Below is a comment from a reader here detailing the similarities between Eric W. King and David Koresch. It looks like Eric is up to far worse things than anyone thought.
Something to think about. Eric W. King knew David Koresh. His teachings have many similarities. Here are some:
*David Koresh taught the Sabbath.
So does Eric
*David Koresh taught a pre-adamic earth. So does Eric.
*David Koresh taught that the dead live in our future. Eric does also.
*David Koresh taught the 7 feasts. So does Eric.
*David Koresh taught that he was the 7th messenger. Eric teaches in essence he is David Koresh in "spirit".
*David Koresh had more than one wife. So does Eric but he does not call them wives he calls them "the 7 women".
*David Koresh was the messenger of the 7 Seals Prophecy...now Eric is the completion of the Seven Seals Messenger.
The first time I ever saw one of his videos I thought "polygamist" and I did not know much about him.
ReplyDeleteOver the past several months, I've noticed that comments on most of our Armstrong-related blogs and forums are on the wane. In thinking about this, I attribute it to three factors:
ReplyDelete1). British Israelism has been thoroughly and definitively debunked. Anyone who can and will read knows this to be a fact.
2). People who hang out on these sites were waiting for definitive proof that HWA committed incest. That has been recently confirmed by members of his own family.
3). The weirdness factor. The splinters have completely gone off the deep end with newly false prophecy, fake biblical titles, idolatrous new customs, extreme legalism, stupid theories, and incompetent preaching. HWA (not that he is any kind of meaningful standard), would probably have assumed Eric was demon-possessed if he heard some of his guitar riffs. But, now we find out about 7 women?
These people dwell on the bronze age covenant, so it's no surprise that some would find concubines perfectly normal and acceptable, so long as the women are white.
BB
Hey Biker Bob,
ReplyDeleteRegarding #1 British Israelism is there a list of links/books that we I can give to those family members who rarely use a computer and won't do the research. #2, same thing. Can a list of links to articles and interviews get compiled so it can be presented in one package to those still drinking the kool aid? I would try to do this myself but I have very little time. Working full time and going to physical therapy 3 times a week for a bad neck and shoulder. Any help would be appreciated.
Only 7? Why not 12 or 40? 1260? 1330? 144,000? Bible numbers give one endless opportunities to make stuff up...
ReplyDeleteFor proof about British Israelism, here is a .pdf you can print out.
ReplyDeleteI don't comment much anymore because it often seems pointless. A lot of the commentere on here are still hung up on dieties and faith. I'm not. I'm not likely to change any minds, so for the most part, it feels like "just whistling Dixie" to comment. I have other things to do that are more effective. Like Facebooking and blogging as an example.
ReplyDeleteThis guy does keep getting wackier and wackier. That's for sure. I guess we shouldn't be surprised if he becomes another Waco.
ReplyDeleteHere's what E.W. says (about himself) in his own words on his website (scroll down to "Canticle Section Seven"). And why has E.W. begun using Roman Catholic (Latin) terminology like "canticle"? Is Latin going to become the official liturgical language of his splinter? Or is it just because it sounds more religiousy than the English word "song"?
"God has a powerful sevenfold plan. The Seven Seals have been opened by the Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) and He will activate the final fulfillment of each Seal very soon. 'The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES.' [Psalm 12:6] The Seven Seals Mystery is a purifying message to the saints of God. The prophet Isaiah proclaimed; 'And in that day Seven Women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name [surname: King], to take away our reproach.' [Isaiah 4:1] What is this? Seven women who want to eat their own food and wear their own clothes, they do not want to be wives they simply want to be called by the name of the King and be taken care of. These represent desperate times when the true men of God are far and few in between. These women wish not to be left mocked as 'old maids.'"
Are we seeing the formation of another David Koresh before our eyes? I think that fact that he calls himself "the Seventh and final Messenger" is a chilling connection, and the fact that he appears to be sanctioning polygamy is equally chilling. Of course, to become really dangerous, he has to be charismatic enough to inspire other people to surrender themselves to him, otherwise he's just another kook. I have no idea if he's going to be able to build a critical human mass or not. But just because he's not really dangerous (yet) doesn't mean he's not still a dangerous predator, fishing for suckers, just like the rest of the COG splinter "apostles". I wish it were possible to do something to quarantine people like this. They pose a threat innocent people and civilized society.
Mish Mash,
ReplyDeleteWhile both Douglas (Black Ops Mikey) and I have both written extensively on the topic of British Israelism, we seem to agree that the most comprehensive and concise dissertation on that topic has been researched and written by staff at Silenced WCG, the link which he provided for you.
Troy Fitzgerald, the son of a WCG minister and the webmaster of Secular Safehouse, was able to interview two members of the Armstrong family, Deborah (daughter of Dwight, composer of hymns) and Larry Gott (son of Beverly, HWA's daughter) within the past several months. These come up when you Google "Silenced WCG"' and read reference the Feb. 11 (Larry) and Dec. 26 (Deborah) blog entries. These interviews each take up the better part of an hour, but the time goes fast and is well spent.
By the way, while it is always good to at least try, don't be surprised if your family members either refuse to read and watch these materials, or somehow find a reason to continue with their current beliefs. Timing and presentation are everything, and you know the individual personalities of your beloved family members better than anyone who writes these materials. If your family members actually ask you about these things, it would seem that they are open to a certain extent. However, in their own minds, it is also possible that they seek to know your views because they are attempting to "rescue" you. Those of us who are believers have faith that the work of false teachers and prophets is all going to be corrected in the Kingdom, as prophesied, reuniting the fathers with the sons, etc. So, ultimately our families will all be OK.
Last but not least, best wishes for a speedy recovery from your health challenges!
BB
Mish-Mash,
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to the Eupedia website that Black Ops Mikey's .PDF draws from (and links to) for DNA evidence in the final section of its body:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml
Looking at a 30-page .PDF or a long and complicated website may seem a little daunting at first if all you want is a simple, uncluttered, but also conclusive and unambiguous answer. The Y-haplotype (paternal lineage) DNA evidence is that answer, and here is the answer it gives, which I have gathered together from that Eupedia web page. (It should also be noted that as more and more samples continue to be taken around the world and tabulated, the numbers, and therefore the DNA picture will continue to get more and more precise.)
The following figures represent the highest peaks in the data, or the strongest signals among the noise. There are many different Y-hapogroups that have been identified, and you will find smatterings of virtually all of them in any given population, except in populations that have been isolated.
The most prevalent Y-haplotypes in the Jewish population are as follows:
J2 - ~19%-25% of the general population of Jews
J1 - ~50% of Cohanim Jews
E1b1b - ~20% of Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinian Jews
The genetic makeup of the worldwide Jewish population and the Arabic populations concentrated in the Middle East and North Africa are similar, meaning the origins of these populations are intertwined. If we want to go looking for the "lost 10 tribes of Israel," we must go looking for peoples of either J1, J2, or E1b1b Y-haplotype.
The most prevalent Y-haplotypes in the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) and Celtic European populations are as follows:
I1 - ~35% of Scandinavia
~10%-20% of Germany, the Low Countries, and the Scottish Lowlands
R1b - ~80% of Ireland, Western Wales, the Scottish Highlands, the Atlantic fringes of France, Catalonia, and Basque country
~70% of the Po Valley
~60% of England
The data is clear, that Germanic and Celtic populations cannot have originated as "brothers" of the Jews and Arabs. They do not share any common paternal ancestors. If the Jews and Arabs are both descended from an "Abraham" patriarch, Nordic, Germanic, and Celtic peoples do not. If we want to go looking for missing "Israelites", we must look elsewhere. Here are the best candidates in which to look for potential "lost tribes":
E1b1b - Kosovo, Albania, and Bulgaria
J1 - (almost exclusively a Jewish and Arabic Y-haplotype)
J2 - the Nakh ethnic group (Ingush and Chechens), Cyprus, Crete, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Kumyks, the Vlach people, Greece, Sicily, and central and southern Italy.
There is nothing anyone can say to overcome the definitive story the DNA evidence reveals. It is the decisive end to the British-Israelite hypothesis.
Hey Guys,
ReplyDeleteThanks for all your help with the research and pulling stuff together for me. Also appreciate your thoughts about my health issues. I will be able to pull something together to run past my dad. If it doesn't make any impression, I'll at least have gotten this nagging impulse out of my head to just let them know the proof is out there, whether they believe it or not.
Well, you know, there are no lost tribes of Israel. Six of them are identified in the New Testament as being extant and anyone who says there are 10 lost tribes is certainly using bad math.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the source of all this is Herbert Armstrong, who Donna Kossy has declared a kook (one amongst so many -- and that in the chapter on British Israelism alone -- there are a lot more kooks out there).
Eric King is a kook -- we're just waiting to find out what the next big rubbish thing is from him.
Maybe he should just skip over to the end and move to Waco.
Another connection...
ReplyDeleteKoresh was from WACO
King is from WHACKO!
All the government needs now is to think Eric is stock-piling weapons. Then they go in and kill everyone, even the innocent.
ReplyDeleteYes, isn't it wonerful!
The COGs are probably jealous that Koresh suffered something much closer to persecution than they ever have. - RSK
ReplyDeleteHead Usher said...
ReplyDelete“The Y-haplotype (paternal lineage) DNA evidence is that answer, and here is the answer it gives, which I have gathered together from that Eupedia web page.”
In reality, this proves very little. It shows you one line, the father’s, father’s father etc. Why is that of very limited use? Simply because you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grand parents, and so on. Go back 10 generations, which is only maybe 250 years ago, and you have over 1000 ancestors (1024 to be accurate).
So the Y-haplotype will tell you details of only one man, out of your 1024 ancestors from the late 1700’s. The other 1023 might have had a totally different ancestry.
Go back another 10 generations, around 500 years ago, and then we are talking of one man out of over 1 million ancestors!
This is the great failing in this type of research, and the reason that the USA Government Human Genome Project, after 13 years of research, stated
“no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.”
"Go back 10 generations, which is only maybe 250 years ago, and you have over 1000 ancestors (1024 to be accurate)
ReplyDelete...
Go back another 10 generations, around 500 years ago, and then we are talking of one man out of over 1 million ancestors!"
FYI, women don't have a Y chromosome. Your ignorance of biology and genetics betrays you. Such erroneous reasoning fails to mount any criticisms. Sorry.
How so?
All male descendants of any given ancestor, let's postulate a fictional patriarch named "Abraham" who lived 4,000 years ago, will retain the Y-chromosome of that ancestor, complete with its peculiar SNPs. As you run the clock forward, generation by generation, what happens is the number of copies of that peculiar Y chromosome proliferates exponentially into a sea of male descendants bearing the Y chromosome of that patriarch, the OPPOSITE of being drowned out in a spurious sea of foreign Y chromosomes which you seem to imagine arising from some undisclosed imaginary source.
If you are male (which I know you're not, Questeruk) then you got your Y chromosome from your father. All the male descendants of my mother bring no Y chromosome data to my mix. In fact, none of the male ancestors of my grandmother bring anything either. Same goes for my great-grandmother. The only thing that matters is {my father's1, father's2, father's3 ... father159}. Yep, that's right, the number of male ancestors I have going back an entire 4,000 years is just the exponent, 159. Nothing even so large as 1,000, let alone a million or 2^159. It's just one per generation. An unbroken line of men fathering sons and passing along a copy of the Y chromosome he inherited from his father.
You think that researchers would be able to get millions of $ in research grant money and spend years of rigorous and methodical work without any of these patron institutions or scientists ever thinking about the foundational validity of any of it? And you come along and think you've debunked it all in 5 minutes? Seems a little arrogant to me.
And BTW this research does not anywhere claim "to distinguish one race from another." Instead, it shows that men of different races can share a common patriarch! The only place the R1b haplogroup is more concentrated than in the British Isles is in the Congo. Betcha didn't see that coming.
Hi Head Usher,
ReplyDeleteWas ‘Head Usher’ your role in the old WCG? You might think so, judging by your patronising approach and not actually listening to what someone else is saying!
Of course I am aware that the Y-haplotype only passes through the male line. That is the weakness of it, and the whole point of my post!!
You actually explained the problem reasonably well, but unfortunately logic seems to be a rather weak point with you, and you seem to think it’s inherent weakness a strength.
Let’s just give it one more go, maybe something will get through to you. You mention your great-grand parents. You would have 8 of them – agreed? Eight people that went into the genetic mix that produced Head Usher. Four of them were women – well we obviously don’t count them. But four of them would be men, carrying their particular Y-haplotype. Your father’s father details we know, because you are carrying it – what of the other 3 gentlemen. No idea, could be anything. Could be the same, could be different. None of them come through, only this single strand, representing one eighth of your ancestry. It may be representative, it may not. That is the point.
Likewise my example of going back 10 generations. 10 generations ago, your had 1024 ancestors contributing to your genetic mix. That is the fact of the matter. (yes, before you patronise me with the fact that some of these 1024 could be the same person, I do realise that).
Of these 1024, 512 of them will be men. What can we discover with the Y-haplotype regarding 511 of them – nothing. The only thing we know is details of ONE of these 1024 people. We can say that yes, one part in 1024 of Head Usher is this particular type ten generations back. The other 1023 people in the mix at that point, we just don’t know.
Yes, it is an unbroken thread for one single strand of a person’s ancestry, but it is one thread out of hundreds, and if you are going back a thousand years or more, it’s one thread out of millions of threads.
Given that, it’s no great surprise if the Congo and British Isles do share common genetic Y-haplotypes in some cases.
Questeruk, I'm wondering if what you shared exemplifies the way in which the ACOGs are attempting to mute the effects the dna research has had on the theory of British Israelism.
ReplyDeleteIn some of the early court cases, where dna evidence was involved, juries found the evidence to be quite confusing. Now that this knowledge has become more mainstream, prosecutors and attorneys alike are able to use it to make their cases more effectively, and the jury members find it understandable.
Still, just based on your own thinking, it appears that it would be relatively easy for some fast talker with an agenda to obfuscate and confuse the dna aspects in the mind of the average ACOG member. The fact that the splinters actually continue to exist is an eloquent testimonial that the leaders have been effective in accomplishing exactly that.
It really doesn't matter anyway, because the main evidence is that the prophecies which are based upon it have been failing for the past forty years just in my lifetime. Had they gotten it right in the first place, as I had been trained to fear throughout my youth, I should have died in a German concentration camp sometime in the mid 1970s! Doesn't take a genius to know what to do with that.
BB
Nope, never was an usher. My apologies if you find me to be so patronizing. However, you might want to think about how arrogant you come off while writing off a whole branch of genetic research that you don't even comprehend. Maybe you should start by asking questions instead of doling out (wrong) answers?
ReplyDelete"You mention your great-grand parents. You would have 8 of them – agreed? ... Your father's father details we know, because you are carrying it..."
FULL STOP! That's all we were trying to find out in the first place! Get it? That's the only question this research asks, and the only one it is trying to answer. All these other questions you keep assuming this research should be answering, well, you just made them up.
"...what of the other 3 gentlemen."
Oh god. What about them? Did they give me a Y chromosome? No? Did they give me anything else traceable? Not so far as current science has determined. Are they relevant to this discussion? No. So why do you keep bringing them up?
"The only thing we know is details of ONE of these 1024 people.
We actually know the details of the Y chromosome of TEN out of 512 people. But you're right in saying it tells me something about one of them specifically, which is actually the only one we care about finding out about, the one that's the whole point of this research, which you don't seem to comprehend. That's right, the FIRST one of these ten. Get it?
As a male, I will have a relatively unchanged copy of the non-recombinant portions (95%) of a very old yet distinct Y chromosome, rendered so by its unique set of SNPs markers. And going back 10 generations or 1000 generations doesn't change anything because most of Y chromosome remains unchanged by any other process except by SNPs which means it's traceable. It means I'm related to all other males on the planet with that same distinct Y chromosome regardless of race or ethnicity. It means we are both direct descendants of a single man long ago. Do all these other irrelevant males who's Y chromosome I did not inherit (because there was a woman in between) tell me anything traceable about any ancestors? No. Do the other 22 alleles allow me to say where they came from or trace anything? No, because of recombination. And unfortunately maternal mtDNA, the next best thing, is much less interesting because it contains so few base pairs (16,500 vs. 60 million).
Being able to say something specific about an early and direct ancestor is the great power of this research. The fact that you only see "weakness" and "failure" means you don't understand what the point of this research is in the first place. You seem to think it should have something to do with tracing the billions of other ancestors the other 22 alleles came from, racial determination, etc. It doesn't. Nobody said it does. Nobody (except you) says it's supposed to.
Applying this research not just to individuals, but to distinct populations/ethnicities, it starts telling you about the origins of these populations. When you find that 80% of the men have the same Y chromosome in a breeding population, it starts telling you something about the women as well, because generation after generation, this same genetic code is sloshing back and forth between men and women. Haplogroup data becomes a proxy for the gene pool as a whole. And it means that Germans and Celts are different branches of the human family than are Jews and Arabs.
So, far from "proving little," being "of limited use," or a "great failing," this research actually proves quite a lot, is of great use, and very successful.
Maybe something has gotten through to you? Or maybe your "logic" is merely motivated by Armstrongism?
Prior to the mapping of the human genome, we used to note that the heritage of English-speaking people could not be pure or even predominant Manassite, or Ephraimite because of the cumulative effect of intermarriage within the British and American melting pots over millennia. This is something you can know beyond the shadow of a doubt by studying the various influential ethnicities from Roman times forward.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Questeruk now wants to use that very melting pot to disprove the validity of the dna research. I submit that both the melting pot argument and the dna research end up taking us to the same place, rendering B.I. impossible.
BB
Thanks BB.
ReplyDeleteI prettymuch used up my 4096 characters in the box of my last response, but I wish I could have said more. It's a complex topic. Those who have never taken biology or statistics may find that they don't have the necessary background to initially make sense out the findings presented. Though it may take some time getting up to speed educationally, and some more time sitting with the data before it begins to gel and make sense how exactly the DNA tells the tale it does, it most certainly does tell a tale.
Non-recombinant DNA offers an opportunity. It doesn't answer every question we'd like to know, but it does offer an opportunity to definitively answer some questions that could not previously be answered at all. By comparing many different Y chromosomes and the constellation of SNPs that occur in them, we can get a sense of the chronological order in which those mutations occurred, and we can get a sense of how far back, not in years, but in mutation chronology, different Y chromosomes branched away from each other. So, old legends are one thing, but the story the DNA tells is another, and it's a story that no one can gainsay with any credibility.
The only other thing I'll add at this point is to say that if it were just a matter of being argumentative, I'm not sure I would even respond to Questeruk. However I do so, and I do so vigorously because she's attempting to sow doubt where there isn't any, and with respect to an important issue. In my estimation, she is doing it primarily because it contradicts old legends that HWA propped up, and that she has invested in, and that she would still desperately like to think are believable, but also because she doesn't understand th research. The person's mind she's really trying to sow doubt in is her own.
However, the story the DNA tells leaves no room for large-scale doubts of the sort she's trying to sow about the relative origins of the distinct gene pools around the world today. And some of the most compelling results we have so far are for the relative unrelatedness of Middle Eastern gene pools and the Germanic and Celtic gene pools of the British Isles. These gene pools branched away from each other much, much farther back in the past than merely 4,000 years ago and they cannot be "brothers" in any "Abrahamic" sense. The British Isles are virtually an R1b Y-haplogroup ethnic monoculture. The Jewish/Arabic population are genetically one population which are actually a fusion of three major Y-haplogroup ethnicities, none of which are R1b. The data over this is absolutely unambiguous.
So for those visiting here, it may take some time to understand why the DNA research leaves no room for doubt, but it doesn't. Don't let Questeruk's "logic" that because the DNA doesn't tell us EVERYTHING, therefore it doesn't tell us ANYTHING, deter those who may be wondering how valuable or conclusive Y-haplogroup DNA research is. She's basically nursing "Either/Or" and "Straw man" logical fallacies for all they're worth. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and it's the mother of all desperates times for British-Israelism.
Y-haplogroup DNA reseach is both valuable and conclusive. As more and more data is collected, the resolution of the picture it's painting is only going to get better and better. I can't wait.
The problem with this forum is that anyone that appears to hold COG views of any type is like a red rag to a bull, regardless of what is being said. I also hadn’t realised how sexist it is until very recently.
ReplyDeleteThis results in an approach from most contributors of treating the ‘COG’ person as if they are one stage short of being mentally sub-normal, especially if it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, that they might be a woman.
It’s actually because I am very familiar with statistics that I posted on this subject. There are many ways statistics can be presented, and unfortunately often they are used in misleading ways.
I do actually understand what you are saying Head Usher, and yes, there is some sense in it. However, what you have to also realise is that the information is from ‘one thread’ of a very complex matter.
This means that it can give a distorted or even flawed picture of a situation.
For example, what happens when there is an invasion of one people over another? Rape and pillage from the invading armies. This leads to a much higher representation of the invading Y-haplogroup from the resulting children, and so on down the succeeding generations.
Unfortunately it’s difficult to have any sensible discussion of ideas here, as anything I might say is immediately considered to have some sort of agenda, which must be immediately crushed. That I have no agenda except to find the facts of a matter seems to be impossible for most here to accept. A pity, but I suppose in the long term it’s no matter.
"It’s actually because I am very familiar with statistics that I posted on this subject. There are many ways statistics can be presented, and unfortunately often they are used in misleading ways...I also hadn’t realised how sexist it is until very recently."
ReplyDeleteJust because Y chromosome research can't answer some questions of particular interest to feminism, does that mean it's just as worthless as every Y-chromosome-carrying chauvinist? That's the charge here, right? That my arguments are just a whitewash of Y chromosome research, and that my stated reasons for opposing your stance is that I'm just biased against anything and everything you could possibly say simply because this is Y chromosome research, I have a Y chromosome, and you don't? Touche. I guess you can't get any more "ad hominem" than that.
Forgive me, but for someone with a background in statistics, you don't seem to trust the principles of statistics one bit. This isn't about someone else's presentation of "statistics," it's about your ability to apply statistical principles in valid ways to make your own inferences. From the get-go I've been hearing implications of how you don't feel that statistical methods can't be trusted to infer anything at all. Don't you see how a fear of statistics is a display of a lack of knowledge about statistics? This is just one more example of the sorts of things my impression of you is based upon, not the fact you're a woman. Your credibility has nothing to do with your gender. There are lots of women in the world who are smarter and more gifted than me with Ph.D's in rocket science, et al.
When you take a lot of samples in a population, it isn't one thread you're looking at, it's a network of crisscrossing interconnected threads formed by all the unbroken lineages of all the men of a given haplogroup globally. Not that that matters though. That doesn't tell you anything extra. What matters is that every haplogroup represents some early patriarch who fathered a lot of children. We can tell where he lived, and we can make some general statements about how his male descendants migrated after that. Sorry if you find this offensive or unacceptable for whatever reasons I will not venture to speculate about anymore. But these conclusions are valid and secure even if you can't see why they're valid or feel comfortable about them.
And what happens when there's invading armies? I'll tell you, a swath of genetic markers left behind, such as all the Y chromosomes left behind by Ghengis Khan. But what about all the women's DNA? Where did all that go? Why is everyone ignoring all of that? Why isn't anybody interested in that? Hey, it's not that nobody's interested in it. It's just that nobody can see where such traceable data might be hiding out that's as good as the Y chromosome data.
I'm sorry if the X chromosome and mtDNA aren't as useful as the Y chromosome for this research. Personally, I'd like to see what the correlation of Y and whatever the mtDNA indexed together can tell us.
So, tell you what, why don't you fix the "flaw" and go find out where those 60 million base pairs of non-recombinant traceable maternal DNA is hiding out? If all us male chauvinists are only interested in researching our own DNA, why don't you be the one to even the score with some feminist research?
Unless someone shares their gender, or some of their personal activities or information, blogdom pretty much blinds readers to gender, sexism, and all of that. Until this latest discourse, I had a mental picture of Questeruk as a male splinter member or independent, perhaps in mid management, with a medium-sized firm over in England.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, the logic of someone posting pro COG viewpoints on a blog dedicated to exposing the ridiculousness and false precepts of Armstrongism totally escapes me. Even though it's all just words on a screen, input through a keyboard, you'd have to have awfully thick skin to do that, or you would need to be accustomed to reveling in contrarianism.
The thing is, once a somewhat intelligent-appearing "pro" comment is expressed, it is a sacred duty for knowledgable people to come forward with any available facts which would tend to counter it for the benefit of the people who are reinvestigating everything, this time without the pressures towards reaching the "approved" conclusions.
