Archaeologists Announce Discovery Of Underwater Man-Made Wall (Very Old)

China Post ^ | 11-26-2002

[#3Fan]

Riddle me this, my real last name is typically English, it has been our last name since the English started using last names, we have traced it back to 1189. We lived in the same village in England for time out of mind, until we emigrated to the colonies. The name has gone through all the permutations of spelling and still has the same meaning and is recognisable. A friend of mine is Prussian he has the same last name, spelled the same and has the same meaning. His family has lived in Brandenburg for time out of mind until they came to the States after the First World War. he is an Assyrian and I am an Israeli, get real.

So you deny that there were waves of people moving across Europe just after the captivities? In order for the Israelites to get to Northwestern Europe they had to go acroos Eastern Europe. The Israelites mostly went west, the Assyrians stayed in Germany. Brandenburg is probably an Israelite name, by the way, of the tribe of Dan. They liked to put their name in the locations and rivers etc. Grab an atlas of Europe and you'll see DN from the Caucusus to Denmark. Snaking right through Europe like an adder along the way. Dan's name was DN in Hebrew.

Gen 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

[VadeRetro]

Reading your 370, I can't believe what I've actually been arguing against for this many thread pages. Thank you for finally making it clear.

[VadeRetro]

I've been considering this thread as a light-hearted diversion, but this afternoon suddenly #3Fan shows me that I've nevertheless been taking it far too seriously.

[PaulKersey]

the Germani (Germans), Goths (more Germans), Franks (more Germans), Angles (more Germans), Saxons (more Germans), Jutes (more Germans), Vandals (more Germans), Danes (more Germans), and Normans (more Germans, northern flavor, via France)

All of the so-called "Germanic Tribes" were just different tribes of Celts, and they were all related to each other.

[Little Bill]

It could be worse, this could be an Atlantus and Limuria thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Grab an atlas of Europe and you'll see DN from the Caucusus to Denmark. Snaking right through Europe like an adder along the way. Dan's name was DN in Hebrew.

London too?

[Sabertooth]

Vade says that Hebrew isn't related to latin. So since the British and Americans speak a language that is in the latin family rather than in the Hebrew family that we can't be genetic descendants of Hebrews. That argument is senseless. Language is learned, we're not born with it.

I don't believe he made the genetic equation (though I could be wrong, so I'll flag him here), he was saying that since Hebrew is a Semitic language, and that English (like Latin or German) is an Indo-European one, that poses problems for a Celtic theory of the Lost Tribes.

He's right, it does, though as I've tried to make clear, the problems aren't necessarily insurmountable, they simply need addressing.

My Indian friends don't speak Indian.

Do they read "pundits?" Wear "pajamas?"

As are Hebrew words in modern language. If you're really interest grab a Strong's concordance and start comparing.

What I'm really interested in is seeing people making claims doing the work to support their claims. When I make claims, I will do likewise.

And there are a lot of Hebrew words that are with us also.

Great. I'm all ears.

Understand, I believe in the contemporary existence of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. I'd be tickled to see someone conclusively sew this up, and I don't care if the answer is the Celts, the Afghans, the Kashmiris, pre-Columbian Americans, or Oompa Loomas on the dark side of the Moon.

This argument is dumb and a diversion started by an atheist.

#1, that is a double ad hominem, and #2, while VadeRetro is an agnostic with whom I've butted heads on theological and scientific questions in the past, I am a Christian and his linguistic question here is absolutely legitimate.

Look, look, look and you'll will find. I'm not doing your work for you.

It is not my work, it is properly the work of those who are championing the the Celtic Lost Tribe theory.

If I was to make a claim that the Lost Tribes settled Easter Island, then it's up to me to support that claim. You get to sit back and ask the questions in such an instance.

This is how it is, this wheel needs no reinvention.

[Sabertooth]

Why do you continue to insult the board and demean yourself by playing Perry Mason Jr? The arcade games section is right around the corner.

Whom have I insulted and when? Kindly produce a quote and a post #.

[VadeRetro]

Basic reality, it's really hard to picture anybody speaking a semitic language turning into celts.

That's the story of this thread for me.

[The Raven]

>>Maybe old structures survive longer underwater because they're no longer subject to disruption by later people?

