Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
I'm getting bored. I've heard the first of these words somewhere else.
Mike
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Tracing your Ancestry to Adam
- Thread starter Mike Gascoigne
- Start date
Mike
B
Benfranklin403
Guest
"I'm getting bored. I've heard the first of these words somewhere else."
Mike, If you want to prove your point, send me a reference to documents (containing genealogies) with the documents dating from about 100 A.D. The Bible is not an adequate reference because those genealogies stop at the time of Christ. The problem with the type of claim that you are making is that there are really no records to support it that date from about 100 A.D. to say, 1200 A.D. The sources you cite are just based on speculation and guesswork.
Mike, If you want to prove your point, send me a reference to documents (containing genealogies) with the documents dating from about 100 A.D. The Bible is not an adequate reference because those genealogies stop at the time of Christ. The problem with the type of claim that you are making is that there are really no records to support it that date from about 100 A.D. to say, 1200 A.D. The sources you cite are just based on speculation and guesswork.
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
No, I'm not going to try and prove anything, not at this stage anyway. You haven't asked me why I am feeling bored, or what is wrong with the first of those two words.
Perhaps you could tell us something about yourself and your interest in history.
You can find out about me easily enough. It's all on my website:
www.annomundi.co.uk
Mike
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
"Real Historians"
Just in case anyone is feeling confused, and wondering why I should object to the use of the word "real", it's because I've seen it used so many times in Creation Science debates where they talk about "real scientists" and the context always indicates that they mean evolutionists. A creationist cannot be a "real scientist", at least not within the mindset of evolutionists, and the word "real" is used as a term of abuse, as if creationists are not considered to be worthy participants of the debate. It's actually a form of censorship, although the evolutionists are so steeped in their ideology that they don't even know what they are doing. I've complained about it in my book Impossible Theology, in the Appendix on The Philosophy of Evolution.
Now I see the term "real historian" used in exactly the same way, and I'm concerned that we are going to go round the same loop all over again, and that's why I complained that I'm feeling bored.
Now, returning to the actual question, about the documents relating to the early history of Ireland, they are based on documents that were available at the time but have since perished, and these in turn were based on earlier documents that have since perished, and some of these might be based on the oral traditions of the Druids that were committed to memory. Whatever the case, there must be an underlying basis of fact that lies behind the inexact histories that are in our possession. These histories cannot be purely fictitious, because you would have the scenario of a medieval clergyman handing over a book of histories to the chief an Irish clan, saying "This is your history", and receiving the immediate recompense of a sword crashing down on his head. Tribes and nations have preserved their king lists for the purpose of defining their right to rule, and would be unlikely to tolerate the corruption of their histories.
However, in spite of the strong motivation to preserve their king lists, it is a difficult thing to achieve over long periods of time. There has been a systematic destruction of history as a consequence of war, natural disasters, burning of libraries, and lending out books and never getting them back. We have to examine what remains and find out what lies behind it, and this is a theme I have followed in my Forgotten History of the Western People.
Am I claiming that all the names in the Genealogy of Maebh Belle Pyles are correct, all the way back to Magog? No, not at all. There are multiple versions of the histories and they disagree on matters of detail, but they agree on certain matters of importance, that the Irish are descended from Magog, and there was a Scythian prince who married an Egyptian princess and they went to Spain, and their descendants went to Ireland.
Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk
Just in case anyone is feeling confused, and wondering why I should object to the use of the word "real", it's because I've seen it used so many times in Creation Science debates where they talk about "real scientists" and the context always indicates that they mean evolutionists. A creationist cannot be a "real scientist", at least not within the mindset of evolutionists, and the word "real" is used as a term of abuse, as if creationists are not considered to be worthy participants of the debate. It's actually a form of censorship, although the evolutionists are so steeped in their ideology that they don't even know what they are doing. I've complained about it in my book Impossible Theology, in the Appendix on The Philosophy of Evolution.
Now I see the term "real historian" used in exactly the same way, and I'm concerned that we are going to go round the same loop all over again, and that's why I complained that I'm feeling bored.
Now, returning to the actual question, about the documents relating to the early history of Ireland, they are based on documents that were available at the time but have since perished, and these in turn were based on earlier documents that have since perished, and some of these might be based on the oral traditions of the Druids that were committed to memory. Whatever the case, there must be an underlying basis of fact that lies behind the inexact histories that are in our possession. These histories cannot be purely fictitious, because you would have the scenario of a medieval clergyman handing over a book of histories to the chief an Irish clan, saying "This is your history", and receiving the immediate recompense of a sword crashing down on his head. Tribes and nations have preserved their king lists for the purpose of defining their right to rule, and would be unlikely to tolerate the corruption of their histories.
However, in spite of the strong motivation to preserve their king lists, it is a difficult thing to achieve over long periods of time. There has been a systematic destruction of history as a consequence of war, natural disasters, burning of libraries, and lending out books and never getting them back. We have to examine what remains and find out what lies behind it, and this is a theme I have followed in my Forgotten History of the Western People.
Am I claiming that all the names in the Genealogy of Maebh Belle Pyles are correct, all the way back to Magog? No, not at all. There are multiple versions of the histories and they disagree on matters of detail, but they agree on certain matters of importance, that the Irish are descended from Magog, and there was a Scythian prince who married an Egyptian princess and they went to Spain, and their descendants went to Ireland.
Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk
"Tribes and nations have preserved their king lists for the purpose of defining their right to rule, and would be unlikely to tolerate the corruption of their histories."
On the contrary, they would have every reason to encourage fabrication so as to prove their bona fides to rule.
Romulus's ancestors trace his ancestry to Aeneas and Mars. Plutarch claimed that Alexander was the son of Zeus.
On the contrary, they would have every reason to encourage fabrication so as to prove their bona fides to rule.
Romulus's ancestors trace his ancestry to Aeneas and Mars. Plutarch claimed that Alexander was the son of Zeus.
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
But who was Zeus? You will find the answers in both of my books, Forgotten History and Impossible Theology.
Mike
B
Benfranklin403
Guest
>>>>>>>>Now, returning to the actual question, about the documents relating to the early history of Ireland, they are based on documents that were available at the time but have since perished, and these in turn were based on earlier documents that have since perished, and some of these might be based on the oral traditions of the Druids that were committed to memory. Whatever the case, there must be an underlying basis of fact that lies behind the inexact histories that are in our possession.<<<<<<<<<
You believe that your information is based on earlier documents that actually existed but there is no hard evidence of that. I suspect that the earliest books that you have access to are merely fiction and not based on earlier documents. My guess is as good as yours on that point, don't you think?
You believe that your information is based on earlier documents that actually existed but there is no hard evidence of that. I suspect that the earliest books that you have access to are merely fiction and not based on earlier documents. My guess is as good as yours on that point, don't you think?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I agree Ben - my research is leading me to beleive that there is VERY little early Irish history which is totally trustworthy. There is no written history extant today from before the 5th century.
This is all conjecture, and if one chooses to build a history on conjecture that is just as valid as anyone else's version.
This is all conjecture, and if one chooses to build a history on conjecture that is just as valid as anyone else's version.
That's because you're not reading "real" historians, C4K.
First rule of genealogy: If I find a possible ancestor who makes me look good, I adopt him.
Second rule of genealogy: If I find a possible ancestor who make me look bad, I dump him. Must be some mistake in the records.
This was not a problem for kings, because they all ruled by divine right and thus even the worst of them could be justified.
Third rule of genealogy: If you don't find what you want, make it up. Who's going to know?
First rule of genealogy: If I find a possible ancestor who makes me look good, I adopt him.
Second rule of genealogy: If I find a possible ancestor who make me look bad, I dump him. Must be some mistake in the records.
This was not a problem for kings, because they all ruled by divine right and thus even the worst of them could be justified.
Third rule of genealogy: If you don't find what you want, make it up. Who's going to know?
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Can you tell me what you have been reading?</font>[/QUOTE]
I asked you what you have been reading, that constitutes "research", but you have not answered. I think it's because you have not actually read anything.
Mike
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
This thread is not serious enough for me to post my entire bibliography. It is several pages long.
Thank you for showing your true colours by calling me a liar.
Thank you for showing your true colours by calling me a liar.
B
Benfranklin403
Guest
Mike, I note that one of the reviewers of your book had this to say:
"...a picture of our past that is very different than the one taught in most schools." Pat Franklin, Sub-Editor of the Surrey-Hants Star.
.................................................
If you claim that what you have found is different from conventional history, and I think that is your claim, then the burden of proof is on you to show that you have evidence supporting it. So far, you have admitted that you have little or no evidence but only that "there must be an underlying basis of fact that lies behind the inexact histories that are in our possession."
I suspect that your evidence is too meagre to get your writings published in scholarly journals devoted to history. In other words, I think you don't have anything worth reading. I apologize if this seems harsh.
"...a picture of our past that is very different than the one taught in most schools." Pat Franklin, Sub-Editor of the Surrey-Hants Star.
.................................................
If you claim that what you have found is different from conventional history, and I think that is your claim, then the burden of proof is on you to show that you have evidence supporting it. So far, you have admitted that you have little or no evidence but only that "there must be an underlying basis of fact that lies behind the inexact histories that are in our possession."
I suspect that your evidence is too meagre to get your writings published in scholarly journals devoted to history. In other words, I think you don't have anything worth reading. I apologize if this seems harsh.
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
The list of kings dating back to Adam, that I have referenced from my opening topic, is not in my book, although I have dealt with other aspects of the Irish history. It's new information that I have researched afterwards. If you want to criticise my book, you should start off by reading it.
Can you tell me where exactly you are coming from? Do you have problems accepting that there was a real historical person called Magog?
Mike
B
Benfranklin403
Guest
>>>>Can you tell me where exactly you are coming from? Do you have problems accepting that there was a real historical person called Magog?<<<<<<<<
I don't know about Magog but I think I know enough about history to dispute the claim that there is documentary proof of any genealogy from the present time back to Magog. If you disagree, provide the sources of the documents. Of necessity, there must be quite a number of them and they must have been written in several different languages. So far, you have not done that and I don't think you can. I will sipulate in advance that whatever you quote from the Bible I will accept at face value but that still leaves enormous gaps. The claims you are making won't stand up to the most superficial investigation.
I don't know about Magog but I think I know enough about history to dispute the claim that there is documentary proof of any genealogy from the present time back to Magog. If you disagree, provide the sources of the documents. Of necessity, there must be quite a number of them and they must have been written in several different languages. So far, you have not done that and I don't think you can. I will sipulate in advance that whatever you quote from the Bible I will accept at face value but that still leaves enormous gaps. The claims you are making won't stand up to the most superficial investigation.
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Of course you don't know about Magog. I've seen some of your other posts on Impossible Evolutionary Steps and it's obvious you are an evolutionist. At what point does the Bible cease to be fantasy and start becoming real? Was there a flood, and was there a person called Noah who had a grandson called Magog? Was there a dispersion from the tower of Babel? Was there a patriarch called Abraham? Did Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt? Was there a king called David? Was there someone called Jesus who died on the cross for our sins?
You haven't even followed the link from my opening topic. It displays the genealogy of Maebh Belle Pyles, then you scroll down to the footnotes and you will find Keating.
Mike
B
Benfranklin403
Guest
Mike, it seems that your earliest reference is from the 1700s by Keating. But how do you know that Keating's information is correct? He could know the past, back to Magog, only by consulting other works. What were those works? In the absence of information about those earlier documents, why should we believe either you or Keating? I am eagerly waiting for your detailed response. I am from Missouri, the "Show Me" state. So show me. Here is your reference:
"According to Keating, Feinius Farsaidh, the grandson of Magog, and his second cousin Gaedeal (grandson of Gomer) went to the plain of Shinar to study languages because they were interested in the variety of languages that existed after the dispersion from the Tower of Babel. They were especially interested in Hebrew and they learned it from Eber, the great-grandson of Shem. This might explain the apparent existence of Hebraisms in the Irish language, for example Heber, the brother of Heremon, might be named after the Semitic Eber. Also we find Heber Scott and Heber Glunfionn among the descendants of Feinius.."
"According to Keating, Feinius Farsaidh, the grandson of Magog, and his second cousin Gaedeal (grandson of Gomer) went to the plain of Shinar to study languages because they were interested in the variety of languages that existed after the dispersion from the Tower of Babel. They were especially interested in Hebrew and they learned it from Eber, the great-grandson of Shem. This might explain the apparent existence of Hebraisms in the Irish language, for example Heber, the brother of Heremon, might be named after the Semitic Eber. Also we find Heber Scott and Heber Glunfionn among the descendants of Feinius.."
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
How much of Keating have you actually read? You need to read the whole of Volume I and about the first half of Volume II. You will find that he refers to a number of other works.
I already showed you how to click the link to get my page, then how to scroll down to find Keating. You have to do the rest for yourself, then you can make your own detailed response. If necessary, you need to move from the "Show Me" state to the "Find it out for yourself" state, wherever it is.
Mike
B
Benfranklin403
Guest
So Mike, seems that you are unwilling to provide the supporting details that are central to your claim. But I didn't expect that you would be able to do that. I don't doubt that you are sincere, but you simply don't have the evidence that you thought you had. You are an educated person, so you ought not to make claims that you cannot prove.
It will take you some time to describe the documents and their contents even if by some miracle you happen to have them. But if you are going to make a fantastic claim that sets history on its ear - as yours certainly does, then you should not be surprised to be asked for documentation. One single reference to a book of unknown quality "won't cut it". Surely you understand that historians will want more proof than simply your words or the words of Keating.
[ January 23, 2005, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Benfranklin403 ]
It will take you some time to describe the documents and their contents even if by some miracle you happen to have them. But if you are going to make a fantastic claim that sets history on its ear - as yours certainly does, then you should not be surprised to be asked for documentation. One single reference to a book of unknown quality "won't cut it". Surely you understand that historians will want more proof than simply your words or the words of Keating.
[ January 23, 2005, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Benfranklin403 ]
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Yes, it would take a lot of time, much more time than I have got here.
I've got lots of references to other books. My Forgotten History has nine pages of Bibliography, mostly about other histories but some of them are about the history of Ireland.
In any case, I have not come here to try and "prove" something. I am only helping people to do something interesting with their ancestry. If you don't want to trace your ancestry to Adam, or you think it's not possible, you don't have to do it.
Mike
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk
Mike Gascoigne
<img src=/mike.jpg>
Tracing Your Surname To Adam
I opened this topic by explaining how it was possible to trace your ancestry to Adam, if you could trace it to the English monarchy. Although it is theoretically possible for large numbers of people to do this, most of us won't be able to do it because we can't trace our ancestry back far enough to find a "Gateway Ancestor" who is known to be descended from the royal family. The records of our ancestors have not been well enough preserved, and we are dependent on a continuous chain of birth, marriage and death certificates, and we are likely to reach a dead-end if someone is an immigrant, and we have to look for shipping records, or there is an illegitimate birth.
Rather than searching for a Gateway Ancestor, we might try something a little easier. We could try and find a living or historical namesake (someone with our own name), who is descended from the royalty. All you have to do is go into a search engine (for example Google) and enter your surname along with some aristocratic words such as "earl", "baron" or "duke". If you don't get any useful results, use another name within your family, for example your mother's maiden surname.
