Declaration of Arbroath

And they are very nice in-laws, too.Did you think I was talking about the First Americans?

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

The Scottish lords are attempting to secure Papal support. The "renown" history is now going to be outlined: Read the text.Okay.Descent is outlined, from nearest working backwards "Thence they came....after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea" The "they" are then connected to Israel.By including this information the Scots are claiming Hebrew ancestry. Human evolution proceeds with obscure fossil scraps found with no birth certificates/text attached.The information at issue is included in the text because the Scots are claiming their ancient forefathers proceeded:"They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes"The above is then linked with Israel.The only reason it says all of this is because they are claiming ancestry. To assert otherwise is to ignore prima facie evidence.The CLAIM is supported by a universe of other evidence, some of it mentioned briefly and even more quickly ignored.Why was all this information placed in the text unless the Scots were not saying their ancient brothers were Hebrew ?Your reply here has been ad hoc with all due respect.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 02-07-2006 07:27 PM

Scythia was north of the Black Sea! Is that Palestine in your dimension, Herp? How many miles is it from the Great Pyramid, again?This message has been edited by Coragyps, 02-07-2006 09:14 PM

Do you think God actually meant He created by ape evolution even though the text says no such thing ?Ray

They came from Scythia. That is above the Black sea, in what today would be Azerbijan. The Scythians were Indo-Euopeans, totally unrelated to the semitic peoples. The traveled by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea. That is the Northern part of the Med. The came to Spain where they stayed a long time.Ray, there is no connection at all to the Hebrews or Palestine.Parse the next statement. I have explained this to you before, but will gladly repeat it here.The sentence has two parts, where they traveled after leaving Spain... and when they traveled... The readers will decide who has supported their position.This message has been edited by jar, 02-07-2006 09:37 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And in any case: what a bunch of Scotsmen imagined was their ancient history in 1320 need bear no resemblance to the actuality of that history. How closely is the language Scots Gaelic related to Sogdian or Ossetic? Those are at least Indo-Iranian languages, not Semitic like Hebrew!

No, I think somebody made that up, just like the many other creation myths we find around the world.But reasonable people can agree about what this text says, too, because language has rules of structure and meaning, syntax and semantics.The phrase in your original quote that you cite as textual evidence of Hebrew ancestry for the Scots is adverbial, not appositive, to "they."Any English teacher, or apt middle school student, could accurately diagram and parse that sentence.Appositive--the phrase delimited by commas further identifies Tom: Adverbial--the phrase delimited by commas tells us when the subject acted: Tom may or may not be a barbarian, but that isn't what the adverbial construction tells us. It tells us when he moved.Whether we are raised directly from dust or descended from creatures raised from dust seems not a dramatic distinction. As an agnostic, I try to keep an open mind about a Creator, and it seems to me a Creator would create however that Creator pleased, whether we like it or not.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Your reasoning is faulty as much as theirs, they do not claim to be decended from the hebrews no matter how much you wish it were true, it is a timestamp for when the nobles claim they came to scotland, many peoples claim decent from scythia, not from the hebrews if you read history instead of reading some unsupported nonsense, you would know that the celts who would become the ancesters of the scottish lived much time in spain before it became spain, they have tons of evidence for this, though none that would connect the celts in anyway to the israelites there are two answers i could give here, one, they do not know very much about history other than what is taught by the church, in that case its not true history but something to chain thier beliefs about themselves together.
Two, you are reading into it, to make it sound like they believe this when they don't - I go with two because the nobles didn't give a damn about being related to the hebrews, they were scots, this was about thier problems with england

The thread is essentially about Ray's reading comprehension. It could be that he hasn't presented his case fully, or he has misunderstood the original 'scholar's' claim?My reading of the text, and I'd guess 99.999999999% of everyone else that reads it, is that there is no attempt at all to suggest that the Scots are in any way connected to the Israelites. The mention of the Red Sea crossing is just a time reference, how anyone can read anything more than that needs some special care.I suppose someone, who knows how to target an audience, has made money out of this scam though.How easy is it to make money in America?Brian

The above verse is a dying Jacob's last words about Dan. Dr. Scott says it is a prophecy, predicting wherever the descendants of Dan travel to - they will leave a "serpents trail", that is they will leave their MARK.Original Hebrew contained no vowels. DAN is DN and could easily be DIN/DEN/DON/DUN.Evidence of the prophecy/Dan's mark:Denmark/Danmark = DAN'S MARK, DANes, DANish.DANube, DANaster, and DANaper rivers.Tuatha de Danaan = tribe of Danfounder of Greek civilization: DANaus“Danaus, the father of fifty daughters on coming to Argos took up his abode in the city of Inarchos and throughout Hellas (i.e., Greece). He laid down the law that all people hitherto named Pelasgians were to be named Danaans” - (Strabo 5.2.40 quoting Euripides).ScanDANavia.Of course Dan was a son of Jacob, son of Isaac = Nordic surname "Isaacson" = sons of Isaac.Remember Dan is also Dun.How many DUN's are their in Britain alone ? Hundreds.Ray

Wow, Ray, that's worse than numerology. How on Earth do you get "one who leaves a trail" from "serpent"? All animals leave trails, and I'm willing to bet that if the verse mentioned a different animal, you'd interpret it in the same way.Wishful thinking.

Imagine that...a person with the ability to deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as his worldview needs them to be...turning a blind eye to prima facie evidence ?Now we know why Darwinists must rely on physical evidence: it can be manipulated according to their needs, unlike linguistic evidence, which they must simply ignore for obvious reasons.Ray

How about you go learn about those languages before posting these claims?
for one thing up until about the 10th century c.e. denmark did not believe in christianity so why would they call it denmark if it didn't have anything to do with dan?, denmark is a name derived from the danish language rayas for the Tuatha de Danaan, unless Dan had a sex change, theres no way this is talking about the hebrew dan, Dan was a goddess in that area that the tribe came from, a better name would be children of dan, and if you read about them they knew magic, which would be forbidden under lawdanaus, which is an english translation of his name, wasn't even a real person he was a story to recreate a mythical history of part of greece, and he didn't found greece he found one of the cities of greece taken from Danaus - Wikipedia so your evidence comes down to if the name of something has dan in it?, thats not evidence thats BS, so DANger is about dan! amazing ray you come up with the most baseless claims wow ray more stuff that, doesn't work, do you know anything about nordic surnames?, for centuries a person would have thier surname as thier fathers name with the identifier of son, indicating the relationship, such as davidson, ericson,brianson, so did the woman only it was -dattor, claiming that people with the name isaacson means sons of issac is nonsense no-one uses thier grandfathers name they wouldn't be isaacson they would be donson, and being named after isaacson only shows the father was isaac not everyone, the next line would be bobson not isaacson [qs]Remember Dan is also Dun.[qs] no he is not he is DAN go read what a dun is ray, a dun is a celtic word for hillfort, you need to learn what things mean before you can make whild claims like this

what evidence?, this is just unsuported claims, why do you bring up fossils ray? can you not defend your position so you try to dismiss critics? linguistic evidence? what linguistic evidence?, all you are doing is claiming words with D A N relate to a biblical figure with no evidence that they do, saying dun or din or dan have some relation to a person is meaningless if you can't show they mean what they do
for one thing dun and din are celtic words

jar, rather than merely repeat your claims, why don't you provide some evidence of them?