Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Archaeologists Announce Discovery Of Underwater Man-Made Wall (Very Old)
China Post ^ | 11-26-2002

Posted on 11/26/2002 7:57:18 AM PST by blam

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 851-861 next last
To: A.J.Armitage
>Prove it.

Go look it up yourself and stop being such a self-centered arrogant little twit. I have no intention of typing many pages of examples just so you won't have to do your homework before you shoot of your oversize mouth.

151 posted on 11/27/2002 1:26:58 PM PST by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Imagine taking 3 hours to accelerate from 0 to 1000 miles an hour and then another three hours to go back to 0. The acceleration would not be great at all, barely perceptable.

That going up 1 mile per hour every 10.8 seconds. You wouldn't feel it acceleration wise. The winds would pick up all day though.

152 posted on 11/27/2002 1:38:00 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan; blam
Do you know of any website where I might take a look at the 'faces'?
153 posted on 11/27/2002 1:50:01 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Here's a site with some cool music. Blam's probably got a better link with fuller pictures.
154 posted on 11/27/2002 1:58:44 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
From dictionary.com:
tur·key    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (tûrk)
n. pl. tur·keys

1.
a. A large North American bird (Meleagris gallopavo) that has brownish plumage and a bare wattled head and neck and is widely domesticated for food.
b. A related bird (Agriocharis ocellata) of Mexico and Central America, brilliantly colored and having eyelike spots on its tail.


2. Slang.
a. A person considered inept or undesirable.
b. A failure, especially a failed theatrical production or movie.

3. Sports. Three consecutive strikes in bowling.

Idiom:
talk turkey Informal

To speak frankly and get down to the basic facts of a matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[After Turkey, from a confusion with the guinea fowl, once believed to have originated in Turkish territory.]

A few words that sound similar do not make a connection. You need a pattern, which means especially a pattern of change, such as the initial Ps becoming Fs (Pater/Father).

And while I'm mentioning it, explain how all these Hebrews wound up talking in languages so much like Latin.

155 posted on 11/27/2002 2:03:02 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
I've seen the pix Santha Faiia took off of Okinawa, but I was wondering if there are other shots beside hers posted at GrahamHancock.com.
156 posted on 11/27/2002 2:03:56 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
Go look it up yourself and stop being such a self-centered arrogant little twit. I have no intention of typing many pages of examples just so you won't have to do your homework before you shoot of your oversize mouth.

Translation: "I got nothing."

157 posted on 11/27/2002 2:05:34 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; #3Fan
"Blam's probably got a better link with fuller pictures."

Sorry, don't have any.

158 posted on 11/27/2002 2:56:36 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Here's a picture showing size.
159 posted on 11/27/2002 4:04:27 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
A few words that sound similar do not make a connection. You need a pattern, which means especially a pattern of change, such as the initial Ps becoming Fs (Pater/Father).

The tribes went through the Caucusus and Turkey. That's one of many examples. If you don't want to believe it then you don't want to believe it. There isn't anything I can do to prove it to you, circumstancial evidence will never mean anything to you. I think it's obvious, especially with the Scandinavian languages. They have an Hebrew accent in my opinion.

And while I'm mentioning it, explain how all these Hebrews wound up talking in languages so much like Latin.

The same way the world speaks English now. When in Rome...

160 posted on 11/27/2002 4:09:21 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I've seen the pix Santha Faiia took off of Okinawa, but I was wondering if there are other shots beside hers posted at GrahamHancock.com.

I have excellent pictures here in my Archaelogy mags showing the headdress and everything. Those two I posted are the best I can find on the net. I simply did a search on "underwater structures okinawa". Maybe "head headdress okinawa" would get something.

161 posted on 11/27/2002 4:12:46 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
I might as well add that you have a total of 112 years for supposedly 6 million people to stop speaking Hebrew and start speaking Celtic (which they learn from where, exactly?) Just absurd. How and from where do they all so suddenly learn this other language (not even the language of their conquerors?)

I think you're estimating the populations of the civilized countries of classical and late-preclassical times too high. For instance, archaeologists have uncovered several of the Mycenaean Greek cities that according to Homer contributed to the force sent against Troy. The catalog of ships from various cities in the Iliad is quite long and gives some impressive numbers. However, Pylos and Mycenae couldn't possibly have sent the forces Homer describes if every man, woman, and child went off to the war. They were far too small. But then Troy itself was far smaller than the high-towered, multi-gated Ilium Homer describes. In short, the whole thing was considerably overblown by later generations.

