Every so often a book comes along that brings a fresh breath of air to a stale subject. Eric Cline's From Eden to Exile
published by National Geographic, is such a book.Every lunatic and his mutt have an opinion about Noah's Ark (it's up there on a Turkish mountain still waiting to be found by John Warwick Montgomery), or the Ark of the Covenant (still humming with occult energies despite Indiana Jones). In the COG tradition there are numberless enthusiasts running around promoting mind-numbing versions of British-Israelism (the English are Ephraim), based on the tale of those hopelessly directionally-challenged Ten Tribes.
Time to shed some light, and Cline obliges. Sorting out the fact from the fiction, any Armstrong admirer past or present, or any other victim of fundagelicism, will find this an enlightening book. While Cline is a serious scholar, he knows how to write for the rest of us. He covers the location of Eden, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, Joshua and Jericho, the Ark of the Covenant and, of particular interest to former WCG members, his final chapter covers those pesky tribes. These words from a review express it nicely:
"By Exile's end, Cline almost manages to state a definitive conclusion: The Ten Lost Tribes aren't lost at all, because most of them never left Palestine. But along the way, he's had his greatest successes deflating the wild claims of excitable documentary filmmakers like Simcha Jacobovici, evangelical nutcases like Ron Wyatt, and self-appointed pseudo-scholars like Tom Crotser." (source)
In fact, I haven't seen a single review by anyone with active brain cells that finds fault with From Eden to Exile
. A great book to give as a gift to someone in the family who is attracted by the siren call of unrestrained biblicist speculation.Recommended.
74 comments:
the tale of those hopelessly directionally-challenged Ten Tribes
It's clear that the lost ten tribes were led by guys: The guys never ask for directions and keep going!
We are all waiting for the sequel:
The Lost Tribes of Armstrongism.
Where did they migrate to?
Are they really lost, or have they simply lost their identity?
Where did 120,000 people go? Antarctica? Mars? To the reaches of heaven?
It could lead to new booklets like, "Armstrongists in Prophecy", "Where are the 1,000 Tribes of Armstrongism?" and "From Pasadena to Exile": No doubt a superlative gift to someone in the family who is attracted by the siren call of unrestrained biblicist speculation....
Or the United version:
"From Cincinnati to Galveston".
This is an interesting topic, in that you can post total disproofs of British Israelism for Armstrongites to read on the forums on which some of them post. Six months later, you realize that either they did not bother to read beyond the first one or two sentences, or that they trust the theories of their "Apostle" more than history, genetics, or the passages in the Bible itself which indicate that the Israelites were largely returned to Judah and were all present and accounted for at the time of Jesus, according to Josephus.
Beliefs are a funny thing.
BB
Anna the Prophetess was at the temple IN JERUSALEM at time of Jesus' birth...
Lu 2:36 -Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity;
NOTE TO "USBC" ADEHERENTS---Anna is of the tribe of Asher (for those with bad memories that is "one of the supposed lost 10 tribes"),... she is in Jerusalem, she knows what tribe she belongs to, she is not lost.
NUFF SAID!
Lussenheide
Byker Bob:
(Is that a motorcycle or a bicycle?)
The reason why Armstrongites reject well conceived proofs that invalidate their belief in British-Israelism has to do with the ancient vice of pride.
These people, who have a great need for something to be proud of, can be proud of being descended from the Chosen People. (Armstrongism collects people with low self-esteem like a sweater collects lint.)
Add to this that BI is a "loose brick" in the Armstrongite edifice. It is probably one of the easist errors to analyze.
So it is precisely at this weak point that Armstrongites must show themselves to be the most stubborn in order the stem the tide objective assessment.
-- Neo
"So it is precisely at this weak point that Armstrongites must show themselves to be the most stubborn in order the stem the tide objective assessment."
This also applies to finally coming to grasp the mind mushing and religion smushing truth that all humans are hairless apes that diverged from the common ancestor with apes, orangs and chimps about 6 million years ago. We all took the long walk out of Africa about 200,000 years ago and bought cell phones.
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. ..."
D. Diehl
Evolution may be true -- I doubt it. I side with Michael Behe. Too much evidence against, too many things unexplained.
But God may have used some aspects of evolution at different times during the earth's history. I see no clash between evolution and Christian Theism.
We do share a large portion of our gene pool with chimpanzees. But if it were genetics alone, why are we so remarkably advanced compared to chimps? A split between apes, orangs, chimps the human ancestor may have occured 6 million years ago but why did only one species advance? They all lived pretty much in the same environment and were stressed in the same way. There is something fishy about this.
My Native American ancestors believed that God created people and everybody knew this but the White Man became crazy in his vision.
-- Neo
"Evolution may be true -- I doubt it. I side with Michael Behe. Too much evidence against, too many things unexplained."
Evidence against...things unexplained....I for one would like to see some evidence FOR Creationism (ID is just Kreationism in a cloak), not just a refutation of evolution, which does not in anyway prove that God created man.
"But God may have used some aspects of evolution at different times during the earth's history. I see no clash between evolution and Christian Theism."
Oh, but the Word of God does. The Word of God (if it is indeed inspired by God) is clear in that God created everything via divine fiat. There is no room for evolution in the Bible. That is, if you don't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you are to take literally.
Paul
Paul:
Creationism and Evolution are not ideas that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Creationism is a view on how things originated. Evolution does not purport to address that issue at all. In fact, no scientific theories do. Even the Big Bang theory starts with something already in existence. So we cannot say that evolution is the binary opposite of creationism although many mistakenly characterize the relationship this way, mostly for political or personal reasons. So there really is room for evolution in the Bible, although I still consider evolution to be highly improbable.
There is much evidence for creationism. But the scientific evidence does not establish that the God of the Bible is the creator. That question must be resolved through a different approach.
-- Neo
"Evolution may be true -- I doubt it."
