@matty The first image is of the Assyrian empire. The part I outlined poorly with black pen is the Assyrian empire shortly after they first defeated the kingdom of Samaria (northern tribes). The second image is the nation of Urartu that existed north of Assyria in modern day Armenia/Turkey. And this is where our story begins.
These are verses which tell of the Assyria deportation of the Samaritans.
>2Ki_17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
>2Ki_18:11 And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes:
>1Ch_5:26 And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.
>2Ki_10:33 From Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan.
>2Ki_15:29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria.
This is a quote from Tiglath Pileser 3 (King of Assyria during the conquest of Samaria and the deportation of Israelites) from a tablet found in Nineva
>“The cities of Gilead and Abel-beth-maacahon the borders of the land of Khumri, and the widespread land of Hazael to its whole extent, I brought within the territory of Assyria.”
The tablet confirms the historicity of the Biblical verses.
On the map I circled Gozan, Harbor, and over by where the Medes were at the time. The Median empire eventually stretch across all of what was Assyria and into Asia Minor.
The forth map shows Assyria and the surrounding nations.
There is an artifact calls The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. On it is an inscription which reads
>“The tribute of Jehu (Iaua) son of Khumri (Omri): I received from him silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king,(and) purukhti fruits.”
Jehu was the king of Samaria when Assyria defeated them. Samaria was known as the Bit Khmuri to the Assyrians.
I feel like the bit khmuri/cimmerians is probably the easiest secular proof that modern Whites are in fact Israelites. I know @BowsacNoodle doesn't quite believe me, so I wonder if he finds this post compelling 🤔
> in 719 B.C., only two years after the Israelite exile, Sargon says in his Annals that he invaded this district and deported many of the Mannai to the west.
If you skim through the following link, it describes how the Assyrians deported people. Essentially they broke up the populations of conquered people and moved them all over their kingdom in the attempt to create a homogeneous society. If they moved people from Samaria, there would be a gulf in the population, so they would move people from another area to fill that. These Mannai are on the east of Assyria near that Lake Urmia I circled. This is the location from which the Cimmerians attacked Urartu.
2 Esdras 13 >40 these are the ten tribes which were led away from their own land into captivity in the days of King Hoshe′a, whom Shalmane′ser the king of the Assyrians led captive; he took them across the river, and they were taken into another land. 41 But they formed this plan for themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the nations and go to a more distant region, where mankind had never lived, 42 that there at least they might keep their statutes which they had not kept in their own land. 43 And they went in by the narrow passages of the Euphra′tes river. 44 For at that time the Most High performed signs for them, and stopped the channels of the river until they had passed over. 45 Through that region there was a long way to go, a journey of a year and a half; and that country is called Arzareth.
There is a Siret river on the other side of the black sea. Whether this is what esdras talks about, I can't say for sure, but this passage seems to somewhat corroborate the narrative of the cimmerians.
>According to Greek historians, the Cimmerians made their first appearance in Asia Minor when they overthrew Midas, king of Phrygia. This was dated by Julius Africanus and Eusebius in the first quarter of the seventh century B.C. Archaeologists, excavating the ruins of Gordium, the Phrygian capital, have confirmed that the city was destroyed by fire about 700 B.C. or soon after.
Phrygia was in the meat of Asia Minor, on the other side of Urartu. The Cimmerians would of had to travel around Urartu, up towards the black sea and west along the southern coast of it to enter into Asia Minor to attack Phrygia, like 2 Esdras seems to imply.
After the Cimmerians were recorded to have attacked a nation in western Asia Minor, we have another inscription which says
>Esarhaddon, king of Assyria 681-669 B.C., who recorded a battle with the Cimmerians in the second year of his reign. 'Teushpa, the Gimira', he says, a barbarian who home was afar off, I cut down with the sword in the land of Hubushna, together with all his troops'. Hubushna, was the region in central Asia Minor north and west of the Euphrates gorge. After listing other people who dwelt in the mountains, he ends his account saying, 'On the rest of them who were not guilty of rebellion and insubordination, I imposed the heavy yoke of my sovereignty.'
The Gimira, or Cimmerians, were in rebellion against Assyria, suggesting they were under their rule. That is to say, the Gimira were a people Assyria had conquered and deported.
From 732BC to around 700BC, the Cimmerians are recorded as existing and attacking people from the middle of Asia minor, around the southern coast of the black sea and north of Urartu, and all the way to the east of Assyria and the border of Media (highlighted on the second image). Also where I circled the word Gamir (the academics believe they came south from Russia because of something Herodotus said. They did not) there was a kingdom that formed a few hundred years later called Iberia (3rd picture). The name Iberia, just like the name for the Spanish pennisula, derives from the word Iber, which described the Israelites (Iber, Eber, Hebrew. in the language of Hebrew, the word Israelite is spelled IVRI. The forth image is from the link to chabad, and it shows that the word Hebrew was written IVRI in the Phoenician alphabet, the main alphabet of the Israelites, and which the Phoenicians brought to the rest of Europe. It is the basis for our modern alphabet.
All of the previous post ended roughly between 730-720BC. From here we move on a people we call the Cimmerians (k sound, Kimmerian), whom the Greeks called the Kimmeroi. From the image below, off the wiki for Cimmerians, we see that the name derives from Gimer, Gimira, Gimirri, etc.
>This name Gamir may well have been derived from Ghumri by the reversal of the final syllable - ri to -ir, a type of spelling error that sometimes occurs in other cuneiform documents (e.g. king Rusas of Urartu is sometimes spelled Ursa).
If we accept the above explanation, then these "Cimmerians" were called the Ghumri.
The next two images are from wikipedia as well, so lets ignore their suggestive arrows. In the first image, I circled a lake that was the first place these Cimmerians were know to have existed.
Again from wiki >The first recorded mentions of the Cimmerians date from spring or early summer[94] of 714 BC[98][88][99][92][16][100][101][102] and are from the intelligence reports of the then superpower of West Asia, the Neo-Assyrian Empire, sent by the crown prince Sennacherib to his father the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, recording that the Urartian king Rusa I had launched a counter-attack against the Cimmerians:[103][2][104][68][95] Rusa I had gathered almost all of the Urartian armed forces to campaign against the Cimmerians, with Rusa I himself as well as his commander in chief and thirteen governors personally participating in this campaign.[105] Rusa I's counter-attack was heavily defeated, and the governor of the Urartian province of Uasi was killed while the commander in chief and two governors were captured by the Cimmerian forces, attesting of the significant military power of the Cimmerians.[106][107][93][103][104][105][86][108][95]
This above conflict took place at the lake in the second image i circled. These Cimmerians, or Ghumri, were on the edge of Assyria, over by Media. The second deportation from Assyria ended around 720BC, and this was 6 years later. It is worth noting the name bit khumri is no longer seen in history (to my knowledge).
It is much more likely that the arrows on those maps should be reversed. The Cimmerians started north of Assyria and migrated away, around the black sea, and into Asia Minor.
@Xenophon@hazlin@matty That’s a lot to take in. History is my weakest area. I’m a systemic thinker and lack of past interest has made it tough to build up a knowledge base. From briefly reading this, I still come back to the question of why it matters? I could see it being grounz for some of the ideas you’ve said before, but I remain unconvinced of CI. Even if “we wuz”, truly, and all other areas of your arguments were true beyond refutation, I find the concept of predestination via curse of birthright to be on the wrong end of Pascal’s wager. I would not feel comfortable potentially driving someone away from Christ by asserting that view. Just as I’m against lukewarm universalism, I’m against exclusion beyond the choice of acceptance of salvation in Christ available to all.
@Xenophon@hazlin@matty >I also would never try to convince someone to not seek Jesus, but the Bible says what it says, and we shouldn't pretend it doesn't because we don't like what that means. You had to have known this wouldn't slip past me, right? Come on now dude. That's too weak of a dismissal of my point: if you're wrong, and you cause people to fall away from Christ and lose their salvation, that's literally on you. If I'm wrong, I'll still be in heaven rejoicing in my goofy ignorance of this and probably several other things I was mistaken of. The jews are evil because they reject Christ, do evil to people, and literally worship Satan; I do not need speculative or motivated reasoning to discern that.
It matters because there is a tribe of evil people who are claiming our birthright, and tricking people into servering Satan (them) because of it.
It matters because if it didn't matter, it wouldn't be the entire purpose of the Bible. God loved Israel. Only Israel, He only knew Israel, His covenants were only with Israel.
I also would never try to convince someone to not seek Jesus, but the Bible says what it says, and we shouldn't pretend it doesn't because we don't like what that means.
It matters because if you were told you believed in error, you should want to correct that error.
>31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
You know God because He chose for you to know Him, not because you chose to know Him yourself. It was predestined, and written into your heart. Nothing any of us accomplish is because of our own efforts, but because God allows us to accomplish it. This is no different.
@Xenophon@hazlin@matty Israel is the church, Christianity. >Why do you think that your view gets you to heaven, but mine does not? My point is cautionary rather than condemnation. We are told that bad shepherds are punished more than bad sheep, no? I'm viewing this through the standard lens that Christianity universally held prior to Darby and Scofield injecting judaizing dispensationalism. That doesn't guarantee I'm correct and you're wrong, but thousands of scholars devoted their lives to this and few came to the same conclusion as you. Perhaps they had incomplete information given the limitations of their age, but perhaps they were spiritually inspired in the right direction. Regardless, my point is the same as it's always been which is that this seems like predestination with extra window dressing.
Dated one on the army. Wanted me to move back to Utah and put a billion babies in her. I still remember her name, have no idea what she did after Korea.
@Xenophon@hazlin@matty God's foreknowledge is not the same as predestination in the doctrinal sense, or if it is, it's not the same thing I'm referring to. I'm speaking against the idea of condemning a people as irredeemable garbage because of birthright, because I believe that's contradictory to Christ's gift of salvation. That doesn't mean everybody goes to heaven nor any of the baggage associated with universality and hippy newage beliefs endorsing sodomy or anything like that either.
Romans 8 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
We all believed what you are saying. most still believe it. All I'm saying is that isn't what Paul says. It was extremely hard for me to accept this. I don't fault you for rejecting it. And I'm not saying I know with certainy I'm right. But I do know that the bible actually says many things contrary to what churches preach.
God did in fact make some people solely for destruction. People who can never achieve eternal life.
>14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
>19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? FOR WHO CAN RESIST HIS WILL?” 20 But WHO ARE YOU, A MAN, TO ANSWER BACK GOD? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” 21 HAS THE POTTER NO IRGHT OVER THE CLAY, TO MAKE OUT OF THE SAME LUMP ONE VESSEL FOR HONOR AND ANOTHER FOR DISHONOR? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for DESTRUCTION, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,
@Xenophon@hazlin@matty >God did in fact make some people solely for destruction. People who can never achieve eternal life. I always appreciate talking with you because you make me think through some of the reasons for my beliefs. I'm not with you on this one, and probably won't be anytime soon, but it's an interesting thing to think about. Cheers.