Joseph Smith made many claims about Egypt in the Book of Abraham. Lets see how they hold up against Egyptian history.

The Book of Abraham was supposedly written by Abraham himself while living in Egypt. The fact that the Book of Abraham contains the word Egypt is an anachronism. Ancient Egypt was not called Egypt by the Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians called their country Kemet. Kemet means "black land" which is a reference to the color of the soil after the Nile river flooded. The name Egypt comes from the Greek language and so it did not exist in the time of Abraham.

Joseph Smith also claimed that the Ancient Egyptians were descendants of Caanan who was cursed with black skin. The LDS Church now claims that there is no such thing as a curse of black skin but the Book of Abraham 1: 21-27 and Moses 7: 8 makes it clear that Joseph Smith taught that black skin was a curse from God.

The problem is worsened by the fact that Ancient Egyptians were not even black. Recent DNA tests on Egyptian mummies show that they were white Europeans.

Mummy DNA: https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069

More information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdHqmzaDaLg

The BOA also says that the land was named after "Egyptus" who waded across the Nile delta after Noah's flood.

Problem is, "Egyptus" is Greek, which of course didn't appear until many centuries after the supposed time of Abraham. It's another smoking gun (with the facsimiles) in the BOA against Smith, and IMO ought to be brought up more frequently.

Make some TBMs defend this. Bet they try to change the subject quickly.

Give Brother Joseph a break! :)

No kidding! He got his information from a rock! What do you want from him! He was only trying to help.

Joseph was always tired from plowing the south 40. He had a lot of wives to keep up with.

Right in half!

Sorry, I gotta give that claim a Four Curelom Dung rating... Five Curelom Dungs = One Nibley... The word "European" barely even appears in the Nature article you linked, and it only shows they were related, not that Europeans were ancestral.

>>Genetic analysis reveals a close relationship with Middle Easterners, not central Africans.

That's not surprising; one group of Middle Easterners was ancestral to some Europeans, and black sub-Saharan Africans were latecomers to the historical hodge-podge. However, Africans such as the pygmies are among the "oldest" groups extant. For about a hundred years there were also Nubian pharaohs--do the research; Egyptology is a tough and convoluted subject--but Egyptians traded with the early inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent, which gave us most of our early species of domesticated livestock and plants such as wheat and barley.

Egypt was essentially a trade center for many groups, and the relationships identified reflect that diversity.

And now I see some "science politics" is intruding:

>The first DNA sequences thought to be from a mummy were probably the result of modern contamination, and many scientists are sceptical [sic] of purported genetic information acquired from the mummy of King Tutankhamun.

I've reviewed the DNA evidence of King Tut's lineage and the others of the Amarna Period. There were four pharaohs named Thutmose. Spellings vary on that one (I learned it Tutmosis, I think), but the spellchecker likes it although it whines at Tutankhamun and Amarna... Go figure...

Amenhotep IV became the "heretic pharaoh" Akhenaten, who was also almost certain to be Tut's father. His wife, Nefertiti, however, was not his mother, but another member of the royal family was, almost certainly one of Akehnaten's sisters... King Tut's reign was near the end of the 18th Dynasty.

Anyway, a honk of my horn to an Egyptology professor of mine who managed an entire lecture on this subject without blushing (she's still a friend). This was through the U's Continuing Education program, and there were quite a few BYU Zoobies in the class who didn't like her for some reason...

@SL Cabbie, the article is clear. It says
"Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians."

To say the word European barely appears in the article to somehow make it seem like I am misrepresenting it is absurd.

The very sentence that has the word European is the one discussing their ancestry!

The sentence: "the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians." That couldnt be anymore clear.

Obviously there was a demographics change in Egypt because the people living there are no longer European. The point is that the Ancient Egyptians were Europeans.

You are the one trying to play "science politics". You didnt even reference the study that they did in the Nature.com article . You just referenced a bunch of other studies that were failures.

Your knowledge of actual Egyptian history is nearly as hopeless as your abilities in reading comprehension. Given those realities, I won't even try to educate you on the subject of DNA science. BTW, on that one, you can watch the video of Simon Southerton at last October's Exmormon Conference where he refers to me (I even managed a few small cameos). Simon made a substantial contribution to the online Global Encyclopedia of Human Migration, and I was privileged to help him edit the work to make it understandable for laymen.

That "howler statement" you made is indefensible and unsupported by any archaeology, history, or molecular biology research. Claiming "Recent DNA tests on Egyptian mummies show that they were white Europeans" is simply untrue. That is as far as mummies before the Ptolemaic Period, the last Dynasty that only existed 275 years from 305 B.C. to 30 B.C. with Cleopatra being the last ruler of that dynasty. I'm unaware of what mummies from that era exist (Cleopatra's has not been found), but you're ignoring 3,000 years of history with your Eurocentric perceptual distortions and attendant silly assertions.

Please avail yourself of a world globe, and refer to Europe and Africa, particularly where Egypt is located. That blue body of water is the Mediterranean Sea, BTW. It served as an effective barrier to commerce between Europe and Egypt, but sailing along the shore of the Mediterranean made trade with Asian Middle Eastern countries possible. Note also the Middle Eastern Countries of the "Fertile Crescent" are not in Europe but rather Asia.

Now you're going to say that Europeans were ancestral to Egyptians? Kindly provide some links, peer-reviewed, of course; the Weekly World News or National Enquirer are out of bounds, honest. Those folks lie almost as often as Trump. Even the British tabloids give me gas much of the time...

Here's another reasonable summary, but bear in mind the mummies tested were from 1400 B.C., roughly the end of the 18th Dynasty. That means there were 17 Dynasties before that one, dating to around 3,100 B.C. off the top of the head. Europe at that time had nothing comparable, and that's what landed your nonsense in my "rhetorical roadkill" file.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170530115141.htm

>>An international team of scientists, led by researchers from the University of Tuebingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, successfully recovered and analyzed ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies dating from approximately 1400 BCE to 400 CE, including the first genome-wide nuclear data from three individuals, establishing ancient Egyptian mummies as a reliable source for genetic material to study the ancient past. The study, published today in Nature Communications, found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East.

/remedial geography teacher voice on

Repeat: The Near East is in Asia, not Europe.

Major cognitive dissonance "display" in 5,4,3,2,1...

@SL Cabbie, I am not suffering from "cognitive dissonance" or lacking in reading comprehension. You are. You said "Repeat: The Near East is in Asia, not Europe." That is where you are wrong. The Near East is the Middle East. The Far East is Asia.

The article you linked to is saying the exact same thing the article I linked to is saying. Europeans used to live in the Middle East till they immigrated west into Europe. The term Caucasian comes from the origin of the white European race in the Caucasus Mountains in the Middle East.

The article I posted said "The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications1, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era."

Then it concludes "the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians."

If you looked up ancient Anatolians then you would see that they were the whites living in the Middle East who settled Eastern Europe and Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Anatolians

This quote is from the Sciencedaily.com article you posted. It says "Close genetic relationship between ancient Egyptians and ancient populations in the Near East.

The study found that ancient Egyptians were most closely related to ancient populations in the Levant, and were also closely related to Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe."

Its odd that you left out the part immediately following the reference to the near east when it specifically says the Mummies were related the the Anatolians and Europeans when that is the exact same conclusion the article I posted said.

The article you posted came to the same conclusion that the article I posted did. This makes it seem like you didnt even bother to read either article before posting.

/Remedial Geography Lesson:

The Near East is not Europe, period. Neither is the Levant nor Asia Minor (there's a reason they call it Asia,honest). One more time: Note the existence of the Mediterranean Sea.

Because I said so claims like yours may work in PH meetings, but we're here to recover from Mormonism. You don't appear to have overcome the cognitive dissonance. Worse, you slipped into "Gish Gallop" tactics with British tabloid links that, frankly, are insulting to actual critical thinkers.

I posted a request for peer-reviewed material on your claims (the one you offered, from Nature, makes no such claim about Europeans being ancestral to Egyptians) To hoist you on your own petard you made the statement "Recent DNA tests on Egyptian mummies show that they were white Europeans."

Sorry, but that's Aryan garbage, period.

That Daily Mail link is barely worth commenting on; perhaps you could tell me somewhere I could send a bill for the brand new bullchip filter I ruined reading it.

What the Nature article said was the DNA of the mummies tested (from the 18th Dynasy on; please reread my remedial Egyptian history lesson; you appear to be having difficulties with the timeline) came from individuals who shared common ancestors with one of the groups that also settled Europe. I saw the same sort of practice linking Native Americans with ancient Europeans with the 24,000 year old "Mal'ta Boy." Being related does not translate into "ancestral"; it only means they shared a common ancestor way back when.

You conflated a likely distant relationship into a bunk claim that Egyptians were descended from white Europeans, and that's where you put your lack of sophistication on display (BYU, perhaps? The Lard's Own University is often guilty of fostering that sort of educational malpractice).

Moreover, as I noted, the dates of the mummies tested, from roughly 1400 B.C.E. came from only one area---associated with the New Kingdom--and there's no evidence from sites associated with earlier dynasties.

I note the DNA was largely mtDNA, which is problematic; only three individuals offered autosomal (nuclear DNA), and to suggest that was representative of all of Egypt is clearly premature.

Finally, there's the small matter of Nubia... Wiki is problematic--a reason I avoid it ever since it claimed Steve Benson and I were involved in a "gay relationship"--but this is accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubians

>>Nubians are an ethnolinguistic group indigenous to present-day Sudan and southern Egypt who originate from the early inhabitants of the central Nile valley, believed to be one of the earliest cradles of civilization. Nubian people have an ancient history predating dynastic Egypt.

Nubians, incidentally, are quite dark.

Play it again, Tom...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeNA4R3Xh9E

"The Near East is not Europe, period"

Not suprisingly you completely missed the point again. The White Europeans used to live in the Middle East. If you looked up Ancient Anatolians ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Anatolians ) like I said you should then you would know that. This isnt a discussion about what pieces of land are called. This is a discussion about what racial groups lived where. You try to make it about what the Middle East should be called because you dont have an actual argument.

"You don't appear to have overcome the cognitive dissonance."

You are the one in denial because the very same article that you posted and claimed was credible says the exact same thing as the Nature.com article I posted. If you actually read them then you would know that by now.

The Sciencedaily.com article says "The study found that ancient Egyptians were most closely related to ancient populations in the Levant, and were also closely related to Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe"

What part of closely related to the Anatolians and Europeans dont you understand?

Kerry, who finished a Master's at Harvard, once pointed out to a poster that "because I said so" wasn't a valid defense with "academic claims."

/gipper voice on

There he goes again...

Here's the link in question, and we'll go through it carefully and see what it actually says. The authors have been diligent in pointing out the time frame. I note "Izzy" insists that "White Europeans were ancestral to Ancient Egyptians" and thinks this article supports that balderdash.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

>Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

It does not say there were no African ancestors in Ancient Egypt, period. As I noted, the research was from a single area, dating to the New Kingdom (seriously, the Old and Middle Kingdoms came before the New Kingdom).

Moreover (/remedial English teacher voice on), the phrase "related to" in no way suggests the European population was ancestral to the Egyptian one, only that they have a common ancestry.

That reality obviously escapes Izzy who also gives us a display of "circular reasonaing" by claiming Egyptians were "white" (they weren't; they were a hodge-podge, as I noted), and then he nonsensically concludes since there was more African ancestry among modern Egyptians than ancient ones, the ancients must've been white Europeans.

Some of the caveats from the article that apparently escaped our wannabe "Ex-Mormon Nibley":

>>Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation (footnoted). Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant.

Right now, however, there is no data I'm aware of describing any DNA results among Egyptians before 2000 BCE, and my conclusion is Izzy is doing a horrible disservice to the well-deserved reputation of this site with this unsupported balderdash.

>>However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced.

In other words, the article doesn't claim what he say it does. Sorry...

Roadkill (strictly rhetorical, of course)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 12:25PM by SL Cabbie.

@SL Cabbie, actually what you did was take the speculative parts of the article that dont have any proof behind them such as the other parts of Egypt were of other races and presented it as fact.

You quoted from another article not the nature.com article I originally posted. But anyways you said

"However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced."

This is where reading comprehension comes in. It says "It is possible that...". It doesnt say it is certain. It doesnt say it is fact. It doesnt say it is true. It just says it maybe possible. So actually the article doesnt say what you IMAGINED it says. All that part was doing was laying out the possibility. So that isnt evidence of anything other than a possibility. All you did was appeal the the unknown. That is not an argument.

Then you took the part of the article that was conclusive and supported with actual DNA tests and claimed it was speculative.

The article says "We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations"

So lets try to use logic here. If the ancient Egyptians were MOST CLOSELY RELATED to ANATOLIANS AND EUROPEANS then they could only be considered Anatolian and European! If they werent Anatolian and European then they would be MOST CLOSELY RELATED to another racial group. To say that they are "most closely related to" is to state what they are. If they werent Anatolian or European then it would have said they were more closely related to another ethnic group.

Honestly, you are the one distorting the article.

You just tried to spin everything backwards and set your straw man on fire. That is what you did.

That is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

@SL Cabbie,
The article says "historically and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant."

You took this to mean that the people living in Lower Egypt were of another race yet where is your proof of what race the Hyksos were?

You just post rampant speculation and then claim it as fact. Where is your proof? You make long posts with no proof in them.

Now here is some actual proof for what I am saying. The article says "We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations"

So if the Hyksos are from the Levant and the Ancient Egyptians were related to the people of the Levant, Anatolians, and Europeans then it wouldnt be an invasion by another race. It would have been an invasion of the same race.

So much for your speculation.

@SL Cabbie, you said
"/Remedial Geography Lesson:

The Near East is not Europe, period. Neither is the Levant nor Asia Minor (there's a reason they call it Asia,honest). One more time: Note the existence of the Mediterranean Sea."

You shouldnt be teaching anyone geography. The Near East includes the Levant and Asia Minor. The Near East, as I said before, is another name for the Middle East.

You seem to think that the people from Asia minor are Asian... when in fact Asia Minor is just another name for the Middle East.

