Pre: Why I know the flood is a fantasy

[OldWiseGuy]

Riiiight. Not derived from the Germanic knife nosiree.
--taken from a website I cannot link to because of post count ---

(History of the Seax Knife) A scramseax (also scramsax, scramseaxe, scramaseax, scramasax, scramaseaxe and sometimes referred to as simply scram, seax or sax) was a type of Germanic single-edged knife. Scramseax seem to have been used for warfare and as a tool. They occur in a size range from 2.9" to 29.5". The larger ones (langseax) were probably weapons, the smaller ones (hadseax) tools, intermediate sized ones serving a dual purpose. Wearing a scramseax may have been indicative of freemanship. The scramseax was worn in a horizontal sheath at the front of the belt. Scram refers to food and seax to a blade (so, "food knife"). There is some debate about the authenticity of the longer word scramseax. The Saxons may have derived their name from seax (the implement for which they were known) in much the same way that the Franks were named for their francisca. This claim is largely supported by the appearance of scramaseaxes in early Saxon heraldry.

I also have heard of this origin. The word as used in ancient Germany meant 'sons of the sword', and we get the term 'assasin' from it. But it's not the same as the term Anglo-Saxon. In fact the word 'Anglo' is thought to be the origin of the word 'English'. 'Angle' became 'Gael', which became 'Gaelishman', which became 'an Gaelishman', which became Englishman. 'British' is thought to derive from b'rith, or 'berith' meaning 'covenant'. Thus 'b'rith-ish (man)', or 'b'rithish', meant 'man of the covenant, or, 'people of the covenant'.

 

[Basket]

Oldwiseguy, out of curiousity, would you consider yourself part of the World Wide Church of God, Christian Identity, or neither? From what I read those are the two main modern movements that believe in British Israelism.

(I know, I'm derailing the thread just like I said not to earlier. shush.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oldwiseguy, out of curiousity, would you consider yourself part of the World Wide Church of God, Christian Identity, or neither? From what I read those are the two main modern movements that believe in British Israelism.

(I know, I'm derailing the thread just like I said not to earlier. shush.)

I'm familiar with the Worldwide Church of God but I'm not a member of it. The main British Israelism movement is still centered in Britain. The earliest writer of this theory that I know of is J.H. Allen who wrote, "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright", copywrite 1917. As far as I know it is the definitive work on the theory. I think it is still available.

 

[Basket]

I'm familiar with the Worldwide Church of God but I'm not a member of it. The main British Israelism movement is still centered in Britain. The earliest writer of this theory that I know of is J.H. Allen who wrote, "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright", copywrite 1917. As far as I know it is the definitive work on the theory. I think it is still available.

Alright, cool.

 

[Tenka]

Not all scholars are scientists (or need to be) to study this stuff.

Indeed, but it means neglecting the valuable tools of science. I read many pages about your 'British Israelism' and found them to be long on linguistic coincidences and short on real genetic evidence.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Uhg... you guys are all so blind to the truth. The devil obviously distorted that tree (and all the others like it) to make it look older than it is. Fossils and other so called evidence are really just the devil's handiwork. It's plain for everyone to see, I don't know how you can be so blind. I say we burn the remains of this devil tree, and then get right back to putting jesus back where he belongs... in public school.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I also have heard of this origin. The word as used in ancient Germany meant 'sons of the sword', and we get the term 'assasin' from it. But it's not the same as the term Anglo-Saxon. In fact the word 'Anglo' is thought to be the origin of the word 'English'. 'Angle' became 'Gael', which became 'Gaelishman', which became 'an Gaelishman', which became Englishman. 'British' is thought to derive from b'rith, or 'berith' meaning 'covenant'. Thus 'b'rith-ish (man)', or 'b'rithish', meant 'man of the covenant, or, 'people of the covenant'.

I thought the term "assassin" is derived from the Hashashin?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET, would you like to explain how every major civilization around the supposed time of the flood never recorded a world wide flood and continued their lives with no interruption of a global flood?

Because they came after the Flood, not before it, as "evidence" leads you to believe.

We call Genesis 10 the Table of Nations --- the Flood was Genesis 6-8.

 

[AV1611VET]

What kind of underhanded question is that? I'm saying that if there was a worldwide Flood, there would be evidence. If God hid that evidence, then I'd appreciate it if he would be a little less deceptive in the future.

"Hid"???

Your indoctrination aside, how was that "deceptive", when He left us a note saying He did it?

 

[FishFace]

"Hid"???

Your indoctrination aside, how was that "deceptive", when He left us a note saying He did it?

We've been through this (and you've never replied.)

If I commit murder, perfectly frame someone, and then confess to it, is that being honest?
It could only be honest if I also told the court exactly how I framed the other person. It gets shakier still if your confession was actually a note someone else wrote down, claiming that I "inspired" them.

 

[AV1611VET]

We've been through this (and you've never replied.)

If I commit murder, perfectly frame someone, and then confess to it, is that being honest?
It could only be honest if I also told the court exactly how I framed the other person. It gets shakier still if your confession was actually a note someone else wrote down, claiming that I "inspired" them.

No wonder I've never replied.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed, but it means neglecting the valuable tools of science. I read many pages about your 'British Israelism' and found them to be long on linguistic coincidences and short on real genetic evidence.

I don't know how one could utilize 'genetic evidence' in this case. The best trail is the biblical history/prophecy one in finding Israel today. Even a cursory study of the end-time prophecies concerning Judah (modern day Jews) validates all of the prophecies concerning them. Each of the other tribes are identified in end-time prophecy as well, though we haven't sorted it all out yet. Of course there is no definitive proof, but the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

again, this way of refuting creationist arguments is flawed.

Your argument assumes that AiG is the ultimate authority on creationism, which it isn't. You shouldn't use AiG or any creationist website as the foundation for your arguments.

It's not that hard to refute creation as a science. But make sure you're using better logic.

No I'm not I'm actually citing two(one from AiG and one from AC) completely independent dates for the flood. Did you even read my first post? And of the two dates neither come close to explaining the tree. Can you provide me with a more accurate date based only on the bible?

 

[Basket]

Because they came after the Flood, not before it, as "evidence" leads you to believe.

We call Genesis 10 the Table of Nations --- the Flood was Genesis 6-8.

I'm not quite getting the picture here. When do you believe that Noah's flood occured?

 

[MarcusHill]

I'm not quite getting the picture here. When do you believe that Noah's flood occured?

He's not saying anything about the date of the flood, he's merely saying that there's a list of nations that sprang up after the flood in the only accurate historical document there is (we know it's accurate, since God dictated it). Any "evidence" that contradicts this is wrong. But wasn't faked by a deceptive deity. OK?

 

[Basket]

He's not saying anything about the date of the flood, he's merely saying that there's a list of nations that sprang up after the flood in the only accurate historical document there is (we know it's accurate, since God dictated it). Any "evidence" that contradicts this is wrong. But wasn't faked by a deceptive deity. OK?

Um...

What I was wanting to know from him was whether he thought the date of the flood was different than previously proposed, or if he thought that civilizations are a lot younger than archaeologists think.

I have read about the list of nations myself, and I know what they are. A list of eponyms. It was just assumed back then that nations were named after their founding fathers. The more important and powerful nations at the time the Torah was put into written form are listed as firstborn sons. There are a lot we aren't even sure about anymore. With some study you can notice that it only seems to include nations that are around the Ancient Near East, which reflects the Hebrew knowledge of the world at the time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Um...

What I was wanting to know from him was whether he thought the date of the flood was different than previously proposed, or if he thought that civilizations are a lot younger than archaeologists think.

I have read about the list of nations myself, and I know what they are. A list of eponyms. It was just assumed back then that nations were named after their founding fathers. The more important and powerful nations at the time the Torah was put into written form are listed as firstborn sons. There are a lot we aren't even sure about anymore. With some study you can notice that it only seems to include nations that are around the Ancient Near East, which reflects the Hebrew knowledge of the world at the time.

The bible/Torah is the history/prophecy of Israel, and those nations which affected Israel. Other nations, whether great or small, are simply not mentioned.

 

[wowbagger]

There are older living things than that one tree. There is the creosote bush in California estimated to be almost 12,000 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creosote_bush

There are also clonal colonies of Aspens that are much older than that but don't really count as a single plant even though the roots are connected.

How many pieces of scientific and historical facts does a flood believer need before they see the impossibility of such an event?

It would be more honest if they would just say "It's ALL God Magic!" instead of offering us a grain of evidence and trying to refute the mountain.

wowbagger

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not quite getting the picture here. When do you believe that Noah's flood occured?

Sumeria, which some claimed existed before the Flood, was actually founded by Noah's great-grandson, thus after the Flood.

They like to claim Egypt existed before the Flood also, overlooking that the first Egyptian was Mizraim, Noah's grandson.

[bible]Genesis 10:6[/bible]

 

[Basket]

Sumeria, which some claimed existed before the Flood, was actually founded by Noah's great-grandson, thus after the Flood.

They like to claim Egypt existed before the Flood also, overlooking that the first Egyptian was Mizraim, Noah's grandson.

[bible]Genesis 10:6[/bible]

Yes, I already understood that you believe that. I'm asking for the date that you think the flood occurred.