Were the Nordic peoples originally Canaanites?

Subject: Newton Attatchment
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:00:00 +0000

Hi Darrell I am delighted to have to say that I have got the attatchment that Larry sent me right here and have found an easier way of doing it from hotmail. Coincidently I have found some very interesting info regarding the "Sweedish Indians" (Were they Caananites). Gustav Olsen in his book reveals that indeed they were the original inhabitants (The "Incredible Nordic Origins") and that the scull shapes have the typicle "Neanderthaloid" Characteristics of the Brow ridge and are thus described as "Brachesephalus" and not Modern Scandinavians . Mike and Dan I have read this book and would advise everyone to do a google search and simply click on The Incredible Nordic Origins which reveals that the Laps and the Fins were it's original inhabitants who were later driven back North to the sea coasts. Darrell can you please let me know if you have got the attatchment which I promised you. Many thanks John

John,
 
Having it in electronic form should be nice.
I will check out the book also - sound great.
 
Darrell

Subject: RE: Newton Attatchment
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:33:53 +0000

Nice One Darrell and indeed exelent and Many thanks for letting me know. I have a feeling Darrell that Larry's work on newton could be based on that of Bill Cooper's; but he is keeping me in suspense at the moment. Can't blame him for that. It'll be interesting to see what he has to say  when he finishes the book next year. I'm studying at the moment the "Incredible Nordic  Origins" by S Gusten Olsen. He says King Eric came to Denmark 62 after Babel ; Thus 2234 BC - 62 yrs = 2172 BC for this Neolithic Industry colony if my calculations serve me correctly. He says that before this time there were wilder tribes who were there before being displaced back Northward to the coast and these fins/laps were of Caananite ethnic Origins. Sounds to me like Neanderthal. John

Subject: RE: Newton Attatchment
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:01:52 +0000

Hi John,
 
2234/2233 BC is the date for the founding of Babel .  A reference to Babel usually means from the confusion of languages which occurred in 2191 BC when Babel was destroyed.  Thus Eric would have come to Denmark in about 2129 BC.
 
One serious problem with this (for me) would be that my model has Denmark under Ice/Glaciers by that time. Possibly the area was more toward the Norway northern coasts at that time.  The coast were warmed by the warm Arctic Ocean .
 
A speculation would be that the Neanderthals (which we suspect came in Ciocol(sp) group) spread around those areas of northern europe near the coast.  North Ireland, north  Scotland , and north norway coast.  I would suspect the two colonies in northern Scotland would be the center of their activity.

So what background did Eric have (father - lineage) (CoMagon)?  Arriving in 2129 BC (as a mature leader) would suggest that he was a 6th or 7th generation (from Noah) with a expected life expectancy of 230 years or so (unless killed in battle).

 
I have been studying an interest theory on travel across western russia by ship in an article at
 

http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/liafail.htm

Subject: RE: Newton Attatchment
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:47:54 +0000

Hi Darrell I have the book by Gusten Olsen who by the way is an AngloIsraelist (I should'nt keep using these labels about authors) but his book is very interesting and shows on one of the pages what appears to be the skull of a Neanderthal. It is what I call "Longheaded" and has the typical Neanderthal Browridge Characteristics. I think he calls these people the "Swedish Indians" and are of caananite stock. The book is the only link I have at the moment but will keep you updated on the web; to see what I can find. He does'nt give a date when the abouriginals reached Denmark but does go on to say that they migrated directly after the flood to where the ark had landed. I would take this to be one of the world survey teams who probably returned to Denmark by 2247 BC when the Ice age was established properly. John

Subject: RE: Newton Attatchment
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:58:56 +0000

Hi John,
 
Here is the only link I found which told anything.
 

http://www.bethelcog.org/church/the-origin-of-our-western-heritage/colonization-in-the-ancient-world

The Gothic annals claim that the " Gotha " were first led into Scandinavia 62 years after the Tower of Babel under King Eric, who was a contemporary of Saruch (Serug), the great-grandfather of Abraham. Suhm's History of Denmark, page 65, states: "And the Gothic kingdom [Dania or Scythia ] was founded 762 years after the flood, when Sarugh [ancestor of Abraham] was 95 years old."

 
Note: 762 yrs is obiously using the LXX - to converted to Ussher's: Serug born in 2185 BC  less 95 yrs = 2090 BC vs 2129 BC which is 62 years after the T of Babel. Never the less close.  I had first assumed 7th generation contemporary with Serug when I saw the date of arrival.

In the History of Denmark, page 39, section five, we read: "both Denmark and Sweden with surrounding areas were, according to the old chronicles, inhabited from Abraham's time and started to have kings when David reigned in Israel " (quoted in Olson, 10).  

Further thoughts on Eric

Subject: Newton and the Alogonquian Amerindians
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:02:44 +0000

Darrell did Newton date the Algonquan Indians who were supposedly Canaanites to 1504 BC am 2500 supposedly despersed from Canaan at this time? This date to me makes no sense as it places Joshua in 1504 BC before he was even bourne and supposedly happened 844 yrs after the flood and this is very similar to Bill Cooper's date for Partholan placed later at 864 after the flood.  Thus I am sugesting here that even the top date of 1504 BC Is LXX linked in some way. It seems to me that Olsen is contradicting himself when he says the earliest people to arrive in Scandinavia 62 after the despersion or 2129 BC and the canaanite Neanderthal tribes migrated directly from where the arc stood whom he says were there before King Eric. Olsen also asks us to believe that in Sweden that Bronze was not used prior to the arrival of the Phoenicians no later than 500 BC> I have also shown that Eric was a decendent of Shem. What do you make of all this Darrell? In conclusion Olsen "Cannot Be Serious". John

Subject: RE: Newton and the Alogonquian Ammerindians
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:30:29 +0000

John,
 
You asked "Darrell did Newton date the Algonquan Indians who were supposedly Canaanites to 1504 BC am 2500 supposedly despersed from Canaan at this time?"
 
