Here's a 'compelling' argument that they are
http://mileswmathis.com/iran.pdf
http://mileswmathis.com/iran.pdf
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
as much as I am, which would be nope!Here's a 'compelling' argument that they are
http://mileswmathis.com/iran.pdf
Please don't encourage him.
Maybe they are left over from when Israel and Judah were invaded and carried into captivity?
as much as I am, which would be nope!
Are there compelling reasons not to apply the author's own technique of associating names to link him, Donny Ahzmond, with the famous LDS Osmond family with ulterior motives to stir up controversy against Jews?Could you pick any part of the article you disagree with and oppose it with facts?
Who knows. A lot of my fellow native Americans now think we are Jewish.(I dont think that) As wide and as thoroughly dispersed as the Jews have been, probably most people on the planet contain some Jewish DNA.Here's a 'compelling' argument that they are
http://mileswmathis.com/iran.pdf
Please give me a reason why I should not view this in the same as being in the same genre as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Anti-Semitic tripe.
Iran is making news lately and is there an inconvenient time for history lessons?Why would you think this is an important topic?
Are there compelling reasons not to apply the author's own technique of associating names to link him, Donny Ahzmond, with the famous LDS Osmond family with ulterior motives to stir up controversy against Jews?
No, it's all about names, which is how genealogies generally work, and a lot of speculation.There is more than names in this piece.
Please, all I need is sound refuting of his points.
No, it's all about names, which is how genealogies generally work, and a lot of speculation.
OK, it also mentions noses and hair in a conspiratorial way, as though the Jews are completely unrelated to other peoples in the region, which would contradict the Bible. Abraham had many sons, and was related to others besides, as was hairy, red Esau.
And for some reason it seems to treat the name Ismail, a variant of Ishmael, as a supposedly Jewish rather than Arab/Muslim reference.
As for the supposed photographic forensics, nothing appears established there at all.
Bottom line, it doesn't sound sound enough to need refuting. It's poor speculation, or rich in speculation. But keep trying—maybe Muhammad was Jewish. After all, he was a businessman. Or possibly his cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib would fit the bill.
You have not given any basis for your objection so your views are ignored with contempt.
Iran is making news lately and is there an inconvenient time for history lessons?
I'm waiting for a well reasoned objection to the contents. The views there are not mine. I tried to find anything against what he said and I couldn't. Can you?