Ephraim and Manasseh - Do you think they are England and America?

[Simmy]

Ephraim and Manasseh - Do you think they are England and America?

[Takeda Shingen]

Um.

[Oberon]

Well, Ephraim and Manasseh supposedly merged to form the House of Joseph, and I don't see America and England merging any time soon...unless of course America buys England, which is entirely possible... :O:

So...well...no, I don't really see the comparisons.

[MH]

Ephraim and Manasseh - Do you think they are England and America?

Menashe is in India , some say in Manipur.

Efraim not sure.

...but what?:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, Ephraim and Manasseh supposedly merged to form the House of Joseph, and I don't see America and England merging any time soon...unless of course America buys England, which is entirely possible... :O:

So...well...no, I don't really see the comparisons.

But are America and England The Fox and the Hound? :hmmm:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pvU_jH2cJuk/T6STadkEp6I/AAAAAAAAAFA/0f8DyvRfNIM/s1600/Fox&Hound.jpeg

[Oberon]

But are America and England The Fox and the Hound? :hmmm:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pvU_jH2cJuk/T6STadkEp6I/AAAAAAAAAFA/0f8DyvRfNIM/s1600/Fox&Hound.jpeg

Possible, although I think there's more of a father/son relationship to work out...perhaps:

http://cinemagogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/darth-vader-luke.jpg

Just think, Luke (America) meets Obi-wan (France) to help him fight Vader (UK), Vader defeats Obi-Wan (Napoleonic wars) but is unable to defeat Skywalker, despite wounding him badly (War of Independence, war of 1812), however eventually Vader and Luke team up to destroy Palpatine (Germany).

[geetrue]

They were the two sons of Joseph born to him in Egypt.
Ephraim was to become a "common Wealth of nations" and Manasseh was to be "the Great nation".

It's a very interesting subject (problem) because the Jews never fulfilled either of these prophecies .

In fact the first time the word "Jew" is used in the Bible, the Jews are at war with Israel. IIKings 16:6 KJV.
In the NKJV it says "the men of Judah". Jew was a nickname which meant Men or people of Judah.

I just find it fascinating at the least.

The youngest son of Joseph was Ephraim, which means twice the blessing, and the oldest was Manasseh.

When Jacob (later to be named Israel) went to place his hands on their heads to bless them (as was the custom in those days to pass on a blessing) Joseph had to change his fathers hands to make Ephraim (the youngest) more blessed than his older brother Manasseh.

Jacob himself had been the younger of two twins with his brother Esau being the first born and in turn of course jacob had been more blessed than Esau by tricking his faher Issac into blessing him by pretending to be his older brother Esau.

To answer your question, "No I don't think so"

seeing's how England is older than America, but still a good thought.

I've been wondering who gog and magog are myself due to will it be in our life time?

[Takeda Shingen]

Possible, although I think there's more of a father/son relationship to work out...perhaps:

http://cinemagogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/darth-vader-luke.jpg

Just think, Luke (America) meets Obi-wan (France) to help him fight Vader (UK), Vader defeats Obi-Wan (Napoleonic wars) but is unable to defeat Skywalker, despite wounding him badly (War of Independence, war of 1812), however eventually Vader and Luke team up to destroy Palpatine (Germany).


http://tromoticons.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mother-of-god.jpg?w=305

[Betonov]

Just think, Luke (America) meets Obi-wan (France) to help him fight Vader (UK), Vader defeats Obi-Wan (Napoleonic wars) but is unable to defeat Skywalker, despite wounding him badly (War of Independence, war of 1812), however eventually Vader and Luke team up to destroy Palpatine (Germany).


:hmmm:

This makes so much sense it actually bothers me :D

[Sailor Steve]

In fact the first time the word "Jew" is used in the Bible, the Jews are at war with Israel. IIKings 16:6 KJV.
In the NKJV it says "the men of Judah". Jew was a nickname which meant Men or people of Judah.

I just find it fascinating at the least.
In fact, the tribe of Judah was the largest of the tribes. They were all one under Saul, David and Solomon. when Solomon's son turned out to be a tyrant his leading general rebelled. The northern tribes followed, and the separate Kingdoms of Judah and Israel were born. Both claimed to be the natural heir to the combined kingdom. When the Assyrians defeated Israel they took the majority of the people into captivity and pulled the effective switcheroo of replacing them with other conquered peoples. This was where the much maligned Samaritans came from.

The original ten tribes did not become America, England or any other country. They were absorbed into the surrounding populace and ceased to exist as an entity. Their descendants are still out there, some of them anyway.

Nothing magical, mystical or fascinating about it. It's the way empires have always worked.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's the way empires have always worked.

Not when the empire strikes back. :hmmm:

[Singed]

Just think, Luke (America) meets Obi-wan (France) to help him fight Vader (UK), Vader defeats Obi-Wan (Napoleonic wars) but is unable to defeat Skywalker, despite wounding him badly (War of Independence, war of 1812), however eventually Vader and Luke team up to destroy Palpatine (Germany).Just wanted to note that Luke also met Han Solo, a space pirate, who assisted him. America met Jean Lafitte, a non-space pirate who assisted them in the war of 1812.

[kiwi_2005]

edit.
double post

[kiwi_2005]

Ephraim and Manasseh England & America. Part of the 12 tribes of Israel:hmmm:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/tribes.html

Ephraim was the brother of Manasseh (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Menasseh.html), and the son of Joseph (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Joseph.html) and Asenath, Pharoah's daughter. Jacob (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/jacob.html) adopted the two sons as part of the tribe of Simeon (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Simeon.html) and Reuben (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Reuven.html). Ephraim received the blessing of the firstborn, although Manasseh was the eldest, because Jacob foresaw that Ephraim's ancestors would be greater than his brother's (Genesis 48:13-20 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis48.html)).

Ephram is England and its allies Australia, NZ, some pacific islands.

Manasseh was the son of Joseph (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Joseph.html) and Asnat (Pharoah (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Pharoah.html)'s daughter) and brother of Ephraim (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Ephraim.html). Jacob adopts both Manasseh and his brother Ephraim as part of the tribe of Simeon (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Simeon.html) and Reuben (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Reuven.html). Although Manasseh was technically the eldest son, he does not receive the greater blessing. Ephraim does, as Jacob foresaw that his descendants were more worthy of the blessing than Manasseh's (Genesis 48:13-20 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis48.html)).

Manasseh is America,

[Tribesman]

Ephraim and Manasseh England & America. One of the 12 tribes of Israel:hmmm:
Sounds like British Isrealism and "christian" identity.

[u crank]

The idea that Ephraim and Manasseh are England & America is a belief that stems from British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism). This theory started in England in the 17th century and spread to America with English colonists.

In the latter half of the 19th century, a guy named Edward Hine moved to America and began to promote the idea that Americans were the lost tribe of Manasseh, whereas England was the lost tribe of Ephraim.

There were others who have promoted this but the most well known one recently was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and former Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God.

The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological research.

As Steve said,

The original ten tribes did not become America, England or any other country. They were absorbed into the surrounding populace and ceased to exist as an entity. Their descendants are still out there, some of them anyway.

Nothing magical, mystical or fascinating about it. It's the way empires have always worked.

I would have to agree.

Edit. Sorry Tribesman, didn't see your post.

[Takeda Shingen]

The idea that Ephraim and Manasseh are England & America is a belief that stems from British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism). This theory started in England in the 17th century and spread to America with English colonists.

In the latter half of the 19th century, a guy named Edward Hine moved to America and began to promote the idea that Americans were the lost tribe of Manasseh, whereas England was the lost tribe of Ephraim.

There were others who have promoted this but the most well known one recently was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder and former Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God.

The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological research.

I've never heard of this. However, having done some reading just now, it would seem that Tribesman is correct in that British Israelism does have some ties to the Christian Identity movement.

[u crank]

I've never heard of this. However, having done some reading just now, it would seem that Tribesman is correct in that British Israelism does have some ties to the Christian Identity movement.

Yea, Tribesman made the right connection. The Christian Identity movement holds the view that modern Jews are not at all Israelites nor Hebrews, but something else. An excellent excuse for anti Semitism. That dog and pony show still draws a crowd.

As Sgt. Antonio Espera in HBO's series 'Generation Kill' like to say, "White man's gotta rule the world."

[Sailor Steve]

Then this flies in the face of biblical prophecy.
The 10 tribes were taken into captivity and moved out of their land.
If they didn't become what the Bible says they would, then the Bible is in complete error and should be declared false. No other way around it.
Does the Bible say that those tribes would become England and America?

[Takeda Shingen]

So those in the position to dictate would have you believe.
Archaeology can in not way prove it. They can't even prove the theory of evolution. The NGS did a study of the DNA of thousands of people from New York and could only conclude that we all came from the same source.
Would that be Adam and Eve or Evolution? They couldn't tell!
People will tell you what they want you to believe.

Acutally, the genetic study found a lack of Haplogroups J2 and J1, which are common in Israeli and Jewish ancestery, but a large amount of group R1b, which is a common in Europeans. Sorry, but the science just doesn't support your claims.

I would say this is incorrect. It either stands or falls on it's own merits.
I mean, when you say Christian do you mean Protestant or Catholic or something in between? The churches can not agree on what the bible says, so the best conclusion is to go with what the bible says.

Read for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

[u crank]

Then this flies in the face of biblical prophecy.
The 10 tribes were taken into captivity and moved out of their land.
If they didn't become what the Bible says they would, then the Bible is in complete error and should be declared false. No other way around it.

I'm sorry but biblical prophecy is subject to interpretation. I have read the Bible and I have yet to see the words 'America or England'.

I would say this is incorrect. It either stands or falls on it's own merits.
I mean, when you say Christian do you mean Protestant or Catholic or something in between?

It really doesn't matter. The Christian Identity movement uses the word 'Christian'. Lots of organizations do but it doesn't mean they are Christian. These people are basically white supremacists. To be more exact, anti Semites.

So those in the position to dictate would have you believe.
Archaeology can in not way prove it.

I would have to say that there are many Christians, myself included, who do not believe that Ephraim and Manasseh are England and America. But it is just an opinion. As most interpretations are. If you believe it and wish others to believe it then you have to supply some proof.

What matters is: is the Bible, not men, correct in what it says?

I would have to say that it is correct. It is the interpretation of men that is highly suspect. And I think that this is one of those cases.

[geetrue]

I'm sorry but biblical prophecy is subject to interpretation. I have read the Bible and I have yet to see the words 'America or England'.



It really doesn't matter. The Christian Identity movement uses the word 'Christian'. Lots of organizations do but it doesn't mean they are Christian. These people are basically white supremacists. To be more exact, anti Semites.



I would have to say that there are many Christians, myself included, who do not believe that Ephraim and Manasseh are England and America. But it is just an opinion. As most interpretations are. If you believe it and wish others to believe it then you have to supply some proof.



I would have to say that it is correct. It is the interpretation of men that is highly suspect. And I think that this is one of those cases.


First let me say that I am not against any of you, but only wish to add to your knowledge and understanding and my slant on the bible.

With that said, I believe in the inspired word of God as written:

1 Corinthians 14:26-28 NKJ
Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. 
Let all things be done for edification.

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.

28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

2 Peter 1:19-20 NKJ
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


If interpretation of the word of God is of interest to you may I suggest reading:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here are fifteen principles along with specific exercises that will sharpen your skills in interpreting the Bible:

http://bible.org/seriespage/interpreting-bible (http://bible.org/seriespage/interpreting-bible)


When interpretive disagreement occurs, it is usually because of faulty or inconsistent methods of interpretation (hermeneutics). Some people, for instance, impose their own preconceived notions upon the pages of Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself. But when the basic principles of interpretation are put into practice, most difficulties disappear.




Simmy said;
Well you can see the study that was done. It is a National Geographic program. I put much more stock in them then I do Wikipedia.


You have relied on the most anti-creation publisher out there, as far as I know NGS doesn't even believe in Jesus being deity ...

I may be wrong of course that is possible, but they do include a lot of Darwin theories in their pages

Wiki like everything else in life you have to discern and learn

[Tribesman]

Wikipedia is probably the worst place to get information.
Depends how you use it, like any book you need to also check the sources it is using.
Since you are referencing a book can you tell us which of the hundreds of different versions you are referencing, then can you provide the sources that book is taken from?

Christian Identity people have no connection to the bible that I know of.
Tell that to the church of Jesus Christ(Christian).
They even add(christian) to their name to avoid any possible confusion.

They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Since the subject in hand is the lost tribes and theories connecting them to the US&UK then they have everything to do with the subject in hand as its part of their version of "christianity".

There are so many things that would indicate the connection if one takes the time to look. But again, I only brought it up as a point of interest, nothing more.
Connections was it?
You seem to be running from connections, but you should take the time to look as it is interesting.

[mookiemookie]

Wikipedia is probably the worst place to get information. Not at all. If you're looking for entry level information on a subject, it's a great place to go. Certainly good enough of a source for a message board topic.

It can be written by anyone with a computer, Most colleges and universities prohibit students from using it as a source because it is full of mistakes, and subject to change from day to day. That may have been true in the past, but things are changing.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/20/wikipedia-gradually-accepted-in-college-classrooms

I could go into Hendrix's bio and claim I am his brother. And it will be removed within minutes.

Someone else might remove it, but it is subject to all kinds of inaccurate material. Ah, now we're hedging our bets here are we?

You're attacking the source, not the argument. That is an ad hominem logical fallacy and a way of changing the subject without actually ever addressing the claim. Weak sauce, man. Weak sauce.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yep, what mookie said. And I can tell you for a fact that colleges do permit wikipedia use for secondary sources. It is, as mookie also said, certainly good enough for an internet forum. You, Simmy seem to be more interested in discrediting any source or study that contradicts your views. The bottom line is that British Israelism and Christian Identity are linked, and that the science does not match the claims. I am sorry that you are unhappy with that, and you are free to continue to claim otherwise, but it does not render your views any more true.

[Hottentot]

No.

In other news: Finland is the oldest country in the world and was inhabited by giants before men. This is proven by the large boulders we have littered around the country. The giants liked bowling and targeted trees with them.

Also, in case you weren't aware of it, Finnish is the root language from which all the other languages in the world have developed. How else do you explain that the British word for their capital "London" closely resembles the Finnish word "Lontoo" meaning the same place?

[Dowly]

^ LOL, can't argue with that logic. :haha:

[Hottentot]

The hilarious reality there, Dowly, is that I didn't come up with those arguments myself. Instead they were actual thoughts proposed by the nationalists of the 19th century. The same people who studied the Bible very thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the Finns are direct descendants of Abraham.

I think I don't need to elaborate the point of that post any further.

[Sailor Steve]

I think I don't need to elaborate the point of that post any further.
I wish you would, though. That was fun.

[Hottentot]

I wish you would, though. That was fun.

As per your request, Steve, though it wasn't anything deeper than life. The original post to me didn't make much sense and frankly seemed to have an in-built idea that the world revolves around the English speaking world (could have been my imagination as well, but that was the initial impression I went by). So I instead offered an alternative theory of the world revolving around Finland, which didn't make any more sense either.

And as I said, neither of those "arguments" I proposed were my own. They were serious science to people who advocated them in the name of the 19th century Finnish nationalism. Even if I didn't mention it in that post, the Bible was a huge source for these folks as well. After all, they firmly believed (like most people back then in here) that the Bible contained the truth about the early history of the world among other things, and therefore it was only logical to try to find out how the newly formed Finnish people were related to Abraham. And unsurprisingly they managed to "find out" that the answer is: "directly", because it's of course the best answer you can get.

Lots of things can be proven. While that may have not been the original intention of this thread, still the original question to me wasn't much different from asking "are Finns descended from Abraham" or "Is Finnish the original language spoken before the Babel".

[Takeda Shingen]

As per your request, Steve, though it wasn't anything deeper than life. The original post to me didn't make much sense and frankly seemed to have an in-built idea that the world revolves around the English speaking world (could have been my imagination as well, but that was the initial impression I went by). So I instead offered an alternative theory of the world revolving around Finland, which didn't make any more sense either.

And as I said, neither of those "arguments" I proposed were my own. They were serious science to people who advocated them in the name of the 19th century Finnish nationalism. Even if I didn't mention it in that post, the Bible was a huge source for these folks as well. After all, they firmly believed (like most people back then in here) that the Bible contained the truth about the early history of the world among other things, and therefore it was only logical to try to find out how the newly formed Finnish people were related to Abraham. And unsurprisingly they managed to "find out" that the answer is: "directly", because it's of course the best answer you can get.

Lots of things can be proven. While that may have not been the original intention of this thread, still the original question to me wasn't much different from asking "are Finns descended from Abraham" or "Is Finnish the original language spoken before the Babel".

Enough of your book-learning witchery, Eurotrash. My fingers are firmly planted in both my ears and eyes, while a clip holds shut my nostrils. I will not have any of my senses subjected to this. I type this by mashing my jaw into the keyboard, like all true God-fearing patriots.

Note to Neal: We need a angry-pointing emoticon. It would have been awesome at the end of my rant.

[Hottentot]

I may be Eurotrash, but at least I know who my grand grand grand grand (insert mucho lots of "grand") grand daddy is. :O:

Though now that this thread inspired me to go through my notes on this subject again, I see I made a little error: they didn't trace us to Abraham, but instead to Noah. Specifically the Finns are descended from Noah's grandson Magog. Oh well. I suppose that explains why we like building wooden boats and sailing them aimlessly around our lakes. Alcohol has nothing to do with the latter. No sirree!

[Takeda Shingen]

I may be Eurotrash, but at least I know who my grand grand grand grand (insert mucho lots of "grand") grand daddy is. :O:

I know exactly who he is. My family tree is a straight line. Now, if you will excuse me, I need to brush my teeth; ol' chomper needs a scrubbin'.

Though now that this thread inspired me to go through my notes on this subject again, I see I made a little error: they didn't trace us to Abraham, but instead to Noah. Specifically the Finns are descended from Noah's grandson Magog. Oh well. I suppose that explains why we like building wooden boats and sailing them aimlessly around our lakes. Alcohol has nothing to do with the latter. No sirree!

I was always amused by Biblical names that didn't take. We could have mothers naming their boys Magog, Hazarmaveth and Arphaxad.

[Hottentot]

I was always amused by Biblical names that didn't take. We could have mothers naming their boys Magog, Hazarmaveth and Arphaxad.

As if we needed even more names based on the Bible. I have always found this site (http://www.behindthename.com/) very fascinating when wanting to know the etymologies or the naming customs of different people. But it has also traced so many names back to the Bible that it's not even funny. Most of the Finnish ones as well.

Which, on the other hand, has convinced me that my parents intentionally played a practical joke on me when they gave me three names (instead of the usual two) of which not even one is derived from the Bible. Then again, my family in the ancient past also decided to choose a surname combined from two distinct landmarks which we don't really even have anywhere in the country, so I guess we just like doing everything backwards. :doh:

[Takeda Shingen]

I have checked both the pro and con side of this subject. Like the many samples I pointed out in my last post, none of which seem to have caught any ones eye. One the con side most who don't believe it simple state they don't believe it because they don't trust the bible to begin with or because the head of their church tells they not to believe it. More power to them. But as usual they can't really put up much of discussion but only finds ways of attacking what you say with little thought attached to it.

Not so fast. Wikipedia, however you feel about it, annotates and links it's sources. It has been you that has been doing the attacking what has been said. Thus far, the only proof that you have to back up your claims is your word. Now, it is fine if you don't think the conversation is worth continuing, but don't go trying to flip things around on your way out the door, because that is simply not true.

If a source is of little value...Or do we just believe anything in print?
That US News report you listed says right up front "Professors don't want students using it as a main source but admit it might be a good starting point"
I would agree with that, not everything in wikipedia is wrong. The trouble is many simply believe what's on the page.

You're doing exactly the same thing with the books that you mentioned, constrasted with your stated attitude toward wikipedia and National Geographic. You discard the evidence that does not support your view.

[MH]

An Israeli chief rabbi recognized them as a lost tribe in 2005 and about 1,700 moved to Israel before the government stopped giving them visas; now that Israel has reversed that policy, 7,200 more are expected to immigrate.


http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.332263.1293040577%21/image/1028174963.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/1028174963.jpg

Dozens more Jews who are believed to be the descendants of a lost biblical Jewish tribe immigrated to Israel on Monday from their village in northeastern India.
The Bnei Menashe say they are descended from Jews banished from ancient Israel to India in the eighth century B.C. An Israeli chief rabbi recognized them as a lost tribe in 2005 and about 1,700 moved to Israel before the government stopped giving them visas.
Israel recently reversed that policy, agreeing to let the remaining 7,200 Bnei Menashe immigrate. Fifty-three arrived on Monday.
Nearly 300 more members of the community will arrive in the coming weeks, said Michael Freund, of the non-profit organization Shavei Israel, and an activist on their behalf.
The community, which lives in India's northeastern border states of Manipur and Mizoram have been practicing Judaism just as their ancestors did, including observing the Sabbath, keeping kosher, celebrating the festivals and following the laws of family purity.
"After waiting for thousands of years, our dream came true," said 26-year-old Lhing Lenchonz, who arrived with her husband and 8-month-old daughter.
Very cool people by the way.

So they had been hiding in India and now here. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

As usual when you bring up these kinds of things the train runs off the track in a hurry. People have a hard time focusing on one issue when it comes to the Bible or Politics.
Actually it was more a matter that we found the question so lame that we decided to have some fun instead.

It was a simple question. Do you think that Ephraim and Manasseh are England and the America?
And the simple answer is "No". Why? Because there is no real evidence that would lead anyone who can actually think to reach that conclusion. It's like Lost Atlantis and all the other half-science-half-religion gobbledygook.

Even if you believe the Bible implicitly there is nothing there to suggest that the "lost tribes" ended up anywhere outside of Persia and Assyria. Of course some of them would end up travelling, since a certain amount of people do that. But whole tribes becoming particular western nations? Not likely.

I have checked both the pro and con side of this subject. Like the many samples I pointed out in my last post, none of which seem to have caught any ones eye. One the con side most who don't believe it simple state they don't believe it because they don't trust the bible to begin with or because the head of their church tells they not to believe it. More power to them. But as usual they can't really put up much of discussion but only finds ways of attacking what you say with little thought attached to it.
On the other hand it's easy to denigrate a statement of opposition with that kind of dismissal. If every source presented gives nothing but make believe it doesn't need disproving.


If a source is of little value...Or do we just believe anything in print?
That US News report you listed says right up front "Professors don't want students using it as a main source but admit it might be a good starting point"
I would agree with that, not everything in wikipedia is wrong. The trouble is many simply believe what's on the page.
Part of the problem is that people who write books don't even have to answer to others, as Wiki writers do. Anybody can claim anything he wants in a book, and unless he shows real concrete evidence for his claims it's all hot air.

[Tribesman]

The list is many, but I doubt it's hundreds.
You miss the point.
Its about the primary source
Which version of the hundreds of versions do your listed writers use as their source?
Though your writers do undermine your case, Dickey was an avowed white supremacist and Allen thought queen Victoria was king of the jews.
Armstong and Collins just rehashed his work and put more emphasis on white anglo saxon protestant america.

Or to take this at another angle, what are your views on Gorilla199?
After all he uses the same primary source for his theories and is big into gathering of the nations and end time prophecies.

[Cybermat47]

You have an interesting theory, Simmy. I doubt that it's true, but I don't have any proof of your theory being incorrect.

[geetrue]

Which is what most people do when faced with a subject they know nothing about. Lets have fun...it was an honest question, and you consider it lame on what grounds?

Because you have no idea what is being talked about but it chalks up your post count?

I await the answer as to who made this claim.
As the bible itself says "test and prove all things".
So far you have attacked me personally, but have offered no proof.:nope:

Those are fighting words Simmy ... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. St James brother of Jesus said so ...

Simmer down Simmy ... I can't save you now

You've gone and done the dirty deed :oops:

[Takeda Shingen]

First of all, Simmy, the only person getting worked up here is you. Calm it down.

WOW!!!
the only proof?????
Did you read, and it appears you did not, the list of things from the Bible that seem to show the connection to Ephraim and England? Funny how you never and that would be never answer the direct responds you demand.

Are you referring to post No. 24 where you took a pair of unrelated Bible verses and tried to use their differing nomenclature to say that they are England and America? Yeah, you are going to have to do better than that.

Now there are crazy people who claim all kinds of things.
I ask a simple question and get attacks without any plain simple answers. Talk about intolerance, look in a mirror.

I gave you two plain and simple answers, with proof and actual sources, but you said you didn't like them and then you got mad. Now you are saying that we are being intollerant because we don't buy what you are selling. I'm not sure if it is frustration over the idea not standing up to scrutiny or just poor sportsmanship, but it is not becoming.

You gave an opinion. We gave fact that countered the opinion, and somehow we are the closed-minded ones. Sheesh.

[Tribesman]

That would be the Bible!, do you have a hard time following along?
Well done, now since you are having a hard time following try again and this time answer.
Which version?

Show me where you think Dickey was a white supremacist? Out of what comic book did you read that? Show me or shut up. Your rambling as become some what boring!

Pick a title of hers, it is very very easy.
It ties right in with the rest of the gods chosen really jewish WASPs nonsense.

And if you knew anything about Bible Prophecy, and it is clear you do not, then you would of read, The promise of God to David that his lineage would always sit upon the throne until Christ returned to claim it. Do you see that throne anywhere in the world today?
Yeah , the coptic church of Abyssinia must have been pissed at their prophecies when the lion of Judah lost his throne, but don't worry they still hold the true ark of the covenant:rotfl2:

That would be completely wrong.
No, they put the emphasis on the younger.

Your ignorance of biblical things is confusing since you seem to come off as some kind of expert.

Young man, you started out badly and got progressively worse.
You have faced a series of simple questions about your claims and come up short every time.
Did you really think all this was something "new" that people were unfamiliar with?
You have been on the backfoot since post #1

@takAre you referring to post No. 24 where you took a pair of unrelated Bible verses and tried to use their differing nomenclature to say that they are England and America? Yeah, you are going to have to do better than that.

Thats why I mentioned Gorilla 199, when he isn't taliking about reptilians and the hidden planet niburu he goes on about that too.

[Takeda Shingen]

@tak
Thats why I mentioned Gorilla 199, when he isn't taliking about reptilians and the hidden planet niburu he goes on about that too.

Ahh, Niburu. Didn't we have a guy show up here and go on about that a while back?

[Tribesman]

Ahh, Niburu. Didn't we have a guy show up here and go on about that a while back?
Yubba and planet X with the secret antarctic telescope I had paid for:03:
Then there was someone with the alien spiral from the killer planet in scandanavia from the missile launch.

[Sailor Steve]

That would be the Bible!, do you have a hard time following along? Yes in fact you do but the continued running off the track. How many of the books I listed have you read? Not many would be my guess.
Rudeness and insults will get you nowhere.

Show me where you think Dickey was a white supremacist? Out of what comic book did you read that?
If not a supremacist then at least an ardent segregationist.
http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/bible_and_segregation

Which is what most people do when faced with a subject they know nothing about. Lets have fun...it was an honest question, and you consider it lame on what grounds? Because you have no idea what is being talked about but it chalks up your post count?
Actually I devoted years of my life to Bible study, until I started to see the lack of evidence for pretty much everything it says. You say it was an honest question, and in your first post it seemed innocent enough. Then you claimed you weren't trying to push anything, but the more people questioned your sources the angrier you became, and the harder you pushed. When someone realized that it wasn't an 'honest' question at all, but an agenda you were trying to push, he decided that having a little fun was better than watching your head explode. So yeah, we took a little side trip, and all it did was make you even more angry.

What you haven't done is to discuss your sources rationally. Instead you've decided to rant and rave at people and accuse them of knowing nothing. You've made claims to knowledge, but so far you've been parroting different people who make these wild claims and trying to belittle anyone who would show that they have flaws.

Sure, you can try to make a link between Ephraim and Mannaseh being modern nations. Let's take a closer look at the verses you quoted in post 24:

Ephraim was to become a "company of nations" or as some translations have it, a "common wealth of nations. Manasseh, his big brother was to become a "great nation". Sound like anybody you've heard of?
This is the loosest of connections. In fact, there is none at all, and still you try to force it to fit. A "great nation" could be China, or Russia, or anything. Or it could just be a prophecy that the tribe would grow a lot in their own territory.

Judah didn't want to kill Joseph like some of his brothers did. He talked them into selling him into slavery in Egypt there by saving his life and later the lives of the entire family. Genesis37:20-28
Now today who are the only countries to support Israel (the Jews)?
That would be Britain and America.
And what exactly does the blessing on the sons of Joseph have anything to do with modern nations supporting Israel? None at all. You're trying to force-fit something into a place where it doesn't go, just so you can claim a descendency from "God's Chosen People", and you and I aren't descended from them, unless you happen to be Jewish. I know I'm not.

In Judges 12:5-6 The Gileadites seize the fords and ask if any wanting to cross if they are Ephraimites, if they say no they were then asked to say "Shibboleth" but if they were indeed Ephraimite they said "Sibboleth". They dropped the h because Ephraimites had a very hard time pronouncing h's. Seems the British have that same problem. For the Thames river they say Tames, for Thyme they say time and most drop the h out of schedule.
Now you're really reaching for something that isn't there. The British don't have a hard time pronouncing 'H's. Languages change over time. The two are totally unrelated. Are you next going to say that different pronunciations within America are due to ancient descendencies? I earlier said that your question was lame. You've done nothing to change that opinion. You claim to have biblical knowledge, yet you have no knowledge at all of how languages work. It has been shown that your DNA connection was bogus. It has been shown that while you claim not to be pushing anything and just find it interesting, the truth is that you are locked into this "theory" so hard that you become agitated and angry at anyone who actually challenges it.

Are you happier now that I got serious?

[AndyJWest]

They dropped the h because Ephraimites had a very hard time pronouncing h's. Seems the British have that same problem...

As a Brit, I can assure you that is complete bullsit.

[Tribesman]

Why did you play that card so soon Steve?
I was hoping he would try and defend her again.

[donna52522]

As a Brit, I can assure you that is complete bullsit.


"bullsit"? There is a difference between pronouncing the letter H, and just not using the letter H.. :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[AndyJWest]

I know that, Donna. I also know that the 'h' sound in 'Shibboleth' (or whatever) isn't pronounced as a 'h' anyway. In English (as in Hebrew) 'sh' is a single phoneme. We happen to use two letters to represent it, but there is no particular reason why we should - the 'h's that are often omitted in 'English' English are another phoneme entirely, and hence the original argument is utter ogwash... :03:

[Hottentot]

It was a simple question. Do you think that Ephraim and Manasseh are England and the America?.

Do you think Väinämöinen is Finland and Louhi is Russia whereas Ilmarinen could be Sweden and the child born from the woman who ate the lingonberry is Jesus?

[mookiemookie]

Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly."

So do you think America could be the dog and Iraq could be the vomit? We invaded in 1990 and went back and it turned out to be a huge mess.

[Hottentot]

Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly."

So do you think America could be the dog and Iraq could be the vomit? We invaded in 1990 and went back and it turned out to be a huge mess.

No no no, clearly the passage in question should be discussed without removing it from the context, Proverbs 6:6: "Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!" Implying that if you shall not change your ways, that is, keep going back to your proverbial vomits, so shall you never understand how the ants have made the society work in much better way and that will ultimately bring you liberal left civil war Obama muslim jewish conspiracy gun wingnut communism.

Duh, do I need to spell everything out for you?

[Simmy]

I,m sorry. I just noticed this forum is "General Topics".
I guess I got way off track.

Well lets try this:
DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN? :k_rofl:

[mookiemookie]

Ezekiel 23:20 - "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

Uhh...no comment. :rotfl2:

[Armistead]

Ezekiel 23:20 - "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

Uhh...no comment. :rotfl2:


Some verses are better in the old english.....

[geetrue]

Proverbs 26:11: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly."

So do you think America could be the dog and Iraq could be the vomit? We invaded in 1990 and went back and it turned out to be a huge mess.

This is getting silly ... you very well know that one bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.

That makes it prefectly clear that Bush had to do what he had to do and when he failed to do the job right the first time his son came along and finished it.

I can't find the scripture right now, but I know I am right ...

Sorry Simmy, but at least no one has mentioned the "O" word in this thread yet and believe me that is a miracle.

Keep trying these people will go for any bait :woot:

[Sailor Steve]

This is getting silly
It was silly from the start.

That makes it prefectly clear that Bush had to do what he had to do and when he failed to do the job right the first time his son came along and finished it.
I see it as just the opposite. Bush Sr. had a clear picture of the job to be done, which was to save Kuwait. He went in and did that job and refused to get carried away with nonsense.

Bush Jr. had a bee in his bonnet and sidetracked the effort to catch the perpetrators into a big war over nothing. I'd say the son "finished" it, alright.

[Betonov]

We have a seperate letter for the SH- Š (as in Shipman)

[geetrue]

It was silly from the start.

[quotge]That makes it prefectly clear that Bush had to do what he had to do and when he failed to do the job right the first time his son came along and finished it.

I see it as just the opposite. Bush Sr. had a clear picture of the job to be done, which was to save Kuwait. He went in and did that job and refused to get carried away with nonsense.

Bush Jr. had a bee in his bonnet and sidetracked the effort to catch the perpetrators into a big war over nothing. I'd say the son "finished" it, alright.
[/QUOTE]

This is why it takes a negative and a positive terminal on your battery post to get the car started :yep:

[Tribesman]

Sorry Simmy, but at least no one has mentioned the "O" word in this thread yet and believe me that is a miracle.

what is more amazing is that even though jews are mentioned throughout the topic the two long time resident jew haters on the forum didn't make an appearance.

[geetrue]

plus I was wrong while waiting for a reload I found the "O" word in post #52

Hottentot did it

The jews aren't all that bad, but I've noticed no matter which side your on

the birds of a feather flock together :yep:

[Oberon]

what is more amazing is that even though jews are mentioned throughout the topic the two long time resident jew haters on the forum didn't make an appearance.

I think they're all in the brig, or keeping a low profile.

Progress! :yep: