body style="margin-left: 70px;margin-right: 70px;margin-top: 70pt;margin-bottom: 70pt;">
|Contents by Subject||
Contents in Alphabetical Order
"Lack of consistency with modern genetic findings
Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close link between Jews and Western Europeans. Detailed research comparing the Y-chromosomes of Jews to other Middle Eastern populations has found that Jews are closely related to other populations originating in the Middle East, such as Kurds, Turks, Armenians and Arabs and concluded that:
Middle Eastern populations...are closely related and...their Y chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans. (Nebel, 2001.)
Y-DNA Haplogroups J2 and, to a lesser extent, J1 are most commonly identified in Jewish people, which is in contrast to Western Europeans where a more distant Haplogroup R1b is the most commonly identified.
Some advocates[who?] of British Israelism assert that the Bible refers to Judah as being of darker skin, citing the biblical story of the patriarch Judah having a child by a Canaanite woman. This theory does not explain the Y-chromosome haplogroup differences between modern Jews and the British people because Y-chromosomes are passed unchanged from father to son and do not recombine with the X-chromosome from women."
Note: Normally the notes below would have been entered into a BAMAD posting.
The points made however are important. They are not difficult to understand and it may be worth the while of others (in addition to regular BAMAD readers) to be appraised of them.
The above note concerning Genetics and British-Israel and/or Brit-Am beliefs relates to DNA while making a reference to a British Israelite associated explanation for the perceived difference in the phenotypes (physical appearance etc) of Judah and Joseph.
Joseph had married an Egyptianitess (Genesis 41:45); Machir son of Manasseh had an Aramaic concubine (1-Chronicles 7:14). One of the wives of Judah was a Canaanitess (Genesis 38:2) and one out of the seven sons of Simeon came from a Canaanitish woman (Genesis 46:10).
Egyptian and other Ancient Middle Eastern depictions of inhabitants of the Land of Israel in Biblical times show the presence of different physical types.
Some are very fair while others are quote dark.
Pictures of Ancient Hebrews
THE PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF
THE HEBREW PEOPLES
In point of fact,
Explanations for any alleged physical differences between the Jews (Judah) and the Lost Ten Tribes must relate to both phenotypic disparities and DNA findings.
The Jews (Judah) and the Ten Tribes have been separated for about 3000 years.
The length of separation together with some foreign infusion on both sides, environmental influences, genetic drift, etc, is more than enough to explain any physical differences that may exist between the two bodies.
We now come to the question of DNA.
The female mtDNA of Jewish groups is often unique in the "micro" sense but in its generality belongs to the same major types as that of most Europeans.
The male DNA (Y chromosome) of Jews is close to that of groups who have dwelt in the middle East for an extended period such as the Kurds, Turks, Armenians and to a lesser degree Arabs.
This however should be explained by geographical provenance. The Jews were in the Middle East for much longer than the Ten Tribes and the Jewish DNA type was determined by environmental influences.
Conventional DNA theory attributes all major changes to UEPs (Unique Event Polymorphisms) meaning that a single one-time only mutation somewhere along the line becomes the ancestral factor to all further appearances of that phenomenon. The evidence indicates however the instead of UEPS we actually have MEP (Mepeat Event Polymorphisms) with the same effect occurring almost simultaneously in more than one paternal source. Once the changes occur they are indeed transmitted by heredity. The changes themselves however may be triggered off by environment, nitrogen in the soil, the presence of metals, diet, and other factors.
"Fertilizers shape plant genomes"
Environment definitely does have an influence as testified by hundreds of known examples.
For instance, different types of beach mice have changed their coloring in the same way in accordance to the environment.
They have changed their coloring in the same way even though they are not related to each other.
Mice of the same types but in different surroundings have different colorings.
They pass this coloring on through heredity DNA though it is obvious that at some stage a change must have taken place and that this change separately affected several different "parent" specimens all of whom were existence parallel to each other.
The Genetic Basis of Phenotypic Convergence in Beach Mice: Similar Pigment Patterns but Different Genes.
We see therefore that, the gene for coloring can change in a whole group (or even groups) of specimens existing alongside each other.
After the change taking effect the DNA ensures through heredity the continuation of the change.
The DNA itself has therefore undergone the change and is the agent for it.
The same applies to all DNA changes including changes on the Y chromosome used for racial classifications.
Conventional DNA based on the Y Chromosome (transmitted only by males) divides mankind into different haplogroups.
"Haplogroup" simply means group that shares a common ancestor.
The division into haplogroups as conventionally explained would have us accept the following assumptions:
Most Japanese (haplogroup D) are closer to Africans (DE, E) than they are to Chinese and Koreans (O).
East Europeans (R1a) and West European Celts (R1b) are much closer to Amerindians (Q), Chinese and Koreans (O), than they are to Scandinavians, North Germanics, Sardinians, Croats (I), and Jews, Greeks, and Arabs (J).
North African white Berbers, Mediterranean and Balkan whites along with ca. 20% of Ashkenazic Jews (E3b), are a branch of black Africans (E3a).
These and many other apparent anomalies may have something to them but we doubt it.
The said relationships are in fact wrong.
The mistaken perceptions have come about due to DNA researchers wishing to understand DNA reality as an evolutionary sequence.
This has lead them to depart from their own principles of research.
It is accepted that within a specific haplogroup wherever more variations from a type are to be found then the area in question is more likely to have been a parent region for groups with less deviations.
##There are two focuses of high frequency and diversity of R1a, one in South Asia, near North India, and the other in Eastern Europe, in the area of Ukraine. Rival theories each propose one of these geographic locations as the origin of R1a, though with varied suggested dates...##
##research now shows that R1b's variance increases as one moves east, leading to the view that R1b originated further east.##
In both the above cases we see that areas with greater variance are considered areas of origin. The logic of these assumptions is that when an offshoot breaks away from the main group it is liable to take with it representatives of only a portion of the varieties in the parent body. For example if in a group of 10 people only one has red hair and one person chosen at random is separated from the main body the statistical probability will be in favor of the red haired individual having remained with the parent group.
When however DNA researchers come to explain the diversion of major DNA haplogroups from each other they use a reverse logic.
African A DNA is taken to be the "parent" type. This is found in Bushmen etc of Africa.
This is followed by B pygmies etc of Africa.
Also followed by C and F.
[By way of explanation it should be remembered that in principle B has what is in A plus an addition; C has what is in A and B plus an addition; D has what is in A, B, C, D, plus an addition etc.
The difference in each stage is one of additional information together with what previously existed. It is not different information per se.
e.g. B has everything A has plus additional information (ci) that A lacks. Take (ci) away from B and B will be the same as A.]
Halogroup C (it is claimed) gave rise to Australian Aborigines, Maoris, Ainu, etc
D and E developed from C.
D are Japanese and Tibetans.
E are Negroid Africans and most African Americans (E3a), as well as North African Whites, Southeast Europeans, and 20% of Ashkenazic (European) Jews (E3b).
After that they give us a progression "evolving" upwards through F, G, H, I, J,K, L, M, P until we reach P (Asia and South America) which gave rise to N, O, Q, and R. these last examples are the most complicated. They are considered "evolved developments" from the simpler A, B., C, D, etc.
The problem is that the explanation for the required changes makes a claim for mutations in the DNA structure.
All observed mutations in DNA up-to-day have resulted in a loss of information rather than an evolvement growing out of what previously existed.
The law of probabilities along with extrapolation from observed phenomena should indicate an "evolution" from the complex to the more simple and not the opposite.
The scenario should in effect be reversed.
R (or Q and R) should be considered the "parent" specimens and the others offshoots from it.
Such an explanation may well be scientifically more acceptable but it would destroy the evolutionary tree that conventional DNA theory depends upon.
Were R1 and N The Forefathers?
According to our understanding haplogroup R is probably closer to the original haplogroup of all mankind.
All other haplogroups derived from R simply by "losing" some of their information and becoming less complex.
They did not necessarily "lose" it in stages in an evolutionary sequence downwards.
Different groups could just as easily have "lost" information parallel to each other with some losing more than others which explains the differences between them.
"Losing" DNA information is also comprehensible as an effect of environment influence operating on different parent specimens in the same region but not necessarily of the same family.
3. Abarbanel on Dan: Symbols of Dan. Pictures of Interest
The extract below from the Commentary of Abarbanel recognizes the fact that Dan could be represented by a snake, eagle, or dragon.
Abarbanel attempts to explain these variations as all being based on the dame principle that was compared to a snake.
##The Tribe of Dan was the head of the [northern] Standard. Under Dan were Asher and Naphtali. All these were the sons of the handmaidens [Bilhah and Zilpah]. Dan was at their head due to valor as it says, [Genesis 49:17] DAN SHALL BE A SERPENT BY THE WAY, AN ADDER IN THE PATH. Moses referred to Dan as A LION'S WHELP [Deuteronomy 33:22].Pictures of Cobras showing the "hood" that resembles "wings".
The standard of Dan depicted an eagle since Jacob compared him to A SERPENT BY THE WAY, AN ADDER IN THE PATH [the Hebrew "shiphippon" is translated as "adder" but according to descriptions was actually the King Cobra] who has "hood" like wings on both sides of his head [as if threatening] to fly. This snake is the most aggressive of its kind. It represents the dragon. FOR OUT OF THE SERPENT'S ROOT SHALL COME FORTH A COCKATRICE, AND HIS FRUIT SHALL BE A FIERY FLYING SERPENT [Isaiah 14:29].
Since the eagle is the best flyer of all flying creatures proficiency in flying and movement is associated with the eagle##
Someone is reading the book called In the Footsteps of the Lost Ten Tribes by Avigdor Shachan:
and was telling me that it was a very good book. If you have time, could you briefly send me a reply of what your feelings are about it if you read it? Would you concur with the author or do you come to different conclusions?
I have the book in both its Hebrew and English versions.
In the Hebrew version the author himself seems to admit that he is not sure of the truth of what he is writing.
I have not however really read the books all the way through though I should do so: I am considered an "authority" on the subject and should be up-to-date with what is being written about it.
I have glanced at the work and read portions of it. Later I will read it all the way through and maybe write a review of it.
In effect the author repeats the message of Rabbi Eliyahu Avichail, Michael Freund, and a few others.
He traces the Lost Tribes to Central Asia, Afghanistan, China, and Japan.
His sources include legends, travelers reports from hearsay, and sundry speculations.
There is no real proof in my opinion.
Brit-Am Ten Tribes traces the Lost Ten Tribes to the west and PROOFS it from Biblical, Rabbinical,and Secular sources.
5. The Lost Ten Tribes in the West: Brit-Am Challenges Public Debate!
We understand that Tamar Yonah of Arutz-7 (Israel National News) may (or may not, no promises have been made) be prepared to broadcast a debate between Brit-Am (that the Ten Tribes are now in the west) and another known figure claiming that they are in the east.
Possible Candidates for the "Eastern Question" may include Avigdor Shachan, Rabbi Eliyahu Avichail, Michael Freund, Navras Jaat Aafreedi, Aryeh (Lionell) Galin.
Instead of us trying to contact the above and asking them to debate with us we suggest that they or their adherents (some of whom we know subscribe to this list) contact us.
We are asking anyone who has contact with any of the above to contact them and bring this message to their attention.
It could be that most of them will not be prepared to engage in confrontation with us but at least one of them may be.
We are not out to denigrate anyone and not against the idea that a section of the Lost Ten Tribes or a group of Lost Jews went eastward. We just want to emphasize the fact that according to Scripture and other sources the bulk of the Ten Tribes must now be amongst western peoples and that is where they find their predicted Israelite expression.
The decision as to whether the debate will take place and everything else about it is of course not in our hands but entirely at the discretion of Tamar Yonah.
6. Thanks to Brit-Am
Thank you for the torah lessons you sent us they are a blessing to me.
7. New Brit-Am Ten Tribe Web Sites
The present Brit-Am Ten Tribes site (britam.org) is big, efficient, and established.
It has plenty of space remaining for many more articles.
Nevertheless a number of additional web sites may now be placed at the service of Brit-Am.
Two of these are certain and another two may be added to them.
The two additional sites are:
This site is not yet fully operational. Eventually it will provide the option of entry-upon-payment and contain select features. Getting this site on its feet has taken longer than expected and may take quite a while yet.
In addition we have:
The Ten Tribes Network
This site is also still being worked on.
We are not sure how it will be used but probably keep dedicate it to select issues such as the question of DNA etc.
Anyway you are invited to go to the above sites, look at them, and send us your reactions.
In addition to that we may yet end up operating another two sites:
One in Hebrew.
Another site that will be a twin site to britam.org and operate alongside it.
If in the past Brit-Am constantly struggled to get by with the number of adherents and sympathizers it then had today we would need twice that number just to be where we once were.
Brit-Am is fighting for its existence and we hope these additional sites will help us.
At the least they may well enable the message to reach others who otherwise may not have come to know of us.
Pleased with what you read?