|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Thanks for the link, jar. Fascinating transcript. Now that you've rekindled my interest, I also found this:
Page not found - aish.com One 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, Amlodhi This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-08-2004 07:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
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: 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: Then along comes "prepare-ye-the-way" and includes the addition:
quote: 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: 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 57-70 Sergej Machortych, Kimmerier in Nordkaukasien in: R. Rolle, M Mller-Wille, K. Schietzel (eds.) Gold der Steppe. Archologie der Ukraine, 1991 Schleswig, pages 71-73 Error 404 - Livius In 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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.html http://asis.com/~stag/migratio.html http://asis.com/~stag/royalty.html http://asis.com/~stag/symbols.html#heraldry http://asis.com/~stag/seal.html Dr. 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 Tribes The 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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. I totally agree. My only purpose was to provide links which cover the voluminous material. My next post here will evidence Hebrews in Britain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Genesis 38:27-30: And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah. 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.
Genesis 48:13-19: And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near unto him.And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn. And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. The above Genesis text evidences that Joseph's two sons - Ephraim and Manasseh RECEIVED ALL THE BIRTHRIGHT PROMISES of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Genesis 49:10: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 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.
Source: "Symbols of Celto-Saxon Heritage" by W.H. Bennett [1976][Rochester, England] Calcol, a Zarahite (1Chron.2:6) landed in Spain. He founded ZARAgossa. Calcol departed Iberia/Hiberia/Hibeer/Hebrew/Heber/Eber and made their way to Ireland, which they called "Hibernia". Calcol became king and founded Ulster c.1600 BC. From this ancient time the emblem of Ulster has been the Red Hand circled with a Scarlet Cord. 3 of Ulster's 6 counties, as well as the towns of Bangor and Dungannon have a Red Hand as part of their official emblems. Since 1920, the official arms of N.Ireland have only a Red Hand without the Scarlet Cord. County Antrim, Tyrone, Londonberry, and Dungannon all have the Red Hand emblem in their shields/arms. In Scotland the Red Hand appears in the Arms of 14 Clan Chiefs: Davidson, MacBain, MacDonell, MacIntosh, MacKinnon, MacLean, MacLachlan, MacNeil, MacNaughten, MacPherson, MacGillvray, MacDonald of Sleat, Clanranald, and Shaw of Rothiemurchus. Dara (1Chron.2:6) also known as Darda, whom Josephus calls Dardanus, established a Kingdom, later called Troy, (situated north-west corner of Asia Minor) hence - DARDAnelles. Brutus, descendant of Dardanus and Zarah settled in Italy where he accidentially killed his father while hunting. Forced to flee and arrived in Britain 1100 BC. British/Brutus Brit: covenant ish: man British: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
British/Brutus Brit: covenant ish: man British: O.T. covenant man. Also, that is simply a mistaken etymology of the term British.
British - O.E. Bryttisc "of or relating to ancient Britons," from Bryttas "natives of ancient Britain" (see Briton). First record of British Isles is from 1621. Briton - Anglo-Fr. Bretun, from L. Brittonem (nom. Britto, misspelled Brito in MSS) "a member of the tribe of the Britons," from *Britt-os, the Celtic name of the Celtic inhabitants of Britain and southern Scotland before the 5c. Anglo-Saxon invasion drove them into Wales, Cornwall, and a few other corners. Only in historical use after O.E. period; revived when James I was proclaimed King of Great Britain in 1604, and made official at the union of England and Scotland in 1707. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I hit the wrong button - Message 54 is intended for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I hit the wrong button and then I hit the reply button in the wrong post - Message 54 is still intended for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I have read your bare assertions.
Also your dating is way after mine. None of your generic sourceless assertions harm my facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay, Cliff
For eytomology, try Eytomology on line Now, 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024