• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lamanite Lore and the Fabrication of Scripture

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
From an article titled: Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics
In March 2000 Scott Woodward, Professor of Microbiology at Brigham Young University (BYU), launched a multi-million dollar human molecular genealogy study funded by philanthropists Ira Fulton and James Sorenson. The Molecular Genealogy Research Group (MGRG) uses DNA evidence to identify genealogical connections between present and past humans. Increasing interest in using DNA to trace family histories and linkages between human populations offers considerable promise to Latter-day Saint genealogical endeavors. ...

Some Latter-day Saints have expressed optimism that DNA research would lead to a vindication of the BoMor as a translation of a genuine ancient document. The hope is that DNA research would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical, or morphological research. The results, though, have been disappointing. So far, DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Genetic data repeatedly point to migrations from Asia between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago as the primary source of Native American origins. DNA research has substantiated the archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological evidence that also points overwhelmingly to an Asian origin for Native Americans. While DNA evidence shows that ultimately all human populations are rather closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and the indigenous peoples of the Americas—much less within the time frame suggested by the BoMor. After considering recent research in molecular anthropology, summarized here, I have concluded that Latter-day Saints should not expect to find validation for the BoMor in genetics. My assessment echoes that of geneticist and former LDS Bishop Simon Southerton whose survey of the literature on Native American DNA also "failed to find anything that supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus." He concluded "the truth is that there is no reliable scientific evidence supporting migrations from the Middle East to the New World."

This essay outlines two significant insights into the geography and history of human genes and their implications for Mormon thought. If the new embrace of DNA research has an impact on Mormon views of the world, it will likely propel new approaches to scripture and history already underway in Mormon intellectual circles. First, the genealogical data inscribed in human genes suggest to current researchers that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived in Africa between five and seven million years ago. This genetic data adds to the abundance of archaeological, fossil, and anatomical data pointing to ancient human origins in Africa and adds to difficulties in upholding scriptural literalism. Second, genealogical data inscribed in genes of modern humans and ancient American skeletons not only helps researchers to identify ultimate origins but also provides clues to ancient migration patterns. Current genetic data suggest that ancestors of Native Americans separated from their Asian neighbors about 40-50,000 years ago and from each other in what may have been three or more separate waves of migration by 7-15,000 years ago. No support for Mormon beliefs linking American Indians to ancient Israelites is evident in the data.

< -- snip -- >​

Conclusion

Writing before the emergence of molecular anthropology, LDS anthropologist John L. Sorenson anticipated both the utility and futility of the types of molecular tests that are now available:
Should some investigator find new methods to pursue research on the 'blood lines' of a particular individual, family, or people, he or she might find that some native Americans are directly descended from Nephites of ancient times, that some are descended in part from others in Lehi's or Mulek's parties, that some are of Jaredite origin, and that still others have no discernible connection to any of those. Scientific, genealogical, or historical methods are not available; but more important, the scriptures indicate that the results would not matter as far as the Church and the gospel are concerned.​
Quantitative scientific methods can now test the claims of an Israelite genetic presence in ancient America. So far, they have demonstrated that nearly all Native Americans can trace their lineages to migrations from Asia sometime between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago. Latter-day Saints who prematurely pointed to haplogroup X as the best hope to salvage Mormon claims were mistaken—indeed, the timing and destination of that migration is inconsistent with either a hemispheric or limited Mesoamerican geography for the BoMor. Moreover, the most recent studies have identified haplogroup X in Siberian populations which share a common ancestry with Native Americans. While molecular anthropologists have demonstrated a technological capability to use DNA to identify descendants of ancient Hebrews, no such evidence has turned up in Central America or elsewhere among Native Americans. Ultimately, as Sorenson has noted, these findings may not matter to Latter-day Saints who have a spiritual witness of the "truth" of the BoMor, yet they caution against confusing a spiritual witness with scientific evidence. Spiritual witnesses may reach beyond science but they should never be confused with it.

