ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > ROOTS > 2006-10 > 1162215106


From: MartinFamilyTree <>
Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] 75 B.C.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:31:46 -0600
References: <CKEOJFLJIEKGCJCLAKDIKEBPDAAA.viking@rvi.net><004101c6fb64$dd9c30a0$6401a8c0@oemcomputer><ff05fb6e0610291447k5f3248d5ld7f92c8e830298f5@mail.gmail.com><65d66f240610300242o1fa4abadp5be0ee601b0b5dc5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <65d66f240610300242o1fa4abadp5be0ee601b0b5dc5@mail.gmail.com>


Amen.

Carl


On 10/30/06, marilyn e brown <> wrote:
> Interesting information. Somewhere through the years I heard the statement
> that in the Hebrew Language there is/was a word "da" that indicated an
> indefinite period of time. This has always stuck with me. But then there are
> some things that I don't question I just accept on "faith".
>
> Marilyne
>
>
>
> On 10/29/06, MartinFamilyTree <> wrote:
> > Hi Trevia,
> >
> > Thanks for your kind encouragement. This business of genealogy is
> > really exciting especially since we know the Bible recorded genealogy
> > records and many of our current family records were recorded in our
> > bibles. However, what really bothers me is when DNA will say they
> > can link everyone back to 1 person back thousands of years ago in
> > Asia. And, a lot of us do believe mankind started in that Mid-East
> > country of Iraq.
> >
> > I take comfort in that we humans really do not know how long is God's
> > "day". See
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/bibleprophecy/genealogy.html .
> > So, I guess DNA could be correct.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/29/06, Trevia W Beverly <> wrote:
> > > Agree!
> > >
> > > Trevia Wooster Beverly
> > > Houston, Texas
> > > Member, Association of Professional Genealogists
> > > Member, Genealogical Speakers Guild
> > > Volunteer, Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness
> > > etc.......
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kirsten Bowman" <>
> > > To: "James Brown" < >; "Roots-L"
> <>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:58 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] 75 B.C.
> > >
> > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > Pure poppycock (IMHO). Going to the 1600's is regularly done; the
> 1500's
> > > > would be a lucky break; the 1400's and earlier if you're related to
> > > royalty.
> > > > For the average person claiming a longer line I'd say, "Show me the
> > > > documentation."
> > > >
> > > > Kirsten
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [mailto:]On
> > > > Behalf Of James Brown
> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:00 PM
> > > > To: Roots-L
> > > > Subject: [ROOTS-L] 75 B.C.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If in a scenario...a statement was made, " I can trace my pedigree
> back to
> > > > 75 B.C." I just need opinions ...how realistic is this?
> > > >
> > > >
> James
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to
> > > and ask for the digest...
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in
> > > the subject and the body of the message
> > >
> > > =====
> > > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to
> and ask for the digest...
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
> > >
> > =====
> > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to
> and ask for the digest...
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
>

This thread: