SCT-ROYAL-L Archives

Archiver > SCT-ROYAL > 2001-02 > 0983386722


From: Darren McCathern <>
Subject: Evidence or Not?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:58:42 -0600


Dear Friends,
I wish to propose something of interest. So here I will pose a
few questions related to evidence.

What is considered tangible evidence that a man existed? While
I have no proof other than the Bible that Abraham existed, I do indeed
have the knowledge that all of the Jewish and Arab peoples claim
direct lineal descent from a man whom was regarded as a great King.


Is it logical to consider that as tangible evidence, or should that
be thrown out as speculation that all Jews and Arabs have no idea
as to their own genealogy?

It might also be noted that Abraham's brother founded the city
of Haran, and he was of the Royal House of Terah as well. We in fact
KNOW for absolute fact that Haran existed because of the indisputable
evidence that is well known in the archives at Damascus. Which I
may also add is the oldest inhabited city on planet Earth.

Abraham's lineage as stated in the Bible states that he was the
son of Terah, born in the city of UR. Archeology has determined
the location of the city of UR and about 5 years ago they found the
name Terah as belonging to a provincial ruler of Royal Descent as
known by the people of that time.

Considering the proof on just the evidence itself, it is not a big
step to conclude that someone named Abraham, whom was of royal descent
from the house of Terah was indeed the very same Abraham that the
Jews and Arabs claim descent from.

Of course some people could say that is not conclusive, and some
people say that Abraham never existed, although many cultures, including
the Celts knew whom this Abraham was long before they had written
evidence such as the Bible which really was not published till centuries
later. However, people in Europe knew about Abraham long before Christians
came to Europe. The Irish were claiming lineage to Israel long before
you or I came into existance.

Some people say that Noah did not exist, however the Nations of the
Earth are named from the sons of Noah as recorded, if this is not
evidence that the tribes such as Gomer existed at the time of Moses,
then what is?

People can ignore the Bible claims all they wish, however, it must
be stated that the Hebrews kept better records than anyone else of
that period. Any valid researcher will tell you that the records
are indeed extensive and it is a matter of personal choice as to
use them as a resource or not. It must also be noted that most peoples
at the time of Moses were still using pictographic writing.

It sometimes is not strictly a matter of believers, it is a matter
of documented written records that are over 4,000 years old. If anyone
else has better research evidence going back that far that they can
contribute, I would most certainly enjoy seeing it!

How many know that the Staff that Moses smote the waters of Egypt
with that was given to him by Aaron was in fact the documented evidence
of his descent from Abraham? Did you know that is how they kept
their Genealogy? Scribed in ancient Hebrew on wood!

Whether you believe the story or not, it is a fact that the Hebrews
inscribed their lineage on a staff that was given to the head of
the family, or the Chiefs of their Fathers as it was known. When
it came time to muster troops for war, this staff was seen by the
generals as the allegiance of the family! How many know that when
you went before a King in those days, they would ask to see your
credentials, and you would stretch out your staff so they could see?

I think the majority of people are ignorant concerning the role of
Genealogy in the Ancient Days, it was much more important than now.
In my opinion to exclude records that could have meant life or death
to an entire family based on their genealogy is not only ludicris,
it is irresponsible.

Read the bible, what does it say about the son inheriting from the
fathers and etc? How many generations was someone exiled for crimes?
How could one prove that they could be brought back into society
after a crime was committed? GENEALOGY!

If you doubt the Hebrews kept an exact Genealogy you are grossly
misinformed. As a matter of fact the entire tribal society existed
on the records of Genealogy.

When you study a genealogy, learn of the culture before you limit
youself to what research you will accept, and what you will not.

Let me state this, most if not all records concerning Royal Genealogy
were written by clergy. Are we to throw their evidence out that is
now hundreds of years old because they believed in God?

Excuse me for saying this, but a bishop living a thousand years ago
in Normandy is far from Contemporary. But then again so is researching
Genealogy that is over 50 years old to someone whom is not yet 50!

In my Oxford essential dictionary, I find the following on Contemporary:

Contemporary: 1. Living or occuring at the same time. 2. about
the same age. 3. modern in style.

Okay, let us examine this evidence, according to my resource something
that is Contemporary such as a record, would have to be living, about
the same age, and modern correct?

Nice buzzword. However under this veil everything that was not modern
would be excluded as being contemporary. That is real slick.

I don't know about anyone else, but I work with "Contemporary records"
Every day as an archives manager, and I can't begin to tell you the
errors that are reported to me as an archivist that are "Official"
records such as birth & death dates, mispelled names, etc.

Records are for evidence, whether ancient or modern they are in fact
(Even if speculative) valid evidence unless PROVEN to be incorrect,
so far, I have yet to meet one human being on earth that can with
100% valid hard core proof prove that the Genealogy in the Bible
is incorrect.

Any takers?

Bible records in families are well known to be used as evidence as
to one's existence, these are faith based records and they are in
fact accepted by government offices as official documented evidence
as to a birth and death of a person here in America. Are we to proclaim
that they are now invalid because they do not suit the criteria of
the "Contemporary" genealogists?

How about Baptism and Christning records? Are they too invalid because
they are of a faith based nature? I most certainly think not!

What people fail to understand concerning Biblical Genealogy and
Royalty, is that from the times of Genesis one had to be known as
of Royal Lineage to become a King, as it is this day!

Nimrod was of Royal Lineage and it was known, Sennacherib was of
the same Lineage, Hamurrabi, Nebuchadnezzer, all of the same Royal
Lineage that was inherited and acknowledged by birthright.

People followed these Kings not because they were so powerful they
could sneeze and kill people, they were followed and crowned Kings
because they descended from known Kings and Royal Blood.

That my friends is the way Royalty generally has operated. King Abdullah
in Jordan for instance is of Royal Blood, All the Kings of Egypt
were of Royal Blood. Etc etc.

What is hard to understand about that? All through history time
has proven that there are certain bloodlines that hold true, usurpers
simply have not stood the test of time.

In other words, you either are of Royal Blood, or you are not. One
does not come into Royal Blood from the Ancients by proxy, it is
coursing through your veins or it is not.

One does not become a Great King without being acknowledged by the
people as having a right to it.

Case and point. Sadam Hussein. He is not just a mere elected official,
he is in fact recgonized by his people as being of Royal Blood,
a descendant of Mohammed, and also of Abraham. He can't be taken
out of power by the US or England or the UN because his people RECGONIZE
his rightful claim to be a leader because of his blood and they will
not overthrow him because of this simple fact.

His people know is he descended from the Kings of Babylon, and they
do not need Contemporary evidence to keep him in power.

Facts are facts, and Royal Blood has indeed been known to be so from
ancient times to today, and that my friends, is no myth!

I have no contempt for modern records, quite the contrary! I utilize
them for evidence just as anyone does. However, I do not consider
them the only valid resources available, I simply will not limit
my research to secular records which are more often than not in error,
nor will I exclude record that nobody on Earth has been able to
prove invalid.

It is as I have stated, a mere matter of choice.

Best Wishes!
-Darren


*****
Please visit us at:
http://www.scotlandroyalty.org








This thread: