>The rules of engagement are simple; you shoot at the target provided.
then
Now, tell me what part of that history you have a problem with. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC!
Now:
And the rules of defense are simple; you control the angle of the target and the distance from it. I have willingly provided you a target. You have provided nothing, and have nothing at risk.
Well, now... It seems to me that, every time I post an explicit question (or a dozen) expressing my opinion that your theory is not Biblically sound, that, rather than making any defense, you make a new "rule."
Sorry, but you didn't provide a worthy target, let alone one of interest.
Are you saying that the Bible--the ONLY direct, reliable, objective STANDARD for truth about theology, is not a "worthy target?" Is it not "of interest," to you, or your theory?
This site is about HISTORY, both Archeological and Biblical.
If your theory is ONLY supported by SECULAR history and archeology, I feel that it would be more honest to present it that way, rather than making inaccurate allusions to the Biblical record.
If you insist on modifying the premises behind my site and excluding Archeological evidence of HISTORIC historic events, then this discussion of HISTORY is unfortunately over.
Your premise SEEMS to be that your theory is proved by BOTH the Biblical record, and the secular historical record. Secular history is rife with inaccuracy, lies, and rank speculation disguised as facts.
I say, that when secular history and the Biblical record disagree, that I will choose the Bible. I think that a theory such as yours, with so much potential for disaster, should meet the test of Biblical congruence, and only then, should we look at secular history.
It seems to me that you hold that secular history trumps the Bible. I am hoping that this is not so. Please let me know if I am mistaken.
DG
But since you will not accept my site for what it says it is, and you insist on putting a spin on it, I will just say goodbye. My site and the clear premesis behind it will not change to suit your narrow and argumentative agenda. My Profile is there for you to read; take it or leave it.
-Goodbye, and Good Luck.
I know we disagree in many areas and I use to watch Scot when he was televised in NY. He would get near telling his story and than pull back I found him teasing folks.
The only reason I listen him because he talked about the 12 tribes - there are other s that do this and each have their agenda, and yes the Christian Identity is racist
All I can say is I being considered a real persona non-gratis for my beliefs LDS, but that is the person who judges me problem.
I admire your effort to share this knowledge now I don't if you are anti any of the tribes so far as I have read that is not so.
The traditional believer has for so long just accepted what was told down through the age with out examine the what the scriptures really say.
I quote this often-
The name indicated first of all a man of the kingdom of Judah, as distinguished from persons belonging to the northern kingdom of Israel. Its first chronological occurrence in the Bible is in 2 Kgs. 16: 6, about 740 B.C. It has become customary to use the word Jew to refer to all the descendants of Jacob, but this is a mistake. It would be limited to those of the kingdom of Judah or, more especially today, those of the tribe of Judah and his associates. Thus all Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews, because there are descendants of the other tribes of Israel also upon the earth.
What I don’t understand it here on this planet it like closed door you either repeat the words of the sacred cow or your views need not apply. I thought the Quest was to learn about the truth of our Creator and take responsibility for honoring right and not give a hoot for those who will castigate one for not perpetuating the party line.
For me I fear the Lord more than man.