21 replies to this topic

[inquiringmind]

Doug the Hutt, on 19 June 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

"A population of native American Indians from the US state of Colorado has been found to have a genetic mutation typical of Ashkenazi Jews. The finding suggests the presence of common roots that date back to the days of Christopher Columbus.
­The so-called “Ashkenazi mutation” is a deleterious modification in BRCA1 gene which increases risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Researchers from the Sheba Medical Center in Israel have found it in the DNA of descendants of those Indians who moved from Mexico to Colorado some 200 years ago.
The same very mutation was earlier tracked in Hispanic Americans whose ancestors also arrived in the United States from Mexico and South America.
Computer analysis of genetic data has revealed that the two groups should have a common ancestor – a Jewish person who moved from Europe to the New World as long as 600 years ago. It was the time when Christopher Columbus discovered America, and the Jewish population was expelled from Spain.
In their publication in the European Journal of Human Genetics, the team, led by Eitan Friedman, notes that Colorado’s Mexican Indians do not seem to have any traditions that would link them to Jews."
http://www.rt.com/ne...do-indians-645/

So the Ashkenazi Jew DNA was a small contribution to a larger population but still managed to not totally disappear.

Then there's the Lemba tribe of black Jews in Zimbabwe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

The thumb knuckle in Bulgaria is consistent with Near Eastern DNA.  I wouldn't even care if it's John the Baptist or not -- the DNA wound up there and its discovery proves that the method they used to determine its origin works.

So there's three cases of showing how DNA evidence links certain people back to Israel.  My guess is that these teams spent far less time and money to achieve positive results than Book of Mormon-oriented studies.  Why is it that they can yield affirmative results in their DNA studies but LDS DNA studies regarding Book of Mormon people always end up talking about political affiliations and insignificant DNA contributions and being swallowed up by a larger group and overstates the significance of 'hebraisms' and re-characterizes BOM metallurgy into something that removes the contrast and comparisons indicated by the text and rewrites BOM zoology that converts any specific animal into something undefinable and elusive and converts BOM money into sets of measuring cups and a myriad of other excuses that always appear insignificant and impotent especially when set side by side against these studies?  These other researchers can find evidence that's 2000 years old.  The Book of Mormon has Lehites and Mulekites supposedly living at that time in the New World in vast numbers.  Have any graves or tombs been examined dating back to Book of Mormon times that show genetic links to the Near East circa 600BC or do they only show Asian origins?

I don't know (and I'll leave that to the critics and apologists here.)

BCSpace, on 19 June 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

“Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will,” he said.

That may be true, but it's also true that the medieval Church would have no way of knowing that any bones they wanted to pass off as John's would have to belong to a man of middle eastern origin, who died in the first century, if they were to pass modern DNA analysis.

And it seems unlikely that many Jews who died in the first century would leave bones behind that would somehow make their way to Bulgaria, and that the bones the Church would pick to identify as belonging to John the Baptist would be the ones (perhaps the only ones) that had such a history to them.

What I'm interested in is whether the DNA analysis showed any Kohanim markers.

As both of John's parents were Kohanim, it would be very easy to prove that this knuckle bone doesn't belong to him.

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. (Luke 1:5.)

I wish the article went into more detail then this.

Doug the Hutt, on 19 June 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

The archaeologists from Oxford University were surprised that the bones dated from the first century AD, the time of John’s life, and the DNA was consistent with a person of Near East heritage...."A team of researchers believe a knuckle bone found buried beneath a Bulgarian church may belong to John the Baptist, the New Testament prophet who heralded the ministry of Jesus.
The archaeologists from Oxford University were surprised that the bones dated from the first century AD, the time of John’s life, and the DNA was consistent with a person of Near East heritage."

http://abcnews.go.co...bly-discovered/

If they didn't test for Kohanim markers (and I can't really tell if they did from what I read here), I hope they do more testing.

THANK YOU for posting this Doug.

Edited by inquiringmind, 19 June 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[bu11fr0g]

DNA results are very good at identifying the common and predominant origin of a piece of DNA.
For the BRCA mutation, the individuals that have this piece can be specificall identified.
For the African Jews, the substantial origin can be identified.
For the bone, the substantial origin can be identified.

Re: the Book of Mormon, there are no morphologic traits to separate Lehi-descended individuals. The small founding population allows genetic drift. What can be definitively stated is that there is no evidence of a major contribution of middle eastern DNA to any population studied to date.