@@davidguy7335 Yes, he does answer questions-but when he doesn't know, he says he doesn't know. With a sample size of 5,000 out of 8 billion, there's a lot of uncertainty. If you're patient, and watch the entirety of each of his videos, he does answer a lot of questions.
@@timsmith2525 My specific comments were about Africa. It seems Africa or the touchy subject that Kyrie Irving mentioned somehow is inconclusive for those on this video. Obviously they don’t want to touch it. Maybe his other videos touch on it but I can’t speak for that. I’m speaking for this one. Have they sampled schematic or Hebraic folks from that continent?
Thank you for all of your hard work and sharing it. I am a follower of Jesus and live in Indiana USA and hunt arrowheads. I have maintained the true position that the native americans are descendants of Noah but haven't been able to expand on that until I came across your research. It is a lot to wrap my uneducated mind around but I really appreciate and value your hard work on the whole scope of the biblically scientific origins of the various ethnicities. God bless you brothers as you bless His name! ( I will have to watch much of this series repeatedly. 😊)
@@taffyjock1 troll! You've obviously never researched the bible and archeology evidence. You can't prove the big bang or evolution. That whole religion is based on speculation and theories.
@@taffyjock1 The evidence is there, you just don't want to except it. You have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by the education system, scientists and TV. The only fairytale being told is evolution. You can't prove it ever happened and there is zero evidence to support it. Interesting how archeologists have dug up fossils and not one transitional fossil of any animal or human has ever been found. Every one that they have claimed to be early man were ALL hoaxes. The geological column only exists on paper. All those layers were laid down all at once by Noah's flood. You should check your facts before blindly believing something.
@@randallmcfarland3695 wow, I know your comment is old, but I don't care, sheesh, I gotta say somethin'.. I don't think I've ever seen so many false statements in one relatively brief comment before.
There is a documentary series on TH-cam about the Maori and other polynesian people (Hawaiians etc.), by Peter Marsh and Gabi Plumm who took their oral histories seriously. And there is a very strong connection to a native american people on the north west Pacific coast. They have these stark black and white patterns...I can't remember their name... Anyway, their own histories are detailed and they all know of each other. Who went where and why.
I met Coptic Egyptian Christians who fled to Australia The father said his family were from the times of the Pharoahs and beyond according to their oral history..Mostly it was Jews and converted Christians in Egypt till Islam invaded and destroyed the moral fabric of the country.
Why didn't you use the Septuagint's genealogies?Your whole timeline would shift and I would be interested in how that would affect your population estimates. Thank you for your series it was fascinating. Bless you.
Carbon 14 should be in equilibrium in production versus decay. It is not. Answer to explain could be the lowering of the magnetic field of earth. The nuclear testing of weapons and or nuclear accidents. Solar activity may also cause the lack of equilibrium, sunspots and or solar flares will vary the solar radiation reaching earth. More radiation means greater production rate, the decay rate remains constant, supposedly. If the earth was created without radioactive isotopes or elements, the content of C14 would have been zero, it takes, I think 30000 years to build to equilibrium for C14, C14 dates rely on earth being at equilibrium for time from the death of the original organism to date of testing. If the ratio of c14 to C12 is changing, the date cannot be accurate, unless one accounts for the buildup of the C14. KEN HAM please check your Answers book, I think Answers one for the discussion, though I have given a bit more detail even though I do lack the credentials.
There is no chance of them being triplets. One son had his first son at age of 100 two years after the flood. This would mean Noah would be be six hundred two or three at birth of this son. That means one son had to be born two or three years after Noah had the first son. Reasons for the variation, which may have some effect, was Noah exactly 500 or was he 500 years eleven months at birth of first son. I belief the Flood he was about 600 years two months meaning end of Flood would be about 601 years two months. So this means one son was born two to three years after the others and then again was the son son born 2 years or 2 years eleven months after the flood.
So twins tend to run in families of twins. IF SHEM & JAPHETH OR WERE TWIN it would explain why Abrahams descendants have TWINS repeatedly in their lines. Esau & Jacob. Its also speculated that Leah & Rachel were twins which their line comes from Terah, Abrahams father.
Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. . The word elder (along with earlier texts) indicates he was the oldest of the three boys. That he could be the older twin of either Cham or Shem seems very forced to the context of the passages. At 10:1, Shem is listed first but we know that in Hebrew reckoning, the most important was typically listed first. From earlier passages and from 10:21 we can infer Japheth, Cham and Shem is the chronological order. Finally, if we want to force twinning (which we of all people should not, being that the text does not even closely imply it) we will need to force with Cham and not Shem. . But it is likely from Gen 9:27 that Japheth's family/legacy somehome eventually got absorbed into Shem's line, and hence the results Nate indicates. Though likely, as scientists, we should do sequencing of more folks as he points out. . Have loved this fascinating series, and I am located in Bangalore India so cannot stay awake for these live episodes as it is very early in the morning for us.
Q: how would you define being an Arab genetically today? Q: can we distinguish between people from northern parts of the Middle-East ( Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan/ Israel) and southern parts such as the Gulf countries?
I recommend to consider removing reference to "Race" in your book. A New History to the Human Family is biblically close. Or you can also consider replacing Family with Genus. . Race has connotation to our depraved condition of wanting to outdo each other first. At least the etymology indicates so, let alone evolutionists possibly first introducing it.
Yeah, it's really embarrassing that they keep using the term race, it just obscures the truth and makes them less trustworthy. If they wanted to be even more accurate, they could say "A New History of the Human Kind", and it would reference the Biblical term "kind" used in their other work. But I think they're mostly just using the term "human race" because they are afraid of the world's judgement, calling them racist.
Who are we saying is Jewish? Just to be clear and this is written in scripture Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not Jewish they were Hebrew. Only those from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin are Jewish. The house of Israel(all 12 tribes) were split and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were the southern kingdom and were taken into captivity by Babylon. The northern kingdom was the other ten tribes and they were dispersed(scattered amongst the gentiles) throughout the world about 200+ years earlier. The southern kingdom was allowed to return to Jerusalem after 70 years in captivity and they became the jews living in the land during the time that messiah walked the earth. They are the ones that preserved the instructions and laws given to Moses by our creator. They unfortunately built there own doctrine and this is what Yahusha (jesus) fought against.
Faithful persons from the northern tribes went south before the Assyrian invasions, so the Kingdom of Judah then consisted of people from all the tribes.
@@americangothic1313 You're probably right, I don't know. My point was that only those of the house of Judah, Benjamin, and those who joined them were considered Jews. Some of the southern kingdom went west into Africa and also up into what we now call Great Britain. British in Hebrew means coveted man. The majority of the northern kingdom went up into Europe, Russia, and the Americas. It was Yah's plan to divorce the Northern Kingdom and disperse them to all parts of the world so later after Yahusha died and resurrected He could regather them and bring them back into the covenant He gave at Sinai under leadership of Malkiy-Tsadiyq. It wasnt a new covenant it was a renewed covenant. There is much bad doctrine and misinformation being taught by the Christian church. Most think Abraham was Jewish, he wasn't. The early catholic church under Constantine changed everything. He changed the sabbath to Sunday which no man has the authority to do. Constantine worshipped the sun. Killing early believers didn't work so he embraced it and forced them to convert to his christianity under penalty of death. He removed anything Hebrew then absorbed different pagan traditions which God (Yahuah) told us not to do. Marcione comes along and convinces Believers that the Torah(law) was done away with. Even Messiah's name has been changed. It was never Jesus, that's a Greek name. Most call Him Yeshua but I prefer Yahusha. Christianity has been taught that way ever since and almost 2000 years later people don't question it. They just accept what the man behind the pulpit says. It breaks my heart that so many have been lied to and refuse to accept the truth about what the bible actually says. Every thing in the New testament is just quoting the Tenach or old testament. Sorry, that was a bit of an overshare but I don't know what you've studied.
If Jesus is the Messiah, and the Messiah is now high priest (Hebrews, chapter Four), then it isn't under the Mosaic covenant because He would have to be a Levite and a descendant of Aaron, and He is not.
@@americangothic1313 That's not true. The covenant given at Sinai is still in affect. Hebrews is talking about the same covenant under the new leadership of the Malkiy-Tsadiyq. The Levites will still do what they did before but under new leadership. Before there was ever a Levite priesthood there was Malkiy-Tsadiyq which is High priest and king. Shem was Malkiy-Tsadiyq. The problem with the giving of the covenant at Sinai the first time wasn't that they couldn't follow His instructions, it was because they wouldn't. Read Genesis through Deuteronomy and you'll see. Yah got fed up with Israel constantly breaking his laws. He'd save them then time went by and they were right back into pagan idolatry. That's why He divorced them.
When a conditional covenant is broken, God makes a completely New one. When there is a change in priesthood, there has been a change in covenant and a change in law as well.
Ironically, while he keeps saying R1b is the lineage of the Magyars/Hungarians, R1b is the least prevalent among Magyars/Hungarians than in the rest of Europe. Again, R1b is evidence of the Germanic Migration Age. The main Y Chromosome lineage of Hungarians is R1a at 20%. Again, Japheth's line ARE the Eurasian/Siberian lineages.
I'll jpoint out that Jews are not a separate race. They are humans the same as the rest of us, with the same ancestors. But here is a question that applies to all humans. Why do male humans have mammary glands and nipples? I would like to hear an explanation based on the theory of biblical creation.
Now I'm confused because I thought all Jewish people descended from Abraham, who the Bible calls Syrian, and they called themselves Hebrews which meant "from the other side". I thought the term "Jew" referred to their religion, and when they changed from Jew to Christian, they were now Hebrew Christians, not Christian Jews. It's like the words, "Oriental" and "Asian". People are Asian. Food, objects, clothing, etc. are Oriental. Can someone explain the difference between Jew and Hebrew to me? Israelite is a more precise term because those would be all who were descended from Jacob.
You are correct that the term "Israel" and "Israelites" came from the name God gave Jacob after he wrestled with God. So the 12 tribes were called Israelites. But in the history of Israel there was a split between the northern tribes (which included Manasseh and Ephraim) and the southern tribes (primarily the large tribe of Judah, which was the "royal tribe" from which the descendants of David came) and Benjamin, which was very small. After the split, the northern tribes were carried away into exile by Assyria in 722 BC. They never returned from exile. Before they were carried away into exile, some from the northern tribes sided with Judah and came into Judah's territory so they could worship at the temple in Jerusalem. The tribe of Judah (and Benjamin) were carried off into exile in 586 BC by the Babylonians, but after 70 years returned by the decree of the Persian king Cyrus (which God had foretold would happen in Isaiah, even naming Cyrus by name 150 years before he was born and before Judah had been taken away in exile). Since the only tribe that remained (of any size) was Judah, the people who were God's children came to be known as Jews, from the name Judah. All Jews consider themselves to be sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The word "Hebrew" is a term we see the Egyptians calling the children of Israel in Egypt. Foreigners who invaded Egypt around this time were called Hapiru, or Habiru (Egyptian: ʿApiru). It is possible that the Egyptians classified the Israelites as "Hebrews" and just used the term basically as "foreigners." There was a man named "Eber" in the Old Testament (great grandson of Shem) and was an ancestor of Abraham. It is possible that Hebrew comes from a word meaning "over". A parallel to this was the term for the "Amorites" who also were basically named the people from "across" the river Euphrates. And, yes, Abraham himself was originally from Ur, across the river. Then he moved to Haran and eventually at God's direction to Hebron in the land of the Canaanites (Canaan). By the time of the apostle Paul, we see that in Philippians 3:5-6 he calls himself a "Hebrews of Hebrews" - a true Jew. Here's Paul's words: ..."we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and take pride in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ." So certainly Paul thinks of Hebrews as Jews. In Paul's thinking the Jews were the physical descendants of Abraham, but he came to realize that the "spiritual descendants of Abraham" are those who have the faith of Abraham, who looked forward to the promised Messiah (which found fulfillment in Christ). It wasn't mere outward circumcision that brought a person into a covenant relationship with God. That was an outward sign, but a circumcision of the heart (Jeremiah 4:4) was necessary. It is the same with baptism (Colossians 2:10-11) "And in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ," Nevertheless, a Jew was marked by the outward sign of circumcision ever since God commanded circumcision to Abraham. Now that we no longer live under the ceremonial law of the OT which Christ fulfilled, we don't follow those rules and regulations which were merely to lead us until the time of Christ.
