Replies

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.

With all your words, research, you still cannot disprove or prove where those tribes ended up and where they are today.

You have not explained the promises given to the tribes by name. More than the promises given are the prophets own words that tells the story of their footsteps. But again it is Written the memory of whom they are was to be removed.

You say truth, yet you look to the mainstream to gain credibility, the majority has never been right and they certainly are not today.

The version of the Bible I use is the King James, thereby I can use a Strongs Concordance and look up for my self meanings words have. Some words do not belong where they got placed. Translations used are not always what they should be either.

So you read Hebrew, the "original" with the Massorah included that locks in the scripture. You have not explained Christ's own words to the twelve, nor have you explained where those apostles went.

So what sources do you have to give credibility to what you claim to know? What is your source that the Written Word is credible?

You have indeed challenged the Bible without ever quoting a scripture. Peer-reviewed, if that is what you rely upon then you have not read that most do not believe. Some are sent strong delusions so they would believe a lie.

Again you missed in my listing of books on the subject of where the "ten tribes" went and were, that if they conflicted with the Word then the Word was correct. So you can hardly claim that these are my souces, I was asked to list some sources.

What I did not understand was the "agenda" of some to disprove, not prove anything, and oh so quickly you were summoned to give what apparently you and others consider "wise" counsel. You haven't even quoted a scripture yet.

So since you are such a learned scribe do tell where those tribes went and give "credible" sources that our Heavenly Father would approve, for his approval is what I seek.