It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Respectfully, you are working very hard to make your off topic points relevant.
I'd say generally that it can be very hard to reconcile the bible with anything other than cultural ethnography, and ultimately this is supposed to be about DNA evidence concerning modern Jews.
However, if we take the Biblical linage from Shem, then if true, Abraham descends from Shem by Arpachshad.
However, the error you make is that all decedents of Shem are Semitic.
It is also asserted that Europeans generally, Germans, Persians, Greeks, and Indo-Iranians, have their lineage from Shem.
John Sassoon asserts that the founders of the high civilization of Sumeria are among the decedents of Shem who previously came to occupy Eurasia, and including India.
Another scholar, James Modish counts the ancient occupants of India as among the lands inhabited by the decedents of Shem.
The other error you make is to say that the use of the expression "to found a civilization" means that the founders must be the first to occupy that area. That is simply an unjustified assumption about the meaning of the phrase on your part.
When it is stated that someone or a group of people “found” something it is sometimes interpreted as they moved there and built a civilization that, previously, had no civilization at all.
I’m specifically talking about the region and those who were there before the Sumerians. I’m not talking about “Sumerians” and people who built the “civilization of Sumer” (even though the people before the Sumerians already had a civilization complete with pottery, homes, etc.)
If you want to learn something you may not have been exposed to, which IS on topic, take a look at the book I referred you to, "Abraham's Children", its science, not cultural ethnography which often originates in a societies myths, which do not have to be scientifically tested to become part of the body of the cultural study.
One point I will agree with you about is that among the lineage(s) Jews and the ancient Hebrews have includes haplotypes common to the east coast of north Africa. But that does not preclude them from having middle eastern haplotypes a percentage of the population acquired later.
Further, Abram was not a Semite in the sense that as a Sumerian, their/his language was not Semitic in origin, and Semites, as the term is used, refers by in large to the people who were the main population of the off-springs of Sumer; Assyria, Babylonia.
You are right that the term primarily refers to the language groups, and cultural groups that are identified as Semitic.
However, in common use the term also refers to other qualities that can be associated with those populations, like genetic markers, although I think it is reasonable to point out, calling specific genetic markers "semitic" or not would be a confusion of the terms defined meaning, since you could only show by a scientific study a degree of association between the specific alleles for different genes which constitute a haploid genotype and a given population under study, and those percentages would differ by the exact population under study.
In the genetic studies I have read, Jews frequently have more diversity in their overall genetic makeup than nearby populations in studies of both Middle Eastern and European population groups.
However some haplotypes appear to have been fairly equally present (as a percentage) in people who identify as Jews, and who are geographically widespread, from USA, to Europe, and the Middle East, despite how different their physical appearances may be, from Ashkenazim to Sephardic for example.
Yet I hear this same BS over and over again, 'modern people calling themselves Jews are not really Semitic so they can't be Jews and therefore they can't have a legitimate claim to territory in the middle east.'
This springs from the book by Arthur Koestler, "The Thirteenth Tribe", which documents the conversion of a non-middle eastern people to Judaism in the early middle ages. However, modern genetic studies have shown while there are a percentage of people calling themselves Jews who descend from Khazars, most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews do not descend from the Khazars as has been shown by many genetic studies.
And the whole point of the erroneous assertion is an attempt to say that if you as a modern Jew descend from the Khazars, you have no genetic link to the ancient Jews and therefore you can have no claim to middle eastern territory.
But this is also bogus since the international law and treaties which established the modern state of Israel do not distinguish Khazarian descendants from middle eastern descendants as to their qualification for return to the nation of Israel.
And as I said above, being Jewish is not primarily a matter of genetics, and even the Khazars were not of a single genetic heritage, and some groups among them were comprised of very early migrants (pre-diaspora) of the ancient nation of the Hebrews.
But on the internet this 'modern day Jews are not Semitic' BS is posted over and over and over again, and as I mentioned, by Jeff Rense and the guests and columnists he chooses to publish on his site. He should know better, but he obviously has a bias.
Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies)
Exo 32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
Exo 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by MikeboydUS
So what about the many many Jews who don't use that excuse?
What if they don't care about G-d?
Then they go from being jewish to atheist or agnostic.
Just like a christian or muslim does.
If a christian denounces God, does he remain a chrstian? No.
If a muslim denounces Allah, does he remain a muslim? No.
If a jewish person denounces God, does he remain jewish? Yes.
How does this make any sense? Unless being jewish has somehow been equated to a race. Which is the OP's point.
[edit on 4-3-2010 by Nutter]