Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
Why British Israelism Is Wrong: There is NO Pure Race
43 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Like I often say, we're all cousins. It's politics, religion and chauvinism that divide us. If I can ever get around to it and afford it, I'm going to have my own genome organized, but I already know that all I have to do is take a map of Europe and the British Isles and spread my hand over all of it to know where my recent ancestry lies. Allen C. Dexter
BRAVO!!! There is a book by Anton Darms ( no copyright date ) called The Delusion of British - Israelism. I bought it online. Published by The Bible Truth Press.It was published before Zip Codes so it's not new material but it does use scripture not hwa plagiarism. 223 pages with bibliography for and against. More sources against than for.
What do those who still believe in BI say to back it up? I think it is adequately disproved with DNA, but there are certain things only passed on the male/Y chromosone. Do the believers claim that descent from Israel is solely thru the female line which is harder to trace? I envision if this were true there would have to have been a scenario where all the men were killed and the women kidnapped and used as wives/concubines etc., by the conquering gentile tribes. This is a typical scenario in the Bible in ancient Israel time. Is that what they think happened? If this were true, then the most lost ten tribe blood would be 50%.
Ok another scenario might be that they (the modern BI believers) don't believe that DNA is accurate, and really that is like saying the earth was created 6000 years ago.
I think Wade Cox said something like current day Jews were not really Israelites at all, but the sons of Ham, hence there seemed to be no relationship between Britain and Jews (and Arabs).
Then someone else said, just look around and see who are the large successful nations today and they are the ones identified as Israel by Bible prophecy. In other words paying no attention to DNA at all.
The hole crucible of Armstrongism depends on a fable. If the membership had a set of balls they would investigate the claims made by the men who care not for them and determine the truth for themselves.
If not so inclined then they should continue to live the lie. This will be the legacy of fools.
The reason none of the splinters will deny the lie of BI is that they would have to disavow 90% of their other teachings. That won't happen. Instead they will continue to lie about it and falsely promote the idea as truth.
"RSK said...Even without DNA, BI is flimsy stuff on both the linguistic and historical data."
Yep. No matter how one evaluates it, all but the most cursory of analyses is sufficient to reveal that BI rests on shaky ground at best. BI is an idea that thrives on shallowness and ignorance. Ignorance is to BI as glucose is to E. coli.
Also...
" Anon4:01PM said...What do those who still believe in BI say to back it up? I think it is adequately disproved with DNA, but there are certain things only passed on the male/Y chromosone. Do the believers claim that descent from Israel is solely thru the female line which is harder to trace?"
Basically, believers in BI, a couple of whom I've argued with here, will say just about anything up to and including (paraphrased) "I don't understand DNA, therefore I will dismiss it, and keep preaching BI to others as though it were true." They will offer any apologetic necessary to cast doubt on what is now an incontrovertible body of various kinds of evidence, even the common sense rationale like this, that the mixing of peoples down through time means there's no such thing as "pure" races, ethnicities, or families of mankind. To go one step further to unpacking the myth, it's malarkey that such a "pure" ancient family might correspond even roughly to the political boundaries of modern nations. They will say anything to make it seem as though whatever myths and legends they feel comfortable with are probable, when even just a thoughtful review of the intellectual territory is enough to relegate the legend to fanciful junk.
For example, I've had more than one COG person tell me the story of how Simon Magus died when he magically levitated above the Roman forum and Peter prayed to god who cut him off from the power of his sorcery in mid-air, causing him to fall and eventually to die. That this story comes to us from the apocryphal Acts of Peter matters not to them, so long as no questions are asked. Merely by their failure to do their due diligence, in their minds it is transmuted to canonical status, and hearsay legend becomes "gospel truth." And it's no different with the legend of BI, or even the biblical canons themselves, for that matter. Intellectual negligence is a virtue among many still today, and a steady mental diet of junk is normal for COG people,
So, ironically, it's the failure to even attempt to back up BI on the part of it's proponents which is all that is necessary to make it "gospel truth."
I beg to differ. There is and it's called the 'Human Race' and it all stems from the union of Adam and Eve, made after the image of Elohim. There are some people who just don't know the difference between "race" and 'culture', as Merriam-Webster has it:- Main Entry:1 cul-ture Pronunciation:*k*l-ch*r Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle Date:15th century "5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a (deleted by contributor), religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation
cheers ralph.f ps. The Human Race, far superior than any other mortal life form.IMHO pps. DNA is physical matter that can be changed and is thus unstable. Angels are spiritual beings and as such do not possess DNA of any kind. Don't let 'them' fool you around! Perhaps an interesting point: "Gen 6:9.... Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations...." His DNA had not been tampered with by so called scientists as happens today. "Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Do you really think that Genetic Engineering is something new?? Consider these words of wisdom:- "Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecc 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us."
ralph, genetical engineering of mankind in the past is I am sure a possibility. But my understanding of the days of Noah was that humans were breeding with non-humans - not animals, but superhumans or angels. Beings that are called 'the sons of god' in the Bible, who found human women attractive and mated with them. Perhaps there were giants or other part immortals from these matings. And the Nephilim. It seems there were also giants after the flood, for instance the one who fought with David. Well this is just speculation, and is spoken of in the book of Enoch more than the Bible. But maybe it parallels some of the Greek stories of immortals/half immortals living on earth and mating with humans. Or maybe they were aliens......... Now why did men live to be 1000 before the flood, but less than 100 after - genetic engineering.
Let's not let everything Armstrong cloud our judgment. BI was around long before the WCG adopted it. Similar to the Catholic Church adopting the Dante scenario. It fit the purpose at the time. I don't base my beliefs on the BI or anything Armstrong for that matter. For me, it comes down to nothing more then "so what". I look at the physical evidence of the "Stone of Scone", "King Davids throne", the "Scepter", the "song of Zadok" and "Jeremiah's tomb" in Ireland.
For those who advocate the authenticity of DNA, while an individuals DNA identifies that person, the findings now are that DNA can and is altered over time.
