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

You are simply asserting contrary to the evidence.If Biblical veracity was not at stake the point would of been accepted while yawning.You have not shown much less proved your claim of myth.I am standing by waiting to see your evidence.May I also remind that the Biblical evidence is being completely ignored. This is done because it provides a perfect frame that the historical facts fit in to.Edit:Mangy:Where is this refuting article that you are using ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-05-2004 04:56 PM

Hi WT,Regarding the British Royal lineage, could you tell me who the first monarch to reign over Britain was? If you’ve already posted this, then please pardon my oversight and point me to the relevant post.Cheers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

My evidence in its entirety frame Tea Tephi to be a descendant of King David.

​

The princess Tea Tephi, brought to Ireland by Jeremiah, is undoubtedly the daughter of King Zedekiah of Judah. . . Jeremiah as the prophet/Ollam Fodhla, and his aide Baruch . . .

---

Here are your undoubtedly Tea, Jeremiah/Ollam Fodhla, and Baruch/Simon Breac from the Annals:

quote:

---

M3502.2

​

The Age of the World, 3502.

​

Tea, daughter of Lughaidh, son of Ith, whom Eremhon married in Spain

​

(Annals of the Four Masters)

---

This partial genealogy of Tea given here can be further traced both in the Four Masters and in Lebor Gabala Erenn. To wit: Tea, daughter of Lughaidh > Ith > Breogan > Brath; all the way to: > Ibath > Gomer > Iafeth > Noe. Thus, according to the Annals I'm reading, in addition to Tea not being a daughter of Zedekiah, she is not even of Hebrew lineage but is, rather, a descendant of Japeth.

quote:

---

The Age of the World, 3882.

​

M3882.1
After Faildeargdoid had been ten years in the sovereignty, he fell by Ollamh Fodhla, son of Fiacha Finscothach, in the battle of Teamhair.

​

M3883.0
The Age of the World, 3883.

​

M3883.1
The first year of the reign of Ollamh Fodhla, son of Fiacha Finscothach.

​

(ibid)

​

And from O'Flaherty's Ogygia:

​

Ollam Fodhla, son of king Fiacha, of the house of Hir, son of Gathelus, slew Faideargdoid in the battle of Temhair [Tara], and ascended the throne. He had FOUR SONS, viz. Finnacta, Slanoll, Ged, and Carbry.

---

Thus, Ollamh Fodhla was the son of king Fiacha Finscothach. His army defeated Faildeargdoid in the battle of Teamhair. Note also the date recorded: The first year of Ollamh Fodhla's reign is recorded to have occurred 381 years after Tea's marriage to Eremhon.

quote:

---

The Age of the World, 4290.

​

M4290.1
Sedna Innarraigh, after having been twenty years in the sovereignty of Ireland, fell by Simon Breac.

​

M4291.0
The Age of the World, 4291.

​

M4291.1
This was the first year of Simon Breac, son of Aedhan Glas, in the sovereignty of Ireland.

​

M4296.0
The Age of the World, 4296.

​

M4296.1
Simon Breac, the son of Aedhan Glas, after having been six full years in the sovereignty of Ireland, fell by Duach Finn.

​

(ibid)

---

Breac was the son of Aedhan Glas. He conquered Sedna Innarraigh and became sovereign over Ireland. Six years later, Breac was felled by Duach Finn. Again, note the date: Breac's first year of rule is recorded to have occurred 408 years after Ollamh Fodhla.These are the sources; as opposed to parroted stories from your websites. You have been asked repeatedly to produce references from these sources that support your assertion that these annals describe Jeremiah and Baruch bringing the daughter of Zedekiah to Ireland. You have proven to be signally incapable of doing so.So now your homework has been done for you. And as anyone can see from the above quotations, taken from the annals themselves, Ollamh Fodhla was not Jeremiah, Simon Breac was not the scribe Baruch, and Tea was not Zedekiah's daughter. QED.As to your biblical allusions, we can analyze them if you wish. There are verses which counter your conjectures and it will be noted upfront that the bible says neither "Tea" nor "Ireland".Addendum:Inre: Saxons, Britons and Scythians

quote:

---

The Irish version of the Historia Britonum of Nennius

​

LIBER BRITANNICUS. p.33

​

Now after the deluge the world was divided into three parts; between the three sons of Noe, viz.: Eoraip, Affraic, and Asia. Sem was in Asia; Cam in Affraic; Jafeth in Eoraip. The first man of the race of Jafeth that came into Eoraip at the beginning was Alanius, with his three sons; viz.: Isacon, Gothus or Armion, and Negua. Isacon had four sons, Francus, Romanus, Britus, Albanus. Now Armion had five sons, Gotas, Uilegotas, Cebetus, Burgandus, Longobardus. Negua had three sons, Vandalus, Saxo, Boarus. It is from Saxo, son of Negua, that the Saxons are descended; but it is from Britus the Britons come. He is the son of Isacon, the son of Alanius, the son of Fethuir, the son of Ogaman, the son of Tai, son of Boidhbh, son of Semoibh, son of Athacht, son of Aoth, son of Abar, son of Raa, son of Asra, son of Iobaith, son of Ioban, son of Japeth, son of Noe, son of Laimiach. Thus it is recorded in the histories of Britain.

---

Thus, according to the Annals of the Irish Liber Britannicus, the Saxon's derived from Saxo and the Britons derived from Britus. Note that Saxo and Britus are here recorded as descendants of Japeth.

quote:

---

Lebor Gabla renn: The Book of Leinster: Book of the Taking of Ireland Part 1-5. ed. and tr. by R. A. S. Macalister. Dublin: Irish Texts Society, 1941.

​

9. (With regard to) Iafeth, son of Noe, of him is the northern side of Asia - namely Asia Minor, Armenia, Media, the People of Scythia; and of him are the inhabitants of all Europe.

---

Here we also have the Scythians recorded as descended from Japeth.Remember, you brought up these sources. Are you prepared to live with them now? Or will they all of a sudden become "instant revisionism" (ala Cyrus Gordon) now that you don't like what they say.Amlodhi

WILLOWTREE,Amusing as you've been the repetition is starting to take its toll. I have a quick request. Could you just once introduce a topic that is not totally whacko?lfen

Because you are an atheist:Your view of my topic to be 'whacko' is the best recognition of its validity.

WILLOWTREE,Amusing as you've been the repetition is starting to take its toll. I have a quick request. Could you just once introduce a topic that is not totally whacko?jar

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well I am pleased that you finally returned to a normal debater with this present offering.I will need a little time to respond.But I am disappointed to see you completely evade and avoid the framework of Biblical evidence.This is only done because to address any of it harms your position.Obscure annal quotes accompanied with your tangential interpretations in no way trump the Bible's weight of evidence.Once again, this is a courtesy notice informing you that a response will occur ASAP.WT

My saying it's "whacko" is the best evidence you have to support it's validity? And if I weren't an atheist would my view cease recognition of the validity? (I'm not an atheist and not because Kendemyer denies atheists exist.)But seriously you go out of your way looking for whacko theories. I'm not talking religion here but stuff about the Great Pyramid and now this notion that the british monarchy is descended from King David. There have been several royal families and some have only the most tenuous relationship. I mean we go back enough generations we are all related. What is the point other than it amuses you to seek and bring us the most bizarre theories that you can dig up? Are you perhaps trolling this group for your amusement?lfen(And Jar? Stop copying me!!! dag nab it)

You must realize that WILLOWTREE is directly under the influence of Satan and his GOD-sense has been removed. He, like so many others, have fallen under the influence of one of Satan's representatives on earth, Gene Scott. And because he is under the influence of Satan, he is unable to understand or appreciate reality. It is not his fault, but rather proof that Satan is about in the world.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

WTF!! I thought Bill Gates was Satan's representive on earth?
I've missed something about this Gene Scott. But I'm off on a whacko hunt myself, and Jar, the game is afoot!lfen

quote:

---

You are simply asserting contrary to the evidence.

---

Actually I see it as I'm simply asserting evidence to the contrary Seriously, this is just a quick reply to let you know I probably won't get chance to reply for a few days at least - but I will when I can.

WILLOWTREE,I offer this counter lineage to the british royal family: Gardner uses many recently discovered scources to meticulous annotate his theory.Okay, Willowtree, I've found the works of Laurence Gardner about the Holy Grail and the Grail Kings.I challenge you to find any theory wackier than this one and if you can't you must admit that you've been bested by me and give up your mission to bring the wackiest of theories to the EvC Forum. Do you accept my challenge? Can you find anything wackier than this or will you admit to your defeat at my hands and acknowledge that I am the new Champion of Wackery?lfen

quote:

---

WTF!! I thought Bill Gates was Satan's representive on earth?

---

No no no - Bill Gates IS Satan.

If there was a smiley to indicate bowing down and saying "We're not worthy" I would have used it here...You are the clearly the new Dark Lord Of Wackery and should henceforth be addressed by this noble and historic title

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

I will need a little time to respond.

---

As always, take all the time you need. I'm a bit curious though; why does someone who has so vehemently claimed the support of these annals not have this information at hand already?

quote:

---

WT:

​

But I am disappointed to see you completely evade and avoid the framework of Biblical evidence.

---

Cheer up, I will evade nothing. We will deal with the unadulterated biblical information once we have severed these pseudo-connections that you keep trying to read into the text.

quote:

---

WT:

​

Once again, this is a courtesy notice informing you that a response will occur ASAP.

---

And once again, I'm in no hurry. I would rather wait for a studied and rational response than be treated to an immediate knee-jerk reaction.Amlodhi