Followers

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Theories about the Tree of Life


Alice C. Linsley


Biblical anthropologist Susan Burns has written a fascinating piece on the Hyphaene Thebaica or Doum Palm. She makes a case that the author of Genesis had this tree in mind as the "tree of life."  According to Coptic tradition Adam brought this tree from Paradise. 


Ostracon showing an Egyptian harvesting fruit from a Doum Palm.


Unlike the Date Nut Palm (tamar) which symbolizes the Feminine Principle, the Doum Palm symbolizes masculine strength. Eight baskets of 3,000-year-old doum fruit were found in King Tutankhamun's tomb.

The Tree of Life is a very old idea, as is evident from the wide diffusion of the motif across Africa, Asia, Australia and South America. The principle of diffusion holds that the oldest culture traits, beliefs or practices are those that are most widely diffused across the earth. We may assume that the Tree of Life motif is indeed very ancient.

The Tree of Life archetype is as old as the serpent archetype and the two are often portrayed together, as in the image of Re's cat killing the giant water serpent. The Nile region appears to be the point of origin of both the Tree and the Serpent archetypes.



Both the Tree of Life and the Serpent are associated with the first man and the first women. At the Horite shrine of Heliopolis the first couple was portrayed as emerging from the Tree of Life.

The association of the tree and serpent is found in the story of Moses' rod which the people were to look upon and be saved when they were being bitten by vipers in the wilderness.  In John 3:14, Jesus refers to this image when He spoke of his passion, saying: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

The Tree of Life is also associated with streaming water or the water of Life.

We find the Tree, Serpent and Water symbols in Genesis and Revelation, at the beginning and the end of the biblical history.


Other possible candidates

The Ijebu of Nigeria regard the Igi-Ose tree as the likely candidate for the "tree of Life."  The leaves of this tree are not to be touched except by the chief and priest. They are used to install Ijebu rulers ands to adorn shrines and other sacred places.

The Gikuyu of Kenya place their first parents on a ridge north of Muranga, a town south of Nyeri. One can visit the site Mukurwe Wa Nyagathanga and see the Tree of Gathanga. To the Gikuyu, Mount Kenya is God's seat on earth and fig trees grow in abundance on the slopes of the mountain.

The Gikuyu call the creator Ngai and when Ngai created Gikuyu he told him: “Build your homestead where the fig trees grow." This is why many believe that the Tree of Life was a fig tree. The fig tree plays a significant role in revealing Jesus as the Son of God in the Gospels (Mark 11, Matthew 21 and Luke 13).

Another likely candidate is the Baobab tree which stores water.  Again we find the association of the Tree of Life with water. The bark of the Baobob is used for cloth and rope and the leaves for condiments and medicines. The baobab’s fruit is called "monkey bread."



1000 year old Baobab tree


This legend surrounding the baobab describes what happens if you are never content with what you are:

The baobab was among the first trees to appear on the land. Next came the slender, graceful palm tree. When the baobab saw the palm tree, it cried out that it wanted to be taller. Then the beautiful flame tree appeared with its red flower and the baobab was envious for flower blossoms. When the baobab saw the magnificent fig tree, it prayed for fruit as well. The gods became angry with the tree and pulled it up by its roots, then replanted it upside down to keep it quiet.

In the wet months the baobab stores water in its thick, corky, fire-resistant trunk for the long dry period ahead. The water is tapped when drinking water becomes scarce and by this tree life is sustained in the arid months. Likely, this is the origin of the idea of a tree from which a river flows for the healing of the nations (Rev. 22:1-2), an image of the restoration of Paradise.

The Church Fathers regarded the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden to be a symbol of the Cross upon which Jesus Christ died to give life to the world. 

Monday, August 22, 2011

How Big Was Noah's Flood?


Alice C. Linsley

Noah lived in the region of Lake Chad. He was one of the mighty men of old who controlled a section of the major water systems of that part of the wet Sahara. According to Dr Kevin White, “Over the last 10,000 years, there have been two distinct humid phases, separated by an interval of highly variable but generally drying conditions between roughly 8,000 and 7,000 years ago. Another drying trend took place after about 5,000 years ago, leading to today’s parched environment.”

Lake Chad was a giant lake known as Lake Mega-Chad with an area of 249,000 miles (400,000 km). At its maximum extent it was larger than any lake that exists on earth today. Around 7500-6950 BC it was 586 feet deep.

The Komadugu River connects Lake Chad
and the Yobe River Basin.
This would have been the river route
that connected Kain, Nok (Enock) and Noah.
The Chari River in the south flowed into Lake Chad (as it does today) and there were waves driven by continental trade winds. Two distinct episodes have been identified in which the boundaires of the Lake expanded. These correspond to lower and middle Holocene phases of wetter conditions in central and northern Africa. Noah lived around 2490-2415 BC when the Sahara experienced a wet period (Karl W. Butzer 1966). This is the period of the Old Kingdom.

There appears to have been a connection between Lake Mega-Chad and the Bahr Al-Ghazal which flows into Lake No (Noah's Lake) in Sudan and from there flows eastward as the White Nile (Bahr al-Abyad).

Around 4000 BC, the Horite city of Nekhen was along the Nile (in Sudan) and Lake Mega-Chad had split into three separate lakes: Lake Chad, Lake Fitri and Lake Bodele.


Reference: Shorelines in the Sahara: geomorphological evidence for an enhanced monsoon from palaeolake Megachad by Nick Drake and Charlie Bristow, Department of Geography, King’s College London

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Dumb News Report on Genesis


Here is a dumb news report on Genesis and Andrew Parker's use of Genesis. It is from the sensationalist Daily Mail:

The revalation [sic] came to Professor Andrew Parker during a visit to Rome. He was in the Sistine Chapel, gazing up at Michelangelo's awesome ceiling paintings, when a realisation struck him with dizzying force.

'A Biblical enigma exists that is on the one hand so cryptic it has remained camouflaged for millennia, and on the other so obvious one cannot miss it.'

The enigma is that the order of Creation as described in the Book of Genesis, and so powerfully depicted in the Sistine Chapel by the greatest artist of the Renaissance, has been precisely, eerily confirmed by modern evolutionary science.

Read it all here.


Andrew Parker is a biology professor from Oxford whose area of study is the evolution of the eye.  He claims to be an atheist and stirred the ire of fellow atheists when he asserted that evolution and Genesis can be reconciled.  In his The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is scientifically accurate he asserts that the people who gave us the book of Genesis understood evolution 3000 years ago.  Parker fails to identify who those people were. Would he think them so clever were he to recognize that they were ruler-priests who saw a fixed hierarchy in creation?  Or that they were Nilotic peoples who knew a great deal more about water creatures that Parker and over thousands of years never saw one species evolve from another species?  Had they done so they would have remarked on this fascinating observation in Genesis.

Parker has no friends among Young Earth Creationists either. He has said that, "Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions."  He lost the literalists when he posited that the creation of lights in the sky to mark the seasons is a poetic description of the formation of vision. In Parker’s Day Five abundant sea life evolves in direct response to the evolution of vision. He writes, "Almost overnight, life suddenly grew vastly more complex. Predators were able to hunt far more efficiently, and so prey had to evolve fast too–or get eaten.”

Nor has he many friends among Christians who believe in theistic evolution because Parker fails to place Genesis in the theological context of divine creation. For him, life on earth developed according to the mechanism of evolution, not because the Creator created through the Generative Word.

The most important criticism of Parker's correlation of the days of creation with evolution is simply that Genesis holds to a fixed order in creation. To impose an evolutionary scheme on Genesis One is to make it say exactly the opposite of what it states: that life is organized within fixed genetic boundaries called "kinds."

For a man of Parker's academic caliber, the book is disappointing.  He should have stayed with the subject of vision and its development. Perhaps he hoped to cash in on the Bible busting trend that has put plenty of cash in the pockets of fellow atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins. 




Thursday, August 18, 2011

Reactions to My Genesis Research


Alice C. Linsley


After more than thirty years of presenting aspects of my Genesis research and engaging various viewpoints, I can accurately anticipate the reaction of different groups to the research.


Racists of all colors

It has not been welcomed by white supremacists because in their worldview nothing good comes out of Africa. White supremists recently took note of this blog and apparently have a bone to pick with me. They seem to think that only white people have contributed to the early development of organized religion. There is no arguing from facts with those who are dedicated to apartheid in America.

Sadly, there is evidence of this racism in the writings of Young Earth creationists. Most of their books contain the Twelve Affirmations and Denials of this movement. Let us consider Affirmation XII.

We affirm that all people living and dead are descended from Adam and Eve...and that the various people groups (with their various languages, cultures, and distinctive physical characteristics, including skin color) arose as a result of God's supernatural judgment at the Tower of Babel..."

The Tower of Babel story explains the division of related dialects into Afro-Arabian and Afro-Asiatic languages. This happened over a period of time, which does not exclude the possibility of divine intervention. The linguistic division occurred before Abraham's time. There are seventeen language families in the world. Each breaks down into hundreds of languages, dialects and sub-dialects. All the people groups mentioned in Genesis Chapter 10 belong to the Afro-Asiatic language group which originated in the Nile region and spread across Arabia, the Levant and Mesopotamia. Genesis tells us that Abraham's ancestors were Kushites, people of dark skin color, so it is ignorant and racist to say that skin color is the result of God's judgment.

Neither has my research been greeted charitably by black supremacists who insist that everything of value comes out of Africa. They would rather ignore the evidence that Asiatics played a large role in the spread of early law codes and the Messianic Faith (pre-Judaism). They tend to forget that all living humans have Africa and their ancestral point of origin.

Black supremists are not to be confused with Afrocentrist scholars such as W.E.B. Dubois, Carter G. Woodson and Clyde A. Winters, all scholars who are concerned with archaeological, linguistic and genetic discoveries related to African peoples, their migration and their contributions.


Biblical literalists

These Biblical literalists or "Fundamentalists" distort what the Bible reveals by imposing an ideology that makes the Bible acceptable to them. It is clear, however, that even these reductionists don’t agree. Some filter the Bible through Calvinism, with its emphasis on divine sovereignty, covenant theology and predestination. Others filter the material through the bestsellers of famous Protestant pastors. Many reductionists filter the Bible through the dispensational framework articulated in the Scofield Bible. This last approach breaks the single strand from Genesis to Revelation into numerous independent strands or “dispensations” in which the unchanging God changes. This would have been both foreign and anathema to Abraham’s Horite people.

Biblical literalists feel threatened when their assumptions about Genesis are questioned. In my view, their Young Earth position presents the greatest obstacles to understanding Genesis and the entire Bible. Their false assumptions are, without doubt, the most pervasive cause of confusion. The righteous tone with which they assert their version of Genesis fools some into believing that Young Earth Creationism is Biblical. In fact, their doctrines are quite contrary to what Genesis reveals.

Perusal of their books and websites causes the educated and scientifically-minded to scratch their heads in wonder. The Earth is only 6000 years old? Humans and dinosaurs co-existed? God created the Grand Canyon with the appearance of great age? These far-fetched conclusions contribute to prejudice against a scientific approach to Genesis, making my work as a Biblical Anthropologist more difficult. Many in the scientific and academic communities assume that all Christians think like Young Earth literalists and are unaware of the remarkable correspondence between the Biblical timeline and scientific studies.

Young Earth Creationists are building a Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky. It will be a fun place for families and will perpetuate their ideology. Evangelicals who have bought into Darwinian evolutionary theory probably won't visit the park, but Biblical literalists will flock there in droves, as they do to Ken Ham's other attraction, the Creation Museum in Cincinnati.

