Severe critics of the Lost Tribes teachings think they have another scientific card in the game that proves certain populations (such as Celts and Anglo-Saxons) do not descend from Abraham, and therefore cannot be the Lost Tribes. DNA proves in their eyes that this Lost Tribes stuff is all washed up and pointless.
I remember reading a post in a Baptist forum where a certain member of the Mormon church lost his faith in what Mormon doctrine taught because the DNA evidence had "proven" that the Native Americans were not descended from the Israelites (as they believe), and somehow expanded his conclusions to show that the book of Mormon was therefore wrong. Science had proven this "cult" wrong and I could almost see the glee in the eyes of the readers based on their posts that someone finally came to their senses.
What's amazing is that the same conservative Christians who lambaste evolution will not hesitate for one moment to accept the DNA "evidence" if it sides with their preconceived notions. Do not kid yourself. Most people enter these forums with their minds already made up while calling the next guy "close-minded" or "having subjective interpretation" as the pot would say to the kettle.
In addition, since ol' Liaf here has a non-conventional perspective by the orthodox standards, I am often targeted out as well. What really makes me die with laughter is when they claim I "probably inherited my beliefs from someone" as if I was brainwashed and unquestionably accepted all we teach on this site. Let me tell you something folks. By many people's standards, what we teach is so far out in left field that it takes a more thought out mindset than the orthodox position. It has to be in order to defend it.
What's even more amazing is that the conservative folks who are quick to label someone a cult, or in my case, one who "inherited his beliefs", fail miserably to think out the answers the "cults" are trying to obtain. For example, I used the verse in Genesis 35:11 regarding Jacob becoming "many nations" to prove this point. While the critics will scoff at the idea that the British Commonwealth was the fulfillment of this prophecy, they either have a feeble explanation or no explanation at all as to what this passage (and many like it) then means. Obviously, they did not think it out, and then a guy as myself is supposed to be the one that "inherited his beliefs" without thinking? Pleeeeeeeease!
Well, I made one post on that Baptist forum regarding the DNA evidence. While I am not in total agreement with the Mormon doctrine, I admonished them that the DNA evidence cannot be fully conclusive--- I probably took that glee from the eyes of those with their minds set. How did I come to that conclusion?
Well, on another forum, I was challenged (with another one who believes as I do) by a skeptical crowd. The only problem with this forum is that these skeptics were not overly convinced of the biblical position either. But at least they were civil (unlike some Christians who almost decked me out in another instance). When the subject of DNA evidence came up that the Celts could not be descended from the Lost Tribes, I asked for their source so that I could study it. I'm glad I did as I learned a lot from this growing field and concluded that as of yet, the DNA cannot absolutely prove or disprove anything. And keep in mind when we are talking about the Lost Tribes, we are taking a biblical position first, and then go searching for evidence based on what the bible says to corroborate it. If one does not fully accept the bible, that puts me at a disadvantage because we then have to "prove" the bible first, and then go with what it says, and that opens a big, big door of many topics. In addition, since we believe the bible is the basis for the Lost Tribes teaching, then one does not even have a case for questioning where the Lost Tribes got to as far as I am concerned if the biblical evidence is not accepted.
I won't go into every detail, but I learned some interesting things I want to point out by the DNA evidence. Whenever DNA of a population is taken, to whom is it compared to if we want to find out if they are Lost Tribes? To the JEWS of course! What have we been teaching on this site all along? One CANNOT DO THAT! We already had shown that Joseph's kids had only 1/3 in common with Judah's kids in just two short generations! The Jews are in the Lost Tribe's family tree but NOT their pedigree! If that statement does not make sense to the seemingly educated critic, serious red flags go up right then and there. One has to study genealogy to see that, but so many people are products of two, three and even four marriages and parents, that nobody has any sense and value of family any longer--- it's as if they are self-generated without a realization of their family's past (keep in mind that as a 45-year-old man, I am probably debating many hot-shot kids--- you realize how much kids know--- more than us older folks, so they believe).
When I read several studies regarding genetics, I came across an alarming statement. There seemed to have been a much weaker genetic link with the Askenazi Jews and with their Middle Eastern counterparts. In other words, they had much more genetic material in common with their European neighbors. The geneticists stopped just short of actually saying they were not really Jews, but did admit a problem. I'll say there's a problem there. The Askenazi Jews represent about 90% of all Judaism. Go tell the families of Jews that suffered in the holocaust that they were not really Jews and they suffered for nothing! You see, already serious flags went up when I read that, and this was by the admission of the geneticists themselves, NOT the critics of their work. Of course the forum answer to that was that was to the effect the geographic region had something to do with that. In addition, "Jewishness" is determined by the mother, even with a Gentile father. Since the subject at hand was a father's DNA, then maybe the females married non-Jewish males and that messed up the DNA. Well, what of it? And that cannot happen to the Lost Tribes, either? My point was that if the Celts did not pass the DNA criteria based on the argument, then neither did the Askenazi Jews pass. Or again, if it is believed that the Askenazi Jews have Abraham as Father (but do not pass the DNA test), then why not the Celts? In my eyes, nothing was proven or disproved. And keep one other thing in mind. At least Jews have the scriptures and know whom they ought to marry. The Lost Tribes according to the bible would be living as Gentiles, and as such they failed practicing God's Law and would definitely mess things up.
If that is interesting enough, I found something else. I found a quote, supposedly from CNN.COM EUROPEAN WEB PAGE reports - November 10, 2000 on another web site, that stated:
Around 80 per cent of European men are descended from a single primitive hunter.....
About 8,000 years ago, said Underhill, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life: agriculture. [bold emphasis mine].
Now, if the critic is perceptive, this date antedates the time of Abraham and proves nothing. However, the same geneticists, in this example, Dr. Oppenheim's study, that use DNA evidence to prove the "Jewishness" of people say this:
Analysis of the Y chromosome has already yielded interesting results. Dr. Ariella Oppenheim of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem said she had found considerable similarity between Jews and Israeli and Palestinian Arabs, as if the Y chromosomes of both groups had been drawn from a common population that began to expand 7,800 years ago.
7800 years ago? That's also before Abraham. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
We better bring genealogy into the mix. If this conflicting evidence did not make you seriously question the DNA methods by now, this thought definitely will. I have a genealogy of Queen Elizabeth back to Adam. This is no surprise to readers of this site. There are about 130 generations from the Queen to Abraham and about 150 generations to Adam. Yet, the critics will say that the Celts, and Anglo-Saxons and whoever are not descended from Abraham because of that Y chromosome study. What does the Bible teach? Well, after the flood, we basically have the sons of Noah: Shem, Japheth, and Ham. From these three all the races originate. So the biblical scholars who want to side with the critics using their DNA evidence probably believe that people can be traced back to Abraham's time as Semites, Japhethites, or Hamites.
Do you see where I am going here? Those who use DNA evidence suggest that in 130 generations, we more or less can distinguish these 3 branches of mankind, and yet from Noah to Abraham is a mere 10 generations and yet they became genetically divergent that quickly? You see, if one can theoretically trace back to Abraham genetically using DNA, then we ought to go back a mere 10 generations more and we'd all converge to the same father in Noah? Right? BUT.... if the races did diverge enough in ten generations so that we could distinguish Abraham's line from the other's, then does it not make sense that in 130 more generations we could have much more divergence? Why would Noah's son's genetically diverge enough in 10 generations to have recognizable races and yet in another 130 years these races are supposed to keep their identifying marks? It does not make any sense.
Don't let anyone bamboozle you into believing that scientific DNA stuff "proves" one thing or the other. I will say it proves only one thing--- a person's tissue to themselves, or a VERY CLOSE relative. I already saw a documentary where the geneticist was honest enough to admit that bone samples from and infant buried next to a female skeleton could not be analyzed by DNA because of supposed contamination. They had no idea if this was her child or not. For Cripe's sake, the remains were next to each other and they could not conclude anything positive? And yet the same science is supposed to tell us whether so-and-so has Abraham (from 4000 years ago) as Father? Let's get real. I rather go with what the Bible says and indicates. We know that will never be wrong.