Hi Loudmouth:
I don't appreciate you ignoring contradicting evidence because you claim it comes from Satan.
I SAID the unknowness of the 10 tribes being the British Empire IF TRUE evidences the existence of Satan.
The above is the POSITION of the Bible and I NEVER said, accused, or implied that my individual opponents were OF Satan.
I didn't ignore "evidence" I remained silent to assertions that lacked a source cite AND/OR evidence which post-dated my evidence by hundreds of years. Please go back and see what I mean.
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.
Jar only has assertions/opinions posted. Jar has generic information posted. All of Jar's "evidence" is modern - mine dates from 1100 BC to 1880 BC. Unless an opponent can post evidence challenging my evidence or explain differently with SOURCE - my evidence is objectively the best. How does modern generic information without source cite harm my evidence ? Jar's evidence is somebody asserting their view of the Red Hand. It contains zero challenge to my evidence.
As far as Amlodhi is concerned I will afford him differently.
He has only offered evidence which is hundreds of years younger than mine, evidence which is obviously generic and only harms my evidence if you just say so.
Please feel free to remind me of Amlodhi evidence which you feel I have ignored - I mean it - please do so.
Where is evidence that directly refutes or challenges my evidence ?
There isn't any that is why the race card is played.
Your opponents did refute your evidence by giving better evidence (source cited) than you did.
Please show me.
I am not trying to bluff you Loudmouth by hoping you won't do the work. Opponents ASSERTED especially Jar.
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.
You seem to not understand the text of Genesis 38.
Zara breached the womb with his hand which presumably was bloody to a certain extent. When this happened the midwife tied a scarlet thread around his wrist/hand. Thats what the passage says - go read it.
The Red Hand AND red string show up in Heraldry symbols in Celtic nations - especially Britain. I post evidence and substantiate this.
A person you are defending responds by calling this racism. Go figure.
Jar's recounting of the possible sources are better documented than anything you have put forth.
I honestly cannot find this documentation.
Loudmouth writes:
Refutation #1: Jar
There are some symbols that have a specific significance in Irish Heraldry . . .
The severed red right hand (dexter hand couped at the wrist gules) is a feature of many coats of arms for families of the U Neill (i.e. descendants of Niall). This same symbol is associated with the province of Ulster and appears on the Arms of that province and on the modern flag of Northern Ireland. There are at least three explanations of its origins. The first relates to the name of the son of Bolg or Nuadu, the Sun God of the Celts, and by some accounts the divine progenitor of all Celts. This son was known as Labraid Lmhdhearg (Labraid of the Red Hand). The association of the symbolic red hand with the Sun God, therefore makes it an appropriate heraldic icon. The second relates to Nuada, king of the Tuatha D Danann, who had his right hand severed by Sreng during a great battle with the Fomorians. No imperfect man being allowed to hold the throne, Nuada was forced to abdicate in favour of Bres. However, a silver hand was fashioned for him and the power of ancient magic was used to cause flesh and sinew to grow back around the prosthesis. When Bres died, Nuada again assumed his royal place. The third explanation is somewhat more fanciful. The story tells of a pact among the seven sons of Miledh of Esbain, the Celtic king who sons conquered Ireland that the ruler of the new land would be whosoever among them first touched the soil of the island. As the flotilla approached the shore, one of the sons took his sword, cut off his right hand and threw it to land, thus becoming the ruler. He must have been either left handed or pretty stupid (or both) otherwise it is unlikely that he could have thrown the severed hand well enough to accomplish his purpose. Certainly, he was left handed for the rest of his life. The story, if true, may relate to Erimhon who is reputed to have been the first Celtic ruler of the northern part of Ireland. His brother Ebher ruled the southern half. They were the only two of the seven brothers who survived the conquest.
Loudmouth:
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.
For the record the above evidence by Jar contains no source cite.
I wonder why ? The delay in posting the source cite is suspicious for many reasons of which I will not speculate.
Notice the origins of Red Hand are ALL post-Genesis 38, which means they are not true origins.
What is the origin of the Red Hand ?
Answer: Its FIRST appearance in a source.
Genesis (means beginnings) 38 clearly provides the best origin of the Red Hand and Scarlet cord. How do "origins" which post date Genesis 38 take preeminence over the Peneteuchal account ?
They don't - only if you assert.
evidence/Jar writes:
The severed red right hand (dexter hand couped at the wrist gules) is a feature of many coats of arms for families of the U Neill (i.e. descendants of Niall). This same symbol is associated with the province of Ulster and appears on the Arms of that province and on the modern flag of Northern Ireland.
My Red Hand evidence already said it was featured upon the arms and ensigns of Ulster and N. Ireland AND at least 14 British clan cheifs.
This is not in dispute.
The origin is AND how AND why the Red Hand/Scarlet cord appears.
If origin is FIRST then Genesis 38 is the origin.
evidence/Jar writes:
There are at least three explanations of its origins.
Then the EXPLANATIONS (hardly evidence) are all of Celtic origins:
evidence/Jar writes:
The first relates to the name of the son of Bolg or Nuadu, the Sun God of the Celts, and by some accounts the divine progenitor of all Celts.
Which Celts and when ?
What is the dating for this ?
Does it predate Genesis 38 ?
Celts were not primitive sun worshippers - bare assertion lacking any source cite.
This son was known as Labraid Lmhdhearg (Labraid of the Red Hand).
Okay - what is the date for this mythical god ?
What is the origin of the Red Hand for this god ?
How did it appear ?
Answer: Genesis 38.
evidence/Jar writes:
The second relates to Nuada, king of the Tuatha D Danann
Tuatha De Danann = Tribe of Dan. [source: Dr.Gene Scott, Professor Cyrus Gordon, Dr. Yigal Yadin.]
DANann.
Of course Dan was a brother of Judah and kindred of his birthright children Zara and Pharez.
I agree the Celts originated the Red Hand, as does Jar's evidence.
The issue is who are the Celts and where did the Red Hand ORIGINATE from. My evidence says the Celts are the dispersed 10 tribes as their patriarchal fathers names keep appearing everywhere.
Hosea 1 says the 10 tribes WILL NOT LOOK LIKE God's people/Jews. They will look "forsaken" and "scattered" and "not having mercy". Secular historians often refer to these same peoples as "barbarians". What a perfect and inadvertent description matching Hosea.
Loudmouth writes:
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.
What is unevidenced ?
You are pretending what we see is not what we see.
Your position has no integrity.
You can link obscure disputed fossils to be human and not ape but:
British/Brutus
Hebrew/Habiru/apiru
Danann/Dan
Danube/Dan
Denmark/Danmark
Iberia/Ibeer/Hebeer/Hebrew
Darda/Dardanelles
Zara/Zaragossa
is confusing and not obvious. Its not a matter of opinion: The above is 4th grade I.Q. test material.
For anyone to deny the obvious but retain the ability to match complicated fossils is pure hypocrisy.
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.
Amlodhi has "pointed out" = refutation by opinion.
What are you talking about ?
If I or any creo were to refute the way all you are here we would of attracted Admin rebuke long time ago.
Your last quote is mindless and repetitious asserting the exact opposite of what is true.
All my claims are evidenced with source cite and explained by common sense. In response, you are defending a cheap shot artist called Ramoss/racism. This indicates rage concerning the evidence. IOW, the Bible cannot be true because that would ruin my worldview, so just trash the evidence and hope people of the same worldview will back me up.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-18-2004 03:07 PM
™ Version 4.2