Young Earth Creationism is declining in popularity among Evangelicals, especially those influenced by the BioLogos crowd which tends to think that Darwinian evolution is the only alternative to literalism, and that is not true. An anthropological approach to Genesis acknowledges Earth's great age and the milleniums of human existence without accepting the unproven tenets of evolution concerning human origins. Biblical Anthropology, as scientific study of the text, requires setting aside both ideological templates in order to determine the meaning in cultural context. This is a labor to which I am fully committed.


East Indians

Another group that attempts to refute my research are East Indians who insist that India is the cradle of the ancient religions and civilizations. I receive emails from them fairly regularly. Contrary to the evidence, they insist that the ancient practice of sacrifice at falcon-shaped altars and metal working came to the Nile and ancient Kush from India. This ignores the evidence of molecular genetics, linguistics, climate studies, anthropology and archaeology which reveal several movements out of Africa into Southern Pakistan and India.

There is also the evidence of place names such as Orisha/Orissa, Borno/Borneo, Karnak/Karnataka, and words such as sarki (priest caste) which is found from Nigeria to Nepal. Many Dravidian settlements and monuments are now submerged under the sea, but originally they were on a land bridge between the Arabian Peninsula and Southern Pakistan. This is sometimes referred to as the "Harappa" civilization. Har-appa means "Horus is Father" in the Dravidian language.

The origin of Dravidian religion was the Nile and ancient Kush. The Indian historian and anthropologist Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has written: "We have to begin with the Negroid or Negrito people of prehistoric India who were the first human inhabitants. Originally they would appear to have come from Africa through Arabia and the coastlands of Iran and Baluchistan."

According to the Matsya, an ancient book from India, the world belonged to the Kushites (Saka) for 7000 years.

Vedic references to Kusha, Rama, Hori, Krishna and the Ancient One are all found in older Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Indeed, a study of Hindu religious motifs demonstrates that all were found among the Nilotics peoples, many of whom dispersed across Arabia, the Indian Sub-continent and into Indonesia and Japan. The Nile-Japan Ainu connection has been well demonstrated. There is also a connection between the Kushites and the Kushan (Kuşāņa) of Bactria and China.

For more on the expansion out of Africa see The Afro-Asiatic Dominion.


Jews

Most rabbis have ignored the research, secure in their often esoteric interpretations of the Bible. Rabbinic myth weaving has penetrated many commentaries on Genesis, especially commentaries written from an Evangelical perspective. Evangelicals, especially the American brand, tend to think that everything written by Jews has special authority. Yet these myths distort what Genesis and the Bible present about Abraham and his people. All of the Bible is about the fulfillment of God's promise to send the Divine Seed into the world to conquer death. This is what Abraham's ancestors expected and Jesus is the fulfillment of that ancient (pre-Israel) expectation.

Messianic passages of the Bible have parallels in the more ancient Horite texts. Consider how Horus, the archetype of Christ, describes himself in the Coffin texts (passage 148):

“I am Horus, the great Falcon upon the ramparts of the house of him of the hidden name. My flight has reached the horizon. I have passed by the gods of Nut. I have gone further than the gods of old. Even the most ancient bird could not equal my very first flight. I have removed my place beyond the powers of Set, the foe of my father Osiris. No other god could do what I have done. I have brought the ways of eternity to the twilight of the morning. I am unique in my flight. My wrath will be turned against the enemy of my father Osiris and I will put him beneath my feet in my name of ‘Red Cloak’.” (Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt by R.T. Rundle Clark, p. 216)

Note the similarity to Psalm 110:1, a messianic reference: The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Shaye Cohen, Professor at Harvard, is the author of The Beginnings of Jewishness in which he portrays of Abraham as the first Jew. Reading Cohen, it becomes evident that he does not personally believe this myth. During a November 2008 NOVA interview, Cohen admits that this view of Abraham as a Jew is of a “mythic kind.” He states, "So in a mythic kind of way we can say that Abraham recognizes God and that Abraham launches the process—biological and social and cultural—that will culminate in the people of Israel, who in turn will become Jews and the purveyors of Judaism.”

Cohen gets one thing right: Abraham recognized God. The rest is nonsense! Abraham's nine sons are the progenitors of many peoples, some of whom are identified today as Egyptians, Ethiopians, Jews and Arabs. Cohen is attempting to sell the myth of Jewish purity. However, the only lines which maintained blood purity through exclusive intermarried were the Horite priestly lines and there are Coptic, Jewish and Arab descendants of those lines.

Cohen notes that "the rabbis of old imagined that Abraham observed the whole Torah, that Abraham observed all the commandments: He observed the Sabbath, he observed the festivals, he observed the laws of culture and food. He observed everything, not just circumcision, which is attributed to him explicitly in Genesis, but everything else as well. Because how can you imagine our forefather Abraham, the founder of Judaism, not observing the Jewish rules, not observing the Jewish laws? This is a wonderful anachronism, a charming conceit. But historically speaking, how could it be?"

Dr. Cohen recognizes that the myth of Abraham as a Jew is not historically accurate, but he refuses to accept that Abraham and his caste were Horites. This would mean recognizing that they worshiped Horus and expected the myth of Horus to be fulfilled as promised in Genesis 3:15. There's the rub!  Jews always start their history after Genesis 3:15. Cohen says, “The biblical narrative gets going with Abraham in Genesis chapter 12. Abraham in turn Isaac, in turn Jacob, in turn Joseph and the twelve tribes, this brings us directly to the people of Israel and the covenant at Sinai. So Abraham is thought of as the first Jew, the archetype.”

While Genesis does trace a line from Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob (Yacob), it also traces the Horite lines of Seir and Esau, the lines of Ishmael the Egyptian, and the lines of Joktan the Arabian. Given that these ruler-priest lines intermarried exclusively, it is evident that some Jews, Arabs and Egyptians share common Horite blood. This becomes apparent when one digs deeper into the genealogical information.

