>>16603260
read Heidegger.

>>16603279
Shoo, botnigger.

>>16603283
retard

>>16603260
In terms of accepting that other people gods were real and likely worthy worship? yes

In terms of not taking seriously "whose/which god is greater" ? would vary wildly from community to community, pagan to pagan, depending on what philosophy/theology school they subscribed to

>The way I see, the Jew was basically salty that he had competition
no, that is just you not getting economics, since the same pressure would apply to other people and you not getting how judaism formed or how religion worked in the ancient world

>And to be fair it sorta makes sense, doesn't it?
no, it doesn't

>for the Jew to unleash his poison
rent free, now return to /pol/

>>16603260
not necessarily
romans merrily massacred druids for being of a foreign religion, they also did the same to followers of bacchus
also by the time of the great germanic conversions jews were generally loathed by christians and Christ was not thought of as a "jewish god"

>>16603260
>The way I see, the Jew was basically salty that he had competition, because Religion was essentially their profession before banking came along, and consequently that's where the money was in the ancient world. Naturally, competing priesthoods are bad for kike-business, so they brainwashed people with Skyjew and then made them chimp-out in order to destroy opposition, and thus rake in more dough.
Holy shit what an absurd take Kek. This is so absurd it's actually quite plausible

>>16603260
In denmark the Prince was living in England (you know in Crusader Kings how you send a kid to another court). Over there he learned about cristcuckery and then when he became king that's how cristinaity started in Denmark
I think a similar thing happened in Norway not sure.
But then when the king had become cristcuck then they started builting churches on top of holy sites and killed and tortured people for not being a cristcuck. The standard way of spreading the religion of peace

>>16603791
Aside from your Vidya game argument, it's accepted fact that the first converts in the roman empire were women and slaves. These people who were often incharge of educating or taking care of children would indoctrinate them because the men of the house were away doing their jobs. Once the Christians came into power they destroyed many temples, statues and books. This would of course affirm their peaceful sentiments to the world

>>16603260
“Pagan” is an overly broad and useless term, you dumb nigger. Be more specific.

>>16603848
>expecting someone that blames jews on everything to not paint everything else in broad strokes.

>>16603260
>Omri/Khomri (king of Israel) dynasty lasts until 722BC when the assyrians conquered and dispersed the people
>Assyrian documents refer to them as Khumry
>Khimmirai/Gimmirai/Cimmerians appear in Assyrian records during the reign of Sargon II (722-705BC)
>Cimmerians are known from Herodotus to be driven westward out of their lands around the Black Sea (modern Crimea takes its name from them) by the Scythians
>Cimmerians disappear from historical records around 6th century BC
>Celts spontaneously appear in historical records around 6th century BC
>Celts exit historical records (or, more accurately, are dispersed into various subgroupings) around 5th century CE
>Welsh (Cymraegs) appear in historical records around 6th century CE from Celtic origins
Are these related?

>>16603871
did the cimmerians speak an indo european language?
were the semitic?
if they were semitic they were not celts

>>16603871
>>16603880
oh also, the modern welsh are descended from the celts who were conquered and pushed out by the anglo saxons, the word "welsh" stems from the germanic word for "foreign"

>>16603880
Linguistic parallels have been drawn between modern Welsh and modern Hebrew. How do you explain similarities in certain phrases if there is no connection?
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/welshlanguage.html

>>16603895
hebrew is not an indo european language
the welsh were not semites
take your meds

>>16603884
This post doesn't seem relevant to my question at all, but okay.

>>16603897
Giving up already? How do you explain such etymological similarities, and such unusual continuity in the historical records? Just coincidence?

>>16603260
They worshipped a poop god. Look up roman god of the privy

>>16603902
there is no "unusual continuity"
there are no "similarities"
the welsh language is a celtic language like gaulish or modern bretagne
the welsh first come into the historical record after being the celtic remnants of the people the anglo-saxons conquered
you are we wuzzing

>>16603260
Of course not, "pagans" (I really hate this catch-all term) were suppressing rival deities pretty much as far back as history goes. They were not remotely tolerant in the way that we think of it. The Romans themselves suppressed the bacchanalia, went to war with Carthage over Moloch, and did their utmost to exterminate the Druids; furthermore, their "tolerance" was only "your deities will fit into our ritual and nomenclature, or else". There was no such thing as freedom of worship; it was freedom to worship how Rome tells you to, which is exactly what you expect from an authoritarian state.
And that's just Rome; Sumer and Egypt and Persia and Scandinavia were hardly any different. Condemning religions was no less prolific under polytheist societies than monotheist ones, and in fact demostrably more so considering the fact that the dominant monotheistic faiths of the world persist in allowing polytheistic ones to flourish despite 1600 years of political supremacy.

