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

I still need 2 to 5 days until I can respond to your most recent challenges/posts.They are coming-up.You didn't really think for a moment that I was refuted did you ? We shall see.WT

Thanks for the notice WT - take as long as you need.I await your response with interest. I'm finding my first gentle foray into the weird and wonderful world of EVC debates fascinating - you never know what sort of information will be produced next

Hello WILLOWTREE,First: Echoing MangyTiger, take all the time you need.Second: I have no investment in "refuting" you. You have merely been asked to substantiate your conjectures. What you may have perceived to be attempted refutation has, thus far, been confined to a rejection of unsubstantiated hearsay.And finally: As to any response to my previous post, please remain strictly cognizant of the current point under consideration. If your response does not consist of a referenced quote from the annals which substantiates your conjecture, you will have wasted your time and there will simply be no point here to refute.Should that prove to be the case, the position will be:Cyrus Gordon - does not support your conjectureThe Annals - do not support your conjectureAnd, with those out of the way, we can then move on to an examination of your next proclaimed source.Awaiting the annals quotation,Amlodhi

We have plenty of Bible which frames the claimed events in Ireland to be as the Bible says.When we jump over to Ireland the specific personages do not retain biblical names.When we depart the differently named personages and consider the effects of their presence after their deaths the evidence thereof becomes plenty once again for biblical claims.IOW, we have a bulge, then a thin margin, then another bulge.First Bulge:All the biblical historical facts which place Jeremiah as the protectorate of the kings daughters and his commission to plant.Thin Margin:The identification of Jeremiah and the king's daughter to be the same people described in secular history sources.Second Bulge:The voluminous evidence that these persons were indeed who the Bible frames them to be via the effects of their presence/Hebrew evidence in the British Isles.The thin margin between the two bulges is rightly identified to be whom the Bible frames them to be based upon the bulge of evidence before the thin margin and after.The "Thin Margin": The above is also better evidenced by the link below:http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/idr/idr30.htmI urge you to compare the cut and pasted poem with the latter link and its more thorough explanation of the stanzas and their sources. The links above give the best objective presentation of the issue at hand. It is an easy and interesting read.The point is that the annals confirm the existence of the person in question. Who that person is the other sources identify to be a king's daughter. The chain is connected to an anchor/Bible that declares the person to be Zedekiah's daughter of whom Jeremiah planted in ancient Hibernia.The tone of your responses seem to seek an outright annal quote saying "Tea daughter of Zedekiah" or the claim fails. This stringent requirement appears to assign zero weight to both bulges and the "thin margin" evidence itself which is really not thin.Irish poetry, traditions, and legends all give mirror reflection to the biblical claims/declarations. Surely you will not insinuate that the multiplicity of sources are in some type of conspiracy except of course for the truth/continuing substantiation of Tephi to be a royal tender twig perpetuating the bloodline of David as God promised.The Second Bulge/effects of presence:Quantum mechanic particles (thin margin) are deduced by the effects of their presence. Tephi was brought to Ireland by Jeremiah as is evidenced also by the following: Search | United Church of GodThe above link begins at "16" but proceed through to "23" by clicking "next" at the end of each link. The above critical quote is from link # 16.Notice that Gerber admits "coincidence" which is a recognition and a dismissal. IOW, the evidence cannot mean what it implies/screams therefore it must be a coincidence.The amount of physical evidence substantiating that human beings evolved from an ape/common ancestor/design by volume is meager but accepted as fact. But "coincidences" which evidence Biblical veracity are dismissed summarily because if they are recognized then God exists and our foot locker full of fossils is exposed to be what critics say they are: ape bones.Gerber is narrow-mindedly evading the WHOLE of the evidence and claims.Both bulges and what is in between amount to a mountain of evidence. Obscure fossils are asserted "anthropon" only because no one can refute otherwise yet the evidence of this prophecy of God keeping His word to David is suddenly baffling. Remove the filter of worldview and the evidence is spectacular.Baruch/Breac are linguistically a match - get real or admit those fossils can be and are ape.The most popular masculine name in Ireland is Jeremy. It doesn't take a college degree to realize that they named their sons as such after the great prophet Jeremiah. Yet those fossils are anthropon. http://www.cdlreport.com/sermon20.htmThe link above I originally posted. But suddenly it does not work and I do not know why.If my memory serves me correctly the annals specifically say "daughter of pharoah" which said word means "king" (not necessarily egyptian) but makes sense because Jeremiah and Tephi went to Egypt first where they began their voyage. Surely by the above inclusion you are not claiming the "daughter of Pharoah" to be a dark skinned North African/Hamite ?The Irish race are probably the most fair/light skinned peoples on Earth.Hence the best understanding of the "daughter of Pharoah" to be "daughter of a king"/Zedekiah.The O.T. describes David to be "ruddy"/red as is what the Irish are known to look like.The link below summarizes a book by Dr. Capt:http://members.tripod.com/~McCoin_Geneology/index-29.htmlThen at the end of your post you ask for the Prince Brutus source cite:Where Did the Roman Senate Meet?The link below: "History of the British Kings" by Geoffrey of MonmouthBrutus descended from Darda son of Zarah says the ancient latin mss which Monmouth translated. Please spare me the "arguing the man" attacks on Monmouth, unless you have refuting evidence accept it as fact. If you attack Monmouth then I will quickly decimate your position.http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/hrb/index.htmhttp://www.iwc.net/~levi/brits.htmPlease be advised that the above sources predate British Israelism by hundreds and hundreds of years, but in fairness you have not relied on a cultic connection to argue from.The link below further evidences the Hebrew origins of Greece: (bonus link)http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Troy.html

