semiopen

Rick, Your dating of the Torah, below, as 3400 years old is absurd in a secular forum. Last night, after your reply, I thought I might have misunderstood, but I see you mentioned it again.

My original comment about the Torah was to suggest that a split between the Samaritans and Jews happened well after the return from the Babylonian exile. The letters from Elephantine show that both the Judean and Samaritan temples coexisted. The Elephantine letters also strongly suggest that the holiday of passover was started during or after the Babylonian exile. The split is given in the wiki article below as 5th century BCE, at the risk of one of your pointless insults, this seems a little early to me. The split didn't get nasty until a little later.

DCHindley, below, says much of this better than me.

In general, the dates you give seem haphazard, just for example, you mention 1000 BCE as the split from the united kingdom. Assuming there was a united kingdom, 1000 BCE is too early.

The DNA segue is interesting. Y-chromosomal_Aaron seems newly revised, it has a paragraph or so on the Samaritans which I find confusing. I have some doubts about some things here, but it is what it is I guess.

Your comment about the lack of adultery is dubious. The adultery would only leave a genetic marker if the wife were to conceive from someone who was an outsider.

Your comment that the Samaritans are native to Palestine, goes almost without saying.

On a technical note, I'm surprised at the insults in almost all of your posts. I'm assuming you're doing it because you find it arousing somehow.

spin

Doh!

There ya go, buddy:

Where is the citation, the bibliographical information for the source, the book or article that the original data was drawn from? The best you do is "Recent analysis".

As you plainly don't know how to cite the exact source in a scholarly manner, you should be mortified.

I wanted to read the source of the information, not your incrustations. Jesus, talk about pulling teeth.

Three planks. :banghead:


spin

bacht

Would the house of Omri be considered Samaritan? He did build his capital there. The usurper Jehu was known to the Assyrians also. Would this era (9th C) be considered pre-Torah?

mountainman

I love Jesus and therefore without any trepidation
I went looking for the untold story about Jesus
and found only four mentions of Jesus in the combined two posts ....

[1] Jesus spoke kindly, repeatedly, strongly and was the subject of accusations.

[2] The "time of Jesus" is mentioned.

[3] Jesus is extraordinarily nice and kind to the Samaritans.

[4] The "time of Jesus" is mentioned a second time.

The untold story does not really appear to be about Jesus.
The untold story presumes twice that "there was a time of Jesus".
But that's it.
No evidence for this presumption.
Except "he was kind".
What's the angle here?

Why was Jesus included in the untold story of the Samaritans and Jews?

Rick Van Vliet

"There's nothing that indicates that there was a torah long before the oldest fragments from Qumran."

Other than the Septugint which is older than Qumran, and the Greek sources about Alexander the Great creating it because of the importance of the Torah.

And the fact that Qumran contains both Jewish and Samaritan texts, already evolved for 1000 years.

And the genetic evidence perfectly matching the Torah/Samaritan story.

Other than that and a dozen other things already mentioned several times.

Johnny Skeptic

If Rick went to the predominantly Christian Theology Web, where I debated for over a year, and used his fiesty approach, the militant Christians there would be on him like a school of piranhas, including James Holding. James Holding loves to use ad hominem attacks, and derives pleasure from being rude.

Rick is also having some fiesty discussions in a thread that he recently started at http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=286373 at the Existence of God(s) forum.

Rick Van Vliet

Which is exposed as total nonsense since thieir hard science proof Genetics splits hundreds of years before, just like the Samaritans said all along.

And yes, the Torah was very close to it's current form, when the Samaritan and Jewish versions split 3000 years ago, as the liguistics and genetics suggests. The Samaritan versions have been in the slanted Hebrew for at least 2,200 years, and the Jews haven't used the slanted version since they split with the Samaritans, centuries before Babylon.

Did it change a lot from 3,400 to 3,000? Hard to say, not a lot of evidence. But the Cohen Gene age perfectly matching the 3,400 year old Torah story, tends to indicate some version of the Torah was around. After all, it was the Hebrews, in Egypt, that invented algaebraic writing. It's still there, in early Hebrew, on the walls of caves in Egypt.

Rick Van Vliet

I donno'. Christians are usually really nice to me, despite being in horror at what I say about Paul. They tend to feel sorry for me and want to help me. It's the militant atheists, apparantly many being true believers that lost their faith or something, that get upset.

Rick Van Vliet

For the third time, it's in post 1 and/or 2. Granted, maybe that information was in the part above that was deleted by the moderator for some reason.

Rick Van Vliet

Principal component analysis suggests a common
ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in
the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom
of Israel.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Shen2004.pdf