Анатолий Шарий
Лёха в Short’ах Long’ует
Реальний Київ | Украина
Мир сегодня с "Юрий Подоляка"
Труха⚡️Україна
Николаевский Ванёк
Инсайдер UA
Реальна Війна | Україна | Новини
Лачен пише
Анатолий Шарий
Лёха в Short’ах Long’ует
Реальний Київ | Украина
Мир сегодня с "Юрий Подоляка"
Труха⚡️Україна
Николаевский Ванёк
Инсайдер UA
Реальна Війна | Україна | Новини
Лачен пише
Анатолий Шарий
Лёха в Short’ах Long’ует
Реальний Київ | Украина
Haplo ABCDE + Lehman
TGlist rating
0
0
TypePublic
Verification
Not verifiedTrust
Not trustedLocation
LanguageOther
Channel creation dateOct 27, 2023
Added to TGlist
Mar 23, 2025Records
23.03.202523:59
28Subscribers10.11.202423:59
0Citation index28.02.202515:37
250Average views per post27.02.202515:17
95Average views per ad post16.03.202509:05
33.33%ER26.03.202515:17
351.85%ERR23.04.202516:30
Cleromancy, Urim and Thummim, & Omikuji
In a passage from the part of the Book of Ezra which overlaps with the Book of Nehemiah, it is mentioned that individuals who were unable to prove, after the Babylonian captivity had ended, that they were descended from the priesthood before the captivity began, were required to wait until priests in possession of Urim and Thummim were discovered;[29]
The random fortunes in fortune cookies may be derived from omikuji; this is claimed by Seiichi Kito of Fugetsu-Do,[10] and supported by evidence that American fortune cookies derive from 19th century Kyoto crackers called tsujiura senbei.[11] (elon musk the freemason parasite and doge coin and his blood emeralds)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-mikuji
In a passage from the part of the Book of Ezra which overlaps with the Book of Nehemiah, it is mentioned that individuals who were unable to prove, after the Babylonian captivity had ended, that they were descended from the priesthood before the captivity began, were required to wait until priests in possession of Urim and Thummim were discovered;[29]
The random fortunes in fortune cookies may be derived from omikuji; this is claimed by Seiichi Kito of Fugetsu-Do,[10] and supported by evidence that American fortune cookies derive from 19th century Kyoto crackers called tsujiura senbei.[11] (elon musk the freemason parasite and doge coin and his blood emeralds)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-mikuji
06.05.202521:20
You're emphasizing that the origin of "Semite" lies with the biblical figure Shem, whom you consider the "True Semite" in a genealogical sense, predating and taking precedence over linguistic definitions. You argue that not everyone who speaks a Semitic language is necessarily a genetic Semite (using the Philistines as an example from the Old Testament), and conversely, genetic lineage to Shem should be the primary identifier, with language being a secondary, potentially partial, association.
You're asking me to verify this understanding based on the Old Testament, which you consider the original source defining "Semitism" as primarily the "ism of Shem" and secondarily those who speak like him.
Given the time and the complexity of the topic, I will provide a summary of our current mini-exchange to prevent any potential loss of context:
* You reiterated that the root of "Semite" is Shem in the OT, a genealogical origin, not primarily linguistic.
* You used the example of the Philistines in the OT as not being genetic Semites, and therefore not truly linguistic ones in the original context.
* You emphasized the OT as the primary source defining "Semitism" as the "ism of Shem" first, with language being a secondary association.
* You mentioned your ability to speak Arabic (a Semitic language) and your provision of genetic data points.
I understand the need for a summary due to the late hour for you. We can continue to delve into the Old Testament's portrayal of Shem and the early Semitic peoples in our next session, alongside the implications for genetic versus linguistic definitions.
You're asking me to verify this understanding based on the Old Testament, which you consider the original source defining "Semitism" as primarily the "ism of Shem" and secondarily those who speak like him.
Given the time and the complexity of the topic, I will provide a summary of our current mini-exchange to prevent any potential loss of context:
* You reiterated that the root of "Semite" is Shem in the OT, a genealogical origin, not primarily linguistic.
* You used the example of the Philistines in the OT as not being genetic Semites, and therefore not truly linguistic ones in the original context.
* You emphasized the OT as the primary source defining "Semitism" as the "ism of Shem" first, with language being a secondary association.
