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

Please tell me all you care to post.I am sure I can learn something.Also, Jar, the point is that I have evidence posted with source cite and the evidence makes sense - not a matter of opinion.Please attack my evidence if you feel you have contrary evidence.But it seems that your contentions are hundreds and hundreds of years after mine - which equates to the lack of any descrepancy.

Okay, the red hand that you showed is simply Hand Gules Dexter. That means it's a red right hand open. It is very common and has nothing to do with religion.The etymology of the term British is exactly as I showed. It is latin in form and has nothing to do with covenent or man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hello WILLOWTREE,Since jar appears to be addressing the heraldic symbology, in this post I will outline some of the other points that (so far) I think are deficient regarding this theory.Also, I know you are otherwise involved, but there is no hurry to respond. Please, slow down and take the time to fully understand what is being stated before you respond; as backtracking to correct misapprehensions gets wearisome quickly.One of the sites in support of your theory makes this statement:

quote:

---

There is very little if anything to indicate that the Scots came solely from Ulster. On the contrary, their own records state that they came from Scythia, which is the ancient name of the country to the west and north of the Caspian Sea.

​

In view of the origin of the Red Hand emblem in the event recorded in Genesis 38, and in the fact that a Red Hand thereby became one of the emblems of the descendants of Zara-Judah, we conclude that the people who brought the Red Hand to Ulster so long ago and the Scots who later brought it to Scotland, though coming at different times, had a common origin, at least in part, in the Zara branch of the Tribe of Judah.

---

So here we have it stated that there were two separated branches of Zaraite descent using the Red Hand emblem. One (from your statements) coming from Egypt and arriving in Ulster earlier, and another coming from Scythia, and arriving in Scotland, later. Yet, we also know from Numbers 26:20 that there was, then, a third branch of Zaraite descent with the exodus group on the plains of Moab.Now, we need to take a close look at what this theory is based on:1.You say, "The Zaraites left Egypt before the bondage."Since I have seen no record of this event ever happening, this assertion appears to be based strictly on the following two (somewhat tenuous) conjectures:a. The Red Hand emblem.The conjecture here is that the Red Hand (gules >red; dexter > hand) emblem is derived from the biblical account of Zerah's birth. But as we see quoted from above, since "there is little if anything to indicate that the Scots came solely from Ulster", and since they claim to have come from Scythia, we must now posit a second branch of Zaraites coming from Scythia and also employing this Red Hand emblem. However, as mentioned, Numbers 26:20 says that "of Judah . . of Zerah, the family of the Zaraites" were among the exodus group. We should then, also see this Red Hand emblem associated with this third group of Zaraites in Judea.b. You say, "Calcol, a Zarahite (1Chron.2:6) landed in Spain. He founded ZARAgossa."First, it is more properly Zaragota. Further, I have seen no record for the existence or use of this name before c. 15 B.C. when, at its founding as a Roman colony, it received the name of "Cesarauguta" in honor of the Emperor Caesar Augustus. In the year 714, Cesarauguta was conquered by the Moors and the name morphed to "Saragusta", then finally to the modern Zaragota.So, let's recap:So far it seems that your hypothesis is based on one assertion supported only by two somewhat tenuous conjectures.1. I have seen no record of a Zerah branch leaving Egypt before the bondage.2. Since Numbers 26:20 specifically lists the family of Zaraites as being among the exodus group, it must be assumed that the bible really means "only a part of the Zaraites".Also, since it must be postulated that there were two other Zaraite groups (one out of Egypt and one from Scythia) both employing the Red Hand emblem, why have I not seen you present evidence connecting this heraldic symbology with the third Zaraite branch that came into Judea with the exodus group?3. I have seen no record of the name "Zaragossa" (Zaragota) in any record before the founding of Cesarauguta c. 15 B.C. and, as has been mentioned, simply matching similar syllables can lead to any number of pseudo-connections.Now I want to touch on where you're going with this. You have made these statements:

quote:

---

(Omri) becomes Gimmiria and Greek Kimmerioi to Cimmerian.

​

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.

​

It is these descendants of Zara who are the Cimmerians/Gimira.

​

I can prove descendants of Zara were already in Britain by 1100 BC.

---

Let's look at these statements in proximity to each other:The "house of Omri" (Humri, Hu-um-ri-i, etc.) is the Assyrian name for the Northern Kingdom. Thus, you say that, through word morphology (Omri > (K)Humri > Gimirri > Cimmerian), the dispersed 10 tribes become known as the Cimmerians.Now, what you didn't seem to understand from my previous post is that we both already know that the Northern kingdom could not have been attacking Urartu in c. 720 B.C.; that is precisely why the "(earlier) group out of Egypt" had to be postulated.Then next, you identify this "earlier group out of Egypt" as the Zaraites and say that it was these Zaraites who were actually the Cimmerians attacking Urartu in 720 B.C.But why would a group of Zaraites, of the house of Judah, attacking Urartu from the north, be called by a name derived from "the house of Omri", i.e. from your morphology, "Cimmerians"? Especially since the "house of Omri" (the Cimmerians) had just been marched off across the Euphrates.And finally, you make these statements:

quote:

---

The Jews were never given or promised to be "as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea". This massive population group was promised to Ephraim and Manasseh who were part of the Northern kingdom - the House of Israel.

​

Jews are a tiny worldwide minority.

​

The word is used to describe persons that make up and populate the Southern kingdom of Judah which consisted of two tribes from Israel - Judah and Benjamin. Hence, Judah/Jews.

​

The Celtic-Anglo-Saxon nations and the U.S.A. are the descendants of the dispersed 10 tribes. This is why ALL the promises given to Abraham are fulfilled in the British Empire/U.S.A.

​

. . . Jesus telling His disciples to take the gospel FIRST to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

​

The gospel went first to these forsaken/not having mercy/dispersed 10 tribes.

---

As you seem to understand, the birthrights were not given, at some late date, to the Southern and/or Northern kingdoms. They were assigned to the houses of the sons of Jacob. Using your interpretation: one to the house of Joseph (Ephraim & Manasseh) and another to the house of Judah (Zerah & Pharez).Thus, in your own words, "This massive population group was promised to Ephraim and Manasseh". Yet you are now talking about the Zaraites, of the house of Judah, dispersing all over Europe and Asia and propagating into huge populations. What does this have to do with the deported tribes of Israel, your "lost sheep"?In summary then, if this theory is expected to be taken as anything more than mere conjecture:1. You need to produce some record of, or credible support for, the assertion that a group of Zaraites left Egypt before the bondage. (And Diodorus Siculus' account of Danaos and his followers sailing to Greece doesn't work here.)2. Since Numbers 26:20 clearly states that the family of Zerah (of Judah) left Egypt with the exodus group, you need to provide some indication that this group of Zaraites also employed the Red Hand emblem. Or at least provide some credible reason why they did not while the other two postulated groups of Zaraites allegedly did.3. You need to provide some record showing the use of some credible form of the name of "Zaragossa" (Zaragosta, Zaragota) from before c. 15 B.C. when, at its founding as a Roman colony, it received the name of "Cesarauguta" in honor of the Emperor Caesar Augustus.4. You need to provide some reason for why a group of Zaraites, of the house of Judah, attacking from the north, would be referred to by a term that you say is derived from "the house of Omri". Again, especially at a time when the "house of Omri" was being marched across the Euphrates.5. And finally, you should clarify how the Zaraite's propagating all over the continent has anything to do with the promise that Ephraim and Manasseh would be "as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea".Take your time, read carefully, and I will await your response.AmldohiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-11-2004 03:35 PM

This comment asserts something unknown to be fact. IOW, you have subjectively decided secular history versions to be settled fact.What I have reported are facts - stunning plain facts with source cite.The Red Hand of Zara and its appearance in numerous heraldry ensigns in Britain is DIRECT evidence of Genesis 38 - not a matter of opinion - unless of course you just say so.Secular history sources are not in the business of proving the Bible correct whether intentional or not. Thats why they are SECULAR. And indigenous to Biblical claims is the reality of Satan, who's presence and existence can be deduced from the fact that we have a world who does not know that the Celtic nations, namely Britain and the U.S. are the descendants of the 10 tribe Northern Kindom, and ALL the promises given to Abraham and Joseph and David are fulfilled.Where do you think the genius of Britain and its empire felt worldwide originates from ?The Zarahites, whom the Bible compares to the wisdom of Solomon.(1Kings 4:30,31)The BEST evidence of the general claims/facts of Dr. Scott's research being true is the secular world at large and their EVIL dismissal of this subject as racism of a cult.One verified idiot (British Israelism) has the world snookered about the truth of who the Celts are. You are a supremely intelligent person with vast knowledge AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS = proof of Satan's ability to control the world = well known Bible claim.Am I biased ?Absolutely !But it doesn't matter because the evidence says I am right.And my bias is based on the evidence. This passage, in context, only confirms Zara as a son of Judah, and it does not record his sons as it does for Pharez.Why ?Because the majority of the ruling Zarahites departed Egypt about 100 years prior to the Exodus. The Zarahites ruled post-Joseph BECAUSE the right to rule was given to the sons of Judah by Jacob. Hyksos = Shepherd Kings = Zarahites/Danites Traditional history has Egypt under control by foreign rulers known as "Hyksos".The identity of the Hyksos is always left ambiguous and assumed to be "asiatics" whatever that means.Fact: circa 1450 BC to 1900 BC = Egypt the most powerful nation in history. (I date the Mosaic Exodus 1453 BC)Then we are forced to believe that some unknown peoples invaded Egypt, whether literally or by intellectual manueverings gained control.NOBODY can evidence or explain how the most powerful nation on Earth was conquered by foreigners ?The reason is because they were not."70 souls went down to Egypt" c.1880 BC.Joseph was already ruling.The Bible tells us he positioned his brethern into the best parts of the land, and during the famine he plundered the common egyptians for all they had.When Joseph died the Zarahites assumed rulership per the birthright promise of Genesis 49.Then a "Pharoah who knew not Joseph" decided to enslave the Hebrews. (c.1550 BC)The ruling Zarahites would not be enslaved, and regime change always sees the governors escape. Their escape and presence in Spain and Britain I have evidenced via patriarchal naming found in Europe.This means the Hyksos/Shepherd King expulsion happened about c.1550 BC
(source Dr.Gene Scott)Between 1880 BC and 1550 BC Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos/Shepherd Kings/Zarahites and some Danites. This perfectly explains how Egypt came to be under foreign rulership - via the "70 souls" and their descendants.First century, B.C., Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus: Of the Hebrews, he said, "Their forefathers had been banished out of the whole of Egypt . . . in order to purify the land" The History Of Antiquity, p. 458.This references TWO exoduses, the one above being the Shepherd Kings.According to Professor Cyrus H. Gordon ["Common Backround Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" 1962; Norton Company, New York] and Dr. Gene Scott, Greek culture originated from Hebrew via the first exodus of Zarahites and Danites. The dating above is 100 years contrary to what I have argued.Numbers 26:20 confirms missing Zarahites in the Mosaic Exodus. Not conjecture - established fact with source cite and generous explanations.IOW, my previous post and its evidenciary content is just too convincing and blatant. Whats the point of having sources ?
It is a proven fact unless you post contrary evidence with source cite. This statement reflects traditional history and its credit to Rome for everything.Modern Zaragota obviously evidences Zara within the name. I never claimed the Judeans embraced the Red Hand.Their father was Pharez - why would they ? Agreed.Zarahites and Danite hebrews fled Egypt c.1550 BC - their descendants are rampaging. I understand your point.I don't know.I am not admitting your blue box statement is correct and I am not sure what I have claimed or possibly an erroneous fact introduced by one of my links has contributed to this.Can I shelve this issue until I research it ?I have only claimed First Century Asia Minor and surrounding areas to be populated by descendants of the 10 tribe House of Israel kingdom. The children of Judah were promised the "right to rule and make laws".God dispatched the Zarahites into the world and enabled them to conquer and rule and establish kingdoms.God did this because these persons are the conduits of blessing that God is going to bless the whole world with: BECAUSE of Abraham's obedience God promised blessing to "all the nations of the earth".The Zarahites, descendants of Abraham, possessors of Divine blessings of wisdom and abilities needed to be established as rulers so when their brethern joined them hundreds of years later they would infect the world with blessing.Only the British Empire/U.S.A. can easily be viewed as flooding the world with their prosperity via discoveries, explorations, generosity, education, etc.etc.God promised David that one of his descendants would never fail to reign over "His people ....the House of Israel".When Nebuchadnezzar killed the sons of Zedekiah he thought the Davidic line was exterminated.But God's law said if no male heirs were living the inheritance could pass to the daughters. Where did Jeremiah plant ? That "tender twig" refers to a female - a daughter of David hidden by Jeremiah from Nebuchadnezzar.History records that Jeremiah planted this "tender twig"/Tia Tephi in Ireland and she married a Zarahite already ruling ! (Echoid Heramon)
(hence the popularity of the name "Jeremy" in Ireland)Now we have promised Zarahites already ruling in the Isles and the Davidic line brought together. This is the beginning of Britain's Royalty. From this "base" the promised blessings of Abraham are distributed across the world.When the Northern Tribes escape Assyrian captivity their unbeknownst ancient brethren are already ruling across Europe especially in Britain.Hosea 1 has God divorcing Israel "momentarily" while He killed the Law Incarnate/Christ. Because the inability to keep that law was the reason why Israel was punished with Assyrian captivity. God divorces Israel and kills the law/first wife because the law of God said a man cannot marry another until the first wife/law died/Christ Law Incarnate. Now that the law is dead God is free to gather and court Israel again via the gospel/New Covenant - hence Hosea 1 "forsaken/not my people/not having mercy" suddenly "SONS OF THE LIVING GOD": Christians = House of Israel.Amlodhi:The title of my topic has been proven from scripture. This subject is too hard to stay narrowly focused.I apologize for the length of this post.Please respond and suggest a narrow topic of debate.WTEdit: spelling mistakesThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-14-2004 05:04 PM

I rest my case. Bullshit. Just like the "Proof of God" and "What God thinks of Fundamentalists" threads.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

5 word "refutations" are only posted because the evidence has you infuriated and unable to counter.Coming from the likes of you - this 5 word in-depth reply is the best evidence and endoresment that I am right. The day you approve of me is the day I am proven wrong.

Hello WILLOWTREE,

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

Please respond and suggest a narrow topic of debate.

---

Actually, I think that the original topic was narrow enough, we need only stay focused on it.Your original premise was that Ephraim and Manesseh received the Abrahamic promise to be "as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea", and that the dispersed 10 tribes of the Northern kingdom were the "lost sheep of Israel" and that the apostles first preached the gospel to these "lost sheep".When this was questioned, your response was to allege that Zerah (of Judah) left Egypt before the bondage.Now that this has been questioned, I see that the subject is shifting to Danaus' sailing to Greece. Thus, in consideration of your last post, I will briefly explain why I think your conclusions have not achieved the status of "stunning plain facts", and then suggest a re-alignment of the topic.As I stated before, IMO, there are a number of deficiencies in the evidence that has been provided to support the premises concerning Zerah (and Danaus also). You make the statement:

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE

​

What I have reported are facts - stunning plain facts with source cite.

---

Here might be a good place to come to an understanding of what constitutes a "fact", and what constitutes "conjecture".It can be considered a "fact" that the Red Hand heraldic symbol was used in Ulster, Ireland.It can also be considered a fact that, according to the bible, Zerah first won the birth race by a hand, and was then subsequently fully born with the "crimson tied on his hand".However, to connect the one to the other takes you from "fact" to "conjecture". And, as such, I stated that, I think, your evidence for making this connection is deficient in at least the following areas:1. There have been no records presented that support the allegation that Zerah or any of his descendants ever ruled in Egypt proper or in the Hyksos stronghold of Avaris. Nor any that reference Zerah or any of his descendants fleeing Egypt before the bondage.2. There is no reliable evidentiary support for equating the Hyksos with the Israelites. Alleged recensions of Manetho notwithstanding, the term "Hyksos" is most likely derived from the Egyptian "Heqau-khasut", which is found in such ancient Egyptian documents as the story of Si-nuhe and refers to nothing more specific than "rulers of foreign countries".3. Despite the seemingly intuitive similarity, there is also little or no support for connecting "apiru" (hapiru, habiru) with the term Eber or Hebrew. Though this had been suggested in the past, more recently discovered manuscripts have made it evident that this term was used to describe a wide range of peoples and referred only to a lifestyle or demeanor, and not to any specific ethnic group.4. If the descendants of Zerah were ruling in Egypt or Avaris, one would expect that they would already be employing the same Red Hand emblem that they allegedly took with them to Ulster. Yet, I have seen no evidence of the Red Hand emblem in connection with Egypt or, specifically, Avaris.5. Regardless of your objection to Numbers 26:20, the families and descendants of Zerah are also listed as being with the exodus under Joshua (Josh. 7:17) and later as being in Judah (Neh. 11:23-30). So it is inescapable that Zerahites were among the Judeans in Judah and your assertion that the Judeans were the descendants only of Pharez is false. Thus, yet again, there has been no evidence presented that a Red Hand emblem is ever associated with these Zerahites as might be expected.6. Any perceived syllabic similarity between the name "Zerah" and "Zaragota" is without value unless it can be shown that this name precedes the c. 15 B.C. designation of "Cesarauguta". IOW, unless it can be shown that the place-name for this area contained some form of "Zara" before c. 15 B.C., what is the point of arguing a perceived similarity?Now, in my opinion, rather than sufficiently addressing these concerns, your response tended to take the tack of simply re-asserting that your conclusions were "stunning plain facts", and then further shifting the subject to Danaus' sailing to Greece.As it is, I also have a number of problems with this Danaus account being a reference to the tribe of Dan. And while I will be happy to discuss this account with you in its proper place or in another thread, for now, this additional tangent only brings us full-circle back to the problem of keeping this discussion manageable and on a narrow focus. And with that in mind I have a request regarding the following practice; You say:

quote:

---

YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS = proof of Satan's ability to control the world = well known Bible claim.

​

The BEST evidence of the general claims/facts of Dr. Scott's research being true is the secular world at large and their EVIL dismissal of this subject as racism of a cult.

---

First, your statement: "YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS", is a misrepresentation of the facts. An accurate assessment would be that, "I do not agree with this".But, more importantly, the above statement is subjective personal religious opinion, rather than either "proof" or "evidence". The reason this is so is because this statement "assumes facts not in evidence". What this means is that you haven't proven your OP assertion yet, you haven't proven that "Satan" is a factual entity yet, etc, and etc. IOW, you are trying to use a presumption as "evidence" for another presumption and calling that "proof". It just doesn't work that way; (and if you ever get into trouble, you better hope your attorney knows that or he/she will piss-off the judge, big-time).So my request is that you make an effort to refrain from this type of proselytizing and restrict your arguments to an evaluation of the physical facts. Anything else is ultimately nothing more than distraction and obfuscation.I propose then that we limit the scope of this discussion to the literature, chronology and geography relevant to the dispersed tribes of the Northern kingdom. Pursuant to the OP, this can (and, I think, should) include the itinerary of the apostles in later connection to these tribes. I also suggest that any tangential references or issues, that either of us might consider pertinent to our argument, should be submitted for inclusion after mutual agreement, rather than being pre-emptively launched into.If these terms are agreeable to you, please describe your understanding of the chronological movements of these dispersed Northern tribes, the geographical itinerary of the apostles, and your evidence in support of each.I appreciate your interest in maintaining relevance and focus,Amlodhi

Not true.The evasion you assert is deliberate confounding of the debate.The presence of Hebrews in Europe prior to c.720 BC was being evidenced.The dispersal of the House of Israel from Assyrian captivity only saw these peoples become the mass population group "sand as sea/stars of heaven". They became the residents already controlled by their descendant brethern. Fact: pieces of proof that supports a claimed fact.Your blue box comment is silently presuming the Bible false.But it doesn't matter - Genesis 38/Red Hand in Britain supports the source and its claim.It cannot be anymore obvious, therefore you are discounting the evidence and insulting both of our intelligence.Evidence is demanded.When it is supplied - suddenly the corroborating pieces which support the Bible are being capriciously lightened of their weight. Yes I have.I evidenced from the Bible and biblical proofs from history.You are also completely ignoring Professor Gordon and his evidence - which I only posted a few fragments. The evidence via Gordon alone is massive. You are asserting and ignoring what I posted.You are suddenly really saying the Bible is ineligible as evidence because I have shown it to say contrary to what YOU THOUGHT. "likely derived" now that sounds real authoritative and sure.The above blue box is a massive assumption.The foreign rulers were the ever multiplying Hebrews.If you don't quit this debate I will prove that the blue box statement evidences hebrew origin. IOW, what we see cannot possibly mean what we see.Only because it plainly evidences against your position.Objectively:Hebrew/Habiru/apiru is obvious - not a matter of opinion.You must insult intelligence and just assert otherwise with a straight face. Nonsense.Bare assertion citing the contortions of revisionists. If they used the ensign post-Egypt then this axiomtically proves that it existed prior.You are confounding the obvious. Many days since I posted "Red Hand" and worldview assertions is all you got ?This in itself is the best evidence (beside the evidence itself) for the evidence.I could slam you with Judah's ensign the "Lion" and its prevalent existence but I am worn out with secularists, when provided with evidence, and unable to refute, asserting to the contrary. A remnant existed but the evidence already posted shows they left Egypt and established themselves across Europe. Yes I have.You are just saying I haven't.The Jews were not promised the Genesis 22 promise.Lets debate this.I predict you will avoid. Here the South and their scribes ADMIT the birthright belongs to the North/Ephraim. None intended.I meant what I said, which was the truth of who Britain/U.S. is and its unknowness is proof of Satan.Once again, if true, this evidences the biblical claim of Satan working to erase the control of God over history.Please do not change the subject to alleged tacky conversion attempts. Likewise.LETS SETTLE THE CLAIM OF THE TOPIC TITLE.Please do not evade.I like this debate.Slow response only indicates a life outside this arena.WT.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

Lets debate this.

---

Does this mean that you accept the terms and restrictions for debate outlined in my post?

Information about this 'theory' can be found Page Redirectionandhttp://www.revneal.org/Writings/british.htmIt sounds like much crackpotism, and more than a bit racist if you ask me.

WILLOWTREE, I believe that you might be making a major error in assuming that the emblem shown is indicative of the "Red Hand of Zarah".First, you are basing this on the passage from Genesis 38:28-30. As can be clearly seen, a red thread was tied on the childs hand to identify which child was to be considered first born.A red thread.In Heraldry that would be shown as just that, a hand bound by a thread, not as a solid red hand.The symbol for a cord or rope was quite common in heraldry and often used to show connection between two different houses or distaff members of a family.In addition, there was only a limited number of colors and very great variety between shade and hue for the same color. For example, white and silver were refered to by the same name as were yellow and gold. Shades varied across the spectrum.The colors could be simply decorative or if associated with an object, carry some meaning. For example, Gules when associated with a wepon, defensive fortification, animal or physical body part could symbolize Warrior, Martyr, Military Strength. But when it comes to a hand, if is is not mailed it has the martyr meaning as opposed to martial.The made up coat of arms that you used as an illustration also shows the Heraldric Crusaders Cross. This brings in a major conflict as you have a symbol for having taken part in a crusade as well as being martyred. Since the Crusades cannot date before 1095 AD, any connection with the arrival of people in 700BCE or earlier is ridiculous.So the example shown is inaccurate on the grounds of date, symbolism, lack of binding thread, use of whole hand instead of the binding thread and meaning of the color red.Finally, I have been unable to find any referance to "The Red Hand of Zarah" as a symbol in any of my sources for heraldric interpretation or on any heraldric web sites. The only such cites are in sites propounding the same theory you are pushing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

hit wrong reply button - content deleted.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-15-2004 06:18 PM

I read your post.It is a statement of opinion.I already know that you by faith assume the Bible is false.My evidence directly corroborates Genesis 38 and all you and Amlodhi can do is assert contrary to the evidence.IOW, visual evidence corroborating the Bible cannot possibly mean what it says.You are devoted to your worldview despite the evidence - this is proven.

The OP has been posted for a long while.Anyone who says the Bible failed because the Jews are not according to the promised description of Genesis 22 has been proven ignorant/wrong.Either evidence against the OP or remain silent like I do in archaeology topics when atheists say the Bible is proven false.

as included in the families surrounding the Ulster area. Here is one quote on the severed red right hand as seen in the Ulster area. More information available here

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion