WILLOWTREE

ScanDANavia

DANmark

DANube

LonDAN

One of the most popular Scandinavian surnames: Isaacson.

Isaacson/Isaac's Sons.

This is direct irrefutable linguistic evidence.

You evos can assert fossils anthropon status but suddenly won't admit the obvious because Bible veracity is the issue = proof of bias.

WT

Weltall

Oh gods, didn't we just go over this? Arguments from linguistics based on ignorance is not a valid debate tactic either.

g-21-lto

But you have to admit that there are inaccuracies in Genesis. Why then do you unequivocably trust the words of the Bible as the inspired word of God? How can you tell which parts are accurate and which are mistranslations/misunderstandings by the author, omissions, etc? Do you have to refer to a source outside the Bible itself?

I submit that while the Genesis account can be construed to be *somewhat* in line with Earth's history in a non-specific, case-by-case basis, overall it is completely different and can not be relied upon to give you the same results we can find by observation. Why then should we rely on this book as our source of information?

Eldarion Lathria

Wrong on all of them.

London, from the Latin Londinium from the Brittic from the Brithonic a place belonging to Londinos.

Danube: from Danuvium from Danu A Celtic Goddess.

Scandinavia: From Scandia from Skane, an area in southern Sweden.

Danmark: The mark (borderland) of the Danes from ON Danr (a dane) The Old Norse word means something like flatlander.

Isaacson does not predate the twelfth century. Before the Christianization of the North Biblical names were unknown.

Again the biblist fails when he tries to play scientist

Eldarion Lathria

DaninGraniteCity

For IIDB's information, Willowtree has earned a not so comfortable reputation over at Infidelguy.com

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.ph...8671&start=345

Cobalt

WT, that's self parody at its finest. But you missed a few:

SuDAN, ManDAN, HanDAN, WoDAN, DANder, DANdle, DANte, and especially DANDAN, to say nothing of MaGADha, GADfly, GADding, or briGADe.

eGADs!

Avatar

Linguistic similarities between unrelated languages is a very shaky arguement, WT.

:rolling:

I can only assume you are not serious.

Celsus

Jeez Willow, tell us what you really think. For the rest of you in E/C not in the know, Willow has already tried this nearly verbatim here, where he was refuted on both the "atheist" scholarship nonsense, and on his Danite linguistic gibberish (to put it mildly). To repeat the exact same claims and ad hominems against me when he has already been refuted and did not answer those original posts, is in my opinion completely disingenuous (= dishonest = lying = against forum rules to call someone that) and a sign of desperation. Those of you who know his antics at EvC and Tweb will know that this is entirely par for the course with him.

This is an official complaint to II moderators: please do something about this.

Joel

WILLOWTREE

Where is your numeric dating ?

Brutus/British: O.T. covenant man (ish(i) hebrew for 'man'.)

The origin of Dan predates all your subsequent applications.

Judging by your lack of any pre-Roman sources what else could you conclude ?

IF origin is FIRST (and it is) THEN the massive history of the Danites is seen linguistically across Eurasia.

Tuatha de Danaan = Tribe of Dan [source: Dr. Scott]

WILLOWTREE

Atheist crybaby demanding Mod "victory".

You have evaded and twisted everything.

Why ?

Because my points hurt.

You have refused to debate.

WT