@@jimsherod8786 There are other hints relating to the migrations of each tribe, and some Biblical evidence clarifying things. In 1 Maccabees 12:21 it says "It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham:" and the Lacedemonians were the Spartans. There are also the huge migrations of the tribe of Dan (although not all of them moved), as partially documented in the old Irish/Hibernian Book of Invasions under the name Tuatha de Danann (Tribe of Danann; the people in charge of it say it's tribe of the goddess Danu even though this supposed goddess Danu is never mentioned anywhere in their literature). While heavily mythologized, the tales at least confirm their existence, especially since they are called Tuatha Dé (Tribe of God/the gods) in the oldest texts, which would correspond with how they would be called if they were not more well known but were seen with special divine protections, and their name would be clarified later as "de Danann".
@@arspsychologia4401 Since I only acknowledge the canonical books as recognized by the Christian Church before the Council of Trent, I do not believe that Maccabees is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I can only base my sure knowledge of things on Scripture... and for me Maccabees is just an interesting historical writing that may have truth mixed with error. It cannot be trusted as 100% accurate and true like Scripture can be.
@@arspsychologia4401 The part that is quoted the Holy Spirit saw fit to incorporate into Scripture. It does not validate the entire Maccabees books as Scripture. Paul quoted some things from pagan authors also... that does not make the corpus of their entire writings scripture.
Dr. Jeanson dismisses the genetic evidence for Neanderthals as unreliable and considers them as fully human; but how does he evaluate the morphological differences between them and modern humans? I mean, the facial structure, brain size, bone density, etc., are significantly different from any other "race." I really would like to hear his analysis of these differences.
The evolutionary 'scientists' moved the jaw out to make it seem like an ape. An American dentist went and studied the fossil and corrected the observation, but was threatened with death by those who were promoting another falsehood! Check it out, but not on Wickedpedia, as they are part of the problem!
@@keithparkinson8858 Appreciate the comment but the misplacement of the jaw was not what I was talking about. Look at the size of the eye sockets and their placement on the skull - especially the proportions compared to a human face - they are not in any way a "normal" variance of anything we have ever seen in humans. Also, again, bone density; their bones are far more like an ape's in size, rather than like anything human. Everything about their skeleton screams, "Not human!" Hence, I wonder what they were. I do not for a second buy into the evolutionary answer but I am curious about how to classify them.
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n Possible; but as far as I know, their fossils are found in post flood geology. So, apparently, they were around after the flood. And that is why I asked the original question. I am not aware of any currently understood biological or genetic mechanism that would make them simply a variant of normal humans. - which is why I asked the question in the first place.
The Real Killer B They are still humans. There are still many variations even today among different ethnicities even though they may not be as pronounced as those of the Neanderthals.
Nathaniel needs to study more on African history because that was disrespectful how in one of the videos, he said that there are little to no manuscripts, artifacts, etc., according to his study and mainstream science. Ken Ham, you need to check your employees.
@@Guzman1611 I don't mean perfection at all. All I'm saying is that he needs to do further research if he wants to be considered reliable. Poor representation of Africa lead to negative beliefs such as extreme poverty, laziness, and so on. Historians, especially in the mainstream and secular world, have discovered and confirmed many discoveries of Africa from ancient times to the present. I highly recommend him to look into it because Africa also plays a vital role in ancient civilizations, which includes early humans as well.
That was my takeaway as well. I see nothing but willful ignorance when it comes to African connections in scripture. It’s 2023 and the truth is out there but there’s no whole truth in this video. Ken and AIG is proven untrustworthy once again. SMH.
YES! Start a DNA sequencing company!
Great to see the comments section open. Thank you!
Such a fascinating series! Thank you for presenting this information!!
"He takes a million years to answer a question." Most excellent! However, the answer is usually worth the wait.
Does he actually answer anything? He keeps saying he doesn’t know this that or the other.
@@davidguy7335 Yes, he does answer questions-but when he doesn't know, he says he doesn't know. With a sample size of 5,000 out of 8 billion, there's a lot of uncertainty. If you're patient, and watch the entirety of each of his videos, he does answer a lot of questions.
@@timsmith2525 My specific comments were about Africa. It seems Africa or the touchy subject that Kyrie Irving mentioned somehow is inconclusive for those on this video. Obviously they don’t want to touch it. Maybe his other videos touch on it but I can’t speak for that. I’m speaking for this one. Have they sampled schematic or Hebraic folks from that continent?
@@davidguy7335 I don't remember which video, but he does mention that we need more Y-chromosome data from Africa.
Thank you for all of your hard work and sharing it. I am a follower of Jesus and live in Indiana USA and hunt arrowheads. I have maintained the true position that the native americans are descendants of Noah but haven't been able to expand on that until I came across your research. It is a lot to wrap my uneducated mind around but I really appreciate and value your hard work on the whole scope of the biblically scientific origins of the various ethnicities. God bless you brothers as you bless His name! ( I will have to watch much of this series repeatedly. 😊)
Noah never existed
@@taffyjock1 troll! You've obviously never researched the bible and archeology evidence. You can't prove the big bang or evolution. That whole religion is based on speculation and theories.
@@randallmcfarland3695 Because there is not evidence for fairy tales.
@@taffyjock1 The evidence is there, you just don't want to except it. You have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by the education system, scientists and TV. The only fairytale being told is evolution. You can't prove it ever happened and there is zero evidence to support it. Interesting how archeologists have dug up fossils and not one transitional fossil of any animal or human has ever been found. Every one that they have claimed to be early man were ALL hoaxes. The geological column only exists on paper. All those layers were laid down all at once by Noah's flood. You should check your facts before blindly believing something.
@@randallmcfarland3695 wow, I know your comment is old, but I don't care, sheesh, I gotta say somethin'..
I don't think I've ever seen so many false statements in one relatively brief comment before.
As a Christian- your work is amazing and much needed
3 years ago and I just now became aware of it.
There is a documentary series on TH-cam about the Maori and other polynesian people (Hawaiians etc.), by Peter Marsh and Gabi Plumm who took their oral histories seriously. And there is a very strong connection to a native american people on the north west Pacific coast. They have these stark black and white patterns...I can't remember their name...
Anyway, their own histories are detailed and they all know of each other. Who went where and why.
This fascinating work in it's infancy, appears to be leading the way in providing the most reasonable answers. Thank you @Answers in Genesis
So good. Thank you!
I would like to see this topic debated in modern day debate.
I suspect we could have a 3rd Q/A session. At least, I heartily vote for it.
I met Coptic Egyptian Christians who fled to Australia The father said his family were from the times of the Pharoahs and beyond according to their oral history..Mostly it was Jews and converted Christians in Egypt till Islam invaded and destroyed the moral fabric of the country.
Why didn't you use the Septuagint's genealogies?Your whole timeline would shift and I would be interested in how that would affect your population estimates. Thank you for your series it was fascinating. Bless you.
The fourth cluster Is Canaán, the son Ham had with his mother (Noah's wife). Check that out
Carbon 14 should be in equilibrium in production versus decay. It is not. Answer to explain could be the lowering of the magnetic field of earth. The nuclear testing of weapons and or nuclear accidents. Solar activity may also cause the lack of equilibrium, sunspots and or solar flares will vary the solar radiation reaching earth. More radiation means greater production rate, the decay rate remains constant, supposedly. If the earth was created without radioactive isotopes or elements, the content of C14 would have been zero, it takes, I think 30000 years to build to equilibrium for C14, C14 dates rely on earth being at equilibrium for time from the death of the original organism to date of testing. If the ratio of c14 to C12 is changing, the date cannot be accurate, unless one accounts for the buildup of the C14. KEN HAM please check your Answers book, I think Answers one for the discussion, though I have given a bit more detail even though I do lack the credentials.
There is no chance of them being triplets. One son had his first son at age of 100 two years after the flood. This would mean Noah would be be six hundred two or three at birth of this son. That means one son had to be born two or three years after Noah had the first son. Reasons for the variation, which may have some effect, was Noah exactly 500 or was he 500 years eleven months at birth of first son. I belief the Flood he was about 600 years two months meaning end of Flood would be about 601 years two months. So this means one son was born two to three years after the others and then again was the son son born 2 years or 2 years eleven months after the flood.
So twins tend to run in families of twins. IF SHEM & JAPHETH OR WERE TWIN it would explain why Abrahams descendants have TWINS repeatedly in their lines. Esau & Jacob. Its also speculated that Leah & Rachel were twins which their line comes from Terah, Abrahams father.
Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
.
The word elder (along with earlier texts) indicates he was the oldest of the three boys. That he could be the older twin of either Cham or Shem seems very forced to the context of the passages. At 10:1, Shem is listed first but we know that in Hebrew reckoning, the most important was typically listed first. From earlier passages and from 10:21 we can infer Japheth, Cham and Shem is the chronological order. Finally, if we want to force twinning (which we of all people should not, being that the text does not even closely imply it) we will need to force with Cham and not Shem.
