A message to Von Quark
John Ashcraft Sr.
See II Esdras Chapter 13:39-46
In it, the Lost Tribes take counsel among themselves as to whether or not to
return to the homeland. They decided not to.
You are not going to overthrow this teaching with your babblings.
Yes, some of the people in the Lost Tribes returned to Palestine, but most
did not.
If you can't distinguish between a Jew (2.5 Tribes) and the rest of the
children of Israel, we really have little to talk about.
vonquark
Why do you think they are called Apocryphal?
(more below)
John Ashcraft Sr. wrote:
> I have read another book written by Ezra called II Esdras.
>
> See II Esdras Chapter 13:39-46
>
> In it, the Lost Tribes take counsel among themselves as to whether or not to
> return to the homeland. They decided not to.
Yeah, but here is another problem, The Milesian legends have
the Milesians in West Europe (either Spain or Ireland) by this time.
So the Milesians could not possibly be the Royal line since
according to your logic they were still in the Caucuses at this time.
Yet their legends place them in Spain or Ireland depending
on when you time the Invasion of Ireland. That is a lot of
space between where you locate the Milesians and the Milesians
locate themselves. As a matter of fact I have yet to see
anyone agree when the Milesians landed in Ireland. They cannot
even fix the millenia. Some place it at 1500 BC. Some
place it 1000 BC (too early for Jeremiah). Some place it
400 BC. (Too late for Jeremiah) and some place it
at around 0 AD. the more common version is around 1000 BC.
Yet you insist the Milesians are the Royal Line. Well here
is the Lebor Gabala Erren (the Milesian Book of Invasions)
translated and redacted for your reading pleasure.
http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
CITE ME THE VERSE where the Milesians say they
are children of Jacob. Cite me the verse where they
call the people to circumcision. Cite me the verse where
they obey the Sabbath. Cite me the verse where Jeremiah
is referred to as Jeremiah. (I do not buy the Ollam Fodla
nonsense.) Cite me the verse where Tea Tephi is mentioned
as a Princess of Israel.
Stop listening to DOC mangle the text. Read the text
for yourself.
And, if it were true, then it would be THE IRISH
not the British who are the lost tribe of Judah, If so,
why haven't the Irish prospered as well as the British?
The damnable Germanic Anglo-Saxons really
went out of their way to persecute the Hebrew (Celts?)
didn't they? Still do as a matter of fact in N. Ireland
which they have no right to anyway and should be
returned to Ireland. And the Scots (the Celtic Highlanders)
were not treated any better. There were those
clearances.
The Anglo-Saxons did not get to Britain until the 5th century
and they were Germans NOT Celts. In fact, if your
premise is true, then the GERMANIC Anglo-Saxons
should not have won over the Hebrew-Celts.
If your Celtic/British-Celtic nonsense is true then why
do GERMANIC Anglo-Saxons rule. Do you people
know your history?
Listen to the nonsense posited. The Royal House
of Israel ended up in Ireland and that is why Britain
is the seat of the Lost Tribes of Israel.
Did it ever occur to you people that the IRISH AND
ENGLISH ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLES?
How did you miss this fact? Placing Judah in
Ireland would make the Irish to be Judahites not the
British Celts and certainly NOT THE ANGLO-SAXONS
who were in DENMARK at the time. But history is
not to be entertained. Do not confuse you with the facts.
How about this. Another Myth: The Te Danaan of Ireland
were the Tribe of Dan. There are two problems with that.
Te Danaan means People of the Goddess Danu.
We know it is a female since there is an ancient Gaelic
site in Ireland of two mountains called the Paps (Breasts)
of Danu. Now, this shows it was a reference to the
Goddess Danu's magnificent paps; not the Patriarch Dan
who I believe was a male and his paps would not have
been memorialized. PS: Can you tell me what
the Grand Tetons mean in French? Huh uh?! I thought
you could!
Another line: Dan left his name everywhere in Europe.
DoNegal, the River DoN, DeNmark. etc.
