Ice Age

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I expect there's so much about all this that we don't understand.

I expect you're right.   

[k-pappy]

I expect there's so much about all this that we don't understand.

I expect you're right.   

I expect you're right about marc being right 

In Christ,
KP

[Bonnie]

I guess we're at a dead end!   
Thanks for the help and posts.

God Bless

[mike]

I guess we're at a dead end!  
Thanks for the help and posts.

God Bless

Maybe we are at a dead end. But another thought worth floating here is that the geneologies are probably incomplete. In fact, they were probably listed for various different reasons in different places in scripture, and some geneologies differ when listed in different places.

If they are incomplete, then they are certainly less useful for calculating dates.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

In fact, they were probably listed for various different reasons in different places in scripture, and some geneologies differ when listed in different places.

What are some of the different reasons for having a geneology?  I mean, other than preserving a written record of a certain bloodline.

[mike]

In fact, they were probably listed for various different reasons in different places in scripture, and some geneologies differ when listed in different places.

What are some of the different reasons for having a geneology?  I mean, other than preserving a written record of a certain bloodline.

Maybe I didn't phrase that as clearly as I could. What I mean is that sometimes there is emphasis on relation or descent from particular important individuals, with no need to list everyone in the line of descent. Sometimes having a particular number of people in the list was important to the writer, such as in Matthew's geneology of Jesus.

[Bonnie]

What I'm really looking to do is establish approximately when the first inhabitants crossed the Bering Strait coming to America.

[mike]

Sorry, Bonnie.

I did not intend to hijack your thread.

[Bonnie]

Sorry, Bonnie.

I did not intend to hijack your thread.

Hey, Mike, any and all help are desperately appreciated.

[chayat]

The theory that the Siberian land bridge accounts for ALL migration to the Americas is based solely on the notion that ancients could not possibly have had the technology to sail to the Americas.  But, the testimony of history asserts otherwise.  Many of the oldest monuments of history are the most sublime and technically difficult to explain.  The idea that people could engineer the Great Pyramid of Giza (for example) but be to stupid to build ocean going ships makes no sense at all.

The similarity between Clovis points and points made in France, the presence of Caucasian type skulls, are difficult for the Siberian land bridge folks to explain away.  Then there is the whole subject of Tifinag and Ogham inscriptions in Eastern North America.  I won't come down on any side of this question.  But, I just can't see how anyone could be so sure of the "fact" that ancient cultures could not possibly have been able to sail.

[mike]

The theory that the Siberian land bridge accounts for ALL migration to the Americas is based solely on the notion that ancients could not possibly have had the technology to sail to the Americas.  But, the testimony of history asserts otherwise.  Many of the oldest monuments of history are the most sublime and technically difficult to explain.  The idea that people could engineer the Great Pyramid of Giza (for example) but be to stupid to build ocean going ships makes no sense at all.

The similarity between Clovis points and points made in France, the presence of Caucasian type skulls, are difficult for the Siberian land bridge folks to explain away.  Then there is the whole subject of Tifinag and Ogham inscriptions in Eastern North America.  I won't come down on any side of this question.  But, I just can't see how anyone could be so sure of the "fact" that ancient cultures could not possibly have been able to sail.

That is certainly a possibility, and very intriguing. I think it was Thor Heyerdahl, if I remember correctly, who demonstrated this possibility.

I think any ancient sailors who arrived in the Americas met the descendants of those who had walked across the "Bering Bridge."

[mike]

Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

[Bonnie]

Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Thanks, Mike, that was very interesting!   

[marc]

The theory that the Siberian land bridge accounts for ALL migration to the Americas is based solely on the notion that ancients could not possibly have had the technology to sail to the Americas.  But, the testimony of history asserts otherwise.  Many of the oldest monuments of history are the most sublime and technically difficult to explain.  The idea that people could engineer the Great Pyramid of Giza (for example) but be to stupid to build ocean going ships makes no sense at all.

The similarity between Clovis points and points made in France, the presence of Caucasian type skulls, are difficult for the Siberian land bridge folks to explain away.  Then there is the whole subject of Tifinag and Ogham inscriptions in Eastern North America.  I won't come down on any side of this question.  But, I just can't see how anyone could be so sure of the "fact" that ancient cultures could not possibly have been able to sail.

