Viewing this "debate" it seems clear the disagreement is really between holders to the old and traditional history of the Celtic peoples as found in glossy and generally poorly researched books and TV specials, and in many traditional English language texts as well, and those who recognize that very much has been learned since the first of those cross-plagarized texts was written.
It is hard at this time to prove who is correct, but with all the factual smoke and cinders coming from the numerous new archeological finds there is a mighty big historical fire burning just over the hill, and it seems to be getting larger and is headed this way.
What confuses this FR thread is there is a strong taint of Anti-Biblical narcissism exhibited in the traditional argument, suggesting the proponent of the old and mouldy may have spent too much time hidden in the backwoods with old Life and Look magazines, and not enough time in the field. In addition, the varied special interests who are tied to keeping the so-called Lost Tribes lost forever are clearly in full panic at the thought these Israelites might be discovered, and their population may not be very small at all.
Here you basically punt on the evidence and say that your theory is true because Biblical prophecy is true. Why, yes. You haven't gotten that until now? Either you believe the Bible as a Holy work and the prophesies therein true and will come to pass, or you don't. If you don't believe the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, I'm at a loss to explain why you even care enough to have this conversation. Or you just believe some of the Bible but not all of it?
If you don't believe the prophesise of God are to be fulfilled why waste your time? Please tell me you're not fooling me and trying to waste mine.
