Posted on 11/26/2002 7:57:18 AM PST by blam
Now what is fascinating to me is this pre-occupation with language as indicator of anything.
This is all so unnecessary. I don't have to report anything, I'm not putting forth a claim.
I'm demonstrating a good-faith willingness to examine your claim. The burden is on you to make your case.
What is more reasonable, for me to investigate from scratch every claim that anyone might make, or for those making the claims (and presumedly having a head start on the evidence trail) to present their evidence? Clearly, the latter, and that is the understood etiquette of the burden of proof: it falls on the claimant.
Toward that end, I have questions concerning language. This is not a "pre-occupation," it is just the first question on which I happened to focus. The reason for the repetitive posts on the question of language is because of the repetitive non-responses to it.
Let's stipulate that language is not the only determining factor in sorting through this, it's but one potentially useful tool. Often it fits nicely into the context of the other evidence on a question, but not necessarily always. Fine.
If your claim that the Lost Tribes gave rise to the Celts is true, then the question of language has one of two possible consequences: either it supports your claim, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then there needs to be a more compelling line of evidence which leads us to discount the linguistic evidence as not compelling. I freely concede the possiblity that, given competing bodies of evidence, the linguistic argument might be discounted in favor of another. I think that's reasonable.
So, does the linguistice data support the Lost Tribes theory on the origin of the Celts, or not?
If so, then post it and lets move on.
If not, then post that, and explain why we should ignore it.
I'm trying to give you a fair hearing. Why is that so problematic?
Yeah I noticed that a while back and tried to figure out what it meant and couldn't come up with anything. It's definitely a verse to keep in mind though as we learn more and more about the geologic history of the earth. Maybe it will become clear. It wouldn't have been long after Noah.
I will say this though: If what I saw in an article was correct, if you were to take a rubber ball and outline the globe on it and then take a razor knife and cut out the continents, you could just about make a sphere out of those continents, in other words they would fit together into a much smaller sphere. I can't imagine the processes for this to happen so I haven't thought too much about it. It also may be something to remember though.
Japanese-American speak a whole different language family than the Japanese in Japan. It doesn't mean that their are not gentically descended from the people of Japan. People adopt the ways and language of the people that surround them, especially a people with no roots. Your argument is senseless.
No need to get all cheeky just because you receive a detailed answer to your question. Try a sense of humour for a change. It's far more becoming.
> I'm demonstrating a good-faith willingness to examine your claim. The burden is on you to make your case.
You sound like a lawyer. Leave it at the office!
>Toward that end, I have questions concerning language.
And you have received your answers. Deposition over.
> the repetitive posts on the question of language is because of the repetitive non-responses to it.
Did you even READ my answer?
> Let's stipulate that language is not the only determining factor in sorting through this,
it's but one potentially useful tool.
No, I am stipulating that language is irrelevent to the case. If you can't handle that, see the judge.
> So, does the linguistice data support the Lost Tribes theory on the origin of the Celts,
or not?
Get over it counselor. Language as a feeble secondary issue is over. Kindly actually read what I have written and you might even understand the case. You have no special standing here, either real or imagined.
Who has based their arguments on the fact that English isn't identical to Hebrew? I've seen that nowhere on this thread.
Interestingly, I addressed Italian and Japanese progeny living in America at #343. To say that they don't speak a lick of their ancestral tongues isn't accurate. Sushi and spaghetti are preserved, as are other words. Not only that, they've entered the common parlance of American English, despite vastly more methodic and comprehensive forces for assimilation. Linguists of the future will be able to infer interaction between America and both Japan and Italy from these relic words.
Where are the corresponding relic words from which we can infer any interaction between the Celts and the Lost Tribes?
Maybe they exist, but I'm still waiting for evidence of them.
Enough to see that you didn't answer the question, you dismissed it without cause, simply asserting it isn't relevant. Maybe you're right, but if you are you should be able to demonstrate why, and you haven't. This is a weakness, not a strength, in the argument you've put forth so far.
What are the commonalities between the languages of the Celts and ancient Hebrew? If there are no commonalities, what is the explanation for that?
So far, you answers have amounted to, "There are commonalities, go look them up yourself," and "Even if there aren't commonalities, that's not important."
Do you expect reasonable people to find this persuasive?
The events of the Old Testament are a type for us in these last days. There are plenty of instances where Israel was to be "scattered" in all nations in the Old Testament.
I raised lawyers (called children) who, unlike many itinerent law graduates actually have REAL clients and make REAL money, and I have made several contingency business lawyers very wealthy along the way.
I know the sport. I also collect Sabertooth Tigers (heads) for sport. Should you decide to convert and become an honest correspondant interested in dialogue please don't hesitate to return. Meanwhile, take your gavel and return it to where the sun don't shine.
The people others call the Celts are the former inhabitants of the Middle East. Assyrians became Germans, Israelites became the UK, America, and Israel. We rule the world.
I suppose that if everybody is everybody else then your statement cannot be contradicted. But what happens if the Chinese are the big power in the coming decades?
Why aren't they now if they're so great. Their civilization is as old as anyones, they've had as much time to get their act together, why can't they?
Or are they the Lost Tribes of Israel also?
UK, America, and Israel.
Britain was enslaved by the Vikings and yet they turned themselves into the greatest empire ever a few hundred years later. Your argument doesn't hold.
I raised lawyers (called children) who, unlike many itinerent law graduates actually have REAL clients and make REAL money, and I have made several contingency business lawyers very wealthy along the way.
I know the sport. I also collect Sabertooth Tigers (heads) for sport. Should you decide to convert and become an honest correspondant interested in dialogue please don't hesitate to return. Meanwhile, take your gavel and return it to where the sun don't shine.
You said you've pursued a fair degree of scholarship in this area. Isn't it the accepted tradition in scholarly journals that when claims are made, evidence is brought to bear in support of it? Isn't that how peer review works?
I'm not asking for anything approaching such rigor, just a few words and a link or two. This isn't onerous or exceptional.
Nor is this far off from what often occurs in everyday life. If you want to return an item to the store, aren't you asked for the receipt to support your refund claim? If you don't have the receipt, aren't you asked for some other corroboration or explanation? This is normal.
Yet, rather than support your claim in response to a perfectly reasonable request, you've decided to be uncivil.
Nevermind me, I've begun and ended this conversation believing in the Bible and the Lost Tribes and their prophetic significance...
What kind of a witness is that to unbelievers?
Riddle me this, my real last name is typically English, it has been our last name since the English started using last names, we have traced it back to 1189. We lived in the same village in England for time out of mind, until we emigrated to the colonies. The name has gone through all the permutations of spelling and still has the same meaning and is recognisable.
A friend of mine is Prussian he has the same last name, spelled the same and has the same meaning. His family has lived in Brandenberg for time out of mind until they came to the States after the First World War. he is an Assyrian and I am an Israeli, get real.
Vade says that Hebrew isn't related to latin. So since the British and Americans speak a language that is in the latin family rather than in the Hebrew family that we can't be genetic descendants of Hebrews. That argument is senseless. Language is learned, we're not born with it.
Interestingly, I addressed Italian and Japanese progeny living in America at #343. To say that they don't speak a lick of their ancestral tongues isn't accurate.
They had to make an effort to do it. Are they going to continue this effort for 2500 years? My Indian friends don't speak Indian. LOL
Sushi and spaghetti are preserved, as are other words.
As are Hebrew words in modern language. If you're really interest grab a Strong's concordance and start comparing. I did and found a hit in Gen 1:1, the very first one I looked at. Earth and erets. There are plenty more and you can see for yourself if you really think this is important. I don't think it's importasnt because I know languages are learned from environment and the Israelites were in a whole different environment as they fought their way across Europe.
Not only that, they've entered the common parlance of American English, despite vastly more methodic and comprehensive forces for assimilation. Linguists of the future will be able to infer interaction between America and both Japan and Italy from these relic words.
And there are a lot of Hebrew words that are with us also.
Where are the corresponding relic words from which we can infer any interaction between the Celts and the Lost Tribes?
Look yourself. I found one in the very first verse I looked at Gen 1:1. See what you can find yourself. This argument is dumb and a diversion started by an atheist.
Maybe they exist, but I'm still waiting for evidence of them.
Look, look, look and you'll will find. I'm not doing your work for you. It doesn't prove anything to me. Learned language is highly innaccurate way of following the movements of people. If you had a time machine and went to England in 1500, you wouldn't understand anything they were saying.
The Japanese-Americans have been largely absorbed into a dominant pre-existing culture and have adopted its language. It would be misleading to say that the American culture is the cultural descendant of the Japanese culture which they left. The American culture has absorbed a lot of groups and been through a lot of history. It is the synthesis of all that.
What I'm reading on this thread, that some group called "the Lost Tribes of Israel" later emerged as "the Celts," describes some different process, a story which no one has told but the outline of which makes no sense. To say you emerge "as" some other group means that the other group did not exist until you became them.
That's where the putative language shift looks bad. If you aren't absorbed by some pre-existing group, you don't lose your language. If you are so absorbed, the "new" culture is actually pre-existing and the new language is the dominant culture's language. If you get taken as a captive into Egypt, your new language is Egyptian, not Celtic.
You can say that some group migrated from A to B and was completely absorbed. That basically requires no evidence as it wouldn't be expected to leave much if any. But it's also a non-event. Culture B is there in any case and probably little changed.
I also note that the term of art "the Celts"--as used on this thread by LostTribe at least--includes groups that I've never ever seen identified as Celts anywhere else. This whole thing is so askew with any version of history known outside this thread that I hardly know why I bother.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Where do people get all this drivel from? It's almost as weird as that Velikovskyan BS.
I see. And how does that make you feel?
Why do you continue to insult the board and demean yourself by playing Perry Mason Jr? The arcade games section is right around the corner.
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.