This is only one example of a simple google search on the subject: "After two decades of studies, HeartMath researchers say other factors such as the appreciation and love we have for someone or the anger and anxiety we feel also influence and can alter the outcomes of each individual’s DNA blueprint." That from: https://www.heartmath.org/articles-of-the-heart/personal-development/you-can-change-your-dna/ There are many sites now that have examples of such findings.
Does it matter to me? Not one iota. God said there would always be a man on the throne of David and that's good enough for me.
"ps. The Human Race, far superior than any other mortal life form.IMHO"
Ralph,
I would agree with you that the brain is an amazing apparatus. I gather that your intentions are pure. However the above statement has been abused to the point of no return for many species that in many ways are superior to us. (I mean, so far I haven't been flying over a rocky cliff spotting a mouse from a miles distance.) Moreover wouldn't you agree that the angels are subject to man. Just a small correction on my part to save the animals.
"....Beings that are called 'the sons of god' in the Bible,"
I understand the reference you make however, I believe the wording to be a mistranslation because of what I read here:- "Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
The 'sons of God' expression is used in Gen.6:3 and the AMP has it "Gen 6:3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. (followed by) Gen 6:4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years." "These men" - referring to the 'sons of God'. Read the rest of Gen.6 and determine how many times the word man or men is used. (Italics mine)
The expression is also used in "Job_38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Another mistranslation, for the Septuagint has it:- "Job 38:7 When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice."
Obviously I don't believe angels are "sons of God", they are created spirit beings (messengers) and, as such, can be "uncreated", as will Satan be eventually.
This video is so true. If one's ancestry or DNA is analyzed sufficiently it indeed will be discovered that such a person will have an ancestry containing persons from numerous ethnic groups. It is so.
"Moreover wouldn't you agree that the angels are subject to man."
Not necessarily, as I read here:- "Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Psa 8:5 Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour;"
However, in saying that, I believe they, the angels, are subject to "the Son of Man". As an aside, I have yet to find in scripture, as Dennis suggests, that the term 'son of man' can refer to mankind in general.
on June 29, 2016 at 11:25 PM Anonymous also wrote:-
"It seems there were also giants after the flood,...."
More than likely. Even as late as the 19th century. A sampling can be found 'HERE'. A result of earlier Genetic Engineering????
also:- "Now why did men live to be 1000 before the flood, but less than 100 after - genetic engineering."
I would suggest basically by Divine Decree, see here:- "Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, My Spirit shall not forever dwell and strive with man, for he also is flesh; but his days shall yet be 120 years." (or therabouts) Italics mine.
"I would agree with you that the brain is an amazing apparatus."
Definitely, but more so the human mind! No other mortal life form can match it. How could one forget:-"Job 32:8 But there is [a vital force] a spirit [of intelligence] in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives men understanding. [Prov. 2:6.]" (AMP)
Well we found many neanderthal men and women. However no giant bones. It is more likely that the ones who dedicated the oral traditions of man to cuneiform or papyrus were actually penning the transition from the hunter gatherer to the farmer. From paradise to hard labor. From a nature religion to strict obervance of ritual.
As I said in another posting: This transition phase explains ALL plagues, curses, booby traps that needed to be explained by a God. Since ALL of Gods curses only apply to farmers.
(floodings, who cares a hunter walks away// plagues, new plagues arrived with the cohabitation of man and animal// politics and religious confusion, only with city dwellers accumulating wealth, inequality, increase in violence as exemplified by Cain etc etc etc)
And most and foremost. The hunter gatherer is a TALLER person than a farmer. Archeological finds prove this since as I said, farmers were stricken with "curses". Of course the new farmers would describe the former as a Giant.
nck
BTW to stay on topic. Most men except the Icelanders are a hodgepodge of genes and dna. I do however believe that ALL men posess the genes to produce if nature deems it necesarry to produce a red head, black child, or a chinese.
Nature doesn't work the way I describe it of course but you get the gist. Either you deny one mother produced all races. Or you deny the humanity of all men. Or you are in denial of the power of the gene to survive and adapt in any way it deems necessary.
I don't believe blond Swedish girls just jumped out of a natural sauna hole in the ground, 2000 years ago, although I would have liked to witness such event. We are all humans or we are not, chinese, indians, californian surfer dudes.
I was just struck by the realisation that by trying to keep it extremely simple and not quoting all the scientific evidence I must to a christian somehow come across as a loser who needs to deal with his wife's explanation of the black, yellow and redheaded child in the family. And yes some of them are really good at plumbing and window cleaning.
The Bible-based fact is that there is no-one sitting on King David's throne today, and there has not been such a King or Queen since Babylonian captivity. As most remember, the kingship was not restored in post-exilic times by Ezra or Nehemiah at the time of Zerrubbabel's temple.
Here is the pertinent scriptural reference which we were not taught in Armstrongism, because it defies and disproves the throne of David portion of their British Israel doctrine. That throne is reserved for Jesus Christ. No other person before that time.
Ezekiel 21:24-27:
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you people have brought to mind your guilt by your open rebellion, revealing your sins in all that you do-because you have done this, you will be taken captive.
You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Take off the turban, remove the crown.
It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him will I give it."
I treat this in more detail in my article "Does Queen Elizabeth Sit on the Throne of David" available exclusively at the Painful Truth website, but the fact is the prophecy that there would always be someone sitting on the throne of David was conditional, based on obedience. The Hasmonean kings (read the Maccabees) of the intertestamental period were not of the royal kingly and priestly lines, in fact Herod was actually Idumean, the Idumeans being gentiles who became converted, subjugated peoples, as chronicled by Josephus.
Tea Tephi is just speculation. Also, it is geologically impossible for the stone of scone to have come from Israel. It is similar in composition to rocks native to the British Isles. It is not Jacob's pillar stone. British Israelism is a myth, debunkable by dozens of facts and by scripture itself. But, it is also a sacred cow, because it is the very basis for Armstrongism. Topple B.I, and you topple Armstrongism itself.
