Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 03-01-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narapoia

I would love to see an answer to this too but I'm not holding my breath.

By the way, if you follow the MT chronology, Noah was still alive when Abraham was born. Funny how the Egyptian empire springs up so quick eh (it's either 9 or 10 generations between Noah and Abraham no matter how you look at it). Ol great-great-great-...gran'paw should have learned dem feudin boys a lesson.

Joel

Donnmathan · 03-01-2005, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Where did the ruddy features of the Irish race originate ?

Hint: Forget about Rome LOL !

waiting...

WT

BTW:

How many ruddy nations exist ?

Actually, historically...India, unless my memory is faulty, though I must ask you how ruddy most Guals, Irish, Scotts, Britons, and Welsh really are. In my experience...not very.

badger3k · 03-01-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnmathan

Actually, historically...India, unless my memory is faulty, though I must ask you how ruddy most Guals, Irish, Scotts, Britons, and Welsh really are. In my experience...not very.

Well, the first known recorded history of them (the celts, that is) is up beyond the danube. Then they travel or something through Europe, where they are encountered in Spain and then move to the Isles. One quick google found this (source one) which gives an outline of what I am familiar with.

Now this site gives an example of the celts being descended from pheonicians (source two) although I am not that familiar with the theory.

Yet somehow I think we are going to discover that the celts are descended from the Israelites (well, given the Flood, aren't we all descended from the Israelites?).

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Anat · 03-01-2005, 10:41 PM

'Ruddiness' is caused by mutations that inactivate the MC1R gene - see The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R): more than just red hair.

For more details on the evolution of this gene, see Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R. This is what they have to say about estimating the age of some of these mutations:

Quote:

To estimate the ages of MC1R alleles, we assumed that their observed frequencies simply reflect genetic drift in constant-size, randomly mating populations, after allowing for different patterns of functional constraint. These estimates suggest that the MC1R variants Val60Leu, Val92Met, and Arg163Gln may trace back to ancestors in Eurasian populations existing 250,000–100,000 years ago. Our estimates of 80,000 years for the red hair–associated Arg151Cys and Arg160Trp variants likewise suggest a distant ancestral contribution from Paleolithic Eurasians to the western European populations of today. Our estimated age of 80,000 years for the red hair–associated variants suggests that they are likely to have a wide geographic distribution, perhaps extending into central Asia. This prediction is easily testable with data from other surveys of MC1R variation.

Our age estimates for MC1R alleles sampled both within and outside Africa are compatible with age distributions for neutral allelic variation estimated for other nuclear loci (Harding et al. 1997; Zietkiewicz et al. 1998; Harris and Hey 1999). However, an incompatibility arises between estimated ages in the range of 250,000–100,000 years, for non-African MC1R allelic variation, and ages, from fossil evidence, of &les;100,000 years for the dispersal of modern humans outside Africa and the Middle East (Stringer and Andrews 1988). One possible explanation for incompatible ages from genetic data is that they have been overestimated under an assumption of levels of genetic drift that are consistent with constant population size. These age estimates would be younger under an alternative model with a high rate of population expansion out of a Eurasian founding population.

Mods, sorry for the E/C derail, but I suppose any flood thread in which a poster takes the Biblical description literally will hover between these two fora.

ceinwyn · 03-01-2005, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Where did the ruddy features of the Irish race originate ?

Hint: Forget about Rome LOL !

waiting...

WT

BTW:

How many ruddy nations exist ?

Just out of curiosity, is this sort of post supposed to be taken seriously?

I'm waiting for Willowtree to blush at such a nonsense pronouncement.

spin · 03-02-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mod note: Please do not bring baggage from other message boards into IIDB. Any personal issues abot matters not related to this MB should be taken to PM or email. Anyone who believes that a member is breaking rules can report to the mods or start a complaint thread.

You must be joking.

The track record of this screwball should help you moderators to cut this crap. Ruddy races? You are letting this tripe continue? Remember the inane Dan material? Look at the reactions of some of the more regular posters to this forum to this person's efforts. We are in Wonderland here. Logic has no value.

spin

Toto · 03-02-2005, 01:48 AM

Off to Elsewhere.

WILLOWTREE · 03-02-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Again you forget your conclusion, that "This means the much older LXX is corroborated by the SP which exposes Rashi and his gang of revisionists to be deliberately translating the MT to evade Messianic Christology."

Previously, in another topic, I admitted after YOU pointed out that I strayed from the issues and conclusion. I also apologized and for branding you something that was unfair.

Now, here, you have inadvertedly done the same.

It was you who initiated insults/assertions/speculation that I knew nothing about ancient chronology. THEN you also produced a post written to someone else contending O.T. chronology is a mess because of the seen and perceived differences between the LXX and MT and SP.

I then produced a post stating that the LXX and MT use different systems and when understood both are correct.

Your enrgaged response which repeated insults meant that you did not know the LXX and MT employ different systems and both are correct when understood. You actually challenged me with a 100 dollar Jeopardy question as to what SP stood for.

I then responded by stating the deviations between the LXX and SP next to the MT.

Above was my way of submitting to your juvenile SP test.

In reality, you are upset to learn the LXX and MT use different systems and both are correct.

The heart of your "Bible chronology is wrong" argument was the seen and known differences between the LXX and MT.