I agree (with the caveat that I have seen the Caucasian type skulls used by white supremacists to excuse what was done to the Indians and imply that this was intended to be a white continent--which is a bizarre idea).  We make too many assumptions about things we know little about, and in the end it's a little Euro-centric (in the sense that, in spite of our supposedly enlightened views, we still seem to work everything out based on its relation to European civilization.)

[marc]

Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Interesting how they traced the path from the Bering Land Bridge almost directly to this area (highlighting Meadowcroft, in SW Pennsylvania.)  Here in WV we have numerous ancient burial mounds that date back 2-3,000 years.  There's also a more modern (16th century) petroglyph site near here (one that needs some better protection, fwiw) where I found an extremely primitive arrowhead a few years back.  This presentation, though, suggests that people were here long before this.  I've never really considered that this area was inhabited so early.

[Bonnie]

Although I am not certain I agree with everything portrayed in this reference (how's that for a vague caveat! ), it is a cool graphic and demonstrates likely routes of human migration:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Interesting how they traced the path from the Bering Land Bridge almost directly to this area (highlighting Meadowcroft, in SW Pennsylvania.)  Here in WV we have numerous ancient burial mounds that date back 2-3,000 years.  There's also a more modern (16th century) petroglyph site near here (one that needs some better protection, fwiw) where I found an extremely primitive arrowhead a few years back.  This presentation, though, suggests that people were here long before this.  I've never really considered that this area was inhabited so early.

My dad used to collect arrowheads.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The idea that Columbus discovered the new world ought to be relegated to a footnote somewhere about how wrong some old theory was.

The RCC had a diocese in Canada hundreds of years before Columbus "found" North America.  Scandinavian settlements predate that by several hundred years at least.

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

The Creole had/have an oral legend they couldn't understand that wasn't in their native tongue...but was in a Semitic language.

There are old proto-Hebrew writings (like...carved on a big slab of rock old) in New Mexico.

The Incan/Mayan/Aztec legends talk about visitations from people they considered to be unnaturally white, and unnaturally black.  Their artwork bears that out as well, with some very caucazoid and africanoid looking people.

And that's just the "Euro-centric" historical evidence.  The idea that ancients couldn't have navigated the Atlantic has already been empirically disproved.  The Pacific...well...Hawaii is smack dab in the middle of the widest part, and it was populated.

[k-pappy]

That is a very interesting link...thanks for posting!

In Christ,
KP

[Bonnie]

The idea that Columbus discovered the new world ought to be relegated to a footnote somewhere about how wrong some old theory was.

The RCC had a diocese in Canada hundreds of years before Columbus "found" North America.  Scandinavian settlements predate that by several hundred years at least.

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

The Creole had/have an oral legend they couldn't understand that wasn't in their native tongue...but was in a Semitic language.

There are old proto-Hebrew writings (like...carved on a big slab of rock old) in New Mexico.

The Incan/Mayan/Aztec legends talk about visitations from people they considered to be unnaturally white, and unnaturally black.  Their artwork bears that out as well, with some very caucazoid and africanoid looking people.

And that's just the "Euro-centric" historical evidence.  The idea that ancients couldn't have navigated the Atlantic has already been empirically disproved.  The Pacific...well...Hawaii is smack dab in the middle of the widest part, and it was populated.

Oh, yes, long, long before Columbus found America many people and cultures lived and died here. 
Scholars' estimates of the total population of the Americas before European contact vary enormously, from a low of 10 million to a high of 112 million. This population debate has often had ideological underpinnings. Robert Royal writes that "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures." Some scholars believe that most of the indigenous population resided in Mesoamerica and South America, with approximately 10 percent residing in North America, prior to European colonization.

[chayat]

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region.  But, it certainly was on a huge scale.  The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.

It is interesting to think about why it is that the Columbus first idea has taken hold of our culture.  We know of Columbus because Columbus was the first to come to the Americas after the invention of the printing press and after the invention of firearms.  The Vikings had a difficult time here because their war technology was not much better than that of the natives.  This would have been true of all earlier adventures into the Americas.  Firearm technology was the most important turning point for Europe in terms of warfare.

The power of the printing press has to be considered too.  It is very difficult for us to appreciate the impossibility of accurately disseminating a uniform message throughout an entire society without print.  The Norse went to  America and returned to Europe.  Many people knew about it.  Most did not.  If they knew they didn't go around saying "I sailed to America."  They had all kinds of descriptions and names for the various places that they landed over here.  By Columbus' time there was a patch work of legends about land to the West.  All very disorganized.  This is all about being able to tell the same story to millions of people quickly.  Once that is done it resides in the popular mind for ages to come.  That is the case with Columbus.  He is the first who discovered America in our public mind for no other reason than good P.R.

I think the real turning point in our history and knowledge of the world was the Punic Wars.  At one time Rome was contending with Carthage for domination of Western Europe.  The Carthaginians were masters of the sea.  The Romans were famous for their lack of interest in the sea.  Since Europe had its origin with Rome it had a similar landlocked mentality until after the Renaissance and Age of Discovery.  Europe had to relearn maritime technology and knowledge of the world that was common place with the ancients.

Why did Carthage consider control of the Gibraltar Straits so important?  This is something worth pondering.  Once Carthage was destroyed by Rome its knowledge of sea trade was gone.  A similar case can be made with the Celts.  All one need do is read the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar when he encounters their ships trying to get to Britannia.  His description of their maritime technology and skill is impressive.  They literally could sail circles around the Romans.  But, he described ships that were much larger than anything Columbus ever had.  The people who believe that nobody had ocean going ships until Columbus never read The Gallic Wars.  It is sad that such small minded folks have turned into the gatekeepers of our collective knowledge.

[Bonnie]

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region.  But, it certainly was on a huge scale.  The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.

It is interesting to think about why it is that the Columbus first idea has taken hold of our culture.  We know of Columbus because Columbus was the first to come to the Americas after the invention of the printing press and after the invention of firearms.  The Vikings had a difficult time here because their war technology was not much better than that of the natives.  This would have been true of all earlier adventures into the Americas.  Firearm technology was the most important turning point for Europe in terms of warfare.

The power of the printing press has to be considered too.  It is very difficult for us to appreciate the impossibility of accurately disseminating a uniform message throughout an entire society without print.  The Norse went to  America and returned to Europe.  Many people knew about it.  Most did not.  If they knew they didn't go around saying "I sailed to America."  They had all kinds of descriptions and names for the various places that they landed over here.  By Columbus' time there was a patch work of legends about land to the West.  All very disorganized.  This is all about being able to tell the same story to millions of people quickly.  Once that is done it resides in the popular mind for ages to come.  That is the case with Columbus.  He is the first who discovered America in our public mind for no other reason than good P.R.

I think the real turning point in our history and knowledge of the world was the Punic Wars.  At one time Rome was contending with Carthage for domination of Western Europe.  The Carthaginians were masters of the sea.  The Romans were famous for their lack of interest in the sea.  Since Europe had its origin with Rome it had a similar landlocked mentality until after the Renaissance and Age of Discovery.  Europe had to relearn maritime technology and knowledge of the world that was common place with the ancients.

Why did Carthage consider control of the Gibraltar Straits so important?  This is something worth pondering.  Once Carthage was destroyed by Rome its knowledge of sea trade was gone.  A similar case can be made with the Celts.  All one need do is read the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar when he encounters their ships trying to get to Britannia.  His description of their maritime technology and skill is impressive.  They literally could sail circles around the Romans.  But, he described ships that were much larger than anything Columbus ever had.  The people who believe that nobody had ocean going ships until Columbus never read The Gallic Wars.  It is sad that such small minded folks have turned into the gatekeepers of our collective knowledge.

The more I look into the past history the more convinced I am that most common folk (like myself) don't know anything about the history of Americas very far from the days of Columbus except that he found a people he named Indians because he thought he had found India. There's so much prior history that I was amazed and I still am as I try and trace more of this out.

The below came from Wiki.
Scholars who follow the Bering Strait theory agree that most indigenous peoples of the Americas descended from people who probably migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, anywhere between 9,000 and 50,000 years ago. The timeframe and exact routes are still matters of debate, and the model faces continuous challenges. A 2006 study (to be published in Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology) reports new DNA-based research that links DNA retrieved from a 10,000-year-old fossilized tooth from an Alaskan island, with specific coastal tribes in Tierra del Fuego, Ecuador, Mexico, and California.  Unique DNA markers found in the fossilized tooth were found only in these specific coastal tribes, and were not comparable to markers found in any other indigenous peoples in the Americas. This finding lends substantial credence to a migration theory that at least one set of early peoples moved south along the west coast of the Americas in boats. However, these results may be ambiguous, as there are other issues with DNA research and biological and cultural affiliation.

[Bonnie]

In time the Europeans disregarded all respect for the valued land and resources and instead displayed insatiable greed and arrogance. The Europeans soon pursued their intent to conquer this new continent with brutal attacks and invasion. The Native Americans soon realized that the invaders would arrive in overwhelming numbers, as many "as the stars in heaven.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region.  But, it certainly was on a huge scale.  The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.

It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one.  The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.

Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame.  How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far?  None, according to history-so-called.

The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis.  And they spoke a Semitic language.

[Bonnie]

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region.  But, it certainly was on a huge scale.  The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.

It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one.  The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.

Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame.  How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far?  None, according to history-so-called.

The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis.  And they spoke a Semitic language.

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

[mike]

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region.  But, it certainly was on a huge scale.  The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.

It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one.  The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.

Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame.  How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far?  None, according to history-so-called.

The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis.  And they spoke a Semitic language.

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, almost certainly."

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.

[Bonnie]

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region.  But, it certainly was on a huge scale.  The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.

It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one.  The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.

Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame.  How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far?  None, according to history-so-called.

The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis.  And they spoke a Semitic language.

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, almost certainly."

Why do you think it's not mentioned the Bible?

[Bonnie]

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.

I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible?  Why weren't the people here Evangelized?

[mike]

There's evidence of copper mining in the Americas on a fairly large scale by the Phoenicians somewhere between 500BC and 500AD.

Of course, we don't know who was mining all that copper in the Lake Superior region.  But, it certainly was on a huge scale.  The biggest problem there is that we cannot find any significant use of copper among American Indians to account for the scale of mining going on in the upper Great Lakes.

It's a deduction, but a pretty solid one.  The fact that the copper isn't here is the major clue.

Ruins in the Americas indicate that there were people speaking Semitic languages here during that time frame.  How many groups speaking Semitic languages had the technology to travel that far?  None, according to history-so-called.

The Phoenicians had the most advanced ships, controlled the entire Mediterranean, were known for their mining operations, including gold and copper, and are known to have travelled to Britain on a regular basis.  And they spoke a Semitic language.

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the answer to your question is, "Yes, almost certainly."

Why do you think it's not mentioned the Bible?

The bottom line is, I'm not sure.
But a lot of things aren't mentioned in the Bible. Many of the things left unsaid were not pertinent to the message being delivered.

And . . . in Acts 1:8 Jesus told his disciples:

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

The "ends of the earth" mandate to the church included those people currently living in the Americas in the first century, as well as those living on the Tibetan plateau and those aboriginal peoples living in Australia.

[spurly]

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.

I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible?  Why weren't the people here Evangelized?

The people here were evangelized.  The churches all over North and South America attest to that fact.

[Bonnie]

Mike would it have been feasible to make such a journey as that in those days?  I know they had ships but still...
I just have a great big question mark for all this.      
At the time of the flood, the people here would most likely not have known about Jesus or the approaching destruction of the world.

[Bonnie]

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.

I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible?  Why weren't the people here Evangelized?

The people here were evangelized.  The churches all over North and South America attest to that fact.

What churches would that have been?
I read that the longest journey Paul made took him around 3 years to complete.

[Smiles]

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.

I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible?  Why weren't the people here Evangelized?

They weren't yet predestined

[mike]

Bonnie,
The mission to evangelize the world has not yet been completed, right? Even after almost two millenia, but much progress has been made.

I think we can rest assured that the resurrected Christ knew how big the task was, and that it would take a long time for his disciples to reach some of the more remote peoples of the world.

You are right. In some cases, technologies had to be developed for some of those peoples to be found by the church before they could be evangelized. Just because this is a big job and has required many generations doesn't invalidate the mission or the message.

Does that answer your question?

[spurly]

There is much we will never know about all this.
Do you think it was possible for America to have been populated when Christ walked the earth?

I think the archaeological evidence proves empirically that it was.

I asked Mike, why do you suppose it's not mentioned in the Bible?  Why weren't the people here Evangelized?

The people here were evangelized.  The churches all over North and South America attest to that fact.

What churches would that have been?

Christian Churches, Baptist Churches, Churches of Christ, Presbyterian Churches, Lutheran Churches, Anglican Churches, and the list goes on.  Almost anywhere you go in North or South America today you can find a body of Christ to meet with because the gospel came from Europe to the Americas.