Members John81 Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 And don't forget the lost tribes of Israel theory. :Green (the Mormons even have a name for the leader who brought them over: Lemuel) 'Course' date=' that's where the indians supposedly come from...[/quote'] Or how 'bout the theory that whites are the lost tribes of Israel and are therefore the true Israelites. :roll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted May 20, 2009 Administrators Share Posted May 20, 2009 Ah, yes, British Israelism at its best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 When I first encountered this it was the American version, Christian Identity. Some of their material is very well put together and I can see how those with limited biblical and historical understanding could accept much of what they put forth. They go into intricate detail in showing how the lost tribes were scattered and became the peoples of Europe and from there spread forth. They mix enough truth in their material to make it sound convincing to anyone who doesn't already know better...which would include a larger number of people than they make up. Several years ago I "talked" online with some who hold these views. Most were way out there but there was two who, other than this aspect, were biblically sound. One in particular really stuck out as other than the "identity" aspect, she spoke like a typical IFB with regards to doctrine and the Bible in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted May 20, 2009 Administrators Share Posted May 20, 2009 Yeah - people really need to be careful! Knowing scripture is so vital to know to avoid being fooled! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blossom Posted May 21, 2009 Members Share Posted May 21, 2009 I apologise in advance if this is a silly question but how did they date "kenwick man"? Blossom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted May 21, 2009 Members Share Posted May 21, 2009 Hmmm, I never heard that whites were here before the indians. I have heard that when the Pilgrims arrived, there was evidence of non-indian peoples having been here. Can't remember exactly, but something about them finding some blonde hairs in or near one of the baskets of corn they unearthed shortly after they landed. That would most likely have come from the Vikings who did a good bit of exploring on the eastern coast of the continent before any englishmen came over. I saw a program a little while back on the Discovery Science Channel that whites were indeed here before Indians. They have found clothed skeletons which date before the arrival of the Indians. Here ya go: http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?a=DSC-59637 Then there's the Kennewick Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted May 21, 2009 Members Share Posted May 21, 2009 Alimantado... wasn't the "ancient race" that you are referring, too... called the Sekaitomians? I'm pretty sure that "anthropoligists" had them discovered a looooong time ago... :lol In Christ Jesus ~ Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted May 21, 2009 Members Share Posted May 21, 2009 I apologise in advance if this is a silly question but how did they date "kenwick man"? Blossom The last thing I read on this said they used "advanced methods in radio carbon dating". Along with this they also take into account other artifacts found with Kennewick Man, such as the arrowhead lodged in his hip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted May 21, 2009 Administrators Share Posted May 21, 2009 I saw a program a little while back on the Discovery Science Channel that whites were indeed here before Indians. They have found clothed skeletons which date before the arrival of the Indians. Here ya go: http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?a=DSC-59637 Then there's the Kennewick Man. Interesting! I don't agree with their dating (17,000 years before Columbus was born), but it's interesting to think about. It says they started their trek in what is now France - since you saw it, could you describe the family? Just curious as to their hair and eye coloring... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted May 21, 2009 Members Share Posted May 21, 2009 It says they started their trek in what is now France - since you saw it' date=' could you describe the family? Just curious as to their hair and eye coloring...[/quote'] This would be my guess: Oops! Think I've just answered the OP question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted May 21, 2009 Administrators Share Posted May 21, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted May 21, 2009 Members Share Posted May 21, 2009 :rollover: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted May 22, 2009 Members Share Posted May 22, 2009 Interesting! I don't agree with their dating (17,000 years before Columbus was born), but it's interesting to think about. It says they started their trek in what is now France - since you saw it, could you describe the family? Just curious as to their hair and eye coloring... Yes, the dating I wouldn't go with either, but the one skeleton definitely predated the Native Americans. The theory was that the Caucasians followed fishing routes that lead them here. Here's an interesting study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis and...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blossom Posted May 22, 2009 Members Share Posted May 22, 2009 The last thing I read on this said they used "advanced methods in radio carbon dating". Along with this they also take into account other artifacts found with Kennewick Man, such as the arrowhead lodged in his hip. I understand using the artifacts around, but I thought carbon dating was inaacurate. Don't creation scientists use this method of age determining against evolutionists??? Is it reliable up to a certain time frame?? Thanks Blossom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JerryNumbers Posted May 22, 2009 Members Share Posted May 22, 2009 <<"Carbon-14 has dated freshly killed seals to have died 1300 years ago; living snail shells show they have died 27,000 years ago; a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years.">>http://www.creationdefense.org/14.htm <<"I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years. "We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples." This test was done on August 10, 1990 ">>http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html All the lost scientist have is a preconceived idea and their goal is to try and prove there is no God. I recall reading years ago about a living snail that was carbon dated to be thousand of years old. But back to the topic, everyone has the right to buy from whom ever they choose without being called racist, after all this is America. And why wouldn't a Christian rather support a Christian business rather than a heathen business? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.