Israelites match Iran burials (50% DNA from specific time) during the time of Abraham

Please use the URL tag - the link to Cell doesn't work in my browser.Much of the reporting around this find seems to be mistaken. Sidon wasn't conquered by the Israelites, so we'd expect the people there to be Canaanite (Phoenician). The modern population might be expected to have mixes from a lot of sources, but it's not really that surprising to see that the genes of the Iron Age inhabitants are still dominant.And there's no real connection to the - possibly mythical - Abraham either. Abraham was supposed to have come from Ur in Mesopotamia (The South of modern Iraq) and should have been of Semitic ethnicity.So, slightly interesting but it's being stretched beyond anything it really connects to.

You may be surprised at so little change, but it is pretty normal.And you miss the point about Abraham. The point is not that Semites couldn't come from the region of Ur, just that they would not show Iranian ancestry.

Why don't you save your timea d wait until you can come up with something relevant ?

The point is that Semitic people are Semitic.And while I am not really interested in reading long rambling posts that don't make a point I got as far as noticing your misrepresentation of 1 Kings 5. The Sidonians are represented as not being Israelites or subjects of Israel, but subjects of Hiram, the King of Tyre.

quote:

---

I was saying that there was a strong ancestral element that comes from the east. (as the 1700 BCE burials of Sidon show)

---

And how exactly does that connect to Abraham ?

quote:

---

On the 1 Kings text, the Canaanites lived with the Israelites and even built the Temple. The actual town of Sidon was mentioned. Or the Sidonians themselves (the Bible calls Canaanites Sidonians during the Monarchy period I suppose)

---

quote:

---

On the 1 Kings text, the Canaanites lived with the Israelites and even built the Temple. The actual town of Sidon was mentioned. Or the Sidonians themselves (the Bible calls Canaanites Sidonians during the Monarchy period I suppose)

---

In the 1 Kings text you quoted the Sodonians are among the subjects of Tyre, and are to be employed cutting down trees in the Lebanon, which is under the rule of Tyre. That does not support your strange idea that "Sidonian" is a general term for Canaanites, nor that the Sidonians were living alongside the Israelites.

quote:

---

Look at what the text says.

---

I did. That's how I know what it said. And quoting 1 Kings 11 doesn't change what 1 Kings 5 says.

quote:

---

It means that Abraham lived during the time that I think the major "Iranian" migrations also took place. Just before 1700 BCE.

---

We have no good evidence of when Abraham is supposed to have lived, but Jewish tradition puts it 100 years earlier.Your dates are all over the place anyway, and all you've got are vague associations. So, nothing of consequence.

quote:

---

Aren't we generally arguing over whether Canaanites lived among the Israelites (and then the issue is the two having kids together)?

---

We're arguing over whether Sidon should be counted as part of Israel. Kings marrying foreign princesses hardly counts.And 1 Kings 5 clearly identified the Sidonians as subjects of Tyre, living in the Lebanon.

Or to put it much more shortly you still have nothing but speculation.

Until you learn how to make a point instead of rambling on and on reading your posts is both boring and a waste of time. Your habit of misrepresentation doesn't make things any better.

quote:

---

The issue is the Hurrian's arrival in Palestine, and then how many there were.

---

No, it's not. If you try to argue with me by making unannounced changes of subject that's your problem.

quote:

---

PaulK seems to be arguing some other point, and he refuses to clarify what his issue is exactly.

---

Since I stuck to the topic why would I need to offer any more clarification ?

quote:

---

I have been trying to look at this issue of Sidonians (that PaulK raises) but it isn't clear anything I say will please him, nor do I understand his points.

---

So you don't understand what your source is saying or why it matters. That explains a lot.