Anglo-Israelism.

[McCulloch]

For debate:

1. Is there any evidence to support the idea that the people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel?
2. Are there any linguistic links between the Hebrew language and English, Welsh, Cornish or Manx?
3. Could the British Royal Family be directly descended from the line of King David?
4. Is it possible that the Stone of Jacob (Genesis 28:18) is the Stone of Scone, used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland, later British monarchs? Do the British Empire and the American republic feature in Jewish or Christian prophetic literature?
5. Is mixed-race marriage a sin?

[Malachi-Zede-El]

According to Deuteronomy 15 ; 12 , In the Strong's Concordance the word '' Hebrew '' Ibriy is not the name of a tribe or a people . Hebrew is just a title for what Abraham and his people did . Not what they were . The word '' Hebrew '' Is merely describing an Act Of A People Or A Person ; Moving From One Side To Another , And could apply to people originally born on one side of The Mississippi River , And deciding to relocate to the other side of TheMississippi River
.

Now that you have done the cut/paste job that you, or someone else have done in various numbers of forums over the last few years.. care to back that up with legitament sources, and then explain how this relates to any of the questions proposed in the op.

Your have to read the whole post to get the understanding of the word Hebrew . the sources is the bible . believe it or not , I know you know this subject of Israel / Hebrew , not First time here . One doesn't have follow some school to understand the bible . copy& paste I though you could come up with a better excuse then that to try to label me . What is it that you people here fear . You really can't believe your the only one with knowldge of the bible do you .

[dianaiad]

For debate:

1. Is there any evidence to support the idea that the people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel?

Probably not. I mean, if there were, they would no longer be 'lost,' would they?

[*]Are there any linguistic links between the Hebrew language and English, Welsh, Cornish or Manx?

OK, there I can help.

Modern Hebrew is a 'resurrected' language, from the ancient Hebrew that, until the late 1880's was strictly a liturgical language, like Latin. Ancient Hebrew is the direct descendent of Proto-Semetic through "West Proto-Canannite" and Phoenician. Archaic Greek seems to have split from this direct line somewhere between West Proto-Canannite and Phoenician, and ancient Greek and Latin come from there. It is, indeed, at that point that the Proto-Indo-European class of languages came into being. THAT language tree sprouted the Hellenic, Celtic, Tocharian, Anatolian, Germanic and Italic groups. Welsh and Cornish came from the Brythonic branch of the Celtic group, and Manx and Gaelic (both Scots and Irish) if from the Goidelic branch of the Celtic group.

English...well, that's a problem.

Old English is solidly Germanic, through the West Germanic line. Old English became the modern English we speak with the intermingling of the Normans...old French--from the Italic line. As the church became more and more influential over the Old English speakers, the Italic grammar rules kept being forced upon this very different Creolicized pair of languages; hence the rule about splitting infinitives, for instance.

So there is a connection, but the language trees actually split off about two steps before Hebrew became 'Hebrew."

there. That should clear everything up, right?

[*]Could the British Royal Family be directly descended from the line of King David?

Well, shoot, THEY want to think so. But all those royal families have interestingly forged genealogies. It's a family joke for us...because one of my own genealogical lines ties into William the Conquerors bastard cousin, I can say that I can trace my line back to Adam. Why not? William can.

[*]Is it possible that the Stone of Jacob (Genesis 28:18) is the Stone of Scone, used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland, later British monarchs?

Anything is possible, I suppose. Including miniature black holes that power smart phones.

Do the British Empire and the American republic feature in Jewish or Christian prophetic literature?

dunno. American history features in LDS prophetic liturature, but I don't think you would consider that to "count."

[*]Is mixed-race marriage a sin? [/list]

er, no? That last was a bit of a left field thing.....

Israel to have a new name. Isa. 62:2; 65:15; Hos. 2:17
Israel to lose all trace of her lineage. Isa. 42:16-19; Hos. 1:9, 10; 2:6; Rom. 11:25.

Matthew 15:24:But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Luke 19:10:For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Christian, two things. Maybe three.

First, I'm not a biblical inerrentist.
Second, I'm a Mormon...and and believe that some of those verses don't mean what you think they do.


OK, make that just two things.

[Goat]

According to Deuteronomy 15 ; 12 , In the Strong's Concordance the word '' Hebrew '' Ibriy is not the name of a tribe or a people . Hebrew is just a title for what Abraham and his people did . Not what they were . The word '' Hebrew '' Is merely describing an Act Of A People Or A Person ; Moving From One Side To Another , And could apply to people originally born on one side of The Mississippi River , And deciding to relocate to the other side of TheMississippi River
.

Now that you have done the cut/paste job that you, or someone else have done in various numbers of forums over the last few years.. care to back that up with legitament sources, and then explain how this relates to any of the questions proposed in the op.

Your have to read the whole post to get the understanding of the word Hebrew . the sources is the bible . believe it or not , I know you know this subject of Israel / Hebrew , not First time here . One doesn't have follow some school to understand the bible . copy& paste I though you could come up with a better excuse then that to try to label me . What is it that you people here fear . You really can't believe your the only one with knowldge of the bible do you .

I see. You don't wish to back up the claims you made. As for 'copy paste'.. well
it's the exact same post as the following links

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/ab ... ation.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/ge ... did-2.html

http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showt ... rael/page3

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/judai ... ith-4.html

Are they you, and if so, why didn't you respond to any of the criticisms about your claims?

[christian1488]

The word '' Hebrew '' , In Aramic , Is the word Ibriy which comes from the root word Abar , Which means ; '' To Cross Over , To Pass Over '' . In the Aramic ( Hebrew ) language . In Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) , The word 'Aabiyr , For '' Eber '' , Means '' The One Who Passes Over '' . It gets the same meaning as the tirle '' Hebrew '' - One Who Traverse and Ebra , Meaning '' To Traverse ; To Expound '' . '' Traversing '' As used in the person to whom the name was given first , Was Eber , Son of Salah , Son of Shem , Son of Noah , As found in Genesis 10 ; 21 . < Noah ( 2970 - 2020 B.C.E. ) Son Of Lamech And Kamilah ( Genesis 5 ; 29
, Shem ( 2470 - 1870 B.C.E. ) Son Of Noah And Namah ( Genesis 5 ; 32 ) ....

The name Eber , Also Abar , Ay -Ber and Heber , Means '' The Region Beyond '' , From this you get the derivative of Eber , Hebrew , To mean '' One Who Crossed From Beyond One Region To Another '' Or Simply '' To Cross Over '' ,

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3

Yes, that confirms what was written. Languages evolved, and the term 'Jew' evolved from the term 'Judah, one of the tribes that made up the nation of Israel, and the providence where Jerusalem was located. I don't think you know what your point actually means, particularly since you are taking it out of context.

The word "Jew" is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz, king of Judah. The Syrians "drave the Jews from Elath" who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called "Jews" when more properly they should be called Judahites. However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.

http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/or ... d_jew.html - Origin of the word Jew

The Jews are not Israel.

[christian1488]

For debate:

1. Is there any evidence to support the idea that the people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel?

Probably not. I mean, if there were, they would no longer be 'lost,' would they?

[*]Are there any linguistic links between the Hebrew language and English, Welsh, Cornish or Manx?

OK, there I can help.

Modern Hebrew is a 'resurrected' language, from the ancient Hebrew that, until the late 1880's was strictly a liturgical language, like Latin. Ancient Hebrew is the direct descendent of Proto-Semetic through "West Proto-Canannite" and Phoenician. Archaic Greek seems to have split from this direct line somewhere between West Proto-Canannite and Phoenician, and ancient Greek and Latin come from there. It is, indeed, at that point that the Proto-Indo-European class of languages came into being. THAT language tree sprouted the Hellenic, Celtic, Tocharian, Anatolian, Germanic and Italic groups. Welsh and Cornish came from the Brythonic branch of the Celtic group, and Manx and Gaelic (both Scots and Irish) if from the Goidelic branch of the Celtic group.

English...well, that's a problem.

Old English is solidly Germanic, through the West Germanic line. Old English became the modern English we speak with the intermingling of the Normans...old French--from the Italic line. As the church became more and more influential over the Old English speakers, the Italic grammar rules kept being forced upon this very different Creolicized pair of languages; hence the rule about splitting infinitives, for instance.

So there is a connection, but the language trees actually split off about two steps before Hebrew became 'Hebrew."

there. That should clear everything up, right?

[*]Could the British Royal Family be directly descended from the line of King David?

Well, shoot, THEY want to think so. But all those royal families have interestingly forged genealogies. It's a family joke for us...because one of my own genealogical lines ties into William the Conquerors bastard cousin, I can say that I can trace my line back to Adam. Why not? William can.

[*]Is it possible that the Stone of Jacob (Genesis 28:18) is the Stone of Scone, used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland, later British monarchs?

Anything is possible, I suppose. Including miniature black holes that power smart phones.

Do the British Empire and the American republic feature in Jewish or Christian prophetic literature?

dunno. American history features in LDS prophetic liturature, but I don't think you would consider that to "count."

[*]Is mixed-race marriage a sin? [/list]

er, no? That last was a bit of a left field thing.....

Israel to have a new name. Isa. 62:2; 65:15; Hos. 2:17
Israel to lose all trace of her lineage. Isa. 42:16-19; Hos. 1:9, 10; 2:6; Rom. 11:25.

Matthew 15:24:But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Luke 19:10:For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Christian, two things. Maybe three.

First, I'm not a biblical inerrentist.
Second, I'm a Mormon...and and believe that some of those verses don't mean what you think they do.


OK, make that just two things.

Do mormons read the Bible?

[JohnPaul]

Dianaiad wrote:

Well, shoot, THEY want to think so. But all those royal families have interestingly forged genealogies. It's a family joke for us...because one of my own genealogical lines ties into William the Conquerors bastard cousin, I can say that I can trace my line back to Adam. Why not? William can.

Hello, Diana,

Your ancestor, the "bastard cousin" of William the Conqueror, caught my eye here. A few months ago, I did some amateur genealogical research for a friend and found that her line allegedly went back to a close relative of William the Conqueror, a half-brother I think, or was it a brother-in-law? I will have to dig out my notes. I am pretty sure of her line back into England in the 1600s, but that is a long way from William the Conqueror, and before the 1600s it is all somebody else's almost certainly fictional family tree posted on the internet.

Anyway, I was curious about your line, and your source for it. My friend's ancestral line into England was named Warren. If it is not giving away any family secrets, could you please give me your ancestor's name?

Incidentally, I traced my own line back into Germany in the 1700s in Swabia, the area of Germany which was the ancient home of the Suevi tribe, one of the barbarian tribes which fought against Julius Caesar during his invasion of Gaul. So my line is older than yours, Nyah, Nyah!

Thanks,

John

[Malachi-Zede-El]

According to Deuteronomy 15 ; 12 , In the Strong's Concordance the word '' Hebrew '' Ibriy is not the name of a tribe or a people . Hebrew is just a title for what Abraham and his people did . Not what they were . The word '' Hebrew '' Is merely describing an Act Of A People Or A Person ; Moving From One Side To Another , And could apply to people originally born on one side of The Mississippi River , And deciding to relocate to the other side of TheMississippi River
.

Now that you have done the cut/paste job that you, or someone else have done in various numbers of forums over the last few years.. care to back that up with legitament sources, and then explain how this relates to any of the questions proposed in the op.

Your have to read the whole post to get the understanding of the word Hebrew . the sources is the bible . believe it or not , I know you know this subject of Israel / Hebrew , not First time here . One doesn't have follow some school to understand the bible . copy& paste I though you could come up with a better excuse then that to try to label me . What is it that you people here fear . You really can't believe your the only one with knowldge of the bible do you .

I see. You don't wish to back up the claims you made. As for 'copy paste'.. well
it's the exact same post as the following links

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/ab ... ation.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/ge ... did-2.html

http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showt ... rael/page3

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/judai ... ith-4.html

Are they you, and if so, why didn't you respond to any of the criticisms about your claims?

I Never said I haven't been to other fourm'sss I said ( I know you know this subject of Israel / Hebrew , not First time here ) .

I do respond rather they're small minded insult . Or they diagree with what I Post . Everyone doesn't have to go to some website for anwers to question like Most here does . The problem you and other have with me is that I don't fall in line with Some of your trian of though . So you come up with any type of excuse . So you look for ways to label me in order to give me warning .

I didn't know I had to follow a certian school of though here . And being you have been following my post so closely , You know the type of respond I have been geting from a few here . But you never said anything to them . I'm not the type of person who run to the mod everytime I disagree with some post , like a few here have done . Like I said before the scriptures are not hard to understand if one is not to lazyyyyy to do some research . Most of the question thats being ask here have been ask before here and other fourm .

What sad is a few here really think that they are some type of Scholar , And they feel they have the right to tell other what to say and how to say thing . As they're insulting them in their slick way .

[Goat]

The word '' Hebrew '' , In Aramic , Is the word Ibriy which comes from the root word Abar , Which means ; '' To Cross Over , To Pass Over '' . In the Aramic ( Hebrew ) language . In Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) , The word 'Aabiyr , For '' Eber '' , Means '' The One Who Passes Over '' . It gets the same meaning as the tirle '' Hebrew '' - One Who Traverse and Ebra , Meaning '' To Traverse ; To Expound '' . '' Traversing '' As used in the person to whom the name was given first , Was Eber , Son of Salah , Son of Shem , Son of Noah , As found in Genesis 10 ; 21 . < Noah ( 2970 - 2020 B.C.E. ) Son Of Lamech And Kamilah ( Genesis 5 ; 29
, Shem ( 2470 - 1870 B.C.E. ) Son Of Noah And Namah ( Genesis 5 ; 32 ) ....

The name Eber , Also Abar , Ay -Ber and Heber , Means '' The Region Beyond '' , From this you get the derivative of Eber , Hebrew , To mean '' One Who Crossed From Beyond One Region To Another '' Or Simply '' To Cross Over '' ,

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3

Yes, that confirms what was written. Languages evolved, and the term 'Jew' evolved from the term 'Judah, one of the tribes that made up the nation of Israel, and the providence where Jerusalem was located. I don't think you know what your point actually means, particularly since you are taking it out of context.

The word "Jew" is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz, king of Judah. The Syrians "drave the Jews from Elath" who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called "Jews" when more properly they should be called Judahites. However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.

http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/or ... d_jew.html - Origin of the word Jew

The Jews are not Israel.

Ah yes.. let's look at other articles in your source.

Planned Reduction of the World Population (taken from the anti-semetic forgery "the protocols of Zion)

The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion: The Secret Societies Blueprint for World Empire

Armageddon Theology: Christian Zionism's Heartfelt Desire for Apocalypse

Illuminati: Modern Manifestation of the Ancient Cult of Evil

That source looks to be totally paranoid , insane, anti-everything, and just plain out hateful.

Do you really want to use them as a source?

[dianaiad]

Do mormons read the Bible?

Why yes, we do, as a matter of fact. It's even mentioned in one of our twelve Articles of Faith, the first of which goes:

"We believe in God, The Eternal Father, And in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

If you count down to number eight, some of which I guarantee would give a fundamentalist fits, you come to this one:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

I wrote that we didn't believe that the bible was error free, not that we didn't consider it to be scripture.

Oh, and we don't think that the scriptures you are quoting here necessarily mean what you think they do. (shrug)

Shoot, wouldn't give us a HUGE problem if it turns out that they don't mean what some of us think they do, come to think of it.

[Malachi-Zede-El]

The word '' Hebrew '' , In Aramic , Is the word Ibriy which comes from the root word Abar , Which means ; '' To Cross Over , To Pass Over '' . In the Aramic ( Hebrew ) language . In Ashuric / Syriac ( Arabic ) , The word 'Aabiyr , For '' Eber '' , Means '' The One Who Passes Over '' . It gets the same meaning as the tirle '' Hebrew '' - One Who Traverse and Ebra , Meaning '' To Traverse ; To Expound '' . '' Traversing '' As used in the person to whom the name was given first , Was Eber , Son of Salah , Son of Shem , Son of Noah , As found in Genesis 10 ; 21 . < Noah ( 2970 - 2020 B.C.E. ) Son Of Lamech And Kamilah ( Genesis 5 ; 29
, Shem ( 2470 - 1870 B.C.E. ) Son Of Noah And Namah ( Genesis 5 ; 32 ) ....

The name Eber , Also Abar , Ay -Ber and Heber , Means '' The Region Beyond '' , From this you get the derivative of Eber , Hebrew , To mean '' One Who Crossed From Beyond One Region To Another '' Or Simply '' To Cross Over '' ,

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3

Yes, that confirms what was written. Languages evolved, and the term 'Jew' evolved from the term 'Judah, one of the tribes that made up the nation of Israel, and the providence where Jerusalem was located. I don't think you know what your point actually means, particularly since you are taking it out of context.

The word "Jew" is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz, king of Judah. The Syrians "drave the Jews from Elath" who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called "Jews" when more properly they should be called Judahites. However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.

http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/or ... d_jew.html - Origin of the word Jew

The Jews are not Israel.

Ah yes.. let's look at other articles in your source.

Planned Reduction of the World Population (taken from the anti-semetic forgery "the protocols of Zion)

The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion: The Secret Societies Blueprint for World Empire

Armageddon Theology: Christian Zionism's Heartfelt Desire for Apocalypse

Illuminati: Modern Manifestation of the Ancient Cult of Evil

That source looks to be totally paranoid , insane, anti-everything, and just plain out hateful.

Do you really want to use them as a source?

I stand by everything I post .

What paranoid , insane , hateful. Is your mind-set towards other who doesn't see things your way . And you have this need to attack / Insult me as you cliam I'm doing . That tell me you fear the truth . I also notice you didn't challange my post . Why is that , No you rather flip the scripture and saying I'm copying and pasteing , in order to hide the truth . And label me , Which is an old media trick isn't ? This is a debating / discussion forum right . If what I'm post is not true then you should challange it and not play these under handed trick to cover up thing . and set me up to be ban . I told by and elder one time those who fear being question they are hideing something or covering up something . Which is it your trying to hide / cover up . You have this need to come at me like this ??

What the real meaning of that Six-pointed / lock Star ???? paranoid , insane , hateful < very poor excuse