a strong opinion about a view, that in my view, is based on nothing but common sense.

And like I said, you claim to be interested in learning more, but it's very plain that you're not. You simply brushed off all actual specific criticism of Elhaik's views, and you refuse to look up the science of all the scientists that he's calling "Frauds and liars", and I'm guessing it's because you don't want to accept anything that goes against your confirmation bias.

I do notice with a LOT of people, that if anything sticks it to the Jews, they think it's automatically true, and any evidence contrary is to be simply handwaved and written off as lies. Regardless if there's a valid basis for it or not.

If you remotely understood how Science works, or even Anthropology and Archaeology, people make conclusions and theories based on the evidence ALL the time. Like I said, if everyone thought like you, there'd be no science, and there'd be no criminal justice. What a hellhole that world would be.

 

[Shermana]

Funny, so because I present a peer reviewed study that validates the Khazar theory (through proper sampling), and reject the sourceless rant of Jewish themed blog I according am like a Nazi :no:.

Unless you're going to actually address the criticism of the "Jewish themed blog" and the specific points, consider yourself called out.

So far it seems no one wants to do anything but write off the source.

If you actually believe Elhaiks' claim that Armenians are a proxy DNA for the Khazars, that speaks volumes about you. Do you need a source to tell you that Armenians are not Turks?

Well here you go then!

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/armeniadnaproject/default.aspx?section=news

Various academic geneticists and genetic genealogists are doing interesting work with AUTOSOMAL DNA. Here are the results of admixture comparisons between Armenians and neighbouring populations from Behar, the Dienekes Blog, the Dodecad Ancestry Project and the Eurogenes Bio-Geographic Ancestry Project.

To dig deeper: (1) Doron Behar's paper, (2) Dienekes, (3) Dodecad & (4) Eurogenes.

This diagram shows how little East Asian DNA is found in Turkish autosomal DNA. For more on this subject look at this blog discussion, this 2011 post and this 2012 post . Look also at the abstract of an upcoming paper by Inci Togan.

That one's a dead giveaway that Elhaik's catering to a few particular agendas.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

And what's interesting about the "Whole" post - other than its antisemitic agenda and general absurdity - is that it's grammar seems far superior to what we've come to expect from you. Why might that be?

Being your lock into a Belief's System your not allow to accept the truth, Because it goes against your Belief's System . You couldn't get out of that one could ya , Just like most people who are caught up in a Belief's System , Insult's never change the fact's lololol

 

[Shermana]

Being your lock into a Belief's System your not allow to accept the truth, Because it goes against your Belief's System . You couldn't get out of that one could ya , Just like most people who are caught up in a Belief's System , Insult's never change the fact's lololol

Of course being locked in a belief system which doesn't allow you to accept the truth doesn't apply to you whatsoever.

 

[Curious George]

There you go, you're saying my view is "Contrary to logic and naive", yet you can't be bothered to provide an alternative. You just want to smear my view but then absolutely refuse to provide a view that IS within logic and not naive. You can't even demonstrate why my view is illogical or naive. You have absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute here and you're simply demonstrating that you like to talk about things you know jack nothing about. Carry on. If you're going to naysay my view, you better be able to back it up. Otherwise, it's just ramblings.

Alright,

The reasoning why your view is not logical-

You suggest that there are only a few possibilities for a genetic signature of admixture. Of these you believe yourself to have chosen the most likely. Yet, is it also possible that two great civilizations arose there and there was likely sex- both consensual and non consensual between people in the areas around these two great civilizations.

We have Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt and we even have interaction between Egyptians and Canaanites and other Middle eastern groups as early as the first dynasty. So I think we can address any concerns of admixture without resorting to comments which imply the only "obvious" conclusion is that any mixing results from Jews enslaving African peoples.

 

[Shermana]

Considering the prevalence of Nubian Slaves in ancient Egypt, I'd say that also is a likely explanation for the admixture in Egyptian genetics in the later periods.

 

[Curious George]

Considering the prevalence of Nubian Slaves in ancient Egypt, I'd say that also is a likely explanation for the admixture in Egyptian genetics in the later periods.

Somehow that is supposed to make sense? My point is that you earlier proclaimed that there was only one obvious conclusion. I do not think there is only one obvious conclusion. I am not saying that there were not African slaves owned by Jews, I am saying that your assumption- that this is the reason and the only reason for any admixture is not logical. You cannot know such a thing, and if you can then you surely have not given the evidence. so either you went from A -> D without sharing the logical steps in between or you made a logical assumption without knowing.

I am not trying to say people should not make conclusion based on evidence. I am saying either you do not have enough evidence to make your conclusion or you have not shared enough evidence to make your conclusion.

 

[Shermana]

Somehow that is supposed to make sense? My point is that you earlier proclaimed that there was only one obvious conclusion. I do not think there is only one obvious conclusion. I am not saying that there were not African slaves owned by Jews, I am saying that your assumption- that this is the reason and the only reason for any admixture is not logical. You cannot know such a thing, and if you can then you surely have not given the evidence. so either you went from A -> D without sharing the logical steps in between or you made a logical assumption without knowing.

I am not trying to say people should not make conclusion based on evidence. I am saying either you do not have enough evidence to make your conclusion or you have not shared enough evidence to make your conclusion.

You sure seem to have no problem making a conclusion of Elhaiks' work and that all the "unsourced Jewish blogs" must be written off just because...just because, without actually addressing them. I personally see it as ridiculous to not see the connection with Nubian slaves and pure revisionism, but hey, who needs reason with their "reasonable doubt"? Like I said, if everyone thought like you about the "Evidence", there'd be NO Criminal Justice, there'd be NO scientific theories. I'll admit there's a possibility, a slim slim tiny possibility, that the admixture with Nubians and other Blacks had nothing to do with reproduction with slaves, sure, but I won't admit that it's likely. Remotely. And I won't admit a serious doubt of the possibility that it was the descendents of slaves that would be remotely feasible either. If you're saying there's no real evidence, then you probably shouldn't go into archaeology, anthropology, or history.

Now do you accept the conclusion that the Lemba are the REAL Israelites and the 97% rest of the Jews who don't have this Subsaharan DNA are all "Fake Jews"? If not, then direct your attention to those on the other side who I'm arguing against, thanks.