Declaration of Arbroath

It means God kept His word to Abraham, that his seed would be as the sand of the seashore. God also kept His word to David, his heirs occupy the current Throne of Great Britain. The very Throne Christ will be enthroned upon when He returns.It means the God of the Bible exists.It means if all these promises are true, then Genesis 2:7 is true too.Ray

Never heard of it until now.I need a new backdoor in my house - email me if you are interested in the job.Ray

Just curious. Thanks.

ray you are not remotely right, he was said to have founded argos not troy even then he never existedlondon is an anglicanized name of a roman city Londinium, because they mean something in the language they come from? how do you know its named after dan, i mean come on what reason can you give that they relate to dan at all? because they have D N in the name that is fully intellecal suicidehow about you read about history instead of reading some unsuported recontruction of historyBritish - Wikipedia - a link on the history of the word britishits not named after a person, but derived from a celtic word later used by the romans, i'm getting tired of this nonsense
nothing you have said ray has any relation to history of the celts or the irish its all just made up to form links that have no relation to the people in question
the irish and scotish are mixes of many people none of them israelites except in your mind
{aBe: i just realized i'm wasting my time with this, ray just wants to spout off nonsense from his hero, instead of debating, he will ignore me, because he seems to not have any evidence for his claims, just more claims - why don't you just get a blog ray?}
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-10-2006 09:49 PMThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-10-2006 09:54 PM

It's not just Irn Bru, look!!!!!!!A Scottish comic called the DANdy, and one of the main characters is.... Desperate DAN!!OMG!!!!!!!!Brian.

*cue the scary music*
Duh duh duh dunnnn!

I was going to raise a couple of points in the first few days of this thread but then had to go into Hospital for a while. As far as I can see from a quick read through nobody else has done it¹ so I'll give it a go and see if anybody bites.As the points are unrelated to each other I'll post them as two distinct messages so each can be followed separately.¹ This should probably have told me they weren't worth making in the first place!Edit: Added worth in sentence above.This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 02-16-2006 10:48 PM

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

I agree with those folks who have parsed the text in the link Ray posted and conclude that there is no clearly identifiable claim that the Scots are the the descendants of the Hebrews.The problem is that the text being parsed isn't really the right text. This is the right text. When we're analysing the meaning of a sentence to determine what it means I'd be wary of using translations.Anybody here up to parsing early 14^th Century Latin as used in formal communications betweens the nobility and the Papacy? My best effort would probably end up as "Romans go the house"

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

One thing I'd like somebody to explain is why the sentence about crossing the Red Sea is apparently arbitrarily thrown into the Declaration? I know why Ray thinks it is there but I'd be interested in other explanations. It just seems to be so far out in left field in the context of the rest of the Declaration that you have to wonder if there is a reason why that specific event was used.I see jar has suggested that it is simply a dating reference - were they just trying to say that the Scots had been established in Scotland for a long time? Was the BC/AD nomenclature not in use by then (I genuinely don't know)?Aside - I just looked in Wikipedia and it says AD was invented in 525 and has been in recorded use since the 7^thCentury. It also says Bede used the latin equivalent of BC in 731.Was it common to date ancient events relative to a Biblical chronlogy? This was a century or two before Bishop Usher so I don't even know if the people of that era had any idea (or even cared) when the Biblical pre-Christian events took place.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Ray, why would Jesus be enthroned as king of Great Britain? He already is king and has absolute authority over all things.I ask because the theology of him being seated on England's throne seems a little odd.

Never having read or been aware of this document before, I agree with MangyTiger.
The mention of the crossing of the red sea must have had a motivation.
If one were to date ones self as a believer or believers to the pope would it not be more likely they use reference to the birth or death of Christ? Unless perhaps that the crossing of the red sea was a common dating anology of the time.I am not an advocate either way in this discussion but to ignore this anomaly ad infinitum with continued belittling remarks raises some serious questions of forum participants motivations. It is an anomaly that deserves carful and deliberate scrutiny for it's true motivations may have great implications.

One thing Ray has going for his ideas here right off the bat is the labelling of white people as Caucasian. I have always wondered about that. If white skinned people really did originate from the Caucuses, and the lost tribes of Israel reportedly were driven to the Caucuses, then there may well be a lot of truth that many northern and western European tribes stemmed, at least in a significant part, from Israel.I would still suspect there would be a lot of mixing along the way, and not sure if drawing theological implications has merit. I definitely see the gospel as given to all nations.

I tend to view these "Lost Tribe" seed migrations with the same goggles I use to look at how the Vikings and Christopher Columbus "discovered" the New World when 90 million people were living there already.Even if a tribe of Israel were to leave the area and travel to the Caucuses, or to Northern Europe or Western Europe, they are not arriving in unclaimed territory.Not to mention that genetic drift between groups has been going on for so long that the idea of race is little more than collective wishful thinking.

The declararation of Arbroath seems to be about independance from English rule. Perhaps the writer chose the Exodus as a dating reference because it marked the freedom of Israel from Egyptian rule.

Upon further thought the refference to the red sea could more easily be laid to rest if we were to see the popes response.