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

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Simmy

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]

Originally Posted by u crank

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by Simmy

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...ege-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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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

I wish you would, though. That was fun.

[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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Simmy

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.

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.

[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.




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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Simmy

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.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Simmy

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?