Well, what about InDoNesia, MinDaNao, and
of couse DaNang in Vietnam?
Are the Vietnamese one of the lost tribes of Israel, now?
Are the Indonesians?
> You are not going to overthrow this teaching with your babblings.
History is babblings and Doc is dependable?!
> Yes, some of the people in the Lost Tribes returned to Palestine, but most
> did not.
The remainder, no doubt went to Vietnam and InDoNesia.
> If you can't distinguish between a Jew (2.5 Tribes) and the rest of the
> children of Israel, we really have little to talk about.
Apparently neither could the Jews themselves.
Let us repair to the Scripture NOT THE APOCRYPHA.
Act 21:27-28
When the seven days were almost completed, the
Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple,
stirred up all the crowd, and laid hands on him,
crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man
who is teaching men everywhere against the people
and the law and this place; moreover he also brought Greeks
into the temple, and he has defiled this holy place.
Notice: The Jews refer to their fellow Jews as "Men of Israel."
We know it can't be the Celts or Anglo Saxons since
the Celtic tribes and the Anglo Saxon tribes were already
in the British Isles and/or Scandanavia and Northwest Europe by
this time. So we know the "Men of Israel" are not Celts.
The context shows "Men of Israel" and "Jews" are
interchangable terms, no difference.
And this is from the SCRIPTURE not the Apocrypha.
If you cannot see that a tall blue eyed Northern European with
light hair is not a Mideastern Semite then I agree you refuse
to be moved by facts.
Look, let us reason together. When I first heard such
stuff, it was heady. I still talk about it but only as myth.
It is an appeal to pride. Get over it!
The Lost Tribes of Israel returned after the Babylonian
captivity.
vonquark
> vonquark wrote:
>
>> If you cannot see that a tall blue eyed Northern European with
>> light hair is not a Mideastern Semite then I agree you refuse
>> to be moved by facts.
>
> So, tell us what you know about the physical characteristics of
> Sephardic Jew and Ashkenazic Jews. Or do you know?
Ashkenazic Jews (the members of the 12 tribes who were
scattered AS JEWS into Europe, particularly Northern
Europe) tend to be lighter. Why?
Because 2000 yrs of rape, and intermarriage have
necessarily introduced a LOT OF European (Japhetic)
genes into the communal gene pool. So much so
that many Ashkenazic Jews are genetically more
European than Jewish.
Still among noticable sections of Ashkenazic Jews,
you will find the dark Semitic appearance. Historical
films of Jewish communities in Northern Europe
before WW2 show that a large percentage of
Ashkenazic Jews had still retained a Semitic
appearance. During the war, it was these Semetic
looking Jews who were more easily spotted and
gassed.
Those Jews of mixed ancestry could pass for
European and were easier to hide; moreover
the Germans (in a perverse way) treated them
less harshly in the camps. There is a story on
record of Himmler offering to spare the life
of a blond Jewish inmate if he could produce
records of some Christian ancestors. (His
Japhetic genes may have entered into the blood
lines centuries earlier and so he could not. Alas,
he was killed.} But statistics show that it
was the Orthodox, Hasidic Jews who were
less likely to mix who were hit the hardest.
Source: PBS's documentary on Hasidim.
Mixed, less religious Jews while still hit hard
were hit less hard. Naturally, this means
that today's Ashkenazic Jews were brutally
weeded out of the more Semetic members.
Run this up through the millenia. During
pograms, and persecutions, it is the more
different looking ones who are killed and
removed from the gene pool. No wonder
Ashkenazic Jews can often pass for
Europeans. The Semitic looking one
(who are still there in large numbers) were
preferentially killed by the mobs.
Sephardic Jews (the members of the 12 tribes who were
scattered AS JEWS into Southern Europe, Arabia and
North Africa) tend to be darker. Why?
Because 2000 yrs of rape, and intermarriage have
necessarily introduced a LOT OF Mediterranean and African
genes into the communal gene pool.
So if a Swedish Jew is blond, it due to a Japhetic
ancestor (whether by rape or intermarriage).
