It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lost tribes found

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustnone
Well, it's not an opinion, if you'll look up the scottish declaration of independence you'll see it says exactly what i say it does

Simply because an opinion and myth are written down in an official document does not turn them into reality.

To be decended from these tribes, you will have genetic markers

You wouldn't have to have them, but if you did it'd be a good indication of descent. Of course, genes get spread a lot of ways. The israelites could've interbreed with the cannanites, and then the cannanites with the hittites, then the hittites with the greeks, etc etc, until it gets to the scots/picts etc.




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMe74
That is why I said "most" and not "all" of the Christian translations of the Jewish Bible are flawed.


What do you mean by most though. Which translations are flawed?


Originally posted by JustMe74
There are countless examples that can be shown of errors in the Septuagint. I like the NIV version; as far as Christian translations goes, it's pretty good.





Originally posted by JustMe74
I think the "Oxford Study Bible", which I highly recommend for scholarly study of the Bible, is based on this version.


I had a hard time with the Oxford Study Bible because seemed to not want to separate sentences and paragraphs into a legible format. Cross-referencing was lacking, subject headings, etc. I guess it's okay for those who are already familiar with the Bible, but I think a new or non-Christian would have a chokingly hard time getting through it with clear understanding on the first go. Opinion though, just my opinon and could have been my edition too.


Originally posted by JustMe74
I'm not sure why you said "amoung [sic] tabloids" ... what do you find factually innacurate about what I have posted? That Paul invented what became the modern religion of Christianity? That there are major errors in the Septuagint? Not only can I back these things up, but there has been a good amount of scholarly research in these areas that support what I am saying.


Paul inventing modern religion, major errors, and "facts" that the Bible is historically inaccurate. I've seen them all on the cover of tabliods passing through the supermarket but when you take the topic seriously and try to dig into it, there seems to be a lot of speculation and unsubstantiated 'expert' opinion, where there should be facts. My comment wasn't intended to trivialize any presenter, but rather to question the validity of the material itself.


Originally posted by JustMe74
In any case, this is getting really off topic, please create a new thread if you want to continue this!


*nods* There are plenty of old ones to bounce off of about Paul, mis-translations, and recently writings claiming the Bible is invalid. Take your pick and I'll join or start one on one particular detail and we can work on that for a while. I'm not presenting a new case, only defending what is already written.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by saint4God]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Byrd
Furthermore, they don't have the New Testament or give any credence to the Apocrypha and so forth.


Maybe because the Apocrypha is inconsistent and non-helpful perhaps? What ground shattering information is there that makes a person miss their connection with God?

No, they don't have the New Testament because they're not Christian. Ditto the Apocrypha.



Originally posted by Byrd
Modern Christians seem to neglect the Old Testament (except for selected tales) and focus on the New Testament.


I'm a modern Christian. I do not neglect the Old Testament. Therefore, this statement is based off of a misperception.


You follow all the dietary laws (as the Jews do)?
You follow all the social laws including the ones about your hair?
You follow all the prayer injunctions (including sacrifices and head coverings and wearing a shawl)?
You follow the OT laws about not cooking or traveling or doing work on the Sabbath?
You eat only kosher?
You have the traditional Passover feast and recite the story?
You keep the festival of lights?

That's all Old Testament stuff. The Christians claim that Jesus negated all those laws. The Jews say that's wrong. So if you don't do the above, how can you say that you're following the Old Testament?
www.rigal.freeserve.co.uk...



Originally posted by Byrd
I've seen Christian Bibles, in fact, that kept only the text of the tales they liked (omitting the laws and the things like the human sacrifices and the FULL tale of Lot (including the incest)) and added to that the New Testament.


What human sacrifices? What "missing parts" of Lot?

Oh, Lot isn't "missing parts." It's just that the Christians go into the Sodom and Gomorrah, and conveniently leave out the incest by Lot after his wife gets turned into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19)

There's Josiah who sacrifices priests of other gods on their altars: 2 Kg.23:20 (prophesied by a priest of God in 1 Kings, by the way, and it says specifically that he will offer human sacrifices to God.)

And of course the sacrifice of the girl children of Midian along with the beeves and other animals by Eleazar in Num 21

And David, who hangs people as part of God's revenge on Saul (doesn't hang Saul; hangs sons and daughters) in 2 Sam 21

And God moves Jephthah to sacrifice his own daughter to God in Judges 11



According to the great commission by Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:15) they were to go to every nation. In John they had to wait until the Lord gave them the power to do so, but once they did, they were to go out and spread the good news. Also, did Jesus only talk to and help his people? Nope. I can quote those too if you like.


This has nothing to do with Jewish religion or Jewish holy books (which we were discussing.) Most of their holy books don't have anything to do with the Christian books, and the verses that say what THEIR Messiah is to be like (he will be human; not divine) are very different than the ones selected by the christians.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by JustMe74
That is why I said "most" and not "all" of the Christian translations of the Jewish Bible are flawed.


What do you mean by most though. Which translations are flawed?


Originally posted by JustMe74
There are countless examples that can be shown of errors in the Septuagint. I like the NIV version; as far as Christian translations goes, it's pretty good.





Originally posted by JustMe74
I think the "Oxford Study Bible", which I highly recommend for scholarly study of the Bible, is based on this version.


I had a hard time with the Oxford Study Bible because seemed to not want to separate sentences and paragraphs into a legible format. Cross-referencing was lacking, subject headings, etc. I guess it's okay for those who are already familiar with the Bible, but I think a new or non-Christian would have a chokingly hard time getting through it with clear understanding on the first go. Opinion though, just my opinon and could have been my edition too.


Originally posted by JustMe74
I'm not sure why you said "amoung [sic] tabloids" ... what do you find factually innacurate about what I have posted? That Paul invented what became the modern religion of Christianity? That there are major errors in the Septuagint? Not only can I back these things up, but there has been a good amount of scholarly research in these areas that support what I am saying.


Paul inventing modern religion, major errors, and "facts" that the Bible is historically inaccurate. I've seen them all on the cover of tabliods passing through the supermarket but when you take the topic seriously and try to dig into it, there seems to be a lot of speculation and unsubstantiated 'expert' opinion, where there should be facts. My comment wasn't intended to trivialize any presenter, but rather to question the validity of the material itself.


Originally posted by JustMe74
In any case, this is getting really off topic, please create a new thread if you want to continue this!


*nods* There are plenty of old ones to bounce off of about Paul, mis-translations, and recently writings claiming the Bible is invalid. Take your pick and I'll join or start one on one particular detail and we can work on that for a while. I'm not presenting a new case, only defending what is already written.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by saint4God]


I'm not trying to say that the Bible is invalid or historically innacurate. I think someone who is an expert on the subject can argue both ways. My only point was that the Septuagint is a very poor translation of the Hebrew Bible, especially when compared against Jewish versions based on the Masoretic text. Most Christian scholars even agree with this today, which is why the better Christian translations are based on three sources: Septuagint, Masoretic, and Dead Sea scrolls fragments.

In any case, the last thing I'll say on this subject - in this thread - is that if you want to see a good non-Christian translation from the Hebrew, I highly recommend the Stone Edition Tanach, which you can purchase from Artscroll (www.artscroll.com...). It is, quite simply, the best English language translation of the Bible available. It contains the Hebrew and English side by side.

If you want a list of errors in the Septuagint, a simple Google search will show you many good web sites where the differences between the Masoretic texts and Septuagint are explored.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Back on subject... The Lost Tribes... Do yourselves a favor and follow that link "Who were the Scotts" posted by Keggs. I read it in it's entirety, twice.
It basically states that a young Scythian, was in Egypt either during or 1,000 years after the Exodus of the Isrealites. (Just like the Charleton Heston Flick) And he and his wife Pharoh's daughter Scotia (not a Jew, but and Egyptian) took off and wandered around Africa and Spain for 40 years... or a long time. Anyhoo... one of their sons ends up travelling to Ireland and then to Scotland, which he named after Scotia, his mother.

OK I've also read the Scottish Decalration of Independence, Thanks again,
Keggs ! I can see how it might be confused, but the coronation stone, the papal blessing all have to do with the Scotts independence from England, NOT a lost tribe of Isreal. They aren't even really mentioned.

There is no mention of a tribe going anywhere, or that they left Egypt and took 20,000 Isrealites across Spain, Past the Pillars of Hercules and Over the Caspian Sea. And even, say if some of the slaves were Isrealites, which probably was the case, that is hardly what I call a tribe.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Thats why i find this so interesting I never would have known any scots, were descended from Egyptians or Scythians, I guess i never stopped and thought about it. Where I got confused was when the writer of the Arbroath declaration was saying something about the Exodus.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustnone
Thats why i find this so interesting I never would have known any scots, were descended from Egyptians or Scythians,

Wha? They're not. The scots are a group of people that left ireland a long time ago and settled in pictland.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
yes, but if you would read the link they came from spain then to ireland then to scotland. before they arrived in spain they were in the mediterranean. read the links kegs posted.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
This is slightly off the subject, but worth mentioning... The Vikings were notorious for raiding costal towns and capturing inhabitants. One unlucky young Roman patirician was taken to Ireland where he worked as a Shepherd slave and became a Christian. Later he went back to his native England and became a priest. Later he went back to Ireland to lead the natives to Christianity and educate those in the clergy. He was of course St. Patrick (Patricus)
Around this time, the Norsemen invaded and consequently burnt and began dismanteling the holy Roman Empire, the Irish and Scotts were among on the only literate and functioning societies in the Roman Empire. Their little islands were far enough away and there was so much going on elsewhere in the world, that they were left pretty much to their own devices. Since the Norsemen burt libraries and most of the scrolls kept by Patrician families, the Irish and the Scotts, either in their own language or in Latin kept most of the written historical records of the Roman Empire for about 500 years.

The point of this diatribe is to convey that if a lost tribe of Isreal had gone through Ireland on it's way to Scotland it would have been recorded and the records would have been retained in some form. In fact, many Senators and Feudal Lords in the far reaches of the Empire sent documents to Ireland or Scotland in the hopes they would be retained and not burnt. Others were sent to Sicily and Africa, some survived and some didn't but most of the Irish and Scotish documents were either copied or retained. It's quite facinating for more on this subject read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Sir Thomas Cahill. I think it's out of print now, but you can probably get it on Amazon.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I really need to clean up my 'favorites' because there's like waaaaay to many threads and I'm starting to get lost. Anywho...


Originally posted by Byrd
No, they don't have the New Testament because they're not Christian. Ditto the Apocrypha.


I see. I thought you were speaking on Modern Christians. My bad.


Originally posted by Byrd
You follow all the dietary laws (as the Jews do)?


I do not. Orthodox Jews do. I don't think Orthodox Jews would feel Non-Orthodox Jews do, yes? I try to eat kosher when it's healthier. After all, that was the point behind the laws. All of the laws of Leviticus were one of four: biological, spiritual, legal, or social. Jesus addresses the fulfillment of the law for biological, legal, and social then goes heavy into the meaning behind spiritual law.


Originally posted by Byrd
You follow all the social laws including the ones about your hair?
You follow all the prayer injunctions (including sacrifices and head coverings and wearing a shawl)?


Addressed per above. How many covenants has God made with man in the Bible? Quite a few, each one has it's promise. It's not just a division between Old and New Testament.


Originally posted by Byrd
You follow the OT laws about not cooking or traveling or doing work on the Sabbath?


The Sabbath is in there. Yes, kosher laws are there too. What book are you referring to? I thought we were discussing Leviticus here.


Originally posted by Byrd
You eat only kosher?
You have the traditional Passover feast and recite the story?
You keep the festival of lights?


Addressed per above.


Originally posted by Byrd
That's all Old Testament stuff. The Christians claim that Jesus negated all those laws. The Jews say that's wrong. So if you don't do the above, how can you say that you're following the Old Testament?
www.rigal.freeserve.co.uk...


The Old Testament is a very dynamic group of books. There are changes throughout and with those changes we too are to follow along. The Ten Commandments did not include Leviticus and for good reason. Are you saying Leviticus is more important than the commandments God gave to Moses? This is what Jesus was trying to say. We got so wrapped up in the law, we forgot the reasons behind them. We're to dig deep and understand instead of 'going through the motions'.


Originally posted by Byrd
Oh, Lot isn't "missing parts." It's just that the Christians go into the Sodom and Gomorrah, and conveniently leave out the incest by Lot after his wife gets turned into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19)


How about the incest by his daughters...not Lot. Genesis 19:30. If Christians are leaving something out, that's not the Bible's fault.


Originally posted by Byrd
There's Josiah who sacrifices priests of other gods on their altars: 2 Kg.23:20 (prophesied by a priest of God in 1 Kings, by the way, and it says specifically that he will offer human sacrifices to God.)


In 2 Kings 23:20, I don't see any sacrifice or ceremony for the priests killed. It says, "Josiah slaughtered all the priests of those high place on the altars and burned human bones on them. Then he went back to Jerusalem." Now ah, where was this sacrifice? Keeping in mind, a sacrifice is giving something up of value to God. Maybe the 1 Kings verse you're referring to can nail it down for me. Which verse is that?


Originally posted by Byrd
And of course the sacrifice of the girl children of Midian along with the beeves and other animals by Eleazar in Num 21


Hm? Maybe I'm missing it, what verse?


Originally posted by Byrd
And David, who hangs people as part of God's revenge on Saul (doesn't hang Saul; hangs sons and daughters) in 2 Sam 21


God made this judgement, I'm sure he's going to judge again. Oh wait, are you saying humans are better judges than God?


Originally posted by Byrd
And God moves Jephthah to sacrifice his own daughter to God in Judges 11


Just to be clear, Jephthah made this vow to God, not the other way around. Apparently Jephthah did not hear his own words in 11:24 "...Likewise, whatever the Lord our God has given us, we will possess." The Lord had given Jephthah's daughter to him. Also, verse 11:27 "...Let the Lord, the Judge, decide this dispute this day..." Do you think God needed or wanted Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter? It's a thinker, but I think moreso it's a lesson. Looks to me like Jephthah was taking the law into his own hands, trading something valuable for a battle victory. Notice the regret Jephthah had when he returned home and realized that he had to make good on his vow. I can be fairly sure the regret did not end there. We shouldn't swear by God's name and I can quote other verses as to why. This story is very telling. I'd encourage everyone to study, not just read.



This has nothing to do with Jewish religion or Jewish holy books (which we were discussing.) Most of their holy books don't have anything to do with the Christian books, and the verses that say what THEIR Messiah is to be like (he will be human; not divine) are very different than the ones selected by the christians.


I wasn't the one to bring "Modern Christians" into the discussion. If it didn't involve Christians, I wouldn't have anything to say.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join