Most people probably learn about Lilith from C.S. Lewis, who mentions her in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.The Clan of Lilith, according to a quick Google search, is a designation used by people who've read too many vampire novels.
But Wes White enters new territory with his newly released novel Clan of Lilith: The Oldest Conspiracy
.According to publisher Wasteland Press, this is a mystery and suspense novel, but don't be fooled, it's more than that. Wes is a well known figure in the independent wing of the Church of God, and his story-line is based around British Israel: the Throne of David, Jeremiah, and Tea Tephi all get a mention.
But the distinctive element is Lilith, Adam's first wife.
Before Eve there was Lilith. C.S. Lewis says so, that that must be right. Lilith - according to legend - was a stroppy, feminist type who refused to submit to poor old indecisive Adam and then ran off.
I'm not making this up, some people apparently take this stuff seriously.
Wes' contribution - and it's probably a COG first - is to pit the surviving descendants of Lilith in a multi-millennia-long plot against... wait for it... the Throne of David.
And John Morgan will be amazed to learn who really bumped off Princess Di.
Again, this is a novel, not something by Steve Collins or Craig White, so it's not immediately apparent whether Wes is having a joke with us, or actually believes some of this material. All I can say is, as a novel it's not too bad if you're willing to suspend disbelief (just like you don't have to believe in Klingons to appreciate Star Trek.) I read it through in a single sitting and enjoyed Lilith immensely. It's not quite Dan Brown, of course (although there's an intrepid professor at the center of this story too), but Wes has put together a good yarn. If you're looking for something for light reading that's a little different, this may just be what you're after.
But could there really be descendants of Lilith out there, tirelessly and ruthlessly suppressing the truth about our origins and plotting the overthrow of the Windsor family?
Not in this reality!
But...
If some time in the future The Journal reports that Wes, like a loose-lipped journalist in his book, disappears "to Australia where three months later he went missing. His mutilated remains were finally found in the outback. His death was listed as accidental, having been attacked by a pack of dingos." (p. 19)
... then maybe it'll be time to reconsider.
Amazon link
60 comments:
Glad to see Wes' offering of "COG Fiction".
Along that genre, I am preparing the first "COG Sci Fi" novel.
Interestingly enough, you mentioned "Star Trek" and that is exactly where the novel will be based on ... Star Trek evolving in its tenor, just like the COG has...
In this trilogy, the first book is based on Star Trek "The Original Series" from the 1960s and parallels the COG from the 1960s...
A strong militaristic, patriarchal/hierarchial command and control structure, led by a sexy charismatic leader (ala GTA/Kirk) who gets to have indiscriminate sex with all of the sexy submissive co-edish crew. Its "5 year mission" similar to the "Gun Lap".
The Second Book jumps to Star Trek "The Next Generation" which features the era 1989 to 1994. The command is not quite as hierarchial, the crew is allowed to debate with the Captain a little bit, but in the end , Picard/Tkach still makes the decisions. There is bit less overt sexuality, and the "bridge" has folks sitting in more casual chairs.
The Third book of the trilogy, parallels the "Voyager" series that ran from 1995 to 2001. The ship is hopelessly lost, randomly flying around the entire universe. The crew is a total mess, with mutiny, intrigue, political factions. Nobody gives a crap what the Captain thinks, and does whatever they want, sometimes openly, sometimes in a serpentine fashion. Everyone voices their opinion, and writes their own contract.
The future for the COG?? ..Guess we will have to wait for the next Star Trek series!
Bill Lussenheide, Menifee, CA USA
Lewis borrowed heavily from mythology because he believed it contained a kernel of spiritual truth. But his use of mythology in creating literary devices cannot be construed as any kind of endorsement of the substance of mythological accounts and characters.
-- Neo
Great . . . more British/Israel crap.
I've read some websites that show that it is a whole lot more plausible that the "Stans" are the "lost ten tribes". You know, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kurdistan etc.
Yeah, I know, that's weird - but no more weird than to believe that Semitic turned into Aryan. After all, Assyria was Semitic too and they turned into Aryan Germans? Poof! I guess. How else could that happen?
Then prest-o, change-o, Abra Kadabra - poof! Semitic Israelites change into Aryans.
And, Tea Tephi - she should get a mention - right along side the angel Moroni and Nephi.
There were never twelve tribes descended from twelve brothers; there were only three sisters. The nation of Judah and the Northern Kingdom sprang from three sisters.
o Judah
o Samariah
o Sodom
The sister's father was an Amorite and their mother was a Hittite. The Amorites were Semitic, but the Hitties could well have been Arian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
(Ezek 16:45-51 NASB) "You are the daughter of your mother, who loathed her husband and children. You are also the sister of your sisters, who loathed their husbands and children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite.
(46) "Now your older sister is Samaria, who lives north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lives south of you, is Sodom with her daughters.
(47) "Yet you have not merely walked in their ways or done according to their abominations; but, as if that were too little, you acted more corruptly in all your conduct than they.
(48) "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister, and her daughters, have not done as you and your daughters have done.
(49) "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
(50) "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
(51) "Furthermore, Samaria did not commit half of your sins, for you have multiplied your abominations more than they. Thus you have made your sisters appear righteous by all your abominations which you have committed.
Proof once again that the Churches of God were formed on opinions based on magical fantasy, raised to doctrine.
Might as well subscribe to Magazine of Science Fiction and Fantasy, keep a full assortment of Harry Potter books and videos, get all the seasons of Charmed and Bewitched. If there be anything mystical, dwell on those things, for it is the basis of all truth.
Be warned: There's no reality in any of it. It's entertainment. In the case of the Churches of God, it is also magical vacation planning.
Think about it: A first resurrection where everyone becomes God, a second resurrection where the dead become the living dead, the Great White Throne Judgment, followed by a magical mystical Kingdom not of this realm. The Universe and its perverse reality filled with rules and processes be damned. Magic rules. Physics is just so much inconvenience.
Just don't let them get under the hood of your car to fix the engine....
"Proof once again that the Churches of God were formed on opinions based on magical fantasy, raised to doctrine.
...If there be anything mystical, dwell on those things, for it is the basis of all truth."
And you my good friend are a good Orthodox Christian who believes most every word of the OT and NT. You do of course know that the OT and NT are "magical fantasy" written to give the priests and governments control of the people.
One must not question Orthodoxy; one must not question the priests and the authorities that be...
Corky said...
>>Great . . . more British/Israel crap.<<
Are you repudiating your belief and proof of HWA's book, America and Britain in Prophecy?
Do you not understand that WCG was the corporate arm of the spiritual church of God, and that God raised up HWA to preach the gospel to the world?
Do you not understand that any religion that doesn't offer a solution to the problem of death is of no value to man? Do you not know that HWA was sent by God with the message that Christ conquered death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Are you not aware that unless you believe these truths, you are without hope!
BTW (to whom it may concerned) I am still waiting for the court transcripts that prove HWA had an incestuous relationship with his daughter, and that the state attorney dropped the misappropriation of funds charges against him for political reasons. I am becoming inpatient, so please hurry, as my mind, or should that be my parachute, is opened to these facts.
Gavin wrote:
"Again, this is a novel, not something by Steve Collins or Craig White,..."
Gavin, thanks for opening my eyes to the truth. Up until now I had always thought Steve Collins and Craig White were writing fiction :-))
Bob E.
Tom whinged:
"BTW (to whom it may concerned) I am still waiting for the court transcripts that prove HWA had an incestuous relationship with his daughter, and that the state attorney dropped the misappropriation of funds charges against him for political reasons. I am becoming inpatient, so please hurry, as my mind, or should that be my parachute, is opened to these facts."
You were told where to find the relevant facts, but apparently you are only willing to do the work if someone else does it for you. Sorry Tom, you will have to pay your own way.
Bob E.
Are you repudiating your belief and proof of HWA's book, America and Britain in Prophecy?
Writers new to fantasy should note the guidelines of such publications as Fantasy & Science Fiction for the acceptance of publication. The Editor, Gordon Van Gelder is not going to accept Fantasy from a writer who does not know the rules of fantasy writing.
Though the premise for such an article may be bizarre by real world standards, be warned that Fantasy writing requires a special attention to discipline: There are rules of magic and any article about magic must have a very strict adherence to the rules to bring about results of the magic being written about. For example, in a story, you may have a talisman which transforms lead to gold, BUT, you can't just willy-nilly decide to change the talisman and, further, you can't use copper to turn it to gold.
Moreover, when writing this sort of fiction, one can overcome evil magic through the operation of the good magic which follows the rules in a stringent framework. You can't just presto a mystic device out of existence arbitrarily.
Violate the rules and you won't sell the story.
Most people here don't have the ability to write such fiction, but Herbert Armstrong certainly did.
And fantasy it was.
Derived from the whole cloth of his distorted imagination, helped along considerably by nutty fantasy writers like J. H. Allen, Armstrong plagiarized the entirety of Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright, not realizing that the whole thing had its derivation as early as 1659 through John Sadler's Rights of the Kingdom and, later, Ezra Stiles' The United States elevated to Glory and Honor, published in 1783. These apologists for this sychophantic idea were popular, clear, neat, logical and quite wrong.
Many early legends abound in ancient British folklore suggesting a link to the Holy Land. These include but are not limited to:
1) The story that Joseph of Arimathea (Jesus' alleged uncle) traveled to Cornwall sometime after Christ's crucifixion and established an early Christian community;
2) Suggestions that the Stone of Scone might be Jacob's Pillar or Jacob's Pillow Stone [recently disproved by actual chemical tests];
3) Legends that the Israelite prophet Jeremiah may have been the "Olam Fadlah" of Celtic lore;
4) The legends of the Historia Regum Britanniae connecting Britain to the Mediterranian and Middle East and detailing early English genealogies;
5) The coming of Brutus of Troy (Britis) to Great Britain after the burning of Troy and his genealogy leading to the Israelite tribe of Benjamin;
6) The Matter of Britain detailing the Arthurian Legend;
7) The claims by Henry VIII to be descended from King Arthur, who legend has it was the eighth generation from Joseph of Aramathea.
8) The claim that the Apostle Paul visited Britain.
Each of these legends have been incorporated into the British Israel belief. Regardless of the accuracy of the details of these legends, each of them are evidence of a belief by British people and those descended from them for hundreds and even thousands of years in a tangible genetic connection between the people of Britain and the people of the Holy land.
Unfortunately, genetics pretty much destroys the whole premise:
The British Israel theology depends upon a direct genetic link of Britons with ancient Israel in the Middle East. However, modern DNA studies on the Y-Chromosome of Jews worldwide such as the Human Genome Project have determined that modern Jews share common semitic (Middle Eastern) origins dating back to a common genetic source 3000 years ago in the Middle East, presumably Israel, but that Europeans and particularly Britons share no such genetic connection to ancient Israel. While Jews are genetically tied to the region of Israel, they are sharply divergent genetically from Britons and other Europeans. Thus, on a genetic level from DNA analyses of the populations there appears to be no link between Britons and the Middle East or ancient Israel.
Darn science, falsely so called!
Yes, Herbert Armstrong should have posted on his booklets the same notice as is used for advertising the psychic hotline: "For entertainment purposes only". It would also have been helpful if he posted a warning that absorbing too much of his fantasy could have harmful side effects.
You were told where to find the relevant facts, but apparently you are only willing to do the work if someone else does it for you.
Unfortunately, that would absolutely ruin the fact free fantasy world of the worshiper of testosterone shrunken brained Republican dog-owning pastards.
There's no use explaining rainbows to earthworms.
Tired Skeptic said...
"Unfortunately, genetics pretty much destroys the whole premise:" (of British Israel theology).
If this can be proved how come the official Human Genome Program web site states:-
“No consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.”
I prefer to believe the Human Genomes Program own web site statement, rather than the claims of a ‘Tired Skeptic’.
No consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.
Manipulative quote to establish a fantasy: The word "race" was no where mentioned -- an obvious obfuscation to obviate the facts. Yet, there it is, introduced to practice deception and mislead the unwary simple to wrong conclusions.
Another presto moment in magic to make the real world go poofy by an obvious deceiver bent on perpetuating mystical religion.
"However, modern DNA studies on the Y-Chromosome of Jews worldwide such as the Human Genome Project have determined that modern Jews share common semitic (Middle Eastern) origins dating back to a common genetic source 3000 years ago in the Middle East, presumably Israel, but that Europeans and particularly Britons share no such genetic connection to ancient Israel. While Jews are genetically tied to the region of Israel, they are sharply divergent genetically from Britons and other Europeans."
It would be nice to have facts and hard data... please provide it.
But this is purely urban legend. There is no supporting data. It is simply urban legend!
I wish the folks who quote this stuff would stop quoting one another and quote genuine scientific sources.
There have been no studies to determine if Europeans are of Israelite origin. NONE.
It is like people who quote the Bible to prove the Bible; it is circular reasoning. You just keep quoting one another and prove nothing.
There is no proof...
