Declaration of Arbroath

Original Hebrew contained no vowels. SATAN is STN, it could be STAN.Satan is the devil and is the serpent in genesis. A sepent leaves a trail (Dr Scott). We can see that the devil now reside in the East.* Armanestan
* Afghanistan
* Bulgaristan
* Chinastan
* East Pakistan
* Kazakhstan
* Kyrgyzstan
* Hayastán
* Hindustan
* Hrvatistan
* Hunastan
* Gurjistan
* Lehastan
* Lekhistan
* Macaristan
* Pakistan
* Rusastan
* Tajikistan
* Turkmenistan
* Uzbekistan
* VrastanWe can also see this devil in STANley Miller, STANding ovations, STANford University, STANard units, and of course, SaTiN, STaiNs, and more!Yeah, just a bit of good natured ribbing, no need to rebut

But you know, oddly, there is a lot violence in those "stan" countries...

My God, corroborating evidence. Get out the nukes!

Yeah. There's been a lot more in those chriSTiAN countries, though.

---

"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!
---------------------------------------

Because Jar must insist his assertions are evidence. He has, like you have pointed out, made senseless assertion after senseless assertion.All my evidence is face value proof: no special pleading required.Sycthians means sons of Isaac (Dr. Scott). All opposition in this thread simply asserts contrary to what the evidence plainly dictates. Here we have Darwinists, persons claiming to be loyal to evidence, asserting contrary to Dan's mark across Eurasia.Arbroath plainly recounts the "renown" history of the Scots ending with their ancient brethern at the Red Sea.The point is the Scots are CLAIMING ancestry from Israel, but then again all opposition here is basically consistent in the fact that they believe human evolution which has not one prima facie fact in support.Ray

Major error.You are wrongly assuming all Hebrews are Jews and that all Israelites are Jews.All Jews are Hebrews but not all Hebrews are Jews."Jews" only appears in Scripture AFTER the spilt of the United Monarchy. Two kingdoms emerged: Northern Kingdom of Israel, capitol of Samaria; Southern Kingdom of Judah, capitol of Jerusalem. ONLY persons from the Southern Kingdom became known as "Jews"/Jewdah/Judah.The Hebrews of the North - 10 tribe Israel are NOT Jews. They are Hebrews. All Jews are Hebrews but not all Hebrews are Jews.When Assyria carried the North away into bondage in 721/2 BC, according to Hosea, God divorced Israel/Nothern Kingdom. These Hebrews NEVER returned to Palestine, but after breaking free of Assyria scattered across Eurasia. THESE "Lost Tribes" is whom Jesus told the disciples to take the gospel first: Ephesians, Galatians, Colossians, etc. etc. They are Celts dwelling in Asia minor and beyond. They will not look like Jews because they are NOT Jews. House of Israel = Nothern Kingdom.Jesus was the Law Incarnate, God killed Him. Now God can re-marry divorced Israel since the old bag (Mosaic Law) is dead. In fact the law said a woman/(Israel) cannot re-marry until her husband died/(Christ). When Christ rose from the dead: the Celts/Lost Tribes were the first ones to receive the gospel and their descendants (USA/Britain) have carried out the Great Commission to take the same gospel to the world.Ray

Trust me, Edward I did not care whether they were Northern Tribe or Southern Tribe. Nor did the Pope.So far you have provided no support for your assertion in the OP.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, he is correct about the separation of Israel. The kingdom was split. It's not clear what happened to the lost tribes of Israel, but they were removed from Palestine and so it's not unlikely that they would have changed over time and even adopt many ways, customs, etc,...of the places they were sent to.The Samarians would this be called Jews too by your definitions here, but Jesus says salvation is of the Jews and not Samaritans.

Yes it is.Assyria carried them away in 722 BC.Ray

the claim in the OP.If you read what was written in the Declaration, there is no mention that the authors considered themselves Hebrews.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please support the assertion that "Scythians" was intended to mean "sons of Isaac". Simply asserting that Gene Scott says so is not evidence.

quote:

---

The point is the Scots are CLAIMING ancestry from Israel,

---

Then the fact that there is no such claim in the Declaration of Arbroath refutes the point.

I know that, but after that, it's not 100% clear. I think the Celtic concept has merit though.

Which proves that they are not the Scythians. The first Assyrian mention of the Scythians is that they came from the North not from the south, and that they came as conquerors, not as a subjugated transplanted peoples. from here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

here's another good article from the same source you quoted jar....though not dealing with this subject.Dook - WikipediaI use the wika too, but have you got another source. Sometimes moreover, there can be different people groups called by the same name, Ibernians for example.

Of course the Declaration of Arbroath only states that the ancestors of the Scots came from Scythia, not that they were called Scythians.Even if there is a way to construe this as implying Hebrew ancestry it is hardly a clear declaration to that effect.