.
But it is likely from Gen 9:27 that Japheth's family/legacy somehome eventually got absorbed into Shem's line, and hence the results Nate indicates. Though likely, as scientists, we should do sequencing of more folks as he points out.
.
Have loved this fascinating series, and I am located in Bangalore India so cannot stay awake for these live episodes as it is very early in the morning for us.
After life is over all questions will be answered. 1 Corinthians 13.
I want it now! -Veruca Salt
Q: how would you define being an Arab genetically today?
Q: can we distinguish between people from northern parts of the Middle-East ( Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan/ Israel) and southern parts such as the Gulf countries?
I recommend to consider removing reference to "Race" in your book. A New History to the Human Family is biblically close. Or you can also consider replacing Family with Genus.
.
Race has connotation to our depraved condition of wanting to outdo each other first. At least the etymology indicates so, let alone evolutionists possibly first introducing it.
Yeah, it's really embarrassing that they keep using the term race, it just obscures the truth and makes them less trustworthy. If they wanted to be even more accurate, they could say "A New History of the Human Kind", and it would reference the Biblical term "kind" used in their other work. But I think they're mostly just using the term "human race" because they are afraid of the world's judgement, calling them racist.
Couldn’t the Neanderthals be remains found before the flood?
@46:50 Dr. Jeasnson it's Esca-ta-logical
This is EPISODE 24 of THE NEW HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE.
@16:45 Isn't there mainstream DNA research that has identified African tribes with hebraic origins e.g. The Lemba?
Were there not people from Africa at the Pentecost event? These would have been people dedicated to following Jewish traditions.
Who are we saying is Jewish? Just to be clear and this is written in scripture Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not Jewish they were Hebrew. Only those from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin are Jewish. The house of Israel(all 12 tribes) were split and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were the southern kingdom and were taken into captivity by Babylon. The northern kingdom was the other ten tribes and they were dispersed(scattered amongst the gentiles) throughout the world about 200+ years earlier. The southern kingdom was allowed to return to Jerusalem after 70 years in captivity and they became the jews living in the land during the time that messiah walked the earth. They are the ones that preserved the instructions and laws given to Moses by our creator. They unfortunately built there own doctrine and this is what Yahusha (jesus) fought against.
Faithful persons from the northern tribes went south before the Assyrian invasions, so the Kingdom of Judah then consisted of people from all the tribes.
@@americangothic1313 You're probably right, I don't know. My point was that only those of the house of Judah, Benjamin, and those who joined them were considered Jews. Some of the southern kingdom went west into Africa and also up into what we now call Great Britain. British in Hebrew means coveted man. The majority of the northern kingdom went up into Europe, Russia, and the Americas. It was Yah's plan to divorce the Northern Kingdom and disperse them to all parts of the world so later after Yahusha died and resurrected He could regather them and bring them back into the covenant He gave at Sinai under leadership of Malkiy-Tsadiyq. It wasnt a new covenant it was a renewed covenant. There is much bad doctrine and misinformation being taught by the Christian church. Most think Abraham was Jewish, he wasn't. The early catholic church under Constantine changed everything. He changed the sabbath to Sunday which no man has the authority to do. Constantine worshipped the sun. Killing early believers didn't work so he embraced it and forced them to convert to his christianity under penalty of death. He removed anything Hebrew then absorbed different pagan traditions which God (Yahuah) told us not to do. Marcione comes along and convinces Believers that the Torah(law) was done away with. Even Messiah's name has been changed. It was never Jesus, that's a Greek name. Most call Him Yeshua but I prefer Yahusha. Christianity has been taught that way ever since and almost 2000 years later people don't question it. They just accept what the man behind the pulpit says. It breaks my heart that so many have been lied to and refuse to accept the truth about what the bible actually says. Every thing in the New testament is just quoting the Tenach or old testament. Sorry, that was a bit of an overshare but I don't know what you've studied.
If Jesus is the Messiah, and the Messiah is now high priest (Hebrews, chapter Four), then it isn't under the Mosaic covenant because He would have to be a Levite and a descendant of Aaron, and He is not.
