twelve tribes of Israel are dated to 1200BC ish. The oldest Indo-European cultures are in Iran and India (2000-1500BC ish).Indo-European and Semitic languages are two entirely different linguistic groups that do have some overlap due to various migrations but overall are different enough to warrant separate classifications.Most Europeans have no genetic lineage to anyone in the middle-east.
Pick and choose from each religion
- Thread starter beforHim
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
adren@line;46261]twelve tribes of Israel are dated to 1200BC ish. The oldest Indo-European cultures are in Iran and India (2000-1500BC ish).[b]The promise was given before Israel existed. Remember his father was Issacm whose father was Abraham said:
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
First of all, one has to believe the bible as to what God said about Israel. If one reads it discerningly, one can see that Israel had a separate purpose than the house of Judah (the Jews), they would be lost to history, they would again reappear as Gentiles (or as Hosea said, "Not my people") and finally would become a light to the nations, and become great themselves. All this was to fulfill the Abrahamic covenants and give God the glory and fulfill His purpose to a fallen world.Now, if any skeptic (and this includes Christians as well as non-Christians) cannot agree that the bible teaches this, then I won't even bother wasting my time because this then becomes a long and weary road to a 1000 subjects. Indeed, one cannot even debate lost tribes of Israel if the bible is not believed because that is the foundation of it. But, if we accept that the bible teaches that premise (whether one believes it as tales or not) then one has to ask where the bible stated they went? One of the biggest mistakes the skeptic makes is that the lost house of Israel has to "behave like the Jew" whatever that means. No, the bible predicted they would not because they followed other gods. That makes them like Gentiles. Another false premise is that if they went to Europe, why does not the bible plainly state it? Again, this only shows that such people want answers on their terms instead of God's. The reason is because God wanted them hidden as the bible teaches, but there are prophecies that hint at who they are and the direction they went.From this description, we play detective work. If the person in question is dressed in a trench coat and was lost in the city, we do not go looking for bikini-clad women on the beach. That would be improper detective work because one is looking for a person that does not fit the description.OK---- now that we have the idea, then we use secular history and archeology to find them. We know where the house of Israel was taken. In the same time and place in history, and without a significant battle or any other earth-shattering event, the Israelites disappeared and the Celts appeared on the stage of history. There were associations made with the Khumri, Gimera, Cimmerians, Sacae (Saxon), etc people with the house of Israel. From there, we know these people migrated to what is now NW Europe displacing and merging with the populations there.Here's a site with plenty of online books about this fascinating subject.http://www.originofnations.org/
The promise was given before Israel existed. Remember his father was Issacm whose father was Abraham, whose great garandfather was Shem whose father was Noah. As we know this is easily well before the other cultures you want to throw into the mix
In terms of civilizations, the oldest is Mesopotamia. The second oldest is India (Indus Valley Culture). The third oldest is Egypt.While it is true that most modern humans are descendants of peoples who migrated from Africa and into the middle-east, and then dissipated into various other areas, this was long before any one culture existed (hundreds of thousands of years ago) and much, much, much, before the advent of Semitic culture, let alone the more recent Judaic Semitic culture, which is younger than the oldest Indo-European culture by secular, non-revisionist estimates.Now if we look at Semitic pagan culture (before the Israelites, monotheism, etc), then that is the oldest.
The promise was made to Abraham and Ishmael was one of his sons, there are your Arabs. Lets look at Jacob and Esau, Esau looked like a bonified Irishman. Lets come on down to the sons of Israel/Jacob, Joseph was very fair skinned, much like the Europeans, he fathered Ephram and Mannaseh, whose tribes are believed to have been taken into captivity and settled to the north, pretty much Europe and Russia. Now look back at Ham Shem and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Ham and his decendents settled to the south, southern arabia and Africa, Shem the middle east and southern asia, and Japheth, europe and russia. Go on down the line a few hundred years later and you have Abraham and Lot, Lot was saved from Sodom and Gamorah, his daugter raped him and produce Gog and Magog, people who settled in Russia. Now we go to Isaac and Ishmael, which we can skip because I addressed this earlier. Now back to Israel/Jacob and the many exiles and being numerously conquered and spread in all directions. Only Judah and Ben with a remnant of Levi were left in Israel at the time of Christ. many of the nationalities looked so similar that sometimes it was hard to tell just by looking at them.
No one knows what they looked liked, or if many of these people even existed.
You just confirmed what I just said, but in case you misunderstood yourself. Take a look at the Americans and the British, very much the same people group at the founding of the Eropean colonies, but after a few hundred years, the languages sound so different, imagine what a 1000 years could do with little or no contact between the 2 nations. This easily explains the difference in the language structures of many nations through out history even if they had a common language to begin with.
They did have a common language, but this was a looooong time ago and before Semitic culture existed.
In terms of civilizations, the oldest is Mesopotamia. The second oldest is India (Indus Valley Culture). The third oldest is Egypt.While it is true that most modern humans are descendants of peoples who migrated from Africa and into the middle-east, and then dissipated into various other areas, this was long before any one culture existed (hundreds of thousands of years ago) and much, much, much, before the advent of Semitic culture, let alone the more recent Judaic Semitic culture, which is younger than the oldest Indo-European culture by secular, non-revisionist estimates.Now if we look at Semitic pagan culture (before the Israelites, monotheism, etc), then that is the oldest.
The promise was made to Abraham and Ishmael was one of his sons, there are your Arabs. Lets look at Jacob and Esau, Esau looked like a bonified Irishman. Lets come on down to the sons of Israel/Jacob, Joseph was very fair skinned, much like the Europeans, he fathered Ephram and Mannaseh, whose tribes are believed to have been taken into captivity and settled to the north, pretty much Europe and Russia. Now look back at Ham Shem and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Ham and his decendents settled to the south, southern arabia and Africa, Shem the middle east and southern asia, and Japheth, europe and russia. Go on down the line a few hundred years later and you have Abraham and Lot, Lot was saved from Sodom and Gamorah, his daugter raped him and produce Gog and Magog, people who settled in Russia. Now we go to Isaac and Ishmael, which we can skip because I addressed this earlier. Now back to Israel/Jacob and the many exiles and being numerously conquered and spread in all directions. Only Judah and Ben with a remnant of Levi were left in Israel at the time of Christ. many of the nationalities looked so similar that sometimes it was hard to tell just by looking at them.
No one knows what they looked liked, or if many of these people even existed.
You just confirmed what I just said, but in case you misunderstood yourself. Take a look at the Americans and the British, very much the same people group at the founding of the Eropean colonies, but after a few hundred years, the languages sound so different, imagine what a 1000 years could do with little or no contact between the 2 nations. This easily explains the difference in the language structures of many nations through out history even if they had a common language to begin with.
They did have a common language, but this was a looooong time ago and before Semitic culture existed.
(tim_from_pa;46273)
First of all, one has to believe the bible as to what God said about Israel. If one reads it discerningly, one can see that Israel had a separate purpose than the house of Judah (the Jews), they would be lost to history, they would again reappear as Gentiles (or as Hosea said, "Not my people") and finally would become a light to the nations, and become great themselves. All this was to fulfill the Abrahamic covenants and give God the glory and fulfill His purpose to a fallen world.Now, if any skeptic (and this includes Christians as well as non-Christians) cannot agree that the bible teaches this, then I won't even bother wasting my time because this then becomes a long and weary road to a 1000 subjects. Indeed, one cannot even debate lost tribes of Israel if the bible is not believed because that is the foundation of it. But, if we accept that the bible teaches that premise (whether one believes it as tales or not) then one has to ask where the bible stated they went? One of the biggest mistakes the skeptic makes is that the lost house of Israel has to "behave like the Jew" whatever that means. No, the bible predicted they would not because they followed other gods. That makes them like Gentiles. Another false premise is that if they went to Europe, why does not the bible plainly state it? Again, this only shows that such people want answers on their terms instead of God's. The reason is because God wanted them hidden as the bible teaches, but there are prophecies that hint at who they are and the direction they went.From this description, we play detective work. If the person in question is dressed in a trench coat and was lost in the city, we do not go looking for bikini-clad women on the beach. That would be improper detective work because one is looking for a person that does not fit the description.OK---- now that we have the idea, then we use secular history and archeology to find them. We know where the house of Israel was taken. In the same time and place in history, and without a significant battle or any other earth-shattering event, the Israelites disappeared and the Celts appeared on the stage of history. There were associations made with the Khumri, Gimera, Cimmerians, Sacae (Saxon), etc people with the house of Israel. From there, we know these people migrated to what is now NW Europe displacing and merging with the populations there.Here's a site with plenty of online books about this fascinating subject.http://www.originofnations.org/
While the Bible has a special place in the hearts of Christians, it is not a good source for genetics, science, or geneology.The Bible is a book about a specific few topics. If you want to loose weight or learn about the eco-biology of the Amazonian rainforest, you will not go to the Bible. Likewise, the Bible is not a book that should be consulted in regards to anything to do with genetics or the origins of various cultures and man.In the same way, the Bible is not a book you will read when trying to figure out which mp3 player to buy. The Bible has a specific few applications for which it was written. Anything above and beyond that is stretching it thin.right?
First of all, one has to believe the bible as to what God said about Israel. If one reads it discerningly, one can see that Israel had a separate purpose than the house of Judah (the Jews), they would be lost to history, they would again reappear as Gentiles (or as Hosea said, "Not my people") and finally would become a light to the nations, and become great themselves. All this was to fulfill the Abrahamic covenants and give God the glory and fulfill His purpose to a fallen world.Now, if any skeptic (and this includes Christians as well as non-Christians) cannot agree that the bible teaches this, then I won't even bother wasting my time because this then becomes a long and weary road to a 1000 subjects. Indeed, one cannot even debate lost tribes of Israel if the bible is not believed because that is the foundation of it. But, if we accept that the bible teaches that premise (whether one believes it as tales or not) then one has to ask where the bible stated they went? One of the biggest mistakes the skeptic makes is that the lost house of Israel has to "behave like the Jew" whatever that means. No, the bible predicted they would not because they followed other gods. That makes them like Gentiles. Another false premise is that if they went to Europe, why does not the bible plainly state it? Again, this only shows that such people want answers on their terms instead of God's. The reason is because God wanted them hidden as the bible teaches, but there are prophecies that hint at who they are and the direction they went.From this description, we play detective work. If the person in question is dressed in a trench coat and was lost in the city, we do not go looking for bikini-clad women on the beach. That would be improper detective work because one is looking for a person that does not fit the description.OK---- now that we have the idea, then we use secular history and archeology to find them. We know where the house of Israel was taken. In the same time and place in history, and without a significant battle or any other earth-shattering event, the Israelites disappeared and the Celts appeared on the stage of history. There were associations made with the Khumri, Gimera, Cimmerians, Sacae (Saxon), etc people with the house of Israel. From there, we know these people migrated to what is now NW Europe displacing and merging with the populations there.Here's a site with plenty of online books about this fascinating subject.http://www.originofnations.org/
While the Bible has a special place in the hearts of Christians, it is not a good source for genetics, science, or geneology.The Bible is a book about a specific few topics. If you want to loose weight or learn about the eco-biology of the Amazonian rainforest, you will not go to the Bible. Likewise, the Bible is not a book that should be consulted in regards to anything to do with genetics or the origins of various cultures and man.In the same way, the Bible is not a book you will read when trying to figure out which mp3 player to buy. The Bible has a specific few applications for which it was written. Anything above and beyond that is stretching it thin.right?
(adren@line;46289)
While the Bible has a special place in the hearts of Christians, it is not a good source for genetics, science, or geneology.
Its true that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. As Galileo Galilei said "The Bible tells us how to get to the heavens, not how the heavens go".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_l_jw3Dc7AHowever, when the Bible does mention scientific things (which is not often), it is accurate.http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtmlAs for genetics --- I'm sure thats not in the Bible. And where did genealogy come from? Genealogies are all over the Bible.
While the Bible has a special place in the hearts of Christians, it is not a good source for genetics, science, or geneology.
Its true that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. As Galileo Galilei said "The Bible tells us how to get to the heavens, not how the heavens go".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_l_jw3Dc7AHowever, when the Bible does mention scientific things (which is not often), it is accurate.http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtmlAs for genetics --- I'm sure thats not in the Bible. And where did genealogy come from? Genealogies are all over the Bible.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
While the Bible has a special place in the hearts of Christians, it is not a good source for genetics, science, or geneology.
Sources?Many scientific facts are found in the bible, one example is that the earth is round.
If you want to loose weight......
