Declaration of Arbroath

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

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

they never called themselves of eber or heber, it is what the romans and greeks called them, maybe after they converted to christianity, the irish and scottish identified with some of the OT figures but, not one thing written by early non-christian writters identify with jewish writtings
as for the language the celts did trade with the phoenicians when they lived int he mainlands, and the phoenicians are semites so they spoke a very closely related language to the hebrews, they are the canaanites, canaanite is even a phoenician word
as for the stuff about the romans, they never invaded ireland in force, they never got a toe hold, more likely the irish stole cattle and pigs from roman lands in england
as for the food, they were sacred to the irish it had nothing to do with food laws but just like the hindus who think the cow is sacredeverything in this page is wrong if you bother to read about anything deeper, in fact the celts - including the scots and irish, were nothing like the israelites its nothing short of making up things

because he is taking the word of one man instead of bothering to think for himself? he doesn't bother to dig deeper than the surfice?
i know a lot about irish/scotish history, and it seems really terrible to read this nonsensical reconstruction of my ancesters

good, i will give you links thenhttp://www.tylwythteg.com/tylwythteg/sacred.html - sacred animals of the celts
Hibernia - Wikipedia - origin of the word
http://www.quantal.demon.co.uk/saga/ooc/tribunal.html - another dealing with latin names of everything
Page not found - Fanaticus - you get the idea that they never had a chance to invade by the time they set out to rome was starting to colapse
http://phoenicia.org/celts.html - i take back that they where semetic, but spoke a language very much like the hewbrews - word structure,etchttp://www.laa.org/tours/phoenicians.htm - they were the canaanites, though not the stigmaed version in the OTLE webmagazine animalier ne pas manquer ! - heres another link about Hibernia
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-10-2006 02:36 AMThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-10-2006 02:46 AMThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-10-2006 02:51 AM

do you have any facts to link the sycthians to the sons of isaac at all? one mans word is not evidence of anything
heres a real link on them Forbiddenso my saying you arn't bothering to read what things mean to the people in question is somehow wrong ray?
do you know what dun means in irish? it means hillfort how in the world can you relate that to a biblical figure? no they are not they are basing the timing of their ancesters coming to scotland to the same time the hewbrews crossed the red sea, where can you read that as they are claiming ancestry from israel?
this is total BS ray pot shots at evolution show that you can't make reasoned arguements

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

*cue the scary music*
Duh duh duh dunnnn!