Replies

You claim that the Assyrian records somehow--but how?--make my linguistic objections in 281 go away. Just a non-sequitur. The Egyptians, the Hebrews, and the Assyrians were all Semitic. Where and when did all these people learn or invent an Indoeuropean language? What are you even saying? I've asked it twenty times on this thread and I get shamming and mumbling.

You're bizzarely and blindly plowing ahead, ignoring the hundreds of years of non-cult scholarship. You've already explained what's going on. It's a cult thang, we wouldn't understand. There's not much more to it than that. Why pretend?

You've invoked the right to ignore all inconvenient differences, which covers basically all the evidence that there is. Most scholarship--I can Google^TM, you can Google^TM--thinks the Celts had a distinct culture parallel and not subsequent to the Hebrews. They think they can tell from the archaeological record in a given spot when it replaced pre-existing culture. Most of those replacements are too early for your story, to the extent that you have a story. That material is there for anybody. I'm not going to dump a bunch of it on this thread because you've already reserved the right to wave away evidence of such nature in advance.

You have failed to tell a coherent story of how the Semitic Hebrews are supposed to have become the seemingly-already-dispersed-in-Europe Indoeurpean Celts. I have tried to prompt you to address some of the deficiencies of your account, but you seem to think the ball is in my court.

All I'm pointing out is that what you're scoffing away is everything we know. Nothing in your few data points of record justify the wild tale you're telling. You've extrapolated all of it. You attempt to bludgeon with your ability to misunderstand or instantly forget everything that has been learend outside of your special cult insights.

That's the formula for preaching to the choir. You'll never reach a single non-believer by pretending to be puzzled at why your performance is unconvincing.

Lately I have been lurking at the DU site and I guarantee I have seen nothing in terms of the scholarly and intelligent discourse of the type underway in this thread. What is really cool is that this is the norm for FR!

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread -- Reading all 300+ posts has been tough going bit intellectually rewarding!

I keep waiting for you to ANSWER WilliamTerills simple questions. He asks:

1) What people would you pick for the descendents of the Northern Kingdom?

2) do you believe, this to say, accept as gospel, the prophesies of God in the Old Testament have come to pass and will continue to come to pass?

3) ........................I'm reminded of Hosea 1:10,11:

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

...and add my question:

Do you always only TALK TALK TALK but never listen??? I'll bet you are hell of a lot of fun to be around.

You claim that the Assyrian records somehow--but how?--make my linguistic objections in 281 go away. . . What are you even saying? I've asked it twenty times on this thread and I get shamming and mumbling.

No, I said that Capt's research provides 12 pages of evidence that shows that Hebrew influenced European languages. I'm sorry I can't link to it because it is printed material not on the net. Did you read it? If not, then why do you continue this screed?

Most of those replacements are too early for your story, to the extent that you have a story. That material is there for anybody. I'm not going to dump a bunch of it on this thread because you've already reserved the right to wave away evidence of such nature in advance.

I've given you references with evidence that many of the the tribe of Dan and others left Egypt in ships about the time you're talking about and settled in Europe. It's interesting to note that there are many names in the area that include "dan". The evidence is as valid as any evidence from the ancient world. You just like your evidence and don't like mine.

You have failed to tell a coherent story of how the Semitic Hebrews are supposed to have become the seemingly-already-dispersed-in-Europe Indoeurpean Celts. I have tried to prompt you to address some of the deficiencies of your account, but you seem to think the ball is in my court.

My response above includes the allegation. I refered you to a book in print not on the web. You don't want to read it, you want me to retype it here. Good luck. There is no "coherent" story of much that happened in the ancient world. There is only evidence. You make you interpretations using your evidence and I'll make mine.

All I'm pointing out is that what you're scoffing away is everything we know.

No, I'm scoffing away many theories that are thought to be true. And, as I have mentioned before, none of the theories you read take into account recent finds. So, we don't "know" what we "know". My theories include recent evidence. Why aren't you willig to read it? It won't take long.

You'll never reach a single non-believer by pretending to be puzzled at why your performance is unconvincing.

Why in the world would I care to reach athiests about the lost tribes? To an athiest, or a buddahist, what matter half the globe is covered with descendents thereof? You apparently aren't up on archeology or anthropology, so you don't have a consuming interest in either.

It's obvious you have only referenced the material you quote during this discussion on this thread. You may have argued it on other threads, but I don't have any evidence of it. Being an atheist, or "unbeliever", why do you care? The importance of the lost tribes would only concern one who believes God's word and prophesies.

Or are you claiming the status fo "unbeliever" to avoid entering the discussion from the other angle, to which you have not defense, the angle of prophesy?