From a scientific perspective, the BoMor's origin is best situated in early 19th century America, not ancient America. There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image.

In 1973, after weighing the overwhelming archaeological evidence against an ancient origin for the BoMor, Michael Coe implored Latter-day Saints:
Forget the so-far fruitless quest for Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, and the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful; there is no more chance of finding them than of discovering the ruins of the bottomless pit described in the book of Revelations. ... Continue the praiseworthy excavations in Mexico, remembering that little or nothing pertaining to the Book of Mormon will ever result from them. And start digging into the archaeological remains of the Saints themselves.​

As we enter the 21st century, I would like to offer similar advice to Latter-day Saints. Continue our praiseworthy genealogical endeavors and efforts to preserve ancient history. Make use of the latest genetic technologies to enhance the precision and accuracy of genealogical records and historical research. Avoid fruitless quests for Israelite DNA in ancient America—there is little more chance of finding genetic proof of Lehite civilization than there is of finding the BoMor gold plates.​
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
Hmm,

I am starting to think you doubt the legitimaticy of a religion founded by a modern man, resting upon his claims of gold plates that have never been produced, which led him to write down a story he could not reproduce accurately with the same mysterious plates in a second telling.

Your skepticism sounds a bit far fetched my friend. I can find no holes in what Joseph Smith had to say. No holes at all.

That being said, I went to Grad School with some LDS folks. Absolute nicest people I have ever known in my life.

B.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
This isn't exactly something new since this article has been published for a few years, but I figured since we were presenting articles from one side of the debate, that I would post some information from the other side. Here's a link I've left before: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html. I'll try to go through it and post some of the information so that people don't have to read through all the articles who don't want to. I find that the research being done is very interesting.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
From the Brochure: Is an historical Book of Mormon incompatible with DNA Science?

Despite common misconceptions among many LDS, the Book of Mormon does not claim to be a record of all those who inhabited the New World. For at least seventy years many (and today probably most) LDS scholars have found evidence within the Book of Mormon text that Book of Mormon geography encompassed a limited area (generally believed to have transpired in Mesoamerica) and that Book of Mormon peoples interacted with pre-existing populations. (These theories are treated in separate brochures entitled “Where did Book of Mormon Events Take Place,” “Who are the Lamanites?” and “Were the Lehites Alone in the Americas?”)

...
According to most LDS scholars, the Lehites and Mulekites would have been small incursions into much larger existing populations, probably of Asiatic origin. When small populations mix with large populations we have a significant risk of losing the DNA signatures of the smaller population. These markers can disappear for any of the following reasons: Genetic bottleneck, founder effect, and genetic drift (descriptions can be found in the article).​

 

jonny

Well-Known Member
From the article: A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event"

When Lehi and his family arrived in the New World, was the land isolated and desolate, or were others already in the land? That is, in what fashion was the land peopled? And what was the sphere of their operations? Did they encompass the whole of the western hemisphere, or did they live in a more circumscribed area?

The Church itself has resisted ever taking a formal position on these kinds of questions. Although the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon contained speculative geographic footnotes inserted by its editor, Orson Pratt, these notes were all removed in the 1920 edition. There have been dozens of geographic theories regarding Book of Mormon events put forward over the years, but none has the official imprimatur of the Church, and none carries the authority of prophetic sanction.

The extant DNA evidence simply confirms what scientists already knew: that most Native Americans ultimately derive from Asia.2 This is inconsistent with the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To that extent, Murphy and Southerton are not arguing against a straw man; many contemporary Latter-day Saints (to the extent that they have thought of the issue at all) continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To the extent that the kind of DNA research publicized by Murphy and Southerton causes these people to reexamine their assumptions about the nature of the text, I think the effect will be a salutary one.

The problem is that Murphy and Southerton go beyond that. They recognize, as they must, that the extant DNA evidence is not inconsistent with a limited geography model of the Book of Mormon.3 When they reject a limited geography model, they must do so on other grounds. At this point, their argument stops being a scientific one and becomes a theological one. Regretfully, they fail to acknowledge this shift in the grounds of their argument. By turning from a scientific to a religious mode of discourse without noting the shift, they are attempting to leverage the science and lead people to think it definitively answers a partisan, religious debate, one that the magisterium of science is ultimately incompetent to referee.

Murphy's and Southerton's theological argument imposes the scientifically naïve assumption that Lehi and his family were the sole ancestors of all American Indians on their readers and argues that Latter-day Saints are not free to accept a limited geography model given various statements of past Church leaders. They also point, as in the article under review, to the statement in the introduction to the Book of Mormon that Lehi was the "principal" ancestor of the American Indians. I for one reject the adjective "principal" from that introduction, which was only added as a part of the 1981 edition and is not a canonical part of the scripture. I am perfectly free to reject that adjective, as well as the other similar statements Murphy and Southerton point to. Their inability to do so themselves simply reflects the fundamentalist character of the one-time faith they held in the Church.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
From the article: The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon

It is important to remember that Mr. Murphy is not citing his own original research in genetics, but rather library research into the work of others. He is synthesizing conclusions from his reading. This is a critical difference, for it helps us understand why the researchers can be right, but Mr. Murphy can be mistaken in his reading of those researchers. It will help us explain why Dr. Michael Whiting, an Evolutionary Biologist at Brigham Young University and "an authority on DNA"2 does not believe that Mr. Murphy has his science right.3 This is not a statement of fault in scientific method, because Murphy is not engaged in this type of work. It is rather a statement that his conclusions are not consonant with the science. When we examine the nature of the data available, we find that Murphy's particular conclusion does not flow from those data. He has asked the wrong questions of his data, and by asking the wrong questions, returns the wrong answers.

...

Murphy's next statement in his conclusion is "that virtually all Native Americans can trace their lineages to the Asian mi-grations between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago." The implication is that since we are able to trace Asian migrations, and we haven't found distinctive Hebrew DNA, that therefore the Book of Mormon cannot be true. In this, Murphy comes close to a correct conclusion, but not quite. It is very common among long-time Latter-day Saints who were born into the Church to assume that the Book of Mormon describes the origin of all of the American Indians. That it is common, however, does not mean that it squares with what the Book of Mormon actually says. In fact, it does not.

Additionally, this understanding among long-time Latter-day Saints does not indicate that this is a doctrine of the Church.
...
Again, Mr. Murphy seems to present the results of his research as though this information about the hemispheric interpretation of the Book of Mormon is somehow new. The information about the Asian migrations into the New World is hardly new, and the faithful LDS scholars of the Book of Mormon have had that very understanding for a minimum of fifty years.16 The use of DNA evidence is new, but it doesn't tell us anything that was not already known about the Book of Mormon. In fact, a good result of this public attention will be that the general population of LDS will more rapidly come to understand the actual historical foundations of their sacred text rather than the mythology that has grown up around it.

The results of careful study of what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself tells us that it covers an area dramatically smaller than the western hemisphere. John L. Sorenson notes:
We can now be certain that the Book of Mormon story took place in a limited portion of the western hemisphere shaped roughly like an hourglass. The size of that territory was measured in hundreds, not thousands, of miles. The movements of peoples, the individual journeys, and the times involved in travels recorded in the scripture fit reasonably in a land southward around 350 miles long and not much more than half that wide at one point north of Zarahemla. The land northward is less well specified but seems not so long.19

That this more accurate understanding of the Book of Mormon may be seen as the more "official" understanding of the Church may be seen from both the publication of this information about the Book of Mormon in the Ensign in 198420 as well as in the article on "Book of Mormon Geography" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
This is the third time I've rebutted you on this with no response, JS. Perhaps I'll have more luck when I paste the entire text here rather than offer you a link. When you are ready to put down the straw-man and talk scholarship, be prepared to address the following points of data.