A COG without BI is not Armstrongism. Indeed the very foundation of Armstrongism is BI. Armstrongism is the bible seen through the prism of BI and its eschatological implications.
It is more interesting to see what BI actually pertains. BI is the founding doctrine of all the protestant states breaking away from the Holy Roman Empire at the end of the 16th century. All the new kings and queens legitimized themselves as being spiritual and (their ideological advisors provided "evidence" for being physical) Jews having wandered out of Egypt.
It is exactly those protestant states that catapulted to extreme power and wealth and rule the world for over 500 years reaching its epitomizing Zenith in the founding of the United States.
BI proponents go back to the late 16th century propaganda material and then claim that that is the evidence for their theory.
nck
The demise of the BI signals the demise of the protestant princes and the transition of power from the white male.
The old white male strikes back by Brexit, electing Donald Trump, protesting immigration.
The wave of economics and globalization however is unstoppable and people should learn to adapt and not resist the great wave of history. Any surfer knows ride the wave, adapt to the wave. Don't fight it our you're crushed. The same goes for your investments and mental health. Ride the wave.
And as this powerful doctrine of BI is decreasing in legitimacy (since the power base of it wanes) wait for another doctrine to replace it. Oh wait it is actually there already. It is called globalization and the New Order. I heard president Obama mention that new order almost everyday after Brexit.
nck said,"Or you are in denial of the power of the gene to survive and adapt in any way it deems necessary."
Where is it written in our DNA the capability of choosing how to act? The Power to adapt is our consciencness. It is our awareness of the environment, not our genes, that continues our evolution!
nck says >The wave of economics and globalization however is unstoppable and people should learn to adapt and not resist the great wave of history. Any surfer knows ride the wave, adapt to the wave. Don't fight it our you're crushed.
That is the cowards formula for losing. I believe in fighting. An eye for a eye. Never stop because others are critical of you.
That albeit the first cars look fantastic from a craftsman perspective. They do look like horse drawn chariots don't they. Wholly inadequate design.
Democracy could not be enforced in Iraq.
Even joining wcg could not help us stop the hippies. And we could also not stop their disappearance.
I was talking about how the most adaptable species survives in the end. If the government and the people decide to give laisser passer to 900 millions mexicans. I'll be the one selling the drinks along the road.
I agree with you, that you have a place in the Kondratieff. It is up to us where we stand in the cycle. But we cannot fight the cycle. Or maybe we are. I will discuss this further with DBP, what we are.
DBP I am not being argumentative. I used to scare the lovely psychology majors in my appartment with my theorizing on nature and natural selection.
I don't know where that decision is made that a person that is deemed "attractive" by 99% of the world populace is also a person likely to be healthy and able to reproduce. Either black, Red, White or inbetweenish.
Perhaps the more darker tribes had reasons to not venture into the area called sweden some ...thousand years ago. Now oil has been found to warm their feet, they seem to have found the route. But walking through snow, it didn't happen.
It seems dna/genes are prepared to create anything that is able to select the best circumstance to survive.
It boils down to where, what or who made "the awareness" function I guess. I do know that nature is not in need of man to survive. It rather got rid of those "awareness beings" I guess.
I don't know what we are! Perhaps I should ask the animals on Galapagos when they became aware that they had to change in order to survive.
I've been talking too much lately. I made a terrible joke at 8:05. Still somewhere around the line a humanoid father must have been surprised by the first Redheaded, darker or chinese child in evolution. I am just imagining the row it must have been in that cave. Or perhaps it was the reason men retreated at the mancaves. Where else could one relax and invent a religion to keep their women in check. What else but loose neanderthal women would explain the strange looking child? Evolution?
Oops, I mixed the words neanderthal and humanoids. Creating the impression for the close reader that I mean that other than white are neanderthal mix.
That was a typo mistake and a big one too.
Of course Redheads do carry ample neanderthal dna, but the joke was about the first man to discover an "evolutionised" white, yellow, dark, inbetweenish child in the crib, the row it would have given and the religion it warranted to keep women in check from that moment on.
Nature "wants" us to survive? Last time I looked the Ozone hole was opening real quick on the Australians for transgressing the law of not using deodorants without CFC's. Well as you say perhaps Gaia has some need for us. But we sure messed up her production of bio diversity.
DNA
You seem to assign "responsibility" to DNA. I'm just saying that is what DNA does. Adapt, detect, action, reaction, adapt, survive. Somehow along the line it came up with a clever solution called man. An efficient machine eventually the crown of DNA's adaptability through the brain.
Then it set itself a new goal by inventing Armstrongism. (Ooops sorry I mean religion. Or maybe religion is an inefficient by product of the imagination of the brain.) Anyway now it wants to diversify to other planets to increase its chances of survival.
I thoroughly enjoy the courting, the love , family and other moral stuff (thou shalt not kill), is set before you life and death, choose life) . But it all boils down to the reproduction of the DNA. More and more scientific studies even have gays take part in this scheme of the DNA.
For example gay people have proven to be very effective in the entertainment industry. This serves a social role. And as we know groups have bigger survival ability than an individual. There are other scientific studies that provide answers why every now and then nature produces a "non reproductive" species like the gay.
Ok back to morality. All laws that profit the survival of the dna are usefull. In a pre technological world marriage was extremely usefull for reproductive purposes, the protection of the young ones in a social cohesive group etc etc.
In todays society where women are working and able to survive without manpower, I still find marriage a beautifull thing and perhaps something to cherish. However strictly taken it serves no purpose or in any case not the same purpose as in the past to protect a group or society. That is proven by a 35% divorce rate and 6 billion population.
Byker Bob said: "Here is the pertinent scriptural reference which we were not taught in Armstrongism, because it defies and disproves the throne of David portion of their British Israel doctrine. That throne is reserved for Jesus Christ. No other person before that time... Tea Tephi is just speculation."
Agree BB! The Davidic origins of the British royal family are false and pure fantasy. The legend of Tea Tephi is a mishmash of historical characters who were mistaken for one person. And the story of Jeremiah travelling to Eire is pure legend. There is nothing tangible to prove this aspect of BI. Furthermore, the Davidic monarchy was patrilineal unlike the British monarchy, which is another proof against it.
