Archaeologists Announce Discovery Of Underwater Man-Made Wall (Very Old)

China Post ^ | 11-26-2002

[BMCDA]

A Catholic debunking of this whole Lost-Tribe tripe.

[#3Fan]

Reading your 370, I can't believe what I've actually been arguing against for this many thread pages. Thank you for finally making it clear.

Logic is your greatest enemy, isn't it.

[#3Fan]

I've been considering this thread as a light-hearted diversion, but this afternoon suddenly #3Fan shows me that I've nevertheless been taking it far too seriously.

Explain.

[VadeRetro]

Good point, really. Yiddish is in the German family, which is a historical example of a crossing of family lines.

But it's an outgrowth of basically immigrant German. And it took centuries of partial assimilation which was not permitted to go to completion because of mutual religious horror.

The formation of Yiddish required a dominant culture, a permanent standing subculture, and a lot of time.

[#3Fan]

London too?

Maybe. There's too many to be a coincidence but you can't say which are and which aren't.

[BMCDA]

The euro and the dollar rule the currencies and the American and British navies rule the seas.

The UK hasn't adopted the Euro, mister.

[BMCDA]

And how does this prove that the Germans are Assyrians?

[Little Bill]

Yiddish is in the German family...

Yiddish is Low German written in Hebrew script.

[VadeRetro]

Should have known it wasn't even original.

[#3Fan]

I don't believe he made the genetic equation (though I could be wrong, so I'll flag him here), he was saying that since Hebrew is a Semitic language, and that English (like Latin or German) is an Indo-European one, that poses problems for a Celtic theory of the Lost Tribes.

Celts, celts, celts. Who are these celts? Germans, Welsh, Israelites, Romans, Russians, white people? I don't like the term Celts because it seems to mean everybody. I'm interested in the movement of the Assyrians and the Israelites through the Caucusus and Turkey. Are they celts? I don't know. I don't even know what a celt is.

He's right, it does, though as I've tried to make clear, the problems aren't necessarily insurmountable, they simply need addressing.

And they have been addressed. The Israelites were taken captive. Captivity is not a good environment to preserve your language. Therefore the argument is senseless.

Do they read "pundits?" Wear "pajamas?"

Explain.

As are Hebrew words in modern language. If you're really interest grab a Strong's concordance and start comparing. What I'm really interested in is seeing people making claims doing the work to support their claims. When I make claims, I will do likewise.

I've made no claims concerning language. Language is an innacurate way to determine someone's genetics as we see here in America. You want examples of Hebrew words used today, I found one one in Gen 1:1, the first verse I looked at. If you really think the crux of the argument lies on language, then look yourself.

And there are a lot of Hebrew words that are with us also. Great. I'm all ears.

Look. If I found one in Gen 1:1, then you can find one. Like I said, language doesn't prove anything because even languages spoken by people who aren't taken into captivity change drastically over short periods of time. The Israelites were taken into captivity.

Understand, I believe in the contemporary existence of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. I'd be tickled to see someone conclusively sew this up, and I don't care if the answer is the Celts, the Afghans, the Kashmiris, pre-Columbian Americans, or Oompa Loomas on the dark side of the Moon.

It'll never be sewn up. It's something that has to be arrived at logically and since you're placing so much importance on finding Hebrew in modern English, then you're not thinking logically.

#1, that is a double ad hominem, and #2, while VadeRetro is an agnostic with whom I've butted heads on theological and scientific questions in the past, I am a Christian and his linguistic question here is absolutely legitimate.

You're a Christian and you can't follow the simple teachings of Genesis? It says who is who, all twelve tribes. They would be as the sands of the sea and great nations in the last days.

It is not my work, it is properly the work of those who are championing the the Celtic Lost Tribe theory.

I don't know what a celt is. I know who the Israelites are though.

If I was to make a claim that the Lost Tribes settled Easter Island, then it's up to me to support that claim. You get to sit back and ask the questions in such an instance.

But I wouldn't say that in order for you to prove the lost tribes are the Easter Islanders you have to prove that the Easter Islanders stone witches to death since the Israelites did that. You're ignoring all other evidence and are saying that since we don't speak Hebrew that we aren't Israelites. Expand your horizons and think logically. Do you really think a language can survive captivity and a 2000 year journey through foreign lands? The English of 1500 hasn't even survived in it's form of 1500. And the people haven't had anything of the sort happen to them such as the Israelites of the captivities and migrations.

This is how it is, this wheel needs no reinvention.

The language argument is dumb, languages are learned from environment, it's not inherited.

[#3Fan]

If they aren't being absorbed, if they're not subjugated, if they're in a large group, they keep their language. See, for example, the Romany Languages.

Europe was subjugated by Rome for hundreds of years. Latin prevailed as result.

[VadeRetro]

On top of all that, the Assyrians were basically ruthless and when they enslaved some group of people, tended to spread them around so that they lost their identity and did not retain the cohesion to foment rebellions. That would have the missing Israelites speaking lots of new languages and not just one, if that were the case.