@@americangothic1313 That's not true. The covenant given at Sinai is still in affect. Hebrews is talking about the same covenant under the new leadership of the Malkiy-Tsadiyq. The Levites will still do what they did before but under new leadership. Before there was ever a Levite priesthood there was Malkiy-Tsadiyq which is High priest and king. Shem was Malkiy-Tsadiyq. The problem with the giving of the covenant at Sinai the first time wasn't that they couldn't follow His instructions, it was because they wouldn't. Read Genesis through Deuteronomy and you'll see. Yah got fed up with Israel constantly breaking his laws. He'd save them then time went by and they were right back into pagan idolatry. That's why He divorced them.
When a conditional covenant is broken, God makes a completely New one.
When there is a change in priesthood, there has been a change in covenant and a change in law as well.
Ironically, while he keeps saying R1b is the lineage of the Magyars/Hungarians, R1b is the least prevalent among Magyars/Hungarians than in the rest of Europe. Again, R1b is evidence of the Germanic Migration Age. The main Y Chromosome lineage of Hungarians is R1a at 20%. Again, Japheth's line ARE the Eurasian/Siberian lineages.
I'll jpoint out that Jews are not a separate race. They are humans the same as the rest of us, with the same ancestors. But here is a question that applies to all humans. Why do male humans have mammary glands and nipples? I would like to hear an explanation based on the theory of biblical creation.
Now I'm confused because I thought all Jewish people descended from Abraham, who the Bible calls Syrian, and they called themselves Hebrews which meant "from the other side". I thought the term "Jew" referred to their religion, and when they changed from Jew to Christian, they were now Hebrew Christians, not Christian Jews. It's like the words, "Oriental" and "Asian". People are Asian. Food, objects, clothing, etc. are Oriental. Can someone explain the difference between Jew and Hebrew to me? Israelite is a more precise term because those would be all who were descended from Jacob.
You are correct that the term "Israel" and "Israelites" came from the name God gave Jacob after he wrestled with God. So the 12 tribes were called Israelites. But in the history of Israel there was a split between the northern tribes (which included Manasseh and Ephraim) and the southern tribes (primarily the large tribe of Judah, which was the "royal tribe" from which the descendants of David came) and Benjamin, which was very small. After the split, the northern tribes were carried away into exile by Assyria in 722 BC. They never returned from exile. Before they were carried away into exile, some from the northern tribes sided with Judah and came into Judah's territory so they could worship at the temple in Jerusalem. The tribe of Judah (and Benjamin) were carried off into exile in 586 BC by the Babylonians, but after 70 years returned by the decree of the Persian king Cyrus (which God had foretold would happen in Isaiah, even naming Cyrus by name 150 years before he was born and before Judah had been taken away in exile). Since the only tribe that remained (of any size) was Judah, the people who were God's children came to be known as Jews, from the name Judah. All Jews consider themselves to be sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The word "Hebrew" is a term we see the Egyptians calling the children of Israel in Egypt. Foreigners who invaded Egypt around this time were called Hapiru, or Habiru (Egyptian: ʿApiru). It is possible that the Egyptians classified the Israelites as "Hebrews" and just used the term basically as "foreigners." There was a man named "Eber" in the Old Testament (great grandson of Shem) and was an ancestor of Abraham. It is possible that Hebrew comes from a word meaning "over". A parallel to this was the term for the "Amorites" who also were basically named the people from "across" the river Euphrates. And, yes, Abraham himself was originally from Ur, across the river. Then he moved to Haran and eventually at God's direction to Hebron in the land of the Canaanites (Canaan). By the time of the apostle Paul, we see that in Philippians 3:5-6 he calls himself a "Hebrews of Hebrews" - a true Jew. Here's Paul's words: ..."we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and take pride in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ." So certainly Paul thinks of Hebrews as Jews. In Paul's thinking the Jews were the physical descendants of Abraham, but he came to realize that the "spiritual descendants of Abraham" are those who have the faith of Abraham, who looked forward to the promised Messiah (which found fulfillment in Christ). It wasn't mere outward circumcision that brought a person into a covenant relationship with God. That was an outward sign, but a circumcision of the heart (Jeremiah 4:4) was necessary. It is the same with baptism (Colossians 2:10-11) "And in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ," Nevertheless, a Jew was marked by the outward sign of circumcision ever since God commanded circumcision to Abraham. Now that we no longer live under the ceremonial law of the OT which Christ fulfilled, we don't follow those rules and regulations which were merely to lead us until the time of Christ.