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/hgp.shtml
"The Human Genome Project (HGP) refers to the international 13-year effort, formally begun in October 1990 and completed in 2003, to discover all the estimated 20,000-25,000 human genes and make them accessible for further biological study. Another project goal was to determine the complete sequence of the 3 billion DNA subunits (bases in the human genome). As part of the HGP, parallel studies were carried out on selected model organisms such as the bacterium E. coli and the mouse to help develop the technology and interpret human gene function. The DOE Human Genome Program and the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) together sponsored the U.S. Human Genome Project."
The Human Genome Project doesn't give a hoot about British Israel theories.
Somehow I think the Borg more appropriate to the Armstrong Galactic Empire.
"Resistance is futile, Jesus will smash you and your mother! All humans will be assimilated."
The WCG never could think outside the box, so box shaped space craft would be entirely appropriate.
The UCG could be the Sphere ships, different shape space ship, same old drones. "We will add your distinctiveness to the collective..."
The burden of genetic proof should be on the Armstrongites. They should undertake corroborating studies to verify their claims about British-Israelism. The means exist. The Lemba people of Africa are an example of this kind of study. They carry a levitical genetic profile.
So now is the time for the Armstrongites to lay to rest, once and for all, the critics of British-Israelism. Armstrongites have long claimed that the Welsh are of the tribe of Levi. My guess the data already exists that would demonstrate whether they show the same levitical genetic profile as the Lemba. It is just that nobody has every thought to ask such a looney question.
Someone should issue this challenge to Clyde Kilough with the request that he disband the UCG if the genetic evidence is not present. Of course, after he makes an apology for years of preaching error.
-- Neo
Tom Mahon said...
Corky said...
>>Great . . . more British/Israel crap.<<
Are you repudiating your belief and proof of HWA's book, America and Britain in Prophecy?
Yep, and I thought that I never would say this to anyone but I hope you don't ever figure out how wrong you are. I feel that your life would be in danger if you only knew.
Sometimes, I suppose, it really is better that certain ones continue to remain blissfully ignorant
Heh heh heh! Good one, Corky. It's a darned good punishment, too! Let's hope Tom always sticks to his Armstrongism!
BB
There is no proof...
Correct. There is no hard proof or evidence of the Great Tribulation beginning in 1972 nor the return of Jesus Christ in 1975. Please provide it.
One would think that if British Israelism were correct, the chief proponent would have a few of the prophecies based on it would have come to pass in his lifetime, but sadly, it never happened.
Furthermore, 20 years after his death, his major predictions have not come to pass: It was all fantasy -- those who become entangled by Armstrongism surely should expect nothing but liars and thieves to surround those stupid enough to continue to live the fantasy.
The burden of proof of British Israelism is borne by the adherents -- just as it is for those who still believe that aliens live in the middle of the earth and fly spaceships out of the North Pole.
They all look so silly continuing to claim that which has not been happening and continues not to happen is a sure sign it will.
Concerning the genetics, just declaring that the Genome Project didn't care about races isn't good enough to refute the quote provided. This is the typical deception of the scoundrels supporting something they know they can't support scientifically -- not that any of them have one shred of understanding what they are talking about when it comes to science, since they are so entrenched in fantasy.
Anyone supporting Armstrongism are in the midst of liars and thieves, deluded in their abject fantasies become habit.
There's also something about living in a fantasy world of lies: It always breaks down into chaos. It takes enormous resources to hold such a world together.
Case in point is the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert Armstrong, although we could have just as easily picked Enron under Kenneth Lay. The fictions and fantasies required enormous amounts of money to keep the operation running: Up to $250 Million per year. Over the span of 30 years or so, Herbert Armstrong went through between $2 Billion to $4 Billion in his profligacy, managing to get all sort of nice things to fulfill his lusts, but requiring those who worked for him to oft forgo the finer things of life as underpaid and overworked serfs and slaves. The pattern of spending was typical of those who have mania. So were the abjectly silly fantasies spun by him and some of his chief fantasy producers, such as Dr. Hoeh and Gerald Waterhouse.
In the end, there is no legacy. Entropy has taken care of the manic energy. Chaos reigns.
The fruit of British Israelism is utter failure. But it gets worse. Now I've read the Bible through seven times already and I see no evidence that Ephraim is going to be a separate entity after all is said and done. Those of you reading through Hosea right now for the weekly Bible reading at services -- and I know who you are -- know the news is not good. The Drunkards of Ephraim don't seem to have lasted all the way to Revelation, as has the tribe of Dan also faring badly.
Anyway, to get all excited about whether or not America -- that great multinational melting pot with diverse races throughout -- is a lost tribe with blessings, but mostly cursings is pretty much irrelevant. After all that is said and done, the Kingdom of God won't be about which nation inherited what.
It's surprising that so many Armstrongists seem to have missed the point of the New Testament, what with all that love and spirit of peace and joy and all, what with obsessing on irrelevant and totally unimportant things, to ignore the mercy and justice they should be seeking. It's as if their posterior parietal cortex has been damaged.
Bob E said...
TOM>>>"BTW (to whom it may concerned) I am still waiting for the court transcripts that prove HWA had an incestuous relationship with his daughter, and that the state attorney dropped the misappropriation of funds charges against him for political reasons. I am becoming inpatient, so please hurry, as my mind, or should that be my parachute, is opened to these facts."<<<
Bob>>>You were told where to find the relevant facts, but apparently you are only willing to do the work if someone else does it for you.<<<
If someone does it for me, then, there would be no need for me to do it. But let us move on.
If people want to prove to me that HWA was guilty of incest or thief, then, they must provide the evidence, not ask me to go and find it!
Tired Skeptic said...
TOM">>>Are you repudiating your belief and proof of HWA's book, America and Britain in Prophecy?"<<<
TS>>>Writers new to fantasy should note the guidelines of such publications as Fantasy & Science Fiction for the acceptance of publication. The Editor, Gordon Van Gelder is not going to accept Fantasy from a writer who does not know the rules of fantasy writing.<<<
I take it that this drivel means yes. The fact that you, Corky and many others in the cabal are now repudiating what you once proved and believed to be true, should send shock waves through those who are your closest associates. For if they have any sense, they would realise that you cannot not be trusted. How do they know, that in five to ten years time you are not going to repudiate all that you now believe to be true, and describe it as fantasy? People with your mindset is described by the bible as, "double minded," and "unstable as water." One couldn't think of two more apt descriptions!
However, describing HWA's book as fantasy is not a cogent argument against its thesis. It is puerile nonsense.
Still, my comments will be like water off the proverbial duck's, back, as your infertile imagination comes up with another fantasy, entitled, Why Do I Call Myself Tired Skeptic?
Tom noted
"For if they have any sense, they would realise that you cannot not be trusted. How do they know, that in five to ten years time you are not going to repudiate all that you now believe to be true, and describe it as fantasy?"
