The Lost Tribe Of Israel, Gad's Tribe perhaps the native americans?

Originally posted by benrl
The book of mormon claims that Native AMericans are a lost tribe of Israel, DNA testing however has proven no Semetic link between Native americans and the Jewish race.

that's because the jews aren't israelites, they are israelis, not the same thing, they came from khazzar....

Originally posted by redstorm
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

In the defense of kimish, sometimes, things are made to appear what they are not, and vice versa. No one here is qualified to say who is ultimately correct commenting on subjects like this. Everything is speculation at best.

No. It is not 'speculation' to say that the 'red sea was still the 'red sea' 2000 years ago.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

I have thought it through. And isn't it quite possible that places and things change names over thousands of years? Think that through.

Was America called "America" 500 hundred years ago even though it's been called that for a few hundred years? Hopefully you get the point.

edit on 2-10-2011 by kimish because: (no reason given)

Err, but the 'Red Sea" has been known as the Red Sea since biblical times.

And Israel never covered all of eastern europe as you postulate.

Go ahead and think that through.

I never "postulated" that Israel covered all of easten "europe". You are confused or if I am confused please quote where I stated that, I will stand corrected.

Drink another?

And a little research and homework will show you that not only one body of water was referred to as the Red Sea. Words, names and meanings do change over time and through translations.

Marinate on that.

reply to post by kimish


Think harder next time

Originally posted by kimish

If you think about it, our knowledge of DNA is sill fairly young, soo....

Yes.

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by kimish

 

[ supposedly ] Ever hear of red sea scrolls?

Dead?

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
Err, but the 'Red Sea" has been known as the Red Sea since biblical times.

Do we really "know" this? Earth's crust has undergone many changes in its past. Also, what could be considered "biblical times", is quite the debatable subject, just to throw it out there..

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

No. It is not 'speculation' to say that'red sea was still the 'red sea' 2000 years ago.

But it is. Have you seen this "Red Sea" as of late? Did you see it anytime in the past ten thousand years? If so, I do apologize.

Originally posted by redstorm

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
Err, but the 'Red Sea" has been known as the Red Sea since biblical times.

Do we really "know" this? Earth's crust has undergone many changes in its past. Also, what could be considered "biblical times", is quite the debatable subject, just to throw it out there..

Yes, we do know this. Well, clearly you dont. But those of us who accept fact do.

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by kimish

 

Think harder next time

Sometimes I think too hard And the beer don't help

Originally posted by redstorm

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

No. It is not 'speculation' to say that the 'red sea was still the 'red sea' 2000 years ago.

But it is. Have you seen the "Red Sea" recently? Did you see it anytime in the past ten thousand years? If so, I do apologize.

So, to reiterate, you think that the 'red sea' in the bible isnt the current 'red sea', but was actually the body of water between present-day russia and Alaska?

Yes, a basic understanding of history dictates that the Red Sea has been known as such for thousands of years.

heres an informative link:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
Yes, we do know this. Well, clearly you dont. But those of us who accept fact do.

Not to be disrespectful, but, maybe in the future, you will look back on this and realize; you "know" nothing.

Originally posted by kimish


And a little research and homework will show you that not only one body of water was referred to as the Red Sea. Words, names and meanings do change over time and through translations.

Marinate on that.

edit on 2-10-2011 by kimish because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2011 by kimish because: (no reason given)

Fact:

The Biblical Book of Exodus tells the story of the Israelites' miraculous crossing of a body of water, which the Hebrew text calls Yam Suph. Yam Suph is traditionally identified as the Red Sea. The account is part of the Israelites' escape from slavery in Egypt. Yam Suph can also been translated as Sea of Reeds.

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


...Soo it's totally impossible, in your eyes and mind, that any other body of water could have been referred to as the "Red Sea"? Oh, and don't forget the hundreds of translations that the Holy Cannon has been through. The translation aspect alone needs to be held into the utmost consideration.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

So, to reiterate, you think..

Quite simply, no. Open your mind. And eyes. See. Don't believe.

Originally posted by redstorm

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
Yes, we do know this. Well, clearly you dont. But those of us who accept fact do.

Not to be disrespectful, but, maybe in the future, you will look back on this and realize; you "know" nothing.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nothing is 'known', and that you can just make tthings up with total disregaurd to actual recognized fact./

Have fun with that. When you learn to read history, look back on this and know you know nothing .

We're all from the tribe of Adam and Eve . . .
unless you are a fallen reptilian

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

...Soo it's totally impossible, in your eyes and mind, that any other body of water could have been referred to as the "Red Sea"? Oh, and don't forget the hundreds of translations that the Holy Cannon has been through. The translation aspect alone needs to be held into the utmost consideration.

Sure, it's \possible'. It's POSSIBLE you are a red monkey. It's 'possible' the Israelites were actually 'native americans' (despite all actual evidence tot he contrary), but that doesnt mean its real.

Your conjuring flights of fancy and ignoring all actual evidence.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

You seem to be operating under the assumption that nothing is 'known', and that you can just make tthings up with total disregaurd to actual recognized fact./
Have fun with that. When you learn to read history, look back on this and know you know nothing .

My appearance 'seems' to deceive you. As have many others obviously. Learn of the nature of the world around you before you attempt to blindingly follow others across the shoulders of giants.

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


And you believe everything history tells us?? Come on, man. Seriously. "Red Sea" could've meant a large body of water (lake, pond, estuary, etc.) that had annual red algae blooms...

Did Jesus really harvest corn like it says in the Gospel of Mark when in fact corn hadn't been yet introduced to that area of the world at that time? 'echo' translations make a huge difference let alone meanings and names of things. How many Red rivers are there? Honestly?

Marinate, once more, on that

Seriously can't believe this red sea thing is really being debated!!!! This is a joke right? Aaaaahhhhhh you guys got me haha had me goin for a minute there!!! Good one!!

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

...Soo it's totally impossible, in your eyes and mind, that any other body of water could have been referred to as the "Red Sea"? Oh, and don't forget the hundreds of translations that the Holy Cannon has been through. The translation aspect alone needs to be held into the utmost consideration.

Sure, it's \possible'. It's POSSIBLE you are a red monkey. It's 'possible' the Israelites were actually 'native americans' (despite all actual evidence tot he contrary), but that doesnt mean its real.

Your conjuring flights of fancy and ignoring all actual evidence.

Please, back up and provide sources for your actual evidence that I am concluding as flights of fancy.
I am a thinker, I connect dots and when proven wrong, as a man, I stand corrected. I plead to you, please, provide factual evidence that there was only ONE Red Sea.

I don't ignore evidence once brought forth, I embrace it . Honestly.