The Genesis genealogical data makes it possible to trace Abraham’s ancestors as well as his descendants. This is the genealogical information that Dr. Cohen seeks to avoid by beginning the biblical narrative at Chapter 12.

It is impossible to speak of only one direct line from Abraham to the Israelites because Abraham’s descendants by his nine sons intermarried. The genealogical data strongly suggests that Abraham's first-born son was Joktan, the forefather of the Joktanite tribes of Arabia. This being the case, Abraham could as easily be described the “first Arab” or the “archetype” of the Arab, since Arabs are descended from him through his sons Joktan (Yaqtan) and Ishmael (Yismael).

Myth makers come in all stripes, including by angry bigots such as Herbert Schweigers and vicious killers such as Anders Breiviks. These days the Bible is used to promote all sorts of agendas. One of the benefits of Biblical Anthropology is that it exposes such lies.


Here are the reactions of people who have followed the research:

"I read the material she has gratuitously given me in response to my questions. I read it and make my own assessment. I am not an anthropologist, but I do have a pretty good BS detector. Her material and artifacts and explanations make sense to me and are both fascinating and enlightening. Could she be in error? Sure. Is she knowledgeable? Definitely. The main thing I noticed about @Alice_Linsley is that when I give her new data, new genomic studies, she is able to mesh it up with her previous work. If it matches up she will tell you, if it contradicts, she will also tell you. She does follow the data where it goes, so she is doing real science. Does her Christian beliefs help or hinder her scientific work? I say it helps, as her faith inspires her. Because she will honestly report and mesh the new findings and these new findings or changes to her understanding through science have NO IMPACT on her faith."-- Patrick Trischitta

Alice's analysis of the kinship pattern of the biblical Hebrew "opened my eyes to understand not just Genesis and not just the Pentateuch, but the whole diacronic layers in all of the Old Testament." --Shalom Rutgaizer, Israeli archaeologist (Tel Aviv University)

Just Genesis is "an interesting blog dedicated to anthropological sleuthing of pre-Abrahamic origins."-- Madison Gentsch

"Alice C. Linsley is an original and originals are few."-- Dr. Catherine Acholonu

"If only Christian discourse in this country were filled with such enlightened, such profound insights into the origins of human thought and life! You do us all a great service in writing things like this."-- Arturo Vasquez

"She has an excellent blog. I am amazed at the sources she analyzes and presents in her blog." -- Dr. Clyde Winters

"Alice, thank you so much for your research and blog. I am in my senior year at an evangelical university and taking a course in Genesis, but cannot reconcile with what's being taught. Your work has encouraged my faith in a way that words fail right now." -- Adam

"Alice, you are doing awesome work." -- Father Rick Lobs

"You are an excellent researcher. Your insights have the effect of exploding fluorescence. You have made me feel like the eons gone past are just within our reach; we don't need to look very far."--John Ogutu (Luo consultant)

"Alice, I am thoroughly taken with your blog - - what a wonderful gift! Keep up the great work." --Dr. William G. Brown, Vice President and Academic Dean, Midway College

In terms of tertiary studies, I learned Old Testament from 'extreme liberals' as well as 'moderate conservatives.' Then for years I felt satisfied that, although by no means a specialist, I had worked out a sensible approach to the Old Testament that was authentically Christian while avoiding the pitfalls of fundamentalism, marcionism and liberalism . . . especially with regard to the Book of Genesis.

That was until I found Alice Linsley's work.

One of my favourite blogs is JUST GENESIS which combines her biblical, historical, theological, cultural, historical, anthropological and archeological research, and takes the reader into fascinating areas which really do make sense (and have caused me to change quite a number of my previously held views!).
 -- Bishop David Chislett SSC (Read more here.)

"Alice, you are an amazing scholar! I have been searching for toponymic evidence for Enoch in Africa for a long time. You are a brave pioneer. Your blog is a box of jewels. I wish I could examine each gem more closely."-- Susan Burns, Biblical Anthropologist

"I have been immersed, (baptized) in your remarkable scholarship and compelling style. Thank you for sharing your gift and what can only be described as a passion." -- Father David W. Cardona

"The significance of my research is that I have identified the marriage and ascendancy pattern of Abraham's Horite caste and have demonstrated that this marriage structure drove Kushite expansion and the diffusion of the proto-Gospel. Using the tools of kinship analysis, I have traced the Horite ancestry of Jesus Christ from his earliest named ancestors in Genesis 4 and 5." --Alice C. Linsley


Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Facts About Human Origins


Alice C. Linsley

In conversations with students I have found that there is a great deal of confusion about the names and morphological features of the earliest human populations. In this essay, we will look at some of these finds to clarify the picture of early human populations.

The search to understand archaic humans was led astray by a fraud in England called the Piltdown man. This skull was the discovery of Charles Dawson in 1912. It had a large brain case similar to modern humans and an ape-like jaw. It was exposed as a fraud in the early 1950's. Because of Darwin's theory of apes and humans evolving from a common ancestor, people expected to find human ancestors with ape-human features.

Recent discoveries in South Africa and in Southern Siberia, along with molecular genetics, has provided a much more complex picture of human origins, but there is agreement that Africa is where the earliest humans lived.


                                             Date of Fossil
                                         (
years ago)


East Africa:
  Herto, Middle Awash160,000-154,000  
  Omo 1195,000
  Laetoli120,000

South Africa
:
  Border Cave115,000-90,000
  Klasies River Mouth90,000

Israel
:
  Skhul and Qafzeh92,000-90,000

Australia
:
  Lake Mungo60,000-46,000

Asia
:
  Annamite Mountains (Laos)63,000
  Ordos (Mongolia)40,000-20,000 ?
  Liujiang (China)139,000-111,000 ?
  Zhirendong (China)100,000 ?
  Zhoukoudian upper cave
     (China)
27,000

Europe
:
  Peştera cu Oase (Romania)  36,000-34,000
  Combe Capelle (France)35,000-30,000
  Mladeč and Předmostí
     (Czech Republic)
35,000-25,000
  Cro-Magnon (France)35,000-13,000


Cro-Magnon

Cro-Magnon was once used to refer to the population that lived alongside Neanderthals between 35,000 and 13,000 years ago (mid Holocene). The name 'Cro-Magnon' refers to a rock shelter near the Dordogne Valley of France where parts of five skeletons were discovered in 1868. Scientists compared these skeletons to Neanderthal skeletons found in similarly dated sites at Paviland, Wales and at Combe Capelle and Laugerie-Basse in France, and decided they were different from the Neanderthals. However, Cro-Magnon remains were very like modern humans.


Neanderthals

Homo neanderthalenis is the term coined in 1863 by Irish anatomist William Kin. This human population was named after the Neander Valley in Germany where the first specimen was discovered. These are the bones of the original Neandertal from the Neander Valley and they are within the range of modern human anatomy.

Photo: Michael Hess 
Source: Display, LVR-Landes Museum Bonn,Germany

Neanderthals represent a proto-modern European population. There is considerable archaeological evidence that Neanderthals and European populations coexisted in the Middle East as early as 80,000 years ago.


T   
The sequencing of the Neanderthal genome is almost complete and not surprisingly it reveals that Neanderthals and modern humans are virtually identical. Here's the report:

After years of anticipation, the Neanderthal genome has been sequenced. It’s not quite complete, but there’s enough for scientists to start comparing it with our own.

According to these first comparisons, humans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level. Whatever our differences, they’re not in the composition of our building blocks.

However, even if the Neanderthal genome won’t show scientists what makes humans so special, there’s a consolation prize for the rest of us. Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals.

“The Neanderthals are not totally extinct. In some of us they live on a little bit,” said Max Planck Institute evolutionary geneticist Svante Pääbo.

It took four years for Pääbo’s team to assemble a working sequence from DNA in the bones of three 38,000-year-old Neanderthal women, found in Croatia’s Vindija Cave. The sequence, published May 6 in Science, covers about 60 percent of the entire genome. (Read the full report here.)


Australopithecus afarensis

The discovery of Australopithecines in South Africa beginning in 1924 showed that the early hominins had human bodies and brains of a size proportional to their bodies. The size of these archaic brains was small, but brain size does not preclude complexity of thought.

Australopithecus afarensis is the term coined by South African anatomist Donald C. Johanson. These 3.2 million year old remains were found in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1973. For about 20 years A. afarensis was described as the earliest known “human ancestor species.” Australopithecus means “Ape of the South” and afarensis refers to the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia where the fossils were found. The first discovered skeleton of this population was named "Lucy" and she was described as an ape rather than a human.  Only about 40 percent of her skeleton was recovered.

Lucy's skeleton

Since 1974, many more A. afarensis bones have been found in Africa, mainly in Cameroon, Ethiopia and Tanzania. All are at least 3 million years old. The bone structure reveals that these were not apes, but early humans. They walked upright (erect) and had human ankle bones.

When Jeremy DeSilva, a British anthropologist, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus fossils of human ancestors ("hominins") between 4.12 million to 1.53 million years old, he discovered that all of the ankle joints resembled those of modern humans rather than those of apes. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle bones are quite distinct from those of apes. (Read about DeSilva’s research here.)

A recent discovery of a complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis at Hadar that shows the deep, flat base and tarsal facets that "imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans." (Carol Ward, William H. Kimbel, Donald C. Johanson, Feb. 2011) Read the report here.

Additionally, A. afarensis apparently used polished bone tools, shared food (which apes don’t do) and used fire. Some of the earliest evidence of controlled use of fire by humans was found at Swartkrans in South Africa. Other sites that indicate fire use include Chesowanja near Lake Baringo, Koobi Fora, and Olorgesailie in Kenya.

A. Afarensis also had human dentition which is quite easily distinguished from that of apes. In humans, the back teeth are larger than the front teeth (not so with apes), and the canines are not pointed. Humans also lack the characteristic diastema or tooth gap found in apes.

photo of the Laetoli footprints
Early hominin footprints
at Laetoli, Tanzania
Mary Leakey’s 1979 discoveries in Tanzania added to the evidence that humans walked the earth about over 3 million years ago. At Laetoli, about 25 miles south of Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Leakey discovered footprints of a man, woman and child created about 3.6 million years ago and preserved under falling ash from the nearby Sadiman volcano. The raised arch and rounded heel of the footprints showed that whoever left these footprints walked as humans today.

Unfortunately, Donald C. Johanson had already announced to the world that the Australopithecus afarensis were apes, though Mary Leakey would have classified her Laetoli finds as Homo/human. She expressed her regret that “the Laetoli fellow is now doomed to be called Australopithecus afarensis.”

Johanson and Mary Leakey were scheduled to speak at a Nobel Symposium in Sweden in May 1978. The conference honored Mary Leakey, who received a medal from the King of Sweden for her scientific investigations. Mary Leakey received the Golden Linnaean Medal, but also was very embarrassed when Johanson announced the new name - Australopithecus afarensis - for his Afar Triangle finds and included Mary Leakey's 4 million year old Laetoli specimen (jaw bone LH4) from Tanzania as an exhibit.

Johanson, who was scheduled to speak before Mary Leakey, scooped Mary's speech. She was angry that Johanson had named her discoveries, using a designation that was totally at odds with what she believed to be the evidence. Johanson's name stuck though he clearly has doubts based on more recent discoveries as to the accuracy of the ape designation.

The designation of the finds in Ethiopia as apes is contradicted by the evidence that these fossils had oppositional thumbs, short fingers, human dentition, and apparently built fires. Recent discoveries in Dikika, near Gona and Bouri, Ethiopia indicate that they shared their food, and used flints to scrap, saw and chop. Two fossilized bones have been found that appear to be marked by stone tools. On the basis of low-power microscopic and environmental scanning electron microscope observations, these bones show unambiguous stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and to access bone marrow.




Johanson has said, “There is no question that the announcement of stone tool use at 3.4 million years ago will unleash a flurry of controversy and genuine disbelief among some scholars. However, I believe the team has presented a convincing case of stone tool use during Lucy's time. These unexpected results may well generate a new understanding of early hominid behavior and will prompt a reexamination of the tens of thousands of animal bones already collected from this time period at Hadar, Lucy's home, and other sites in Kenya and Tanzania.”

Dr. Curtis Marean of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University said, "Most of the marks have features that indicate without doubt that they were inflicted by stone tools." He helped to identify the nature of the marks.


Denisovan Populations

Archaic humans dating to 400,000 years have been found in Southern Siberia and Northern Spain.

Archaic populations in Southern Africa are presently being studied by the Rising Star Expedition.


Conclusion

The earliest fossils that scientists agree to be fully human date to about 160,000 years and were found in desert sands near the Ethiopian village of Herto in 1997. These fossils show a range of anatomical features yet all the features are found among humans today. The nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago are, in the words of the American paleontologist Tim White, “like modern-day humans in almost every feature.”

Some of the Australopithecine fossils dating between 700,000 and 2.4 million years are recognized by scientists as early human fossils. Mary Leakey considered her 4 million year Tanzania finds to be Homo, not ape.

It is clear from this review of the data that the classification of fossils as ape or human has been revised several times because the criterion of classification of human and ape has not been consistently applied. It is also clear that scientists interpret evidence through their preconceptions and are prone to seek the limelight in order to gain funding to continue their work.

The evidence indicates that humans have been on the surface of the earth for millions of years and that a range of physical features from population to population has been the norm. Population specific features were likely enhanced because archaic people practiced endogamy (marriage within the clan). From 3 million years to the present, there was been a limited amount of physical changes in humans, but no change in the essence of humanity, and devotion to the theory of evolutionary branching of ape and human from a common ancestor simply is not supported by the data.

As to the theory of humans and apes having a common ancestor, this is not indicated by the genome research. See “Study Reports a Whopping ‘23% of Our Genome’ Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny,” Evolution News, June 3, 2011.


Related reading: 1.5 Million Human Foot Prints in KenyaOrigins of the Dmanisi SkullGenesis and Genetics; Humans Originated in Africa; Where DNA Studies and Linguistics Contradict Evolutionary Theory; 90,000 Year African Projectiles; Was Lucy Human?

Monday, August 15, 2011

Odd Questions: How would you answer?




Over the years I've been asked odd questions related to Genesis. Here are four of the more interesting ones:

1. Was Atlantic City the true homeland of Noah?

2. Which of the Nubian ancestors were homosexuals?

3. Was Joshua the son of King Tut?

4. Where is Nimrod’s tomb?


How would you answer these?  If you can give a good answer that is also humorous you will make my day!

Best wishes,

Alice C. Linsley


Friday, August 12, 2011

Noah's Descendants

Scythian belt title from Azerbaijan

Alice C. Linsley

Genesis tells us that Noah had at least three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth. To these sons and their wives were born sons and daughters that intermarried. Bible literalists maintain that the Earth was repopulated after a catastrophic global flood by these sons and their wives. However, the biblical data and the data of science does not support this view. People had already dispersed out of Africa into Eurasia long before the time of Noah.

At the point in history when Noah lived (about 3500-4000 B.C.), human populations had already arrive in the New World, Southeast Asia, and Australia.

Noah was a Proto-Saharan ruler whose homeland is Bor'No, meaning "the Land of Noah" in the region of Lake Chad. Noah and his sons were more African than Asiatic, as is evident by the name given to Ham's son "Kush" (Gen. 10:6), the ancestral head of the Kushites who united the Upper and Lower Nile regions and spread out of Africa into Arabia, Canaan and Mesopotamia. All of these men were rulers and kingdom builders. They are called "the mighty men of old" in Genesis.

It was the custom of these rulers to have two wives in separate households on a north-south axis. This made it easier for the rulers to control and tax commerical traffic moving through their territories. Remembering that Noah and his sons lived in the part of Africa through which the Nile flowed northward from its headlands in Nigeria, we can understand the practicality of this custom. In Canaan the commercial traffic moved in a north-south direction also.

In Genesis, three sons represent a tribal unity and there are many such units listed. The Anakim, for example, were organized into three-clan confederations. The three Anakim clans were named for the three highest ranked sons of Anak. Their names are Sheshai (Shasu), Ahiman and Talmai (Josh.15:14). The Shasu were devotees of YHWH before the time of Moses. Consider these three-clan confederations:

Jubal, Jabal and Tubal-Kain
Ham, Shem and Japheth
Haran, Nahor and Abraham
Yisbak, Esau and Jacob
Og, Magog and Gog
Uz, Buz and Huz


Within these confederations three priest lines consistently intermarried. So the lines of Ham and Shem intermarried, as did the lines of Shem and Japheth, and the lines of Nahor and Abraham intermarried. Genesis 9:27 tells us that the lineages of Japheth and Shem spread far and wide and intermingled. "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem."

Ham

Ham was the father of great kingdom-builders whose territories spread from Nigeria to southern India. Kush was one of Ham's sons and Kush fathered the rulers Raamah and Nimrod by 2 different wives. Nimrod build a vast kingdom in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley and Raamah's kingdom stretched from Tyre and Sidon to the cities of the Dead Sea Plain. Raamah's sons were Sheba and Dedan, who intermarried with the people of Shem. Genesis 10 tells us that Nimrod's son by his patrilineal cousin was Asshur, but this son technically belonged to the House of Shem. Likely Arpachshad was Nimrod's son by his half-sister wife.


Shem

Shem's descendants intermarried with the descendants of Ham. Rulers of Shem's house include Asshur, Arpachshad, Selah, and Eber. Eber's two sons were Peleg and Joktan (see diagram). These were born of different wives and the Bible tells us that a "division" took place in this generation (Gen. 10:25). One of Joktan's sons was Sheba, the grandson of Sheba the Elder, the grandson of Kush, the son of Ham. Sheba the elder's brother was Dedan. The Dedanites were the first to use Old Arabic script. The Asshurites and the Elamites used a different script so it is clear that there was a division linguistically.


Japheth

The descendants of Japheth are found in Europe, Turkey, Pakistan, Mongolia and the Upper Nile. His lineage intermarried with the line of Shem. This explains the linguistic similarity between some Afro-Asiatic/Semitic names and some Turkish, Pashtun and Mongolian names, including Jochi, Beri, Malik and Khan. Khan was originally a title meaning king. Today it is a common surname in Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Mongolia. It is equivalent to the Afro-Asiatic Kain or Kayan. Some of the Pashtun tribes adopted Malik as the ruler's title instead of Khan. Malik is equivalent to the Afro-Asiatic Melek, meaning king or ruler.

Genghis Khan married a woman of the Olkut’Hun, or Ogur Hun meaning the Hun community. "On Oghur" means "Ten Arrows" and is a reference to the 10-clan Magyar Confederation. Some think that the term Hungary is derived from "On Oghur." The word ogur means clan/community and appears to be equivalent to the Pashto orkut, meaning community. So ogur, orkut and olkut are cognates and likely related to the Kandahar dialect, which has Tir-hari as a principal dialect. Tir is a form of the name Tiras, mentioned in Genesis 10 and hari is variant of the words Horus and Horite. So it appears that Genghis Khan married into a community which had connections to the Horim, Abraham's Horite people. Likely, Genghis Kahn was a descendant of the Kushite Saka who populated Northern India, Bactria, and the steppes of central Eurasia. Assyrian documents place the appearance of the Saka between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in the time of Sargon (722-705 B.C.)

In the Hungarian stories, Nimrod is said to have had two sons: Magor and Hunor. Magyar is what the Hungarian people call themselves. The Hungarian word "mag" means son or seed so Mag-Yar means son/seed of Yar (note the initial Canaanite Y designating divine appointment). Likewise, Mag-Or means son/seed of Or. There is a linguistic and genetic link to Shem and Japheth.

Some Magyar live in the Upper Nile area where they are called the Magyar-ab, meaning the Magyar tribe. This word possibly reflects a connection to the clans of Ar. The common explanation for the word Arab comes mostly from Jewish sources that claim it is derived from er-eb, meaning mixed or mongrel people, however it could also mean "people of Ar."


Related reading: Africa in the Days of Noah; Where Did Noah's Ark Land?; Was Constantine a Saka Ruler?; Noah's Homeland in Historical Perspective; Noah's Ark; Where Dwelleth Japheth

Sunday, August 7, 2011

King Tut and the Dispersion of R1b


Alice C. Linsley

Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)

Although Africa is its point of origin, the so-called "King Tut Gene" is found among widely dispersed populations of males. Studies reveal that about 60% of British men are classified in haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). Biblical persons with this genetic ancestry include Noah, Abraham, and David.

Haplogroup R1b, also known as haplogroup R-M343, is the most frequently occurring Y chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe, parts of Russia (especially the Bashkir minority), Central Asia (e.g. Turkmenistan) and in the region of Lake Chad and along the Nile.

This is the Haplogroup of Abraham's Proto-Saharan ancestors who dispersed widely and are known my many different names in ancient history: Kushites, Kushan, Ainu, Saka, Hittites, etc. Among them was a caste of priests known in ancient texts as 'Apiru, Hapiru, Habiru or Hebrew.

Image from http://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene. 


Tutankhamun became king in 1333 BC and ruled until is death at a young age in 1342. The exact cause of young Tutankhamun's death is not known. He suffered from malaria and necrosis, but otherwise he appeared to be fairly healthy. Apparently, he was lame and walked with a cane. More than 100 canes were found in his tomb.

Tutankhamun's cartouche shows the temple of On (Heliopolis) and bears the word shema which in Hebrew means "hear." The Creator Re is referred to as the "God of Manifestations." On was one of the most prestigious shrine cities of the ancient world. The pyramids at Giza, Abusir, and Saqqara were aligned to the obelisk at Heliopolis. Giza, Abusir and Saqqara are shown on the map south of Cairo. Heliopolis (biblical On) is shown to the north.




As was typical of the Kushite-Egyptian marriage and ascendancy pattern, King Tut's parents were half-siblings. This was true also of Abraham and Moses. Sarah was Abraham's half-sister and Moses' Kushite wife was his half-sister. At his ascent to the throne, Tut married his half-sister Ankhesenpaaten. Had he lived, he would have taken a second wife at a later age. She would have been a patrilineal cousin or niece.


Debate about Tut's DNA

Debate about the origins of the Egyptian ruler Tutankhamun (and the genetic stock of up to 70% of British men) was stirred recently by an unscientific claim made by iGENEA, a Swiss personal genomics company. iGENEA claims to have reconstructed a DNA profile for King Tut by watching the Discovery Channel, based on what they say are genetic markers that appeared on a computer screen during the Discovery Channel's program.

The company claims that the results suggest more than half of Western European men are related to Tutankhamun. The focus was on the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b.

Researchers in Egypt who compared Tut's genome say that iGENEA's claim is "unscientific." The Discovery Channel's coverage was equally speculative.  So we have speculation upon speculation. However, biblical anthropology can shed light on this dispute.

Haplogroup R1b is the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in western Europe, especially Spain and France, parts of Central Asia and in sub-Saharan Central Africa, especially around Chad and the Benue Trough, the region of origin of the Kushites' ancestors.

The Y-chromosome traces genetic ancestry through the males, but it does not give the full picture without also tracing the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which traces decent through the females. In reproduction, the nuclear DNA of one parent mixes with the nuclear DNA of the other. MtDNA, on the other hand, almost always passes unaltered from mother to offspring. Recent studies show that paternal mtDNA can on rare occasions enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA through recombination.

The Discovery Channel report of the research in Egypt never took into account the complex marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Kushite rulers which involves descent through the wives. It is believed that King Tut was the grandson of Amenhotep III and the son of Akhenaten the Younger who was named by Amenhotep's cousin wife after her father. This means that Akhenaten the Younger ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather, after whom he was named. This is typical of the Kushite marriage and ascendancy pattern which involves the ruler's two wives: one a patrilineal half-sister and the other a cousin or niece, often from the mother's side.

If Tut were the firstborn son of Akhenaten by his half-sister wife, Tut would have been the heir to Akhenaten's throne. His Y-chromosome would be identical to his father and his mother. His mtDNA would likely match his mother's, but not necessarily his father's. If Tut were the firstborn of Akhenaten's cousin or niece wife, he would have been the heir to the throne of his maternal grandfather. His Y-chromosome would be the same as his father and grandfather, but his mtDNA might be different than his father's.

A more interesting study would involve comparing mitochrondrial samples of King Tut and Mystery Mummy of Tomb KV55 near Luxor (Upper Nile). Likely the mtDNA is identical, but what if it is not exactly alike? By looking at the similarities and differences of the mtDNA of Amenhotep III, Mystery Mummy, and Tut researchers could possibly trace two distinct maternal lines. This is what would be expected from the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Kushite rulers. They were the first to unite the kingdoms of the Upper and Lower Nile; the first to wear the double crown.

In an inscription at Karnak, Amenhotep III, a Kushite kingdom builder, was described as "... the good shepherd, vigilant for all people, whom the maker thereof has placed under his authority."
J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Part II, § 900

Amenhotep III ruled in the Eighteenth Dynasty between about 1382 and 1350 B.C. (about 630 years after Abraham). He ruled over a kingdom that stretched from Nubia to Libya, Gaza and Syria. It was during the 18th dynasty that the title 'King's Son of Kush' was first used. The 42-foot tall statue shown above was excavated in Thebes (near Luxor) on the west bank of the Nile.

So what did the DNA study reported by Discovery Channel prove? It proved that Amenhotep III and the Mystery Mummy in Tomb 55 located on the Upper Nile had a common male ancestor; not surprising since intermarriage between patrilineal lines was a characteristic of the Kushite rulers. It does not prove that the Mystery Mummy was King Tut's father, Akhenaten. In fact, the identity of the "deified" ruler's father was usually kept secret. The suggestion that the ruler was miraculously conceived was part of the ruler's mystique.

Kushite and Egyptian rulers did not name their biological fathers in their king lists. This is because they believed that the ruler-priest was the son of Re whose emblem was the sun. The Pharaoh was called "son of Re" which is why Egyptian texts never mention an earthly father of the king. Kingship was rather a manifestation of the solar deity's overshadowing of noble women. Sargon the Great (biblical Nimrod) claimed not to know his father. He based his authority to rule on the suggestion that he was conceived according to the royal myth of miraculous virgin conception.

Amenhotep II was connected to the House of Sheba. Amenhotep II's mother was Queen Merytre-Hatshebsut. Her name means Pure Love-Sign of Sheba of the South. She bore the title "Lady of Two Lands" which means that she ruled after the Kushites had united the kindgoms of the Upper and Lower Nile.

Queen Tiye, Wife of Amenhotep II
She is called a "Nubian" queen, but Nubia is not an ethnicity. It means "Land of Gold. She was likely a princess of the House of Sheba.



Archaeologists have linked Sheba to settlements in East African and in Yemen.

It is likely that Queen Merytre-Hatshebsut selected a wife for her son Amenhotep II from among her people. We see this pattern associated with noble Egyptian mothers in Genesis 21:21 where we are told that Hagar found an Egyptian wife for her son Ishmael.


Explanation for the R1b Dispersion
 
R1 peoples moved in many directions along the complex water ways of 100,00 to 20,000 years ago. By 18,000 years ago there was a distinction between R1a and R1b. Peoples in the R1b haplogroup moved across the Levant and Mesopotamia, going into the Iberian Peninsula, ancient Gaul and as far as Central Asia. They populated Anatolia and moved as far north as the Tarum Valley in China. These were a pyramid building people who mummified their rulers. They are called "Kushan" and are related to the Nilotic Kushites and the Nilotic Ainu (Annum). The Ainu spread into Hokkaido and Okinawa and into the Hudson Bay area of Canada.

The R1a group spread along the Shari and Benue rivers, establishing kingdoms and chieftains in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Ghana and into the southern Kordafan.


 

The Benue Trough
Linguistic and archaeological evidence supports this picture of dispersion from the Upper Nile region and it connective waters in west central Africa. Noah lived in the region of Lake Chad (Bor'No mean "Land of Noah") and his ancestors Cain and Seth (whose royal lines intermarried).

Kushite ruler-priests spread their culture and religious beliefs by the great water systems across what I've termed the ancient "Afro-Asiatic Dominion." During various humid periods the Nile, the Saharan lakes and the Benue Trough were much larger, allowing for connections between the Atlantic and the Red Sea.

Water systems of Kush
In ancient inscriptions from Africa and Eurasia these Nilotic kingdom builders were called Kushite and sometimes Ethiopian (from the Greek word for black). In Sumerian inscriptions they were called Meluha-Kasi, a designation for peoples who lived in the area of Nubia, Arabia and the Lower Nile.

"The Babylonian designation for Arabia is 'Magan and Meluha' and the two expressions are used distinctively, the one (Magan) to denote the eastern and southern part - that situated nearest to Babylonia, the other (Meluha) to denote the N. and W. The district of Sinai would thus form part of Meluha." (From here.) So there is textual evidence from antiquity linking Abraham to the Kushites and their early ancestors who lived around Lake Chad and in the Benue Trough.