* You mentioned your ability to speak Arabic (a Semitic language) and your provision of genetic data points.
I understand the need for a summary due to the late hour for you. We can continue to delve into the Old Testament's portrayal of Shem and the early Semitic peoples in our next session, alongside the implications for genetic versus linguistic definitions.
06.05.202519:34
Okay, I understand. You've presented a series of data points linking genetic findings (Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups) with narratives and figures from the Old Testament (OT) and the Book of Mormon (BOM), and you're asking me to assess the reasonableness of these connections based on current scientific and historical understanding.
To do this effectively, let's go through each of your key points and I'll provide a brief assessment of their reasonableness, highlighting areas of strong support, potential correlations, or points where the connection might be more inferential or require further evidence:
* Central Claim: Y-DNA haplogroup DE (YAP+) uniquely represents the "True Semites."
* Reasonableness: This is a specific interpretation. While DE is ancestral to both D and E, which are found in many Middle Eastern populations, the idea that it uniquely represents all "True Semites" is a strong claim that would need substantial genetic and historical support, excluding other haplogroups found in Semitic-speaking populations.
* Milestones (Y-DNA A-E):
* A (Adam), B (Noah): These are speculative associations as these figures predate the timeframe for which Y-DNA haplogroup analysis can provide direct evidence. Linking ancient figures to specific modern haplogroups is an inferential exercise.
* C (branch from B, Mongols/Genghis Khan): The association of C with the Mongol expansion and Genghis Khan is generally supported by genetic studies. Its link to a "branch from B" aligns with the Y-DNA phylogeny.
* D (Hirohito/Japan, inferred link to Ephraim/Americas via Book of Mormon): The presence of D in Japan and the Americas is a factual observation. The inference linking it to Ephraim and the Book of Mormon narrative is a specific interpretation that connects genetic distribution with religious text.
* E (King David/Samaritan Levites): Haplogroup E, particularly its subclade E1b1b, is indeed found at high frequencies in some Jewish and Middle Eastern populations, including Samaritan Levites. The link to King David is inferential but based on the lineage's presence in historically relevant groups.
* Method of Inference: "Backward" approach from E to DE:
* Reasonableness: Using a known point (E in some Semitic populations) to infer ancestry back to a progenitor haplogroup (DE) is a valid method in genetic genealogy and phylogenetics, provided the relationships between the haplogroups are well-established in the Y-DNA tree.
* Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA):
* L (Sheba/Africa), M (Rachel/Asia), D (Asenath/East Asia), N (Leah/Europe/ME): These broad geographic associations of major mtDNA haplogroups are generally consistent with our understanding of human migrations out of Africa. The links to specific biblical matriarchs are interpretative.
* Geographical Distribution:
* Ephraim (Asia/Americas - D), Judah/David (Europe/ME - E1b1b), Sheba (Africa - implied by L): These proposed regional associations align with the current understanding of the distribution of these haplogroups, although the link between D and Ephraim is based on your interpretation.
* Consistency:
* Reasonableness: The idea that the theory's strength lies in the interconnectedness of genetic data, historical accounts, and religious texts is a logical approach to building a comprehensive model. However, the degree of consistency and the strength of the inferences drawn need careful examination.
* Samaritan Levites/E1b1b as a starting point:
* Reasonableness: Using a group with a long-standing claim to a specific ancestry and a defined genetic profile (high E1b1b in Samaritan Levites) is a reasonable anchor for exploring potential historical connections.
* "Stick of Judah" (E1b1b/Europe/ME/Africa) and "Stick of Ephraim" (D/Asia/Americas):
* Reasonableness: Interpreting the reunification prophecy through the lens of the geographic distribution of these haplogroups is an interesting and potentially novel interpretation of the biblical text.
To do this effectively, let's go through each of your key points and I'll provide a brief assessment of their reasonableness, highlighting areas of strong support, potential correlations, or points where the connection might be more inferential or require further evidence:
* Central Claim: Y-DNA haplogroup DE (YAP+) uniquely represents the "True Semites."
* Reasonableness: This is a specific interpretation. While DE is ancestral to both D and E, which are found in many Middle Eastern populations, the idea that it uniquely represents all "True Semites" is a strong claim that would need substantial genetic and historical support, excluding other haplogroups found in Semitic-speaking populations.
* Milestones (Y-DNA A-E):
* A (Adam), B (Noah): These are speculative associations as these figures predate the timeframe for which Y-DNA haplogroup analysis can provide direct evidence. Linking ancient figures to specific modern haplogroups is an inferential exercise.
* C (branch from B, Mongols/Genghis Khan): The association of C with the Mongol expansion and Genghis Khan is generally supported by genetic studies. Its link to a "branch from B" aligns with the Y-DNA phylogeny.
* D (Hirohito/Japan, inferred link to Ephraim/Americas via Book of Mormon): The presence of D in Japan and the Americas is a factual observation. The inference linking it to Ephraim and the Book of Mormon narrative is a specific interpretation that connects genetic distribution with religious text.
* E (King David/Samaritan Levites): Haplogroup E, particularly its subclade E1b1b, is indeed found at high frequencies in some Jewish and Middle Eastern populations, including Samaritan Levites. The link to King David is inferential but based on the lineage's presence in historically relevant groups.
* Method of Inference: "Backward" approach from E to DE:
* Reasonableness: Using a known point (E in some Semitic populations) to infer ancestry back to a progenitor haplogroup (DE) is a valid method in genetic genealogy and phylogenetics, provided the relationships between the haplogroups are well-established in the Y-DNA tree.
* Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA):
* L (Sheba/Africa), M (Rachel/Asia), D (Asenath/East Asia), N (Leah/Europe/ME): These broad geographic associations of major mtDNA haplogroups are generally consistent with our understanding of human migrations out of Africa. The links to specific biblical matriarchs are interpretative.
* Geographical Distribution:
* Ephraim (Asia/Americas - D), Judah/David (Europe/ME - E1b1b), Sheba (Africa - implied by L): These proposed regional associations align with the current understanding of the distribution of these haplogroups, although the link between D and Ephraim is based on your interpretation.
* Consistency:
* Reasonableness: The idea that the theory's strength lies in the interconnectedness of genetic data, historical accounts, and religious texts is a logical approach to building a comprehensive model. However, the degree of consistency and the strength of the inferences drawn need careful examination.
* Samaritan Levites/E1b1b as a starting point:
* Reasonableness: Using a group with a long-standing claim to a specific ancestry and a defined genetic profile (high E1b1b in Samaritan Levites) is a reasonable anchor for exploring potential historical connections.
* "Stick of Judah" (E1b1b/Europe/ME/Africa) and "Stick of Ephraim" (D/Asia/Americas):
* Reasonableness: Interpreting the reunification prophecy through the lens of the geographic distribution of these haplogroups is an interesting and potentially novel interpretation of the biblical text.
06.05.202519:34
* Eye Color and mtDNA:
* Reasonableness: The correlation between the geographic origin of the blue/green eye mutation (Europe) and the prevalence of mtDNA haplogroup N in that region is a reasonable observation, though the link is indirect (nuclear DNA for eye color, mtDNA for maternal lineage). Extending this to other eye colors and mtDNA haplogroups is a broader generalization that would need to account for the complex genetics of eye color and the global distribution of mtDNA lineages.
* Haplotypes over Phenotypes for defining "Semite":
* Reasonableness: Focusing on genetic lineages (haplotypes) to trace ancestry is a scientifically sound approach, as phenotypes can be influenced by multiple genes and environmental factors, potentially obscuring deeper ancestral connections.
Overall, many of your data points involve reasonable interpretations of existing genetic and historical information. The strength of your theory depends on how consistently and directly these interpretations can be supported by robust evidence, and how well they account for the complexities of human history and genetic diversity. Some of the connections, particularly those linking ancient biblical figures directly to specific haplogroups or interpreting religious texts through genetic distributions, are more inferential and require careful consideration of alternative explanations.
Which specific point would you like to delve into further to explore its reasonableness?
* Reasonableness: The correlation between the geographic origin of the blue/green eye mutation (Europe) and the prevalence of mtDNA haplogroup N in that region is a reasonable observation, though the link is indirect (nuclear DNA for eye color, mtDNA for maternal lineage). Extending this to other eye colors and mtDNA haplogroups is a broader generalization that would need to account for the complex genetics of eye color and the global distribution of mtDNA lineages.
