>My argument exactly, is that the chart you provided does not
>lend to clear proof that jesus was not African.

I did not provide it as such.

>Next time post the study. It will cut down on a lot of
>confusion.

The article served the purpose of my original post. And the big "The New York Times" logo at the beginning should've cut down any confusion off the bat.

>As far as claiming the land I didn't say I cared
>one way or the other. I was stating the intent of that
>article that accompanied the chart in the link you provided.

The article says that Jews and Palestinians are closely related and both descend from a common ancestral Middle Eastern population - I don't see how that justifies the European Jews grant of the state of Israel over the Palestinians.

>The people who wrote that article are going on the assumption
>that the people in the region today were there then. Ergo the
>studies chart shows the Ashkenazi belong.

I'm talking about your assumption that they don't originate from there. And anyway the study shows the Palestinians belong too, so I still fail to see how this is some Zionist ploy.

>I gave you the link telling how the Assyrians forcably moved
>populations.

And it says nothing about Assyrians migrating into those areas, it says the deportations were used to consolidate power by breaking up regional loyalties.

>Like Prego spaghetti sauce, "It's in there".

OK, it says half the population in 1950 was nomadic, but nomadic does not equate to originating outside Arabia.

>>OK, and what does any of this have to do with the Assyrians
>>being from Asia Minor?
>
>Nothing. It does deal with the moving of populations that you
>claimed there is no evidence of.

1. you said the Assyrians are from the Asia Minor area and Syria, I responded by saying that they were from Northern Iraq and Syria, not Asia Minor, then you responded with this stuff, which is why I asked that.

2. What I claimed was "There is no evidence of mass migrations from other regions of those empires into the Levant." This does not deal with that.

>>No, intermixing on the maternal side has no effect on the
>>Y-chromosome, it's only passed down from the paternal side.
>
>That's what I said.

No it's not; you said "... while mixing on the maternal side would introduce new Y-chromosome." - mixing on the maternal side would not introduce any new Y-chromosome.

>Depending on the version or interpretation. Some say
>burnished as you point out. Some say refinished or refined.
>While still others say as burned in a furnace.

The most literal translation (Young's Literal Translation) is "and his feet like to fine brass, as in a furnace having been fired" Anyway it doesn't matter because that account in Revelation is a prophetic vision of Christ's second coming, not an eyewitness account of Jesus walking around Judea at the time.

>I just saying what I have observed with my own eyes on many
>occasions with peoples and families I know to be Irish. They
>are very faired skin. Even those with freckles. When they
>tan they turn red then peel.

Yes, alot are like that, but not all.

>You said this is by you mothers
>account so that makes it second hand. I'm not really arguing
>the getting tanned part just the degree to which his tan
>darkened to. It's a matter of perspective.

That was exactly my point in comparing it to a second hand biblical account full of metaphorical imagery - it's a matter of perspective. Anyway I'm willing to leave it at that.

------------------------------------------------------------
Now you know - and knowing is half the battle!