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

China Post ^ | 11-26-2002

[#3Fan]

And how does this prove that the Germans are Assyrians?

If you don't want to believe recorded history then don't. Pliny had no reason to lie.

[#3Fan]

I don't think there's much we'd agree on but this one appears that way. The claim that a bunch of semites hiked through Europe and, in the process, got taken into slavery, subjugated and totally changed their language, and then somehow or other emerged in large numbers and militarily strong enough to take over England is kind of hard to swallow.

They were taken into captivity before the hike across Europe. Ask the Romans what these people were like. Does the sacking of Rome ring a bell?

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.

Thanks for making my point.

That would have the missing Israelites speaking lots of new languages and not just one, if that were the case.

The Assyrians had a big problem with the Babylonians.

[Elisha]

Peleg = Earthquake

[Mare Tranquilitatus]

A Catholic debunking of this whole Lost-Tribe tripe.

Like so many "Catholic positions" this one is a farce and a fraud. It uses 3 paragraphs for a simple presentation of elementery ancient history concluding with the Lost Tribes being assimilated, of course. Then it goes on for another 20 paragraphs bashing British Israelism in general and a Herbert W. Armstrong in general. A classic case of bait and switch! No one on this thread brought up British Israelism until this post, but that was the Catholic churchs sneaky agenda all along.

I think the Catholic church, the Protestant church, and the Jewish churches all have a lot to lose if the real Lost Tribes are discovered to be Biblically alive and identifyable as it describes them. As joint champions of the status-quo including the flat earth and centre of the universe, they are certainly not to trusted with this sort of history. This post and link demonstrate again that they are not the solution, but a goodly part of the problem.

[#3Fan]

More good points.

More good points? LOL You've been saying all along that Hebrew would've been preserved and then nanrod said Hebrew would not have been preserved in captivity and you say "good point"? You can't remember what you're saying.

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

So you think it was some kind of desegregated busing? LOL Put an Israelite house between two Assyrian houses? You're funny.

[#3Fan]

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.

Tell me who these "celts" are. You guys are calling everyone celts. I'm interested in the Assyrians and Israelites.

[Mare Tranquilitatus]

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.

I think you are correct about a lot of places being named after Dan. He did leave quite a trail of place names, but I don't know about Brandenburg. There are too many other solid names like the several rivers leaving the Black Sea starting with or sounding like Dan to try and make that stretch.

[#3Fan]

Peleg = Earthquake

Earthquake and the earth was divided. Looks like something big happened and it wasn't the flood. hmmmm.

[Mare Tranquilitatus]

Maybe the Assyrians were more brutal than the Babylonians.

Brutality was a way of the times. Look at the Roman brutality in the arenas feeding Christians alive to the animals. And Roman historians have the audacity to accuse the Celtic invaders of being "barbarians"? I suspect most of the references calling one nation or another "brutal" is all in the eye of the author.

[#3Fan]

I think you are correct about a lot of places being named after Dan. He did leave quite a trail of place names, but I don't know about Brandenburg. There are too many other solid names like the several rivers leaving the Black Sea starting with or sounding like Dan to try and make that stretch.

The longer names may have been phrases. Like maybe "river Dan crossed" may have become Riodaneber to use as a funny example using a couple of different languages and throwing the DN in there. There's too many to be a coincidence after Eastern Europe. I believe that's what happened. Plus at first notice there wasn't a vowel in the names such as Dneiper, etc., but as the languages modernized, more vowels were used to where the names sound modern as they went west. Makes sense to me, if anyone doesn't want to believe, then they won't.

[Mare Tranquilitatus]

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

No, I don't think so. The whole idea was to place the Northern Israelite Kingdom INTACT on the Assyrian borders between the Medes and the Persians. This was so they would act as a buffer state between them and allow the Assyrians to deploy their troops in "productive warfare" rather than domestic peackeeping.

Later on, when Assyria moved too many troops to the west in order to conquer Egypt, the Israelites joined with the Medes and Persians and attacked Assyria, and their whole empire fell apart.

[#3Fan]

Brutality was a way of the times. Look at the Roman brutality in the arenas feeding Christians alive to the animals. And Roman historians have the audacity to accuse the Celtic invaders of being "barbarians"? I suspect most of the references calling one nation or another "brutal" is all in the eye of the author.

God told the Judeaens to go into captivity with the Babylonians and they would be OK, he didn't promise the same with the Northern Tribes. I believe there was a difference in the level of brutality.

[Elisha]

My Hebrew dictionary says that Peleg means earthquake.

[Mare Tranquilitatus]

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.

Actually, if you look in ANY decent book on The Celts you will find those same germanic tribes and many more smaller tribes identified as Celts. That's really pretty basic Celtic History.

[VadeRetro]

Tell me who these "celts" are.

The people the Hebrews got the "new" language from. In your version of events they have "new" language which isn't Assyrian. (And neither is German Assyrian, by the way.)

Taken out of their old homeland, a people will either of necessity adopt a new language from a dominant, pre-existing culture or else their language will stay recognizeably in the same linguistic family. They won't make up a new language in an existing-but-different linguistic family. What is the origin of the Celtic language family?

[Mare Tranquilitatus]

God told the Judeaens to go into captivity with the Babylonians and they would be OK, he didn't promise the same with the Northern Tribes. I believe there was a difference in the level of brutality.

That's true. You have a good point there.

[BMCDA]

Hey, I am calm. Although I have the impression that "probably" is quite an overstatement in this case. The letters DN didn't even occur in the original name. I think you see patterns where there are none.
And no, I don't have a problem with the idea that one of my ancestors might have been Israelites, Assyrians or whatsoever but it rather seems to be that you might not like the fact that you're not a descendant of these ominous Lost Tribes.

Do you believe everything you read?

No, do you?

Do you ever think for yourself?

Aye.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, if you look in ANY decent book on The Celts you will find those same germanic tribes and many more smaller tribes identified as Celts. That's really pretty basic Celtic History.

Absolutely not. Celtic = Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Breton, etc.

Germanic = German, Danish, Gothic, Vandal, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, etc.

Two distinct subfamilies of Indoeuropean and two distinct historical cultures are represented here.

[BMCDA]

Woah!! Just found some websites on the net which espouse these views (here is one of them). Quite weird if you ask me (and they most certainly owe me a new keyboard; heck, the mouse also got drenched in coffee)

[Sabertooth]

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.

Fine. Skip the Celts and go straight to the diffusion of the Ten Lost Tribes, as well as the Assyrians though Europe after the 8th Century B.C.

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.

No, you apparently don't understand what happens when two large populations of people interact, assimilate together, or one to another. Even if one language dominates, relic words are preserved. This is one of the ways in which languages develop.

If one language doesn't have a word that suddenly becomes useful, say for a new food, like sushi, or a new concept, like the number zero, then the existing word will be used even if it comes from non-related language.

Explain.

The words "pundit" and "pajamas" came into the English language via the British occupation of India. They are now ubiquitous, and I'll bet your English-only Indian friends use them.

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.

I didn't say that I thought that language was the crux of the argument, it is simply a matter that has to be addressed.

Large populations of people leave evidence of their existence and identity in their wake. They can do this through buildings, weapons, crafts, writings, etc. Another way they leave evidence is through language, particularly if the claim is made that living descendents of these peoples have been identified. This is very, very common.

The absence of any single one of these generally expected types of evidence doesn't necessarily disprove that a people existed, but such absences need to be addressed and reasonably explained.

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.

Quite the contrary. It's logical to expect relic words of such a large, Semitic-speaking population as the Lost Tribes to persist in the populations in which they assimilated, or that the language of their modern descendents would bear a close linguistic relationship.

This line of inquiry is nothing but logical.

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.

Where in Genesis, or any other part of the Bible, does it say that the Lost Tribes are specifically identified as the Celts, or any other particular people?

I've said several times, including in the passage which you excerpted, that I believe in the contemporary existence of the Lost Tribes. I'm more than willing to consider your hypothesis, if only you'd deal with the logical ramifications of it.

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

Based on what, exactly?

What is the source of your belief that Britain and America are the Lost Tribes?

You're ignoring all other evidence and are saying that since we don't speak Hebrew that we aren't Israelites.

Not at all. I've said I'm reserving judgement until I see proponents address the matter directly.

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.

Languages don't survive. Relic words do.

Look at any decent dictionary, and you'll see what I mean. All of those parenthetical notations about Middle English, Old French, Latin, Greek, etc. mark the linguistic paths back to those relic words and the languages from whence they came. It's through the comparative analysis of relic words that we have the understanding we do of the various linguistic families. There is a fair body of scholarship in this regard. Perhaps it's all wrong, but it will take quite a comprehensive dissertation to demonstrate that.

Here's the language problem in a nutshell: either the Semitic-speaking Lost Tribes evolved a number of languages which have been mistakenly attributed to the Indo-European group, or they learned some number of Indo-European languages from others.

If it's the former, significant portions of linguistic understanding are wrong. Compelling evidence is required to demonstrate this.

The latter possibility is far less problematic, particularly if Semitic relic words can be found in the languages of those peoples you claim are the Ten Tribes. That bar isn't so high, and finding such words only bolsters your argument.

Failing that, even the possibility that the Semitic relic words do not exist in the modern languages isn't necessarily fatal. But it would be highly unusual, and would need to be addressed, just as the absence of living quarters, pottery or spearpoints would need to be addressed if they were missing.