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

Information about this 'theory' can be found Page Redirectionandhttp://www.revneal.org/Writings/british.htmIt sounds like much crackpotism, and more than a bit racist if you ask me.

ooops.. wrong linkThis message has been edited by ramoss, 08-15-2004 09:05 PM

Well, I was demonstrating that your sources are not scholarly sources, and resorting to them is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'.Aside from some writing from people who mainly are discredit, trying to come up with odd conclusions with the most twisting of some words, what physical evidence do you have of your cliams.As a matter of fact, the DNA evidence falsifies your conclusions. The British do not have their origins from the middle east. Some families in Wales acutally have been shown to have been there for 5000 years, because scientists have found people living in an area a 100% identical match to the mitochondria dna found in a 5000 year old tomb.With DNA analsyis, the origins and path of migrations can be accurately shown. The DNA evidence shows that claim is 100% false.

I would like to know several things.1) Your sources seem to be a very narrow type of theologist. COuld you please show me their credentials, adn why we should accept them2) Why are you using such ad homeinin attacks as 'hillbilly attitudes', and allusions to satan??

By THEIR credentials, I mean your sources.Your use of the logical fallacy of diversion is noted. Your claims have not been backed up, and all you have done is use the logical fallacy of
"Appeal to Authority" to say 'These people said this'...

Yes,
Your sources are theists.. but they do not have any qualifications other than the fact you agree with them.They, basically, have been debunked many times. The only people pretty much that subscribe to seem to be some kind of Christian Identiy group (which is a white supremist group).I will also point out that modern science has the technology to find out the origins of people via DNA anaylsis. This has shown the population in the British isles not to be the 10 lost tribes.I suggest you read Origins of the British Israelites : The Lost Tribes by Michael Friedman. This complete refutes every claim of the the British Isrealite , point by point.This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-17-2004 05:46 PM

Well,You have a bunch of books that make claims.All crediable biblical, archeological, and scientific sources disagree.The genetic analsysis disagrees.The only groups that accept it are considered to be racists by anybody except for the people in that group.

Well, I don't.When someone is using their 'ethnic' pride to say they are 'superior',
such as the Christian Identiy movement (which is one of the main
pushers of British Isrealism), and that others are 'inferior', then it is racist.I will admit that the one lone person who is pushing this concept that is not also pushing the concept of white supremecy IS Gene Scott, but
that does not make the viewpoint have any more evidence.

Actually, the statement 'Darwin's supremecy over africans' is inaccurate and a strawman. Why don't you read 'Origin of Species', and see that
the Africans are not mentioned.So, when I think since you are using strawmen, and inaccurate information to try to 'refute' what is said, I would have to say that you sound rather desperate. I know you don't have any scholarship, nor do you have any science on your side.And yes, your evidence has everything to do with a 19th century cult. That is the origins of it, those are the people you have been quoting.

In regards to the Black Libyan Jews, there is genetic evidence to indicate a migration into the area.http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/publications/LibyanJews.htmlThis genetic evidence, of course, is absent from the populations of Britian.This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-18-2004 05:39 PMThis message has been edited by ramoss, 08-18-2004 05:40 PM

Well, then,Can you point me to a peer reviewed article about the DNA evidence?Please, if you can, do so.And, no, we don't agree.. That is just your misreading what I wrote. I was pointing out there is genetic evidence about Libyan Jews, as well as the social structure, but not the British.This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-18-2004 08:25 PM

No, but you do realise that DNA evidence is evidence that proves/disproves the theory. Just like the theory of the Mormons that the American Indian are the lost tribes of Isreal has been disproven by
DNA evidence.You don't seen to have any archelogical evidence, but mere specularton based on vague simularites of stories and words... and not too similar at that.Other than the pure speculation do to some language.. what PHYSICAL evidence do you have. Do you have any artifacts linked to the Israelies from taht time period that was discovered in Britian?

He is rather, rather strangely I think, saying that if the thread was bloody, the hand it lay it would be bloody too.That, of course, is stretching things and trying to read into things much too much (IMO). You have to have the preassumption of a 'red hand' to make that assumption.

Of course, I am sure that we will not get a peer reviewed article from Ron Wyatt about his 'discoveries'. His fraud outlived him though

Boy oh boy,.. you realise no mainstream biblical scholar takes that british israelism seriously.. as a matter of fact, it has all been totally debunked.Now, how about some phsycial evidence, rather than mine quoting, and making assumptions about the text.How about showing, from British artifacts, an israeli influence from
the correct time period?How about showing some genetic proof?I mean, the British israelism was even reputed by the Church that one of your sources founded on the concept.