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.

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!

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'.

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 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:

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.

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.

Very cool people by the way.

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

Actually it was more a matter that we found the question so lame that we decided to have some fun instead.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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:

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

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.

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.

Well done, now since you are having a hard time following try again and this time answer.
Which version?

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.

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:

No, they put the emphasis on the younger.

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

@takThats 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?

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.

Rudeness and insults will get you nowhere.

If not a supremacist then at least an ardent segregationist.
http://thetencommandmentsministry.us...nd_segregation

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:

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.

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.

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?