My "different systems/both are correct" post is the cause of this ad hom spat.

As it turns out YOU are the one who didn't know the LXX and MT use different systems/both are correct.

Quote:

First you said they were using different systems, then you accuse the MT of mistranslation when it's clear they are not.

Yes,

Different chronology reckoning systems.

MT revisers have deliberately changed words to evade the LXX and its perceived schismatic takeover.

There are two different issues above which you rashly conflated.

The latter was intended to blow a hole in the MT because I know atheists endorse it as accurate. I also plainly stated the inaccuracies were in the context of Messianic Christology and I posted an example (Psalm 8).

The former was argument about CHRONOLOGY.

Quote:

If you were not bringing up this point to reinforce your claims about the chronology that exactly what were you bringing it up for?

The MT translation corruption issue was as I said above.

WT

Celsus · 03-02-2005, 07:14 PM

Willow, Willow,

I see you're very proud that you know what the SP is, mazel tov. But as yet, you haven't demonstrated that you know what the SP chronology is. For that matter, you haven't even shown that you know what the numbers in the MT or LXX are, so you're still wasting my time. Rather than asserting that they use a different system without the slightest hint as to what that system is, show us the numbers, and show us how these numbers reconcile under these different systems of yours. It's incredibly simple. Not some silly pointless generalisation about "LXX and MT use different systems and when understood both are correct." Nor does it appear that you recognise your double standard in accusing the MT of mistranslating just because the chronology doesn't add up to what you want it to be. Show us how you reconcile them. I want numbers and I want a reconciliation of those numbers between the 4 genealogies known to us. After that, you can reconcile those numbers with Maccabean and Nehemiah chronologies. Simple, yes?

I need a good laugh today, how about it?

Here's a table to get you started: I've already given you some numbers (and I even filled in another row for you), you fill in the rest of the blanks.

Code:

Generation	MT	SP	LXX	Jubilees	Willow's Synchronisation
Adam		130	130	230	130		?
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech		182	53	188	55		?
Noah
Shem
Arpachshad
Cainan*
Shelah		30	130	130	71		?
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah		70	70	70	70
Abraham
Total

* You'll also have to explain how the extra generation of Cainan got into the LXX but not the MT or SP.

Easy peasy. I'm still waiting.

Joel

WILLOWTREE · 03-03-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnmathan

Actually, historically...India, unless my memory is faulty, though I must ask you how ruddy most Guals, Irish, Scotts, Britons, and Welsh really are. In my experience...not very.

Its not a matter of opinion - the Irish are a ruddy-red race. The only such race on the face of the Earth.

Where did they originate from ?

1Samuel 16:12

And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

1Samuel 17:42

And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.

Nebuchadnezzar THOUGHT he had destroyed the royal ruddy-red Davidic line when he killed the sons of Zedekiak. (Jeremiah 39, 52)

But way back in Numbers 27:7 God had ruled if there were no male heirs the inheritance could pass to the daughters.

Little did Nebuchadnezzar know that the Davidic line was safe and sound guarded by his captain Nebuzaradan who was assigned to protect the entourage of Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 41, 43)

God had sworn to David that one of his heirs would rule over His people as long as there was a sun and moon in the sky.

Jeremiah 1 commissions him to PLANT.

Ezekiel 17:22 prophesies that God will plant a tender twig (female/daughter of David) on a high mountain (symbol of a great kingdom).

History has proven that Jeremiah went to Egypt with a daughter of David
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/gavin.egypt/flinders.htm) and then went to Spain and then to ancient Hibernia/(Hebrew)/Ireland where this tender twig married E. Heremon the king of Ireland.

IF origin is FIRST (and it is) then the Bible supplies us with the origin of the ruddy Irish race: King David.

David lived and reigned from circa 1048 to 938 BC.

WT

03-02-2005, 07:14 PM	#49
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Willow, Willow, I see you're very proud that you know what the SP is, mazel tov. But as yet, you haven't demonstrated that you know what the SP chronology is. For that matter, you haven't even shown that you know what the numbers in the MT or LXX are, so you're still wasting my time. Rather than asserting that they use a different system without the slightest hint as to what that system is, show us the numbers, and show us how these numbers reconcile under these different systems of yours. It's incredibly simple. Not some silly pointless generalisation about "LXX and MT use different systems and when understood both are correct." Nor does it appear that you recognise your double standard in accusing the MT of mistranslating just because the chronology doesn't add up to what you want it to be. Show us how you reconcile them. I want numbers and I want a reconciliation of those numbers between the 4 genealogies known to us. After that, you can reconcile those numbers with Maccabean and Nehemiah chronologies. Simple, yes? I need a good laugh today, how about it? Here's a table to get you started: I've already given you some numbers (and I even filled in another row for you), you fill in the rest of the blanks. Code: Generation MT SP LXX Jubilees Willow's Synchronisation Adam 130 130 230 130 ? Seth Enosh Kenan Mahalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech 182 53 188 55 ? Noah Shem Arpachshad Cainan* Shelah 30 130 130 71 ? Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor Terah 70 70 70 70 Abraham Total * You'll also have to explain how the extra generation of Cainan got into the LXX but not the MT or SP. Easy peasy. I'm still waiting. Joel

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2005, 01:48 AM	#47
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Off to Elsewhere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.