Actually, the etymology of Lughaidh is from the Celtic God of the sun and craftsmanship, Lug. It has absolutely nothing to do with the house of David.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi WILLOWTREE.It will take me a while (that's British understatement by the way ) to look at your whole post. One thing suddenly jumped out at me though - even though I think you've posted it before :

quote:

---

The most popular masculine name in Ireland is Jeremy.

---

Can you back this claim up ? I wasn't aware that Jeremy was all that common in Ireland, and I've known a few Irish lads and lasses over the years. There's also been lots of Irish sportsmen who made it big in the UK and I can't think of any called Jeremy.I did a quick bit of digging on the net and got to the Central Statistics Office of the government of the Irish Republic. I haven't yet found a break down of all current names but I did find this document (you need the Adobe Acrobat reader to view it). It lists the 100 most popular babies names in 2003 - Jeremy isn't in it. I even did a search for "je" to make sure I got any odd speeling. All I got was Jennifer and Jessica I did find one site on the net that claims Patrick is the most common name in Ireland, but didn't back it up with any evidence.

Gordon writes a book titled "Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations". The source proves that Greek culture originated from Egypt via Semitic/Hebrew and all you do is just assert contrary.It is not a matter of opinion - Greek culture developed out of the God ordained genesis race: Hebrew.The entire book decimates and exposes the stranglehold that secular/atheist controlled entities have on learning, in so far that the source is completely avoided because it substantiates the Bible.Every scholar of the 19th century was proven absolutely wrong by Schliemann. Velikovsky has done the same in the 20th century to every egyptologist/atheist.The quickness to brand anything ancient to be a "myth" except the things of evolution is the best evidence that evolution is a religion which the academia of theism have rightly named "scientism". IOW, your head is buried in a single source and a subjective single interpretation of that source. To acknowledge the entire argument while giving the proper weight to the evidence will not happen because that would confirm the veracity of the Bible and the falsification of your worldview.I do not debate to try and win anybody. I report evidence to simply show how ones worldview is king despite the evidence which proves the Bible correct no matter what, namely that when God-sense is removed the victim cannot be swayed regardless of the evidence.You go out of your way to give the appearance of being "objective".No such animal exists.Dr. Scott says the best and most trusted historians declare their bias up-front so when it creeps in the student will know.Atheists hide their bias and worldview and are thus the most untrustworthy sources to learn from.

quote:

---

It is not a matter of opinion - Greek culture developed out of the God ordained genesis race: Hebrew.

---

Funny, because most archaeologists consider Greek culture, most clearly evidenced in the Minoan civilization, as having been taken along when they immigrated from Asia Minor. And seing as the broader greek styles of the aegean civilization originated in Minoan Crete...I'd most definitely call that "a matter of opinion". What the heck were you thinking when you stated "It is not a matter of opinion"?

quote:

---

The entire book decimates and exposes the stranglehold that secular/atheist controlled entities have on learning

---

Oh please. Back it up that atheists control learning. You sound like someone arguing that the Jews control the media.

quote:

---

Every scholar of the 19th century was proven absolutely wrong by Schliemann.

---

Back it up.

quote:

---

Velikovsky has done the same in the 20th century to every egyptologist/atheist.

---

Yeah, if you believe, for example, that manna from heaven is due to Jupiter kicking its moon Venus as a comet, which flew past Earth, and rained down its nonexistant carbohydrate/bacteria atmosphere, before, in a few thousand years time, becoming one of the most circular-orbiting planets due to mystical electromagnetic effects.All he needs to do is work the Illuminati into the story and he's all set.

quote:

---

IOW, your head is buried in a single source and a subjective single interpretation of that source.

---

Oh, now that is *classic* coming from you. Who else has backed up Velikovky's bonkers claims about the solar system (which he uses as the foundation for his biblical claims), for example?

quote:

---

To acknowledge the entire argument while giving the proper weight to the evidence will not happen because that would confirm the veracity of the Bible and the falsification of your worldview.

---

Kinda funny that you'd say that, given that people who were initially biblical literalists, and remained devout Christians through their entire lives, created the fundamentals of pretty much all fields of modern science, be it geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, etc, when they simply could no longer reconcile the evidence of the real world with the bible - and then, with their new foundations, the fields took off.

quote:

---

despite the evidence which proves the Bible correct no matter what

---

Let me know when you manage to select the genes of cattle by what color sticks you hold up in front of them when they're mating.

quote:

---

Atheists hide their bias and worldview and are thus the most untrustworthy sources to learn from

---

Wait, are you accusing science of being dominated by "closet atheists" who simply profess otherwise? I seriously hope that I'm misunderstanding you.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Quantum mechanic particles (thin margin) are deduced by the effects of their presence. Tephi was brought to Ireland by Jeremiah as is evidenced also by the following:

​

Search | United Church of God

​

This truly is remarkable. Earlier it was mentioned that the flag of Northern Ireland had the "blood-red right hand of Ulster" upon it. What was not mentioned is that this red hand appears in the center of a six-pointed star. The star is said to represent the six counties of Ulster. Yet it is the very "Star of David"the symbol of the Jews. Is it mere coincidence that the Red Hand of Zerah is symbolically fused with the Star of David? And atop that star on the flag is the royal crown. This seems too much to be coincidence. Indeed, it appears to be further evidence that the royal line of David married into the Milesian royal line of Zerah.

---

I am dubious of this for the following reasons :

• There are nine counties in Ulster, not six
• There are six counties in Northern Ireland (that part of the island of Ireland which is still part of the United Kingdom)
• Northern Ireland has only existed since the partition of Ireland in 1920
• The flag they are talking about (the red hand flag) has only existed since the 1920s
• The historic flag of Ulster is a red hand on a white shield on a yellow background (field ?) with a red cross - i.e. no star, no crown
• The presence of the crown on the red hand flag is definitely not a coincidence - it reflects the fact that Northern Ireland had chosen to stay under the British Crown while the rest became the Irish Republic (actually the Irish Free State IIRC).
• This alliegance of the North to the British Crown is a big deal - you've heard of the troubles in Ireland I take it (the IRA, INLA, UFF, UVF and so on) ?

If you want to know about the red hand flag in mind-numbingly boring detail go here - it's a web site devoted to vexillology (IOW it's a site run by flag nerds).If the crown and the six pointed star are so important why don't they feature in Irish flags until the 1920s ? At a time when six counties decided not to go with the rest of an independent Ireland but to stay with the British crown ?

quote:

---

This seems too much to be coincidence. Indeed, it appears to be further evidence that the royal line of David married into the Milesian royal line of Zerah.

---

Or could it just be people with a particular worldview interpreting everthing they see to support that view ?I have read through most of the stuff in that United Church Of God (ucg.org/~~~) website you linked to - as far as I can tell it's just another rehashing of the British-Israel-World Federation stuff. Why they do it I can't begin to imagine.There's another bit I have a problem with :

quote:

---

Message 54

​

Source: "Symbols of Celto-Saxon Heritage" by W.H. Bennett [1976][Rochester, England]

​

Calcol, a Zarahite (1Chron.2:6) landed in Spain. He founded ZARAgossa.

​

Calcol departed Iberia/Hiberia/Hibeer/Hebrew/Heber/Eber and made their way to Ireland, which they called "Hibernia". Calcol became king and founded Ulster c.1600 BC. From this ancient time the emblem of Ulster has been the Red Hand circled with a Scarlet Cord.

​

3 of Ulster's 6 counties, as well as the towns of Bangor and Dungannon have a Red Hand as part of their official emblems.

​

Since 1920, the official arms of N.Ireland have only a Red Hand without the Scarlet Cord.

---

The first thing I should point out is that this another book printed by Covenant Publishers - in other words we're back to our old friends the BIWF. As I have said before, in itself that doesn't make it wrong. However, I cannot find any reference to a red or scarlet cord ever being on the flag of Ulster. This includes a number of sites dedicated to heraldry and others for flags.Actually, I take that back - I can find lots of references to it but they are all on sites that seem to be repeating or rehashing the BIWF claims and where there is an attribution it is to the book WT cites. If there was a red cord on the Ulster flag how come none of the ones you can buy seem to have it ? Remember, the Ulster flag is the basis of the red hand flag, not the other way round.Come to think of it, why would it ever have been taken off it is such an important part of the historic symbol of Ulster ?Oh, and by the way

quote:

---

Since 1920, the official arms of N.Ireland have only a Red Hand without the Scarlet Cord.

---

Since Northern Ireland didn't exist before 1920 isn't this a completely meaningless statement ?

Hi jar.

quote:

---

Next you'll try to tell us the Harp in so much of Irelands symbolism is David's harp and not a representation of the classic Celtic harp like the one from Trinity College.

---

If you go here (which is part of a long article WILLOWTREE references in Message 244) that is exactly the claim they make.I kid you not...

For all intents and purposes you probably never thought of the Annals
until now, yet this source is instantly embraced as gospel truth.Why are you demanding that the Annals/single source be the deciding and supreme source ?Answer: Because you are convinced that it gives you a reason to continue to believe that the Crown descended from some blurry and insignificant origin. It is only a big deal now because this would make Britain, Scotland, and Ireland the descendants of 10 tribe Israel and that would prove the existence of God.The only reason you cling to a single source is because to consider the whole decimates what you previously were taught.The Annals are a component which helps support the whole. As you were already informed your links do not work.It doesn't matter though because the annals prove the existence of the person whom other sources identify as Zedekiah's daughter.You are simply comforting yourself with a narrow view of one source while conspicously ignoring all the rest.This selective approach is only embarked upon because to account for the bulk of the evidence is to be refuted.

Mangy:You just ran out of new-comers grace period for providing evidence.I post evidence and source cite, in response you "refute" by "I cannot find".Now you are again engaged in "arguing the man" replies which is only resorted to when the evidence has you cornered. IOW, my sources are liars. Whats the point of having sources ?Paleontologists are liars but you don't see me saying that as a refutation.The Red Hand of Zara Judah/Genesis 38 is rampant in Great Britain. This fact proves the citizenry are descendants of Biblical Judah.If origin is FIRST then the Red Hand originates from Genesis 38 which predates any other alleged origin of the Red Hand.Then you assert my book by Bennett is BI/Covenant Publishing - no it isn't I have the book - you are caught red handed.I take great pleasure in the fact to see opponents have to argue the man because that means the evidence is self-evident/axiomatic. Message 54 is a sledgehammer of evidence and my opponents responses further substantiate the truth of Romans concerning God-sense removal.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-23-2004 02:59 PM

Especially Percy (as he runs the site I think). From Message 251 This is a reference to links I put in Message 195. I added an edit to an earlier reply to WILLOWTREE (Message 210) that when I click on the links they work fine.Can somebody else try and see if it works for them ? I don't know what else I can do to track down whatever problem WT is having.

Message 195The SECOND link does not work, which is the purported link that has Covenant Publishing "admitting" they lied.When I click on the link it appears for about 15 seconds then it disappears. I never seen a link act as such, just reporting what happens.

The book I cited from by Dr. Gordon proves Greek culture originated from Shemitic biblical descendants via Egypt.The fact that you did not know this further evidences this point: ....a point which was partially quoted. The full quote: 19th century scholars assumed Troy was mythical until Schliemann took Homer at face value. Layard's Nineveh digs proved the existence of Nimrud a person also assumed to be mythical. This is history 101 stuff and your tone implies that you are going to feign ignorance or worse - just deny these facts which are embarrassing to the status quo.