Credibility, now you want to talk credibility, where is yours.
Let's be honest here, Have you read the Bible, know those places where "man" has been allowed to twist a little here and there, change words. I think not else you would not be so desperate to change the subject.
"What is going far beyond obvious research"? Who did you get to do your research? Who is in charge of deciding who is scholarly and not? Based upon what?
"Agenda" that word has an implication, so give your own agenda, what is your motivation?
Let's be clear here what exactly I have said.
First off I responded to the article "Genetic evidence links Jews ancient tribe", dumped at the end was a tiny little tid bit about the "ten tribes".
Now, without the body of Jacob/Israel there is no proof that can be legally claimed by "ANYBODY", I don't care what they call themselves today, to say that they are from the tribes of Jacob/Israel.
However, because of what was promised good and bad, one can follow the footsteps.
I was asked to give some sources. Now obviously, being unaware of the "agenda", by many here stupid me listed some books that described what others have written.
Obviously, you did not read what I said before the list and after the list that if the books went against what is WRITTEN, the Word is correct.
The whole point of what happened to those "ten tribes", is the very fact it is written that THEY would have removed from their remembrance WHO they were.
Obviously you have not read who will give their memory back, and it is not going to be man.
You have not discredited anything but yourself, by jumping in the middle of a discussion without anymore proof to the subject matter than anyone else.
Many use the Bible itself to make their own way, do you discredit it and its scholars, who educated them.
Considering that the children were to be as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea, you really think all will fit in that tiny piece of real estate. Spend some time in the Book of Ezekiel.
Again it is Written those "Ten Tribes" were sent into captivity by the Assrian King, they would be scattered to the four corners, would be a great nation, and yet they would not know who they are. Now you figure that out.
Who did you get to do your research? Who is in charge of deciding who is scholarly and not? Based upon what?
There is something known as consensus, and it's determined by a number of factors, among them peer review and established reputations. While there is certainly an element of subjectivity at work, when you have a theory that doesn't have a lot of support, you must either conclude that the theory doesn't pass mucter, or that everyone else is wrong. While the latter is sometimes true, it isn't true very often.
First off I responded to the article "Genetic evidence links Jews ancient tribe", dumped at the end was a tiny little tid bit about the "ten tribes".
Right, that would be this post...
To: Asher
The Ten Tribes, (House of Israel) were taken by the Assrian King, North over the Caucasus Mountains, later into Europe.
That is where the word Caucasian came from.
The House of Judah (two tribes) went into captivity to Babylon.
The two Houses have not been rejoined.
There is no proof or basis to claim that the Kurdish Jews are the Ten Tribes.
6 posted on 04/11/2003 5:51 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
At which point, you were asked for linguistic or genetic evidence. You respond misunderstandings about how genetics works. Like...
Now, without the body of Jacob/Israel there is no proof that can be legally claimed by "ANYBODY", I don't care what they call themselves today, to say that they are from the tribes of Jacob/Israel.
This is all untrue.You don't need the body of Jacob to establish genetic relationships, just as you don't need DNA from your parents to establish a genetic relationship between you and your parents. Your premise is false, and is of no use in supporting your subsequent conclusions.
I was asked to give some sources. Now obviously, being unaware of the "agenda", by many here stupid me listed some books that described what others have written. Obviously, you did not read what I said before the list and after the list that if the books went against what is WRITTEN, the Word is correct.
Why do the sources you list show up on so many anti-Semitic websites?
Where did you get that list?
Have you read the titles you listed?
Why did you list Bullinger, who doesn't show up on the hate sites and says not one word about the Lost Tribes of European Caucasians?
Again it is Written those "Ten Tribes" were sent into captivity by the Assrian King, they would be scattered to the four corners, would be a great nation, and yet they would not know who they are. Now you figure that out.
Are we to understand that anyone not realizing they are descended from the Ten Tribes, actually is? If not, then there is no point to this comment. If so, then everyone on Earth except the Jews is descended from the Lost Tribes.