More good points. The whole idea was to assimilate the conquered, not send them off on a funny new career.

[William Terrell]

Counteer-questions such as "Well then, where do you think the Ten Tribes are?" will be met with "I don't know, that's why I'm asking you to make your case."

I understand your consideration, but think for a moment.

The prophesies in Genesis, Ezekiel and Hosea are clear. One would have to labor to assign any symbolism requiring a different interpretation to them.

These prophesies demand the reality of two things: the existence of the descendents of the Northern Kingdom and there being a extremely large number of them. And it requires that they exist in those numbers today as well any other time in history.

To take the position that the prophesies are bunkum is to call into question the entire Bible and every prophesy in it, including those which have come to pass.

If one does not believe the Bible as the word of God channeled through the human beings that wrote it, then for what purpose does one even care about the topic enough to waste their time discussing it? The only reason for the importance of the ten tribes is found in God's purpose as revealed therein.

So, we have to assume belief in those prophesies. The first requirement they place on those who want to discuss the ten tribes is not whether they exist. To take the position they don't exist is to take the position the Bible is not true.

The descendents of the tribes have to exist in large numbers (stars in the sky) or again the position has to be taken that the Bible is just a long novel.

You can't get away from it. Either you believe the tribes exist in large numbers or you refute the Bible.

The only question that can be left is who they are. Since they all descended from a single partiarch, they must all look similar, as in the same people or race. Again, you can't get away from that requirement.

There are large populations of people who look alike all over the globe. One such people has to be them. Here too, you can't get away from that requirement.

You can present evidence of the movement of a people over centuries. You can discuss languages or culture continuity. But you can't eliminate the fact of the existence in large numbers, all of the same racial characteristics and other indicators, like being a blessing to the world's peoples.

Ancient history is hard to pin down. There are divergent theories, as many as there are special interests, fears or hopes. Frequently any evidence has more than one interpretation. The fact is that there can be no "proof" in the sense that you will see it and all else becomes clear. This will not exist.

What you do have are the facts I mentioned. This gives a much simpler approach to the problem. All that has to be done is finger the most likely population of similar peoples.

Approaching the problem from this angle is not a dodge, a holding position for one without any other evidence. It describes a chain of logic that bypasses all the details and cuts directly to the central question, which question being the whole point of discussing all the details.

The folks that argue on the side of the European types have presented their evidence, on this thread and on many others. Ok, fine. Those that don't like that choice should pick another people and present the evidence for them.

This suggestion is rejected. Why? Because the weight of the known evidence, even though confused and often appearing contadictory, falls on the side of the European types and little or none on the side of any other peoples. So they have to argue details, the facts of which are fuzzy from the passage of time and the interpretation thereof not, and can never be, conclusive.

If you don't accept this unique approach, show where it fails.

[VadeRetro]

Europe was subjugated by Rome for hundreds of years. Latin prevailed as result.

The Romans taught Europe Latin it may have been a conqueror's language in much of Europe but it was the native language of the Romans. Who taught the Hebrews Celtic? These people are missing from your story.

[VadeRetro]

I don't even know what a celt is.

That's a start. Next step, don't ask LostTribe!

[#3Fan]

Aw, that's pure poppycock. The name Brandenburg is derived from "Brennaburg" or "Brennabor" wich was originally a town of the Slavic tribe of the Hevelli. It was captured by the eastern Frankish king Henry I in 928.

Calm down, I said "probably". Do you know what "probably" means? Terrill's right. You people are extrememly emotional over this. Why are you so insulted to be considered Israelites? The letters DN occur too many times and in a narrow line across Europe to be a coincidence. You don't know which ones are and which ones aren't derived from Dan though. Maybe you're right but it's been my experience that place names have a lot of legends surrounding where they came from. Look at America. Some say it's from Amerigo Vespuci, some say it's other stuff, who knows about any individual name. People who write that stuff just put something down to make everyone think their smart, they didn't really know. But DN happens too often to be a coincidence.

Gosh, where do you have all this nonsense from or do you make it up yourself?

Do you believe everything you read? Do you ever think for yourself?

[VadeRetro]

The Romans taught Europe Latin it may have been a conqueror's language in much of Europe but it was the native language of the Romans.

As the Punctuation Police break down my door and haul me away ...

[#3Fan]

Not to mention Yiddish, even when members of the Two Tribes (Judah and Benjamin, + some Levites) learned second languages during two millenia of diaspora.

You don't know the circumstances of the captivities. Maybe the Assyrians were more brutal than the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar was allowed to write part of the bible, that tells me that he must've been doing God's work regarding the Israelites in a more involved way.

[#3Fan]

The UK hasn't adopted the Euro, mister.

All you're doing is calling names and saying stupid things. Why don't you go disrupt another thread.