Over fifty years ago, Hugh Nibley* made a powerful case for the Jaredites (chronologically the first BoM migrants from the Old World) being of Asian stock, and he further demonstrates how survivors of their final battle joined with the Mulekites, who later became Nephites.

Summarizing Nibley's best points (by his own admission he's longwinded!) we find the following comparisons between the Jaredites and the Asiatic Nomads:

--Jared and his people took all their friends and their families, regardless of blood relationship (Ether 1:41). The idea of mere friends as supporters and members of the tribe is common among Asiatic nomads (Nibley 179).

--Jaredites mix the professions of hunter/herdsman/farmer. Nibley cites McGovern as pointing out that "the tribes of the steppes have at all times been hunters, herdsmen and farmers all at once." (182; McGovern, Early Empires of Central Asia, pp. 44)

--"The pages of Ether are dark with intrigue and violence, strictly of the Asiatic brand. When a rival for the kingdom is bested, he goes off by himself in the wilderness and bides his time while gathering an 'army of outcasts.' This is done by 'drawing off' men to himself through lavish bestowal of gifts and bribes. The forces thus won are retained by the taking of terible oaths. (193)

More specific examples:

* "Lu Fang, 'the leader of a small military band, half soldiers, half bandits,' nearly won the hunnish and Chinese empires for himself two thousand years ago, and would have done so had not some of his own ambitious officers deserted him just as he had deserted others."(194; McGovern, Early Empires p. 224-6)

* After the death of Atilla the Hun, "two of his descendants went out into the wilderness and there gathered about them 'armies of outcasts,' each hoping to win back the world empire for himself."(194; Jordanes, Hist. Goth. c. 35)

* "Not only is the Jaredite practice of seeking to 'draw off' to one's own side the followers of a rival while building up an army in the wilderness in the best Asiatic tradition, but the method of doing it is likewise in the best accepted tradition. Thus Akish bound his followers around the nucleus of his family (the Asiatic conquerers are fanatically family-conscious) by lavish gifts, for 'the people of Akish were desirous for gain, even as Akish was desirous for power; wherefore the son Akish did offer them money, by which means they drew away the more part of the people after them.'" (195; Ether 9:11)

* "It was the sons of Jenghiz Khan, you will remember, who did most of his campaigning for him, and from the very beginning the secret of his power was the huge heap of precious things that always stood near his throne, and from which, after the immemorial custom of the steppes, he rewarded all who joined him." (195; M. Prawden, The Mongol Empire, p. 86)

* "But if the ambitious chieftan gains adherents by bribery, he keeps them by oaths. The oaht is the cornerstone of the Asiatic state as of the Jaredite period. Akish again furnishes an excellent example:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/professional/misc/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/professional/misc/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/professional/misc/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif[13.] And it came to pass that Akish gathered in unto the house of Jared all his kinsfolk, and said unto them: Will ye swear unto me that ye will be faithful unto me in the thing which I shall desire of you?

[14] And it came to pass that they all sware unto him, by the God of heaven, and also by the heavens, and also by the earth, and by their heads, that whoso should vary from the assistance which Akish desired should lose his head; and whoso should divulge whatsoever thing Akish made known unto them, the same should lose his life.

[15] And it came to pass that thus they did agree with Akish. And Akish did administer unto them the oaths which were given by them of old who also sought power, which had been handed down even from Cain, who was a murderer from the beginning.
(Ether 8:13-15)http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/professional/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/professional/misc/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif"

* "The very oldest texts in 'the oldest language in the world,' according to Hommel, are incantations 'having the stereotyped conclusion: "let it be sworn (or conjured) by the name of heaven, let it be sworn by the name of earth!"'(196; Fritz Hommel, Ethnologie and Geographie des Alten Orients (Munich, 1926) pp. 21f)

--After the wars were decided, the old king was often allowed to live, as in the case of Kib, deposed by his son Corihor, but allowed to live and even have children, one of whom rises up against his brother and frees his father (Ether 7:4-9). Shule was taken prisoner by Corihor's son Noah, only to be freed by his own sons. (201)

--"When Baidu and Kaijatu disputed the throne of Asia, the advisers of the latter when he gained ascendency declared: 'It is right that he (Baidu) should be yoked under service, and that he should be kept in bondage for the whole period of his life, so that his hand can never be stretched out to kill or commit injury.' Kaijatu failed to heed this advice, to his sorrow, for presently his brother staged a coup and put him in a tower for the rest of his days, but refused to kill him."(202; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography I, 495, 500)

--"The expression 'yoked under service' reminds us that the Book of Ether kings are made to serve many years in captivity (8:3, 10:15, 10:30).

Nibley gives many, many more examples, but the above is sufficient to demonstrate a remarkable similarity. But the work is only half done, because even if we allow that the Jaredites were of Asian descent, the Book of Mormon cannot claim them to be ancestors of the Native Americans because it records that they were all wiped out before the arrival of the Nephites.

Or does it?

Could we be oversimplifying things in our readings of the Book of Ether? Nibley claims we have, due in part to the fact that "The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements." As a case in point, Nibley points us to the references in the Jaredite account that suggest they were all destroyed. Says Nibley: "the word is to be taken in its primary and original sense: 'to unbuild; to separate violently into its constituent parts; to break up the structure.'" Does the Book of Mormon hold to such a definition?

--In 1 Nephi 17:31 we read of the Israel being destroyed, then being led.
--In 2 Nephi 25:9 we read of the Jews being destroyed from generation to generation...(wouldn't once be enough?):biglaugh:
--In 1 Ne 17:43 we read that the Jews at Jerusalem were destroyed, except for a few...but history records that they were scattered except for a few.
--In 1 Ne 13:35 both Nephites and Lamanites dwindle in unbelief after
they have been destroyed.

Finally, he points out that Alma 16:9 shows they did know how to express annihilation rather than decimation, and that this is the only time it has been expressed so. Regarding the so-called "extinction" of the Jaredites, Nibley points out that the prophecy given to Coriantumr only speaks of every soul of Coriantumr's kingdom and household, and that prophecy was fulfilled.

So where are the survivors? Nibley again points out that the vast majority of the dissenters from the Nephites (and quite a few others) have Jaredite names. Morianton, Corianton, Korihor, Nehor, Shiblon, and Noah are all names from the Book of Ether, and Gadianton bears a striking resemblance to the first two. The only contact we have with Jaredite culture is through the Mulekites, who were later absorbed into the Nephites. Seems logical that many of these people were dissenters because they were having second thoughts about Nephite rule, and were trying to do what they did when they hated the king--fight back using assassination, drawing off armies, and secret oaths.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
--snipped from previous post due to length--

Speaking of Mulekites, and reminding ourselves to avoid oversimplification, why are we taking their bizarre account of a second journey from Jerusalem at face value? Orson Scott Card** suggests that the entire origin story of Mulek being a son of Zedekiah is a total fabrication. Card points out that ancient mesoamerican politicking included games of one-upmanship in which nobles would declare their descent from a god or at least a king. Imagining the original meeting between King Zarahemla and King Mosiah, Card suggests that at some point Mosiah bears his testimony about his ancestor Lehi, the great prophet, and Zarahemla mistakes it for a play at right to rule. To counter, Zarahemla asks if Lehi was a king as well as a prophet, and Mosiah says he wasn't. Zarahemla then declares that his great ancestor, Mulek, was the son of Lehi's king in his old world, thereby giving him a right to rule over the Nephites. Mosiah points out that if that's the case, their language has been corrupted, and he produces plates that Zarahemla can't read. For this and other reasons, Zarahemla steps down in favor of Mosiah, but the story he spun remains because it allows the two nations to unite as brothers instead of as oppressor and oppressed. That a reference to this fiction made it into the Book of Mormon only means that Mormon believed the story.

Here I must admit, Card cites no source for the ancient systems of mesoamerican politicking--I'll do some more research into this--but it is, as he says, a decent explanation of how a good Jaredite name like Mulek wound up in the family of an Israelite king!

Finally (at last we reach the end!) if the vast majority of Mulekites were of Jaredite stock, then we need only remember that they vastly outnumbered the original Nephites before joining with them (Mosiah 25:2-3) for the current "DNA controversy" to fall right in step with everything else.

*--Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites, Bookcraft 1952
**--Orson Scott Card, "The Book of Mormon, Artifact or Artifice?" from A Storyteller in Zion, Bookcraft 1993
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
painted wolf said:
I have to say I'm still currious where they got the horses... :D

wa:do
Probably the same place Americans got "buffalo" from on a continent that has no buffalo, only bison. Also the same place Columbus and other explorers got "lions" from, while exploring South America jaguar country.

People assign names to new animals based upon how they resemble familiar ones.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
er.. so what were horses then... really big llamas?

or was the translation done by Joseph Smith wrong?

*ps: many nations when they first saw horses gave them names appoximating "big dog".:cool:

wa:do
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
Llamas of any size are on the list, but they aren't the only ones. The problem is compounded by an ideographic language, because all it takes is for the scribes to agree to use the old "horse" ideograph for the new animal. Resemblance didn't have to be that big at all.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should read this article which discusses horses being on the American continent:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml#horses

Publications from the late 1950s reported results from excavations by scientists working on the Yucatan Peninsula. Excavations at the site of Mayapan, which dates to a few centuries before the Spaniards arrived, yielded horse bones in four spots. (Two of the lots were from the surface, however, and might represent Spanish horses.) From another site, the Cenote (water hole) Ch'en Mul, came other traces, this time from a firm archaeological context. In the bottom stratum in a sequence of levels of unconsolidated earth almost two meters in thickness, two horse teeth were found. They were partially mineralized, indicating that they were definitely ancient and could not have come from any Spanish animal. The interesting thing is that Maya pottery was also found in the stratified soil where the teeth were located.

 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
so basically we may have a bunch of bad names... Tapiers and Lamas however are certenly incapable of pulling chariots...

teeth can be tricky to pin down... I'd like to hear of some better evidence personally. Mayans were known to tip whole animals down cenote's I would think that more than two teeth would be in evidence. What other animal remains were found in that layer of the Cenote? Or in the Cenote in general?

I can't seem to find any referances to this paper other than Mormon ones... makes it hard to double check it... :eek:

However pre-columbian can mean anytime before European inhabitation... Europeans reached the Carribian much earlier than any significant steps on the mainland and had been dumping horses overbord as standard practice for a long time... dates on the find would be helpful... as would how the dates were obtained. Were these horses related to European species? Were the Spanish spreading out around the Carribean at the time?
Horses existed in the Pliestocine but died out some time there after, as with camels, mammoths and hosts of other species.

Again I can't seem to find the actual paper on-line or any non-lds referances or I wouldn't have to ask you guys all these questions.. :(

wa:do
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
painted wolf said:
so basically we may have a bunch of bad names... Tapiers and Lamas however are certenly incapable of pulling chariots...
Horses existed in the Pliestocine but died out some time there after, as with camels, mammoths and hosts of other species.
Hi PW,

If you want to talk about bad names, how about naming native americans indians? It was a popular belief among the early settlers that Native Americans were the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel. Fanciful answers to something they could not explain. How did these people get here and where did they come from? The archaeological evidence still points to an asian migration but there are some small anomalies that indicate the possibilty of people in South America interacting with other people across the water a long time ago. None of this has any link to Israel however.
 
Top