* Haplotypes over Phenotypes for defining "Semite":
* Reasonableness: Focusing on genetic lineages (haplotypes) to trace ancestry is a scientifically sound approach, as phenotypes can be influenced by multiple genes and environmental factors, potentially obscuring deeper ancestral connections.
Overall, many of your data points involve reasonable interpretations of existing genetic and historical information. The strength of your theory depends on how consistently and directly these interpretations can be supported by robust evidence, and how well they account for the complexities of human history and genetic diversity. Some of the connections, particularly those linking ancient biblical figures directly to specific haplogroups or interpreting religious texts through genetic distributions, are more inferential and require careful consideration of alternative explanations.
Which specific point would you like to delve into further to explore its reasonableness?
06.05.202519:27
Okay, that's a prudent idea, especially given the possibility of a disconnection. Here's a summary of the key points we've discussed in this session, which can serve as a reference if we need to pick up again:
* Central Theory: Your theory posits that Y-DNA haplogroup DE (YAP+) uniquely represents the "True Semites."
* Y-DNA Milestones: You've associated Y-DNA haplogroups A (Adam), B (Noah), DE (Jacob), D (Ephraim/Asia/Americas), and E (Judah/David/Samaritan Levites) with key biblical figures and their descendants.
* Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA): You've linked mtDNA haplogroups L (Sheba/Africa), M (Rachel/Asia), D (Asenath/East Asia), and N (Leah/Europe/ME) to biblical matriarchs and their purported geographic origins.
* Geographic Parallels: You see a correlation between the geographic distribution of these haplogroups and the historical or biblical locations associated with these figures.
* Consistency as Key: You emphasize the need for internal consistency across genetic data, historical accounts (including the Book of Mormon), and biblical narratives to support your theory.
* Samaritan Levites and E1b1b: You highlighted the Samaritan Levites' strong association with E1b1b (a subclade of E) as a significant starting point, contrasting with the initial dismissal of E1b1b in the Cohen Modal Haplotype theory.
* Stick of Judah and Ephraim: You interpret the prophecy of the "Stick of Judah" (Europe/ME/Africa - E1b1b) and the "Stick of Ephraim" (Asia/Americas - D) as a future joining of these geographically associated populations.
* Eye Color as a Marker: You proposed a correlation between eye color and mtDNA haplogroups, with light eyes (blue/green) potentially linked to mt N (Leah/Europe), brown eyes to mt M (Rachel/Asia), and dark eyes to mt L (Sheba/Africa). You noted the genetic basis of blue/green eyes originating in regions where mt N is prevalent.
* Haplotypes vs. Phenotypes: You argued that Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups provide a more accurate and fundamental understanding of ancestry and the meaning of "Semite" than potentially misleading phenotypes or broad ethnic categories influenced by admixture.
* Critique of Modern Claims: You pointed out potential inconsistencies in modern claims of direct tribal lineage, particularly among modern Israelis, due to historical migrations and intermingling.
* J vs. DE: You suggested that the historical divergence between haplogroups J and DE implies that only one might be fully consistent with the Old Testament narrative.
Moving forward, you'd like to confirm or verify the consistency of each of these data points. Please let me know which specific aspect you'd like to explore or verify first.
* Central Theory: Your theory posits that Y-DNA haplogroup DE (YAP+) uniquely represents the "True Semites."
* Y-DNA Milestones: You've associated Y-DNA haplogroups A (Adam), B (Noah), DE (Jacob), D (Ephraim/Asia/Americas), and E (Judah/David/Samaritan Levites) with key biblical figures and their descendants.
* Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA): You've linked mtDNA haplogroups L (Sheba/Africa), M (Rachel/Asia), D (Asenath/East Asia), and N (Leah/Europe/ME) to biblical matriarchs and their purported geographic origins.
* Geographic Parallels: You see a correlation between the geographic distribution of these haplogroups and the historical or biblical locations associated with these figures.
* Consistency as Key: You emphasize the need for internal consistency across genetic data, historical accounts (including the Book of Mormon), and biblical narratives to support your theory.
* Samaritan Levites and E1b1b: You highlighted the Samaritan Levites' strong association with E1b1b (a subclade of E) as a significant starting point, contrasting with the initial dismissal of E1b1b in the Cohen Modal Haplotype theory.
