Caledonia problem didnt arise overnight

[Riverwind]

It's all still hypothetical! Maybe the migration went from here to Asia! Suggestions and hypothesis are not evidence.

Pre-human remains have been found in Africa, Europe and Asia - none in the Americas. DNA and linguistic studies also confirm that the migration from from Eurasia to the Americas. Technically speaking the theory of gravity is just a theory because it can't be proven. However. there are not many scientists that doubt its accuracy.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

A number of scientists have postulated that the "Americas to Asia" migration is highly likely. Their present task has been to study the timelines of occupation in comparison. Aslo remember the the archaeology of the Americas is relatively young, and given that the maximum occupation dates have changed from aout 15,000 to 50,000 through discoveries in the last 30 years, it is likely they will find evidence of earlier occupations before they are through.

The oldest known archaeology of the Americas dates back 50,000 years nearly 15,000 years before Europe was populated from Africa. The Archaeological trend in the Americas appears to have formed from central America to the north and to the south.

Oral history is not the same as mainstream rote. Europeans, by writing things down have actually limited their ability to forward accurate history and have lost their ability to remember in the way that oral history advances its accuracy. Oral history does not rely upon the story or recollection of one or two people. The information is held by many people - each with the ability to test their sources and reconfirm the accuracy through the relationship with the previous storey telling. If the story only traced back to once one source - even over a number of generations - if would be suspect. However, oral history does not signify one source but traces back through a multitude of generations to multiple sources - multiple witnesses - that tell relatively the same story. And so if there were a 100 witness to an event and they each tell a slightly different viewpoint (which is likely, given the differences between individuals) then the bias in their story will appear as inconsistencies and the facts will occur in the commonality.

Written history however, is plagued with bias. It is told only from the perspective of one point of view and even though the authors may consult with many people, it is still limited to the bias of the writer when it is recorded. It is difficult to separate the bias from the written history because the writer often confuses their own bais with the facts and then presents all as a historical record. Yet we find many inconsistencies between a multitude of texts from different authors, the historical agencies tend to legitimize one or two only based on their own particular bias and dismiss the others as being innaccurate.

Your Supreme Court has weighed this problem out between the historical record often prepared by the British, and native oral history, and recognizing the greater potential for bias in the written record has ruled that oral history must be given equal or greater weight, when the sources can be confirmed. Oral history is not a collection of fantasy promoted as truth. It is truth often altered only in the insignificant details while holding the major facts relatively unaltered. On the other hand the historical writer begins "his-story" from the basis of a conclusion and then fills in the details. In many cases the conclusion is wrong from the beginning and so any details he provides to support his conclusion are equally wrong.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

6, 06:52 PM' post='127809']

I'm not asking anyone if they believe in or not! Read the question!

Honestly, I don't care.

[geoffrey]

The oldest known archaeology of the Americas dates back 50,000 years nearly 15,000 years before Europe was populated from Africa. The Archaeological trend in the Americas appears to have formed from central America to the north and to the south.

Well, this is because many believe that the original settlers of Central America came across on boat from Polynesia.

Oral history is not the same as mainstream rote. Europeans, by writing things down have actually limited their ability to forward accurate history and have lost their ability to remember in the way that oral history advances its accuracy. Oral history does not rely upon the story or recollection of one or two people. The information is held by many people - each with the ability to test their sources and reconfirm the accuracy through the relationship with the previous storey telling. If the story only traced back to once one source - even over a number of generations - if would be suspect. However, oral history does not signify one source but traces back through a multitude of generations to multiple sources - multiple witnesses - that tell relatively the same story. And so if there were a 100 witness to an event and they each tell a slightly different viewpoint (which is likely, given the differences between individuals) then the bias in their story will appear as inconsistencies and the facts will occur in the commonality.

Then again, oral history has no crediability as it can be invented easily by one generation or even one person. And, not to mention, it changes slightly everytime it's told. And if the Indians have been around millions of years like they'd like to think, those stories would have changed considerably.

Written history however, is plagued with bias. It is told only from the perspective of one point of view and even though the authors may consult with many people, it is still limited to the bias of the writer when it is recorded. It is difficult to separate the bias from the written history because the writer often confuses their own bais with the facts and then presents all as a historical record. Yet we find many inconsistencies between a multitude of texts from different authors, the historical agencies tend to legitimize one or two only based on their own particular bias and dismiss the others as being innaccurate.

And an elder that is just telling a story that he heard from Pa 40 years ago is much less biased and subject to error. Give me a break.

Your Supreme Court has weighed this problem out between the historical record often prepared by the British, and native oral history, and recognizing the greater potential for bias in the written record has ruled that oral history must be given equal or greater weight, when the sources can be confirmed. Oral history is not a collection of fantasy promoted as truth. It is truth often altered only in the insignificant details while holding the major facts relatively unaltered. On the other hand the historical writer begins "his-story" from the basis of a conclusion and then fills in the details. In many cases the conclusion is wrong from the beginning and so any details he provides to support his conclusion are equally wrong.

Where is this decision? I'd like to read it. Or is this just another Oral History moment?

[jdobbin]

Okwahu, why do you care so much about what verses or chapters may or may not have been changed in the bible? It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion about Native Land Claims, does it?

So why are you harping on it?

If you have a problem with Christianity, then start a new post down in the religion/morals section... it has no place here.

Exactly. It is very tiresome indeed.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Oral history is not recorded in the way YOUR memory as a post-european is made. YOU have lost your ability to remember. The oral history is recorded and repeated until the learner can repeat it in the same manner as it was taught. Wampum belts are used to remind the speaker of certain aspects of an agreement or event. In fact I can look at the Hiawatha Belt and recite the not only the majority points of the Great Law, but by using the symbols contained within the belt layout, I can recall the original story of the Peacemaker's coming. And while I may not have all of the details intact (not being a fully practiced oral historian) I can repeat the core of the historical information in much the way it was taught to me by many people. I have also experimented by taking stones from different places I have visted and by picking up the stone later and examining it I can recall the place and the events that occurred when I was there. This "practice" hones ones ability not only to remember what was said and what is witnessed, but improves my ability to recall more detail than I might have had I relied upon the inconsistent distracted memory methods of mainstream thinkers.

The problem in the mainstream is that you are often preparing for something say while other things are being said, rather than listening carefully to the response. This leads to miscommunication and often requires someone to repeat themselves a number of times (just look at the people on this discussion forum) before even one point gets through.

The latest theory of the occupation of the Americas is that since tetonic plate movement separated the Americas from Africa (Central America was connected to North Africa) it is more likely the migrations occurred directly from Africa at the same time that the early hominids migrated north. If this is confirmed through archaeological research then it is possible that homo sapien development occurred simultaneously in the Americas at the same times as the African /Middle Eastern evolution. You must rmember that the Bering Strait theory was held as the only possibility for a long time. It has always been believed that native people migrated here from another place (which was used to support the "terrus nullus" declaration). The idea that native people pre-existed the Bering Strait ice bridge between 12,000 and 14,000 years ago was never challenged until recently and in a very short time they have confirmed that human occupation here preceded the human occupation of Eurasia.

Marshall Ruling

Point 14 of the Evidentiary Sources

". . . when considering a treaty, a court must take into account the context in which the treaties were negotiated, concluded and committed to writing. The treaties, as written documents, recorded an agreement that had already been reached orally and they did not always record the full extent of the oral agreement"

"As a result, it is well settled that the words in the treaty must not be interpreted in their strict technical sense nor subjected to rigid modern rules of construction."

One other point that arose out of the Marshall Case is that:

"The Court held that exclusive occupation need not require proof that the aboriginal group physically excluded all others from the lands in question. Rather, the group had to demonstrate that it had “effective control” of the land — the ability to exclude others if it had chosen to do so. "

This is relative to the argument that Six Nations still had control over the Haldimand Tract over the centuries even if they did not have exclusive occupation.

O:nen

[Charles Anthony]

Am I defending the Bible? I'm asking a simple question. You're making exactly the same mistakes and assumptions that I did before I did my research on it. I'm defending a prejudice made which happens to be untrue when in left within the context of the statement that was made. Are you shocked by my honesty?

It is frustrating, is it not?

They make an indefensible statement. You ask them for proof.

They do not have proof and say something else. You ask them again for proof.

Again, they avoid the question and say something else. You ask them again to defend THEIR original statement.

Eventually, they give up. At this point, they ask why you are asking.

You stated:

The different translations of the bible have dramatically changed the meaning of the bible over the years as well.

and he asked you specifically what parts changed.

I'm not asking anyone if they believe in or not! Read the question!

Honestly, I don't care.

No. It is more like you are backing away from your original statement.

[jdobbin]

No. It is more like you are backing away from your original statement.

What was my original statement?

[jdobbin]

Again my question was, "Name the Books, Chapters and Verses that have aledgedly been altered over the years and years of retelling."

King James Bibles now have added footnotes referring to what are said to be "better manuscripts" which indicate that certain changes should be made in the King James text. The most famous such changes are the omission of the last twelve verses of Mark and the first eleven verses of John, chapter 8, but there are many other important omissions, as well as some additions and many word changes that have been incorporated in these new versions, with the implication that all these changes have been derived from these "better" ancient manuscripts.

Much of that information is being debated now about why those ommission were made. Many other bibles completely omit material. There are numerous websites out there that show this. Any theologian will tell you. I have named two. Mark and John. That is a retelling of the story through omission.

Quite honestly, I don't care though because I don't believe any of it and I have no idea what it proves or disproves.

http://www.theseason.org/omissions.htm

http://www.anointedlinks.com/niv_omissions.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/bible.htm

http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvAEst.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_cons...y_and_the_Bible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_Bible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omissions_in_the_Gospel_of_John

http://www.bessel.org/bibles.htm

http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/que4003.htm

[Riverwind]

Quite honestly, I don't care though because I don't believe any of it and I have no idea what it proves or disproves.

Okwaho is trying to make the case that the christian bible has survived ages without significant alteration or distortion over time. He then wants to use this point to argue that native oral traditions have a similar level of accuracy.

What he seems to be missing is that much of the Bible is clearly fiction and cannot be considered to be an accurate record of historical events. The fact that these fictitious parts have been accurately copied and translated over the millenia does not make them any less fictitious.

[Okwaho]

6, 06:52 PM' post='127809']

I'm not asking anyone if they believe in or not! Read the question!

Honestly, I don't care.

Then way did you bring it up????

[jdobbin]

Okwaho is trying to make the case that the christian bible has survived ages without significant alteration or distortion over time. He then wants to use this point to argue that native oral traditions have a similar level of accuracy.

What he seems to be missing is that much of the Bible is clearly fiction and cannot be considered to be an accurate record of historical events. The fact that these fictitious parts have been accurately copied and translated over the millenia does not make them any less fictitious.

Several of the above links have numerous omissions in the bible over the years. That should keep anyone busy trying to explain how the bible hasn't been altered.

And while people dismiss the the Dead Sea Scrolls as being obscure, they prove that there were competing gospels that were removed from the start.

[jdobbin]

Then way did you bring it up????

I never did.

[Okwaho]

What he seems to be missing is that much of the Bible is clearly fiction and cannot be considered to be an accurate record of historical events. The fact that these fictitious parts have been accurately copied and translated over the millenia does not make them any less fictitious.

Now, now Riverbend...your on spin cycle again!!! Go back and read the post I responded to and lets stick to the topic whether or not it is ficticous or true has nothing to do with: "Many events in the Bible actually occurred but the story has been altered over years and years of retelling -"

[Okwaho]

Then way did you bring it up????

I never did.

Oh?

Hardly obscure. If you have studied religion, you would know that.

The different translations of the bible have dramatically changed the meaning of the bible over the years as well.

Why defend the bible at all?

I have no interest in it at all except as a piece of literature. I frankly don't believe much in it all.

[Okwaho]

The smart money is on the migratory model to North America. Your ancestors were immigrants too.

Of course it is because you wouldn't have it any other way!

[jdobbin]

Then way did you bring it up????

I never did.

Oh?

Hardly obscure. If you have studied religion, you would know that.

The different translations of the bible have dramatically changed the meaning of the bible over the years as well.

Why defend the bible at all?

I have no interest in it at all except as a piece of literature. I frankly don't believe much in it all.

I never raised this topic at all. I responded to your point that the bible has never been altered. I personally don't care that it has been altered.

And since you kept asking for examples, I have given you Mark and John from the King James version.

Why don't you prove to me that those aren't alterations?

[Riverwind]

Now, now Riverbend...your on spin cycle again!!! Go back and read the post I responded to and lets stick to the topic whether or not it is fictitious or true has nothing to do with: "Many events in the Bible actually occurred but the story has been altered over years and years of retelling -"

The earliest known copies of the gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ died. The story of Christ's life was altered over years and years of retelling between the time the events happened and when they were written down. However, once the Catholic church decided it had a story it liked it then ensured that only that story was written down and retold over the centuries.

[jdobbin]

The earliest known copies of the gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ died. The story of Christ's life was altered over years and years of retelling between the time the events happened and when they were written down. However, once the Catholic church decided it had a story it liked it then ensured that only that story was written down and retold over the centuries.

Some people are not going to believe anything you say and it really is beside the point.

Prove that the bible hasn't been altered in any way is what I say.

[Okwaho]

Then again, oral history has no crediability as it can be invented easily by one generation or even one person. And, not to mention, it changes slightly everytime it's told. And if the Indians have been around millions of years like they'd like to think, those stories would have changed considerably.

No it doesn't change at all. From the time your a baby to the time you die it is told over and over and over again. If the orator was to change even one minute detail everyone would know! Some of our oral history is the same from Nation to Nation. If you watch the show Battlefield Detectives on Little Big Horn, archialogists proved that the Sioux oral history of the battle was dead on and the Americans written version was wrong! There was no last stand for Custer, he ran like the frightened coward he was.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

what is the point here? lets get back to do natives own the land around caledonia, or don't they? to hell with religioun - hell, i can't even spell it!

[Riverwind]

No it doesn't change at all. From the time your a baby to the time you die it is told over and over and over again.

Just like the Bible - the narrative is completely malleable until the tribe agrees on a narrative. After that it is transmitted accurately. However, you are dreaming if you believe that the people who came up the with original story did not put a spin on it that suited them. Custer's last stand just happened to be a situation where the true story and the story the natives wanted to tell coincided.

[skyclad]

I saw that episode about Custer, both accounts are wrong.

[Who's Doing What?]

Here's one bible alteration:

Book of Exodus:

When moses parted the sea to flee Egypt, it said in the bible I grew up with, that he parted the RED SEA. It is commonly accepted that the passage should read the REED SEA which refers to an area in the Nile Delta. That is one alteration that has occured within the last decade. Since it is believed to have been a translation error, it would actually mean that it is the second time this same rather important occurance, has been altered in the bible.

[Who's Doing What?]

Then again, oral history has no crediability as it can be invented easily by one generation or even one person. And, not to mention, it changes slightly everytime it's told. And if the Indians have been around millions of years like they'd like to think, those stories would have changed considerably.

No it doesn't change at all. From the time your a baby to the time you die it is told over and over and over again. If the orator was to change even one minute detail everyone would know! Some of our oral history is the same from Nation to Nation. If you watch the show Battlefield Detectives on Little Big Horn, archialogists proved that the Sioux oral history of the battle was dead on and the Americans written version was wrong! There was no last stand for Custer, he ran like the frightened coward he was.

If you know the legend of Custer, then you should also know Sitting Bulls Warning.

The natives will never get back what is theirs until everything stolen from the Soldiers is returned. Sitting Bull warned the natives of this, after his marathon dance where they plucked tiny chunks of flesh from his body. It was the same dance where he saw how to defeat the Army. He told the natives that they would be victorious but that they must not touch anything of the dead soldiers. The dead were robbed. So goes the legend that the natives will never get back what is theirs until everything taken from the soldiers that day is returned.