GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS

Willowtree,Could you provide me with a few answers:1. Are Asians and Indians (East India) sons of Abraham?2. Are Africans sons of Abraham?Also, although the word "Jew" was not used until later, the actual authors of the Bible thought of themselves and the direct descendents of Abraham and thought of themselves as the people of prophecy. Would you say this is accurate?

Willowtree,Thanks for your other reply. Just a few more questions.

quote:

---

Israel was divorced by God and eventually dispersed across Europe, Scandinavia, and Britain.

---

What evidence is there of this scattering? For the prophesy to be fulfilled we need extra-biblical confirmation that the peoples did spread through Europe. As noted by another poster, the genetic markers just aren't there, so it would seem that the lineage died out before being coopted into the European area.Next, we have this passage: How does God 'take them away'? It would seem to me that these tribes are now no more, gone from the earth.My challenge is to produce evidence that these tribes DID in fact mix with other Europeans. This would seem to be a logical step. I would accept extra-biblical conformation of these Hebrew tribes moving in on European cultures. Such a migration and influx of a new culture should have been recorded by scribes at the time. Also, you would think that these tribes would have also kept some of their cultural identity and passed this along ancestral lines. IOW, we should have literature written by these exiled tribes outside of the Torah and Old Testament.

quote:

---

This is a massive question you ask.

​

Dr. Scott has spent his whole life answering it.

​

The intent of the OP is not to open this can.

---

You have somewhat made your case that these lost tribes are the legit people who are to multiply "as the stars", but you have yet to answer the most obvious question, where those tribes are now. The OP DOES open this can of worms and it is up to you to support this claim with evidence. Perhaps you could mention some of the more supportive evidence and we could discuss here. I find it boring to argue with a website.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As noted by another poster, the genetic markers just aren't there
  —Loudmouth

---

​

The evidence disproves this assumption.

---

What evidence? You are begging the question.

quote:

---

Hosea says they will NOT look like God's people.

​

They will look "forsaken"

​

They will look "as not having mercy"

​

THEN in this state, Hosea (speaking for God) says "they will become sons of the living God"

​

Christians are known as "sons of God".

---

I am not talking about their "look", I am talking about oral traditions passed through the generations about their cultural history. This seems to be lacking outside of the tribes of Judah (ie Jews). It would seem probable, at least to me, that these lost tribes would have held on to their previous heritage and roots of this heritage would be evident in the cultures of Celts and other Europeans.

quote:

---

The OP establishes that the Jews are persons belonging to the two-tribe Southern Kingdom of Judah.

​

The OP establishes that Judah WAS NOT the recipient of the Genesis 22 promise.

​

Do you understand and agree to this ?

---

I agree that the verses you listed could be used in a way that supports your views. To tell you the truth, I don't think that this is what was meant by the biblical authors. I find it hard to believe that the people who controlled the writings of the Bible would intentionaly keep passages that did not include them as the prophesised children of God. IOW, even though you may be able to support your position through selective quotation, this doesn't mean that this was the position of the biblical authors. However, I am willing to concede that it is possible and really a matter of philosophy/theology. However, you also make claims that require science, specifically the migration of the lost tribes. This is not a matter of philosophy/theology but a matter of archaeology.

quote:

---

The tribe of Dan eventually clustered in the region we now call Denmark.

​

Denmark/DANmark.

---

Morroco/Moroni, therefore Morroco was founded by the people in the Book of Mormon.

quote:

---

Dan's descendants were also thinking of their patriarchal father when naming New Troy - LonDAN/London.

---

London/Don Cornelius, therefore London was founded by Soul Train.

quote:

---

The Iberia peninsula.

​

Ibeer/Hebeer/Hebrew.

---

Ibeer/beer, founded by Norm from Cheers.

quote:

---

"Dan" means "judge" and the Danes certainly pride themselves as the worlds arbiters.

---

This is only a recent role that the Danes have filled, it is not a tradition.Sorry, but I find this argument very weak. As I have shown, I could use the same logic and find alternate foundings for each of these sights. I need something more substantial than this.

quote:

---

You have zero knowledge about my claims but you have no problem about making conclusions.

​

I gave tidbits of DIRECT evidence and you clown them with your silly made-up renditions.

---

I was working with what you gave me. You have to admit that the evidence you did give me was weak at best. As far as I can tell, your renditions are as made up as mine. It wasn't meant as an attack, only as a method of showing the weakness of the arguments you were making. I was showing, through a little humour, how I could just as easily use the same logic and reasoning to construct obviously wrong origins for these areas and cities.And also, if you don't want your ideas challenged then don't post them. Anything I write you are free to attack using logic and reasoning, I have nothing against that. I don't expect anything I write to be handled with kid gloves. I am not making fun of you, I am making fun of the logic that went into constructing your argument. Judging by previous interactions, I am sure we could spend many an hour tipping back a few pints. Don't worry man, I am not out to get you.

quote:

---

ALL of my claims are proven facts. Source: Dr. Gene Scott.

---

The facts have nothing to do with the source. Facts stand by themselves and should not need the support of a researchers credibility. Although, as humans, we are more likely to believe one person over another, this in no way makes one thing fact and another untrue. If Dr. Scott's arguments are valid then you shouldn't even have to mention his name, in the same way that the Newton's Laws of Motion do not rely on Newton ever being alive. If Newton were found to be a child molesting trial lawyer, his laws would still be just as reliable.

quote:

---

You cannot have it both ways.

​

Either challenge the veracity of the Biblical renderings in the OP OR accept them as facts.

---

I want it one way, supported with evidence throughout. You claim that the lost tribes spread through Europe, and I want evidence that they did. What is wrong with that? So far, you have put forth that syllabic similarities between European towns and Hebrew words are support this migration. I feel that this evidence is very weak since the origination of those names could have come from anywhere. Something like "New Jerusalem" might support your theory, but London/LonDAN, therefore semitic origins is a pretty weak argument. However, I fully expect that you have more than these simplistic arguments and look forward to further discussion.

quote:

---

I prefer to debate the content of the OP BEFORE we go into history after the OP ends.

---

The OP states that a prophesy was fulfilled, that the Seed of Abraham would number as the stars. You claim that the Seed are Europeans. I am challenging the OP in that regard. I concede that the Seed of Abraham could in fact have been referring to these lost tribes, but I am challenging the notion that they are the originators of European culture and civilizations.I would expect you would level the same opposition against Mormons. They claim that part of the Seed of Abraham moved to North America. I am holding your views in the same light. In this light, I could argue that Morroco/Moroni supports the migration of the original Mormons towards North America. Could you please show me how my notion is wrong and yours is right?

quote:

---

I have no desire to go further based upon your reaction to evidence with source cite. In other words, nothing matters - whats the use.

---

It is common practice to summarize the arguments made by your cited reference. It is against forum rules to use a website reference as your de facto argument. I don't argue against inanimate websites, I argue and debate with other people. I am hoping that you present the data yourself for what I have learned is called "British Israelism". I am finding that it is a very interesting topic, but needless to say there is a lot of info to go through. Perhaps you could summarize the arguments and cite the actual evidence. I say this because I went to the website you listed and it contained very vague references to the evidence at hand. It talked of Assyrian tablets without even listing what they actually say. I am hoping for a discussion, even if heated, about the evidence that supports the ten tribes being the ancestors of the Britians. You have already made the claim, I am just asking that you support it with your own words.

quote:

---

How much knowledge did you have in O.T. promise tracing prior to this debate ?

---

None. I am hoping that you will supply some of that knowledge in your own words instead of saying "Its absolute fact, see this site".

quote:

---

The race card indicates total inability to refute the evidence, and is a validation of the evidence.

---

Accusing people of being controlled by Satan indicates your inability to refute the evidence and is validation of the truthfullness of other scholars.

quote:

---

Where did I do exactly what you accuse me of ?

---

message #83: message #64: EVIL in all caps no doubt being SATAN as supported by another quote later in message #63: And also from message #63: So your argument is that unless we agree with you we are being controlled by Satan. So, it is OK to smear people as being Satanic, but by no means should such a low blow like "racist" ever come into the debate. How hypocritical can you get? You don't mind unjustly smearing the name of well meaning historians who happen to disagree with your beloved leader Gene Scott.

quote:

---

I don't appreciate you deliberately confounding the arguments.

---

I don't appreciate you ignoring contradicting evidence because you claim it comes from Satan.

quote:

---

I have evidence posted with source cite.

---

Jar and Almohdi also have source cited evidence that contradicts yours. Instead of facing it you run away claiming Satanism and a "secular world view". Perhaps you could explain Jar's explanation of the roots of the Red Hand and how you have better evidence than he does.

quote:

---

Opponent (not you ) then, true to the inability to refute with evidence attacks the source/messenger - hence arguing the man - further proof of inability to refute THE EVIDENCE.

---

Your opponents did refute your evidence by giving better evidence (source cited) than you did. You simply conflate the red string on one hand to the red hand on a crest in another without giving any evidence that the two are related. Jar's recounting of the possible sources are better documented than anything you have put forth.

quote:

---

If you don't like my anti-macro evolution comments then so be it.

---

I would be saying the same things even if you did believe in macro-evolution.

quote:

---

As it stands we have no current challenge to my evidence. We have race cards and worldview assassinations initiated first.