* Stick of Judah and Ephraim: You interpret the prophecy of the "Stick of Judah" (Europe/ME/Africa - E1b1b) and the "Stick of Ephraim" (Asia/Americas - D) as a future joining of these geographically associated populations.
* Eye Color as a Marker: You proposed a correlation between eye color and mtDNA haplogroups, with light eyes (blue/green) potentially linked to mt N (Leah/Europe), brown eyes to mt M (Rachel/Asia), and dark eyes to mt L (Sheba/Africa). You noted the genetic basis of blue/green eyes originating in regions where mt N is prevalent.
* Haplotypes vs. Phenotypes: You argued that Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups provide a more accurate and fundamental understanding of ancestry and the meaning of "Semite" than potentially misleading phenotypes or broad ethnic categories influenced by admixture.
* Critique of Modern Claims: You pointed out potential inconsistencies in modern claims of direct tribal lineage, particularly among modern Israelis, due to historical migrations and intermingling.
* J vs. DE: You suggested that the historical divergence between haplogroups J and DE implies that only one might be fully consistent with the Old Testament narrative.
Moving forward, you'd like to confirm or verify the consistency of each of these data points. Please let me know which specific aspect you'd like to explore or verify first.
30.04.202521:29
Natufians = BiladAlShami
14.04.202512:04
Proof that Joseph is Osirus
The story of Joseph in the Bible and the myth of Osiris in Egyptian mythology share some common motifs, particularly the theme of a savior figure who dies and rises again. However, these similarities are not considered a direct plagiarism, but rather a common human interest in themes of death and resurrection that are found in various cultures.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Joseph and the Egyptian Setting:
Joseph's story in the Bible is set in ancient Egypt and features Egyptian names and motifs, including the embalming of Jacob and Joseph.
Joseph's refusal to be buried in Egypt, and his instruction for his bones to be taken to Canaan, can be seen as a symbolic act of defiance against the Egyptian belief system, which required burial in Egypt for resurrection.
Some interpretations see Joseph's reburial in Canaan as a reworking of the myth of Osiris's resurrection, where his body was retrieved and returned to Egypt.
Osiris and the Resurrection Myth:
Osiris was an Egyptian god who was believed to have been murdered and his body dismembered, with his wife Isis reassembling him and bringing him back to life.
The myth of Osiris became a central theme in Egyptian funerary practices, as the dead were believed to be reunited with Osiris in the afterlife.
The idea of a savior figure who dies and rises again is a common motif in ancient mythologies, and while there are some vague similarities between Osiris and the story of Jesus, there is no historical evidence that the biblical story was directly copied from ancient Egyptian myths.
The story of Joseph in the Bible and the myth of Osiris in Egyptian mythology share some common motifs, particularly the theme of a savior figure who dies and rises again. However, these similarities are not considered a direct plagiarism, but rather a common human interest in themes of death and resurrection that are found in various cultures.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Joseph and the Egyptian Setting:
Joseph's story in the Bible is set in ancient Egypt and features Egyptian names and motifs, including the embalming of Jacob and Joseph.
Joseph's refusal to be buried in Egypt, and his instruction for his bones to be taken to Canaan, can be seen as a symbolic act of defiance against the Egyptian belief system, which required burial in Egypt for resurrection.
Some interpretations see Joseph's reburial in Canaan as a reworking of the myth of Osiris's resurrection, where his body was retrieved and returned to Egypt.
Osiris and the Resurrection Myth:
Osiris was an Egyptian god who was believed to have been murdered and his body dismembered, with his wife Isis reassembling him and bringing him back to life.
The myth of Osiris became a central theme in Egyptian funerary practices, as the dead were believed to be reunited with Osiris in the afterlife.
The idea of a savior figure who dies and rises again is a common motif in ancient mythologies, and while there are some vague similarities between Osiris and the story of Jesus, there is no historical evidence that the biblical story was directly copied from ancient Egyptian myths.
13.04.202506:39
Proof that YDNA DE is Scientifically Semite.
https://greekreporter.com/2025/04/12/dna-study-shows-when-ancient-greeks-colonized-italy/
https://greekreporter.com/2025/04/12/dna-study-shows-when-ancient-greeks-colonized-italy/
Log in to unlock more functionality.