There were a lot of people who were put out of WCG back in the day because they could not remain silent about some of their pet beliefs which differed from official Armstrongism. But, even from these people, I never heard one word challenging British Israelism, until the mass exodus following the failure of 1972-75. Then, people did begin to realize that the USA had always been a melting pot. People began to acknowledge that there had always been a huge German population present in the US. However, even in that time of awakening, much of the material we have available today on B.I. had not been researched, and was not available. Why would it have been? Only a very small handful of people even knew the theory existed.
In a free exchange of ideas, truth will often become obvious. That is why the pro-COG sites either do not allow comment, or are heavily censored, and are largely useless to people doing an open-minded zero- based reinvestigation.
BB
Your posts get more and more bizarre! I made one mention that you are coming over as sexist (because you have for some reason decided that I am a woman), and you then really go to town on sexism and totally prove my assertion!
ReplyDeleteRanting on about feminism and stating that I apparently have no trust in Y chromosome research because women have no Y chromosome!!! Either you don’t understand what sexism is, or maybe you still subscribe to the WCG standards of sexism of forty years ago.
You then go on to make exactly the same point about Genghis Khan that I had already made in my previous post. I suppose you don’t actually read what I say, and the several places where I am agreeing with you.
I didn’t feel the sex of the person writing the post was relevant, but you seem to have issues with it, so let’s just clear this up – You stated that I was a woman (31st March. 9.11pm post), and you have built this up and up in your subsequent three posts. I can only suppose you have issues with women. I have no idea why you decided I am a woman.
However, let me state now that I am NOT a woman – never have been! In fact in several of my posts over the years, I have mentioned my wife, and children. Also a few years back I posted quite a bit about various run-ins with the WCG ministry with childrearing many years ago.
As well as posting, I remember discussing it on line a bit with ‘Purple Hymnal’, back in her atheist days. (Now she is actually a woman!).
Anyway, it was an interesting experience, and it made me realise what women have to put up with sexist men, not just two or three posts, but all the time.
So thank you for that.
PS Byker Bob, Sorry if you were confused by Head Usher’s assertions – you were nearer the mark!
You are a woman and are very high up in a cog group.
DeleteAlright. Okay. You got me. I set myself up, and you capitalized on it. My bad.
ReplyDeleteFor trying to figure out WHY you're taking the illogical position that you are, I apologize. My bad. From the posts that I recall seeing from you in the past, which obviously were not ones in which you may or may not have referred to a wife, I had thought I recalled seeing you post things which indicated you were female.
But the fact you didn't correct me immediately says some other things about you, even if not what your gender might be.
It shows how you'll capitalize on any advantage you can find, rather than focusing on logically debating the merits of the issue. But we already know this by your previous reliance on Either/Or and Strawman logical fallacies.
I see the game you're playing. And kudos to you, you win. At that game. That game which has nothing to do with the issues of genetics or the validity of haplogroup research. It's an ad hominem distraction. So you win at the game of fallacious distraction. Shame on me for not being a better at debate. Lesson learned.
Now how about lets redirect back to the issues?
1) ESTABLISHED: Your claim that that haplogroup research is supposed to establish something about RACE is false. Here is another place from April 19, 2012 where you have much more clearly stated your erroneous belief that haplogroup DNA research is about the determination of races:
"Douglas, you say 'And the bottom line is that DNA refutes British Israelism...again.' But is your statement actually true? I have posted on this before, but you never seem to answer. I have tried typing 'can races be identified by DNA' into Google, and all the sources seem to be saying that the reality is that race can NOT be determined by DNA ... So who do I believe - the experts or Douglas Becker?"
I don't know how you came to conclude these were the same thing, or why you keep beating this drum, but it demonstrates how shallow your understanding is. If you were as educated in this subject as you'd like me to believe, you'd realize you can expect both those experts AND Douglas Becker to be right simultaneously, because they're each talking about completely different things! But you're not.
Haplogroup research has nothing to do with determining race by DNA. This is a Strawman fallacy of logic.
2) ESTABLISHED: Haplogroup research is valid, useful, and successful. To argue that just because haplogroup research cannot answer every question, it therefore cannot answer any question is an Either/Or fallacy of logic.
The bottom line is that every haplogroup represents a separate and distinct branch of the human family via male lineages and by identifying which haplogroup allows to us to say with certainty who does and who does not descend from an early anonymous patriach.
You have not refuted this.
3) ESTABLISHED: Statistics is a branch of mathematics that allows anyone to infer things about missing (Flaws! Oh MY!) data within specified confidence intervals. If you were as educated as you'd like me to believe about statistics, you would be able to put it to use, instead of distrusting even your ability to use it. Your constent demands that data be "flawless" or else it must be rejected wholesale are predicated upon logical fallacies.
4) ESTABLISHED: BI is bogus. It is refuted by common sense arguments such as immigration/melting pots, Roman and other history, i.e., the fact that Anglo-Saxons are both modern-day Britons and Roman-era Germani while many Saxons remained in Germany and are modern-day British (both of which BB has alluded to), AND by haplogroup DNA research.
You've come here to try to sow doubts in people's minds where there is no reason for doubts to exist.
Stop it.
Interesting – you say ‘I see the game you're playing……It's an ad hominem distraction.’
ReplyDeleteYet in the first 3 paragraphs you say about me:-
1. ‘I set myself up, and you capitalized on it.’ No – you said ‘If you are male (which I know you're not, Questeruk)’. Such a comment should have zero relevance in a discussion about DNA and BI. Once you started your ad hominem sexism I corrected your error.
2. ‘From the posts that I recall seeing from you in the past, which obviously were not ones in which you may or may not have referred to a wife.’ In other words I may or may not be a liar. Throw doubt on my personal integrity.
3. ‘But the fact you didn't correct me immediately says some other things about you, even if not what your gender might be’. Now that is not an ad hominem distraction of course.
I could list plenty more – so don’t try and suggest that you are not regularly implying or directly using such ad hominem tactics throughout your posts.
Now the issues. I am laying my cards on the table here. You can take it or leave it as you like.
My position on the whole BI question is that it’s not really an issue. After all it’s either correct or it’s not, (or of course maybe it’s partly correct, as I don’t want to use an Either/Or logical fallacy).
Now there is some evidence for it, but it’s not at all conclusive. However to reject the concept also requires conclusive evidence, and that is not really there at the moment either.
But understand my position is different to yours. You are in a position that you really don’t want BI to be true. This means that, consciously or not, you are prepared to rate evidence which goes against BI much stronger than I might, and be prepared to overlook shortcoming in that evidence much more readily than I would. That is not ad hominem, it’s just the common human condition that more readily accept answers they like as against answers they don’t like.
I understand what the Y-haplotype reveals, probably more so now, having done a bit more research on it, but I feel you really haven’t grasped the point I was making on the data, which actually is very valid. But because you personally don’t grasp it, it doesn’t somehow make it invalid.
There are still many outstanding issues with Y-haplotypes however. The dating of when different haplogroup came into existence widely fluctuates depending on the source you look at. R1b haplogroup for example, originating in Middle East/Asia migrated, according to some authorities as late as the Hallstatt culture 8th to 6th century BC, although others date it 2000 years earlier. Take your pick, and make your choice.
You mention my post in 2012 about DNA and race. Yes I had posted that, and Douglas completely ignored it. Which is why I posted it again here. You at least answered, I thank you for that. It has clarified a bit how you are presenting this issue, which was helpful.
I am not even going to bother on your point 3 which is a travesty of what I said. Of course I am not expecting ‘flawless’ data – but as well as understanding what the available data shows, you also need to be aware of what it doesn’t show. That was the point I was making.
Point 4 is really another area. I am not going to get into that here, this thread has already moved on to page 2. Just to say there is a lot of interesting records out there, both for and against BI.
Anyway, that’s all I am putting on this thread, but no doubt I will pop up now and again.
This is going to have to be in 2 stages.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you're completely misinterpreting me:
1) "If you are male (which I know you're not, Questeruk)" but keep going... "then you got your Y chromosome from your father. All the male descendants of my mother bring no Y chromosome data to my mix." I was trying to be understanding, not sexist!
And as for points 2) and 3), I don't trust you, and I won't have you whipsawing me in future. I don't claim to know what gender you are until I see somewhere else where you've claimed it. I've seen references to having been a software engineer, but nothing about a wife.
All your claims that I'm mounting ad hominem attacks are you interpretation. Which is fine, you will interpret everything in the ways you always have, and you're about at retirement age by now, so I don't expect that's going to change at this point.
As for the issue, I am perfectly aware of what the research does and does not show. The fact that it doesn't show something that isn't relevant to debunking British Israelism is just that, not relevant. However, you want to make everything seem relevant, so that way you can dismiss it all.
And what's more, you've been doing this for a long time...
Now for stage 2:
ReplyDeleteI did a little homework. Now I don't have to guess about you anymore or what it is you’re up to.
I noticed how you've been trolling with the exact same Strawman misrepresentation of haplogroup research to attempt to deceive people for over five years. Various people including but not limited to, Retired Prof, Leonardo, Corky, Douglas B, and Apostate Paul, have repeatedly pointed out to you the same errors I have been pointing out to you. In the case of Retired Prof, you even paid lipservice to researching and correcting this error, yet you reappear now trotting out the exact same deceptive lines and quotes, cut & pasted yet again? This is past the point of merely irresponsible.
On Dec 10, 2008, you wrote:
"Teaching a child the religious beliefs of the parent, hopefully the parent is passing on the truth as they understand – in other words, they are not deliberately lying to their child, but passing on what they believe to be true. If it actually is true or not is a different question, but teaching what you believe to be true is fundamentally different to teaching a lie." [Emphasis mine.]
Not sure I agree with all of that, BUT—here's my question to you:
For how long—how many times—does one fact—the fact that haplogroup research has nothing to do with genetically sorting out either races or ethnicities—need to be shoved in your face before your refusal to acknowledge it becomes culpable? For how long can you keep pushing a lie against a parade of correction before you can longer pretend not to be a baldfaced liar?
Can you really claim not to have already crossed the line into "deliberate lying"? By now you're without an excuse.
How many more times will you troll with this lie in other places in the future?
At first I thought I was seeing at someone who was merely arrogant enough to speak out of a deep well of ignorance. Your history shows you can’t plead ignorance at this point.
You're a liar and a troll. Any claims of "integrity" at this late date are patently absurd. You've come here to stir the pot and deliberately deceive people. End of story.
And, predictably, when your "honor" is "impugned" I've seen you play the "righteous indignation" card. Honor? Integrity? Please, your trail of apologetics shows you sacrificed those long ago. You sacrificed them "for Jesus," I suppose, but you sacrificed them just the same. I hope you won't have the chutzpah to attempt playing the "righteous indignation" card with me. Righteous? As if.
Usher, basically what he appears to be is an ACOG member. The majority of members don't accept "our" science, "our" history, alternate interpretations of scripture, or anything else which disproves or counters what they feel was revealed by their "apostle". Their own priorities take precedence, so, duty bound, they continue to present their beliefs on the forums and blogs as if they were never disproven. It is frustrating, especially when they happen to be otherwise likable, but, that is part of the pathology. In a sense, we, too have been there and done that, and somehow time and continued exposure caused us to turn the knobs and dials of our figurative radios.
ReplyDeleteBB
This has got absurb. Is this a forum for debate of ideas, or to abuse individuals that post here.
ReplyDeleteWhat do I mean by abuse – one definition ‘Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy.’
From disagreeing with my point of view, Head User has now gone on an all out charater assasination. Is this what NO2HWA intends on this board?
I call on NO2HWA to comment on this. I respect NO2HWA, and will abide by any decision he makes.
One point of explaination on Head Usher’s last post. I have commented before on this, and I openly told Head Usher that I had, so it’s no revelation that he is making.
The reason is simple – in my view there is a logical problem in the way things are being presented.
e.g. of the logic
No dogs have six legs
A is a dog
Therefore A does not have six legs.
Race cannot be identified by DNA
The British/French/Isralites/whatever/ are a race
Therefore the British/French/etc cannot be identified by DNA.
Yet the headline banner is that DNA (via Y-haplotypes) has proved BI to be false. When I originally posted that many authoritive sources state that race cannot be identified by DNA this had not been acknowledged on this board. It now has been, so maybe my efforts were worthwhile.
I am not saying that the Y-haplotype research is not worthwhile. It is, and has uncovered a number of interesting facts, even to the extent that it does cast doubts on the BI idea.
What I am saying is that the way it has been presented here has made it appear illogical to me. In fact I suggest that an update to the way it is presented would actually help the case on the anti BI argument.
I am in no way trolling. I believe this particular point is the only one in which I have made the same point several times over the years, because the presentation has not changed, so I consider the point valid.
Anyway, NO2HWA, I would value your input. I believe that, although disagreeing with many here, I have enjoyed a good reputation. I feel that Head Usher is making a concerted effort to make it appear that I use lies and subterfuge to follow some sort of supposed agenda.
I am used to taking some flack by posting here, but when a viewpoint results in personal absuse and inuendo then I consider it has gone too far.
If you no longer wish me to post here, then that’s fine. But I want to hear it from you NO2HWA, it’s your board.
It's not character assasination. And it's not ad hominem. It's an entirely new claim about your behavior. If your reputation suffers, it's because of your behavior, so that's your fault, not mine for highlighting it.
ReplyDeleteThe claim is that this bizarre mantra you've been repeating since 2007—conflating haplogroup research somehow with the study of "races" (whatever "race" means)—is a claim which you should already know by now has zero merit. You should know by now that by repeating this mantra you are telling a lie.
This is what Jesus has to say about it:
"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:36-37).
So, what do you say, Questeruk? Are you going to play the "righteous indignation" card, and say that you shouldn't be held accountable for your careless words? Are you going to say that Jesus is wrong?
Now, I'm going to lay this out very clearly, first my debunking of your careless syllogism, followed by 3 past witnessing instances, complete with links, in which people have witnessed to your of your error.
And these will be my last words on this thread.
"Race cannot be identified by DNA"
TRUE.
"The British/French/Isralites/whatever/ are a race"
??? I'm not sure how many knowledgeable people in this world would even be willing to go along that much.
Race is a decrepit, fuzzy, problematic concept. It's not a scientific concept. It's not a genetic concept. It's based upon a veray old, very simplistic gloss of observable traits which, it just happens, are determined by genetics, but only by just a handful of genes. The concept of races does not arise out of any knowledge of genetics whatsoever. And as haplogroup research is revealing, a modern person of one "race" may descend from an ancient person belonging to a different "race." Observable traits, such as skin color are not very meaningful, and therefore the concept of race is not very meaningful in determining who your ancestors are.
Haplogroup research has literally *nothing* to do with the concept of race. Haplogroup research is not dependent upon or predicated upon the concept of race in any way. These are, to quote Corky, "apples and rocks." No one in the world would say they're equivalent. Yet you keep misquoting genetics researchers (like a broken record), forcing their words, which have nothing to do with haplogroup research (the HGP you keep quoting, which terminated in 2003, isn't even the group conducting this research, the ISOGG is) into discussions about haplogroup research in a bid make people think haplogroups and "races" are equivalent. To insinuate this is a falsehood, which you've got no excuse for not knowing.
"Therefore the British/French/etc cannot be identified by DNA."
Yeah? And?
What exactly does that have to haplogroup research?
Nothing.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING I've said on this entire thread?
Nothing.
Nobody is trying to identify people according to political boundaries, race, or any other pre-existing classification schema. The DNA itself forms a brand new classification schema. That is what the haplogroups are: a new classification schema based on SNPs markers in the Y chromosome.
"What I am saying is that the way it has been presented here has made it appear illogical to me."
Yeah? And?
Think carefully about what that means. Who should you be pointing the finger of blame at for that? Everyone else, or yourself?
Here are summaries and links to two who witnessed to Questeruk, and the third witnessing instance will follow.
ReplyDelete1) October 15, 2007
"The following quote is from the web site www.genomics.energy.gov ... Interesting...The project by it’s own admission states it is unable to distinguish one race from another. So what is this DNA evidence that Camfinch, Corky and Paul all claim to have about the tribes of Isreal?"
"camfinch said...
...Does the DNA of people of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian and other northwestern European-derived groups demonstrate relationship to Semitic groups? Because that's what would be required for BI to be true. And ask the same question re: the Germans. Does their DNA show a connection to Assyrians? Is a connection to the ancient Middle East shown?
...
The migrations of one's ancestors can be shown through the genome...genomes from those of northwestern European stock, as far as I can tell, should indicate that some of the ancestors had migrated to Palestine at some point in time, no later than the early-to-mid second millennium BCE. At least according to my reckoning. If we assume that ancient Israelites were truly in Palestine at that time, but genomes and markers for northwestern Europeans don't indicate that their ancestors were at that location at that time, it seems that this would be a contraindication for the idea that these people are descended from the Lost Tribes."
2) January 12, 2008
"...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'."
"Tired Skeptic said...
'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.
...
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."
And the third witnesses were Douglas Becker and Retired Prof:
ReplyDelete3) April 19, 2012
"Douglas, you say 'And the bottom line is that DNA refutes British Israelism... again.' But is your statement actually true? ... All the sources seem to be saying that the reality is that race can NOT be determined by DNA. And some of them have high credentials. For example:-
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml (The US Government human genome project) states:-
'...DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans...'
So who do I believe - the experts or Douglas Becker?"
"Retired Prof said...
Questeruk, if you google your search in a different way, you will find that Douglas Becker is right that human lineages can be traced. Admittedly, you also are right that humans can't be divided into distinct races through DNA analysis, but that is not the same question. Within a species, a race clearly differentiated by a consistent cluster of traits, and human populations show too much genetic overlap for racial boundaries to be defined. However, we do inherit certain genes from our forebears, and some of these clearly identify lineages, which are not the same thing as races. You are not arguing with Becker, you are arguing past him, basing your objection on a different phenomenon. Here is how the process works..."
"Douglas Becker said...
Questeruk, you are correct that DNA does not identify races. Retired Prof, you are correct that DNA can be used to trace genetic lineage. DNA evidence can be used to determine both the paternal and maternal lineages. The paternal Y-Chromosome has been shown to be stable such that DNA samples can be taken from two different people today to see if they have a common ancestor or not. In the case of Western Europeans, those from the British Isles and the United States, the lineage as given through "haplogroups" is different from those who are from Israel..."
(Then Questeruk pays lipservice...)
"Questeruk said...
Thanks for that Douglas. Food for thought - I will check into this whole thing a bit more before I get back to you"
And when Questeruk does finally get back to us in 2014, more of the same CRAP? "Food for thought?" Where's the "thought"?
Should I take you at your word, Questeruk? Did you "check into this whole thing"? What would you have the gentlemen of the jury believe?
Thank you, your honor, the prosecution rests.
P.S. No where have a called for Questeruk to refrain from posting. I don't do that sort of thing because it's not my blog.
ReplyDeleteI am merely calling for Questeruk, who claims to be a christian, to observe the words of Jesus, and be RESPONSIBLE and CAREFUL with his words, which the record shows he has not been doing.
I hadn’t intending posting anymore on this thread, as it is well past it’s ‘sell-by’ date. However Head Usher has posted 4 posts of ‘prosecution’. (I didn’t realise I was on trial actually).
ReplyDeleteHowever this is such a travesty of the facts the way Usher has presented them, that I have to reply.
Usher is quoting from three different threads that I have posted on in the past. I ask anyone who reads this thread to actually read the original – there is a lot of it, the three topics Usher quotes have over 200 individual posts.
What Head Usher has done is a classic exercise of ‘cut and paste’. He has edited out important parts, ignoring other parts, and particularly CHANGED THE ORDER of the posts, to appear to give a different meaning.
1) October 15, 2007
This topic had a total of 120 individual posts. Usher has 3 quotes posted. They are out of order, to give a false impression, and qualifying statements removed.
The 2nd post quoted (from camfinch) was in reality the first one to appear (the 45th post in the section), and is not in response to my posting at all, but Head Usher would like you to think it was. A complete misleading of the facts on Ushers part. It was posted TWO DAYS BEFORE my post appeared.
My post (the first one quoted in this section) was 47 posts later, as post number 97, two days later. Camfinch’s reply to me (post 103 in the original), is the third paragraph Usher quotes. However Usher deletes camfinch’s qualifying statements at both the beginning and end of the quote.
In the lead up to the part quoted in post 103 Camfinch says ‘Actually, I have made no claim as such about the tribes of Israel.
As to what can be shown from DNA: please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the migrations of one's ancestors can be shown through the genome’.
Not the most authoritative start to the quote! And he ends with ‘Open to correction on the details...’
And that’s about it – not a convincing, viewpoint altering comment.
So Usher presents first a ‘straw man’ comment that appeared two days before mine, and is not in reply to mine at all, and then takes out the qualifying statements of a mild comment from someone that thinks that what they are saying might be the answer.
Continued in second post
Continued from first post
ReplyDelete2) January 12, 2008
Another set of misdirection. Again we have Usher altering the sequence of the posts, and then the deliberate quoting of a post which the poster immediately apologised for, but not quoting the poster’s apology when my post was clarified. There are 3 posts quoted by Usher in this section, from ‘Tired Skeptic’ and myself. If Usher was being open and honest, he would have also quoted two more.
This topic had a total of 60 posts.
The third post Usher quotes (starting ‘The British Israel theology’) is in reality the first post of the sequence, and rather than being a reply to my post, as Usher would want you to think, is actually the post by ‘tired sceptic’ that started this sequence. This is post 10 in the original sequence.
My first reply is Ushers 1st quote, and comes 12 in the original sequence. I do indeed use the same quote again that I had in the early post – because no one had given any answer, except a ‘maybe, I think’ style answer.
The second quote which Tired Skepic gives may indeed seem a bit sharp. ( Manipulative quote Etc). However, Usher conveniently leaves out both the context of this, and also the next 2 posts, one from myself, and one from Tired Skeptic which clarifies everything.
To get the context, you need to look at the original. There was a poster under the name Tom Mahon (I believe that was actually his real name), who managed to get under the skin of nearly everybody (me included), whatever their viewpoint.
Tom Mahon had posted, and I believe that Tired Skepic was erroneously taking my initial post to be in support of this individual. I then posted (post 25, with a footnote in post 26), a much longer quote, with source given. I won’t repeat it here, but you can check the original. Tired Skeptic then replied (Post 28). This is his full, unedited quote.
“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.”
Of course it doesn’t fit Usher’s agenda to mention the above posting. I am not suggesting Tired Skeptic is agreeing with me, far from it, but neither is it by any means a refutation of my posting, but is merely stating Tired Skeptics opinion.
So again Usher has deliberately reversed order of posts in an attempt to mislead, and ignored a post which corrects the post that he was quoting.
Is this Head Usher being RESPONSIBLE and CAREFUL with HIS words?
Continued in third post
Continuation of second post.
ReplyDelete3) April 19, 2012
This posting is over four years after the previous. This posting only had 13 comments, and I have little issue with it. My posting contained the reference that I had give in the previous postings (the one that Usher didn’t quote), and I also added references from two other genome sites, to back up my statements.
Both Retired Prof and Douglas Becker gave polite and well reasoned responses, which is why I gave my response “I will check into this whole thing a bit more before I get back to you"
(Incidentally, I do apologise for saying the Douglas Becker ignored me in 2012. He did not, as stated above. I had in mind the much longer sequences in 2007, and 2008, where he did not reply).
So what happened since? Yes, I have checked into things a bit more since. That doesn’t mean I ended up agreeing with Prof and Douglas, but I have modified my views to an extent.
Hopefully, anyone actually reading what I said in these latest posts will see that I was talking about something rather different. It did get a bit lost in the general hectoring from Usher, and I admit that his abusive stance did distract me from the main points I was making.
I do regret two things.
Firstly using the ‘race’ quote again, because that wasn’t the main point I was making.
Secondly that I didn’t correct Usher’s thinking that I was female one post earlier than I did. I really didn’t see (and still don’t) how that affects the discussion in any way, but it really seemed to tip Usher into a frenzy of abuse. I can only think it was to try to cover his embarrassment at making such a mistake.
Hopefully anyone reading through these latest postings, if they try to ignore the constant personal attack, may pick up the actual points I was making. Certainly Usher didn’t appear to be able to comprehend them. I hope others may.
The irony of it all is that BI isn’t a particularly big issue with me. But equally I am not going to fool myself that the answer is an open and shut case. In reality the jury is still out.
There actually is more to the picture. British Israelism is totally unnecessary, except as a support for the ACOG sabbath doctrine. Paul says Christians are the new Israelites. From day 1, Christianity was pretty big here in the USA, only Armstrongism doesn't recognize it as such because these Christians are and were Sunday keepers. So, HWA had to find another way, a bogus and spurious way to make our melting pot into Israel.
ReplyDeleteBoth liberals and conservative alike have observed that as a nation, we seem to have lost our compass and values, which was also one of the core messages of Armstrongism.
To my knowledge, though, mainstream Christians do not entertain the theory of German-Assyrianism.
BB
Fascinating reading
ReplyDelete