Newtons work "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended" is on the internet.  I have the book, but his short chronology only deals with 1125 BC to 331 BC.  I see no mention of the Algonquan Indians in the short chronology (nor have I seen any mention elsewhere - but it is a good sized book).

I don't have Olsens material, so I can not comment.  However, 62 years after the dispersion and in the time of Serug match up well.  I always look for confirmational material.  So any mention of 1504 BC seems in error.
 
Also, never take interupted dates serious.  We always have to find dates in respect to events in order to get a reasonable date.  So many different chronologies, who can guess which they used.  Until we know how the date was derived, we can not use it.
 
Darrell
 

 
I should have been clearer about this reference.  The account of Gathelus' trip through a sea east of Europe was what interested me.  That Norway and Sweden were an Island at that time.  Most of the identifications in this article are non-sense for two reasons:
 
1)  As I mentioned before, Irish and Scotish ancient history has three areas of confusion, but if they are all lined up and compared - via Genealogy, one can make sense of the different confused accounts and separate truth from confusion.  We must be careful, popular names are often repeated in history.
 
The confusion accepted by this article was that Gathelus was the same person as Miledh (Mile).
Via the Genealogies, it can be shown that they are clearly two different people, Gathelus at the time of Moses and Miledh at the time of David and Solomon.  The confusion comes in because both are said to have married Scota, princess of Egypt .  In fact, in my resulting genealogy I have two Scota's, one the daughter of the Pharaoh of Upper Egypt in Thebes for Gathelus, and the for Miledh, his Scota was daughter of Thutmose 1, whose other daugther married Solomon.

2.  Then somehow they suggest Gathelus was the son of Cecrops (who founded Athens ) and equate Cecrops with Calcol (a decendent of Judah ). Nonsense.  Why?  a) If Cecrops was a Jew, he would never have been allowed to leave Egypt (slaves at that time) and b) If Gathelus was a Jew, then just before the Exodus he would have only have been accepted in Egypt as a Slave.
 
c) but more importantly, the Irish and Scotish chronicles give the genealogies and Gaythelos or Gaedal Glas or Gathelus is the son of Neolos, or Niul, or Nel (Neolhus or Nembricht) who was the son of Fenya or Feinius Farsaid or Foenius Farsaid who was the son of Ewan or Ewan or Eogan etc etc etc back to Noah.  Additionally, Gathelus' son was Iber (Eber) or Eber Scot.
 
d) wereas this tale of Scota relates to Ith son of Breogan (uncle of Miledh) during the 1040 BC time frame.
 
So this is very poor name identification which conflicts with all ancient accounts of the Genealogies.

Conclusion:  Because of the misidentification of Gathelos with Miledh, pieces of one story are  mixed with pieces of the other.  The stone arrived in Ireland about 1000 to 1040 BC or so shortly after Miledh's death.  This also fits with the place of the stone Tara .  The first Scota, with Gathelos went to Spain .
 
This would be my first opinion without deeper study. Got to go.
 
Darrell
 
Hi John,
 
Reviewing the article again yesterday gave me a clue I had overlooked.
 
The Problem:  English ancient history is conflicting to a degree.  We have 3 major claims to the ancient British ( England ) kings lists.  One theory proposes Brutus (via Priam of Troy) as the starting point.  The Irish chronicles claim that Brittan Mael the grandson of Nermed started this line of kings.  The Cambrian proponents lay different claims.  Which one is correct?
 
Clue:  In the article it stated that after Miledh died, Ith, while leading 30 ships toward Ireland , meet with the king of britain , Gwrgant son of Beli.  Now it so happens that both these names are clearly identified on the ancient kings list for England .  These are the 19th and 20th king in the list.  At a minimum of 20 years per reign, we would have 400 years after the start of the kings list, but more like some 700 to 750 years.
 
Theory 1:  If Brutus arrived in England about 1100 BC (I would suggest latter is more probable) then Gwrgant would have been somewhere between 700 BC and 450 BC.  However this conflicts with know dates for Miledh.  Miledh's troop under Ith is said to have arrived in Ireland sometime between 1040 BC and 1010 BC.  To have 20 kings before this date suggests that this kings list started between 1410 BC (compatible with the Cambrians) and 1750 BC (Brittan Mael). 
 
Theory 2:  Brittan Mael would have been in the 13th generation after Noah (his decent is given from Noah down).  According to my genealogy spreadsheet I had him place as arriving in Scotland about 1766 BC.
 
Theory 3:  More research on the Cambrians is needed, but I have not seen a clear claim by them.
 
If the synchronism of Miledh and Gwrgant is correct (I must see the ancient texts to confirm), then Brutus of the lineage of Troy is not the start of this lineage and the Irish claim that Brittan Mael is fits well with the chronology.  For Cooper to fit the kings list from 1100 BC he had to list nearly all the last kings at a reign of 5 years each (very unrealistic).
 
Thus I will be investigating this over the next few days.  It is wonderful to find information which might resolve conflicting assertions.
 
Darrell