---

Refutation #1: Jar This refutes the middle eastern origin of the Red Hand, or at least puts it in doubt. Also, the tie between the two was tenuous at best anyway.Almhodi:"Despite the seemingly intuitive similarity, there is also little or no support for connecting "apiru" (hapiru, habiru) with the term Eber or Hebrew."Willow:
"IOW, what we see cannot possibly mean what we see.Only because it plainly evidences against your position.Objectively:Hebrew/Habiru/apiru is obvious - not a matter of opinion.You must insult intelligence and just assert otherwise with a straight face."So, not only do you simply repeat the unevidenced linkage between the names, you also follow it up with an insult. Great work Willow.Overall, I find your argument very poorly supported. There are much better explanations available, and also the DNA evidence has been left hanging as presented by ramoss. For you to refute this evidence you have to evidence an Israelite contigency in Britian at 3000 BC. The best you have come forward with so far is 1500 BC, and even that is very tenuous as Almhodi has so eloquently pointed out. What you claim are facts are instead conflation of cause and effect, and you have yet to substantially evidence anything you have claimed.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-17-2004 04:38 PM

quote:

---

You are trying to assert I argued person.

---

And you were. You argued that people were just making stuff up because they are being controlled by Satan. Prove I am wrong.

quote:

---

You are ranting and defending the indefensible.

---

I am defending no one. I am pointing out that you would rather call someone a Satanist than deal with the evidence they present.

quote:

---

Your hatred of Dr. Scott is frustration concerning the evidence.

---

I have nothing personal against Dr. Scott. I do have problems with his leaps in logic, especially the etymology of the word "British" and the other various dreamt up etymologies that have nothing supporting them. I have problems with people claiming tenuous evidence is absolute proof. I also have problems with people that require others to first accept the conclusion in order to evidence the premises.

quote:

---

You are resorting to arguing the man like a real evo.

---

I merely pointed out that you are ignoring evidence based on the fact that it contradicts your conclusion. Prove me wrong and confront Jar's depiction of the Red Hand as being linked to Celtic oral histories which are totally unrelated to any middle eastern oral history.

quote:

---

BTW, your precious leader Darwin was an admitted racist.

---

If Einstein was a racist would you claim that Special Relativity was untrue? Or would you claim that light was under the influence of Satan?

quote:

---

The only groups that accept it are considered to be racists by anybody except for the people in that group.

---

I wouldn't call it racism. It is more along the lines of ethnic pride.

quote:

---

IOW, anyone who presents evidence supporting the Bible is not credible.

​

You are arguing worldviews.

---

Not all worldviews can be correct with respect to reality. Therefore, we must rely on objective evidence that is not subject to bias. The objective evidence points to British ancestors (through examining mitochondrial DNA) being present in the British Isles 5,000 years ago. None of your scenarios have shown an immigration of Israelites or one of the ten lost tribes into the area at this time. Therefore, you must show that this immigration occured 5,000 years ago.

quote:

---

My evidence remains.

---

It remains very tenuous and in conflict with large volumes of other evidence, including DNA analyses.

quote:

---

Your sources are atheists, persons who grind their ax under the disguise of objective truth = deceivers = quality of Satan.

---

Again, you can't argue the evidence so instead you claim that people are under the power of Satan. Are you actually going to debate the evidence or are you going to keep trotting out this red herring.

quote:

---

Darwin's supremacy over Africans originated evolution, thus its origins began from evil racism.

---

We are not talking about evolution. Another red herring.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I will also point out that modern science has the technology to find out the origins of people via DNA anaylsis

---

​

The exact argument of Aryan Nations and their brothers in Germany.

---

Weren't you the one complaining of people bringing up racism to cloud the issue? Also, DNA wasn't discovered until the 1950's so Nazi Germany could not have based any of their arguments on DNA. Again, quit playing the Satan/race card and deal with the evidence.

quote:

---

The hard evidence proves this easy to fudge nonsense a fraud.

---

What hard evidence. Red string on hand to Red hand on crest? If this is your hard evidence I am utterly unconvinced.

quote:

---

The evil of racism and your use of it to "refute" my evidence is a non-sequitor.

---

The evil of Satan and your use of it to "refute" evidence that contradicts your own is a non-sequitor.

quote:

---

Funny how Satan is laughed at and not believed to exist, except a person points out the effects of his presence and suddenly opponent is offended because of the validity of the point.

---

Would those effects include people who improperly claim, using tenuous evidence, the present day distribution of the ten tribes?The evidence of Ramoss, Almohdi, and Jar stand unrefuted. Their evidence remains.

quote:

---

I SAID the unknowness of the 10 tribes being the British Empire IF TRUE evidences the existence of Satan.

---

Therefore, until you are able to refute the contradictory evidence, then the truth is still up for grabs. Therefore, it is a little early to be assuming Satan's actions and this shouldn't come up again until we reach a final conclusion.I will look closely over the thread and get back to you.