Nothing was that big back then. Rome, with probably tens of thousands of people in classical times, was about as big as any city got at the time. It became utterly dependent on Egyptian wheat. It's hard to feed a big city with cart-horse-and-trireme technology.

Six million people in the Northern Kingdown of Israel alone would be seriously straining the resources of such a small spot even if it was much more fertile then than now. They'd probably have kicked the tail of anyone trying to conquer them, though, just by superior numbers.

162 posted on 11/27/2002 4:13:03 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Nice link. The underwater 'thing' at Graham's site is off the coast of Okinawa and would have been above water level at the end of the last Ice Age ... and it is conjectured that the site was a ruin even before it became a sumberged site, covered by the rising waters of the ice age ending.

I saw a TV show which examined this particular site and the claims being made about it; at first glance it looked like a man made site, but as the camera moved around and you were able to see the site with divers next to it giving it proper size context and proper proportions, it became obvious that this was a natural site. The rock simply broke off in layers which made portions of it look like steps, but the steps were uneven and did not lead anywhere. There was no evidence of any marks made by human tools. There was nothing to indicate that it was man made; it is, in fact, a natural rock formation.

I'm not saying that there are not ancient pre-historical sites to be found underwater, only that this particular site is not one of them.

163 posted on 11/27/2002 4:21:02 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I started in Genesis 1 verse one just to see how long it took to get a match. earth (English) = erets (pronunciation in Hebrew) in Gen1:1. It didn't take very long at all. Of course it means nothing to you I'm sure. Like Lost Tribe, I'm not going to spend a day going through it listing a couple hundred of them for you just for you to say "coincidence". Look and you shall find, if you don't want to find, you won't know it when you see it.
164 posted on 11/27/2002 4:25:48 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
The tribes went through the Caucusus and Turkey.

LOL!

So you're telling me they named the area after the bird, and then named another bird after a mistaken identification with a third bird thought to live in the area? Is that your claim?

BTW, it wasn't called Turkey back then.

The same way the world speaks English now. When in Rome...

Except that the Celts didn't speak Latin, they spoke languages related to Latin. Some still speak the old Celtic languages, and the rest speak Germanic languages, which are also related to but also obviously aren't Latin. So it would be like speaking Dutch because English is the predominent language.

BTW, Latin wasn't the dominent language yet when the Celts showed up.

165 posted on 11/27/2002 4:39:38 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
There was no evidence of any marks made by human tools. There was nothing to indicate that it was man made; it is, in fact, a natural rock formation. I'm not saying that there are not ancient pre-historical sites to be found underwater, only that this particular site is not one of them.

Care to revise or extend your remarks? :^)

166 posted on 11/27/2002 4:46:48 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Minimal research turns up the Old English word, eorthe. Now show a pattern in a predonderence of Germanic and Celtic languages, living and dead, of "ere" becoming "eor", "t" becoming "th" (or the local equivalent), and "s" becoming "e" (which was pronounced in Old English).

No doubt you'll tell me to "do my own research", or some such nonsense. But it's your research. You made the claim. You prove it.

167 posted on 11/27/2002 4:53:52 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
"The aboriginals in Taiwan are of Polynesian origin, not Chinese."

I think the Polynesian are a combination of Chinese, Jomon, Ainu and perhaps a little Negrito.

168 posted on 11/27/2002 4:54:23 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
LOL! So you're telling me they named the area after the bird, and then named another bird after a mistaken identification with a third bird thought to live in the area? Is that your claim?

No, there's only one situation where the tookee is mentioned in the bible and that's the story of Solomon's mines. I believe that Solomon being the wisest man ever was able to use his wisdom to know where the purest gold was in the world and to know where the best wood for musical instruments was in the world. That of course is in South America where both the best gold in the world existed and where the best wood for instruments was located, the Brazilian Redwood. It's conceivable that if the returning ships used the currents of the Atlantic to return that they could've picked up some North American turkeys and the ancient name was passed down almost in it's pure pronunciation. The bible says that it was these gold mining ships that brought this wood back and that's the only time in the history of Israel and Judah that that this kind of wood was in Israel, so it couldn't have been from any tree nearby, relatively speaking. I believe Turkey is named after some other work, pronounced Turkyea or something like that in ancient times. I don't see the importance of it. You said the word turkey had it's roots in Turkey. That would make sense since that's one of the routes a segment of the tribes took to Europe, although most went through the Caucusus. The bird turkey and the country Turkey are two different words obviously. We spell them the same as a fluke of our language.