>>16603909
Unusual continuity outlined very clearly here:
>>16603871
Examples of similarities may be found here:
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/linguistics/welshlanguage.html
Many more examples exist; play around with a translater between hebrew and welsh. The results may surprise you.
Let me ask you this: do you agree it's possible that the Khumry, who disappeared in ~722BC, are related to the Cimmerians, who appeared in ~722BC, under a very similar name?

>>16603871
This is an incredibly based wewuzzing schizopost, I'm going to use it in the future for humorous shitposting purposes, I hope you don't mind.

>>16603924
Go for it. I don't necessarily believe the connection myself, but the arguments against it are sort of uncompelling. People just say "we wuz" and move on... okay, fine, but what actually happened to the dispersed Khumric dynasty? What actually happened to the Cimmerians? Where did Cymrics actually come from? People shoot down the theory I've presented without offering an alternative.

>>16603923
no, it's not outlined as an "unusual continuity" at all
>Let me ask you this: do you agree it's possible that the Khumry, who disappeared in ~722BC, are related to the Cimmerians, who appeared in ~722BC, under a very similar name?
no considering the welsh are an indo european speaking people and not a semitic people by any chance
someone get a haplogroup autist in here to show the differences between prehistoric celtic populations and bronze age semitic populations
hebrew and welsh are not a mutually intelligible language in the slightest and you've never heard either of them spoken
>Anecdote: Jewish soldiers from "Palestine" who served in the British Army in the 1940s at times wished to spek with each other in Hebrew. It was not easily concenient to advertise their Jewishness so they would explain to the curious who overheard tham that they were speaking "Welsh"!

this was them very clearly being sarcastic

also from that stupid website

> Karel Jongeling at the end of his work says that he himself does not believe in a connection between Welsh and Hebrew.

Welsh is not a descendant of Hebrew, the Welsh are not Semites, this is stupid

looking it up apparently the cimmerians were an iranic people and therefore indoeuropean
the ancient semites that spoke paleohebrew wouldn't have been them either

>>16603941
Focus radiochan. I know this is hard for you, but my question didn't mention welsh at all. I'll ask again:
>do you agree it's possible that the Khumry, who disappeared in ~722BC, are related to the Cimmerians, who appeared in ~722BC, under a very similar name?
(Notice: no mention of welsh!)

>>16603946
Can you give sources for this? Asking sincerely.

>>16603947
no because by that time there were already celts in central europe and italians had already branched off from them some few hundred years prior
it's not a similar name, we don't even know what the cimmerians called themselves (one theory calls it "union of clans")
at any rate by the time of the cimmerians there were already celts in what would become wales, but would not be wales for more than 1000 years later

>>16603931
I make the same point about Tribe of Dan -> Danites -> Danaoi -> Tuatha de Danaan

>>16603946
I just looked it up on Wikipedia since I honestly don't know much about it
AT ANY RATE the ancient Hebrews didn't become any sort of European people until the Hellenistic diaspora, they most definitely were not Celts
a lot of this seems to have its origins in British Israelism, which states that the European """Aryan""" peoples were the Jewish tribes dispersed abroad]
>>16603968
that's also not possible since the CELTS WERE NOT SEMITES

>>16603962
>there were already Celts
My question didn't mention Celts either! Let's focus a bit, buddy:
>do you agree it's possible that the Khumry, who disappeared in ~722BC, are related to the Cimmerians, who appeared in ~722BC, under a very similar name?
To answer your point about not knowing what the Cimmerians called themselves, yes that's valid, but we DO know what the Assyrians called both groups, and the names (Khumry/Gimmirai) are strikingly similar, as anyone will agree. Why did one group disappear in ~722BC and the other group spontaneously appear in ~722BC? You're telling me there's no connection?

>>16603978
I already answered "no"
as in "no connection"
as in "there were already ancestors of the Welsh there, you don't have to pull out any bullshit about Cimmerians, the Welsh are not Cimmerians"
if you can't understand that not my problem

>>16603968
Yes and the Isaac/Issachar -> Saxon connection is another interesting one. Another case where people sperg out without offering an alternative origin story.

>>16603757
>massacred druids for being of a foreign religion
no, they purge the druids for organizing rebellions against the empire not for their religion

>>16603990
If they were supposedly "sons of Isaac," why did they speak a language unrelated to Hebrew, keep nothing of the Law (which even the Ethiopian and Chinese Jews kept), and had a vastly different genetic profile to ancient Semites of that same period?

>>16603986
Back to Welsh again? :\
Sorry your attention span is too short for this discussion lil guy. I'll let you try one more time. Let's not worry about Welsh/Celts yet; let's focus on Khumry/Gimmirai:
>do you agree it's possible that the Khumry, who disappeared in ~722BC, are related to the Cimmerians, who appeared in ~722BC, under a very similar name?

>>16603997
whatever they were, they weren't the Welsh

>>16603999
>back to welsh
*sigh*. Some men you just can't reach
I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from r*diochan

>>16604005
first give me some sources on the khumry
like literally all I see online about them is them talking about what they are in british israelism

found this from wikipedia:
>The identification of "Yahua" as Jehu was questioned by contemporary scholars such as George Smith[9] as well as in more recent times by P. Kyle McCarter and Edwin R. Thiele,[1][2] based on the fact that Jehu was not an Omride, as well as transliteration and chronology issues. However, the name read as "Yaw, son of Omri (Bit-Khumri", see House of Omri), is generally accepted to follow Hincks as the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel.

So, whoever the King of Israel was, it's extremely unlikely he would have been a Cimmerian
so no

>>16604017
The sarcophagi of Shalmaneser III and Tiglath-Pileser III mention Omri/Khomri. There is also the black obelisk of Shalmeneser: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk_of_Shalmaneser_III
The Gimmirai appear beginning with the Prisms of Sargon II: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_II's_Prisms
And of course are mentioned by Herodotus as I'm sure you know.

>>16603931
Well anon, the reason no one has ever taken the time to argue against this information is because the people posting it aren't usually open to changing their minds.
Now, I will try to make a coherent refutation:
I believe your argument is wrong because it supports itself on patently false linguistic comparisons, most of which are only teneable through english translations, which also betray a lack of experience with the material.
>>16603871
>Assyrian documents refer to them as Khumry
Hu-umrii, more or less.
>>Khimmirai/Gimmirai/Cimmerians appear in Assyrian records during the reign of Sargon II (722-705BC)
Invalid linguistic comparison because the Gimirāya of the Akkadians does not ressemble the Humrii (which is always referred to as a house, not a land) spoken of by the assyrians.
Also the Greeks talk about the pontic Cimmerians at dates that put your theory in doubt.
>Cimmerians disappear from historical records around 6th century BC
>Celts spontaneously appear in historical records around 6th century BC
This is a farsical notion for several reasons, chief of which are:
1) We have archeological evidence of the Celts before they appear on the historical record.
2) If such a movement had actually ocurred there would be more evidence of genetic, cultural, and political change coming from the east in central europe around this time. There isn't.
3) The logistics of this had to be miraclous for it to actually happen. Think about it, a group of near eastern Farmers/Priests/Warriors/Sailors get sent to different parts of the Assyrian empire, and on THE SAME YEAR they re-appear as a tribe of unruly nomadic horse nomads?
>Welsh (Cymraegs) appear in historical records around 6th century CE from Celtic origins
Nigger, have you eve bothered learning what Cymru means or what its etymological roots are?
It comes from combrogi (country-men). The welsh language isn't some dark art hidden from you by illuminatii.
Also, Cymraeg is the name of their languague.
cont

>>16603996
>why did they speak a language unrelated to Hebrew, keep nothing of the Law
because they were subverted by a shamanic priestly revolution by Greek merchants, who turned their culture into a cargo cult, with the leader Photinus at the head of a new pantheon (Votan/Woden/Odin)

>>16604005
>Some men you just can't reach
I really wish I understood why the "but steel is heavier than feathers..." mindset is so pervasive, this seems like it should be curable, but its insistently chronic. It's legitimate sub-85 IQ behavior, but at that point a person should hardly be capable of reading and writing, let alone posting on 4chan.

>>16604110
I appreciate the sincere response.
>Invalid linguistic comparison because the Gimirāya of the Akkadians does not ressemble the Humrii (which is always referred to as a house, not a land) spoken of by the assyrians.
Can you point me to your Akkadian source for Gimirāya? On what grounds do you assert there is no resemblance to Humrii? It seems clear that there is, if only based on phonetics.
The assertion that Humrii are a house doesn't seem to invalidate the claim. I'm specifically saying that the *people* were displaced and later reappeared as Gimmirai/Cimmerians. Not that the land itself had that name.
>Also the Greeks talk about the pontic Cimmerians at dates that put your theory in doubt.
Can you provide a source for this? Which Greeks specifically?

>>16603923
More idiotic "Words look similar when transliterated to english hence connection" that proves nothing. Oh, an by the way, Hebrew is a modern reconstructed language.
>>16603931
> okay, fine, but what actually happened to the dispersed Khumric dynasty?
The Omrids probably all died. The jews got assimilated into local near eastern populations except the two tribes who explicitly surive the captivity.
>What actually happened to the Cimmerians?
Exterminated by someone or another, maybe near easterners, Germans, or Scythians, perhaps even all of them at once!
> Where did Cymrics actually come from?
Britain. They are literally just ancient britons.
They have very close genetic continuity with ancient celtic (and maybe pre-celtic) inhabitants of the Island. Down to the beaker folk I'm pretty sure.
>People shoot down the theory I've presented without offering an alternative.
The 'alternatives' to your asinine word comparisons already exist and have for hundreds of years, you just don't bother to look at them.
>>16603968
Anon, the greek Danaoi were thought to be extinct by the greeks when the first capitivity happened...
The tribe of Dan outlived de Danaoi.
Also, how do you even think a greek tribe, specifically the the entire Argive race, would emmigrate to Ireland without anyone writing about it.
>>16603990
I repeat anon, no one has to offer you an alternative. Because those already exist and you need only open an actual history book for once in your life to access it. Any history of the germanics. Any, will give you an 'alternative' to whatever it is you are doing.

>>16603757
Apparently Titus refused a wreath after destroying the Temple in Jerusalem because he saw no merit in vanquishing the Judeans if their god had forsaken them. So clearly normally there would be some respect for other people's gods.

>>16604110
>>Cimmerians disappear from historical records around 6th century BC
>>Celts spontaneously appear in historical records around 6th century BC
>This is a farsical notion for several reasons, chief of which are:
>1) We have archeological evidence of the Celts before they appear on the historical record.
>2) If such a movement had actually ocurred there would be more evidence of genetic, cultural, and political change coming from the east in central europe around this time. There isn't.
>3) The logistics of this had to be miraclous for it to actually happen. Think about it, a group of near eastern >Farmers/Priests/Warriors/Sailors get sent to different parts of the Assyrian empire, and on THE SAME YEAR they re-appear as a tribe of unruly nomadic horse nomads?
I'll concede that the equivalence between Cimmerians and Celts/proto-Celts is the weakest part of the story, but only because Celts were always a very diverse group of tribes that shouldn't have been lumped together any more than Spartans (well, Lycurgan Spartans) and Athenians should be. But the fact remains that, if Herodotus is to be believed, the Cimmerians were driven westward from the Pontic Steppe by the Scythians. What lies west of the Pontic Steppe?

>>16604146
>More idiotic "Words look similar when transliterated to english hence connection" that proves nothing.
Literally all etymology ever was, is, or will be.

This post is incredible because in it OP is simultaneously admitting he's not knowledgeable on history, while also promoting a Judaeocentric historical narrative.

>>16604139
Not that guy, and I do admire your intellectual connections, as you make your argument highly plausible and reasonable, but I do find it exceedingly difficult to reconcile the complete separation of language between Celts and Semites. All of your points are really convincing, but as soon as that's brought up, I really can't figure out a way to get around it other than accepting the default consensus that these were independent peoples who merely happened upon similar phonemes in their demonyms by sheer coincidence.

>>16604187
See >>16604162
We can't say "all Celts were Semites", but we can say "some Celts had Semitic roots through Cimmeria, and those resurfaced in modern Welsh".

>>16603260
So you seriously unironically believe that only Jews and Christianity only ever believed in religious superiority over other religions and that other cultures who were racist towards each other didn’t develop this ?

>>16604139

>Can you point me to your Akkadian source for Gimirāya?
"The Cimmerian Problem Re-Examined: the Evidence of the Classical Sources" Olbrycht, Marek Jan
>In Neo-Babylonian and Babylonian texts of Persian times mention
is made of Cimmerian arrows, bows, and horse equipment. Such elements, given
as characteristic tokens of Cimmerian culture, are common features for nomadic
tribes122. That factor provides a more certain attestation of the assumption that
the Cimmerians were actually a nomadic nation from beyond the Caucasus.
>This view can be vindicated by the fact that the nomadic Saka peoples of
Achaemenid times were designated as Cimmerians (Gimirraia), an identifica-
tion made of course in an anachronistic manner but obviously on the basis of
similar nomadic ways of life represented by both tribes.
If you ask what direct text I draw from it's none. I don't need one. All the evidence you have provided is a few similar-ish names and then assumed the position that you had to be disproven. I've provided more evidence than you citing actual sources.
>On what grounds do you assert there is no resemblance to Humrii?
On what grounds do you assert it does?
And now that we are on the subject, why don't you source your Omri/Khomri/Khimmirai/Gimmira?
A far cry from Gimirāya and humrii.
>Which Greeks specifically?
Miletan greeks who founded Sinope, which was burned by the Cimmerians in the 700s BC. You get no source because you haven't provided any of your own.
>>16604162
> but only because Celts were always a very diverse group of tribes
Indeed. The evidence (or lack thereof) rules out a semitic origin for any of them.
>What lies west of the Pontic Steppe?
Pannonia, Dacia, The Balkans, Carpathians. Plenty of land between them and the Hallstatt culture.

>>16604146
>The Omrids probably all died. The jews got assimilated into local near eastern populations except the two tribes who explicitly surive the captivity.
>>>Literally "they all died. Stop asking questions"
Lmao ok. Very compelling theory

>>16604224
I'm afraid "Marek Jan Olbrycht" is not an Akkadian name...
You are asking me to read an entire book to find your argument (which I intend to do because I am legitimately interested) because you can't refute anything I've said with concise primary sources in a single thread.

>>16604224
>And now that we are on the subject, why don't you source your Omri/Khomri/Khimmirai/Gimmira?
I did, with *primary sources*, here: >>16604040
>Miletan Greeks. You get no source!
Lmao. Ok I accept your concession.
>Pannonia, Dacia, The Balkans, Carpathians. Plenty of land between them and the Hallstatt culture.
Who said anything about Hallstatt culture? All of these were known to the ancient greco-romans as Gauls/Celts.

>>16604179
Well anon this is a tier less because it's the exact same method I've seen Ex-Nazis use to prove certain words in Quichua had Nordic roots.
Maybe even lower. Down there with the turks proving Sumerian was Turkic language.
>>16604196
You know, we would have detected said semitic roots in ways much less obtuse than through phonemic comparison or Ethnonyms. Much less through comparing words that mean a different things.
See, on first instance genetic evidence would have revealed at least trace remains on semitic ancestry if not in modern populations at least in ancient Burials (none exist). Then, assuming this happened, its also natural to find haplogroups at least a little present on celtic or celticized populations (esp Wales). And you can find none in the british isles (bar outliers explainable by other means). But surely we would be able to find material evidence of this Cimmerian westward migration? Nope. None of that either.

>>16604126
weird how Wodan has similarities with the other thunder god sky fathers in the Indo European religions then. Almost as if it was something common to all Indo European peoples and has nothing to do with YHWH. Curious.
>>16604196
no you can't, considering Welsh is phonologically similar to other Celtic languages, most notably Gaulish, Cornish and to an extent modern Breton

>>16604252
>Well anon this is a tier less because it's the exact same method I've seen Ex-Nazis use to prove certain words in Quichua had Nordic roots.
Maybe even lower. Down there with the turks proving Sumerian was Turkic language.
It is not a tier less, because we also have cause to believe the Cimmerians developed some westward momentum after their displacement by the Scyths. We know from Herodotus that a group called Cymrics moved out of eastern Europe and into western Europe. And you're acting like it's some unconnected thing that a group named Cymrics appeared in western europe with a semitic-sounding language.
This is like saying
>well, we know that sometime in late May/early June 1944 english-speaking Americans left the eastern side of the Atlantic for the western side. And we see a group of english-speaking Americans show up on the western side on June 6th... but they are unrelated! And no, I won't explain what happened to the eastern Atlantic Americans, nor where the Western Atlantic Americans came from! It's obvious!

>>16604255
English is similar to Latin, does that mean it isn't similar to German, too?

>>16604264
cimmerians weren't semites tho
also the celts were already there by the time the cimmerians showed up

>>16604267
>Cimmerians weren't Semites
Where did the Cimmerians come from?
>Celts were already there
See >>16604162

>>16604266
English and German are Germanic languages. English became what it is today thanks to a creolization between Norman French and Old English after the Conquest, along with Latin words continuously borrowed into it since the Migration Period.
Which, however, doesn't change the fact that Latin and English both descend from Indo European langauges, Latin thru Italoceltic speakers and English via Germanic speakers.
For an idea as to what Old English may have sounded like look up recordings in modern Frisian, which however has a lot of borrowings from Dutch over the past 1000 years or so.
>>16604270
Scythia, and Cimmerians were thought to have been an Eastern Iranic people, therefore Indo-European.
As it is the Celts were already in Wales by the time of whatever the fuck the Cimmerians were supposed to have been.

>>16604274
>words words words
It's a yes or no question (and the answer is clearly no).
>Scythia, and Cimmerians were thought to have been an Eastern Iranic people, therefore Indo-European.
>As it is the Celts were already in Wales by the time of whatever the fuck the Cimmerians were supposed to have been.
Try reading >>16604162, I implore you.

>>16604282
The question was not a yes or no question. The question was "where did the Cimmerians come from?" I answered Scythia, probably Iran.
That is the answer. If you can't understand that it's still not my problem.

>>16604234
I literally quoted it, buddy. But ok, Page 93. enjoy.
>because you can't refute anything I've said with concise primary sources in a single thread.
Why do I have to do that?
Why can you just make a low effort six line phonemic comparison greentext but I have to bring you primary sources just to get you to budge on anything?
What authority do you have to assume your position is the default?
This is exactly why no one gives you the time of day. Much easier to call you a retard than deal with your cheap tricks.
>>16604247
You linked a wikipedia article, oh great professor.
The word Khomri also doesn't appear in any of those.
>Lmao. Ok I accept your concession.
I accept your transition.
>Who said anything about Hallstatt culture?
That's the origin point of the Celts.
>All of these were known to the ancient greco-romans as Gauls/Celts.
No? The only Celt the greeks interacted with outside of Italy and Massalia were the Galatians, and they were called such.
Thracians were Thracians, Paeonians Paeonians, Illyrians Illyrians.

>>16604284
This >>16604266 is a yes or no question. And the answer is obviously "no".
Give some evidence that they were Scyths. Why did the Scyths want to kill them (also Scyths) and take their land (according to Herodotus)?
>>16604285
>The only Celt the greeks interacted with outside of Italy and Massalia were the Galatians, and they were called such.
Actually, no, Thucydides calls a group engaged in the Peloponnesian war simply "Celts". It was a catch-all term that was around for a very long time, like "Barbarians".

>>16604285
Do you read ancient Assyrian? Can you show me the cuneiform used for "Gimmirai" versus "Khumry"? If not I have to accept the translations and their obvious phonetic connection. There is also the small issue that groups don't just "all die" with no further explanation while other very similar groups don't just "all spawn from nothing". At nearly the same time in nearly the same place.

>>16604300
>Thucydides calls a group engaged in the Peloponnesian war simply "Celts".
This is actually in Xenophon's Hellenica, but still

>>16604300
Because they were recorded as being from Scythia? This is like asking why did Athens and Sparta war against each other since both were from Greece.

>>16604306
The name of the Cimmerians is attested in Akkadian as māt Gimirāya (𒆳𒄀𒂆𒀀𒀀) or awīlū Gimirrāya (𒇽𒄀𒂆𒊏𒀀𒀀),[7][8][9] and in the form Gōmer (גֹּמֶר) in Hebrew.[10][11]

>>16604335
>they simply spawned in Scythia in 722BC, and the Khumry simply despawned from the Assyrian empire around the same time after they were known to have been deported from Israel.

Hit post too soon.
>The Omride dynasty, Omrides or House of Omri (Hebrew: בֵּית עָמְרִי, romanized: Bēt ʿOmrī; Akkadian: 𒂍𒄷𒌝𒊑𒄿, romanized: bīt-Ḫûmrî)
Very clearly different. I can't read ancient Akkadian myself, but I trust people who actually can.

>>16604344
>>16604355
>I can't read Cuneiform
Thanks for providing the script anyway. I'll point out that in roman lettering "Khumry" and "Gimmirai" also bear little visual resemblance, but sound very similar when spoken aloud.

>>16604354
These people weren't called "Khumry" by the Akkadians and the only "sources" I can find for calling them "Khumry" appears to be weird British Israelite Welsh websites. I can find it in a book dating to 1906, but it seems that they just didn't know how to read Akkadian that well at that time, as Assyriology was in its relative infancy.
Also interesting, from the Wikipedia article on the Cimmerians
>After the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the scribes of the Neo-Babylonian Empire which replaced it used the name of the Cimmerians (𒆳𒄀𒈪𒅕 Gimirri; 𒆳𒄀𒂆𒊑 Gimirri) indiscriminately to refer to all of the nomads of the steppes, including both the Pontic Scythians and the Central Asian Saka.[249][178]
At any rate, they weren't Celts.
>>16604370
Why does that mean one became Welsh, wouldn't it be easier that since both Welsh and Iranian come from the same root that they spoke related languages? The Celts were already in what would become Wales at that time and words for kin are relatively unchanged across most of the Indo-European languages; it's thought that the basic words "mother" "daughter" "brother" and "father" are more or less the same spoken by the ancient Indo-Europeans, taking into account Grimm's law.

>>16604378
See the citation for "Bet Ḥumri" here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria_(ancient_city)
Guy is from the jewish encyclopedia; i.e. not a British Israelist.

Here's the weird H (used interchangeably with Kh):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_pharyngeal_fricative

>>16604409
so not "khumri" or whatever
also it's British Israelites who keep saying this in the present day

>>16604378
Cimmerians are known to have moved into Celtic lands. "Celt" is known to be a catch-all term by the Greco-Romans for people in Northwestern Europe. Yes, Celts existed before the Cimmerians in the same way that "Barbarians" existed before Romans encountered people from Barbary.

>>16604413
Ḥ = Kh my guy

>>16604415
Doesn't mean they were Welsh.
>>16604419
Anyone who thinks Hebrew is like Welsh has never heard any of them actually spoken.
Also y'know, false cognates and all.

>>16604422
Hell of a lot of false cognates, and a hell of a coincidence surrounding their origins. Most curious indeed

>>16604422
Do you forget that your mommy is hiding behind her hands when you play peek-a-boo, too? There is something called object permanence y'know.

File: tumblr_pk93tw8nhb1x2s4e2o(...).jpg (125 KB, 619x321)

125 KB JPG

>>16603871
I don't think they went westward...

>>16604455
You calling Herodotus a liar?
The ants were as big as fucking dogs, bro. He saw them with his own eyes.

>>16604455
King Arthur confirmed for Cambodian BVLL

>>16603946
Paleohebrew isn't real. That's a fake language made up by occultists in the middle ages.

>>16604494
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

@16604546
>jewipedia
yup, not clicking that. Try harder next time bro

>>16604561
https://www.omniglot.com/writing/paleohebrew.htm
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancient-alphabet/paleo-hebrew-alphabet.htm
https://www.paleohebrewdictionary.org/alphabet/

>>16604589
>hebrew
Bitch i aint trust no jews

>>16603260
If they were willing to hear out other religions it was a mistake on their part

>>16603279
which works?