If a falasha is black it is due to an admixture of
Ethiopic blood.
>> Look, let us reason together. When I first heard such
>> stuff, it was heady. I still talk about it but only as myth.
>> It is an appeal to pride. Get over it!
>>
>> The Lost Tribes of Israel returned after the Babylonian
>> captivity.
>
> Some of them. Ezra called them a 'remnant'. It wasn't until this
> century that the Jews of Yemen and Ethiopia returned to Israel.
Yeah, but they remained recognizably Jewish in there
diaspora. The falashas still observed a form of
Judaism (incomplete, corrupted; but still Judaism.)
Where the 12 tribes were scattered THEY REMAINED
RECOGNIZABLY JEWISH. They did not become
druids or worshipers of Odin or Wotan.
emmitt maloney
You should be warned VonQuark. She is smarter than you, has a bigger
degree, teaches college and will kick your ass out of her class if she
doesn't like you.
Friend
Emmitt
vonquark wrote:
> MariPotts wrote:
>
> > vonquark wrote:
> >
> >> If you cannot see that a tall blue eyed Northern European with
> >> light hair is not a Mideastern Semite then I agree you refuse
> >> to be moved by facts.
> >
> >> Look, let us reason together. When I first heard such
> >> stuff, it was heady. I still talk about it but only as myth.
> >> It is an appeal to pride. Get over it!
> >>
> >> The Lost Tribes of Israel returned after the Babylonian
> >> captivity.
> >
John Ashcraft Sr.
MariPotts <t...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:37FBF3E1...@uswest.net...You got them backwards, VQ. The Ashkenazim are descendants (mostly) of the intermingling with the Khazars, who may or may not be Japhethites. Almost all of the Chasidim are Ashkenazim. I doubt that rape had much to do with the fair complexion of my (Jewish) ancestors who came from Holland.http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/13-04.html
There are several other sites you may want to check out. Go to any good search engine and search on either sephardic or ahkenazic. Unfortunately, you may also run into some antisemitic idiots, but I trust you have the sense to avoid their gibberish.
Sephardim were once in the majority, but now in the minority. The Ashkenazim bear what some would refer to as the 'typical' Jewish appearance. Well known examples of Sephardim are William Shatner, Binyamin Netanyahu, Richard Dreyfuss...
I have another question for you. What makes your "history experts" more reliable than Doc and his graduate degree in history? Someone once said that history is written by the winners. Someone else referred to history as "his story".
I'm not saying Doc is right or wrong, but his theory is definitely plausible.
Mari
vonquark wrote:
MariPotts wrote:
> vonquark wrote:
>
>> If you cannot see that a tall blue eyed Northern European with
>> light hair is not a Mideastern Semite then I agree you refuse
>> to be moved by facts.
>
>> Look, let us reason together. When I first heard such
>> stuff, it was heady. I still talk about it but only as myth.
>> It is an appeal to pride. Get over it!
>>
>> The Lost Tribes of Israel returned after the Babylonian
>> captivity.
>
vonquark
> You got them backwards, VQ. The Ashkenazim are descendants (mostly)
> of the intermingling with the Khazars, who may or may not be
> Japhethites. Almost all of the Chasidim are Ashkenazim. I doubt that
> rape had much to do with the fair complexion of my (Jewish) ancestors
> who came from Holland.
>
> http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/13-04.html
Your theory gained some - albeit not too much - credence
with the publication of Arthur Koestler's THE THIRTEENTH
TRIBE.
What I said was that the fair complexions found in Ashkenazim
come from a mixing (whether by rape OR INTERMARRIAGE)
between Jews and Japhetites. You says these Khazars
intermingled with the Jews and these Khazars may (or may not)
have been Japhetites. I did not specify Khazars like you did
but we are saying similar things. I fail to see where you
say I am wrong. I said Ashkenazim were a Jewish/European
mix. Sephardim are a Jewish/Mediterranean mix. What is the
problem?
As for the Hasidim, what I said is that they did not mix as much,
at least not since the time of the Baal Shem Tov, around
the early 1700s. .Since Hasdic practice is recent (by Jewish
Standards), springing from the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov
only a few centuries ago, it may be more precise to say they
have not mixed as much in the last few centuries.
I merely stated that the Hasidim were treated even worse than
the regular Jews. Source: PBS documentary on the Hasidim
which pointed out that their habits and practices made them
an easier and more hated target than regular Jews. This is not
to say regular Jews were not slaughtered but the PBS
documentary points out that the Hasidim were slaughtered
at higher percentages. As terrible as it sounds, the
Hasidim in Europe were killed at an ever higher percentage
than Jews in general.
In the past few centuries, the more secular Jews were more
likely to marry Gentiles. The Hasidim would not have done
this. So in the past few centuries I would expect the
non-Hasidics to have mixed more than the Hasidim.
To the effect, that while Jews are biblically inclined to
marry within their group, the Hasidim would have been more
likely to have obeyed this injunction. So over the 250 or
so past years more Japhetic genes would have entered
the non-Hasidic Jewish gene pool than would have
entered the Hasidic gene pool. Add this into the murders
of the holocaust where Hasidic Jews were butchered
disproportionately hard and you have - on the
average - groups with more Japhetic genes surviving
at a better rate.
Run this into the Inquisition where those Jews who
were in-laws by marriage of Christian Spanish nobility
might have been shielded from the furies of the
Inquisition (Hey, these are my wife's family. Let
them go, Padre) and again you have those who intermarry
preferentially surviving.
It is from the Japhetic line that the fairness comes.
Sephardic Jews are notably darker than Ashkenazic
Jews. Why? Ashkenazim have more Japhetic blood in
them. I fail to see where you say I was wrong.
As for your Dutch Jewish ancestors I cannot begin
to say. Holland was famously tolerant and more
open to Jewish immigration than any other areas.
Holland was even a haven for Sephardic Jews
fleeing the Spanish and so Holland breaks all the
generalizations. I still suspect your blonde hair
comes from some Japheth in your bloodline.
> There are several other sites you may want to check out. Go to any
> good search engine and search on either sephardic or ahkenazic.
> Unfortunately, you may also run into some antisemitic idiots, but I
> trust you have the sense to avoid their gibberish.
I am leary of the Khazar theory. It is the grist
of Neo-Nazi loons who all too often espouse
Lost Israel nonsense but repackage it as Christian Identity.
They condemn Jews (who are the real descendents
of Jacob, not Northern Europeans) as Edomites.
Now I know Scott is not anti-Semitic but the Lost
Tribes of Israel silliness can be twisted to Aryanism.
> Sephardim were once in the majority, but now in the minority. The
> Ashkenazim bear what some would refer to as the 'typical' Jewish
> appearance. Well known examples of Sephardim are William Shatner,
> Binyamin Netanyahu, Richard Dreyfuss...
From what I have seen, Ashkenazim are fairer than
Sephardim, generally. Now many Jews are fair.
But as I said, I suspect this is due to Japhetic genes.
Individuals in any group will vary.
> I have another question for you. What makes your "history experts"
> more reliable than Doc and his graduate degree in history? Someone
> once said that history is written by the winners. Someone else
> referred to history as "his story".
I do not trust degrees whether Doc's PhD or
someone else's PhD. I checked my sources
trying to go back to original sources as much as possible.
I avoided Capt and went to the original Irish texts.
(translated of course) but still closer than Capt's.
Doc tends to quote tertiary and secondary
sources when it comes to LOST ISRAEL.
Primary sources contradict the theory.
> I'm not saying Doc is right or wrong, but his theory is definitely
> plausible.
>
> Mari
>
> vonquark wrote:
>
>> MariPotts wrote:
>>
>> > vonquark wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you cannot see that a tall blue eyed Northern European with
>> >> light hair is not a Mideastern Semite then I agree you refuse
>> >> to be moved by facts.
>> >
>> >> Look, let us reason together. When I first heard such
>> >> stuff, it was heady. I still talk about it but only as myth.
>> >> It is an appeal to pride. Get over it!
>> >>
>> >> The Lost Tribes of Israel returned after the Babylonian
>> >> captivity.
>> >
vonquark
> Much of what you say he is true, but you still have the physical
> descriptions backwards.
>
> Mari
Respecfully, are you asserting that
Sephardic Jews are of a fairer
complexion than Ashkenazic Jews?
Not from what I have seen!
I have always noticed that Askenazic Jews
were more fairly complexioned than
Sephardic Jews.
Exactly what do you want to assert. I merely
assert that Ashkenazic Jews (Who have
some Japhetic blood in them - though that
will vary from individual to individual) will
be lighter than Sephardim.
I am NOT asserting any racial superiority or
such nonsense. I am merely trying to say
their complexion indicates a Japhetic strain.
Your site on the Khazars was wonderful BUT
even they admitted that the Ashkenazic Jews
are genetically Jewish for the most part.
I never said otherwise, I merely said ENOUGH
Japhethic genes had entered into the bloodlines
to make them lighter - as a general rule - than
Sephardim. However, recent DNA testings
of the bloodline will show that the Kohen lines
show a remarkable consistency in the Y-chromosome
indicating that they indeed - albeit not perfectly -
kept the Lord's injuctions to a good, not perfect,
degree. I was aware of this years ago when the
story first came out.
But it is this quote which tells it all:
"However, Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants
from the west (especially Germany, Bohemia, and
other areas of Central Europe) soon began to
flood into Eastern Europe, and it is believed that
these newer immigrants eventually outnumbered the
Khazars. Thus, Eastern European Jews predominantly
have ancestors who came from Central Europe rather
than from the Khazar kingdom. The two groups (eastern
and western Jews) intermarried over the centuries."
You specifically mentioned the Khazars. I did not and
just a gave general mention of Japhethic input. Your
referenced site - which by the way was a fascinating read
http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/13-04.html
seems to bear my view out - namely that the Askenazic
Jews came from Jewish settlements in Europe. They
note that the Eastern and Western European Jews
overwhelmed the Khazarian-Jewish communities. And even
in the Kahazarian-Jewish communities, the Khazar component
was never the majority. The site noted:
"However, there is no remnant of Khazar custom
among Ashkenazi Jews, and there are only a few
Ashkenazi surnames (e.g., Balaban) and Yiddish
words (e.g., yarmulke) which derive from Turkic."
This would suggest that even among Khazarian
-Jews, the Jewish component of ancestry is far
stronger than any Khazar input.
Again, the would indicate a greater
European Japhetic input into Ashkenazic lines
than Turkic input. (Though the Turkics may be
Japhetic, I do not know) Though the
overall input from Japhetic lines would not
be as much as the original Jewish component.
It is my contention that the Japhetic line came in -
and since it primarily came in from the European
side, that would easily explain why Ashkenazic
Jews are lighter than Sephardim.
It is NOT my contention that Ashkenazic Jews
are primarily of Japhetic descent; though
some individuals may be. Jews historically
are insular - preferring to obey the injuction
not to marry the heathen. But over time
some heathen blood has gotten in there, and
it is my contention that this heathen blood
which may be a minority component of the
genes among the Ashkenazim is:
1) Primarly Japhetic
2) responsible for the light complexions.
This does not mean that Ashkenazic
are not primarily Jewish. It means merely
that the minority component of the blood
which is not Jewish is Japethic for the most
part. A majority of a minority is still
a minority over all.
I do not subsribe to Arthur Koestler's
theories in the main. While I agree Ashkenazic
Jews are not pure Jews; I would not go
as far as Koestler who asserted they may
not be Jews at all. This I think is wrong
and totally unwarranted.
I know that as a Gentile Christian I am walking
on eggshells. I hope I have not been
disrespectful here.
I bet your Dutch line is fascinating though. Since
Holland was almost like New York in its tolerance.
So your family lines must have come from all over
the world.
vonquark
> vonquark wrote:
>
>> MariPotts wrote:
>>
>> > Much of what you say he is true, but you still have the physical
>> > descriptions backwards.
>> >
>> > Mari
>>
>> Respecfully, are you asserting that
>> Sephardic Jews are of a fairer
>> complexion than Ashkenazic Jews?
>
> Yes. That's my experience with the hundreds, perhaps thousands of
> Jews I have grown up with and been around all my life. I even
> bothered to ask. Both Jews and Gentiles who have 'been around'. They
> all say the same thing. The only Sephardim who are darker hail from
> Arab territories, eg. Yemen, Egypt, etc. Christopher Columbus was a
> Sephardic from Spain. Red hair, blue eyes.
Does that mean European Sephardim are exceptionally
light - lighter than the Ashkenazim - or only that they
are similar to the Ashkenazim with only the Arabic
Sephardim being darker. This is a critical point.
Well, I cannot speak for your experience. I am Gentile
and must defer to it. But some things are indeed noteworthy.
A) Christopher Columbus was Marano (I do not mean
that in a bad sense, I know the term originally had a
negative meaning. I mean it only in the sense of a convert
to Christianity or descended from a convert to Christianity.
And I am not sure if Columbus' Sephardic ancestry was
settled beyond a doubt yet.)
B) He was a Genoan. North Italy, where Celtic and
Germanic tribes formed the ethnic majority. Remember
Cisalpine Gaul (North Italy) was Celtic. Then later on
the Lombards and Picards (Germanic tribes) came in.
Indeed, just next door is Tyrol a German speaking area
of Italy. North Italy is still noted for it's blondes.
Geraldine Ferraro (a blonde) is of North Italian stock.
So is Favio I would assume.
C) Columbus could easily be assumed to have a lot
of Celtic and Germanic (that is: Japhetic) blood in
him. Particularly if he is Marano. This would
account for his red hair/blue eyes.
D) Benzion Netanyahu, Benjamin's father I believe,
wrote a marvelous history of the Inquistion, which I
read some sections of. The book is a tome and it
would take weeks to read it all - if one read it thoroughly.
But, if I remembered correctly, he noted intermarriage
between the Spanish nobility (who were of red haired
Visigoth/Germanic stock) and Sephardim was not
uncommon. Hence, the red hair in many Sephardim
would have had a Germanic (that is Japhetic) source.
If any should doubt the Visigothic/Germanic ancestry
of the Spanish nobility here are some pages to that effect.
http://www.camelotintl.com/heritage/visi.html
Queen Isabella of Spain, one of the chief
antisemites of history had red hair and
blue eyes as noted in this Catholic site.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/6461/16cent.html
British-Israelite supporters by their theories
would have this notable anti-Semite
being a descendant of David with her blue
eyes and red hair? Does this make sense?
David himself was not a pure Jew.
Remember Ruth. The supposed red hair
of David may have had some non Semitic
input. And that red hair is only supposed.
Is it not more reasonable to assume that
European Jewry had some input of Japhetic genes?
I have a friend descended from Spanish nobility
and he looks like a Swede. His surname is Ortiz.
He is Catholic.
Again also, Jews because of restrictions on
non-Christians owning Lands would have settled
into mercantile jobs, which concentrate around
seaports, where Normans and Vikings sacked
on a regular basis. The Normans conquered
Sicily for a while. The Vikings were not as
brutal as pictured and often intermarried with the locals.
Vikings set up settlements in the Canary islands
and near Constantinople where Nordic traits
though not common are still known.
If you add Sephardim from Arabic areas, they are
darker. I am not sure you can validly exclude the
Arabic Sephardim and make a valid point. By
excluding them, you necessarily limited yourself to
European Jewry where the red hair and blue eyes
can be posited to Japhetic genes. There were
intermarriages between the Spanish Visigothic
nobles and the Jews. Hence the Japhetic genes.
It was fear of this encroaching Semitic gene
pool into the the Christian ( or more precisely
the Visigothic noble gene pool) which prompted
the Inquisition to go after the Jews and Maranos.
The official reason cited was a "purity of the faith."
Netanyahu said it was really racism, if I remember
correctly. The point is: Since a lot of the Sephardim
came from Spain you can not exclude the Japhetic genes.
As the Indo-Europeans moved into Europe, historical
accounts of them show a lot of Red hair and blue eyes.
Egyptian records noted the Thracians to be drunken
redheads. These same Thracians can be seen in the
Balkans today where if you noted the war in Kosovo,
there were the occasional redhead and blonde.
These are highly recessive traits and so the
genetic pool must have a greater percentage
of the trait than is evident on a cosmetic level.
Why are there not more redheads and blondes?
Centuries of Turkish rule! Though I am sure
many a black haired Kosovar has a red haired
gene which he could pass on to his kid.
This is a quite common among the Irish where
redheaded and black haired children are common
in the same family.
My family is Irish-American. My brother has a red beard
while I have black hair and black beard. My sister
has blue eyes. I have brown. I carry the traits
but they being recessive did not express themselves
cosmetically in me. I know I have one blue eyed gene
since my mother being blue-eyed could not have passed
a brown eyed gene to me. But since my father passed
on a brown eyed gene to me, I have brown eyes since
the blue eyed trait is recessive. My sister has blue eyes.
So this means my brown eyed dad must have had one
blue eyed gene to pass on to her. So technically speaking
my mother had two blue eyed genes and my father
was a blue eyed, brown eyed genetic mix. 75%
of the genes in the parents were blue eyed though
only 1 out of 4 of us kids were blue eyed. I know
there are trigger genes and it is not that easy a case.
I am merely showing that genes can bubble up out of
nowhere. Statistically speaking 2 out of 4 of us
should have had blue eyes. And all my cousins have
blue or green eyes. Yet, I also know families where
brown eyes predominate in the parents and and the
kids look Nordic.
But the early historical records show light eyes and hair to
be Japhetic NOT Semetic traits.
So again, I chalk this up to IE (Japhetic)
genes and from the historical records I read,
they concur. The Irish (Milesian Irish - the ones
Doc said were of Judah) claimed a Japhetic ancestry.
Early Egyptian Records said the Thracians were
redheaded drunks. This is prior to Israel's
captivity by the Assyrians. Hence these redheads
were not "Lost Tribes," but were Japhetic.
Here is a creationist site noting my point.
http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen3.html
Look at section 15: Tiras is listed as
Japhetic. Look at the description.
I am a theistic evolutionist, (I use Japhetic instead or
Indo-European when talking on religious sites since
they tend to have a more literal crowd).
There is a lot more Japhetic genes out there than is
immediately evident. Light hair and light eyes
are recessive. You need to get both of them to show
cosmetically. There are a lot of darker people who
may have more Japhetic genes in them than show
outwardly. Basic biology. And we all know of
brown eyed couples with blue eyed kids. Or
brunette couples with blonde children. I have
three blonde cousins who had a brunette mother.
So it is, to my mind, safer to assume that
European Jewry has some Japhetic genes than to
assume Docs theory.
<...snip... a discussion where we agreed on a lot of things...>
Again, the BI theory makes little sense.
You exclude Arabic Sephardim and I am not surprised
Europeans Sephardim are not darker. Why should they
be? They probably have some Japheth in them.
Even if European Sephardim are lighter than Ashkenazim
that would still not prove the point. Since there is
a component of Khazar (albeit a very small component)
in the Ashkenazic gene pool. Blue eyes and
light hair, being recessive, it would not take
much input of a darker stock to darker the whole
community.
For example: Take a mother with Brown Eyes
who has nothing but brown eyed genes.
She marries a man with Blue eyes.
All her kids will be brown eyed though genetically
all her kids will have a blue eyed gene.
But I am not sure Ashkenazic Jewry is darker than
European Sephardim. You only noted that it was
that Arabic Sephardim who were the darker ones.
So again, it is not safe to assume the BI theory.
Again, the BI theory is weak