GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS

Thanks for the link, jar. Fascinating transcript. Now that you've rekindled my interest, I also found this:Page not found - aish.comOne of the particulars that I found interesting in this article is that, although the Cohanim tend to exhibit this genetic marker (still, after c. 3000 yrs?), the extended (or, non-Aaronic) remainder of the Levite tribe seem not to. The explanation for the Cohanim motif is, of course, the succession of the Aaronite priesthood from father to son. And yet, Aaron could not have been that many generations removed from Jacob himself. Thus, by the same token, if Jacob passed his Y motif on to his 12 sons, it would seem that this (Jacob-Y) genetic marker would show up in the descendants of all the 12 tribes just as the descendants of Aaron exhibit the Cohanim motif.It seems to me then that, (outside of the Aaronic or 'Cohanim' lineage), the so-called 12 tribes were either not, in reality, all descended from a recent common ancestor, or there has been a great deal of outside influx into the male Y genetic pool down through the ages.Fascinating aspect of the topic that I will be interested in exploring further. Thanks again,AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-08-2004 07:48 PM

The really important part of this is that it is very unlikely that any of the Lost Tribes went anywhere without a priest. This means that by identifying the Cohens, anywhere in the world, and then using a combination of DNA and geneology, it should be possible to trace the movements and migrations and to determine when they enter the general population.It should be relatively easy to test for the Cohanim connection in the general population that has been asserted to be part of the Lost Tribes. The marker should be there even if the actual religion named at the time was Druid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hello WILLOWTREE,As promised, I am in the process of taking a close look at these claims. Since a detailed response to all the items that are simply asserted in your post would take several pages, I intend to address individual items as they present themselves. As such:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

Israelites, called Gimira by Assyria, and Kimmeroii (Cimmerians) by Greeks, established a reign of terror in Asia Minor, from 710-590 B.C., and finally migrated to Europe; to a place they called Arsareth. (2 Esdras 13:40-44 in the Apocrypha) This group was a part of the Israelites that left Egypt before Israel came under bondage.

---

I have a problem with this. Most of the quotes from the copious websites promoting this theory do not include the last sentence of your cut & paste:

quote:

---

710-590 B C. Israelites, called Gimira by the Assyrians and Kimmeroii(Cimmerians) by the Greeks, established a reign of terror in Asia Minor. They finally migrated to Europe, to a place which they called Arsareth (2 Esdras 13:40-44 of the Apochrypha)

​

http://asis.com/~stag/migratio.html

---

Then along comes "prepare-ye-the-way" and includes the addition:

quote:

---

Israelites, called Gimira by Assyria, and Kimmeroii (Cimmerians) by Greeks, established a reign of terror in Asia Minor, from 710-590 B.C., and finally migrated to Europe; to a place they called Arsareth. (2 Esdras 13:40-44 in the Apocrypha) This group was a part of the Israelites that left Egypt before Israel came under bondage.

​

http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/celts01.htm

---

Now, the reason for this addition is obvious. That reason being that the Cimmerians "established a reign of terror in Asia Minor from 710 - 590 B.C." Further, this gloss is not quite correct either. Specifically, according to secular history and the Assyrian records, the Cimmerians threatened the kingdom of Urartu, which prompted king Rusa of Urartu to launch a pre-emptive attack. The Cimmerians defeated Rusa in this attack in 720 B.C. and then proceeded to invade Urartu.This caused panic in Phrygia, a kingdom in western Turkey. In 710/709, king Midas ('Mit-ta-a' in the Assyrian records) was forced to ask for help from the Assyrian king Sargon II. However, this did not prevent the Cimmerian invasion. In 696/695, Midas committed suicide after he had lost a battle.Therefore, since it would be inconceivable that the Israelites were supposedly threatening and attacking Urartu at the very time that they were a defeated nation and being deported, it would also be inconceivable to equate these Cimmerians with the Israelites.Thus the addition: "These Cimmerians weren't descendants of the ten tribes who were deported, but were descended from a group of Israelites that left Egypt before the bondage." And the Apocryphal II Esdras is given as a reference.However, II Esdras is a document that was written in the time of Domitian and has little credibility. But, more importantly, II Esdras 13 says nothing about this group that supposedly left Egypt.

quote:

---

II Esdras 13:40-47

​

40. Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land.

​

41. But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt,

​

42. That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land.

​

43. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river.

​

44. For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over.

​

45. For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.

​

46. Then dwelt they there until the latter time; and now when they shall begin to come,

​

47. The Highest shall stay the springs of the stream again, that they may go through: therefore sawest thou the multitude with peace.

---

We see here then that, diametrically contrary to the claim, II Esdras specifically identifies the group that allegedly went to Arsareth as the 10 tribes of the deportation from the time of king Hoshea (732-722).Thus, your own citation appears to contradict you. Therefore, without a credible explanation, that add-on sentence is a meaningless gloss, and we are left with the dilemma of how the Israelites could be at war with Urartu and threatening Phrygia, (Assyrian allies no less), at the same time that they were a defeated nation being deported by Assyria.Secular history answers this question quite adequately: the Israelites weren't the Cimmerians. Archaeologists have identified the Cimmerians with the Novocerkassk culture of the southern Ukraine c. 900 B.C., with the Crimea, (a word likely derived from the Germanic "krim", referring to the pelts they wore), still retaining the name derived from their occupation there. Being a nomadic people, the name Gimirru, given to them by the Assyrians, means "people traveling back and forth".References:Vjaceslav J. Murzin, Kimmerier und Skythen in: R. Rolle, M Mller-Wille, K. Schietzel (eds.) Gold der Steppe. Archologie der Ukraine, 1991 Schleswig, pages 57-70Sergej Machortych, Kimmerier in Nordkaukasien in: R. Rolle, M Mller-Wille, K. Schietzel (eds.) Gold der Steppe. Archologie der Ukraine, 1991 Schleswig, pages 71-73Error 404 - LiviusIn summary: It seems a group of Israelites leaving pre-bondage Egypt is being conjectured because it is recognized that the 10 tribes of the deportation cannot have been the Cimmerians who invaded Urartu and threatened Phyrgia c. 720 B.C. Yet the given citation (II Esdras) does not support, (and actually contradicts), this conjecture.Thus, unless you have some credible explanation, your own sources refute the allegation that the Israelites were the Cimmerians.As I continue to look into the other items on your list, I will be interested in your response to this issue.Amlodhi

Negative.Back up to the sentence that you have "a problem with".Of course this cannot be the House of Israel/10 tribe kingdom beng forced into deportation by the Assyrians.No one is claiming this.We are claiming that these warriors were descendants of the ruling Zarahites also known as the Shepard Kings, who ruled Egypt from the time of Joseph's death until about 100 years prior to the Exodus (c.1550 BC)Zara as you know was the twin of Pharez (Genesis 38).When a Pharoah rose up "who knew not Joseph" they evicted the Zarahites who fled leaving their brethren to face slavery.It is these descendants of Zara who are the Cimmerians/Gimira.I can prove descendants of Zara were already in Britain by 1100 BC.But not in this post - ASAP.I am currently involved in another debate that will be over in a day or two at the most at which time I will commense my full attention here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

We are claiming that these warriors were descendants of the ruling Zarahites also known as the Shepard Kings, who ruled Egypt from the time of Joseph's death until about 100 years prior to the Exodus (c.1550 BC)

​

I can prove descendants of Zara were already in Britain by 1100 BC. But not in this post - ASAP.

---

I will await this proof; we're in no hurry. (But this still doesn't explain why you cited II Esdras 13:40-44 as evidence for this group.)Amlodhi

Hi Amlodhi:IF you truly want a good whiff of Dr. Scott research then these links are produced by students of his:http://asis.com/~stag/ltmapcom.htmlhttp://asis.com/~stag/migratio.htmlhttp://asis.com/~stag/royalty.htmlhttp://asis.com/~stag/symbols.html#heraldryhttp://asis.com/~stag/seal.htmlDr. Scott self-admittedly is in the business of proving the Bible is true. He scours, ignored by secular historians, voluminous sources which individually contibute to evidencing that God kept His word to O.T. patriarchs.Go here for good link evidencing House of Israel = Celts:Israel's Lost TribesThe reason why this is unknown/unaccepted or just plain ignored = Proof of Satan.When the world ascertains that God keeps His word to the likes of sinning Abraham and Judah and David, this is intended to generate faith that He will keep His word to us based on the blood of His Son.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-10-2004 08:19 PM

Hello WILLOWTREE,I just left a note for you on Brian's exodus thread; not noticing that you had posted here again.As it is, I'm afraid your links are not only unacceptable, but are also against forum rules. I have no intention of debating with a website, whether by link or cut&paste.If you can't explain it yourself, you don't understand it yourself. I will await your promised evidence.Amlodhi

I totally agree.My only purpose was to provide links which cover the voluminous material.My next post here will evidence Hebrews in Britain.

The heraldry symbol of a "Red Hand", as seen above, is prevalent as a symbol in Britain, Scotland, and Ireland.Genesis 38 is the origin of the Red Hand.The text says as Zarah's hand breached the womb the midwife tied a scarlet thread upon it, thus establishing the first-born and all the rights of premogeniture. The above Genesis text evidences that Joseph's two sons - Ephraim and Manasseh RECEIVED ALL THE BIRTHRIGHT PROMISES of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The above passage evidences that Judah and his heirs (Zarah and Pharez) will get TWO components from the general birthright given to the sons of Joseph.Judah receives the right to rule and the right to make the laws.Thus when Israel resides in Egypt - the Zarahites get to rule, because he was first born via the scarlet thread tied upon his bloody hand.We know from scripture that Pharoah exalted Joseph to be Supreme Overseer of Egypt. Joseph settled his brethren in the best parts of the land.We know from scripture that there rose up a "Pharoah who knew not Joseph" resulting in the slavery of the Hebrews. But all regime changes see the leaders and rulers escape. The Zarahites escaped Egypt and fled into Europe. British/BrutusBrit: covenantish: manBritish: O.T. covenant man.Brutus founded New Troy/LonDAN as the children of Dan also "spread" their influence and "judge"ment around.Despite the touted generic origins of the phrase "RED TAPE"; remember; the promise to Judah and his birthright children was the right to rule and make laws; BOTH lines (Zarah and Pharez) and their descendants the Jews; hence the noticeable amount of Jews in government; hence the scarlet thread of governments RED TAPE.The Apostle Paul (Benjamite/Southern Kingdom/Judah) and his brother Rufus Pudens (Pharez line) governing in Rome as a Senator. (Romans 16)The point is that God caused two sets of birthright twins to be born in order to establish the world with a people who will receive the unconditional birthright promises, for the expressed purpose of blessing the world, and at the same time He kept His word to Abraham and other patriarchs.It is the Great Missionary and Bible Societies of Great Britain and the United States who have taken the gospel to every corner of the globe.

Actually, that is simply Hand Dexter. The color of the hand simply matched other colors. The significance was whether it was Dexter or Sinister.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Also, that is simply a mistaken etymology of the term British. Also, the people that were the actual Brittons are few in number and certainly not the later Anglo-Saxons.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I hit the wrong button - Message 54 is intended for you.

I hit the wrong button and then I hit the reply button in the wrong post - Message 54 is still intended for you.

I have read your bare assertions.Also your dating is way after mine.None of your generic sourceless assertions harm my facts.

Okay, CliffFor eytomology, try Eytomology on lineNow, for a short history of Brittian, do you have any idea when the Saxons entered the Island? Are you familiar with the Saxon religions at all?Do you know that Brittons were actually not on the Island?And when you're ready, I'll be glad to discuss heraldry with you. (one of my pet hobbies)How much do you know about the Roman occupation of the Island?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion