I drew the Semitic family tree
>>7085174Here are the Indo-Europeans
>>7085177And finally here is the last branch of the human race
>>7085174NiceHere's the antisemitic tree btw
wrong, Indo-Europeans are the Israelites and their descendants
I think I may have made a mistakeI made the Austronesians the descendants of Sino-Tibetans and Indo-Aryans, but perhaps it's more likely that thzy descend from Negritos and Sino-Tibetans instead
>>7085174Amorites, Akkadians, Babylonians and Sabeans were Hamites not Semites.
>>7085595They were mixed with Hamites but they were mostly Semitic
>>7085651No They were Hamites. Emor is a son of Canaan Akkad and Babel are the grandsons of Kush.
>>7085698Canaan had no son named emorAkkad and Babel are cities, not peopleAnd while they may have been inhabited by Sumerians, who are descendants of Cush, these cities where very early taken over by the Akkadians, who were semitic, and later by the Amurrus of Syria, also semitic, who founded the Babylonian empire with Hammurabitry again
>>7085705>try again Canaan is the father of the Amorites/Emor >Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites, 16the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites,
>no Phoenicians>Phoenicians not descended from Canannites>no Canaanites>hebrews not descended from Canannites>no Arabs>Aramaens, Cannaanites, and Amorites not part of the same branch>Edomites descended from Hebrews and not Canannites>Eblaites, Akkadians not part of the same branch>Chaldean not a branch of Aramaic
>>7085727Amorites and Amurrus are two different people.The Amurru are represented as invading Mesopotamia early in the 2nd millennium B.C.E. and as having had a kingdom in Babylonia for several centuries. Hammurabi, famed lawgiver of that period, is often referred to as of “Amorite” origin.The evidence concerning the Amurru, however, does not appear to warrant the strong conclusions that are advanced as to their positive identification with the Biblical Amorites. Amurru in the ancient cuneiform texts basically meant “west” as referring to the region W of Mesopotamia. A. H. Sayce, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, says that the name Amurru is “a purely geographical indication of their immediate origins, from the perspective of Mesopotamia, and conveys no information about their ethnic composition or their real name.” (Edited by G. W. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 113) While Mari, an ancient city on the Euphrates in northern Mesopotamia, is referred to by modern secular historians as a center of the expansion of the Amurru into Mesopotamia, the thousands of tablets recovered there were almost all in the Semitic Akkadian language, with some names of West Semitic origin. However, the Biblical Amorites were Hamitic, not Semitic, and while the adoption of a Semitic tongue by some branch of them is not an impossibility, it is equally possible that the early Amurru were simply “westerners” from among the Semitic peoples living to the W of Babylonia. Professor John Bright in A History of Israel (1981, p. 49) says: “For some centuries [of the late third millennium and early second millennium B.C.E.] the people of northwestern Mesopotamia and northern Syria had been referred to in cuneiform texts as Amurru, i.e., ‘Westerners.’ This became, apparently, a general term applying to speakers of various Northwest-Semitic dialects found in the area including, in all probability, those strains from which later sprang both Hebrews and Arameans.”
>>7085731Canaanites aren't Semitic. They just adopted the Semitic language from their Aramean neighbors in the north. Hebrews aren't Canaanites either, like at all. They are a separate group. Abraham and his descendants lived in Canaan before being slaves in Egypt, and then returning to Canaan again.They both spoke Northwest Semitic language though.Also I did add Arabs on the tree, put on your glasses.
>>7085754Abraham and his descendants lived in Canaan before being slaves in Egypt, and then returning to Canaan againDropped
>>7085754>Canaanites aren't Semiticlmao
>>7085781Racially they aren't, linguistically they are.If you insist on calling them semitic that would be like saying African-Americans and Filipinos are Indo-Europeans.The Chinese people, as shown on my tree, are the ones who kept the original Canaanite language.
>>7085788They're all Bronze Age Levantines speaking a Semitic language. There is no evidence of any Bronze age Levantine population being significantly genetically different form any other Bronze age Levantine population.
>>7085834That's not how genetics work geniusThey all have a similar genetic pattern because they live in the same area, doesn't mean they have the same originAnd anyway you don't have any ancient Israelite or Canaanite person alive to do a blood sample do you ?
>>7085772With what, retard? I'm jewish lol. Won't make me believe the NT any more
>>7085845Just what I'm saying, you're not an ancient Israelite.
>>7085743They aren't you drooling retard
>>7085860aren't what ?
>>7085834>Bronze Age Levantines Are Hamitic Sidonians. Semites (Hebrews, Moabites, Edomites,) came much later.
>>7085842That's exactly how genetics works, the closer you are genetically, the closer your most recent common ancestor is. If you are part of a significantly mixed population then you will plot much farther away on a graph (see: Mestizos or Mulattoes) from the two populations that spawned you. >>7085863>Hamitesliterally no such thing. Levantines were all Semitic unless you count the invading Egyptians.
>>7085866Can we finally ban transexuality now that it's clear that transpeople genocided the kikes?
>>7085851Ancient Israelites are no longer alive, moron. I was questioning the other poster for talking about New Testament stories and passing them off as historical events.
>>7085876Everything the Bible says is true and based on historical events
>>7085879Most of those aren't even remotely related
>>7085886yes they are, as proven by the treethey're all hamites
>>7085892>proven by my tree
>>7085908everything I drew is based on months of researchname one thing that is wrong in the tree
>>7085914Cite all of your sources
>>7085917for which one
>>7085920I don't call the shots man, I based all my evidence on research by expertshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages
>>7085238>Hamites>SumeriansYeah fuck off, Retard.
>>7085871Levantines are Canaanites (Hamitic), the only Semites in the Levant are the Arameans and the Samaritans.
>>7085177Just wonderint, following that logic, does it mean the families on the highest of the tree are more primitive?
>>7085923Like when you said "Abraham and his followers were slaves in Egypt". Got any historical records about that? No, religious texts don't count.
>>7085927WhatThey are descendants of Ham through CushThey lived in cities such as Uruk built by Nimrod also a son of CushThey named the city of Kish after their ancestor Cushhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_(Sumer)Moreover both Cush and Nimrod have been deified in Sumerian mythologyFor example Enmerkar, king of Uruk, who is btw also related to the confusion of languages just like Nimrodhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enmerkar_and_the_Lord_of_ArattaPlus the epithet "the Hunter", applied to Nimrod in the Genesis, and the suffix -kar at the end of Enmerkar's name, which means "hunter"Cush is likewise related to Mesh-ki-ang-GASH-erhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh-ki-ang-gasherand the god of war Ninurta posses the same letters as NimrodIf that isn't enough, the Sumerians called themselves "black-headed people", just like Ham signifies "dark complexion"
>>7085925>wikipedia>expertsWhat is your dumb tree even supposed to represent? Genetics? Language?
>>7085934I tried to make it appear as much as I could on my tree, yes>>7085945Britannica says: “The weakness of these lists as historical records is that they include only the names of kings deemed worthy of honour; many modest and certain unpopular rulers are wholly overlooked—expunged from the record.”In the face of such historical inaccuracy and manipulation of facts, is it surprising that this devastating defeat for Egypt and her false gods was simply “expunged”? This becomes evident when we remember that those who recorded history did so under the tutelage of priests, whose chief interest, obviously, was maintaining their position and upholding the glory of their gods.>>7085929And the Hebrews
>>7085946Oh look is the autist that believes in literalism.
>>7085952>the fact that we have no archeological evidence or historical records of a claim postulated solely by a religious text is actually proof that it's real!Get real. On top of that, most archeological finds and genetic studies directly contradict claims from the New Testament, such as those involving population migrations.
>>7085980no they don't
>>7085952So are slavs primitive fucks?
>>7085985there's no intermediate beween balto-slavic and proto-indo-european so I guess somaybe they're as ancient as the greeks and iranians
>>7085983Retards like you are a blight to this board because you never question the validity of your (extremely poor) sources. Anyone that knows dick about History is always going to be skeptical, always going to cross-check information. The only cross-checking you do is to attempt to confirm your unshakeable bias. Fuck off and draw some more hearts in your little notebook, I'm sure your pastor will like your homework.>One of those sources is the Bible’s Old Testament, which suggestsa grisly end for many Canaanites: After the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, God ordered them to destroy Canaan and its people (though other passages suggest that some Canaanites may have survived). But did that really happen? Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today.
>>7086020??????Why claim something that isn't true and then proceed to prove it's not true ?The bible doesn't say that all Canaanites and Canaanite cities were destroyedNot only did many Israelites lived in Canaanite cities, some of them married Canaanites and some Canaanites were part of the David's armyI'm confused by what you're trying to say
>>7085954That's dumb and makes no sense.
>>7085238u broke me eyesalso my head hierts nowi wanna send you a bill, where u live
>>7086055btw, i was just trying so see where you fit armenians
>>7086026Prove it>>7086061See: >>7085177
>>7086021Your reading comprehension is terrible
>>7086100>Claims all canaanites were destroyed>Prove him it's not the case>T-that's not what I s-said ! y-you don't know how to read !Cringe
>>7086076You have ethnic groups on your tree the predate branches that they supposedly descended from by thousands of years. It's so goddamn dumb, lmao.
you fail to put arab into the map.look at al jubeir!he is near white arab.they are , perhaps,from hadhramaut.
>>7086146FalseRead a book>>7086151I already put arab
This sort of shit is so silly. What genetic testing has proved in these last few years is that any attempt to make these sort of race trees is just hopeless, people mix far too much.
>>7086164You read something other than the bible, christcuck.
>>7085174>>7085177>>7085238You're a retard but that's probably explained by the fact that your handwriting looks like a girl's
>>7086773Probably a feminine digit ratio while being a male- which worse than the OP being a female.
>>7086952What's the matter incels? Intimidated by a female scholar ?
>>7085174You have a faggot's handwriting, or a woman's.
>>7088177Lingustics prove it
>>7088224Why does everyone keep telling me this
>>7088229Actually they prove that the Aquitanians expanded out into other areas including North Africa and made contact with the people there, otherwise you’re wrong and this has been debunked multiple times.
>>7088230Because it's true. You don't connect all your letters, and it's got few hard angles—too loopy, too curved. It also stands straight up, instead of leaning it to the right. If you're left-handed, I can't really fault you, but you should change it if you're right-handed.
>>7085174>passing off desert kike heretic fanfics as historical evidence
>>7088320I just proved it
>>7085238What the everlasting fuck is this?>IE+Harappans=NegritosOh nonono>IE+Canaanites=Altaics-->AmerindiansHAHAHAHA>Canaanites-->Sino-TibetansLOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD PFFFFT HAHAHAYou're mental if you still buy into Noah's Ark genealogies
>>7088823You didn't read wellIt says IE+Harappans = Indo-AryansThe Negritos are Harappans that moved to SEAAnd yeah, severals sources claim that Sino-Tibetans descend from the Canaanite tribe of the Siniteshttps://answersingenesis.org/kids/bible/babel/where-do-chinese-come-from/
>>7085174It’s shit and it’s wrong
>>7085897Man FOH. Even other Christians think JW are crazy.
>>7090496based on what?
>>7090555"And Elohim said [to both man and woman] Behold, I have given to you both...every tree that has fruit, seeds that will bear fruit, it shall be food for both of you." - Genesis 1:29"And YHVH-Elohim commanded man, saying, '...but you shall not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For on the day that you eat of it, you will die a death!" - Genesis 2:17 The double wording in Biblical Hebrew (in this case, "die a death") typically indicates an intensity, Such as in in Lev 10:16 where is says "d'rosh d'rash". Rather than reading it as "Moses sought after, seeking after", we read it as "and Moses diligently sought after...". There is an intensification.There are 89 such cases of double-wording, with "d'rosh d'rash" being the 45th such case. Another is when it speaks of Joseph believed to have been torn to pieces by animals: "t'rof, t'raf" (Genesis 37:33) - which is usually translated as "he has certainly been torn apart". It does not simply mean a certainty, but also implies an intensity. Not just torn apart, but torn apart in horrible ways, a horror that the father was imagining. So to with Adam, he wasn't simply being told that he would simply die, but would die in a horrific way, at least according to his imagining.
>>7090566So, what does the story tell us about Adam?In the Genesis 2 version of the story, God creates a man to be his gardener. He doesn't promise Adam anything except to kill him in horrible ways if Adam eats the fruit [of the Gods] (YHVH and the Elohim).There is no eternal life. God doesn't promise it to Adam or any of the animals, nor even mentions it except in referencing another magical fruit tree.It isn't until the next chapter that Adam and Eve are chastised, but not killed. They are punished and only Adam (Genesis 3:23) is kicked out of the garden. (They didn't leave Eden, And apparently Eve could still access the garden with the magical fruit trees). There is a legend that Eve still lives there (obviously she ate from the fruit of eternal life) with her serpent lover, whose impure seed fathered Cain. Although the text seems to infer that Cain is YHVH's son (Genesis 4:1 - "I have acquired a man with YHVH").
>>7090570So how do people reconcile Adam not having been killed?In fact the warning in Genesis 3:3 that Eve tells the serpent ("Elohim told me...") is different than the warning that YHVH-Elohim told Adam in the previous chapter. And there is no reference that YHVH-Elohim told Eve anything, and the Genesis 1 version has the Elohim telling the two of them "eat what you want".Multiple authors stitched together results in an expected inconsistency.One answer to this dilemma is that "God meant that Adam would die on that day, and a day is like 1,000 years to God, so God told Adam he would only live 1,000 years." They are referencing Psalm 90:4 "1,000 years in your sight are like a day..."Yet Genesis 5:5 tells us that Adam lived 930 years, not 1,000.The answer to that? "David was meant to die at birth, so Adam gave 70 of his years to YHVH to give to David, that he might live." (Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 14:12)So then humans should live 1,000 yeas, right?Well, no. When YHVH noticed that the sons of the Elohim were having sex with human women, (Genesis 6:2-3) YHVH got upset and cursed humanity to have a maximum lifespan of 120 years.>"maximum ligespan of 120 years"
>>7090572Of course, even then, people lived longer than that. In Genesis 36:28, 30 chapters later, Isaac lived until 180 years old. (not to mention Noah and his sons). To get around this problem, apologists declare that "When God said 120 years, he meant that the flood would kill all of mankind in 120 years. Of course, 3 sentences after God makes this promise, Noah had 3 sons, and it was only 100 years later that there was the flood, not 120.
>>7090555what are you trying to say exactly ?
>>7085960OT tells traditions.The Hebrew term for the male that purchased the female for his wife was a ba’al, meaning, “lord”, “master”, or “husband”. While the male had a woman, the woman had a master.Only the male was capable of owning property, while the female, who was property, could own nothing. Even her word could be taken back by her owner. And since her hymen was worth an extra 50 silver shekels to the one selling her (typically, the father), she did not even own that.
I just noticed I forgot to add the Elamites on the Semites branch
>>7090595If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed (erusah) and he grabs hold of her (tephsha), and lays with her, and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give the father of the girl fifty silver (shekels) and she shall become his wife (isha) because he had attacked and harmed (inah) her. And he cannot send her away (divorce) all of the days of his life.