Replies

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.

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.