@@jimsherod8786 There are other hints relating to the migrations of each tribe, and some Biblical evidence clarifying things. In 1 Maccabees 12:21 it says "It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham:" and the Lacedemonians were the Spartans. There are also the huge migrations of the tribe of Dan (although not all of them moved), as partially documented in the old Irish/Hibernian Book of Invasions under the name Tuatha de Danann (Tribe of Danann; the people in charge of it say it's tribe of the goddess Danu even though this supposed goddess Danu is never mentioned anywhere in their literature). While heavily mythologized, the tales at least confirm their existence, especially since they are called Tuatha Dé (Tribe of God/the gods) in the oldest texts, which would correspond with how they would be called if they were not more well known but were seen with special divine protections, and their name would be clarified later as "de Danann".
@@arspsychologia4401 Since I only acknowledge the canonical books as recognized by the Christian Church before the Council of Trent, I do not believe that Maccabees is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I can only base my sure knowledge of things on Scripture... and for me Maccabees is just an interesting historical writing that may have truth mixed with error. It cannot be trusted as 100% accurate and true like Scripture can be.
@@jimsherod8786 2 Maccabees is quoted 3 times in Hebrews 11.
@@arspsychologia4401 The part that is quoted the Holy Spirit saw fit to incorporate into Scripture. It does not validate the entire Maccabees books as Scripture. Paul quoted some things from pagan authors also... that does not make the corpus of their entire writings scripture.
Dr. Jeanson dismisses the genetic evidence for Neanderthals as unreliable and considers them as fully human; but how does he evaluate the morphological differences between them and modern humans? I mean, the facial structure, brain size, bone density, etc., are significantly different from any other "race." I really would like to hear his analysis of these differences.
The evolutionary 'scientists' moved the jaw out to make it seem like an ape. An American dentist went and studied the fossil and corrected the observation, but was threatened with death by those who were promoting another falsehood! Check it out, but not on Wickedpedia, as they are part of the problem!
@@keithparkinson8858 Appreciate the comment but the misplacement of the jaw was not what I was talking about. Look at the size of the eye sockets and their placement on the skull - especially the proportions compared to a human face - they are not in any way a "normal" variance of anything we have ever seen in humans. Also, again, bone density; their bones are far more like an ape's in size, rather than like anything human. Everything about their skeleton screams, "Not human!" Hence, I wonder what they were. I do not for a second buy into the evolutionary answer but I am curious about how to classify them.
@@therealkillerb7643 What if they were pre flood people who grew to be bigger since they lived longer? I dunno
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n Possible; but as far as I know, their fossils are found in post flood geology. So, apparently, they were around after the flood. And that is why I asked the original question. I am not aware of any currently understood biological or genetic mechanism that would make them simply a variant of normal humans. - which is why I asked the question in the first place.
The Real Killer B They are still humans. There are still many variations even today among different ethnicities even though they may not be as pronounced as those of the Neanderthals.
Is it not possible that the fourth mitochondrial branch would come from Noah’s daughters?
The sweet potato 🍠 America to Pacific
Nathaniel needs to study more on African history because that was disrespectful how in one of the videos, he said that there are little to no manuscripts, artifacts, etc., according to his study and mainstream science. Ken Ham, you need to check your employees.
The scientists don't need to be in-line 100% Dr. Jeanson has been a blessing. God bless.
@@Guzman1611 I don't mean perfection at all. All I'm saying is that he needs to do further research if he wants to be considered reliable. Poor representation of Africa lead to negative beliefs such as extreme poverty, laziness, and so on. Historians, especially in the mainstream and secular world, have discovered and confirmed many discoveries of Africa from ancient times to the present. I highly recommend him to look into it because Africa also plays a vital role in ancient civilizations, which includes early humans as well.
That was my takeaway as well. I see nothing but willful ignorance when it comes to African connections in scripture. It’s 2023 and the truth is out there but there’s no whole truth in this video. Ken and AIG is proven untrustworthy once again. SMH.
Where did the Incans come from?
Jews all of same decent? Not all Jews are true Jews so I guess it depends, Romans 2:28,29.
Ph.D in religious nonsense
I have said for quite some time "Conventional Theory of Evolution is a fairy tale for adult."
BTW, do you have even an M.S.?
Better than armchair wet rock theorist
So you have more education in microbiology than Dr. Jeanson? Interesting.
Retards everywhere, adults with imaginary friends