It is true with the doubts being as to how but not if. The idea that man came on the scene as noted in Genesis is mythology with a political message for the men of Israel, (why Israel was going to be a Patriarcy and not Matriarchal) but not the how of anything and was never meant to be taken as Western Christians take the Hebrew texts anyway. If ever a group could make a scripture mean what it never meant, it would be creationists and literalists.
"I side with Michael Behe. Too much evidence against, too many things unexplained."
Taking sides usually means you have to change sides a few times along the way. Unexplained does not indicate there is no explanation. They are just things to be discovered down the road. But the template is indicative of where it is going.
"But God may have used some aspects of evolution at different times during the earth's history. I see no clash between evolution and Christian Theism."
Well I suppose God could have done lots of things, but Fundamentalist and literalist Christianity is based on what "he" says he did and all the heroes of the Bible, including Jesus, go back to taking mythologies as literally true. Elijah hiding in the caves of Carmel looking at God's backside was sitting 15 feet above the best remains of Neanderthal in the world. Did Jesus know they were there? No Would Jesus have given the scientific explanation of Neanderthal? No. Did he know the answer to what those hominids were and when they existed? No.
The first 11 Chapters of Genesis are borrowed mythologies to flesh out Israelite origins story and establish the Israelite God as the jealous number one god of all the gods.
If there was no literal Adam and Eve with Fall and all, and I believe there was not, then much heavy NT theology goes down the drain.
If an Eve did not literally sin or fall then all the NT restrictions on women in church, obedience to men, compliance and such is just male patriarchial bunk, which it is.
If there was no "original sin" (Church father types made that up later in history) literally commited by God's created couple for which we humans all have to pay no matter how nice we are, then there is no need for a God/man to redeem us from that "taint of original sin" This of course guts much of the story not to mention freaking out clerics and laymen alike.
"We do share a large portion of our gene pool with chimpanzees. But if it were genetics alone, why are we so remarkably advanced compared to chimps?" A split between apes, orangs, chimps the human ancestor may have occured 6 million years ago but why did only one species advance?"
Because they did. There were many dead end branches to the human tree that didn't lead to man. (homo erectus, homo Heidelburgensis etc).
The shift of the hyoid bone in the evolving human down to where speech could take place opened the door to hominids. Neanderthal was the first to have this bone in the right place for language. With language you can have quiet thought and planning and the rest is history. Chimps,Orangs and Apes never had this in the right place and that alone can stop any progress towards what we see as consciousness, tool making and creative thinking with the future in mind.
Going Bi-pedal put those on the road to human light years ahead of the other hominids.
It's like two frogs at the bottom of a set of steps. One can jump 8.9 inches high and one can jump 9.14535. inches. One will never get up the first step and the other will climb out of sight.
Also if you do see that a split did take place 5-6 million years ago, you do believe in evolution and not Bible Literalism.
The fact that all humans came out of Africa as moderns around 133-160 thousand years ago is enough to give the Klan the vapors.
A good place to start and be amazed is "From Lucy to Language" by Donald Johanson and Blake edgar. All the finds are photographed life size with the most up to date explanations of how it seems at this moment with details to follow.
With literalism, there is no need for inquiry. Literalists know it all. "God said it, I believe it, that does it for me." It is no coincidence that the Dark Ages coincided with the rise of the literalist church of history. It did not evolve into the "Enlightenment" because the Church repented of her ignorance. It became the enlightenment because brave humans thought outside the box of sufficating religion and began to question authority along with her lame explanations of how and why humans exist.
Big topic
Dennis Diehl wrote:
"I suppose..."
"If...."
"If...."
"If...."
Good solid verbosity there, Dennis. As usual.
Now, what was that song?
Ah, yes. "I don't believe in 'if' anymore"
From:
Spinning Plates and Souls:
Salvation and Christianity
"Like the plate spinner on the Ed Sullivan Show, evangelical Christianity is spinning “souls” on the stick of faith though emotionalism and the illogics of theology. Just as in the first two Great Awakenings, evangelical Christianity is constantly proselytizing souls for the Kingdom of God only to have many earlier souls looses their spiritual momentum, began to wobble in their faith and, if not pumped back into some gyroscopic spiritual sensationalism (though revivals or some other momentous hype inducted by their particular sect) they mentally break as they hit the floor of reality.
What is interesting here is that as evangelical Christianity races about to apologetically pump sticks of the faithful to refill lost spiritual gyroscopic energy, Christianity is itself changing or evolving as the spiritual realm moves closer to bridge the gap between it and the secular world.
It is in just such a world and a decade after the death of one the major spiritual pillars and plate spinners known as Mother Teresa (set on a fast track for Catholic sainthood) that we will find many more spirituals plates began to wobble and fall. Though Mother Teresa was heralded by both Catholics and Protestants as a spiritual giant, her letters reveal a soul tormented by doubt of the divine to the point where she began to sound in like a neo-atheist.
In the end, this major spiritual plate spinner privately confessed that she came to accept and love her godless spiritual darkness."
"Spinning Plates and Souls: Salvation and Christianity"
..and feel free as well to use your real name so we can at least know that "so and so believes such and such."
Byker Bob said...
....Beliefs are a funny thing.
BB
Aren't they?
People will kill, die, maim, torture, bomb, over beliefs that say to be peaceful.
Its like the belief system itself is an ego-baby. People will go the ends of the earth to protect this thing that their ego has given birth to. Armstrongism gives an identity to its follower. Its hard to separate where the belief ends and the person ends. Those rare souls who manage to see the folly of those beliefs, go through almost a grieving cycle over what has died - even though they know intellectually they are correct in disposing of them.
Belief is an idea that has spun into a life of its own beyond questioning.
"Those rare souls who manage to see the folly of those beliefs, go through almost a grieving cycle over what has died - even though they know intellectually they are correct in disposing of them."
It is a grieving cycle. It's grieving over the death of an idea and religious ideas must be the ones that die the hardest because of the implications.
Some few confuse the death of an idea and a wounded ego as a need to literally die and commit suicide in the confusion of it all.
It's why AW exists. It gives a place for a bigger view than those once held. No two of us need agree, but we all need to be able to express where we might be in the process without the feeling it's wrong to think or that some church is going to be paying you a visit to guilt and shame you into compliance.
Sorry, little verbose there :)
Dennis:
I am sorry, "Because they did" is not an adequate answer. We have orangs and chimps, which are not dead-end branches, remaining static and homonids undergoing extensive and rapid revision. In particular, advanced mental capabilities seemed to have happened entirely in the Holocene. It taxes ones credulity to believe this was all from gradual and random genetic shifts.
In fact, scientists have studied microorganisms that reproduce rapidly and in large numbers so that enormous biological populations with many generations can be evaluated. The resulting conclusion has been that most mutations are deconstructive instead of constructive as the theory of evolution would need to have it. In short, organisms are not "built" by mutation and natural selection but are versioned in ways that generally produce some impairment. This is reflected elsewhere in nature.
The Neanderthal development of the hyoid is of little relevance to us and other homonids. They were a dead end and their DNA indicates that they were quite remote from modern humans genetically. In other words, they do not fit into some imagined smooth progression ending up with modern man. Neanderthal was a discontinuity.
-- Neo
But don't those insurance ads demonstrate that cave men still exist?
"The Neanderthal development of the hyoid is of little relevance to us and other homonids."
Along with the change in it's position this would not be an accurate statement in the presense of those who study how language came to be and it's consequences for humans over other hominids.
"They were a dead end and their DNA indicates that they were quite remote from modern humans genetically."
This is true. No one today says it was a linear or smooth progression. We are not related to Neanderthal although there is some interesting theories about the "Basques" of Southern Spain.
Neanderthal seem to have evolved from a homo erectus population and populated Europe long before humans left Africa. They changed little in 200,000 with regard to lifestyle or tools. They did not have the consciousness evident in Cro Magnon. Neanderthal's lived day to day with little future planning it seems. While cold adapted in Europe they were little match for their more gracile competitors from the south when hey arrived about 40,000 years ago in Europe. It must have been an amazing meet up!
The fossil record indicates that the location of the hyoid in Neanderthals would only produce a sound something like G-E-I-C-O, so no progress there towards consciousness :)
It's a tree with branches that end and share common forks on the branch. There are excellent books readily available which trace all that is understood on Neanderthal. Grab a copy of National Geographic's "Cave Men" for an excellent overview of what is currently known. Very nice series based on the current fossil record.
Obviously it is a large and fascinating topic. I am no expert on humano origins. But there is excellent material available for the interested layman. I really do recommend Johanson's book on From Lucy to Language if you want an excellent overview with the evidence presented life size in pictures within the text.
We humans have a hard time wrapping our minds around the passage of endless time to accomplish what it does. It's only been a couple hundred year slice of time that humans have even had another story besides those told by all religion.
I never felt "and knowledge shall be increased" was such a bad thing and enjoy living in such times. Now if we could just get women to rule over us...in Goddess mode,(Not Hillary) it truly would be
prophecy coming alive! :)
At any rate, I enjoy the topic and the current information avaiable. I have always wished I had not made my religious choices as a kid and had gone on to study paleontology and the study of human origins. Someone should have slapped me, but I guess I had to be there.
"Satan and his demons are:
Very real fallen angels 25 (78%)"
Well that certainly explains alot. Interesting! No wonder few read the books Gavin recommends!
B-B said: Beliefs are indeed a funny thing.
Which is what makes religion such a nutty, yet fascinating, topic.
Witness the sad but comical debate about Mother Teresa over on the WCG Armstrong Alumni board. Some of the Armstrongites there really take the prize for puffed up, egotistical vanity -- that spiritual pride the WCG cult (and now its too many to count offshoots) engendered in people. They are like that Pharisee, praying to their god about how wonderful they are, and not like that sinner in the back of they temple.
Mother Teresa, think what anyone would about her, set an example of service to her fellow humans that no Armstrongite (or few people anywhere for that matter) could even remotely come close to. And here are these religious nutz claiming that because she worshiped the wrong god, or was of the “wrong” denomination, or because she didn’t have the “holy” spirit, she may as well have done all that she did in vain.
Only the faithful Armstrongite can know the true god. Only the “true” believer, who worships every Saturday (because Sunday belongs to the devil) and knows she has the real holy spirit has any chance in the next life. Yes indeed. She knows she is not like those sinners in those other false churches, including Mother Teresa. Her prayers, and hers alone, are answered by her god.
Beliefs really are a funny thing. And it seems the nuttier the beliefs, the more the religious nutz cling to them.
Mother Teresa's admissions of her "dark night of the soul" will probably go down in religious history as the admissions of a genuine human being and be used to encourage millions who believe yet are honest enough to admit that:
Prayers are not often answered.
What wished for does not come from asking.
God is generally silent and aloof to human needs.
"their Angels" do not really watch over and protect children much.
Evil trumps good
and so on.
Practically every promise in the Bible to the believer has an exception clause built in for when it doesn't happen. Of course, the problem is with the human and not the Deity.
People who struggle through those dark nights of doubt and seeing things as they are and not as they wish them to be and not constantly apologizing for God, are more genuine and have a depth of understanding that is real and practical. They are much more helpful to those who struggle the same ways with issues of faith.
Those who simply blame it all on lack of faith, Satan or misunderstanding scripture do more harm than good where the rubber of life hits the road of reality.
Perhaps Mother Teresa is an execellent example of woman of faith because she admited she often had none for vast portions of her religious life.
"Creationism and Evolution are not ideas that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Creationism is a view on how things originated."
Which includes the creation of man via divine fiat, does it not? I may not put Kreationism and Evolution on opposite ends, but the proponents of Kreationism usuaully do.
"So there really is room for evolution in the Bible, although I still consider evolution to be highly improbable."