Byker Bob: Use hwa's own reasoning to disprove him. Jacob crossed his hands to the younger son. Who is the younger nation? USA! By his own reasoning US should be Ephraim. pcg's brad macdonald did a trumpet article on the Egyptians were black. I asked him in an email if he was saying that Joseph's sons were mixed. I got no reply.
8:01, yes, you raise some other extremely valid points. Particularly about HWA becoming confused about the theory he plagiarized, and his subsequent logic gaff in labeling the UK as Ephraim. I believe that some of the minor splinter leaders have actually attempted to correct this, but the greater movement has not embraced it.
As goes Egypt, that nation has had, at various times, some incredible diversity. The black Egyptians were called Nubians, and this term is well known even today in the African American community. In fact, about 17 years ago, when I was dating a black lady, I occasionally called her my Nubian princess.
However, there were also the Hyksos, who were white. ACOG "historians" have attempted to assert that these were the sojourning children of Israel. They base this on a false etymology of the term Hyksos, provided by Josephus in his work "Against Apion".
Manasseh and Ephraim were of mixed heritage. There are several possibilities. It certainly would be interesting if they were indeed half black. We can know one thing as a certainty. Armstrongites would atempt to find a way to explain it away. But isn't it interesting that the nation Armstrongites refer to as Manasseh included black people from the very start? We know that the Lemba tribe in Africa has an abundance of Kohanime priestly genes.
I wish we could all be honest here about the historicity of early biblical figures.
I like the honest way that Israel Finkelstein answers these kinds of questions:
"The patriarchs could have been real figures who became mythical during the ages; they could have been completely mythical. We don't know, and we'll probably never know. In fact, there's no way to know...The question of the historicity of Moses is the same as the question of the historicity of Abraham. That is to say, maybe there was a figure, maybe there was a leader. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Moses. I think that this is possible but I would say it's beyond recovery."
https://youtu.be/O5RfScpEcZ8
I certainly would be interesting if Ephraim & Manasseh were indeed even historical. We don't know, and we'll probably never know. In fact, there's no way to know. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Ephraim & Manasseh. I think it's possible that Ephraim & Manasseh existed, but I would say it's beyond recovery.
Ralph f wrote: " '....the Davidic monarchy was patrilineal....' Maybe so, but 'This Link' seems to suggest otherwise. See, among others, Ataliah."
Hey Ralph, your link referencing a Jewish article doesn't undermine my thesis at all. The Bible throughout assumes patrilineal ancestry from Adam to Noah, from Abraham to Jacob, from David to Zedekiah, from Adam and David to Christ, etc. Both the Israelite and Judahite monarchies were patrilineal. The British monarchy, especially in recent years with the revision to the Act of Settlement 1701 and line of succession (e.g. Perth Agreement 2011 & Succession to the Crown Act 2013) replaced male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture and removed the prohibition of marrying Catholics. In Talmudic Judaism matrilineal ancestry is accepted as the standard in total opposition to the Biblical patrilineal norm. This is just one reason why I no longer accept the legend that the British royal family is descended from the house of King David. The last tangible place I am aware of regarding the migration of Jeremiah and his group with him after the captivity of Zedekiah and destruction of Jerusalem was that they travelled to Tahpanhes, Egypt to what W. F. Petrie referred to as the "Palace of the Jew's Daughter." After that to my knowledge there is no real definitive or tangible evidence of where they ended up.
There are several standpoints from which any of the topics can be argued. And there are several arguments which are ongoing simultaneously. We can argue according to the beliefs of Armstrongism for the purpose of debunking Armstrongism, or we could argue from the point of nonbelievers for the purpose of debunking God and the Bible.
"....your link referencing a Jewish article doesn't undermine my thesis at all."
I truly wasn't trying to undermine your thesis. I'm not well up with ancient kings & queens of Israel/Judah, just did a quick Google to see what I could find. However, I read here:- "1Ki_16:29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab son of Omri began his reign of twenty-two years over Israel in Samaria."
The link I posted says:- "Ataliah (r. 842-836 B.C.E.) – The daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (or else of Omri), wife of Jehoram of Judah, and sole reigning queen of Judah. Like her husband, she murdered all familial rivals upon her accession to the throne."
As far as I am aware the Jews, like many other people, consider all Israelites to be Jews hence they would refer to Ataliah as a "queen of the Jews", I suppose because she was married to Jehoram, a Jew, whereas her late father Ahab "began his reign of twenty-two years over Israel in Samaria." I guess this would also make her a queen over Israel, the ten northern tribes?
I find the study of these ancient kings and queens to be somewhat confusing!
43 comments:
Like I often say, we're all cousins. It's politics, religion and chauvinism that divide us. If I can ever get around to it and afford it, I'm going to have my own genome organized, but I already know that all I have to do is take a map of Europe and the British Isles and spread my hand over all of it to know where my recent ancestry lies. Allen C. Dexter
BRAVO!!! There is a book by Anton Darms ( no copyright date ) called The Delusion of British - Israelism. I bought it online. Published by The Bible Truth Press.It was published before Zip Codes so it's not new material but it does use scripture not hwa plagiarism. 223 pages with bibliography for and against. More sources against than for.
Oh boy. This title is bound to spark controversy from the willfully ignorant.
Yep. Even Manasseh and Ephraim were half Egyptian!
BB
WHAT IF COG LEADERS TOOK A DNA TEST???
What other type of animal DNA would be found besides human ones in...
Thiel... Protozoa
Meredith... Rattlesnake
Pack... Wolf
Flurry... Shark
Weinland... Jack Ass
We should send them to "The Island of Doctor Moreau", so they can work on their issues.
DBP
That was an excellent find Gary! Really makes the point as to DNA and our REAL relationships with our fellow man.
Even without DNA, BI is flimsy stuff on both the linguistic and historical data.
What do those who still believe in BI say to back it up? I think it is adequately disproved with DNA, but there are certain things only passed on the male/Y chromosone. Do the believers claim that descent from Israel is solely thru the female line which is harder to trace? I envision if this were true there would have to have been a scenario where all the men were killed and the women kidnapped and used as wives/concubines etc., by the conquering gentile tribes. This is a typical scenario in the Bible in ancient Israel time. Is that what they think happened? If this were true, then the most lost ten tribe blood would be 50%.
Ok another scenario might be that they (the modern BI believers) don't believe that DNA is accurate, and really that is like saying the earth was created 6000 years ago.
I think Wade Cox said something like current day Jews were not really Israelites at all, but the sons of Ham, hence there seemed to be no relationship between Britain and Jews (and Arabs).
Then someone else said, just look around and see who are the large successful nations today and they are the ones identified as Israel by Bible prophecy. In other words paying no attention to DNA at all.
The hole crucible of Armstrongism depends on a fable. If the membership had a set of balls they would investigate the claims made by the men who care not for them and determine the truth for themselves.
If not so inclined then they should continue to live the lie. This will be the legacy of fools.
The reason none of the splinters will deny the lie of BI is that they would have to disavow 90% of their other teachings. That won't happen. Instead they will continue to lie about it and falsely promote the idea as truth.
"RSK said...Even without DNA, BI is flimsy stuff on both the linguistic and historical data."
Yep. No matter how one evaluates it, all but the most cursory of analyses is sufficient to reveal that BI rests on shaky ground at best. BI is an idea that thrives on shallowness and ignorance. Ignorance is to BI as glucose is to E. coli.
Also...
" Anon4:01PM said...What do those who still believe in BI say to back it up? I think it is adequately disproved with DNA, but there are certain things only passed on the male/Y chromosone. Do the believers claim that descent from Israel is solely thru the female line which is harder to trace?"
Basically, believers in BI, a couple of whom I've argued with here, will say just about anything up to and including (paraphrased) "I don't understand DNA, therefore I will dismiss it, and keep preaching BI to others as though it were true." They will offer any apologetic necessary to cast doubt on what is now an incontrovertible body of various kinds of evidence, even the common sense rationale like this, that the mixing of peoples down through time means there's no such thing as "pure" races, ethnicities, or families of mankind. To go one step further to unpacking the myth, it's malarkey that such a "pure" ancient family might correspond even roughly to the political boundaries of modern nations. They will say anything to make it seem as though whatever myths and legends they feel comfortable with are probable, when even just a thoughtful review of the intellectual territory is enough to relegate the legend to fanciful junk.
For example, I've had more than one COG person tell me the story of how Simon Magus died when he magically levitated above the Roman forum and Peter prayed to god who cut him off from the power of his sorcery in mid-air, causing him to fall and eventually to die. That this story comes to us from the apocryphal Acts of Peter matters not to them, so long as no questions are asked. Merely by their failure to do their due diligence, in their minds it is transmuted to canonical status, and hearsay legend becomes "gospel truth." And it's no different with the legend of BI, or even the biblical canons themselves, for that matter. Intellectual negligence is a virtue among many still today, and a steady mental diet of junk is normal for COG people,
So, ironically, it's the failure to even attempt to back up BI on the part of it's proponents which is all that is necessary to make it "gospel truth."
from Topic Header:-
"....There is NO Pure Race"
I beg to differ. There is and it's called the 'Human Race' and it all stems from the union of Adam and Eve, made after the image of Elohim.
There are some people who just don't know the difference between "race" and 'culture', as Merriam-Webster has it:-
Main Entry:1 cul-ture
Pronunciation:*k*l-ch*r
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle
Date:15th century
"5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a (deleted by contributor), religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation
cheers
ralph.f
ps. The Human Race, far superior than any other mortal life form.IMHO
pps. DNA is physical matter that can be changed and is thus unstable. Angels are spiritual beings and as such do not possess DNA of any kind. Don't let 'them' fool you around!
Perhaps an interesting point:
"Gen 6:9.... Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations...." His DNA had not been tampered with by so called scientists as happens today. "Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man."
Do you really think that Genetic Engineering is something new?? Consider these words of wisdom:-
"Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us."
ralph, genetical engineering of mankind in the past is I am sure a possibility. But my understanding of the days of Noah was that humans were breeding with non-humans - not animals, but superhumans or angels. Beings that are called 'the sons of god' in the Bible, who found human women attractive and mated with them. Perhaps there were giants or other part immortals from these matings. And the Nephilim. It seems there were also giants after the flood, for instance the one who fought with David. Well this is just speculation, and is spoken of in the book of Enoch more than the Bible. But maybe it parallels some of the Greek stories of immortals/half immortals living on earth and mating with humans. Or maybe they were aliens......... Now why did men live to be 1000 before the flood, but less than 100 after - genetic engineering.
Let's not let everything Armstrong cloud our judgment. BI was around long before the WCG adopted it. Similar to the Catholic Church adopting the Dante scenario. It fit the purpose at the time.
I don't base my beliefs on the BI or anything Armstrong for that matter.
For me, it comes down to nothing more then "so what".
I look at the physical evidence of the "Stone of Scone", "King Davids throne", the "Scepter", the "song of Zadok" and "Jeremiah's tomb" in Ireland.
For those who advocate the authenticity of DNA, while an individuals DNA identifies that person, the findings now are that DNA can and is altered over time.
This is only one example of a simple google search on the subject: "After two decades of studies, HeartMath researchers say other factors such as the appreciation and love we have for someone or the anger and anxiety we feel also influence and can alter the outcomes of each individual’s DNA blueprint."
That from: https://www.heartmath.org/articles-of-the-heart/personal-development/you-can-change-your-dna/
There are many sites now that have examples of such findings.
Does it matter to me? Not one iota. God said there would always be a man on the throne of David and that's good enough for me.
itstimecog
"ps. The Human Race, far superior than any other mortal life form.IMHO"
Ralph,
I would agree with you that the brain is an amazing apparatus.
I gather that your intentions are pure. However the above statement has been abused to the point of no return for many species that in many ways are superior to us.
(I mean, so far I haven't been flying over a rocky cliff spotting a mouse from a miles distance.)
Moreover wouldn't you agree that the angels are subject to man.
Just a small correction on my part to save the animals.
nck
on June 29, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Anonymous wrote:;-
"....Beings that are called 'the sons of god' in the Bible,"
I understand the reference you make however, I believe the wording to be a mistranslation because of what I read here:- "Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
The 'sons of God' expression is used in Gen.6:3 and the AMP has it "Gen 6:3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. (followed by)
Gen 6:4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
"These men" - referring to the 'sons of God'. Read the rest of Gen.6 and determine how many times the word man or men is used. (Italics mine)
The expression is also used in "Job_38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Another mistranslation, for the Septuagint has it:- "Job 38:7 When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice."
Obviously I don't believe angels are "sons of God", they are created spirit beings (messengers) and, as such, can be "uncreated", as will Satan be eventually.
cheers
ralph.f
This video is so true. If one's ancestry or DNA is analyzed sufficiently it indeed will be discovered that such a person will have an ancestry containing persons from numerous ethnic groups. It is so.
on June 30, 2016 at 12:18 AM
nck wrote:-
"Moreover wouldn't you agree that the angels are subject to man."
Not necessarily, as I read here:- "Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psa 8:5 Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour;"
However, in saying that, I believe they, the angels, are subject to "the Son of Man".
As an aside, I have yet to find in scripture, as Dennis suggests, that the term 'son of man' can refer to mankind in general.
cheers
ralph.f
on June 29, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Anonymous also wrote:-
"It seems there were also giants after the flood,...."
More than likely. Even as late as the 19th century. A sampling can be found 'HERE'.
A result of earlier Genetic Engineering????
also:-
"Now why did men live to be 1000 before the flood, but less than 100 after - genetic engineering."
I would suggest basically by Divine Decree, see here:- "Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, My Spirit shall not forever dwell and strive with man, for he also is flesh; but his days shall yet be 120 years." (or therabouts) Italics mine.
cheers
ralph.f
on June 30, 2016 at 12:18 AM
nck wrote:-
"I would agree with you that the brain is an amazing apparatus."
Definitely, but more so the human mind! No other mortal life form can match it. How could one forget:-"Job 32:8 But there is [a vital force] a spirit [of intelligence] in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives men understanding. [Prov. 2:6.]" (AMP)
cheers
ralph.f
Well we found many neanderthal men and women. However no giant bones.
It is more likely that the ones who dedicated the oral traditions of man to cuneiform or papyrus were actually penning the transition from the hunter gatherer to the farmer. From paradise to hard labor. From a nature religion to strict obervance of ritual.
As I said in another posting:
This transition phase explains ALL plagues, curses, booby traps that needed to be explained by a God. Since ALL of Gods curses only apply to farmers.
(floodings, who cares a hunter walks away// plagues, new plagues arrived with the cohabitation of man and animal// politics and religious confusion, only with city dwellers accumulating wealth, inequality, increase in violence as exemplified by Cain etc etc etc)
And most and foremost. The hunter gatherer is a TALLER person than a farmer. Archeological finds prove this since as I said, farmers were stricken with "curses". Of course the new farmers would describe the former as a Giant.
nck
BTW to stay on topic.
Most men except the Icelanders are a hodgepodge of genes and dna. I do however believe that ALL men posess the genes to produce if nature deems it necesarry to produce a red head, black child, or a chinese.
Nature doesn't work the way I describe it of course but you get the gist. Either you deny one mother produced all races. Or you deny the humanity of all men. Or you are in denial of the power of the gene to survive and adapt in any way it deems necessary.
I don't believe blond Swedish girls just jumped out of a natural sauna hole in the ground, 2000 years ago, although I would have liked to witness such event. We are all humans or we are not, chinese, indians, californian surfer dudes.
nck
Oh man,
I was just struck by the realisation that by trying to keep it extremely simple and not quoting all the scientific evidence I must to a christian somehow come across as a loser who needs to deal with his wife's explanation of the black, yellow and redheaded child in the family. And yes some of them are really good at plumbing and window cleaning.
nck
The Bible-based fact is that there is no-one sitting on King David's throne today, and there has not been such a King or Queen since Babylonian captivity. As most remember, the kingship was not restored in post-exilic times by Ezra or Nehemiah at the time of Zerrubbabel's temple.
Here is the pertinent scriptural reference which we were not taught in Armstrongism, because it defies and disproves the throne of David portion of their British Israel doctrine. That throne is reserved for Jesus Christ. No other person before that time.
Ezekiel 21:24-27:
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you people have brought to mind your guilt by your open rebellion, revealing your sins in all that you do-because you have done this, you will be taken captive.
You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Take off the turban, remove the crown.
It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him will I give it."
I treat this in more detail in my article "Does Queen Elizabeth Sit on the Throne of David" available exclusively at the Painful Truth website, but the fact is the prophecy that there would always be someone sitting on the throne of David was conditional, based on obedience. The Hasmonean kings (read the Maccabees) of the intertestamental period were not of the royal kingly and priestly lines, in fact Herod was actually Idumean, the Idumeans being gentiles who became converted, subjugated peoples, as chronicled by Josephus.
Tea Tephi is just speculation. Also, it is geologically impossible for the stone of scone to have come from Israel. It is similar in composition to rocks native to the British Isles. It is not Jacob's pillar stone. British Israelism is a myth, debunkable by dozens of facts and by scripture itself. But, it is also a sacred cow, because it is the very basis for Armstrongism. Topple B.I, and you topple Armstrongism itself.
BB
A COG without BI is not Armstrongism.
Indeed the very foundation of Armstrongism is BI. Armstrongism is the bible seen through the prism of BI and its eschatological implications.
It is more interesting to see what BI actually pertains.
BI is the founding doctrine of all the protestant states breaking away from the Holy Roman Empire at the end of the 16th century. All the new kings and queens legitimized themselves as being spiritual and (their ideological advisors provided "evidence" for being physical) Jews having wandered out of Egypt.
It is exactly those protestant states that catapulted to extreme power and wealth and rule the world for over 500 years reaching its epitomizing Zenith in the founding of the United States.
BI proponents go back to the late 16th century propaganda material and then claim that that is the evidence for their theory.
nck
The demise of the BI signals the demise of the protestant princes and the transition of power from the white male.
The old white male strikes back by Brexit, electing Donald Trump, protesting immigration.
The wave of economics and globalization however is unstoppable and people should learn to adapt and not resist the great wave of history. Any surfer knows ride the wave, adapt to the wave. Don't fight it our you're crushed. The same goes for your investments and mental health. Ride the wave.
And as this powerful doctrine of BI is decreasing in legitimacy (since the power base of it wanes) wait for another doctrine to replace it. Oh wait it is actually there already. It is called globalization and the New Order. I heard president Obama mention that new order almost everyday after Brexit.
nck
nck said,"Or you are in denial of the power of the gene to survive and adapt in any way it deems necessary."
Where is it written in our DNA the capability of choosing how to act?
The Power to adapt is our consciencness. It is our awareness of the environment, not our genes, that continues our evolution!
DBP
nck says >The wave of economics and globalization however is unstoppable and people should learn to adapt and not resist the great wave of history. Any surfer knows ride the wave, adapt to the wave. Don't fight it our you're crushed.
That is the cowards formula for losing. I believe in fighting. An eye for a eye. Never stop because others are critical of you.
Opinionated
Well you are right of course.
I was merely accentuating:
That albeit the first cars look fantastic from a craftsman perspective. They do look like horse drawn chariots don't they. Wholly inadequate design.
Democracy could not be enforced in Iraq.
Even joining wcg could not help us stop the hippies. And we could also not stop their disappearance.
I was talking about how the most adaptable species survives in the end. If the government and the people decide to give laisser passer to 900 millions mexicans. I'll be the one selling the drinks along the road.
I agree with you, that you have a place in the Kondratieff. It is up to us where we stand in the cycle. But we cannot fight the cycle. Or maybe we are. I will discuss this further with DBP, what we are.
DBP
I am not being argumentative. I used to scare the lovely psychology majors in my appartment with my theorizing on nature and natural selection.
I don't know where that decision is made that a person that is deemed "attractive" by 99% of the world populace is also a person likely to be healthy and able to reproduce. Either black, Red, White or inbetweenish.
Perhaps the more darker tribes had reasons to not venture into the area called sweden some ...thousand years ago. Now oil has been found to warm their feet, they seem to have found the route. But walking through snow, it didn't happen.
It seems dna/genes are prepared to create anything that is able to select the best circumstance to survive.
It boils down to where, what or who made "the awareness" function I guess.
I do know that nature is not in need of man to survive. It rather got rid of those "awareness beings" I guess.
I don't know what we are! Perhaps I should ask the animals on Galapagos when they became aware that they had to change in order to survive.
I've been talking too much lately. I made a terrible joke at 8:05. Still somewhere around the line a humanoid father must have been surprised by the first Redheaded, darker or chinese child in evolution. I am just imagining the row it must have been in that cave. Or perhaps it was the reason men retreated at the mancaves. Where else could one relax and invent a religion to keep their women in check. What else but loose neanderthal women would explain the strange looking child? Evolution?
nck
Oops, I mixed the words neanderthal and humanoids. Creating the impression for the close reader that I mean that other than white are neanderthal mix.
That was a typo mistake and a big one too.
Of course Redheads do carry ample neanderthal dna, but the joke was about the first man to discover an "evolutionised" white, yellow, dark, inbetweenish child in the crib, the row it would have given and the religion it warranted to keep women in check from that moment on.
nck
nck said:"It seems dna/genes are prepared to create anything that is able to select the best circumstance to survive."
Again, (tongue-in-cheek)I pity your DNA. You keep assigning it the responsibility that 'it' can NOT take.
nck said:"I do know that nature is not in need of man to survive."
OK. I will agree with that. Maybe Nature 'wants' us to survive? I think so, but only if we listen, learn, and obey her Laws.
DBP
DPB.
Nature "wants" us to survive? Last time I looked the Ozone hole was opening real quick on the Australians for transgressing the law of not using deodorants without CFC's. Well as you say perhaps Gaia has some need for us. But we sure messed up her production of bio diversity.
DNA
You seem to assign "responsibility" to DNA. I'm just saying that is what DNA does. Adapt, detect, action, reaction, adapt, survive. Somehow along the line it came up with a clever solution called man. An efficient machine eventually the crown of DNA's adaptability through the brain.
Then it set itself a new goal by inventing Armstrongism. (Ooops sorry I mean religion. Or maybe religion is an inefficient by product of the imagination of the brain.) Anyway now it wants to diversify to other planets to increase its chances of survival.
I thoroughly enjoy the courting, the love , family and other moral stuff (thou shalt not kill), is set before you life and death, choose life) . But it all boils down to the reproduction of the DNA. More and more scientific studies even have gays take part in this scheme of the DNA.
For example gay people have proven to be very effective in the entertainment industry. This serves a social role. And as we know groups have bigger survival ability than an individual. There are other scientific studies that provide answers why every now and then nature produces a "non reproductive" species like the gay.
Ok back to morality. All laws that profit the survival of the dna are usefull. In a pre technological world marriage was extremely usefull for reproductive purposes, the protection of the young ones in a social cohesive group etc etc.
In todays society where women are working and able to survive without manpower, I still find marriage a beautifull thing and perhaps something to cherish. However strictly taken it serves no purpose or in any case not the same purpose as in the past to protect a group or society. That is proven by a 35% divorce rate and 6 billion population.
nck
I forgot to mention that I met a couple of girls in WCG back in the day who were named Tea-Tephi.
Byker Bob said: "Here is the pertinent scriptural reference which we were not taught in Armstrongism, because it defies and disproves the throne of David portion of their British Israel doctrine. That throne is reserved for Jesus Christ. No other person before that time...
Tea Tephi is just speculation."
Agree BB! The Davidic origins of the British royal family are false and pure fantasy. The legend of Tea Tephi is a mishmash of historical characters who were mistaken for one person. And the story of Jeremiah travelling to Eire is pure legend. There is nothing tangible to prove this aspect of BI. Furthermore, the Davidic monarchy was patrilineal unlike the British monarchy, which is another proof against it.
on July 1, 2016 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous wrote:-
"....the Davidic monarchy was patrilineal...."
Maybe so, but "This Link" seems to suggest otherwise.
See, among others, Ataliah.
cheers
ralph.f
on July 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM
nck wrote:-
"Last time I looked the Ozone hole was opening real quick on the Australians for transgressing the law of not using deodorants without CFC's."
So, have another look "Right Here" and ask yourself, 'Will these so called scientists ever get it right?'
cheers
ralph.f
ps. Don't blame us Aussies for all of the CFC's that fall downhill from the USA to the Antarctic region. 2 x LOL.
Byker Bob: Use hwa's own reasoning to disprove him. Jacob crossed his hands to the younger son. Who is the younger nation? USA! By his own reasoning US should be Ephraim. pcg's brad macdonald did a trumpet article on the Egyptians were black. I asked him in an email if he was saying that Joseph's sons were mixed. I got no reply.
"You seem to assign "responsibility" to DNA. I'm just saying that is what DNA does."
LMFAO!!!
I hold YOU, your conscience responsible, NOT your DNA!
You see, this is why I think you are just a troll.
buh-bye
DBP
8:01, yes, you raise some other extremely valid points. Particularly about HWA becoming confused about the theory he plagiarized, and his subsequent logic gaff in labeling the UK as Ephraim. I believe that some of the minor splinter leaders have actually attempted to correct this, but the greater movement has not embraced it.
As goes Egypt, that nation has had, at various times, some incredible diversity. The black Egyptians were called Nubians, and this term is well known even today in the African American community. In fact, about 17 years ago, when I was dating a black lady, I occasionally called her my Nubian princess.
However, there were also the Hyksos, who were white. ACOG "historians" have attempted to assert that these were the sojourning children of Israel. They base this on a false etymology of the term Hyksos, provided by Josephus in his work "Against Apion".
Manasseh and Ephraim were of mixed heritage. There are several possibilities. It certainly would be interesting if they were indeed half black. We can know one thing as a certainty. Armstrongites would atempt to find a way to explain it away. But isn't it interesting that the nation Armstrongites refer to as Manasseh included black people from the very start? We know that the Lemba tribe in Africa has an abundance of Kohanime priestly genes.
BB
I wish we could all be honest here about the historicity of early biblical figures.
I like the honest way that Israel Finkelstein answers these kinds of questions:
"The patriarchs could have been real figures who became mythical during the ages; they could have been completely mythical. We don't know, and we'll probably never know. In fact, there's no way to know...The question of the historicity of Moses is the same as the question of the historicity of Abraham. That is to say, maybe there was a figure, maybe there was a leader. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Moses. I think that this is possible but I would say it's beyond recovery."
https://youtu.be/O5RfScpEcZ8
I certainly would be interesting if Ephraim & Manasseh were indeed even historical. We don't know, and we'll probably never know. In fact, there's no way to know. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Ephraim & Manasseh. I think it's possible that Ephraim & Manasseh existed, but I would say it's beyond recovery.
Ralph f wrote: " '....the Davidic monarchy was patrilineal....' Maybe so, but 'This Link' seems to suggest otherwise. See, among others, Ataliah."
Hey Ralph, your link referencing a Jewish article doesn't undermine my thesis at all. The Bible throughout assumes patrilineal ancestry from Adam to Noah, from Abraham to Jacob, from David to Zedekiah, from Adam and David to Christ, etc. Both the Israelite and Judahite monarchies were patrilineal. The British monarchy, especially in recent years with the revision to the Act of Settlement 1701 and line of succession (e.g. Perth Agreement 2011 & Succession to the Crown Act 2013) replaced male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture and removed the prohibition of marrying Catholics. In Talmudic Judaism matrilineal ancestry is accepted as the standard in total opposition to the Biblical patrilineal norm. This is just one reason why I no longer accept the legend that the British royal family is descended from the house of King David. The last tangible place I am aware of regarding the migration of Jeremiah and his group with him after the captivity of Zedekiah and destruction of Jerusalem was that they travelled to Tahpanhes, Egypt to what W. F. Petrie referred to as the "Palace of the Jew's Daughter." After that to my knowledge there is no real definitive or tangible evidence of where they ended up.
There are several standpoints from which any of the topics can be argued. And there are several arguments which are ongoing simultaneously. We can argue according to the beliefs of Armstrongism for the purpose of debunking Armstrongism, or we could argue from the point of nonbelievers for the purpose of debunking God and the Bible.
on July 2, 2016 at 6:31 PM
Anonymous wrote:-
"....your link referencing a Jewish article doesn't undermine my thesis at all."
I truly wasn't trying to undermine your thesis. I'm not well up with ancient kings & queens of Israel/Judah, just did a quick Google to see what I could find.
However, I read here:- "1Ki_16:29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab son of Omri began his reign of twenty-two years over Israel in Samaria."
The link I posted says:- "Ataliah (r. 842-836 B.C.E.) – The daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (or else of Omri), wife of Jehoram of Judah, and sole reigning queen of Judah. Like her husband, she murdered all familial rivals upon her accession to the throne."
As far as I am aware the Jews, like many other people, consider all Israelites to be Jews hence they would refer to Ataliah as a "queen of the Jews", I suppose because she was married to Jehoram, a Jew, whereas her late father Ahab "began his reign of twenty-two years over Israel in Samaria." I guess this would also make her a queen over Israel, the ten northern tribes?
I find the study of these ancient kings and queens to be somewhat confusing!
cheers
ralph.f
Post a Comment