Just curious if you grew up in WCG or came from another tradition of your family origins?
Tired Skeptic said...
"Manipulative quote to establish a fantasy: The word "race" was no where mentioned -- an obvious obfuscation to obviate the facts. Yet, there it is, introduced to practice deception and mislead the unwary simple to wrong conclusions."
I strongly object to this accusation that I am somehow trying to deceive. If the Genome project either proves or disproves British Israelism, that’s fine by me – we will then know.
However the project is clearly saying that such research cannot be done, at least with it's present knowledge. The quote I used was brief, so I wouldn’t bore everyone, but if my integrity is now at stake, which 'Tired Skeptic' seems to questioning, then here is the full question and answer as given
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml
Genetic Anthropology, Ancestry, and Ancient Human Migration
The two relevant questions I looked at were:-
Can the lineages of paternal grandmothers or maternal grandfathers be traced using DNA?
The Y chromosome transfers only from father to son, so it cannot be used to study the ancestry of paternal grandmothers. Similarly, mtDNA cannot be used to study the ancestry of maternal grandfathers. The genetic markers from these relatives reside in our autosomal DNA, composed of the 22 pairs of nonsex chromosomes found within the nucleus of every cell. Autosomal DNA tests look for SNPs, or alleles, located throughout the DNA. Since autosomal DNA is a random mixture of contributions from each parent, these tests cannot determine from which side of the family the alleles came unless the family members in question also have donated DNA. Because many generations of family are represented in autosomal DNA, it provides a broad picture of an individual's heritage rather than a trail of specific ancestry.
Many companies sell autosomal DNA tests as a means of determining an individual's "biogeographic ethnicity." Theses ethnicities are defined by geographical region or by ancient human migration patterns and vary arbitrarily in composition depending on the company offering the test. No scientific definitions for genetic ethnicity are universally accepted.
Will genetic anthropology establish scientific criteria for race or ethnicity?
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them.
Key phrases to me are:-
“Theses ethnicities ……vary arbitrarily in composition DEPENDING ON THE COMPANY OFFERING THE TEST. No scientific definitions for genetic ethnicity are universally accepted.”
“No consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.” which was the quote that I used earlier in this thread.
Yes, tired skeptic, I have lifted those two quotes from the full write-up to be brief. But you can read the full quote above and more.
So does your accusation still stand that I “practice deception and mislead the unwary simple to wrong conclusions.” I await your response.
Another comment from the above which I thought intereting was
"Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them."
Tom saith :
How do they know, that in five to ten years time you are not going to repudiate all that you now believe to be true, and describe it as fantasy?
Well Tom, isn't that exactly what YOU did when you left your "syrupy" Protestantism behind and joined Armstrong's Worldweird cult?
Or were you an Armstrongite in the womb?
Questeruk, I do apologize that I misread your intention.
I would point out that in Scripture, the paternal ancestry is the one which usually is the definitive one with a few notable exceptions (such as the ancestry of Jesus given in the gospels): After all, the Arabs also came from Abraham, but are not inheritors according to Scripture.
For that reason, I would support that using the Y chromosome would be adequate for the standards Biblical confirmation.
Rejection of British Israelism has struck a raw nerve, a certain indication that uncomfortable truth has been exposed.
British Israelism is the genre of horror fantasy fiction which is a narrow interest indeed.
British Israelism is as benign as metastized cancer: Adherents lose spiritual momentum because of the pride and arrogance of cloying "secret" knowledge it imparts.
Those who embrace it stop growing spiritually. Note the bickering spit-offs continuing to splinter, unable to cooperate together, continuing their petty wars amongst themselves because of their lusts, setting a terrible example and wasting massive resources, all to prove something is going to happen, based on nothing more than deluded opinion, not supported by Scripture.
The final end is what we all experience here: Idolaters filled with pride, stuck in the twilight zone of horror fiction fantasy, protesting that their ox has been gored. It's worse than that, the sacred cow has been slaughtered and we had steak for dinner.
Herbert Armstrong used British Israelism to dumb everyone down as he gaily prognosticated the end of the United States and Britain before the end of World War II, proving that he was a false prophet, and, as Tom pointed out, God has never worked through false prophets, although, you know, He could suddenly change without warning arbitrarily, violating Scripture, as it were.
The final result of adhering blindly to British Israelism is death of the worst sort: Intelligence.
Now would be a good time to give up British Israelism, if for no other reason that it is irrelevant to a Christian life, and repent to gain the full benefits of a healthy spiritual life, rather than a sick one.
Stingerski said...
Tom saith :
>>>How do they know, that in five to ten years time you are not going to repudiate all that you now believe to be true, and describe it as fantasy?<<<
If you intend to join the discussion and make a sensible contribution, please answer question, if you can?
Tired Skeptic reminds me of Keith Stump, who has also repudiated all that he once believed to be true. On another forum, Keith never used to address any points that challenged his newly found Evangelical Alliance beliefs. Just as TS does, he would ignore every logical argument, and reply with some soppy, sentimental drivel, loaded with meaningless platitudes, as though he was a clone of Joe junior.
Keith also used alias, but I was able to rumble him, for there is nothing hidden that shall not be made known . I suppose I will have to coin a term, and categorise TS as a Tkachite.
Speaking of open-minded search for the truth, and the discussion about DNA and British-Israelism, this letter exchange from 2002 between "Bob E." to Garner Ted Armstrong and answered by Chris Cumming (then-GTA associate, current ICG minister) is instructive:
The intrepid Bob E. wrote GTA:
"Modern genetic science has totally debunked the mythical theory of British Israelism. This theory has always required a great leap of faith to believe in, especially as it relates to the United States, which throughout it's history has been an acknowledged melting pot of all races. Now I realize that this blows your whole gig, but so far it appears that much like the pope in Gallileo's day, you are ignoring science."
Hmm, how would GTA answer this? Here is how:
----- start excerpt from CC -----
From: Chris Cumming
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:22 PM
Subject: Response to your e-mail
Dear Bob,
Thank you for the e-mail.
I am not surprised that "modern genetic science" has totally debunked the mythical theory of British Israelism. Man, influenced by Satan, will do anything to keep man from the truth. Frankly, we do not accept anything that your so-called science has to say on the matter. We have proved otherwise. The proof is there.
---- end excerpt from CC answer ---
(posted at http://www.hwarmstrong.com/garner-ted-armstrong-myrmidon-returns.htm )
Or as they used to say, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"
Neotherm wrote:
"Someone should issue this challenge to Clyde Kilough with the request that he disband the UCG if the genetic evidence is not present. Of course, after he makes an apology for years of preaching error."