BTW, it wasn't called Turkey back then.

I didn't mention the obvious, I guess I should've for you.

Except that the Celts didn't speak Latin, they spoke languages related to Latin. Some still speak the old Celtic languages, and the rest speak Germanic languages, which are also related to but also obviously aren't Latin. So it would be like speaking Dutch because English is the predominent language. BTW, Latin wasn't the dominent language yet when the Celts showed up.

All the modern languages are similar. If not for modern media and modern transportation, the Cajuns would probably have their own language by now different from the rest of America.

If you don't want to believe that's fine with me. It's bible prophecy anyway. The bible says that Israel will not know who they are in the last days. I like discussing this with like-minded people. If you don't have an ear for it, then you don't have an ear for it.

169 posted on 11/27/2002 5:08:48 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Picture didn't transfer. See my first link above.
170 posted on 11/27/2002 5:09:40 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Minimal research turns up the Old English word, eorthe. Now show a pattern in a predonderence of Germanic and Celtic languages, living and dead, of "ere" becoming "eor", "t" becoming "th" (or the local equivalent), and "s" becoming "e" (which was pronounced in Old English).

Another coincidence. OK. Like I said, we could go all day like this.

No doubt you'll tell me to "do my own research", or some such nonsense. But it's your research. You made the claim. You prove it.

Every example I show, you'll say "coincidence". I don't care if you believe it or not. End of conversation

171 posted on 11/27/2002 5:12:13 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You are wasting your time reasoning with one of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge. A real knowledge and understanding of history, linguistics, archeology, and everything else is the first thing to be jettisoned (assuming one ever possessed it in the first place) once one becomes obsessed with a particular KOOK theory, and the alleged "lost" tribes of Israel tends to attract KOOK theories faster than honey attracts flies.

There's no evidence of Celtic speaking peoples in ancient Israel, no evidence of Hebrew speaking peoples in ancient Celtic Europe, no evidence of any mass migrations from the Levant into Europe.

In fact, the whole "lost tribes of Israel" is a myth invented long after the alleged events were said to have occurred. The Assyrians never transferred entire populations; at most the elites of the various conquered peoples were transferred. The same people who were the "lost" tribes of Israel were still living in Israel when the "Jews" of Babylon "returned" from "exile" even though some of these Jews were converts and had no ancestors who lived in ancient Israel or Judah. These "returning" Jews were in fact practicing a new, "revealed" religion, heavily influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism, and they naturally pretended that the natives of Judah and Israel were "foreigners" imported by the Assyrians, because they were worshipping under the old religion of Israel and Judah, not the then newfangled monotheism of the "returning" exiles.

The "lost tribes of Israel" myth was concocted to delegitimize and to demonize the native inhabitants of Israel and Judah who had been living there since before the Kingdom of Israel existed; these peoples eventually became the Samaritans (practicing a rival form of Judaism), or they became the much reviled "peoples of the land" who were Jews but never accepted as equals by the returning Jewish "exiles". Much of the hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees can be traced back to this conflict between the Zoroastrian influenced Judaism of the Pharisees, and the older traditional beliefs of the "peoples of the land".

In fact, this use of religious myth by early Judaism (during the post-Babylonian "exile") is not unlike how the myths of Zionism are now used to delegitimize and demonize the Muslim and Christian Palestinians who have been living in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years, and whose ancestors are the very same ancient Israelites who were shunned and condemned by the "returning" Jewish "exiles" from Babylon.

Religious myths are powerful political weapons in the hands of those who are seeking entirely worldly ends.

172 posted on 11/27/2002 5:15:30 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
Keepers Of Odd Knowledge

Adding that one to my lexicon!

