The Torah Network

3 w

Comment

For sure not the sons of Japeth. It's the greatest deception ever sold to the world.

· Reply · 1750521420

Might wanna double check who's research you are relying on. Mine is the Bible which says that God would return Israel to their land and impart His Spirit to them in the later days.

· Reply · 1750524688

The article reminds me of what I was taught the degrees of a lie is:

1. Lies
2. Damn Lies
3. Statistics

It confuses terms to try and make a false claim.

The word "semitic" is so taken out of context now a days that it no longer means someone with a Semite ancestry, but only one with a Jewish background. This is a misappropriation of the original word as it tries to define a word to a specific blood group while relying on another word.

The term "Semitic" refers to languages that share a common ancestor and are spoken in parts of the Middle East and Africa; not just Israel.

The word "antisemitism" was popularized by German journalist and agitator Friedrich Wilhelm Adolph Marr in 1879. He used the term in a pamphlet and subsequently founded the "Antisemiten-Liga" (League of Antisemites). While the term itself wasn't entirely new, Marr's use of it in the context of an organized movement against Jewish people is what solidified its meaning and widespread usage.

So, we mustn't confuse someone being a Semite with being Anti-Semitic. These term aren't antonyms even though the one word is part of the other.

If someone speaks a Semitic language then they are a Semite independent of their genetics. That is the sum of it.

If someone is against Jews (whatever the genetic origins) then they are Antisemitic.

The research paper is therefore wrong on two accounts:

1. A far larger percentage of people speak a Semitic language (Hebrew and Arabic) in Israel than the 2.5% it claims.
2. DNA doesn't determine what language you speak.

So, the article is in its core Anti-Semitic as it targets the Jews in their negative assessment of the data in front of them.

Be careful when reading articles that claim data underpins a matter as our brains aren't developed to assess data when looking quickly at a statement. You have to look at it in more detail to understand what the data is saying. A good book to read on this is "Thinking Fast and Slow".

As example, an article heading could read "200% increase in Primary School teachers leaving due to stress in 2025".

What does that mean?

Are Primary Schools likely to run out of teachers due to a mass exodus or did 3 teachers leave during 2025 instead of just 1 in 2024, but the normal count is 5 teachers leaving each year (which the article doesn't mention)?

We just won't know until we analyse the data.

The article reminds me of what I was taught the degrees of a lie is: 
 
1. Lies 
2. Damn Lies 
3. Statistics 
 
It confuses terms to try and make a false claim. 
 
The word "semitic" is so taken out of context now a days that it no longer means someone with a Semite ancestry, but only one with a Jewish background.  This is a misappropriation of the original word as it tries to define a word to a specific blood group while relying on another word. 
 
The term "Semitic" refers to languages that share a common ancestor and are spoken in parts of the Middle East and Africa; not just Israel.  
 
The word "antisemitism" was popularized by German journalist and agitator Friedrich Wilhelm Adolph Marr in 1879. He used the term in a pamphlet and subsequently founded the "Antisemiten-Liga" (League of Antisemites). While the term itself wasn't entirely new, Marr's use of it in the context of an organized movement against Jewish people is what solidified its meaning and widespread usage.  
 
So, we mustn't confuse someone being a Semite with being Anti-Semitic. These term aren't antonyms even though the one word is part of the other. 
 
If someone speaks a Semitic language then they are a Semite independent of their genetics.  That is the sum of it. 
 
If someone is against Jews (whatever the genetic origins) then they are Antisemitic. 
 
The research paper is therefore wrong on two accounts: 
 
1. A far larger percentage of people speak a Semitic language (Hebrew and Arabic) in Israel than the 2.5% it claims. 
2. DNA doesn't determine what language you speak. 
 
So, the article is in its core Anti-Semitic as it targets the Jews in their negative assessment of the data in front of them. 
 
Be careful when reading articles that claim data underpins a matter as our brains aren't developed to assess data when looking quickly at a statement. You have to look at it in more detail to understand what the data is saying.  A good book to read on this is "Thinking Fast and Slow". 
 
As example, an article heading could read "200% increase in Primary School teachers leaving due to stress in 2025". 
 
What does that mean?   
 
Are Primary Schools likely to run out of teachers due to a mass exodus or did 3 teachers leave during 2025 instead of just 1 in 2024, but the normal count is 5 teachers leaving each year (which the article doesn't mention)?   
 
We just won't know until we analyse the data.

· Reply · 1750579542

Joe Pena

David Martin

Rhy Bezuidenhout

Frankincense - Hojary Superior (Boswellia sacra)

Exodus, fine art print

Day One, fine art print

Garden of Emunah, fine art print

Eyes of Grace

Bookmark - Num 6:24-26