Posted on 06/21/2023 10:39:10 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Well the idea that the British Isles were settled by the "Ten Lost Tribes" is not true.
That there were Ten Lost Tribes is not true.
That Cleopatra was a sub-saharian African is not true.
That Columbus was sailing to prove the world was round is not true.
That Ancient Greece was a direct democracy is not true.
Would you like me to go on?
“The first question is: How much of what we’ve been told is not actually true?”
You can start with “the lost tribe of Dan relocated to the British Isles” as something you’ve been told that isn’t actually true.
I’m more suspicious of “The ancient Hebrews didn’t go anywhere near the British Isles, and the proof is: because we say so.”
But you didn’t present objective evidence, you presented something you got from another source that you’ve decided, somewhat arbitrarily, to trust.
I don’t have full confidence that your statements are trustworthy.
If you have an argument to make with my statements then bring her out and trot her around the corral.
Funny seeing you pass off the lack of any genetic, linguistic and cultural evidence as “because we say so”. It’s the complete lack of supporting evidence that says so. I guess in fantasy world such things are as unwanted as they are unnecessary.
Language reflects thought.
The logic in my words is a direct response to your statements.
But your statements to me, in post #21, were unconnected to anything I said. This shows disorganized thinking on your part.
No, you didn’t think carefully.
I simply raised a question. (I said nothing about the tribe of Dan.)
The question asks whether we’ve been told the truth by historians.
Did the Hebrews settle in the British Isles?
But that is too much to expect I suppose.
You presented no logic.
In your post # 21, you only made claims that certain things were “not true.”
Dude. Your original question asked why experts in this field were reluctant to adopt your wackadoodle theory. The simple answer I gave you was the evidence preponderates against it. I haven’t endorsed or adopted anything, only stated a fact about a consensus against your wackadoodleism. So no, I will not bite by defending the consensus. There is plenty out there if you care to educate yourself. If you want to attack the current thinking with fact, that would be interesting. Or you can remain a wackadoodle by continuing to say you have some secret knowledge.
Last year I did 23 and Me, found out two interesting things, one that that I share a Hapolgroup that is very rare in the customer groupings of 23and Me only 1-300000 share it and that I share it with one Irish common descendent some 10,000 years ago who was also the Common ancestor for a 4th Century Irish King Ui Neil. My recent heritage was all German, weird stuff.
The word “wackadoodle” is not a legitimate argument.
But it does strongly suggest you have very little confidence in your position.
That organization, 23 and you, is of a political character. Therefore not trustworthy when it comes to finding of fact.
I did not proffer an argument, just an explanation. Nor have I taken a position. I have suggested that perhaps you might provide some factual support for your statement stating as a fact that a "traditionally Hebraic population" is extant in Ireland. You have stood by this assertion, without providing any factual support. So you are a wackadoodle.
No, read it again.
The substance of my question (not statement) was that a group of people seem intimidated by a particular question.
I did not make a statement. I did not make an assertion.
I’m happy to go back to asking the question again, but only after you reorganize your thinking for the purpose of understanding my post.
Your question contains a noun phrase as a direct object, in bold, which "states" and "asserts" a fact. It matters not that you posed this statement within a question because your usage invites the reader to rely upon your apparent belief in its truth.
So my initial response to why historians seem, at least to you, to be "intimidated" by the fact you assert, i.e. that a traditionally Hebraic population of Ireland and Britain exists or existed, is that your asserted fact is contrary the genetic anthropological evidence, which is so legion and easy to find that I will not waste my time trying to explain it to you.
The other more apparent reason for this intimidation you perceive, less apparent to me quite obviously, is that historians are quite good at avoiding pointless discussions with wackadoodles like you that spout propositions that are unmoored to fact or reality.
I have invited you to state a factual basis for your assertion that "a traditionally Hebraic population of Ireland and Britain" exist or ever existed. You have not. So our discussion is over.
I recall a former Freeper who was adamant that the English language had its roots and beginnings in ancient Hebrew. Ridiculous and easily refuted but no one could convince him otherwise.
It’s all part of that same “British Isrealism” nonsense from around 400 years ago.
At least back then they didn’t know anything about genetics. Today’s true believers in that fantasy have to ignore genetics as well as linguistics, culture, and the historical record.
When the Romans encountered the Celts and Britons the Druids weren’t speaking Hebrew nor writing anything down either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.