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

Hi MangyTiger,Yes, I did in fact read that article, but I'm glad you posted the information anyway. Apparently, since the fact that the annals do not support this "Tea Tephi" story is becoming too much common knowledge, many BI's are now attempting to distance themselves from this angle.That is what the last website quote WT posted was all about, though he doesn't seem to realize it. Faced with the uncomfortable fact that the "actual source" does not support (and actually refutes) their "just-so" story, they are now being forced to scramble for an alternative connection.Some have opted for the route pursued by the authors of WT's last website quote. Others are trying to construe a connection through Scota. This "Scota" connection requires that the word "pharao" be read as a pseudonym of king David; yet in the sections of the annals that I read, this "pharao" is specifically referred to as a "great king over Egypt".This is why WT is unable to provide any actual source quotes to support his position; apparently, there aren't any. Thus he is forced to regurgitate quotes from various websites and BI's which are also unable to offer any such actual source substantiation.As it is, the fact that WT wastes so many words trying to tell everyone how well he has supported his position is, in itself, revealing; i.e., when evidence is actually demonstrated, telling everybody that it is evidence is unnecessary.For myself, I prefer to go to the sources and draw my own conclusions. Convincing WT of these conclusions is not a requirement.It is WT's assertion. As such, he should be able to substantiate it with a few paragraphs of source documentation. If, instead, he continues to prove himself unable to do this, and his "argument" continues to consist of nothing more than a few dubious allusions, then I will simply consider it unworthy of any further consideration.Good to hear from you MangyTiger, I hope you stick around for awhile.Amlodhi

Whats the point in posting evidence with source cite if atheists are just going to assert that Tea Tephi never existed ?You are all dishonest buffoons comforting each other contrary to the sources, facts of history, and the invulnerable proofs of the Bible.Each compartment of evidence is met with "that is not evidence".IOW, anything that proves the claims is capriciously branded not to be evidence.To read that you all now just assert that Tea Tephi never existed tells me that this course of dishonest action must be pursued because otherwise if she is a real historical figure the claim is indeed substantiated.None of you even know what evidence is, except of course when a paleontologist yanks a fossil from the ground and asserts it to be human.Yet, the direct evidence of historical persons and their presence in Europe, confirming the Bible is somehow suddenly confusing.Either way the Bible is proven correct, namely Romans, that when God removes God-sense no amount of evidence can override the penalty.

This is a Bible topic.I have taken many passages of scripture and evidenced their truth in history.Because the evidence is so obvious my opponents react by just asserting that it cannot be.Forget about the excursions into history, what I want to know is if there is anyone who wants to debate the claims of the OP as it relates to the Bible.If there are no takers then I will declare that the Biblical exegesis contained in the OP to be the real facts contained in the Holy Bible.OP Biblical Facts:1) The Jews were not promised the promise of Genesis 22.2) All the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph were given to the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Mannasseh.3) The only exception to #2 is that the right to rule and make the laws were given to the two sons of Judah, Zara and Pharez.4) Nobody can say that God failed to multiply the Jews into a massive population group because the Bible does not say that they were promised to be as such, thus all the websites touting the Bible to be false are proven ignorant of Biblical claims.

Show me where or you are a brazen liar.Of course we both know that this is your m.o.You routinely assert something to be true contrary to what is posted.You get away with this constant dishonest disruption becuause the Admins don't give a shit about true integrity.You will of course immediately post a brazenly dishonest response.I am a fool for wasting my time with persons like you who pretend to know something and clown the debate with heaps of fraud.

WILLOWTREE, folk will read the thread and make up their own mind. But posts, 11, 31, 38, 48, 55, 56, 60, 62, 63, 67, 71, 75 & 80 should do for a start. After that I stopped keeping track of them. Actually, I and others simply quote what you post and show how your quote is being misconstruded. We are always careful to make sure we do not change what you post but rather include it so the reader can make their own judgement. Actually, as in the Great Pyramid thread, I think they bend over backwards to give you every opportunity to defend your assertions. I would say their integrity is above reproach.Instead of simply attacking the posters, have you ever considered trying to support some of the assertions that you make?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We have opponents hiding behind the cult of British Israelism in order to deny that the British Empire consists of a monarchy descending from King David, that its peoples descend from Zarahites and House of Israel/dispersed 10 tribes.The evidence proving the above claims is overwhelming and not a matter of opinion.Opponents want inantimate evidence to be classified as a human being and thus eligible to be stained a racist.IOW, to even evidence the claims is racist.This strategy perfectly evidences the invisible Satan.Lets see if opponents strategy has integity by their own standards.Because a semi-racist cult called British Israelism demanded the Crown to abdicate for their leader Richard Brothers, hence anyone who even breathes a word about the Biblical origins of the British Isles is a racist/cult perpetrator.The point is when undesirables hijack a truth for their own reasons we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignorantly discard the facts because racists embraced them.By this same twisted logic, my opponents should abandon evolution.Marxists, fascists, and Nazi's who committed the Holocaust all were in love with the ToE and embraced it wholeheartedly.Why isn't evolution tossed in like manner ?Nazi doctors engaged in ghoulish abominable "experiments" upon Jews armed with Darwin's theory, they had their reasons, thus my opponents should be consistent and quickly forsake Darwinism.What we have here is pure hypocrisy.What we have here is opponents doing the bidding of Satan, arbitrarily dismissing voluminous evidence proving the Bible just because a cult was infamous for hijacking the facts for their own reasons. There are no isles in Palestine.The above passage is speaking about the British Isles and their Hebrew peoples.

Totally off topic and in addition, you have been shown time after time that this is patently false.Instead of trying to change the topic, how about presenting some evidence to support your assertions. Pick one single thing that you would like to try to support.Make it simple. How about the origin of the Celts?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It appears that he is talking about Islands in the Med. And there are certainly many of them. Just considering the Greek Isles (which would have been considered far off in Jeremiah's time), there are hundreds. Greek Islesedited to add closing paren. Mea Culpa.This message has been edited by jar, 09-03-2004 05:10 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

WILLOWTREE, I contend in this post that the information supplied by you in support of the claim that the British Royal Family lineage can be traced back to King David can be shown to be incorrect and so your claim is refuted. Furthermore this refutation is completely unconnected to the agenda, beliefs, history or motives of British Israelism.There are three points to my argument :

1. The key evidence you have used to support the Davidic lineage claim is the genealogy chart in the book you referenced in Message 172
   ​
   Source: "The Illustrious Lineage of the Royal House of Britain"

   ​

   AVCTORE GV. M. H. MILNER A.M., S.G.R.Soc., I.V.Adsoc.
   LONDON MCMXXIII
   Covenant Publishing, London, 1902
   ​
   Covenant Publishing, London is the publishing arm of the British-Israel-World Federation (just as an FYI, if you go to their website you will find they moved to the north of England in late 2003).
   ​
   IMPORTANT NOTE : the beliefs of the British-Israel-World Federation are not relevant to my contention that the lineage claim has been refuted.
   ​
2. If any entry in the chart is shown to be false the line of descent from King David to Queen Elizabeth II is broken and the claim will be refuted.
   ​
   You stated in Message 175 that the genealogy chart supplied by Primordial Egg in Message 170 is another version of the chart you base your claim on.
   ​
   Entry 50 in the genealogy chart is Tea Tephi.
   ​
3. In Message 195 I linked to an article and image which says that in 2001 the British-Israel-World Federation stated that Tea Tephi never actually existed.

So to summarise :

• In the early 20th. Century the British-Israel-World Federation produced a genealogy chart showing an unbroken line of descent from King David to the British monarch.
  ​
• This chart is central to the claim currently under investigaton that the Britsh Royal family descend from the Hebrews.
  ​
• In the early 21st. Century the British-Israel-World Federation state that Tea Tephi, one of the links in the genealogy chart, never existed.

Let's be very clear about this - the organisation which orignally produced the lineage chart have stated it is incorrect. One more time - the people who originally produced the chart have said one of the entries in it is flat WRONG - the person never existed.If the genealogy chart is wrong then the whole claim is refuted. QED.In the interests of fairness I will make two final points. This refutation will itself be refuted if someone can show that the scanned image linked to above is not, in fact, from the British-Israel-World Federation. As Amlodhi has pointed out in Message 196 there are attempts to fill the 'missing link' created by Tea Tethi never having existed. The validity of these alteratives would have to be investigated on their own merits and are outside the scope of this post.

Hi Amlodhi,

quote:

---

Good to hear from you MangyTiger, I hope you stick around for awhile.

---

Thanks. I'm planning to stay around for as long as there are interesting discussions to follow !Generally I'm just a lurker (I'd been on the site for a couple of months before the Royal Family claim flushed me into the open) as I don't have the technical knowledge necessary to contribute much to either evolutionary biology or religous threads. The only reason I jumped in here was that I was intrigued by the 'Royal Family descended from David' claim. I was vaguely aware that there was such a claim floating around but this was the first time I'd seen it asserted with the claim of evidence to back it up. I figured that if somebody made such an astonishing claim they would have some pretty strong evidence to substantiate it - and then I saw the genealogy chart

In the new testament we read that Christians are accounted as Abrahams seed through faith. When you allow the "seed" to be as it was meant to be read ... ie: all his descendants ... including those by faith ... who are the wild grafted into the true ... then you can find the fulfillment of those prophesies.And when at the end of the 1000 years ... at the great day of Judgement ... when ALL the rightious shall stand in one place ... they shall be "the great multitude" of Rev 19.The righteous shall inherit the new earth which has been redeemed by the death of Jesus on the Cross ... and this will be the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.

Hi Mangy: Negative.The genealogy evidence is a component of the whole, especially the Biblical framework which you are arbitrarily avoiding.Secular hostlities routinely ignore Bible evidence. Message 54 has established Israelite immigration into the Isles as early as c.1600 BC.The Red Hand/Scarlet Cord of Zara/Judah/Genesis 38 unique birthing account is found at least 22 separate times in British heraldry ensigns. This coupled with a host of linguistic evidence is being evaded wholesale because to recognize any of it is to refute yourself. If any claimed fact supporting evolution is shown to be false then the entire theory is refuted.By this logic we must throw the baby out with the bathwater.You would never enforce this standard upon the sacred cows of your worldview.Obviously you can do as you like but the mere creation of this ridiculous criteria amounts to paranoia based upon perceived threats to the A PRIORI subjective beliefs of your worldview. None of the off-site links work.I returned to Message 195 for review. The above blue box quote is from YOUR weblink.Notice they admit Tea Tephi existed.Since you have kindly stated multiple times that your challenge is not based upon possible BI involvement I will also remind that my use of the evidence has nothing to do with BI. But you are obviously engaged in double speak because the crux of your refutation attempt rests on a purported BI source recantation of claims.Tea Tephi was a historical person regardless of any alleged withdrawal by an entity that supposedly has nothing to do with your refutation.I would expect you to clarify your use of BI in your challenge and harmonize this usage with your already stated disclaimer.The issue is who Tea Tephi is.My evidence in its entirety frame Tea Tephi to be a descendant of King David. Notice Jeremiah possessed the "king's daughters".Mangy:By your own admission you are not Bible proficient enough to argue.The whole of my evidence relies on what has always been stated in the Bible.Jeremiah's presence in Ireland is a fact.All of the evidence presented in this topic is capriciously being avoided and lightened of its weight.All of the evidence proves the British peoples and their Sovereign to descend from Israelitish/Hebrew origins.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-04-2004 03:09 PM

huh? you mean the german woman we have at the moment?

Charles:You are obviously lost.The scientism topics are down the stairs in the basement to the left.

Hi WILLOWTREE. Remember I am only talking about the claim that the lineage of the current Royal Family can be traced back from the current Queen to King David - not the closely related but nevertheless distinct claim that the general population of Britain are the descendants of the ten lost tribes.For the specific claim about the lineage of the Royal Family the cornerstone of any substantiation must be a genealogy chart of the Queen. Without one there is no proof. Other supporting evidence can of course be brought in from any source, but ultimately if you can't prove her genealogy then the claim to have proven the line of descent from King David fails. In the context of the specific claim that the Queen is descended from King David I do not believe this is relevant. It is only relevant to the claim about the general British population. This 'ridiculous criteria' is valid for the specific claim that it can be proven that the Queen is descended from King David. To prove that one specific person is descended from another specific person you must, by definition, be able to list the parent to child relationships of everyone inbetween.The analogy you draw with refuting the Theory Of Evolution if one fact is proved incorrect is not a good one IMO. I feel that your analogy would be valid if I was claiming to refute the 'Brits are the children of the lost tribes' claim by showing just one of yor pieces of evidence to be wrong. My bad - I apologise. I will try and work out what I screwed up and fix it later.
[Added in edit - I clicked on the links in that message and they worked for me, so I have no idea what the problem was when you tried](emphasis added by me)You need to re-read the article. What it is saying is that the name Tea exists in the annals and the name Tephi exists in the annals BUT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. Two people, one called Tea and one called Tephi are both referenced in the annals, but there is no reference to Tea Tephi. Tea Tephi is a made up person - made up from the names of two totally different people. What I actually said in Message 204 was :

quote:

---

Furthermore this refutation is completely unconnected to the agenda, beliefs, history or motives of British Israelism.

---

The use of the BIWF in my challenge is for three reasons :

• The BIWF 'created' Tea Tephi from two other people
• The BIWF produced the genealogy chart which contains Tea Tephi
• The BIWF have admitted they created Tea Tehpi

Note that the agenda, motives, beliefs etc. of the BIWF are completely irrelevant to the above points. Exactly why one of the members created the myth of Tea Tephi and other members subsequently propgated it is neither here nor there - all that matters is that it happened.It would not matter if instead of BIWF in the above list it was some other organisation. As long as the same organisation is involved in all three points I think it makes a compelling case that Tea Tephi never existed. She is a myth.If Tea Tephi never existed the claimed line of descent from King David to the current Queen is broken. I stand by my contention that your claim has been refuted.This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 09-05-2004 07:50 PM