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

Hi Jar: If this is true they are links to sites.Your stuff lacks specific acamdemia sources and clear explanations connecting the refutation to my evidence. I honestly did not know your source has been the Bible - maybe I have been sleepwalking through your posts.As far as Genesis 38 goes - I do not have to take ANYONES word as to what it says or clearly conveys. I open my Bible and see and read the Red Hand of Zara breaching the womb at birth. Unique events like this and its recording have a purpose. The descendants of Zara attached themselves to this special account of their fathers birth and represented it via a red hand. The Red Hand of Zara subsequently appears in British heraldry ensigns and arms.This is clear and direct evidence which is only negated if you just say so.Saying so also evidences a case questioning your integrity and committment to truth.I think it is better for you to stick with your post-Genesis 38 dated evidence than to deny what anyone can read for themself in the text.Also, my refutation of your evidence, in a post directed at Amlodhi has been completely ignored and avoided. Maybe I am jumping the gun - we will see. You are absolutely correct.I have attacked the person/made insults.I did this to give certain opponents in this debate a taste of their own foul medecine.I was insulted FIRST via "arguing the man" and messenger assassination and racial smear nonsense.You see it is a two way street.I withdraw the "Aryan" crack.Please re-submit a post which covers 1 or 2 points of disagreement and we will go from there.WT

I never once initiated DNA claims or evidence.DNA is not part of my evidence in any way shape or form.I will only respond to DNA evidence if forced to. I agree with your genetic evidence about Libyan Jews. I brought it up already knowing it. I brought it up in response to your contention that "DNA proves the British are not 10 tribe related".If your contention is true then please evidence it.My original point was that even dark skinned could be Jews, thus our stereotyping of what a Jew looks like is false.But the point is moot, because the Bible never claims the 10 tribes are Jews thus your contention that the British are not 10 tribe DNA is correct.If I have misrepresented or misquoted you please correct.I also urge you to understand the OP and what I am actually arguing.WT

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

If I am wrong about you then produce a post which clearly specifies what is lacking.

---

WT, what part of this can you still not understand?

quote:

---

WT: My Gordon quotes are exact. He has emigration from Egypt by Hebrews c.1800 BC.

​

WT: I quoted Gordon's Hebrew expulsion "c.1800 BC" thats what he said.

​

WT: Professor Gordon decimates any doubt as to Israel's presence in Egypt and their c.1800 BC flight when a Pharoah rose up "who knew not Joseph"

​

WT: Professor Gordon has proven the high culture of Greece originated from Egypt's Hebrew Hyksos Shepherd Kings".

​

And most recently: WT: "The Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" by Professor Cyrus Gordon. [1965, 1962] The title of the above source says it all. The above source is relatively unknown and not embraced by secularists ? Why ? Because it disproves their worldview and its dogma wholesale.

---

From what I've read of Cyrus Gordon's works, and from the full referenced quotes I have provided, all of these statements are false. And you have been asked repeatedly to provide a referenced quote demonstrating that they are not false; as in post 173 of Brian's thread:

quote:

---

Amlodhi:

​

Either provide the exact quote and reference where C. Gordon states that the Hyksos were Hebrews and/or that the Greek civilization was founded by Hebrews; or: Drop it, and quit putting words into Prof. Gordon's mouth.

---

But rather than simply desist and drop the issue as advised, in complete opposition to personal integrity and forum rules, you continue your refusal to provide any such reference. And yet, you still continue to make these claims and further insinuate that Prof. Gordon stands in support of your thesis.This has been explained to you in clear terms more than enough times. As such, it is becoming apparent that you are unable to provide any reference and must, instead, seek refuge in feigned indignation.The absence of a supporting reference in any response will confirm these suspicions, and any further willful misrepresentation of Prof. Gordon's position will then prompt the filing of a formal objection with the moderators.Amlodhi

Well, once again let's check your sources.Genesis 38

quote:

---

27: And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
28: 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,
29: 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.
30: And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

---

So yet again your sources seem to be wrong. There is no mention of a "Red Hand of Zarah"in Genesis 38. It clearly says "crimson thread". The poeple preparing Coats of Arms understood what a thread was, and often used it is symbolism. A red hand is not a red thread.Please show where when "I open my Bible and see and read the Red Hand of Zara breaching the womb at birth."If it's not there then drop the point and all the claims that there is any such connection to the coat of arms you posted and the connection you attributed based on such a silly notion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree you need to drop the point or obtain some simple honesty or just assert contrary to what we see and read in the Bible.I feel very complimented that you must rely on saying the Bible doesn't say what it says as your main "refutation".

Stop threatening to snivel to your worldview philosophic friends in the Admin ranks.You seek a validation of your dishonest approach in this topic.Go cry to your mommy and secure an "unbiased Admin" intrusion.I have my evidence posted and you just don't like it.

Genesis 38

quote:

---

27: And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
28: 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,
29: 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.
30: And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

---

So yet again your sources seem to be wrong. There is no mention of a "Red Hand of Zarah"in Genesis 38. It clearly says "crimson thread". The poeple preparing Coats of Arms understood what a thread was, and often used it is symbolism. A red hand is not a red thread.Please show where when "I open my Bible and see and read the Red Hand of Zara breaching the womb at birth."If it's not there then drop the point and all the claims that there is any such connection to the coat of arms you posted and the connection you attributed based on such a silly notion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

WAIT JAR - I JUST FOUND EVIDENCE OF THE RED HAND OF ZARA IN YOUR POST.I just cut and pasted it.WT

No, but you do realise that DNA evidence is evidence that proves/disproves the theory. Just like the theory of the Mormons that the American Indian are the lost tribes of Isreal has been disproven by
DNA evidence.You don't seen to have any archelogical evidence, but mere specularton based on vague simularites of stories and words... and not too similar at that.Other than the pure speculation do to some language.. what PHYSICAL evidence do you have. Do you have any artifacts linked to the Israelies from taht time period that was discovered in Britian?

It says "scarlet thread" - wake up !Scarlet = red.The red hand was bloody.The thread was red.You obviously cannot add 2+2.I am arguing with an idiot.I am an idiot.You have been thoroughly routed in this topic.You are a dogma driven secularist who denies what he sees if it contradicts his worldview.Be comforted because the Pharisees saw Jesus peform miracles and they still wouldn't believe.Rather, I am comforted knowing your approach is age-old and the ridiculous antics of secular fundementalism defending their dogma.You ONLY NOW return to asserting that the Bible does not say what it says BECAUSE of my refutation of your "evidence" in the Amlodhi reply. Message 107 is where I refuted your evidence.This refutation leaves you relying on the Bible for your rebuttal refutation. How convenient, lean on the Bible for relief - a source you live to see destroyed and disproved. Then you must insist I agree with your senseless reading of it. You can't see my face but I am laughing hysterically AT YOU.

You have made this assertion repeatedly - please evidence it.Please refrain from repeating it. I believe that you believe it.The remainder of your post is vague and evasive and conspicuously absent is refuting evidence of the evidence I have posted.I guess you will now return to racial smears, also known as the refuge of the defeated.

Please show where in Genesis 38 it says the hand was bloody.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

He is rather, rather strangely I think, saying that if the thread was bloody, the hand it lay it would be bloody too.That, of course, is stretching things and trying to read into things much too much (IMO). You have to have the preassumption of a 'red hand' to make that assumption.

Actually the verse doesn't even say that the thread was bloody. WILLOWTREE has a trait when faced with evidence that refutes the crackpot ideas he brings here of falling back on attacking the posters. The only problem with WILLOWTREE is that he tends to believe the nonsense put out by the Lunatic Fringe Christian Fundamentalist groups like Gene Scott. It's not really his fault because the liars and frauds like Gene Scott and Ron Wyatt, the con men, are very good at what they do. They are very, very sucessful and many people are fooled by their talent. Afterall, if Satan did not look attractive he would not be as successful.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

WT,Yada, yada = still no supporting reference = falsified data. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. My admonition stands.Your juvenile histrionics, on the other hand, degrade only yourself; so feel free to have another tantrum now if it will make you feel better.