You seem to be confusing yourself with all these terms you use.

Middle East = Asia Minor = Near East. Ok. They are all names for the Middle East.

There's a record of your claims above. To wit...

>>Recent DNA tests on Egyptian mummies show that they were white Europeans.

I've been hollering bull $#!% on that one for several days now, but apparently that concept is beyond your reading abilities.

That's a pretty good Eddie Haskell impersonation where you're claiming you didn't say what you said.

You also took me to task for supplying the original of the article for the link you provided which was only a summary of it. Note the name "Krause" appears in both of them.

There's a reason for that, and boyhowdy, I'd be real nervous about getting any gifts tomorrow. Santa's in agreement with me that you've been a really, really bad boy.

@SL Cabbie, you obviously lack the maturity to have a real discussion. You call names. You try to act condescending but that isnt an argument.

You misrepresented what I said and what the articles say. That isnt an argument either.

You are just childish and immature.

When you lose the argument you keep changing the subject. First it was they arent the same race and now you claim race doesnt even exist. That is strange since whenever you fill out an application it asks for your "race".

If you cant understand what "closely related to" means then that is your shortcoming. Not mine. Look up terms like Asia Minor and Near East so that you use them correctly. Look up "race" while you are at it.

@SL Cabbie, In the USA. People say that a person is European if they are related to European ancestry even though they have never been to Europe. The same goes for many people who are called African even though they have never been to Africa. Same goes for Asians who might have been born and raised in the USA but are still called Asian even though they have never been to Asia.

I was simply using European in that way. I wasnt saying that Egyptians were literally from Europe. I was saying that Egyptians and Europeans shared a genetic ancestry. That is what the DNA tests showed.

oh, look another one of those "dot connectors" who want to fault THE (MORmON) Church is any way possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1NYP60274

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!

I wasnt trying to start a fight. I just made a post about the Book of Abraham being wrong. It says the Egyptians were black Canaanites when they were actually white Europeans. DNA tests prove it.

Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/ancient-egyptians-europeans-related-claims-a7763866.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4555292/Study-mummies-reveals-Turkish-European.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-genome-heritage/index.html

http://www.smashculturalmarxism.com/ancient-egyptians-closely-related-europeans/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/scientists-map-the-genome-of-ancient-egyptian-kings-and-they-werent-from-africa/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/ancient-egyptians-were-more-european-10530527

http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/were-egypts-ancient-pharaohs-european/

https://bbs.hrmtc.com/t/ancient-egyptians-were-closely-related-to-anatolian-and-neolithic-european-populations-as-well-showing-strong-genetic-traces-from-the-levant-areas-in-the-near-east/2143

https://www.rt.com/viral/390324-ancient-egypt-mummies-europe/

http://www.newsweek.com/egyptian-mummy-dna-study-suggests-close-ties-middle-east-europe-617767

Did you read Cabbie’s comments? It appears that you agree on most points, but you keep saying they were “white Europeans”, meaning they were descended from white Europeans, which is not true. The studies say they were more closely related to Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans. That means, as Cabbie noted, that early Egyptians and Europeans have a common ancestor. That does NOT mean that these Egyptians descended from Europeans, and it doesn’t mean that Europeans descended from these Egyptians.

@Anon :/, "but you keep saying they were 'white Europeans', meaning they were descended from white Europeans, which is not true"

Except that isnt what I meant. This discussion wasnt about who came first the Europeans or the Egyptians. I was simply pointing out what the Article said. That the Egyptians were closely related to the Anatolians and Europeans. I never said the Europeans started Egypt. That might be confusing but as I pointed out many times that the Caucasus Mountains are in the Middle East and the Caucasus Mountains are the origin of the Caucasian race.

The Anatolians lived in the Middle East before they immigrated west into Europe. The point is if the Egyptians were CLOSELY related to the Anatolians then they were white.

That was just another one of his straw man arguments trying to disprove what I never said.

What difference would it make if the people of Europe and Egypt came from the Anatolians or if the Anatolians moved to Europe then to Egypt. Absolutely none. It wouldnt matter. They would all still be the same race.

@Anon :/, it is most like that whites living in the Middle East immigrated in all directions ending up in Europe, Russia, and Egypt.

They didnt bother moving further into Africa or the Arabian Peninsula because they were barren deserts.

@Anon :/, You said "That means, as Cabbie noted, that early Egyptians and Europeans have a common ancestor. That does NOT mean that these Egyptians descended from Europeans, and it doesn’t mean that Europeans descended from these Egyptians."

Yes, that is what I meant. The point is if they are all closely related then they are the same race. Cabbie was trying to make it sound like they werent the same race somehow. That they were somehow losely related instead of closely related.

The fact that the article says "closely related" makes it clear they were the same race.

Nobody is going to change that closed mind of yours, but given that there are actually reasonable people here who read these posts, I think I need to point out for them that the concept of "race" as far Homo sapiens goes is not supported by genetics or molecular biology. Jennifer Raff, who writes this blog, is a particularly sharp individual (we correspond) who did post-doctoral work here in Utah.

A simple search on her blogsite turned up the following columns:

https://violentmetaphors.com/2014/05/21/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade/

>>Do “races” exist as meaningful biological categories? Physical anthropologists and human biologists have been studying race (i.e., blacks vs. whites, or Europeans vs. Asians) for centuries. For most of that time, they subscribed to the perspective that race was a taxonomic category, and they sought to identify the biological characteristics (such as cranial shape or skin color) that characterized and defined these different groups. This perspective assumed that each individual was a member of a single racial category, that the differences between racial categories were biological, and that these categories were predictive of other traits (such as ancestry, temperament, intelligence, or health).

>>But it gradually became clear that this understanding was not scientifically sound. Groupings of people by skin color did not produce the same result as groupings of people by skull shape, nor of blood type.

https://violentmetaphors.com/2014/08/08/genetics-professors-unite-in-criticism-of-nicholas-wades-book/

>>In a series of recent posts I and several others have strongly criticized Nicholas Wade’s recent book “A Troublesome History”, which purports to show that human races are biologically meaningful categories, characterized by different behavioral tendencies (which have resulted in different degrees of socio-political success). Now 139 professors with expertise in genetics, human biology, biological anthropology, and evolution have added their voices to this discussion, criticizing Wade’s book in a strongly worded letter that appears in the New York Times today.

The only reason the term "Caucasian" arose in conjunction with the Caucasus Mountains is that's where some misinformed and misguided scientists believed "light-skined" people originated.

Read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel," though, and you'll discover the roots of all humankind (except for a tiny percentage probably acquired through interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovians) are in Africa. That applies to the people who became Europeans, Asians such as Chinese and Mongol people, Australian aborigines, and Native Americans.

Now if you're going to continue to put your educational deficiences and cognitive distortions on display, you're going to find the going pretty rough.

That Caucasian myth was the basis for Nazi Germany's mythical Aryan Race.

Adolf Hitler died for their sings.

@SL Cabbie, No. I am not closed minded. You just make poor arguments. Your argument that the only way "race" can exist is if there are people who are 100% of a race just doesnt hold up. We live in an imperfect world where things arent black or white or 100% one way or another.

If a person is 90% race A and 10% race B then they are said to be of race A. A race is just a group of people with similar DNA.

Race is not a social construct. It is determined by actual genetic heritage.

Let me guess... since you dont believe that race ever existed then you believe the Anatolians were a myth too. No wonder you dont believe the results of a DNA test. You dont even believe that a persons DNA determines what race they are because you dont believe there is such a thing as race...

So basically it is impossible to have a conversation with you about race since you dont believe race exists...

And you've put your narcissism ("The rules don't apply to me" is in their playbook) on display with those personal attacks, and as "FlattopSF's Ghost" reminded me those unsupported "because I said so claims."

Very Mormon of you; I suggest you go back to the church where you'll find others of your ilk and your tantrums might be tolerated.

#just another pile of $#!% talking roadkill

Try bringing a three-digit I.Q. next time

@SL Cabbie, you are the only one coming up with straw man arguments, being insulting, cussing, trying to use "I said so" as an argument, etc...

All I said was the articles say that the Egyptians were closely related to Anatolians and Europeans. Since they are CLOSELY related then they are the same race because that is the definition of what RACE is! A race is a group of people who are closely related! Imagine that.

So you go into your anti-intellectual temper tantrums trying to deny the article that you posted and called credible.

You might have a future as a Donald TrumpF impersonator...

I can no longer sit back and allow Mormon infiltration, Mormon
indoctrination, Mormon subversion, and the international Mormon
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during my mission.... Yes,
a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed.
Luckily I — I was able to interpret these feelings correctly.
Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake.
Mormons sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not
avoid Mormons, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.

Are any of you who replied actually expecting that the organization would accept fact over fiction?

It was my impression that Cleopatra and her relatives were actually Greek and not descended from the original ancient Egyptian pharaohs.

That the Ptolemaic Dynasty, Egypt's last, survived for only 275 years. Cleopatra's tomb has never been discovered, either.

In the nearly 3,000 years before the Greek rule, Pharaonic lineages were often unrelated, which is what makes the claim "Egyptians were white Europeans" utter garbage.

Just as an example, King Tut was succeeded by Ay, his grand vizier...

@SL Cabbie, if you actually read the article that you linked to then you would have read this:

"'The genetics of the Abusir el-Meleq community did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300 year timespan we studied, suggesting that the population remained genetically relatively unaffected by foreign conquest and rule,' says Wolfgang Haak"

Its funny that you disagree so much with the article that you called credible.

And not the one distorted through your narcissistic prism (and I've got the credentials and work experience to make that statement). I'll post my reply above, and you can decide whether your claims deserve a simple Nibley or an authentic "Roadkill" (speaking strictly metaphorically, of course).

/remedial teacher voice back on

First, though, we'll deal with the tactic we've seen here before known as "The Mighty Strawman Slayer." Oldtimers understand how it works, but a refresher course is never out-of-place since folks are always discovering this site, and its reputation is well-deserved.

Take a set of old clothes; fill liberally with straw, and obtain a paper bag or pillow case and paint a face on it. Attach to the torso, after filling it as well, and douse your creation with an inflammable liquid such as gasoline.

Apply a match or other flame source, stand back, and use the resulting "light" to loudly proclaim victory while also drawing attention away from the dark shadows everyone else keeps pointing to...

One more time: I did reply to your claims--despite choking on that bigoted and dishonest "white European" nonsense. I pointed out that Egyptian history spanned 3,100 years as far as the "Pharoahnic Era" goes (with another several thousand years of settlements in the Nile Valley that did not originate in Europe, period). The article--as its authors noted--only deals with a 1300 year period and only offers data from a single site.

That's the strawman in your claims, and as you've aptly demonstrated, such cognitive malfunctions are extremely resistance to "extinction."

Me needs more popcorn.

Whatever good could come out of Egypt you may ask. I say the brilliant and energetic MO Salah who plays football (soccer for the uneducated) for Liverpool FC.

Hyksos are the jokers in the Egyptian deck.

How dare they appear and disappear without proper credit.

Tough crowd here.

honk

@Shummy, well SL Cabbie is clearly triggered and on a social justice crusade. He now claims that the Caucasian race never existed and that race doesnt even exist.

He completely ignores the fact that the Anatolians were whites living in the Middle East who later populated Europe as they immigrated west. He completely ignores the fact that the articles link the Egyptians to the Anatolians and Europeans.

Its a DNA test so who is really anti-science here? They did DNA tests on 90 different mummies across a span of 1,700 years and found them to be genetically linked to the Anatolians and Europeans.

All of this would not be hard to understand if he didnt have some sort of emotional block in his mind preventing him from accepting the results of the DNA tests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 07:30PM by isthechurchtrue.

1700 years ≠ 3,000 years

/remedial geography time

The DNA was taken from a single site, period, and the authors themselves cautioned against drawing inferences about the rest of Egypt from their data.

/remedial science period

The "artificial construct of race" is unsupported by modern genetics and molecular biology,

Anybody know where there's a "Morons Anonymous" Meeting? I've got a colleague who will take him there if he'll sit in the back and shut up. Guy owes me one...

SLC
Wondering how this yayhoo made it out of the LDS Church
Assuming he did, of course

Brought a dull boy scout knife intellect to a light saber fight this one did...

/yoda voice off

@SL Cabbie, you are the one jumping to conclusions with no evidence. I pointed out that they were white with evidence. I never said 1,300 years = 3,000 years. That is just another childish straw man argument. Everyone knows 1,300 years doesnt equal 3,000 years. If you could rise above your childish insults and straw man arguments then we could get somewhere.

Unless you can provide evidence for your claim that another racial group started Egypt then you should just stop.

You claim there were other racial groups living in ancient Egypt. I asked you several times for evidence to support that and you didnt provide any. Try providing evidence next time.

For anyone with any sort of critical thinking skills.

https://tenor.com/view/wambulance-burn-modern-family-lily-gif-5514584

@SL Cabbie, See. I asked you for evidence that there was another racial group in ancient Egypt and this is how you reply.

Well ya know we all find our own way out of the chimeral fog.

Cabbie's guided by his internal gps as are we all.

Not unlike Nibley I have a big warm spot for all things Egyptian.

I only wish my visit there would have left me with more than memories of touching the elephant's knee.

I posted several links to my friend Jennifer Raff's blogs about how modern scientists have concluded "race is a biological myth." Even though one poster can't wrap his head around the science, it is an "objective [scientific] reality." Jennifer--who has dual PhD's and often writes about the Siberian origins of Native Americans--we disagree, on friendly terms, about the timetable and possible migration routes--notes that at a molecular level, it is impossible to tell what "race" an individual is; in the case of ancient remains, we can only identify their ancestry.

Here's the Reader's Digest version relevant to what I've been saying:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/08/do_white_people_really_come_from_the_caucasus.html

>>It's highly unlikely. There are scholarly disagreements about how and when some of our dark-skinned ancestors developed lighter skin, but research suggests humans moved across the Asian and European continents about 50,000 years ago. Some anthropologists think that natural selection would have favored lightening mutations as humans moved away from the equator and faced a diminished threat from ultraviolet exposure. In this case, it's possible that light skin would have evolved in many places independently.