Somehow Neo I don't think discovery of the truth of the matter is the uppermost priority for UCG leaders. At some point leaders of groups such as UCG face explicitly the choice: do they go with the truth and lose the church, or keep the church (and its income and retirement program) and squelch the truth. Of course the social benefits, the "love between the brethren", the long-term family and friends' associations, the memories of FOT and music, the sense of belonging, can outweigh the force of many of these contradictions. Churches are not for the most part about truth, no matter what the overt claims are. They are about filling social needs that somehow do not get met in any other means in our society. Yet every church has its story, its legend, its narrative--in this case the loony, wacky, historically incredible theory of British-Israelism.
I suppose I will have to coin a term, and categorise TS as a Tkachite.
I don't know who this "TS" character is, but I keep the Sabbath and the Holydays, make a stab at keeping the Commandments and ask for forgiveness when I fall short.
Again, Tom has proved himself a liar, making up fantasy as he goes along -- an utter blathering fool full of uninformed opinions -- as are all the other Armstrongists full of themselves, full of arrogance, full of error, unwilling to admit the truth, but most of all, unable to repent, stuck in their own cesspool of sin from which they refuse to repent.
The one thing I don't do is forgive those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Tom is an embarrassment to God, or, at least he would be, if he were godly, instead of being an obsessed idolater.
Tired Skeptic said...
"The one thing I don't do is forgive those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit."
MY COMMENT: And, just how do you go about knowing who has???? How does one "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit?
Hey Luss!
I liked your Star Trek analogy, but I think you didn't go far enough.
The last of the series was Star Trek Enterprise, in which the setting is pre-Kirk. This can be compared to the "back to the faith once delivered" spiel of some of the surviving micro-splinters.
You might also take heart that Enterprise is the last of the Star Trek genre.
KMS
I'm a bit surprised to see my exchange with the GTA organization from 2002 surface here. Back then, I was using the pen name "Bob E" because the Painful Truth originator had styled the layout of the site as a type of Armstrongaholics Anonymous thing. I wrote a couple dozen articles for the site, and the exchange excerpted above represented some of my more brazen activity. Shortly after that "interview" was posted, I noticed that a number of other "Bob E"s began surfacing on some of these WCG recovery sites, so I began using the somewhat more unique moniker "Byker Bob".
My original intention with that "interview" was to confront GTA. My first email in that series of exchanges was addressed to GTA. However, I learned that GTA had delegated all of his correspondence duties to Chris Cummings. I found Chris to be likeable, personable, and patient, but also pretty much immovable from his doctrinal position regarding British Israelism. I had a lot more time on my hands when I did that article, and when all was said and done, considered it to be a fairly good representation of a tyical ACOG reaction to the new emerging dna evidence against British Israelism.
Counter to what Tom Mahon has stated, you cannot actually "prove" British Israelism in the first place. There is not enough solid history regarding the Germanic tribes wandering around Central Europe way back when, so the theorists (HWA and his source, Judah's Sceptre) indulge in much speculation, and jumps in logic.
Nevertheless, most of the ACOG members feel that by reading HWA's speculation, they have "proved" the identities of modern US and BC. It is preposterous to believe that one totally distinct tribe emerges just by virtue of leaving its homelands (and the pilgrims came in from all of the European, and Scandinavian countries, with huge numbers of Africans mixed in as slaves) and colonizing a newly discovered territory already inhabited by indiginous tribes.
In Armtrongese, the Indians become Canaanites, and the Germans become Assyrians, also with no historical or genetic support. HWA's theories are on an intellectual par with the myths of Lilith, or the lost continent of Atlantis.
The danger of the British Israel approach to interpreting prophecy is that people are basing their lives, plans, families, and futures on little more than religious fiction. How sincere can a Christian be if his "calling" resulted from having a televangelist scare the "crap" out of him with prophecy? Self-centered "save your ass" callings do not cause one to focus on Jesus Christ, or to practice Christ-like behavior towards one's fellow man. That is why we see the ACOGs turning their backs on victims of natural disasters, building multi- million dollar complexes when they believe that the end is right around the corner, and enrichening their pastor generals and evangelists on the backs of their widows and working poor.
Bad tree, rotten fruit. We thought we proved it all, but on deeper scrutiny, it all falls apart.
BB
To believe the BI theory one must also believe that semitic people can change into aryan people. Then they must ignore archeology and history.
Of course, that doesn't even account for how the Assyrians changed from semitic people into aryan people and why Germany and Assyria are not in the same geographical location.
the modern Assyrian people, still in northern Mesopotamia, continue to speak Neo-Aramaic dialects that are no kin to German.
The Assyrians are an ethnic group whose origins lie in what is today Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria, but many of whom have migrated to the Caucasus, North America and Western Europe during the past century. Hundreds of thousands more live in Assyrian diaspora and Iraqi refugee communities in Europe, the former Soviet Union, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon.
As a result of persecution in the wake of the First World War, there is now a significant Assyrian diaspora.
Assyrians still exist but they are not Germans and they are still a semitic people.
"Anyone supporting Armstrongism are in the midst of liars and thieves, deluded in their abject fantasies become habit."
the corollary...
Anyone supporting Orthodoxy is in the midst of liars and thieves !!!
Only Orthodoxy cares about this issue. No one else cares. Why bother with such foolishness?
""Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them."
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF ALL OF THIS.
You can't not argue that Jews and Israelites are separate and unique genetically and therefore could not be in Europe and the USA in large numbers.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT AND BE HONEST.
And you did try to do that...
>>>Just curious if you grew up in WCG or came from another tradition of your family origins?<<<
If you had a name, I would answer your question.
Regarding the Lemba:
"A team of geneticists has found that many Lemba men carry in their male chromosome a set of DNA sequences that is distinctive of the cohanim, the Jewish priests believed to be the descendants of Aaron. The priestly genetic signature is particularly common among Lemba men who belong to the senior of their 12 groups, known as the Buba clan... He(David B. Goldstein) finds that 45 percent of Ashkenazi priests and 56 percent of Sephardic priests have the cohen genetic signature, while in Jewish populations in general the frequency is 3 to 5 percent."
The prevalent theories among Armstrongites are that the Levites are represented by the modern Welsh people, even though the Welsh histories indicate them to be descended from Gomer,the son of Japheth. Another Armstrongite theory is that many of the men in their ministry are in fact levites or Aaronites. Rod Meredith, of course, was cited as a prime example because not only was he a minister but he was also of Welsh extraction.
Isn't it kind of embarrassing to the Armstrongite "Priesthood" when some blacks in Africa can demonstrate a nearly unchallengable connection to Aaron and the Armstrongite ministry hs not done so?
If an obscure African tribe with a remote connection with the Jews can be identified as having a connection with the Jewish Priesthood, why can we not use the same methodologies to find such a connection with the "true" house of Levi, the Welsh.
Don Ward and John Robinson, by claiming that the Jews were actually Gentiles descended from Ashkenaz, effectively protected British-Israelism from any genetic analysis. Maybe this will be the route of escape for today's Armstrongites.
Tom wrote: "If people want to prove to me that HWA was guilty of incest or thief, then, they must provide the evidence, not ask me to go and find it!"
Just to keep this in perspective, HWA's status as a heretic does not pivot on assertions such as this. As HWA would say: "You need to get to the trunk of the tree." HWA believed and taught bizarre ideas about the nature of God. But his greatest error was to teach that man would become "God as God is God". This cannot be supported from the Bible. Who cares if he committed incest. Lay an axe to the trunk and all the branches will fall.
-- Neo
Tired Skeptic said...
TOM>>>I suppose I will have to coin a term, and categorise TS as a Tkachite.<<<
TS>>>I don't know who this "TS" character is,<<<
Will someone please tell TS who TS is.
>>>..but I keep the Sabbath and the Holydays, make a stab at keeping the Commandments and ask for forgiveness when I fall short.<<<
So did the Pharisees! Yet Jesus said, "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." Your silly attack on HWA has excluded you from God's kingdom!
TS>>>Again, Tom has proved himself a liar, making up fantasy as he goes along -- an utter blathering fool full of uninformed opinions -- as are all the other Armstrongists full of themselves, full of arrogance, full of error, unwilling to admit the truth, but most of all, unable to repent, stuck in their own cesspool of sin from which they refuse to repent.<<<
You may abuse me as much as you like, but I won't render to any man evil for evil.
BTW, now that the poison, that would have burst the breast, has ebbed away in empty hisses, would you like to string together a coherent response to the points I raised in my original post to Corky? Or would you prefer to post some more sentimental platitudes?
>>>..but I keep the Sabbath and the Holydays, make a stab at keeping the Commandments and ask for forgiveness when I fall short.<<<
So did the Pharisees! Yet Jesus said, "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven."
Tom is wrong again. I ask for forgiveness. The Pharisees did not. One wonders if Tom does. Apparently not.
"unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven."
That would certainly pertain to Tom.
You may abuse me as much as you like, but I won't render to any man evil for evil.
Not only does Tom render evil for evil, he renders evil for good. Out of the abundance of his heart does he slander the godly and sins terribly. According to Revelation 22 no liar will enter into the Kingdom of God, and by making the statement he makes above, Tom has just excluded himself. Again, I hope he repents. Not much optimism for that, though, based on Tom's past history, or, more accurately, histrionics.
Now on the other hand, if none of you have noticed [and of course you are all smart enough to do so], you will note that at no time does Tom appeal to the mercy of God: His approach is that when someone transgresses his silly rules Tom just makes up, they are doomed for the Lake of Fire and there does not seem to be any latitude for the person to repent, change and be forgiven of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
MY COMMENT: And, just how do you go about knowing who has???? How does one "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit?
I would have asked the same question, but apparently Jesus knew.
BTW, now that the poison, that would have burst the breast, has ebbed away in empty hisses, would you like to string together a coherent response to the points I raised in my original post to Corky?
Before addressing this, it seems apparent that Tom does not live by every Word of God, but worse, does not seem to even read the whole Bible through. It is said that the Devil can quote Scripture [he did to Christ]. Tom isn't even as good as his master.
Now then, the answer: Matthew 11:16-17.
That would be the appropriate response to a games playing psychopath.
BTW, now that the poison, that would have burst the breast, has ebbed away in empty hisses
Another lie.
Tom would not have responded at all if that were true and if he followed the example of Jesus Christ, who, after his resurrection, could have appeared to the Scribes and Pharisees and "proved" that he was the Messiah, did not do so but went quietly to his disciples to teach them, then Tom would have remained silent and gone forth to teach kindness and righteousness by a sterling example of visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction, even as I have quietly done over the years.
But he must justify himself for his bruised ego in his arrogant rebellion, making himself as it shows in I Samuel 23:15, a warlock.
Really, Tom should read the whole Bible through just for the flow of it: He might get something out of it, even in his unconverted state.
Or maybe not, unless God, the Father, decides to call him at some point.
Now this is truly valuable..........not! Sounds like you had a bad day, Dennis, and you needed a fill in. Maybe you need to recant now that Bryce has his website up!
Tired Skeptic said...
"The one thing I don't do is forgive those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit."
MY COMMENT: And, just how do you go about knowing who has???? How does one "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit?
Then, tired skeptic said..."I would have asked the same question, but apparently Jesus knew."
MY COMMENT: Terrible conclusion for YOU not forgiving someone. Hey, pinch yourself, then read my lips. YOU are not God. Wow! Herbie's doctrines are alive and well.
The unfortunate thing about all this is that 100, 200, 500 years from now, this discussion will still be going on with other generations.
There will be more Toms, Corkys, Charlies, Dennis', etc. Time will still be short then too of course.
I admit to growing weary of the same conversations over and over again regarding BI and would no longer post here but I feel a sense of kinship with each of you on this blog through shared experiences and usually enjoy the discussions. I don't think I have met any of you (Except Gary Scott. I was at SEP with him) but hope to meet some of you someday.
Corky responded to Tom Mahon: "Yep, and I thought that I never would say this to anyone but I hope you don't ever figure out how wrong you are. I feel that your life would be in danger if you only knew."...
..."Sometimes, I suppose, it really is better that certain ones continue to remain blissfully ignorant."
Corky, I have to agree with you there. I think it may drive some to a mental breakdown if they admitted to themselves what *MUST* be rattling around in the back of their heads. I am thinking of someone very close to me when I say that too.
To Tom: You keep repeating that people have repudiated what they once held to be true. Well, that is the thing about some mistakes Tom, you can correct yourself and get back on a healthy track away from armstrongism. You should remember that herbie 'proved' 200 some odd prophecies that proved to be false.
Along the vein of 'proving things':
I was having dinner at my sister's house 10 years ago or so and my old pastor was there and he had the gumption to remind me that he "made me prove things" in order to be baptized and how could I no longer be with the church. Well, he also reminded me just prior to approving my baptism that if you didn't agree with something the church was teaching or felt them to be in error, you were to pray to God to fix it and God would fix in in due time, you were not to leave the church. Well that was in the WCG...That minister left the WCG to go to United, then left that again to go to Hulme's sect. Naturally of course, they quoted good 'ol herbie to support their leaving and starting their own organizations...Amazing how many 'One True Churches' there are.
There is very little hope for the self-righteous. Tom will go to his grave thinking he's got the world by the short hairs.
One more thing Tom; Don't bother responding about what my punishment will be for being disrespectful to herbie or no longer keeping the damned holy days.
I'll take whatever I have coming to me. I wouldn't want any part of any afterlife that had herbie and his brown-nosing, goose-stepping, sycophants anyway. That would be hell indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svfxSscxh8o&feature=related
Some of you might find the problem and reaction many Mormons are having with DNA debunking their core Book of Mormon history familiar. Well worth the 45 minute investment as you will hear denials common to COG types who will have to face similar issues, disproven in similar ways sooner or later.
In spite of all kinds of denials and apologetics in Christendom, it has all been debunked a long time ago, beginning with Gallileo.
The earth turned out to be spherical instead of flat like the Bible has it.
Rainbows turned out to be sunlight on water droplets instead of God did it.
Rain turned out to be evaporation and condensation rather than God did it.
The earth has turned out to be billions of years old instead of only six thousand.
Two hundred years ago the geologic column proved that the worldwide flood of Noah was a hoax.
One hundred fifty years ago evolution became a viable scientific theory that has not been falsified to date.
In the last couple of decades the plagues on Egypt and the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan by the Jews has been shown to never have happened.
It has also been shown that humans have been on the planet for at least 150,000 years in their present form instead of the 6,000 years of the Bible. Proved to be true by anthropolgy, archeology and genetics.
Wishful thinking aside, the Bible is bunkum.
Charlie said...
>>>>One more thing Tom; Don't bother responding about what my punishment will be for being disrespectful to herbie or no longer keeping the damned holy days.<<<
OK, I won't. But what will your punishment be for keeping Xmas? Now that is a rhetorical question.
>>>I'll take whatever I have coming to me. I wouldn't want any part of any afterlife that had herbie and his brown-nosing, goose-stepping, sycophants anyway. That would be hell indeed.<<<
Will you really take what is coming to you? I doubt it.
byker bob said:
>>>Counter to what Tom Mahon has stated, you cannot actually "prove" British Israelism in the first place.<<<
What nonsense!
>>>There is not enough solid history regarding the Germanic tribes wandering around Central Europe way back when,<<<
The proof that the US and Britain have inherited the birthright blessing God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not predicated upon knowing whether Germanic tribes wonder through Central Europe or were drowned in the Caspian sea. The prophetic evidence and the time of its fulfilment is documented in the pages of the bible. From historical records, there may be some supporting evidence, but that evidence is not necessary to prove the case. If we had to rely on the historical records to validate all that we know, we would have to conclude that Jesus, Paul, Timothy, Mary, John the Baptist and even Judas never existed.
But then, there are some people insane enough to argue that they are fictional characters, because the historical record doesn't mention them.
Tom saith :
If you intend to join the discussion and make a sensible contribution, please answer question, if you can?
I answered your question with your own question. Which YOU have no answer for. So don't harp on me for getting your own religious tit caught in a wringer. You did that all by your "righteous" self.
As I said, unless you were an Armstrongite in the womb, you did exactly what you accuse others of here: you left your previous faith behind to take up your new faith of Armstrongology. Which means you are just as double-minded and unstable as those you accuse of being.
But unlike you, some of us have recognized the error of our ways and have left that stinking pile of dung behind that you are still mired in. And there-in is the source of your biggest problem, Tom. You believe your own religious sh!t, just as your false prophet Armstrong did.
Corky said...
“In spite of all kinds of denials and apologetics in Christendom, it has all been debunked a long time ago, beginning with Gallileo.
The earth turned out to be spherical instead of flat like the Bible has it.”
The Bible doesn't claim the earth is flat - far from it. The bible talks of the ‘circle of the earth’ and that God ‘hangs the earth on nothing’.
“Rainbows turned out to be sunlight on water droplets instead of God did it.”
So???? The Biblical account says God made this a token of an agreement that there would be no more worldwide flood. Nothing to do with God somehow constructing it at that point.
“Rain turned out to be evaporation and condensation rather than God did it.”
Is there some dispute on this? This is something that could be said about anything in nature.
“The earth has turned out to be billions of years old instead of only six thousand.”
You should know the COG view on this – which is a view that has been held by some down the centuries by quite a number – years before HWA – no Biblical problem.
“Two hundred years ago the geologic column proved that the worldwide flood of Noah was a hoax.”
See previous comment
“One hundred fifty years ago evolution became a viable scientific theory that has not been falsified to date.”
Not falsified OR verified. Concrete, infallible proof is not a runner either way for evolution. However understanding probability makes evolution as near impossible as you can get. Blind chance is a terrible designer. But that’s another story.
“In the last couple of decades the plagues on Egypt and the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan by the Jews has been shown to never have happened.”
A big statement - and your evidence and source????
“It has also been shown that humans have been on the planet for at least 150,000 years in their present form instead of the 6,000 years of the Bible. Proved to be true by anthropolgy, archeology and genetics.”
Once again, only a problem if you feel everything has to be pushed into a 6000 year time frame. (And how long have more ‘advanced’ things, such as writing or cities, been in existence?)
Questeruk said...
The Bible doesn't claim the earth is flat - far from it. The bible talks of the ‘circle of the earth’
It speaks of the "circle of the earth" in only one ambiguous passage which also says the sky is a tent.
and that God ‘hangs the earth on nothing’.
It also says that the earth has pillars and foundations and the sky is a glass dome with windows in it.
So???? The Biblical account says God made this a token of an agreement that there would be no more worldwide flood. Nothing to do with God somehow constructing it at that point.
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud
Sounds like a construct to me.
“Rain turned out to be evaporation and condensation rather than God did it.”
Is there some dispute on this? This is something that could be said about anything in nature.
That's right, it could, but the bible claims that God causes it.
“One hundred fifty years ago evolution became a viable scientific theory that has not been falsified to date.”
Not falsified OR verified.
Not falsified but verified thousands of times in many different ways.
Concrete, infallible proof is not a runner either way for evolution.
Nor for any science.
However understanding probability makes evolution as near impossible as you can get.
According to people who know nothing about the theory of evolution.
Blind chance is a terrible designer. But that’s another story.
Evolution is not "blind chance", yet another fallacy of those who know nothing of the theory of evolution.
“In the last couple of decades the plagues on Egypt and the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan by the Jews has been shown to never have happened.”
A big statement - and your evidence and source????
Archeology showing no evidence of an exodus or of a conquest by Jews and the decipherment of the Egyptian writings of the time.
“It has also been shown that humans have been on the planet for at least 150,000 years in their present form instead of the 6,000 years of the Bible. Proved to be true by anthropolgy, archeology and genetics.”
Once again, only a problem if you feel everything has to be pushed into a 6000 year time frame.
Because of the geneologies in the bible from Adam to Jesus, approximately 4,000 years. We know that from Jesus to today is approximately 2,008 years. Add 'em up.
(And how long have more ‘advanced’ things, such as writing or cities, been in existence?)
About 10,000 years and manmade tools for about 150,000 years.
The bible is bunkem.
Corky said regarding evolution: "Not falsified but verified thousands of times in many different ways."
Corky - I know you and I have gone over this a few times before but I will state it again based on your 'verified' statement:
There is absolutely zero proof of abiogenesis and absolutely zero proof that one species can or has evolved into another. Each experiment to try and prove either of them continues to support the idea that neither of them are possible. For schools and society to continue to jam this down our throats as "Fact" is as stupid as the Catholic church condemning Galileo. I personally hope the experiments continue as it may be the only way to eventually get past abiogenesis and evolution and start down the road of finding out what really did happen. Evolution is more philosphy than science.
In case you forgot, I think the genesis account may very well be "bunkem" and I fully support scientific research...I have just as hard a time with believing all the animals in the world were on the ark AND for over six months as I do with the ridiculous idea that a prehistoric bovine became a whale.
Hi Corky
Re your comments:-
This is something that could go on indefinitely. You obviously have written off the Bible, and so can’t be bothered to check what it says, or are very careless with it. Eg in your very first comment you say:-
“It speaks of the "circle of the earth" in only one ambiguous passage which also says the sky is a tent.”
No it doesn’t say the sky IS a tent. It says that God stretches out the heavens AS a curtain, and spreads them out AS a tent to dwell in.
God is saying that the sky, the atmosphere, is LIKE a tent – which is exactly what it is. The surface of the earth has the protection of the atmosphere from things that are injurious to life from space - from radiation, from meteors. Thousands of meteors are hitting the atmosphere daily, and only an occasional stray large one makes it through to the surface.
Just like a tent gives protection to the occupants from bad weather overnight, so the atmosphere gives protection to the surface of the earth, and the life dwelling on that surface.
I could carry on point by point, but I do have a life outside of AW, so don’t wish to devote too much time to this, especially as the next item has been posted, and this thread is coming to a natural end.
There were never twelve tribes descended from twelve brothers; there were only three sisters. The nation of Judah and the Northern Kingdom sprang from three sisters. . . .
And that is the kind of faulty conclusions that come from confusing literary genres. Ezekiel's prophecy is, well, a prophecy, delivered in poetic language. It wasn't delivered as a historical discourse, nor even a purportedly historical discourse, and it certainly wasn't an ethnographic report. Ezekiel is upbraiding Israel for their sins, not for their DNA.
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans.
That's correct. What we usually call "races" are not "subspecies." The genetic differences between "races" are not that distinct as to qualify as separate subspecies.
While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.
That's because there is no clear and consistent definition of "race." Does it mean skin color? Type and color of hair? Shape of eyebrows, nose, and lips? Language? Religion? Ethnic origin? All of the above? Some of the above?
There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
Sorry, but that's double-talk. There are no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity, except there is a genetic basis: people who live in the same geographic region for many generations usually have a few alleles in common. What's more, people from the same ethnicity are almost always genealogically descended from the same ancestors, and are therefore genetically related to each other. Common male-descent is detectable through y-DNA testing. If there were no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity, then it should be impossible to prove common male-line ancestry through y-DNA tests. Indeed, paternity tests would be impossible in cases of disputed paternity of a child.
Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them.
Ah, this is one of those cases of a scientific study that proves that water is wet. A "race" necessarily encompasses a huge number of people, and within a large population there will inevitably be an extremely wide degree of genetic variation. But a race is also a distinctive group, sharing a few common traits, and since it is only a few traits that the members of a race share in common, there would naturally be much less genetic variation between races than within races. So it isn't saying anything that we didn't already know to state "there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them." The person who wrote that statement is playing games with statistics.
Do DNA tests throw in doubt British-Israelism? Certainly. Just looking at y-DNA, we find that the results coming back do not match what we should expect if the Anglo-Saxons are descended in the male-line from ancient Israelites.
Let me cite an example from my own genealogical research. My wife and I recently learned that her mother is descended from the Hoyt family, who originated in Somersetshire, England. But here's the weird thing: our Hoyts have a y-DNA signature that is quite rare in Englishmen, but is more common among Muslims, Jews, North Africans, Maltese, Iberians, southern Italians, and Lebanese. What is the explanation for this anomaly? Who knows? Perhaps our Hoyts are male-line descendants of a Jew or Muslim who converted to Christianity in the Middle Ages. Perhaps the male-line ancestry of our Hoyts traces back in ancient times to a Punic or Canaanite ancestor whose descendants somehow made their way to Cornwall. Perhaps one of our ancestral Mrs. Hoyts cuckolded her husband and committed adultery with a Moorish servant. Whatever the explanation, the point is that most Englishmen do not have our Hoyt y-DNA signature, but if you want to find a man in England with that signature, your best bet is to find a Jewish man or an Arab.
But if British-Israelism were true, these DNA differences shouldn't be expected at all. Our Hoyt y-DNA should be very common in England if the Anglo-Saxons were male-line descendants of Jacob. Either that or, contrary to all expectations, most Jews today are not male-line descendants of Jacob. Many British-Israelists or "Christian Identity" adherents resort to that belief. Thus, British-Israelism in that case resolves itself into a baseless and ridiculous claim that a bunch of people that look, walk, smell, and quack like Gentiles are in fact Israelites, and those whom everybody believes to be Israelites, and who identify themselves as Israelites, are not Israelites at all. Thus, the Jews get robbed of their own identity so that a group of Gentile poseurs can dress up as Jews.
Take your pick: based on what we're finding out from y-DNA, either the Jews are genetic impostors or British Israelism is a heap of steaming excrement. In light of the fact that British Israelism has no basis in history and is contradicted by the teachings of the Bible, it's clear which option we should pick.
Jared said:
. . . and those whom everybody believes to be Israelites, and who identify themselves as Israelites, are not Israelites at all. Thus, the Jews get robbed of their own identity so that a group of Gentile poseurs can dress up as Jews.
Yes, and isn't this what us silly goims did every F.O.T.? The only thing that was missing were our yarmulkes. Our Armstrongology had us trying to out Jewish the Jews (who must have had a hearty laugh on us).
Post a Comment