Actually, the bible speaks of eating God's way. As a matter of fact, I do not even trust medical science fully. For example, high cholesterol does not cause heart disease. Salt is not bad for you, etc. I have more evidence in the truth of the bible than the what mankind "feeds" to me, both literally and figuratively.As for the rest of the stuff you mentioned, the bible makes broad remarks about God's hand in those things. However, it is mainly a book about Israel which is the topic I was previously addressing, so your whole premise and example is way out in left field when you are comparing the studies of lost tribes to a rain forest somewhere. In fact, the bible does have myriads of things to say about Israel, so I do not comprehend your comparing this to other subjects. So, using the bible to trace these people and comparing to archaeological evidence is not really "stretching it thin".
Sources?Many scientific facts are found in the bible, one example is that the earth is round.
If you want to loose weight......
Actually, the bible speaks of eating God's way. As a matter of fact, I do not even trust medical science fully. For example, high cholesterol does not cause heart disease. Salt is not bad for you, etc. I have more evidence in the truth of the bible than the what mankind "feeds" to me, both literally and figuratively.As for the rest of the stuff you mentioned, the bible makes broad remarks about God's hand in those things. However, it is mainly a book about Israel which is the topic I was previously addressing, so your whole premise and example is way out in left field when you are comparing the studies of lost tribes to a rain forest somewhere. In fact, the bible does have myriads of things to say about Israel, so I do not comprehend your comparing this to other subjects. So, using the bible to trace these people and comparing to archaeological evidence is not really "stretching it thin".
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
And where did genealogy come from? Genealogies are all over the Bible.
Good point. You are correct, genealogies are all over the place which only confirms to me that critics are as ignorant of the bible as they may accuse Christians of being in science. I mean, they should at least study it first, and IN THE CONTEXT that it was addressed, not with preconceived notions that fit their interpretations---- ironically, they then call Christians close-minded. If that's not the pot calling the kettle....
Good point. You are correct, genealogies are all over the place which only confirms to me that critics are as ignorant of the bible as they may accuse Christians of being in science. I mean, they should at least study it first, and IN THE CONTEXT that it was addressed, not with preconceived notions that fit their interpretations---- ironically, they then call Christians close-minded. If that's not the pot calling the kettle....
As for genetics --- I'm sure thats not in the Bible. And where did genealogy come from? Genealogies are all over the Bible.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=genealogy1. a record or account of the ancestry and descent of a person, family, group, etc.2. the study of family ancestries and histories.3. descent from an original form or progenitor; lineage; ancestry.4. Biology. a group of individuals or species having a common ancestry: The various species of Darwin's finches form a closely knit genealogy.
Sources?
The Bible itself.
Many scientific facts are found in the bible, one example is that the earth is round.
There are scientific facts in the Quran. In-fact, there are quite a few in most religious books.As far as the earth being round, We have this this verse which hints at the earth being a circle, but not a sphere:"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)" There are more verses that state earth has corners, ends, pillars, etc which contradict the idea of a spherical planet.
Actually, the bible speaks of eating God's way. As a matter of fact, I do not even trust medical science fully. For example, high cholesterol does not cause heart disease. Salt is not bad for you, etc. I have more evidence in the truth of the bible than the what mankind "feeds" to me, both literally and figuratively.
Well, id personally trust medical science over any religious book, but thats just me.
As for the rest of the stuff you mentioned, the bible makes broad remarks about God's hand in those things. However, it is mainly a book about Israel which is the topic I was previously addressing, so your whole premise and example is way out in left field when you are comparing the studies of lost tribes to a rain forest somewhere. In fact, the bible does have myriads of things to say about Israel, so I do not comprehend your comparing this to other subjects. So, using the bible to trace these people and comparing to archaeological evidence is not really "stretching it thin".
The point is that the Bible is not a book about the origins of man in the same way it is not about the Amazonian rainforest. It is based around a specific group of people who lived in the middle-east.Using the Bible, or any religious book, as a substitute for science is as far-left field as using it as a cookbook for Mexican food.__________________
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=genealogy1. a record or account of the ancestry and descent of a person, family, group, etc.2. the study of family ancestries and histories.3. descent from an original form or progenitor; lineage; ancestry.4. Biology. a group of individuals or species having a common ancestry: The various species of Darwin's finches form a closely knit genealogy.
Sources?
The Bible itself.
Many scientific facts are found in the bible, one example is that the earth is round.
There are scientific facts in the Quran. In-fact, there are quite a few in most religious books.As far as the earth being round, We have this this verse which hints at the earth being a circle, but not a sphere:"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)" There are more verses that state earth has corners, ends, pillars, etc which contradict the idea of a spherical planet.
Actually, the bible speaks of eating God's way. As a matter of fact, I do not even trust medical science fully. For example, high cholesterol does not cause heart disease. Salt is not bad for you, etc. I have more evidence in the truth of the bible than the what mankind "feeds" to me, both literally and figuratively.
Well, id personally trust medical science over any religious book, but thats just me.
As for the rest of the stuff you mentioned, the bible makes broad remarks about God's hand in those things. However, it is mainly a book about Israel which is the topic I was previously addressing, so your whole premise and example is way out in left field when you are comparing the studies of lost tribes to a rain forest somewhere. In fact, the bible does have myriads of things to say about Israel, so I do not comprehend your comparing this to other subjects. So, using the bible to trace these people and comparing to archaeological evidence is not really "stretching it thin".
The point is that the Bible is not a book about the origins of man in the same way it is not about the Amazonian rainforest. It is based around a specific group of people who lived in the middle-east.Using the Bible, or any religious book, as a substitute for science is as far-left field as using it as a cookbook for Mexican food.__________________
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
The point is that the Bible is not a book about the origins of man in the same way it is not about the Amazonian rainforest. It is based around a specific group of people who lived in the middle-east.
I'll admit the details are left to the person, but the principles are there is my point. The bible attests to the fact that King Solomon was very scientific minded and well versed especially in biology but the details are not there. In esoterica, by virtue of the Hebrew sacred cubit happens to be 1/10,000,000 the polar diameter of the earth. The Great Pyramid (also shown in the bible) has this measurement in its structure. However, the bible does not openly admit it and even Christians hate when I bring this up, but I guess that's the science and math in me.BTW, the "circle" of the earth is how they talked in old English and translation from Hebrew. This is a prime example to putting our own ideas into a text by defining circle in today's context instead of back then. Another example as to the mention of the sphere is Solomon's laver (sea). It is said to be "round all about"And originally I was talking about lost Israelites which is very much contained in the bible and I'm still not sure your line of though bringing up other subjects that have nothing to do with the Israelites.
I'll admit the details are left to the person, but the principles are there is my point. The bible attests to the fact that King Solomon was very scientific minded and well versed especially in biology but the details are not there. In esoterica, by virtue of the Hebrew sacred cubit happens to be 1/10,000,000 the polar diameter of the earth. The Great Pyramid (also shown in the bible) has this measurement in its structure. However, the bible does not openly admit it and even Christians hate when I bring this up, but I guess that's the science and math in me.BTW, the "circle" of the earth is how they talked in old English and translation from Hebrew. This is a prime example to putting our own ideas into a text by defining circle in today's context instead of back then. Another example as to the mention of the sphere is Solomon's laver (sea). It is said to be "round all about"And originally I was talking about lost Israelites which is very much contained in the bible and I'm still not sure your line of though bringing up other subjects that have nothing to do with the Israelites.
(beforHim;43709)
A high school student I was substitutuing yesterday said something like "I take all the good things from each religion. name a religion". A girl named Islam, and he admitted he didn't know much about Islam, then the bell rang.Could we please dicuss why this view, "pot luck religion"- choose the good, leave out the bad (or in essence, choose what you want), is not the way to go about it. Thx a ton!
Hi B4him,Sorry to come in so late on a subject, but I hope you will forgive me if I repeat anything from the other posts before me. I know there will be some good theories in them.
If faith is false you can cherry pick and take the good bits of all religions and put them together. But then they would not mean anything.If a faith is not giving everything it promises then it is not alive but dead.I found that knowing God and Christ comes with putting them first in all we do, think and say. Sometimes, we can only find truth when we believe it in a good and obedient heart. If God says believing in Jesus Christ gives us eternal life. We should have our hearts, minds and thoughts set on this goal.If your not getting all the things, check yourself over. But you may as well cherry pick if you have not accepted every word God has said as truth.Faithful. Jesus wants to know everyone. 
ray3:
A high school student I was substitutuing yesterday said something like "I take all the good things from each religion. name a religion". A girl named Islam, and he admitted he didn't know much about Islam, then the bell rang.Could we please dicuss why this view, "pot luck religion"- choose the good, leave out the bad (or in essence, choose what you want), is not the way to go about it. Thx a ton!
Hi B4him,Sorry to come in so late on a subject, but I hope you will forgive me if I repeat anything from the other posts before me. I know there will be some good theories in them.
ray3:Similar threads