Many use the Bible itself to make their own way, do you discredit it and its scholars, who educated them.
One at a time. You've been promoting a theory for the fate of the Ten Lost Tribes that is unsupported by the Bible. Your subsequent sources are either not pertinent (like Bullinger) at best, or questionable screeds of dubious scholarship from a handful of people of rather uncertain credibility.
While you may not have been aware of this before you posted on this thread, that is now no longer true. One of the risks, and benefits, of an internet forum like Free Republic is that we have the opportunity to test our arguments and learn their weaknesses.
I engaged you in this conversation because I'd seen others take your position in the past, and was curious to see if you were going to cite the same uncompelling sources. You did.
Now, you either need to change your position or find new sources to support it.
Credibility, now you want to talk credibility, where is yours. My credibility is in better shape than your sources. My research can be replicated and confirmed. Theirs cannot.
Have you read the Bible, know those places where "man" has been allowed to twist a little here and there, change words.
Yes I have read the Bible, from cover to cover, several times, several versions. Which version do you think is the right version? Is it in English? Do you think that maybe the Old Testament in Hebrew might be a little more accurate than an English translation? How about the original New Testament in Aramaic and Greek? Might there be more information to be found in the original language versions than in a modern English translation? ALS and I have gone around this tree before as well... and I demonstrated far more knowledge than he on original words and usages.
I think not else you would not be so desperate to change the subject.
Who is trying to change the subject. I have not challenged the Bible in even one tittle or iota. I have challenged the proponents of a theory that has very little evidence to produce the evidence. You produced a list of books and authors as "evidence" and I proceded to impeach that list and demonstrate that they could not be given any credence.
"What is going far beyond obvious research"?
The initial searches using multiple search engines resulted in links to primarily neo-nazi, white-supremacy, and Christian Identity sites. On the chance that this was a fluke, I also visited mainstream book sellers, antiquarian book sellers, historical sites for the subject matter, and searched for other hints found in the blurbs I found for the cited books. In almost every case I did NOT find these books being sold by anyone other than the ones found on the original searches. I searched by the authors name, the book titles, publishers, subject matter and various permutations of each... trying to eliminate any possible omission.
Who did you get to do your research?
I do my own research. Why should I get someone else to do it for me? I prefer to check the facts from original sources. It is sometimes surprising how some "facts" don't check out. I especially go after "facts" that are contrary to what I have learned and read in over 50 years of life. I want to know if there is something new that can be supported. In this instance, when I went looking, there was no "there" there... except at site who's owners were likely to be people who have a racist agenda.
Who is in charge of deciding who is scholarly and not? Based upon what?
There are accepted standards of scholarly research and discussion. Primarily the evidence must be SOURCED and, if from original research, REPRODUCEABLE. The sources must come from credible researchers and scholars. The original data must be available for examination. Facts must be checkable. Cited sources must be authoritative and usually peer-reviewed.
"Agenda" that word has an implication, so give your own agenda, what is your motivation?
My agenda is the truth... This subject has been many times raised and presented as factual... despite numerous debunkings. Each time, the proponents have FAILED to provide any evidence other than a list of books by these same discredited and amatuerish psuedo-scholars. My agenda is to discredit the bunkum artists that have been pushing this psuedo-history which has its provenance in the revisionism of the accepted history of Europe.You have not discredited anything but yourself, by jumping in the middle of a discussion without anymore proof to the subject matter than anyone else.
Pardon me, but I provided proof of the lack of credibility of your sources. That is far more proof than they can offer. Can you tell me why your source E. Raymond Capt claims a degree from a college that never existed where he said it was, an honor from a non-existant "Accademia" (sic), and a teaching credential for a subject not recognized by the credentialling agency? If he cannot prove himself a bonefide scholar, why should ANY of us believe a word he says? Dishonest in one thing, unbelievable in all. All I am asking for is honest evidence for your premise.