No, there isn't. The Bible states that God created man from clay.
"There is much evidence for creationism."
Really? I would really love to see this evidence. In fact, the majority of the scientific community would also love to see this evidence; it is what they have been asking and waiting for all these years. And once again, a refutation of evolution is not evidence for creation of man via divine fiat.
"But the scientific evidence does not establish that the God of the Bible is the creator. That question must be resolved through a different approach."
One; scientific evidence does not establish, nor even imply that any being "created" anyting at all. That is why so many scientists do not accept Kreationism..there simply isn't any evidence. Two, no we do not have to go through a different approach to answer such a question. The tools which we have will suffice.
Paul
The church of gods may have strange nutty ideas firmly implanted, but if that were all, it would not be a problem. The people could meet in peace and believe that the United States and Brits were lost tribes who just couldn't bring themselves to ask for directions because women didn't rule over them.
No, it could all be pleasant fruity nuttiness with people having nice social gatherings, eating together, having a nice time.
Unfortunately, it hasn't been.
British Israelism in particular seems to be the source of wars, fightings, contention, belligerence, divisions, competition and all such other "works of the flesh". One aggressive near alpha Neanderthal Troglodyte rebellious to the core, stupid, but convincing, male took British Israelism as a bone of contention and built an empire around it. Without it, there could be no Armstrongism and the Church of God Seventh Day would have remained much more placid and undisturbed, growing in grace and knowledge in measured fashion or at least being quietly pleasantly delusional if that's what it was.
Note the bad behavior spawned into Myrmidion lackeys attempting to make the unworkable distorted perceptions of cognitive dissonance reconciled by heavy compartmentalization, with ill fitting reconciliation of unreconcilable opinions made into doctrines. The process of making disparate beliefs into unsupportable doctrinal foundation does violence to the brain. The ministers under such a pall were overstressed in living what they had to have felt were lies, even if it did not reach consciousness.
Forcing issues which were absolutely silly, such as enforcing the non use of white sugar and white flour, and worse, preventing people from going to doctors because it was a lack of faith, was an extremely stressful situation devoid of sanity. The ministers had to do things which made no sense, and because it made no sense, they had only two real choices: Rebel against the insanity to be "merciful" to the people or use extreme force without prejudice to make victims of the people -- you have to believe this nonsense or you will go into the lake of fire, so I'm punishing you for being bad because it is good for you.
And that's just British Israelism.
In 1964, there was a man at the Feast of Tabernacles in Squaw Valley who had the silly idea that the small Eastern European of his personal ancestry was definitely one of the major tribes of the lost tribes of Israel. It was obvious that he had crazy ideas. I talked it over with Dean Wilson and he "handled it" -- the man was never seen or heard from again. This is a case where the nuts eliminated the nut that didn't agree with them. There's nothing like building on divisions to establish your house, especially when the divisions are over fantasy. It's like championing Babylon 5 over Battlestar Galactica. Neither exist in reality. British Israelism doesn't exist in reality.
So, we expect the gaggle of overstressed overpaid ministers to be sound? The shared psychosis is a wonder to behold. And there are 1,000+ of them running around virtually screaming, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!". We're supposed to believe that they have worth? Why they should act so wounded when we point out to them that they are living with mirages created by smoke and mirrors, nowhere near the land of reality?
The collective stupidity of the ministry is understandable but inexcusable. They, of the lofty elite, claiming to be of a sound mind, having the fruit of the spirit (and exhibiting none), should recognize that they can continue in their unworkable pain filled fantasy world of psychosis with no real hope of the realization of the future they provision with death, devastation, destruction followed by unpleasant and intolerable slavery for the masses. They should, however, have no expectation that those of us who have awakened from this nightmare will wish to participate in their utterly abject nutty nonsense.
Now, now. Be nice. These men of whom you speak have the absolute truth. If you oppose them, you will be punished for not believing their truth.
Then you'll be sorry!
Just wait and see!
doh..there goes the circle of protection!
Just in case you all think that nuttiness is limited to the churches of God, review Paul Falstad's "The Experts
Speak" for some reminders.
Jeremiah brought many of the lost back . However Jews agree, talmud agrees, Rambam agrees, all agree that that was a small minority.
It was well known 2000 years ago that the missionary activities of the Jews of the day was only toward the lost tribes who were known to be living in the areas of Gallatia, Ephesus, etc.
Jews never did missionary work to anyone but their own. Its called "kiruv" and means bringing back the lost, the strayed.
Sorry, but this is well known to Jews.
Isn't it a bit odd to quote the bible to disprove the bible?
Saying all the stories of the bible are untrue and then quoting the story of Anna to "prove" that the bible is wrong?
We see that done alot don't we?
Come on.
"Isn't it a bit odd to quote the bible to disprove the bible?"
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
"There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way--not one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible, and wherever you find these words; "That it might be fulfilled" and "which was spoken" turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT--not the slightest."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
It's evidently not odd at all...
Dennis quoted Ingersoll :
"There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way--not one word."
- - -
And before I got the boot from the WCG Alumni Armstrongite Forum, I was pointing this out. But True Believers are what they are. The Little Miss Can't be Wrongs of the world can never be wrong, as they have the real "holy" spirit. Their "Christ" is coming! And the rest of you, like Mother Teresa, as just fu--ed.
Yes, how loving of these "Christians."
This discussion went nowhere, save one Big Red. But even he was not able to refute the irrefutable - that if Isaiah 7 refers to a future virgin birth, there must have been at least two virgin births in history.
Think about it.
Let's look at a little bit of actual history.
In "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, there are population figures for both the northern kingdom of Israel and for the southern kingdom of Judah. And there are also deportation figures for the northern kingdom of Israel at the time of Israel's conquest by Assyria in the eighth century BCE, i.e. 722 BCE.
In the tenth century BCE there were about 45,000 in Northern Israel. The population in the South (Judah) was just 5,000 (page 143).
