Declaration of Arbroath

Scottish Declaration of Independance.http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm "Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. 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, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today."All of the Scottish lords who signed the text did so by attaching their seals:http://www.abcog.org/gifs/arbroath.jpgThe Scots are claiming to be ancestors of scattered 10 tribe Israel.Ray promoted reluctantly by AdminJar

Where the Sam Tucket does that say that the Scots were Hebrews? It seems to say they were Scythians.And is haggis even kosher?

It doesn't seem to say it...it does say it.Scythians: "booth dwellers". The practice of building a booth to dwell in is Hebrew. During the feast of the Tabernacles Israelites built temporary structures outside their homes to dwell in to remind themselves that they were delivered from Egypt.Scythians means sons of Isaac.Ray

Descendants rather than ancestors surely?

---

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

The Declaration of Arbroath is a letter to Pope John XXII from a number Scottish nobles. It was written as a means of persuading the Pope that Scotland was an independent state and was written in response to the excommunication of Scotland and Scots from the Roman catholic Church. As such it contains much political spin and pleas based on claims that would find sympathy with the Pope.As to your assertion I have a few minor quibbles.Firstly, the Scots are not claiming to be the lost tribes of Israel -the declaration was written in 1320, so the most you could say about the declaration is that this was what the Scots were saying, however, nowhere does it say that the Scots didconsider themselves to be the lost tribes of Israel. It mentions the Exodus because it may have inclined the Pope to look more favourably on their plea and it's only there to provide an idea of when they claim it took place.The declaration claims that they were descended from those who exited Greater Scythia and makes no claims on being the lost tribes of Israel.

Point one. No where does it claim they were related to the Hebrews.The last sentence is simply dating. Let's parse it... The section deliminated by commas is dating when the action took place. The sentence when parsed reads, "Thence they came to their home in the west where they still live today. They came there twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea.No connection other than a dating.Greater Scythia does not refer to the Hebrews. In fact, the Scythians were not even a semitic peoples. The area was what would be called Azerbijan and the people were Indo-Europeans, closer to those of Iran than to those of Palistine.The route mentioned is pretty reasonable, since the Tyrrhenian Sea would be the northern part of the med and the most reasonable sea route from their ancestral home in Persia to Spain.So Ray, there is nothing in your post that even hints at support for your assertions. But it gets worse.You provided a link. And your link itself calls the history part of it "laughable fiction". Your very own source goes on to say... And that's pretty much all you have Ray, nonsensical history.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks Jar. I thought Ray was amusing before; he manages to go even further. (well, maybe not beyond his problem with reading maps but pretty far ) LOL

These Scottish nobles are claiming what the text SAYS.Their ORIGIN: Hebrews who crossed the Red Sea. Thats why the text mentions this event. I am saying the Scots are saying....yes Trixie.They know where they descended from. The text tells us where THEY SAY. Your belief about the fact is false.The Exodus is mentioned because they are claiming to be descendants. [source: Dr. E. Raymond Capt]Of course 1320 predates British Israelism cult. Sycthians = sons of Isaac.You seem to be asserting the text does not mean what it says. This is a modern Darwinian need as is seen in their handling of the Bible.The text/evidence claims ancestry from Hebrews.Ray

....and explain why all these Scottish lords attempted to deceive. Denial of Hebrew origin of the Isles is a modern invent/need by secular scholars. Only if you ignore what it says. Scythians are sons of Isaac. They were Celts and semetic/Shemitic = "light skinned peoples" (Dr. Scott). Their origin is north of the Caucasus Mountains, hence "caucasian"/light skinned peoples.Very popular Nordic surname: Isaacson = sons of Isaac. The links only purpose was to have a source for the text itself. Calling the text fiction is asserting the evidence is not genuine. What evidence do you have that all these Scottish nobles are wrong ?RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 02-07-2006 05:52 PM

So why didn't they write: Instead of: That's not a rhetorical question.Edit: idiotic omission on my part.2nd edit: merely hasty typo.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-07-2006 08:54 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-07-2006 09:33 PM

That debate showed how ignorant you were of basic geometry since the height was proven via 3 separate scholars. I can prove the height with atheist scholars alone (5449 polar diameter inches), but we know from the very recent past EvC will not let itself get humliated as is seen in refusing to debate my last PNT.Ray

Ray, the record is here. And you OP has been completely refuted. Your posts have only proven that you cannot even read your own sources.No where in the Declaration is there any claims that the Scots were descended from Hebrews. And if Scotty said that Scythians = Hebrews, well, that only shows once again he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So far, you're the only one who is able to see this in the text. Funny that.Also, if you want to quote me, include the full quote, rather than distorting my words, it's bad form. You quote me as saying What I said was You will notice that the completed quote points out that they are, in fact, not claiming this. Do not attribute to me opinions which are diametrically opposed to the position I have actually stated most clearly.You say Actually I'm saying that the text says what it says. It doesn't say what you imagine it to say.you say Totally irrelevant repetition of your usual ad hominem.You say The text doesn't say this one little bit and anyone else reading the text can see that. Therefore the text itself is evidence that you're wrong. What doesn't help you is your own source, as jar pointed out.

Ad hom rant against a scholar caused by the inability to refute. You are completely ignorant and expect everyone to hold your unsupported assertions as fact.The text says what it means and proves any evidence proving the Bible is ignored/suppressed just like the Bible claims. ungodly means against recognizing God.unrighteous, in context, means against faith.Who in our society is guilty of the above ?Atheists and Darwinists.What do these persons do ?Verse 18: "....who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"They suppress the truth while hostile to the way of faith = secular society best represented by Jar.Your "argument"/denial proves this verse represents reality = claim of the Bible.Ray

Roman's 1 says that we will come to know GOD from what we learn in the world, by studying Evolution.But back on topic.The thread is here as a record Ray. Everyone can read it. In case they missed it here it is again. see Message 6Now Ray, where in there does it say that they are claiming descent from Hebrews?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion