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

Tell me who these "celts" are.

Easy. The Celts were a very large group of people who modern archeology has identified as originating in region of the Cacasus Mountains as early as 600 BC.

For some reason, probably to escape enemies and to find food, they swarmed westward into Turkey and around the Black Sea, both South and North sides, and using all possible routes including what is today the Ukraine they migrated westward to the sea. They dominated what few people were in their way and already in "Europe", and avoided those they could not dominate, and eventually became the major ethnic group in Europe.

Their numbers were very large and they lived in many tribes. They fought with each other as they would with enemies, and most of the so-called "European Wars" of history were between different Celtic tribes simply carrying different names.

Does that help?

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

LOL, check the title of the thread.

Who would have guessed that an article about an underwater wall off the coast of Taiwan would have gotten this amount of interest?

You've been saying all along that Hebrew would've been preserved and then nanrod said Hebrew would not have been preserved in captivity and you say "good point"?

If you stay in big groups and don't have to deal that much with a dominant culture, you keep your language. If you're forced into small groups and thus have to deal with the dominant culture on an individual personal basis, you better learn the lingo. Your kids will learn it better than you will at any rate.

What doesn't happen in any event is the appearance of a really new language out of this situation. And from what Indoeuropean conquerors did the Hebrews acquire their "Celtic" or whatever language?

What doesn't happen in any event is the appearance of a really new language out of this situation. And from what Indoeuropean conquerors did the Hebrews acquire their "Celtic" or whatever language?

The language question is certainly one that should be examined at some time, but to hang any substantial issue on language is IMHO just silly. Language is not like genes, it just the way in which they communicated. In the case of the Celts this was mostly verbal as their relegion or whatever frowned on leaving any written records.

In the case of the Celts, they didn't need to "acquire" their language from any conquerors. They were the conquerors, so their language probably came from somewhere else.

Wonderful site; dazzling logic. The proof that the Assyrians were German is that "Hatti" (Hittite, a known Indoeuropean language) is similar to German. Except that Assyrian has been deciphered as well and it's definitely Semitic.

Absolutely not. Celtic = Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Breton, etc.

Absolutely YES! You seem to come from an extremely sheltered historical background.

You are quoting the British version of Celtic history, a narrow and navel gazing perspective. You have to go the continent to get the whole story. The Celts didn't originate in Britain. Maybe you think The Celts, a pop group also are bastions of Celtic history??? Please locate a GOOD comprehensive book on the Celts, not some British screed, and find out what really happened.

The Celts were a very large group of people who modern archeology has identified as originating in region of the Cacasus Mountains as early as 600 BC.

Modern archealogy has them in England and Austria by at least 1200 BC.

They were the conquerors, so their language probably came from somewhere else.

Where?

The Celts didn't originate in Britain.

They didn't originate in the Caucasus in 610 BC, either.

Oh, they were not just simple Germans but evil HESSIANS!!

Dreaded mercenary Hessians! Boo! Hiss!

The people the Hebrews got the "new" language from.

That's not telling me anything.

In your version of events they have "new" language which isn't Assyrian. (And neither is German Assyrian, by the way.)

Nope, languages change and they change in a hurry. Like I said, you would understand English if you had a time machine and could go to Britain circa 1500. Imagine having to deal with going across 2000 miles and all the different languages they would've encountered, not to mention the captivity. That's why latin prevailed.

Taken out of their old homeland, a people will either of necessity adopt a new language from a dominant, pre-existing culture or else their language will stay recognizeably in the same linguistic family.

Why would it stay the same? Try reading English from 1500.

They won't make up a new language in an existing-but-different linguistic family. What is the origin of the Celtic language family?

You're whole theory is based on the celtic language. Why don't you tell me all about it. I don't see the importance because is doesn't prove anything just like in America it doesn't prove anything regardiing genetics. It only takes two generations to lose a language and adopt a new one. I believe that modern media will serve to keep a language more pure though, but back then when 100 miles may have well have been 1000 miles, languages could be overrun and lost in a hurry.

Sould be "...wouldn't understand English...".

Sould = Should

Sheesh, I didn't party that hard last night.

"Earthquake and the earth was divided. Looks like something big happened and it wasn't the flood. hmmmm."

See the link below. This would have caused the earth to 'quake' 3,600 years after 'the flood.'

Meteor Clue To End Of Middle East Civilisations

The prophesies in Genesis, Ezekiel and Hosea are clear. One would have to labor to assign any symbolism requiring a different interpretation to them.

These prophesies demand the reality of two things: the existence of the descendents of the Northern Kingdom and there being a extremely large number of them. And it requires that they exist in those numbers today as well any other time in history.

I have no big problem with any of this.

To take the position that the prophesies are bunkum is to call into question the entire Bible and every prophesy in it, including those which have come to pass.

Where have I said anything about Biblical prophecy being bunkum?
On the contrary, I've repeatedly stated that I believe in the prophetically significant and contemporaneous existence of the Lost Tribes, starting at #327 on this thread, to which you were replying...
"I think the restoration of Israel is a prophecy in the midst of fulfillment. I believe the Ten Lost Tribes exist somewhere, or perhaps many somewheres, and that they have a role in that fulfillment. "

If one does not believe the Bible as the word of God channeled through the human beings that wrote it, then for what purpose does one even care about the topic enough to waste their time discussing it? The only reason for the importance of the ten tribes is found in God's purpose as revealed therein.

So, we have to assume belief in those prophesies. The first requirement they place on those who want to discuss the ten tribes is not whether they exist. To take the position they don't exist is to take the position the Bible is not true.

I don't know why you're off in these weeds. I believe the Bible. One of most powerful witnesses to it's veracity is the archaeological record with regard to the History of civilization. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made which corroborate the Bible to an astounding degree not true of any other book.
Wherever the Ten Lost Tribes are to be found, I'm confident the evidence for their existence, archaeological and otherwise, will likewise confirm and complement what we know of them from scripture.

The descendents of the tribes have to exist in large numbers (stars in the sky) or again the position has to be taken that the Bible is just a long novel.

You can't get away from it. Either you believe the tribes exist in large numbers or you refute the Bible.

By what date did God promise Abraham that his descendents would be as countless as the stars in the sky? Even if you counted every human born in the last 4,000 years, we'd still fall short of the stars in the sky.
The key to this prophecy, I believe, comes through Paul when he declares that both the Jews and the Christian Gentiles are of the seed of Abraham. Obviously, the Hebrew Ten Tribes would be included as well. I don't think you have the appropriate context for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is still in the future.

The only question that can be left is who they are. Since they all descended from a single partriarch, they must all look similar, as in the same people or race. Again, you can't get away from that requirement.

Do Paul Newman and Jerry Seinfeld look like Falashas?

The folks that argue on the side of the European types have presented their evidence, on this thread and on many others. Ok, fine. Those that don't like that choice should pick another people and present the evidence for them.

No, on this thread they've avoided the ramifications of their theory. One doesn't need a contending theory to point that out.
For myself, I'm still willing to look at any evidence or explanation which addresses the linguistic questions arising from a Celtic theory for the Lost Tribes.

This suggestion is rejected. Why? Because the weight of the known evidence, even though confused and often appearing contradictory, falls on the side of the European types and little or none on the side of any other peoples. So they have to argue details, the facts of which are fuzzy from the passage of time and the interpretation thereof not, and can never be, conclusive.

If you don't accept this unique approach, show where it fails.

Why do we need a unique approach, when the accepted approach is more than adequate? That is, one makes a claim and presents evidence, and then entertains questions on that evidence.
I've run across Lost Tribe theories for Afghanistan and the Kashmir. I don't know if they're right, I'd pose similar questions to anyone putting them forth. I've even seen extensive writings about the Japanese being a Lost Tribe. I have no hard and fast conclusion, I'm still interested in learning more.
However, I'm not compelled by the conclusion is that "the weight of the known evidence, even though confused and often appearing contradictory, falls on the side of the European types" is simply an attempt to institute one theory as the default position and shirk the burden of proof by ignoring legitimately questions and ask others to find a better candidate.
The default position to unanswered questions for which there is spotty evidence is always "We don't know."

Imagine having to deal with going across 2000 miles and all the different languages they would've encountered, not to mention the captivity.

How many people did this and went where? You're saying that, over this long trip across Europe, the language morphed from Semitic to Indoeuropean.

When and where did the language change? Languages of the Celtic family used to be spread all across Europe, especially before the Romans and later the Germans restricted them to mostly the British Isles. There were Celtic Gauls in North Italy in the 300s BC, for instance. Across the Alps in France. There are differences in language across that sweep but they aren't as big as the differences between, say, Welsh Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon. It doesn't look like much change happened across that part of the journey.

But in fact, there were identifiably Celtic languages, all highly related to each other, in Eastern Europe and Asia Minor in historical times. So it doesn't look as if the change from Hebrew/Semitic happened on that part of "the journey" either. So when did the change happen and why didn't it keep happening thereafter?

You're not telling me a coherent story here.

Hey, I am calm. Although I have the impression that "probably" is quite an overstatement in this case. The letters DN didn't even occur in the original name.

All right already. I said "probably" and in another post I made it clear that you don't know which ones are and which aren't. But a lot have to be because the odds won't allow that kind of coincidence.

I think you see patterns where there are none.

Oh no. I listed them one time and I found a lot of them and they are in a narrow band going from the Caucusus to Northwestern Europe.

And no, I don't have a problem with the idea that one of my ancestors might have been Israelites, Assyrians or whatsoever but it rather seems to be that you might not like the fact that you're not a descendant of these ominous Lost Tribes.

Maybe I'm not a genetic descendant. It doesn't matter as much to me whether I myself am descended from Isaac, what matters to me is that I love to read bible prophecy and bible prophecy makes it clear that America, the UK, Israel, and some countries in Northwestern Europe are the main places where the Israelites ended up and therefore bible prophecy is speaking of those countries concerning the last days.

No, do you?

Everything I read in the bible, yes.

Modern archealogy has them in England and Austria by at least 1200 BC.

They were proto-Celts, and in small quantities. The major celtic incursions came after 500BC and were major invasions, not just little trickles. The following sort of basic celtic history is available everywhere on the net:

"The agricultural, bronze-using Urnfields, who can be thought of as proto-Celts, existed from roughly 1300-700 B.C.E.. They were succeeded by the Hallstatt culture around 700-600 B.C.E., which is distinguished by the use of iron and a change in burial practices. Around 500 B.C.E., the La Tene culture appeared, signifying a shift of power within the loci of Celtic groups, as well as important contacts of trade and artistic production. At this point there are obvious influences of the Mediterranean world in Celtic art and metalwork; presumably, Mediterranean ideas and mythologies also found their way westward."

So I guess the Celts existed already, right?