On page 153 we read "...there have always seemed to have been two distinct societies in the highlands - northern and southern - roughly occupying the areas of the later kingdoms of Judah and Israel."
So there were always two kingdoms... the Northern kingdom of Israel and the Southern kingdom of Judah. Both nations had a total population of just 50,000 in the 10th BCE; with Israel at 45,000 and Judah at just 5,000.
The Northern kingdom of Israel became a fully developed state long before the Southern kingdom of Judah. "...the northern kingdom of Israel emerged as a fully developed state no later than the beginning of the ninth century BCE - at a time when the society and economy of Judah had changed but little from its highland origins" (page 159).
By the eighth century BCE, the population of the Northern kingdom of Israel reached a maximum of 350,000 and the population of Judah was only about 100,000 (page 208).
The conquest of Northern Israel began about 738 BCE and continued through the destruction of Samaria in 722 BCE.
Many in the northern kingdom were taken captive, "...the Assyrians deployed a policy of deportation and repopulation on a grand scale" (page 216).
How many were taken captive?
"The gross number given in the Assyrian sources for both deportations - by Tiglath-pileser III from Galilee and by Sargon II from Samaria - is about forty thousand people. This comprises no more then a fifth of the estimated population of the northern kingdom west of the Jordan in the eighth century BCE" (page 221).
So... a large portion of the northern tribes did go into captivity.
There is a strong historical basis for many of the theories of British Israelism.
"There is a strong historical basis for many of the theories of British Israelism."
Baloney! Maybe if one doesn't know the difference between "Aryan" and "Semitic" there is. And, if one ignores the facts of genetics and history . . . but other than that - Zilch, Nada, Zero.
Hi Corky,
"Baloney!"
You're ignoring history. Bluster and choice words don't cut it. The the Northern kingdom of Israel did exist and was taken into captivity.
You have to deal with that and the prophecies that surround these folks.
I think it's kinda cute to quote Finkelstein and Silberman in support of BI. Let's face it, these two guys - legitimate scholars at the cutting edge of Israel's ancient history - would laugh themselves silly at the ideas of J.H. Allen or Herbert Armstrong. Noone I know of contests substantial deportations from the Northern kingdom, anymore than they contest deportations to Babylon following the fall of Judah, but that's a whole ball park away from what BI postulates.
Again, the chapter in From Eden to Exile is helpful here.
The idea that those who subscribe to British Israelism seems to be:
"The Twelve Tribes, (maybe just 10 or 11) were taken captive like one would round up cattle. Every tribe was hauled off to Assyria or Babylon depending. While in captivity, Reubenites stayed with Reubinite kind, Gad with the Gad kind, Isacharians with the Isachar kind and so on.
Upon release into the work study program, The tribe of Zebulon aquired a taste for Gouda Cheese and Wooden shoes, Dan liked to wander around Germany naming rivers after themselves and ultimately when they came to the States became the best policemen in NY. The rest of the totally segregated tribes wandered into Scandanavia as Vikings and Sauna salesmen and France where they developed the French Fry and planeted vineyards.
The Reubenites quickly forgot the laws of clean and unclean meats big time, and as all other tribes, developed languages that never hinted at Hebraic roots and of course, you switched to all the pagan holidays you could amass. You forget a lot in captivity.
Judah wandered back to Israel to challenge the Romans but got the boot again and wandered Europe until they controlled most of it getting into some difficulties with the Huns.
Meanwhile Ephraim and Manasseh had become superpowers, defeated the Huns and Japheth and returned Judah to Israel once again where they could live in peace after they drove the Philistines into the sea. The drive is still underway and actually not going very well.
Meanwhile, those who recognized the Jewish Messiah had come and the Jews missed it, grew strong in Manassah but not so much anymore in Ephraim.
Evangelical Manassites vowed to protect and support the chosen ones of Israel, while they manipulated Kings and Priests to cause Jesus to return, even though the chosen people of Israel were laughing their butts off at them behind their backs.
Right now, time is short and it remains that those who have wives be as if they didn't and those that are single must stay single because single people think more of the work than those caught up in pleasing their mates.
The tribes are in position for the regathering back to Israel if Assyria and the Babylonians don't scrape them off the earth again.
Soon the whole world will keep the FOT or God will starve them out with drought until they do..smile brethren.
Noah will be in charge of boats and animal management. Joseph will run the government. Reuben will have the sandwich concession and Gad will take over Ebay as E-Gad.
Angels will interrupt fornicating teens before it is too late and we will be in charge of everyone in everyway forever as God is God.
How can anyone question that? :)
"The gross number given in the Assyrian sources for both deportations - by Tiglath-pileser III from Galilee and by Sargon II from Samaria - is about forty thousand people. This comprises no more then a fifth of the estimated population of the northern kingdom west of the Jordan in the eighth century BCE" (page 221).
So what happened to the 4/5s?
"You're ignoring history. Bluster and choice words don't cut it. The the Northern kingdom of Israel did exist and was taken into captivity.
You have to deal with that and the prophecies that surround these folks."
Well, one fifth was anyway but according to Jesus all the prophecies were fulfilled in the generation he lived in.
Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
"You're ignoring history. Bluster and choice words don't cut it. The the Northern kingdom of Israel did exist and was taken into captivity."
History? The captivity, I suppose, but what happened afterwards (according to BI) is not history and it is this that Corky probably has a problem with.
"You have to deal with that and the prophecies that surround these folks."
No one "has" to deal with historical and religious fantasy at all, no more than one "has" to deal with the notion that God kreated everything. What normal people "have" to do is deal with the evidence and facts that we have, and base sane conclusions on them. That's all we "have" to do.
Paul
Many people point to the numbers of Israelites who went into captivity, however, thousands of gentiles were sent into the northern kingdom to repopulate, intermarry with and generally diffuse the vanquished tribes. At the very least, this disrupted the supposed purity of the race. It was the ancient equivalent of being "assimilated into the Borg" (Star Trek)
BB
Oh, yeah, and BTW: I, too, laughed my butt off that anyone would quote Finkelstein to support BI. I guess it takes all kinds.
Neotherm,
To answer your question, it is both. I ride my bicycle about ten or fifteen miles per day to get my cardio, and burn up the road on my Harley whenever the opportunity presents itself.
BB
Isn't it amazing how Prophet and Priestly propagandists wove a tale
about an obscure cultic people into one that consumes religionists and generally plagues the sanity of the good people of planet earth?
Gavin,
"I think it's kinda cute to quote Finkelstein and Silberman in support of BI. Let's face it, these two guys - legitimate scholars at the cutting edge of Israel's ancient history - would laugh themselves silly at the ideas of J.H. Allen or Herbert Armstrong."
It is bold of you to speak for Finkelstein and Silberman, they do not say what happened to the northern kingdom after went into captivity. They do not know.
But, of course Gavin, you do know. You have your prejudices to placate.
The point is that the most talented folks in the Northern kingdom were deported. They had built a very successful nation while Judah was still a backwater.
What happened to them, at least 40,000 of them? That was the size of a nation in those days, the eighth century BCE.
I didn't say that I believed ALL of Allens and Amrstrongs theories. But I do believe the Nothern kingdom fulfilled many of the prophecies of the Tanakh. The Northern kingdom has been focal in global affairs, just as their Holy Books have influenced all kingdoms... even modern nations.
You are still struggling with making sense of the Tanakh. You just won't let go. And you are still trying to influence folks. You just won't let go. Why?
You and others are wedded to prejudice not scholarship. Just like the venerable HWA, you pick and choose what you want to believe.
Finkelstein and Silberman are fair.
"But I do believe the Nothern kingdom fulfilled many of the prophecies of the Tanakh."
And this is where you divorce from reality. This is akin to taking part in a discussion of the inner workings of mitochondria, and stating, "Well, Gavin, you really won't come to understand the electron transport chain because you don't want to accept that it is run by tiny little magic goblins."
Paul
"And this is where you divorce from reality. This is akin to taking part in a discussion of the inner workings of mitochondria, and stating, "Well, Gavin, you really won't come to understand the electron transport chain because you don't want to accept that it is run by tiny little magic goblins.""
Again no history, no facts. Just words, bluster, and prejudice.
"Again no history, no facts."
Ironic, considering you provide no history or facts to bolster the claim that the Ten Tribes, after deportation/captivity, traveled to A, B, and C, and did D, E, and F, all in fulfillment of prophecy X.
Again, no history, no facts, just religious assumption and delusion.
Paul
All of the groups, from United down to the smallest with three people, need to divorce themselves from both Herbert Armstrong and British Israelism to survive even another decade.
Not that we want them to, mind you.
What I have a problem with is that it has been proven by DNA that BI is impossible even if the bible said it did, which it doesn't.
It's a funny thing to me that people keep on believing BI after the Gene Project, as if genetics and DNA doesn't exist.
It's good enough evidence to convict a murderer in court and get him sentenced to death but it's not good enough evidence for the BI theorists.
Seriously, what in the hell is wrong with their minds!!?
Paul:
Point well taken. I spoke too broadly. I only believe that the mechanisms of evolution have validity, that is, mutation and natural selection.
The question we are confronted with is whether matter, energy, time and space have always existed or whether they were brought into existence. This is beyond the scope of evolution. A priori, the default state is nothingness. Nothingness is simple -- it has no organization. Our universe is complex. Moreover, nothingness will not give rise to something because nothingness has no dynamics or organization or teleology. It is the absence of existence. So the universe was created. Who created it is another question.
Just what is the difference?
There are those who believe that 60 Million years ago, Xenu killed 100 Billion people in volcanoes and that their engrams cloud our thinking until they are audited out. A lot of people believe this and are very certain in their faith.
So just what is so different between the belief in Xenu and British Israelism. Both belief systems rest on the writings of a man and are an outgrowth of fantasy.
In one case, it is unprovable speculative fiction based on unrelated stories in the Bible. In the other case, it is speculative science fiction.
Here is a challenge to Armstrongists: Prove that British Israelism is superior to Scientology to the satisfaction of Scientologists. Go ahead. You will justly earn their contempt.
Here's one more challenge: Cite the fruit of the spirit that British Israelism has nurtured and caused to grow in people.
In the end, concern with physical Israel seems far removed from spiritual Israel. If not one ordinary Israelite of the Old Testament [discounting the prophets and a king or two] never even received the Holy Spirit at any time and in whom there was no faith, of what benefit is it to cling to a thoroughly discredited belief system?
If British Israelism disappeared, would the path to salvation be threatened in any way? What does it have to do with a spiritual life? Even if it were true -- and it is not -- what spiritual benefit does it have, especially considering the divisions, the bad example and the false prophets it has generated?
And while you are at it, prove that the Waldensians don't make liars of Herbert Armstrong and Dr. Hoeh.
Have you not read from the Apostle Paul, "from such turn away"?
Ah, the missing 10 tribes.
Perhaps they are all living in the Himalayas chasing Yeti.Even the name Sher-pa could be Jewish in origin as the word Him-alajah.
Then,maybe they moved to Louisiana where they have the Chevy on the Levi.
Seamus
Sleeping or gone on a journey.
450 ministers need to pray that they can be found. Put the sacrifice on the altar and soak the wood with water. 450 prophets will join you. Tarry 'til we come.
At least one minister gave a sermon in the past week that the United States was being punished with bad weather for their bad behavior as described in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. He was the one who quoted Herbert Armstrong in the Pasture General report.
One has to ask the question, if the United States is Israel, then just at what time has any of the churches of God been a credible witness to the country to persuade the people away from sin? Where are those who the people can believe because their example gives them credibility? Instead of the churches engaging in bad behavior themselves?
Has no one looked at a map of Israel and found that the King of the North would like be an Arab?
Just which church filled with the mentally ill should the American people believe? And why?
Destruction,doom and gloom.,.we are having a red moon in NZ in the next day or two.
Repent,drape sackcloth around yourselves you sinners and give your fortune to your favourite COG.
Seamus
Anonymous wrote:
....had a total population of just 50,000 in the 10th BCE; with Israel at 45,000 and Judah at just 5,000.
........350,000 and the population of Judah was only about 100,000 (page 208).
Kevin Edgecomb over at www.bombaxo.com
has some interesting theories into the population numbers given in the OT for the various tribes.
Kevin noticed the numbers don't quite add up right. It appears they are either inflated by a factor of 10 or perhaps 100 (what's a few powers of ten among friends?).
It seems Israel, surrounded by large and powerful warring countries, did a puffer fish number, and inflated its population counts in its texts to discourage overly ambitious nations from attacking.
Does this mean the bible is a lie? Or does it mean Israel did what it had to, like now, to stay alive? These are the kind of questions Bible inerrancy promoters fail to address.
Its a shame Preachers remove the humanity in the book in an effort to deify it.
To explain the futility of British Israelism is almost as useful as explaining rainbows to earthworms.
Have a religious reformation in Europe. Call it Protestant. Notice that you can't have any freedom to practice the religion, so when the opportunity to colonize a new territory becomes available, become one group of the melting pot of people who will colonize and found a new nation. As that nation grows, watch all manner of diverse peoples with diverse belief systems join you.
Now, fast forward the time clock to the twentieth century and listen to a radio preacher explain that this new mongrel nation, now the most powerful in the world, is one of the lost ten tribes of Israel, his theory being based soley on the immigration from England. Determining the particular tribe of the individual, Manasseh or Ephraim, was based soley on whether that individual chose to immigrate or stay home.
Now, watch the radio preacher rant and rave that the new nation is going to be severely punished for forgetting laws which it never knew in the first place (remember, if anything, Protestantism was the guiding force of the founders). The radio preacher never seems to make the connection that if the USA was blessed in the first place, such blessings, if they were to be an effective encouragement from God, would have to have resulted from keeping the tenets of Protestantism. How can a nation forget sabbaths, holy days, and dietary laws which they never knew? How could a loving God bring horrible tribulation on a nation for forsaking laws that they never practiced in the first place?
There are many words which could be used to describe the proponents of British Israelism. Gullible comes to mind. When it comes to theories, BI does not even rise halfway to the stature of the theory of Evolution.
BB
the default state is nothingness. Nothingness is simple -- it has no organization. Our universe is complex. Moreover, nothingness will not give rise to something because nothingness has no dynamics or organization or teleology. It is the absence of existence. So the universe was created. Who created it is another question.
Who says the default state is nothingness before the formation of the universe? "so the universe was created"? I thought you said there was nothing, where did the material come from, where did the creator come from if there was just "nothing"?
So, there wasn't "nothing" there was at least a creator and material for the creator to work with.
That "absence of existence" sure took a leap in your mind, didn't it?
Corky:
The Creator has always existed and didn't come from anywhere. He did not fabricate, as the New Testament tells us, the universe out of already existing material but created it ex nihilo, out of nothing.
There was nothingness with regard to time, space, energy and matter. It is the physical universe that is under discussion.
Like most non-Creationist scientists, you have started with the assumption that something already exists but you have no explanation for how that could be.
So the next step is to say that the universe in all of its organization, complexity and careful design has always existed -- hence, no act of creation. (Logically this is the fallacy of believing in an effect that has no cause.)
But the universe is entropic and is gradually becoming more disorganized. There is nothing to make us believe that it has a past, eternal history. In fact, to the contrary, everything (red shift, radioactive decay, Big Bang) indicates that it started at a single point in time. One day all the stars will burn out just like one day in the past, they all became energized.
In fact, the idea of an eternal time continuum extending backward forever does not work. Time was created and began at a point. If the time continuum were to run forever into the past, the present would never, ever catch up to where we are now. Today would never happen.
The fact is, God exists and I think you know it and I think it really bothers you.
-- Neo
"The fact is, God exists and I think you know it and I think it really bothers you."
Typical if all else fails and I can't make you understand me attack on what someone "must" really think or knows and their true motives for seeing things differently than the author.
Those who so easily and flippantly explain to the ignorant that which God has no doubt told them personally about how all things are, are the reason most could care less for creationist explanations.
Anonymous:
I am not sure what you meant to write -- somewhat garbled.
But if you are willing to make your decision based on something as superficial as a side comment made by a creationist, my guess is that your mind is closed and your are not into this very deeply.
-- Neo
The fact is, God exists and I think you know it and I think it really bothers you.
No, the fact is, I don't believe God exists and you do not "know" that one does yourself. And no, it doesn't bother me in the least.
Matter and energy has a good a chance of pre-existing the birth of the universe as a Super, Duper, Intelligence capable of creating something from nothing.
Because since from nothing, nothing comes, it's impossible anyway.
"The fact is, God exists and I think you know it and I think it really bothers you"
Corky ungarbled it..
"No, the fact is, I don't believe God exists and you do not "know" that one does yourself. And no, it doesn't bother me in the least."
Corky wrote: "Matter and energy has a good a chance of pre-existing the birth of the universe as a Super, Duper, Intelligence capable of creating something from nothing."
This is an unfounded assertion. You would need to tell me what argument you use to support this idea.
On second thought, don't tell me.
-- Neo
"The fact is, God exists..."
Evidence?
Also, there is no such thing as a "non-Creation scientist," for that implies that there are "Creation scientists." There are scientists, and there are delusional people who in all other respects fulfill the role of the scientist excepting critical thinking.
Why would Corky believe that there is a God? Would you also expect Corky to believe that there are space vampires and leprechauns? If not, why? For there is as much evidence for the existence of space vampires and leprechauns as there is for God (and Allah, and Zeus, ect.)
Paul
Eric Cline's book, From Eden to Exile, is another rant against HWA. The book will be welcomed by the growing cabal of disillusioned scoffers, who were once associtaed with WCG. And I deliberately used the associted, because it is evident from the nonsense they now believe, that they were never truly converted.
It would be pointless to attempt to rebut Mr. Cline's errorneous thesis, as most of the cabel are of a mind set that is impervious to reason. Suffice to say, however, that Jesus must have been mistaken when he used the phrase, "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
"Eric Cline's book, From Eden to Exile, is another rant against HWA."
Yeah, right. Cline has probably never read anything by Herb. Cline doesn't mention Herb. It could be that he's never heard of Herb. Cline doesn't mention WCG, LCG. UCG, PCG, RCG or any other CoG. Obviously you haven't bothered to engage even minimal brain cells before entering outburst mode. You certainly haven't read the book before frothing into outrage. If you had you wouldn't make such a downright dumb statement. Cline does talk about the Ten Tribes, but that has nothing specifically to do with Herb. Lots of sects have weird theories about the tribes - including half the population of Utah.
Tom, if you want to argue the point, that's fine, but at least have a point and don't try to wing it with this kind of ignorantly myopic pretense.
There, I feel much better now that's off my chest! ;-)
PS, Tom. If you have a dictionary - or even a spell checker - you might gain a bit more credibility by avoiding mistakes like "associted", "associtaed" and "errorneous."
"Yeah, right. Cline has probably never read anything by Herb. Cline doesn't mention Herb. It could be that he's never heard of Herb. Cline doesn't mention WCG, LCG. UCG, PCG, RCG or any other CoG. Obviously you haven't bothered to engage even minimal brain cells before entering outburst mode."
There you go again Gavin, speaking for someone else. You really shouldn't do that. You have no idea what Cline has or hasn't heard. Why don't you write the man and ask him? You might be surprised.
Talk about minimal brain cells...
This entire thread is a "rant". No facts, no data, no history. Just an opportunity for the Orthodox to "rant".
I guess it makes them feel good...
Well, as all of you Herbalists say, "I guess we'll find out".
You'd think that in the years since 1975, everyone would have "found out".
BB
Gavin>>There, I feel much better now that's off my chest! ;-)<<
If it was a good idea to get that off your chest, you must have been very ill.
However, you only posted the information about the book because it supports your misguided belief that HWA was a charlatan. If anyone dares to write a book supporting what HWA taught, you and the cabal of regular scoffers would pour scorn on it.
Gavin>>PS, Tom. If you have a dictionary -or even a spell checker - you might gain a bit more credibility by avoiding mistakes like "associted", "associtaed" and "errorneous."<<
You must be either desperate or have nothing useful to say if you have to jump on a couple of spelling mistakes to score a point. In intellectual circles that is described as clutching at straws. But what do drowning men do?
"It would be pointless to attempt to rebut Mr. Cline's errorneous thesis, as most of the cabel are of a mind set that is impervious to reason."
That, as the kids say, is a "cop-out." If you can refute a position using relevant data, then refute it, and do not be concerned whether or not your audience accepts it or not. You would be surprised at how many people who left the COG's welcome fact and will shift their view to accomodate facts. I mean, after all, critical thinking was a must in exiting the COG.
Paul
Neotherm said...
Corky wrote: "Matter and energy has a good a chance of pre-existing the birth of the universe as a Super, Duper, Intelligence capable of creating something from nothing."
This is an unfounded assertion. You would need to tell me what argument you use to support this idea.
The assertion is founded on the fact that from nothing, nothing comes so there had to be something already existing. This is common knowledge among normal people.
Suffice to say, however, that Jesus must have been mistaken when he used the phrase, "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
A lost sheep may or may not know he is lost, but he ought to know that he is a sheep. But in British Israelism, the lost Israelites are so "lost" that they don't even know that they are really Israelites. (Oh yes, they are Israelites, even though they have no Israelite DNA, aren't circumcised, and don't observe the Torah).
But if they don't even know they are Israelites, how then could it be fair of God to send them into captivity for their violation of a covenant they had no idea they, being Israelites, should have been observing? Surely it is only those who are aware of their obligations who could reasonably be held accountable for their failure to live up to their obligations.
Therefore we must conclude that only Armstrongists of Israelite descent will be carried away into captivity by the Germans.
So much for that Place of Safety . . . .
TOM"It would be pointless to attempt to rebut Mr. Cline's erroneous thesis, as most of the cabel are of a mind set that is impervious to reason."
Paul>That, as the kids say, is a "cop-out." If you can refute a position using relevant data, then refute it, and do not be concerned whether or not your audience accepts it or not.<<
**********************************
Your suggestion would be a good idea for people who were not associated with WCG. For it is likely that their minds might be opened to an honest, objective and impartial evaluation of the facts. In addition, their minds would not have been warped and twisted by the bitterness of having paid thousands of dollars in tithes and offerings to a church, which they now believe was founded and mis-managed by a charlatan.
On the other hand, 99.9% of those who left WCG, and have joined one of the many divided churches in cog-land, become practice scoffers or, like dogs, returned to their own vomit of Sunday worship and Christmas observance, have been afflicted with a supernatural blindness, which it is impossible to cure. So since I am unable to make the blind see or the deft hear, it would be pointless to post a rebuttal of any of so-called scientific or doctrinal theses that now proliferate the web sites and blogs in cog-land. All I can do is point out how irrational their stance is, and challenge them to explain the contradictions in their newly found "freedom."
All I can do is point out how irrational their stance is, and challenge them to explain the contradictions in their newly found "freedom."
We can disagree with each other on our degree of hatred of HWA and Armstrongism and we can disagree on the existence of gods. We can even disagree over evolution but that is because we are free to do so and you can't stand that can you?
Post a Comment