Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The existence of the Jaredites is rejected by mainstream historians and archaeologists.
Jaredites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who taught early americans to build pyramids and write in heiroglyphs?
Why do the ancient americans bear such similarities with Jewish and egyptian traditions?
We have recreated several possible ways in which it could be done easily by ancient cultures who had even basic levels of mathematics. The ancient Egyptians had advanced mathematics, their entire culture was based on math. Not sure about the others but it's not a stretch to think that they to had the same levels if not close, since we also learned that the ancient Egyptians actually traveled to other parts of the world and even traded with some of the Americas occasionally. Why is it so hard for people to just admit that humans are smart when we try to be?
I think people need to be taught before they can be smart. The question is where did anyone learn anything from? I think the Mayans learned things on their own but also advanced on the knowledge they brought with them from the old world.
then provide some links and cite your sources. I'm not interested in your "us vs them" take on the smithsonian. If you have evidence then present it. That is how science works.
I;ll start
Study supports single main migration across Bering Strait
a unique genetic variant is widespread in Native Americans across both American continents - suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources. The variant, which is not part of a gene and has no biological function, has not been found in genetic studies of people elsewhere in the world except eastern Siberia.
The researchers say the variant likely occurred shortly prior to migration to the Americas, or immediately afterwards.
'We have reasonably clear genetic evidence that the most likely candidate for the source of Native American populations is somewhere in east Asia,' says Noah A. Rosenberg, PhD, assistant professor of human genetics and assistant research professor of bioinformatics at the Centre for Computational Medicine and Biology at the U-M Medical School and assistant research professor at the U-M Life Sciences Institute.
Science Centric | News | Study supports single main migration across Bering Strait
then provide some links and cite your sources. I'm not interested in your "us vs them" take on the smithsonian. If you have evidence then present it. That is how science works.
I;ll start
Study supports single main migration across Bering Strait
a unique genetic variant is widespread in Native Americans across both American continents - suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources. The variant, which is not part of a gene and has no biological function, has not been found in genetic studies of people elsewhere in the world except eastern Siberia.
The researchers say the variant likely occurred shortly prior to migration to the Americas, or immediately afterwards.
'We have reasonably clear genetic evidence that the most likely candidate for the source of Native American populations is somewhere in east Asia,' says Noah A. Rosenberg, PhD, assistant professor of human genetics and assistant research professor of bioinformatics at the Centre for Computational Medicine and Biology at the U-M Medical School and assistant research professor at the U-M Life Sciences Institute.
Science Centric | News | Study supports single main migration across Bering Strait
Now it's not possible to prove either way right now, since both sides only have theories. But what I want for people to realize is the just the plausibility of my argument. Most of the information I am getting is from books and I can't really find links to them but maybe I will. See Dr. Hugh Nibley's "Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites."
"An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon." By archaeologist John L. Sorenson
Michael Cohn's "The Maya" the world's foremost authority on Meso-American archaeology.
If we can have a healthy discussion, rather than trying to prove who's right and who's wrong(which is impossible). I'll get you some links though, just let me do a little more google searching.
then provide some links and cite your sources. I'm not interested in your "us vs them" take on the smithsonian. If you have evidence then present it. That is how science works.
I;ll start
Study supports single main migration across Bering Strait
a unique genetic variant is widespread in Native Americans across both American continents - suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources. The variant, which is not part of a gene and has no biological function, has not been found in genetic studies of people elsewhere in the world except eastern Siberia.
The researchers say the variant likely occurred shortly prior to migration to the Americas, or immediately afterwards.
'We have reasonably clear genetic evidence that the most likely candidate for the source of Native American populations is somewhere in east Asia,' says Noah A. Rosenberg, PhD, assistant professor of human genetics and assistant research professor of bioinformatics at the Centre for Computational Medicine and Biology at the U-M Medical School and assistant research professor at the U-M Life Sciences Institute.
Science Centric | News | Study supports single main migration across Bering Strait
Now it's not possible to prove either way right now, since both sides only have theories. But what I want for people to realize is the just the plausibility of my argument. Most of the information I am getting is from books and I can't really find links to them but maybe I will. See Dr. Hugh Nibley's "Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites."
"An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon." By archaeologist John L. Sorenson
Michael Cohn's "The Maya" the world's foremost authority on Meso-American archaeology.
If we can have a healthy discussion, rather than trying to prove who's right and who's wrong(which is impossible). I'll get you some links though, just let me do a little more google searching.
There is no evidence stronger than genetics ... to debate that is like debating that gravity pulls you to the planets surface.
Some ancient cultures did circumnavigate the globe, Egypt was one. Though much of the evidence was lost because they didn't make it a habit. During this time it is widely thought that they shared legends, lore, and myth from the various cultures they met (naturally). The most profound evidence comes from ancient Egyptian tombs, where they found star charts from as far as South America. The point of all this, Imhotep was also elevated to godhood just before this time and the myth of his advancement seems to appear in many cultures "touched" by the ancient Egyptians. The outline of the myth goes as such:
Imhotep was a great healer and even had helped people thought to be dead. (Scientific evidence he even performed brain surgery successfully)
Imhotep also advanced many other sciences at the time, but they wrote more on his compassion and general goodness.
Imhotep died with the favor of Ra, and all the gods agreed that he should join them by their side.
Imhotep lived long before Jesus (at least the one spoken of in christian myth) and the legend was already well known by the time the christian Jesus was even born. The myth however was modified based on location and the name was always changed, but it shared a common structure. As with many myths and legends in the christian lore they added it to their own, and like all others changed the name and locations to suite their culture at the time. The purpose was to give people a reason for being good, a reward above all others only possible by being compassionate. Just because the myth is common does not mean any one version is fact, the only fact we know is that Imhotep was the greatest doctor in the history of humankind, because of evidence. Brain surgery with our current level of technology hasn't only just been able to match what he had done with very little technology.
Some ancient cultures did circumnavigate the globe, Egypt was one. Though much of the evidence was lost because they didn't make it a habit. During this time it is widely thought that they shared legends, lore, and myth from the various cultures they met (naturally). The most profound evidence comes from ancient Egyptian tombs, where they found star charts from as far as South America. The point of all this, Imhotep was also elevated to godhood just before this time and the myth of his advancement seems to appear in many cultures "touched" by the ancient Egyptians. The outline of the myth goes as such:
Imhotep was a great healer and even had helped people thought to be dead. (Scientific evidence he even performed brain surgery successfully)
Imhotep also advanced many other sciences at the time, but they wrote more on his compassion and general goodness.
Imhotep died with the favor of Ra, and all the gods agreed that he should join them by their side.
Imhotep lived long before Jesus (at least the one spoken of in christian myth) and the legend was already well known by the time the christian Jesus was even born. The myth however was modified based on location and the name was always changed, but it shared a common structure. As with many myths and legends in the christian lore they added it to their own, and like all others changed the name and locations to suite their culture at the time. The purpose was to give people a reason for being good, a reward above all others only possible by being compassionate. Just because the myth is common does not mean any one version is fact, the only fact we know is that Imhotep was the greatest doctor in the history of humankind, because of evidence. Brain surgery with our current level of technology hasn't only just been able to match what he had done with very little technology.
I don't believe he had "little technology". I think many ancient civilizations had far greater technology than we give them. Lots of times technology learned by these civilizations is lost to time and humanity has not always progressed, like scientists would have you think.
I mean really, would you rather have lived in the roman days or the 12th century european countries. Makes me cringe when I think of just their hygiene compared to the greeks and romans.
Very true, but we digress.
I think it is interesting to find that hebrew writing and egyptian embalming practices were found in the new world right around the times of the early Maya were forming up.
Very true, but we digress.
I think it is interesting to find that hebrew writing and egyptian embalming practices were found in the new world right around the times of the early Maya were forming up.
The embalming in Ancient Egypt was not exclusive nor is it a stretch to think that other cultures could not have come up with the same techniques.
As for the writing, there is a serious debate on where the Hebrew tribes traveled and how they got there. While many of the Mormon myths are not proven or even sound, all myth is based in part on fact. Many Hebrew tribes were just lost to history, their paths became untraceable for various reasons.
There is however the logic that languages evolving from the heiroglyphs which all language started from could likely have come to something like Hebrew. Remember, all languages started as pictographs, most evolved into heiroglyphs, but they are not the same as those Ancient Egypt used, heiroglpyhs are pictographs simplified in reality.
Very true, but we digress.
I think it is interesting to find that hebrew writing and egyptian embalming practices were found in the new world right around the times of the early Maya were forming up.
The embalming in Ancient Egypt was not exclusive nor is it a stretch to think that other cultures could not have come up with the same techniques.
As for the writing, there is a serious debate on where the Hebrew tribes traveled and how they got there. While many of the Mormon myths are not proven or even sound, all myth is based in part on fact. Many Hebrew tribes were just lost to history, their paths became untraceable for various reasons.
There is however the logic that languages evolving from the heiroglyphs which all language started from could likely have come to something like Hebrew. Remember, all languages started as pictographs, most evolved into heiroglyphs, but they are not the same as those Ancient Egypt used, heiroglpyhs are pictographs simplified in reality.
When the gold plates were translated, one of the authors, Moroni, said "If the plates were sufficiently large we should have written in hebrew, but the hebrew hath been altered by us also. Wherefore, we write in the characters which we call the reformed Egyptian, which hath been altered by us also, so that none other people knoweth our language."
You have to admit that is a fascinating statement.
The embalming in Ancient Egypt was not exclusive nor is it a stretch to think that other cultures could not have come up with the same techniques.
As for the writing, there is a serious debate on where the Hebrew tribes traveled and how they got there. While many of the Mormon myths are not proven or even sound, all myth is based in part on fact. Many Hebrew tribes were just lost to history, their paths became untraceable for various reasons.
There is however the logic that languages evolving from the heiroglyphs which all language started from could likely have come to something like Hebrew. Remember, all languages started as pictographs, most evolved into heiroglyphs, but they are not the same as those Ancient Egypt used, heiroglpyhs are pictographs simplified in reality.
When the gold plates were translated, one of the authors, Moroni, said "If the plates were sufficiently large we should have written in hebrew, but the hebrew hath been altered by us also. Wherefore, we write in the characters which we call the reformed Egyptian, which hath been altered by us also, so that none other people knoweth our language."
You have to admit that is a fascinating statement.
No, it's not. This is where you lose logic and begin to stray from the logic while sounding like you agree. Ancient Egyptian language evolved faster than most people realize. There are actually three versions of their heirogliphics. Then when they started to simplify their language there were at least two (possibly three) versions of Heiretics. The problem is that since they were slaughtered and almost destroyed completely by the Romans (the survivors had to hide out in other cultures) the language was lost, and all forms of it as well. We have barely started to understand some of it, we can only theorize about pronunciation using Arabic as the basis for that. Again, myth is based on fact but is not fact.
When the gold plates were translated, one of the authors, Moroni, said "If the plates were sufficiently large we should have written in hebrew, but the hebrew hath been altered by us also. Wherefore, we write in the characters which we call the reformed Egyptian, which hath been altered by us also, so that none other people knoweth our language."
You have to admit that is a fascinating statement.
No, it's not. This is where you lose logic and begin to stray from the logic while sounding like you agree. Ancient Egyptian language evolved faster than most people realize. There are actually three versions of their heirogliphics. Then when they started to simplify their language there were at least two (possibly three) versions of Heiretics. The problem is that since they were slaughtered and almost destroyed completely by the Romans (the survivors had to hide out in other cultures) the language was lost, and all forms of it as well. We have barely started to understand some of it, we can only theorize about pronunciation using Arabic as the basis for that. Again, myth is based on fact but is not fact.
Not fact yet.... But it may yet be proven in our lifetime. You never know what will be unearthed next.
And what do the Romans have to do with Mayan Heiroglyphics. The claim is they took the basic tenets of egyptian across the sea in 600 BC, long before the Romans ever invaded Egypt.