I tried it with the name "Gascoigne" and after following a few links I came across a historical re-enactment society called "The Sir William Gascoigne Fellowship" and their details are on the following page:
www.gascoignes-fellowship.org.uk
Their purpose is to celebrate three generations of a Gascoigne family that followed a long-standing tradition of always calling their eldest son William. The first two of these were military captains for Sir Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, and they fought for him in the Wars of the Roses, on the Lancastrian side. The third William Gascoigne took part in the 1482 invasion of Scotland, and he married Margaret Percy, daughter of Henry Percy, and here we have the link to the royalty because Henry Percy was doubly descended from Henry III, King of England (once through Edmund "Crounchback" and once through Edward I, II and III). William and Margaret had three sons and eight daughters, and of course they followed the tradition of calling their first son William. The names are:
William Gascoigne
John Gascoigne
Thomas Gascoigne
Elizabeth Gascoigne
Margaret Gascoigne (who married Ralph Ogle and became known as Baroness Ogle)
Dorothy Gascoigne
Elinor Gascoigne
Anne Gascoigne
Joan Gascoigne
Maude Gascoigne
Elizabeth Gascoigne
For details of this family, see the Boyd Family Website:
www.boydhouse.com/genealogy2/gp1238.htm
All these Gascoigne children are Gateway Ancestors, descended from Henry III through their mother, Margaret Percy.
Now, you might be asking, what's all this got to do with me? Am I claiming that one of these might be my Gateway Ancestor to the royalty? Well, no, not exactly. I have traced my ancestry back to my great-great grandfather, Thomas Gascoigne, who was a coal miner in Newcastle, or somewhere in that region. So if he is descended from some of these Gateway Ancestors, something must have gone wrong somewhere along the way.
Rather than attempting the seemingly impossible task of tracing my coal-mining ancestors of the 19th century back to an aristocratic family of the 15th century, I would rather be satisfied with finding out as much as possible about this particular family. The most obvious question to ask is, how long did the William Gascoigne family maintain their tradition of always calling their first son William, and why did they do it? The answer is on the following page:
www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/gg/gascoigne01.htm
There were eleven generations of William Gascoigne, (twelve when the database problems are sorted out) and the first five of them missed the 'e' off the end so they were called "Gascoign". The third of them died in 1222 so the first must have lived during the 12th century and we don't have to go back much further to get to the Norman conquest of 1066. It's therefore obvious why all these Gascoignes called their first son William. They were Normans, and they came over to Britain with William the Conqueror.
The name "Gascoigne" means "man of Gascony", and describes anyone who came from that province in south-west France regardless of their status. However, the men of Gascony who came with William the Conqueror were not coal miners looking for new mines to dig. They were warriors bent on conquest. They must have had about 30 generations of descendants down to the present time, so that even if just a few people called Gascoigne arrived with William the Conqueror, their descendants could account for all the Gascoignes living in Britain today.
I'd like to find out who was the father of Thomas Gascoigne, my great-great grandfather, and possibly find out at what point in their history they became coal miners. Did they have a better life, sometime before that, and could they be linked to an earlier family of aristocrats? Poor old Thomas. He never even saw his son get married. I have the marriage certificate of John Gascoigne, my great-grandfather who was also a miner, and it says he married Mary Martha Kirsopp in 1893. His father is identified as "Thomas Gascoigne, miner (died)".
Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk
I opened this topic by explaining how it was possible to trace your ancestry to Adam, if you could trace it to the English monarchy. Although it is theoretically possible for large numbers of people to do this, most of us won't be able to do it because we can't trace our ancestry back far enough to find a "Gateway Ancestor" who is known to be descended from the royal family. The records of our ancestors have not been well enough preserved, and we are dependent on a continuous chain of birth, marriage and death certificates, and we are likely to reach a dead-end if someone is an immigrant, and we have to look for shipping records, or there is an illegitimate birth.
Rather than searching for a Gateway Ancestor, we might try something a little easier. We could try and find a living or historical namesake (someone with our own name), who is descended from the royalty. All you have to do is go into a search engine (for example Google) and enter your surname along with some aristocratic words such as "earl", "baron" or "duke". If you don't get any useful results, use another name within your family, for example your mother's maiden surname.
I tried it with the name "Gascoigne" and after following a few links I came across a historical re-enactment society called "The Sir William Gascoigne Fellowship" and their details are on the following page:
www.gascoignes-fellowship.org.uk
Their purpose is to celebrate three generations of a Gascoigne family that followed a long-standing tradition of always calling their eldest son William. The first two of these were military captains for Sir Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, and they fought for him in the Wars of the Roses, on the Lancastrian side. The third William Gascoigne took part in the 1482 invasion of Scotland, and he married Margaret Percy, daughter of Henry Percy, and here we have the link to the royalty because Henry Percy was doubly descended from Henry III, King of England (once through Edmund "Crounchback" and once through Edward I, II and III). William and Margaret had three sons and eight daughters, and of course they followed the tradition of calling their first son William. The names are:
William Gascoigne
John Gascoigne
Thomas Gascoigne
Elizabeth Gascoigne
Margaret Gascoigne (who married Ralph Ogle and became known as Baroness Ogle)
Dorothy Gascoigne
Elinor Gascoigne
Anne Gascoigne
Joan Gascoigne
Maude Gascoigne
Elizabeth Gascoigne
For details of this family, see the Boyd Family Website:
www.boydhouse.com/genealogy2/gp1238.htm
All these Gascoigne children are Gateway Ancestors, descended from Henry III through their mother, Margaret Percy.
Now, you might be asking, what's all this got to do with me? Am I claiming that one of these might be my Gateway Ancestor to the royalty? Well, no, not exactly. I have traced my ancestry back to my great-great grandfather, Thomas Gascoigne, who was a coal miner in Newcastle, or somewhere in that region. So if he is descended from some of these Gateway Ancestors, something must have gone wrong somewhere along the way.
Rather than attempting the seemingly impossible task of tracing my coal-mining ancestors of the 19th century back to an aristocratic family of the 15th century, I would rather be satisfied with finding out as much as possible about this particular family. The most obvious question to ask is, how long did the William Gascoigne family maintain their tradition of always calling their first son William, and why did they do it? The answer is on the following page:
www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/gg/gascoigne01.htm
There were eleven generations of William Gascoigne, (twelve when the database problems are sorted out) and the first five of them missed the 'e' off the end so they were called "Gascoign". The third of them died in 1222 so the first must have lived during the 12th century and we don't have to go back much further to get to the Norman conquest of 1066. It's therefore obvious why all these Gascoignes called their first son William. They were Normans, and they came over to Britain with William the Conqueror.
The name "Gascoigne" means "man of Gascony", and describes anyone who came from that province in south-west France regardless of their status. However, the men of Gascony who came with William the Conqueror were not coal miners looking for new mines to dig. They were warriors bent on conquest. They must have had about 30 generations of descendants down to the present time, so that even if just a few people called Gascoigne arrived with William the Conqueror, their descendants could account for all the Gascoignes living in Britain today.
I'd like to find out who was the father of Thomas Gascoigne, my great-great grandfather, and possibly find out at what point in their history they became coal miners. Did they have a better life, sometime before that, and could they be linked to an earlier family of aristocrats? Poor old Thomas. He never even saw his son get married. I have the marriage certificate of John Gascoigne, my great-grandfather who was also a miner, and it says he married Mary Martha Kirsopp in 1893. His father is identified as "Thomas Gascoigne, miner (died)".
Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk