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

Where did I do exactly what you accuse me of ?

I don't appreciate you deliberately confounding the arguments.I have evidence posted with source cite.Opponent doesn't like the evidence and its implications, and he has no refuting evidence, so he busts out the race card, and he doesn't even apply it except by innuendo.I have always claimed what the Bible claims is true.IF my evidence is true (and it is) THEN in this context I said it was ALSO evidence for the existence of Satan, that he is invisible and can only be deduced by the effects of his presence - like invisible particles.The fact that the secular world at large is so quick to fit a racist jacket on anyone who evidences that God kept His word to birthright peoples perfectly reflects the objectives and presence of Satan.Opponent (not you ) then, true to the inability to refute with evidence attacks the source/messenger - hence arguing the man - further proof of inability to refute THE EVIDENCE.If you don't like my anti-macro evolution comments then so be it.They were provoked by someone trying to evade the evidence and argue the man. That route is a two way street.I expect you to quote me in context and hold me accountable for what I said and SEQUENCE which I said them.As it stands we have no current challenge to my evidence. We have race cards and worldview assassinations initiated first.I am biased.My bias is based on the evidence.My sources are biased.Their bias is based on the evidence.WT.

quote:

---

Where did I do exactly what you accuse me of ?

---

message #83: message #64: EVIL in all caps no doubt being SATAN as supported by another quote later in message #63: And also from message #63: So your argument is that unless we agree with you we are being controlled by Satan. So, it is OK to smear people as being Satanic, but by no means should such a low blow like "racist" ever come into the debate. How hypocritical can you get? You don't mind unjustly smearing the name of well meaning historians who happen to disagree with your beloved leader Gene Scott.

quote:

---

I don't appreciate you deliberately confounding the arguments.

---

I don't appreciate you ignoring contradicting evidence because you claim it comes from Satan.

quote:

---

I have evidence posted with source cite.

---

Jar and Almohdi also have source cited evidence that contradicts yours. Instead of facing it you run away claiming Satanism and a "secular world view". Perhaps you could explain Jar's explanation of the roots of the Red Hand and how you have better evidence than he does.

quote:

---

Opponent (not you ) then, true to the inability to refute with evidence attacks the source/messenger - hence arguing the man - further proof of inability to refute THE EVIDENCE.

---

Your opponents did refute your evidence by giving better evidence (source cited) than you did. You simply conflate the red string on one hand to the red hand on a crest in another without giving any evidence that the two are related. Jar's recounting of the possible sources are better documented than anything you have put forth.

quote:

---

If you don't like my anti-macro evolution comments then so be it.

---

I would be saying the same things even if you did believe in macro-evolution.

quote:

---

As it stands we have no current challenge to my evidence. We have race cards and worldview assassinations initiated first.

---

Refutation #1: Jar This refutes the middle eastern origin of the Red Hand, or at least puts it in doubt. Also, the tie between the two was tenuous at best anyway.Almhodi:"Despite the seemingly intuitive similarity, there is also little or no support for connecting "apiru" (hapiru, habiru) with the term Eber or Hebrew."Willow:
"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."So, not only do you simply repeat the unevidenced linkage between the names, you also follow it up with an insult. Great work Willow.Overall, I find your argument very poorly supported. There are much better explanations available, and also the DNA evidence has been left hanging as presented by ramoss. For you to refute this evidence you have to evidence an Israelite contigency in Britian at 3000 BC. The best you have come forward with so far is 1500 BC, and even that is very tenuous as Almhodi has so eloquently pointed out. What you claim are facts are instead conflation of cause and effect, and you have yet to substantially evidence anything you have claimed.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-17-2004 04:38 PM

I agrued position.You are trying to assert I argued person.You are ranting and defending the indefensible.You are blackmailing by saying if I prove Satan you will confound the argument and just say otherwise.You are responding "just for the sake of not being refuted".Your hatred of Dr. Scott is frustration concerning the evidence.You are pandering for an Admin intrusion to back you up, which is totally worthless and biased because they are the same worldview.You are resorting to arguing the man like a real evo.Satan is indigenous to Bible as much as Jesus.You will not censor me with your blackmail.This is a Bible topic.BTW, your precious leader Darwin was an admitted racist.My evidence remains.

quote:

---

You are trying to assert I argued person.

---

And you were. You argued that people were just making stuff up because they are being controlled by Satan. Prove I am wrong.

quote:

---

You are ranting and defending the indefensible.

---

I am defending no one. I am pointing out that you would rather call someone a Satanist than deal with the evidence they present.

quote:

---

Your hatred of Dr. Scott is frustration concerning the evidence.

---

I have nothing personal against Dr. Scott. I do have problems with his leaps in logic, especially the etymology of the word "British" and the other various dreamt up etymologies that have nothing supporting them. I have problems with people claiming tenuous evidence is absolute proof. I also have problems with people that require others to first accept the conclusion in order to evidence the premises.

quote:

---

You are resorting to arguing the man like a real evo.

---

I merely pointed out that you are ignoring evidence based on the fact that it contradicts your conclusion. Prove me wrong and confront Jar's depiction of the Red Hand as being linked to Celtic oral histories which are totally unrelated to any middle eastern oral history.

quote:

---

BTW, your precious leader Darwin was an admitted racist.

---

If Einstein was a racist would you claim that Special Relativity was untrue? Or would you claim that light was under the influence of Satan?

Yes,
Your sources are theists.. but they do not have any qualifications other than the fact you agree with them.They, basically, have been debunked many times. The only people pretty much that subscribe to seem to be some kind of Christian Identiy group (which is a white supremist group).I will also point out that modern science has the technology to find out the origins of people via DNA anaylsis. This has shown the population in the British isles not to be the 10 lost tribes.I suggest you read Origins of the British Israelites : The Lost Tribes by Michael Friedman. This complete refutes every claim of the the British Isrealite , point by point.This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-17-2004 05:46 PM

Well,You have a bunch of books that make claims.All crediable biblical, archeological, and scientific sources disagree.The genetic analsysis disagrees.The only groups that accept it are considered to be racists by anybody except for the people in that group.

quote:

---

The only groups that accept it are considered to be racists by anybody except for the people in that group.

---

I wouldn't call it racism. It is more along the lines of ethnic pride.

IOW, anyone who presents evidence supporting the Bible is not credible.You are arguing worldviews.My evidence remains.

quote:

---

IOW, anyone who presents evidence supporting the Bible is not credible.

​

You are arguing worldviews.

---

Not all worldviews can be correct with respect to reality. Therefore, we must rely on objective evidence that is not subject to bias. The objective evidence points to British ancestors (through examining mitochondrial DNA) being present in the British Isles 5,000 years ago. None of your scenarios have shown an immigration of Israelites or one of the ten lost tribes into the area at this time. Therefore, you must show that this immigration occured 5,000 years ago.

quote:

---

My evidence remains.

---

It remains very tenuous and in conflict with large volumes of other evidence, including DNA analyses.

Your biased opinion.Your sources are atheists, persons who grind their ax under the disguise of objective truth = deceivers = quality of Satan. Darwin's supremacy over Africans originated evolution, thus its origins began from evil racism. The exact argument of Aryan Nations and their brothers in Germany. The hard evidence proves this easy to fudge nonsense a fraud. You have purposely poisoned this debate with racist smears. I nor my evidence has nothing to do with a 19th century cult.You know this but do not care because the race card gives corrupt thinkers the simpleton reason to dismiss the evidence and ignore it.The evil of racism and your use of it to "refute" my evidence is a non-sequitor.For you to hijack a legitimate worldwide problem and attempt to stain physical evidence of God keeping His word to Bible patriarchs perfectly reflects the tool Satan created to turn people off to this subject.Funny how Satan is laughed at and not believed to exist, except a person points out the effects of his presence and suddenly opponent is offended because of the validity of the point.Your reaction betrays you and proves my point.

Well, let's try a summary.IIRC, the issues are:1) Origin of the word British: status at least two different possibilities have been shown.2) Origin of the Celts or Anglo-Saxons: status Genetics seems to show no connection with the semetic or asiatic peoples, NO connection with Hebrews.3) Meaning of the red hand on coats of arms: status It has been shown that the red hand is not reflected by the Biblical Quotes. In addition, at least three other explainations for the use of the red hand have been shown.So it certainly appears that the OP is at best, unproved.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I don't.When someone is using their 'ethnic' pride to say they are 'superior',
such as the Christian Identiy movement (which is one of the main
pushers of British Isrealism), and that others are 'inferior', then it is racist.I will admit that the one lone person who is pushing this concept that is not also pushing the concept of white supremecy IS Gene Scott, but
that does not make the viewpoint have any more evidence.

Actually, the statement 'Darwin's supremecy over africans' is inaccurate and a strawman. Why don't you read 'Origin of Species', and see that
the Africans are not mentioned.So, when I think since you are using strawmen, and inaccurate information to try to 'refute' what is said, I would have to say that you sound rather desperate. I know you don't have any scholarship, nor do you have any science on your side.And yes, your evidence has everything to do with a 19th century cult. That is the origins of it, those are the people you have been quoting.