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.
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.
He's right, it does, though as I've tried to make clear, the problems aren't necessarily insurmountable, they simply need addressing.
My Indian friends don't speak Indian.
Do they read "pundits?" Wear "pajamas?"
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.
And there are a lot of Hebrew words that are with us also.
Great. I'm all ears.
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.
This argument is dumb and a diversion started by an atheist.
#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.
Look, look, look and you'll will find. I'm not doing your work for you.
It is not my work, it is properly the work of those who are championing the the Celtic Lost Tribe theory.
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.
This is how it is, this wheel needs no reinvention.
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.