I don't know...look how long the Dems have been using the Social Security election time scam.

[VadeRetro]

As the tribes moves across Europe, they would've had to speak the languages of the surrounding peoples.

If they aren't being absorbed, if they're not subjugated, if they're in a large group, they keep their language. See, for example, the Romany Languages.

[BMCDA]

Brandenburg is probably an Israelite name, by the way, of the tribe of Dan.

Aw, that's pure poppycock. The name Brandenburg is derived from "Brennaburg" or "Brennabor" wich was originally a town of the Slavic tribe of the Hevelli. It was captured by the eastern Frankish king Henry I in 928.

Gosh, where do you have all this nonsense from or do you make it up yourself?

[#3Fan]

The Japanese-Americans have been largely absorbed into a dominant pre-existing culture and have adopted its language.

The Israelites were taken captive by foreigeners and then invaded lands that had pre-existing peoples in them for 2000 years. No difference.

It would be misleading to say that the American culture is the cultural descendant of the Japanese culture which they left. The American culture has absorbed a lot of groups and been through a lot of history. It is the synthesis of all that.

Europe was similar then. You're the one saying it should be culurally Hebrew. We're saying they are genetically descended from Israelites, not culturally. They were taken captive.

What I'm reading on this thread, that some group called "the Lost Tribes of Israel" later emerged as "the Celts," describes some different process, a story which no one has told but the outline of which makes no sense. To say you emerge "as" some other group means that the other group did not exist until you became them.

Israelite colonies were established by the tribe of Dan before the captivities. Those were probably what you called Celts.

That's where the putative language shift looks bad. If you aren't absorbed by some pre-existing group, you don't lose your language. If you are so absorbed, the "new" culture is actually pre-existing and the new language is the dominant culture's language. If you get taken as a captive into Egypt, your new language is Egyptian, not Celtic.

This is a senseless argument because languages change over short periods of time. You're trying to track the movements of peoples of the world over thousandsof years by language alone and it can't be done. You don't know the circumstances of the environments then.

You can say that some group migrated from A to B and was completely absorbed. That basically requires no evidence as it wouldn't be expected to leave much if any. But it's also a non-event. Culture B is there in any case and probably little changed.

But different peoples have different tendencies. Even though they've had to adopt a different language they still are genetically descended from a certain people that have different characteristics from the natives.

I also note that the term of art "the Celts"--as used on this thread by LostTribe at least--includes groups that I've never ever seen identified as Celts anywhere else. This whole thing is so askew with any version of history known outside this thread that I hardly know why I bother.

I never study the "Celts". I don't like combining the Assyrians with the Israelites, I believe they stayed separated even though they were in close proximity with each other. As opposed to language, I believe a much more accurate way to identify who is who is by studying the historical records of the time and using logic.

[VadeRetro]

I don't believe he made the genetic equation (though I could be wrong, so I'll flag him here) ...

You've got it right. You need a story for where Celtic comes from, although we now see that Celtic is also German, except for some of these people the Germans were the Assyrians whereas the Celts were the Hebrews ...

This muddle needs a bit of work before it can go on the Art Bell show.

[BMCDA]

Methinks someone's trying to replace Ted Holden here on FR ;-D

[#3Fan]

ROTFLMAO!!! Where do people get all this drivel from? It's almost as weird as that Velikovskyan BS.

I got it from the Roman scribes of the time. They said the Assyrians migrated to the area north of the Black Sea.

[Sabertooth]

If they aren't being absorbed, if they're not subjugated, if they're in a large group, they keep their language. See, for example, the Romany Languages.

Not to mention Yiddish, even when members of the Two Tribes (Judah and Benjamin, + some Levites) learned second languages during two millenia of diaspora.

[VadeRetro]

All of the so-called "Germanic Tribes" were just different tribes of Celts, and they were all related to each other.

This is a scoop. I guess Latin is Celtic too? And Greek? How about Persian? How about Hittite? How about Sanskrit? If not all of the preceding, why not?

[#3Fan]

I see. And how does that make you feel?

It doesn't matter how I feel about it, it's a fact. The euro and the dollar rule the currencies and the American and British navies rule the seas. We dominate. It's a fact.