SteelHead wrote:He may be quoted, but the ideas postulated by many in that milieu about connections between American natives and Hebrews have been discarded to the trash heap of failed ideas.
It is true though that historians from all different centuries and countries stated native Americans based on their culture and language and artifacts were some how related to Hebrews.
The dna discredits it. The archeological evidence discredits it. There is no legitimate evidence that supports your conclusion. Just old conjecture with the addition of your new conjecture. The dna alone is enough to throw it out the window.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
SteelHead wrote:The dna discredits it. The archeological evidence discredits it. There is no legitimate evidence that supports your conclusion. Just old conjecture with the addition of your new conjecture. The dna alone is enough to throw it out the window.
The DNA states that the closes genetic link to Native American to Native American x2a is Iran or the Middle East. Native American culture artifacts and language ties to the Middle East all show an old world tie to the Middle East showing that either dating of haplo group X is incorrect or there was a trans ocean voyage from the Middle East to North America that anthropologist have not validated.
“We surveyed our Old World haplogroup X mtDNAs for the five diagnostic X2a mutations (table 2) and found a match only for the transition at np 12397 in a Nannagle X2* sequence from Iran. In a parsimony tree, this Iranian mtDNA would share a common ancestor with the Native American clade.” (Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA haplogroup X,
SteelHead wrote:He may be quoted, but the ideas postulated by many in that milieu about connections between American natives and Hebrews have been discarded to the trash heap of failed ideas.
It is true though that historians from all different centuries and countries stated native Americans based on their culture and language and artifacts were some how related to Hebrews.
nope.
Q: Are Native Americans a lost tribe of Israel, Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, or any other people mentioned in the Bible?
A: No. These Biblical events happened only a few thousand years ago. Native Americans were already here. Also, Middle Easterners are Caucasians. American Indians are Mongoloid. (Indians have epicanthic eye folds, like the Chinese do.) Amerindian languages do NOT show any relation to Semitic languages, this data was faked.
Q: Did a lost tribe of Israel sail to America and join the Indians, maybe?
A: It's doubtful. It would have been a long trip, and there's no evidence to suggest it. No Israelite ruins have been found, no oral histories of native peoples mention it, no Semitic art or technology infusions happened in the Americas, and there aren't any Israelite records of such a journey....
Q: But I really, really want to believe that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel!
A: No one is stopping you, but using made-up vocabulary lists and implausible 'evidence' to prop up your beliefs is bad science and bad faith. If you want to believe, then believe; you shouldn't need evidence to have faith, and you certainly shouldn't need fake evidence.http://www.native-languages.org/iaq9.htm
SteelHead wrote:The dna discredits it. The archeological evidence discredits it. There is no legitimate evidence that supports your conclusion. Just old conjecture with the addition of your new conjecture. The dna alone is enough to throw it out the window.
The DNA states that the closes genetic link to Native American to Native American x2a is Iran or the Middle East. Native American culture artifacts and language ties to the Middle East all show an old world tie to the Middle East showing that either dating of haplo group X is incorrect or there was a trans ocean voyage from the Middle East to North America that anthropologist have not validated.
“We surveyed our Old World haplogroup X mtDNAs for the five diagnostic X2a mutations (table 2) and found a match only for the transition at np 12397 in a Nannagle X2* sequence from Iran. In a parsimony tree, this Iranian mtDNA would share a common ancestor with the Native American clade.” (Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA haplogroup X,
15k year old dna does not support your conclusions.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
bomgeography wrote: How would a historian write a history let's say 300 years ago without using historical documents. I challenge you to discredit father Le Clercq writings. he is extensively quoted by all historians concerning that timeframe and tribes he encountered. Your reasoning isn't logical.
Historians are very critical of historical documents and what may be claimed. Just because someone writes something down does not mean it should be taken as accurate. Most of what gets written down in the past can be based on popular ideas of the day. In Joseph's Smith day the idea of natives being descendants of Israel was very popular. Interesting he just happens to provide a book making that claim even though all the sciences today reject this due to mountains of available evidence.
bomgeography wrote: How would a historian write a history let's say 300 years ago without using historical documents. I challenge you to discredit father Le Clercq writings. he is extensively quoted by all historians concerning that timeframe and tribes he encountered. Your reasoning isn't logical.
Historians are very critical of historical documents and what may be claimed. Just because someone writes something down does not mean it should be taken as accurate. Most of what gets written down in the past can be based on popular ideas of the day. In Joseph's Smith day the idea of natives being descendants of Israel was very popular. Interesting he just happens to provide a book making that claim even though all the sciences today reject this due to mountains of available evidence.
It's more than just Joseph Smith day. It includes the16th 17th 18th and 19th century. Current confirmed artifacts, DNA, language, culture.
tapirrider wrote:David, please answer me why you used a fake tribe to try to prop up your claim.
bomgeography wrote: I do not think you read my research my research has nothing to do with a specific tribe. It has to do with artifacts, known comparisons of historians comparing the Cherokee language to Greek. And known Cherokee words that have Greek origins and the research of Dr Donald n Yates.
As far as a comment in the comment section in THIS forum about a specific tribe. Take that up with the Cherokee tribe that you think is fake and the history channel.
David, you are not answering my question and I am taking this matter up with you, not with a fake tribe that IS NOT Cherokee. Let's review what is going on here.
tapirrider wrote:All anyone has to do is read the Bureau of Indian Affairs final determination against granting the Central Band of Cherokee federal tribal status. It is signed by Larry Echo Hawk, who is now an LDS general authority. http://bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents ... 017585.pdf
The BIA document tells is all. It lays out the efforts and pseudo nonsense that Joe White (a.k.a. Sitting Owl) and others tried to use to get federal recognition of their fake tribe. Page 18 sums it all up by stating that not even one of the so called Indians could show that they were descended from any Indian tribe.
"The evidence shows the petitioner’s members and claimed ancestors were consistently identified as non-Indians living in non-Indian communities."
"none of the group’s members have demonstrated descent from a historical Indian tribe or tribes that combined."
David, they are fakes, frauds and not even Cherokee. So again I am asking you, why did you present them to me?