>>So why do we call white people Caucasians? The term was popularized by the German scientist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, who in 1795 divided the human species into five races: Caucasian, the "white" race; Mongolian, the "yellow" race; Malayan, the "brown" race; Ethiopian, the "black" race; and American, the "red" race.

SLC
Honestly embarrassed by his blond hair and blue eyes;
Truth be told, it came from a Jewish g-g-grandmother

@SL Cabbie, just another straw man trying to put words in my mouth. I never said they were "White and Delightsome". I just said they were white. White is a racial group. I know that triggers you but it is true. I know you are triggered and need to calm down.

People get DNA tests all the time that tell them what race they are. Ok. You dont have to start cussing about it.

Reminds me, I owe him a Christmas E-mail... Same with Jennifer Raff...

DNA tests on modern humans are essentially "irrelevant" in determining ancient populations and migration patters. For that you need to look at the original remains, and that's particularly problematic. See Willerslev, Eske; also Svante Pääbo and others. They know more about the subject than I do, which is why I reference them. You obviously don't...

Ancestry,com is little more than an LDS "pyramid scheme," seriously.

I beg to differ on the ancient Egyptian mummies. What we know of them is that they were darker complected and of Middle Eastern origin.

"Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians' ancestry Genetic analysis reveals a close relationship with Middle Easterners, not central Africans. “Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan African."

(Quora)

In answer to whether ancient Egyptians were white, black or brown, "Not white. There is not yet enough evidence to make a definitive judgment about the pigmentation of the pharaohs or Moses, who himself was likely an Egyptian. Mummies are too desiccated to reveal skin tone, and the tiny amount of genetic evidence they have yielded so far adds nothing to the question." (Slate.com)

@Amyjo,
"There is not yet enough evidence to make a definitive judgment"

That article was from years ago and now there is definitive evidence in the form of DNA tests published in scientific papers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2017 03:54PM by isthechurchtrue.

A gentle reminder that there were already some Indo-Europeans in the Near East/Anatolia of old: Hittites and Luwians come to mind...Semitic Canaanites and the mysterious Hyksos were already in Egypt by the time period of the mummy DNA. This might account for the genetics of the mummies. When dealing with ancient mummies, we are also looking at the higher ruling classes - who might have been invaders - and not necessarily representative of the common Egyptian. In the given time period, lower class people would not have had such carefully preserved burials.

Artwork in Ancient Egypt shows the ruling classes as "white" and the common folk as dark - largely because ruling classes did not have to work in the sun. Dark skin was associated with hard outside labor in the ancient world, as even so-called "white" people would become darkened due to the constant exposure to the sun.


By the time of the Roman Empire, there was much more multi-culturalism in the region, which would have resulted in a darkening of the hair, eyes, skin, etc., even of the lighter peoples. The descriptions of Indo-Europeans in ancient literature (Homeric and Indian Epics, for example) generally spoke of green or blue eyes, and red, light brown or blonde wavy hair. David and Esau in the Bible were said to be fair and red haired.

Over 20 years ago, I was involved in a Harvard Sponsored project and studied modern Zoroastrians. After the Islamic takeover of Iran, Zoroastrians refused to accept converts and generally married only among themselves. Some Zoroastrians still have light hair, skin and eyes - reminiscent of the original Persians, unlike their Muslim and Hindu counterparts who had far more intermarriage with others.

While not at all historical, it is worth mentioning that by myth, the Jewish Rabbis saw Indo-Europeans as related to Semites (via Esau, brother of Jacob) and the Hindu Aryans had a tradition that some of the Semites were Aryan "refugees" from the Mahabharata Wars. The point is that both peoples saw some type of interconnection despite differences in language. The "Greeks" of Japheth, who was considered the "Father of the Oriental peoples" by the Rabbis, were not the later invading Greeks, but the original inhabitants of unknown language type. Ham, which means "hot" referred to dark skin, due to long exposure to the sun. The point here is that in antiquity, Semites and Indo-Europeans considered themselves related in some fashion, although not linguistically related.

Anatolia, incidentally, is one of the possible sites for the origin of Indo-European peoples, although still not conclusive.


In summary, perhaps an educated guess for Ancient Egypt is that the higher ruling classes of Lower Egypt were mostly light skinned, but the common people were far darker, regardless of "race".

Nobody is going to convince the "Izzy" (Short for "Iz Ze Church True?" which captures the racist nature of his claim that ancient Egyptians were Europeans).

I Googled the author, Larry Orcutt, and he is indeed a reasonable individual (with an undergrad in psychology with plans to get another advanced degree in a "more suitable field" when he retires. I have similar hopes for a master's in a "hard science" field after I park the taxi).

http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

>>What Race Were the Ancient Egyptians?

>>Race is a notoriously nebulous concept. Before a physical property can be scientifically examined, it must be objectively defined so that accurate measurements of variables can be made. Defining race has been based on subjective taxonomic classification, morphological interpretation, and physiognomic characteristics, exercises that are frighteningly akin to phrenology. Race has yet to be defined in objective genetic terms that are quantifiably measurable, rendering attempts at truly scientific discussion hopelessly futile.

Please note the reproduction--and skin hues of the human paintings--from the tomb of Seti I (who was pharaoh during the time period the single DNA test identified in the Nature article identified).

>>Geneticist Steven Rose said,

>>Biologists define "race" as a group or population differing in gene frequency from that of others in the same species. Such differences usually occur as a result of some type of geographic barrier limiting interbreeding, so that the two otherwise similar genetic populations begin to drift apart. Thus there are distinct "races" of fruit flies – separated perhaps by mountainous or desert conditions. However, with very limited exceptions there are no such separated groups within the human population, and those that do occur do not map on to what are in conventional speech regarded as separate "races." The consensus view among population geneticists and biological anthropologists is that the concept of "race" to indicate analytically distinct subgroups of the human race is biologically meaningless.

The blogsite I linked to DNA scientist and PhD Jennifer Raff said essentially the same, Izzy's perceptual distortions and denial not withstanding.

>>This said, we might ask, "What color were the ancient Egyptians?" Being on the continent, Egypt has always been an African civilization though it straddles two regions, Africa and the Middle East. It's fairly clear that the cultural roots of ancient Egypt lie in Africa and not in Asia. Egypt was a subtropical desert environment and its people had migrated from various ethnic groups over its history (and prehistory), thus it was something of a "melting pot," a mixture of many types of people with many skin tones, some certainly from the Sub-Saharan regions and others from more Mediterranean climes. It is impossible to categorize these people into the tidy "black" and "white" terms of today's racial distinctions... It seems that there has been some genetic continuity from Pre-Dynastic time through the Middle Kingdom, after which there was a considerable infiltration into the Nile Valley from outside populations. That the Egyptians by and large were dark is certain, and many must have been what we today call "black."

Goodness, I said that above myself, honest.

>>It is apparent that the ancient Egyptians did not make racial distinctions themselves, but rather ethnic distinctions based on nationality. Tomb paintings depicting captive Nubians may show them as being very dark, but this is an artistic convention stereotyping a nationality, and to conclude there were therefore no very dark Egyptians would be a non sequitur.

>>We can safely conclude that the ancient Egyptians were of various skin colors, few of which were light judging by the climate.

I note from this author--and others out there--that authentic Egyptologists--avoid the "racial questions," but I did find an interesting "reality" in my research (terribly unethical of me to "do my homework," I know). There's a group of black/African folks out there on the Internet who are just as vocal with their claims that Egyptians were "black Africans."

What was conclusive--and was something I already knew--was that the "Caucasian race" did not originate in the Caucasus as Izzy originally insisted and which formed the basis for his screed.

One more time: Ancient Egypt during the Pharaohnic era--and before--was a "melting pot" of people of various origins that including Africans and Middle Easterners. They were not "closely related" to Europeans; Izzy has misread that entirely, but merely related.

/zombie roadkill voice off

@SL Cabbie, once again you have completely missed the point. The point was that the Egyptians were closely related to the Anatolians who were white. I know that triggers you but its true. That is what the article says. I just gave another example of the Caucus Mountains because you seemed to be in such denial about the fact that whites lived in the middle east.

Also you called me racist which is absurd. Just because I believe there is such a thing as race doesnt mean I am a racist. You dont want to discuss the facts because you dont have an argument. You just call people names. Is it racist to say that ancient Germans were white? If not then why is it racist to say that ancient Egyptians were white?

You see all your arguments have come down to the fact that you have an emotional issue. Not a factual one. You dont have an argument. We all know that DNA tests show what race a person is. If you cant accept that because of an emotional issue then that is your problem.

You are just in denial about the Mummy DNA test results. That is all.

>
> We all know that DNA tests show what race a person is.
>

Human?

@elderolddog, maybe you did need a DNA test to convince yourself you are human... everyone else does it to see their racial heritage. That is the point of a DNA test obviously...

My racial heritage is somewhat human, and I'm okay with that.

I care more where me and mine are going. If I had kings and queens in my lineage, maybe I'd have reason to focus backwards? We all pick our POVs, and I'm okay with ignoring what you seem to be focused on.

@elderolddog, I was focusing on the Book of Abraham till SL Cabbie went on his politically correct tirade.

Nothing personal, but I'm happy ignoring the Book of Abraham, except when the opportunity presents itself to deride it to a TOM.

Carry on...