173 posted on 11/27/2002 5:19:51 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
In fact, this use of religious myth by early Judaism (during the post-Babylonian "exile") is not unlike how the myths of Zionism are now used to delegitimize and demonize the Muslim and Christian Palestinians who have been living in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years, and whose ancestors are the very same ancient Israelites who were shunned and condemned by the "returning" Jewish "exiles" from Babylon.

I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians these days, especially after seeing the reaction in Nablus and elsewhere to 911. It left a coldness inside.

174 posted on 11/27/2002 5:23:05 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Care to revise or extend your remarks? :^)

Since your image didn't show up, no.

All I can comment on is the TV special which aired these claims. They provided no evidence of the use of human tools on these stones, in the TV special. They merely showed people claiming that these stones "looked man made", which was an entirely subjective opinion. Closer inspection undermined that opinion.

There are lots of natural rock formations that can "look man made" (they used one of them from New Zealand for the Amon Sul sequences in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" movie, for instance).

What would be convincing evidence of human origin would be rocks with tool marks on them (unlikely if these humans did not have metal tools), or carefully interlocked stones forming a structure, which obviously could not be formed naturally.

The TV special I saw showed a single, very large rock formation, with some interesting shapes, which, however evocative, were easily the product of natural rock formation and erosion.

175 posted on 11/27/2002 5:23:36 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Keepers Of Odd Knowledge

Adding that one to my lexicon!

Well, it isn't my invention. I "stole" the phrase from Rush Limbaugh.

176 posted on 11/27/2002 5:25:08 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians these days, especially after seeing the reaction in Nablus and elsewhere to 911. It left a coldness inside.

Your reaction was formed through exposure 24/7 to our controlled news media. It is an entirely one sided version of events.

One would think that American Christians would show a little sympathy to their Christian brothers and sisters in Israel/Palestine, but apparently not. "Judeo-Christian" Zionism trumps everything.

Also our tax dollars are going to fund and arm the state which is raining bombs, guided missiles, and bullets on women and children, and justifying it in the name of these religious myths. Small wonder if these Palestinians don't care for us.

Be that as it may, it would not matter to me who was killing who, or what demonic purposes these religious myths were being put to, if I was not being forced to support these myths with my tax dollars, and if these myths were not being used to drag us into an inevitable series of wars for an empire which the American people do not want to have, paid for with the lives of their sons.

It just isn't something you should want, even if you despise every Palestian that ever drew breath.

177 posted on 11/27/2002 5:32:26 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: blam
I was thinking the exact same thing, I wonder if this civilization could be related to the Kennewick man? Maybe?
178 posted on 11/27/2002 5:33:55 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; LostTribe; #3Fan; VadeRetro; PaulKersey; Little Bill
I'll add my two cents worth.

I've read the linguists have traced the origin of all Indo-European languages back to Anatolia. In the period 5,000-6,000BC this whole area was dry and arid. Any humans living there were huddled around the fresh water Black Sea, fishing and irrigation farming.
Then in 5,600BC, the 'dam' at the Bosporus collapsed and flooded the Black Sea (Noah's Flood?) with salt water, all villages and farm land are now 350 feet underwater.
This was a catastrophy of enormous impact, we're still talking about it 7,500 years later.

Now, this saltwater flooding would have made refugees of almost everyone in the area and they would have streamed up the river valleys into Europe (and elsewhere) displacing everyone in their path. This group of people probably brought their language and introduced farming to Europe and Mesopatamia, even to East Central China as the Tocharians.(See 'Cherchen Man')

I believe these people would eventually become to be known as the Celts, Phoenicians, Scythians, Tocharians and later Picts after mixing some with the Chinese in the Tarim Basin of China and re-migrating. The Xiongnu, in China, were the oriental version of the Picts

In fact, some of these people may have made it all the way to Japan and eventually become known as the Jomon and Ainu....maybe even the Hakka Chinese.

These 'Black Sea' folks are the anscestors of all the folks you all have been fussing about.

179 posted on 11/27/2002 5:34:04 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: blam
Anyone who's ever played the game of Risk knows that civilization starts in the South Pacific.
180 posted on 11/27/2002 5:34:09 PM PST by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #181 Removed by Moderator

To: #3Fan
"It's conceivable that if the returning ships used the currents of the Atlantic to return that they could've picked up some North American turkeys and the ancient name was passed down almost in it's pure pronunciation. "

Intriguing...I like it! (Solomon's mines were probably in Peru)

182 posted on 11/27/2002 5:41:36 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Translation: "I got nothing."

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!

I've yet to hear from one of these crank theorists who has ever demonstrated even the most elementary knowledge of linguistics, history, or archeology. They simply cherry pick bits and pieces of information that happen to fit whatever theory they are flogging.

183 posted on 11/27/2002 5:42:51 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
It's conceivable that if the returning ships used the currents of the Atlantic to return that they could've picked up some North American turkeys and the ancient name was passed down almost in it's pure pronunciation.

Uh huh. Where's the Anglo-Saxon version of the word "turkey"?

You said the word turkey had it's roots in Turkey. That would make sense since that's one of the routes a segment of the tribes took to Europe, although most went through the Caucusus. The bird turkey and the country Turkey are two different words obviously. We spell them the same as a fluke of our language.

No, Dictionary.com said the settlers named it after the country because they mistakenly thought the bird also lived there. Remember, turkeys can be called turkey buzzards. Since "buzzard" is unpleasant, it's usually dropped. It's similar to Jerusalem artichokes (which also have nothing to do with the place they're named for, it's a mangling of "girasole").

Turkey, the country, is named after the Turks, who were originally from Central Asia. There are still Turks there; Turkmenistan is one of the fomerly Soviet countries.

All the modern languages are similar.

Eh? Chinese is similar to Russian?

If not for modern media and modern transportation, the Cajuns would probably have their own language by now different from the rest of America.

They do have their own language, a dialect of French. I think it's still around.

184 posted on 11/27/2002 5:43:18 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

Comment #185 Removed by Moderator

To: VadeRetro
>I think you're estimating the populations of the civilized countries of classical and late-preclassical times too high.

Fair enuf.  I believe this refutes your claim of "too many" Israelites.

    1 Chronicles 21:5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

    1 Kings  20: 15 Then he mustered the young leaders of the provinces, and there were two hundred and thirty-two; and after them he mustered all the people, all the children of Israel--seven thousand.

    1 Kings 20:20 And each one killed his man; so the Syrians fled, and Israel pursued them; and Ben-Hadad the king of Syria escaped on a horse with the cavalry.

Why don't these numbers match up?  1 Kings suggests there were very few Northern Kingdom Israelites alive only several hundred years after David's census.  Let's examine the historical context:

David took over rulership of the insignificant Kingdom of Israel from Saul in 1010 BC and quickly built it into "perhaps the single most powerful kingdom on earth at that time".  (REF: Halleys Bible Handbook.)  When David took his official census of ALL the Israelites prior to the end of his reign in 970BC it had grown to between 5 Million and 8 Million people.

     1 Chron 21:5-6  In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.  But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the king's command was repulsive to him.

So, there are 470,000 fighting men in Judah alone, plus 630,000 in the North, with Levi and Benjamin uncounted. 1.1M x 6 = 6.6 Million total Israelites, plus the uncounted Levites and Benjamites.  Whatever else may have been going on there, there is no doubt that the Kingdom of Israel was a major population center in that part of the world.  (It would be similar in population to almost the entire Chicago Metro area today.)

At only 6 Million people, Israel then made up 10% of the global population, as large relatively as the United States and Canada and much of Mexico combined.  The pre-split Davidic Kingdom of Israel was not just a trivial blip in history, but a major population force.

After the death of David and Solomon, the Kingdoms split into the northern Kingdom of Israel, (taking with it the Name and Title Israel along with the Birthright), and the southern Kingdom of Judah (which took the sceptre).  From these naming rights alone we can assume the 10 tribed Northern Kingdom was not smaller than the Southern Kingdom, and was probably a lot larger.  The Kingdom of Judah of course picked up parts of the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, however small that contribution may have been.

So in 931 BC we can safely assume the Kingdom of Israel (the new northern Kingdom) had at last 4 Million members, and probably closer to 5 Million.  That's almost a Million fighting men.

The next significant checkpoint in history is the battle of Quarqar only a hundred years later, in 853 BC. King Shalmaneser 3 of Assyria was already making his move on the small nations along the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean, and was eyeing the large Kingdom of Israel.  A large stone tablet in The British Museum reports a coalition of forces including a small force of Israelites (200 chariots and 10,000 men) and others, led by King Ahab, held back the Assyrians advance. But the Assyrians claimed victory (for they owned the tablet) by killing of 14,000 Israelites.  But there had to be a whole lot more Israelites than that who fought the Assyrians to a draw.

Shalmaneser tried to capture the Israelites again in 850 BC, and was thwarted again by another coalition of forces, including Israel. This is recorded on the same famous Black Obelisk, erected in Nineveh and discovered by Layard in 1846 AD.  (The Black Obelisk is in the British Museum, along with 23,000 Assyrian tablets and monuments documenting the people, events, and times.)  In 850 BC we have no reason to believe there were fewer northern Israelites, but probably more.  At least 5 Million total, probably more like 6 Million, a solid One Million fighting men.

Now along comes I Kings 20:15 talking about the same King Ahab suggesting there were only 7,000 total Israelites in the North, so we presume about 1,000 warriors.  But the Assyrians said there was a HUGE force against them, made up of warriors from many countries and city states, of which only 10,000 were Israelite warriors. And the Assyrians killed 14,000 of them while fighting to a draw.

Something is not adding up here. This sole population citation from I Kings 20 is WAY out of line with the rest of the Biblical population accounts, and with the voluminous historical accounts of the Assyrians.  If I Kings 20 had said "...King Ahab donated 150 chariots and 7,000 fighting men to the coalition..." it would make perfect sense.  As it is, the single low number stands out like a sore thumb.  I believe this I Kings citation must be a mistranslation, or there was a simple copy error somewhere along the way.

But assume for moment I Kings 20:15 is literally true.  That would mean in only 80 years (931 BC - 853 BC), the great and powerful Northern Kingdom of 6 MILLION citizens shrank to only 7 THOUSAND???  Oh, Really?????  Now that would be some kind of undocumented Holocaust.  I don't think so.

Playing heavily into interpretation of Kings and Chronicles are such powerful collateral Biblical verses as Hosea 1:9-11

            .....for you are not my people, and I am not your God.

            " Yet the number of the children of Israel
             Shall be as the sand of the sea,
             Which cannot be measured or numbered.
             And it shall come to pass
             In the place where it was said to them,
             "You are not My people,
             There it shall be said to them,
             "You are sons of the living God.'

             Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel
             Shall be gathered together, and appoint for themselves one head

This "Great Nation" promise was to the Kingdom of Israel (the Northern Kingdom), not to the Kingdom of Juadh, and it speaks of the coming growth of Celtic Europe and America, followed by the rejoining of "the sticks", the "the Kingdoms".  The Great Nation promised here cannot come to pass if it shrinks to the size of an insignificant American Indian Tribe (even if it has it's own Casino).

In contrast, the Southern Kingdom, after returning from Babylonian captivity never became a great nation among the giants of the globe.  It has instead maintained a relationship with it's prosperous and generous Celtic cousins around the world, living among them whenever possible, to this day.

Finally, the default "excuse" for where the Lost Tribes of Israel went, "Well, they musta been assimilated", is 2nd only to "The dog ate my homework" in the creative history department.  Like the lost homework, the trail of that exuse is also without documentation. That dog don't hunt!

186 posted on 11/27/2002 5:47:48 PM PST by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Eva
"I was thinking the exact same thing, I wonder if this civilization could be related to the Kennewick man? Maybe?"

Maybe.

187 posted on 11/27/2002 5:54:18 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
No, it's almost certainly the big numbers that are inflated. And your story doesn't add up. Needs work.
188 posted on 11/27/2002 5:57:27 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: blam
Indo-European languages back to Anatolia

Hittite is the only Indoeuropean language that I can find that was dominate in a portion of Anatolia and it was heavily infitrated with Luuvian, a non Indoeuropean language.

Everything that I have read suggests that Indoeuropean spread from the stepp East of Persia and spread East to India and the Eastern boarders of China, then West to Persia, then North to Europe.

189 posted on 11/27/2002 5:59:20 PM PST by Little Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
>And your story doesn't add up. Needs work.

There is no way you could have honestly analyzed that long post in this short time. I doubt you even read it. It appears your head is up and locked, and not open to evidence of any sort. Goodbye.

190 posted on 11/27/2002 6:01:33 PM PST by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
This theory about the "lost" tribes going through Turkey comes from those who know about the Galatians in "Turkey" (actually, what was then known as Asia or Anatolia), but who apparently don't know how the Celtic-speaking Galatians got there, illustrating once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Every historical record that we have from the Greeks, Romans, and others shows that the Celts were native to northern Europe, and invaded Greece and Anatolia through the Balkans - ie, moving from north to south. There are no historical records of Celts invading Europe from the other direction. Every scrap of archeological knowledge we have supports the views of the ancient Greek and Roman historians and writers on this point.

Pretending that the Celts suddenly "appeared" in Europe circa 600BC or so is not unlike claiming that the ancient Egyptians suddenly "appeared" in Egypt shortly before the pyramids were built, having been brought there by aliens in space ships: in other words, a very "entertaining" version of events, but not one supported by the evidence. Of course, knowing what is and what is not evidence takes a lot more effort and study than most people are willing to put up with, so the "entertaining" theory will always find a ready and willing group of believers.

191 posted on 11/27/2002 6:03:42 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
...big numbers that are inflated.

The size of armies, in ancient times, were always exagerated, most were little better than a mob with no standard ogranization.</p.

192 posted on 11/27/2002 6:05:35 PM PST by Little Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
There is no way you could have honestly analyzed that long post in this short time.

Actually, I was the fastest reader in the First Grade.

It didn't take a lot of analysis to see that you didn't address the problems pointed out already. There's no time and no mechanism to turn Lost Tribes of Israel into Celts.

193 posted on 11/27/2002 6:07:12 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: blam
[On this theory, entire cities ended up underwater after sea levels rose towards the end of the last Ice Age, a date cited by Plato as being some 9,600 years ago.]

Does this mean there was global warming back then? Holy moly! Somebody better call Tommy Daschole and the dims.

PS: If possible, I would like to be added to your ping list on archeology/anthropology. Thanks :O)

194 posted on 11/27/2002 6:11:39 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Bill
You got it. Flavius Josephus is a known historian who could not write down a number without first multiplying by something between four and ten. Even the size of mountains is subject to this bizarre inflation in his work.

Evidently, his disease was pretty common in ancient and classical times.
195 posted on 11/27/2002 6:12:15 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: blam
I hadn't seen the Black Sea dam-bust connected to the Indoeuropean diffusion before, but it's possible for all I know. Thanks!
196 posted on 11/27/2002 6:16:14 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
"PS: If possible, I would like to be added to your ping list on archeology/anthropology. Thanks :O)"

Sorry, don't have a ping list, I'll try to remember you though.

197 posted on 11/27/2002 6:18:17 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
Another view as to the fate of the lost tribes and the origins of modern Jewry.
198 posted on 11/27/2002 6:19:11 PM PST by annflounder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"I hadn't seen the Black Sea dam-bust connected to the Indoeuropean diffusion before, but it's possible for all I know. Thanks!"

Ryan & Pittman proposed this idea in their book Noah's Flood, they're the gents who proposed then proved that the Black Sea was flooded, and they think it was Noah's Flood. BTW, excellent book. (I think something similar may have happened to the Gulf Of Mexico.)

199 posted on 11/27/2002 6:27:28 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
Since your image didn't show up, no.

Follow the link in post #154.

All I can comment on is the TV special which aired these claims. They provided no evidence of the use of human tools on these stones, in the TV special. They merely showed people claiming that these stones "looked man made", which was an entirely subjective opinion. Closer inspection undermined that opinion.

So the head linked in post #154 is a natural formation?

There are lots of natural rock formations that can "look man made" (they used one of them from New Zealand for the Amon Sul sequences in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" movie, for instance).

The Empire State building looks man made too. It's because it is man made. Is the Sphinx man made or natural?

What would be convincing evidence of human origin would be rocks with tool marks on them (unlikely if these humans did not have metal tools), or carefully interlocked stones forming a structure, which obviously could not be formed naturally.

How about a face with eyes and a headdress.? Hard to see tool marks on something that's been underwater for thousands years and undoubtedly been slightly eaten away.

The TV special I saw showed a single, very large rock formation, with some interesting shapes, which, however evocative, were easily the product of natural rock formation and erosion.

Yep. Is the Sphinx natural too?

200 posted on 11/27/2002 6:33:22 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 851-861 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson