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.
I have no big problem with any of this.
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.
Where have I said anything about Biblical prophecy being bunkum?
On the contrary, I've repeatedly stated that I believe in the prophetically significant and contemporaneous existence of the Lost Tribes, starting at #327 on this thread, to which you were replying...
"I think the restoration of Israel is a prophecy in the midst of fulfillment. I believe the Ten Lost Tribes exist somewhere, or perhaps many somewheres, and that they have a role in that fulfillment. "
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.
I don't know why you're off in these weeds. I believe the Bible. One of most powerful witnesses to it's veracity is the archaeological record with regard to the History of civilization. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made which corroborate the Bible to an astounding degree not true of any other book.
Wherever the Ten Lost Tribes are to be found, I'm confident the evidence for their existence, archaeological and otherwise, will likewise confirm and complement what we know of them from scripture.
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.
By what date did God promise Abraham that his descendents would be as countless as the stars in the sky? Even if you counted every human born in the last 4,000 years, we'd still fall short of the stars in the sky.
The key to this prophecy, I believe, comes through Paul when he declares that both the Jews and the Christian Gentiles are of the seed of Abraham. Obviously, the Hebrew Ten Tribes would be included as well. I don't think you have the appropriate context for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is still in the future.
The only question that can be left is who they are. Since they all descended from a single partriarch, they must all look similar, as in the same people or race. Again, you can't get away from that requirement.
Do Paul Newman and Jerry Seinfeld look like Falashas?
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.
No, on this thread they've avoided the ramifications of their theory. One doesn't need a contending theory to point that out.
For myself, I'm still willing to look at any evidence or explanation which addresses the linguistic questions arising from a Celtic theory for the Lost Tribes.
This suggestion is rejected. Why? Because the weight of the known evidence, even though confused and often appearing contradictory, 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.
Why do we need a unique approach, when the accepted approach is more than adequate? That is, one makes a claim and presents evidence, and then entertains questions on that evidence.
I've run across Lost Tribe theories for Afghanistan and the Kashmir. I don't know if they're right, I'd pose similar questions to anyone putting them forth. I've even seen extensive writings about the Japanese being a Lost Tribe. I have no hard and fast conclusion, I'm still interested in learning more.
However, I'm not compelled by the conclusion is that "the weight of the known evidence, even though confused and often appearing contradictory, falls on the side of the European types" is simply an attempt to institute one theory as the default position and shirk the burden of proof by ignoring legitimately questions and ask others to find a better candidate.
The default position to unanswered questions for which there is spotty evidence is always "We don't know."
Where have I said anything about Biblical prophecy being bunkum? You didn't. I was just laying out the parameters of my point. Sorry you misunderstood, or that I was unclear.
I don't know why you're off in these weeds. I believe the Bible. One of most powerful witnesses to it's veracity is the archaeological record with regard to the History of civilization. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made which corroborate the Bible to an astounding degree not true of any other book.
Again, I was laying parameters around the point I'm trying to make. I didn't accuse you personally of anything.
Wherever the Ten Lost Tribes are to be found, I'm confident the evidence for their existence, archaeological and otherwise, will likewise confirm and complement what we know of them from scripture.
I'm sure of that, too. But the current state of those disciplines that study the ancient world are of different camps with differing opinions of the same remnants and fragments uncovered.
Since the question involves the ID of LT descendents, and the remains of the ancient world are relative sparse and often contradictory, that question can be served better by approaching it from another angle.
By what date did God promise Abraham that his descendents would be as countless as the stars in the sky? Even if you counted every human born in the last 4,000 years, we'd still fall short of the stars in the sky.
I don't think the verse meant literly "stars in the sky". If it did, there would be no time when it could come to pass. In order for the descendents to be so numerous at any time now or in the future, they would have had to be numerous at any time in the past.
They can't be the remnants of the Southern Kingdom (Jews) because the verse refers to Israel and Judah separately. If you refer to possibly some holocaust in the future that will leave remains of various groups on the Earth, one group being more numerous than the other, then it could hardly be said that the whole human race would be "like the stars in the sky".
The key to this prophecy, I believe, comes through Paul when he declares that both the Jews and the Christian Gentiles are of the seed of Abraham. Obviously, the Hebrew Ten Tribes would be included as well. I don't think you have the appropriate context for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is still in the future.
But how far in the future? Any people that would qualify then will qualify now. I wasn't talking about Paul. Genesis (God's promise to Abraham), the "sticks" of Ezekiel and Hosea 1:10, 11 predate Paul by some centuries.
Do Paul Newman and Jerry Seinfeld look like Falashas?
How many Jews look like Falashas and how many look like Paul or Jerry. Perhaps Falashas were converts, like the old Khazars?
No, on this thread they've avoided the ramifications of their theory. One doesn't need a contending theory to point that out.
In what way avoided? The evidence is well laid out. I don't quite see the use of "ramification" here. You'll need to explain more.
For myself, I'm still willing to look at any evidence or explanation which addresses the linguistic questions arising from a Celtic theory for the Lost Tribes.
Why only the mouse of the linguistic? Why not the 500 lb gorilla of three separate prophesies found in a book you say you believe? If that book is to be believed, as you do, why not just start with the presumption that the LT exists in large numbers and pick a people? I'm sorry, trying to drown oneself in details that can not be resoved seems like avoidance to me.
Anyway there are a number of pages in E Raymond Capt's book to detail the presence of Hebrew words in European languages. I'd link, but it a printed book not on the web.
Why do we need a unique approach, when the accepted approach is more than adequate? That is, one makes a claim and presents evidence, and then entertains questions on that evidence.
Because the accepted approach is founded on one's personal interpretation of remnants uncovered from an ancient world, and does not even take into account the writings found, when they could be translated. Artifacts are dug up, examined and guesses made.
My guess is as good as your guess, and both can be relagated to the guess graveyard, as many have, when new artifacts are uncovered or new discoveries are made. Then more guesses.
The only issue I'm interested in is 1) Do the descendents of the LT exist, 2) who are they? Neither is served by evaluating guesses, as proved by the inconclusive arguments on this thread and many others.
I've run across Lost Tribe theories for Afghanistan and the Kashmir. I don't know if they're right, I'd pose similar questions to anyone putting them forth. I've even seen extensive writings about the Japanese being a Lost Tribe. I have no hard and fast conclusion, I'm still interested in learning more.
The numbers for Afganistan, Kasmir and Japanese are not there. Even taken together, and ignoring the racial differences, the numbers are not there.
However, I'm not compelled by the conclusion is that "the weight of the known evidence, even though confused and often appearing contradictory, falls on the side of the European types" is simply an attempt to institute one theory as the default position and shirk the burden of proof by ignoring legitimately questions and ask others to find a better candidate.
If you examine other threads on which this has been discussed, I and others have followed your standard procedure. The results are inconclusive. There will never be conclusive proof of what happened thousands of years ago. There can only be conflicts over the interpretation of miniscule remains.
Just the simple fact that the descendents of Israel must look like the Jews, also of the tribes of Israel throws the evidence into the European camp. That and nothing further.
If you believe in Biblical prophesy, much work and controversy are taken care of for you. If you don't believe it, what's the point?
The default position to unanswered questions for which there is spotty evidence is always "We don't know."
Without Biblical prophesies, racial and numerical evidence, "We don't know" is valid. But, unfortunately, such does exist changing it to "We strongly suspect, but aren't absolutely sure."
"
The key to this prophecy, I believe, comes through Paul when he declares that both the Jews and the Christian Gentiles are of the seed of Abraham. Obviously, the Hebrew Ten Tribes would be included as well. I don't think you have the appropriate context for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is still in the future. I wish I had the time to invest in this thread. Single statements from it could (and should) spawn their own threads. Just who exactly are these Gentiles that Paul speaks of? If you study the context from the book of Romans from which your statement is taken (I'm assuming), you see an interesting thing- Paul quotes from the prophesy of Hosea (and specifically names the source- like maybe we should study it):
Rom 9:7-8
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Rom 9:21-26
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Now go to the source of Paul's statement in the book of Hosea. But first it is very important to place Hosea in historical context. He prophesied at the time that Israel was divided into 2 kingdoms- the northerm kingdom of "Israel" or "house of Israel" (aka the ten tribes) and the southern kingdom of "Judah" or "house of Judah". He specifically prophesied the destruction or dispersion of the northern kingdom of Israel, and their subsequent restoration. You can study the first chapter of Hosea yourself (the names of the children are also important- a lot of word play).
Hosea 1:3-11
3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.
6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
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.
Now why would Paul (guided by the Holy Spirit) use this prophesy of the restoration of the house of Israel to apply to gentiles? I don't believe that he is taking the prophesy out of context either- he even goes so far as to give us the source.
Isa 9:8
8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.
What does this prophecy mean? Who accepted Christ's message and became the Christian nations of the world? Just to throw out one more thing, look at the names of Joseph's children in Genesis: Ephraim and Manasseh. They were to recieve the birthright blessing of the firstborn (ch.48), and their names were synonymous (especially Ephraim) with the northern kingdom:
Ephraim- double fruit (Gen. 41:52)
Manasseh- causing to forget (Gen 41:51)
All these things have prophetic meaning and either: were fulfilled in the past, are fulfilled now, or will be fulfilled in the future. It's my personal opinion that we're running out of time.
"I don't think you have the appropriate context for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is still in the future."
The "full" fulfillment will not be achieved until we reach the time of Hosea 1:11 (still waiting for the children of Judah and Israel to be gathered together, and the "one head" to be recognized by both).