The answer to “Who really discovered America?” depends on the definition of discover.According to the American Heritage on-line dictionary the word discover comes from the Middle English discoveren meaning to reveal.  The oldest definition of discover is to reveal or expose.Others?Vikings, Chinese, etc.?probably arrived in the Americas before Columbus, but their arrival was either forgotten or hidden.   Probably because anciently information of commercial value was treated much like trade secrets are today.While others may have arrived in the Americas before Columbus none revealed the existence of this land to non-inhabitants in an enduring manner.  Columbus did.   His voyages changed the course of history.   Travel, trade, migration, etc. were forever changed.  In fact?for good or ill?during the last millennia few men, if any, have had a greater impact on the direction in which history unfolded.So, while it may not be fashionable, I think it is fair to credit Columbus with discovering America.

So many turning points in history are primarily the result of a single man.  The American Revolution is one of the best examples of a committee that work.  That makes answering this question difficult?and interesting.I?ll try making a case that Benjamin Franklin was ?the greatest founding father.?He is the only Founding Father who signed all four of the major documents related to the founding of the United States: the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Alliance with France, and the United States Constitution.Washington played in greater role in Revolucionary War, but without Franklin the US would not have secured the French financical aid and troops that were necessary to win the war.  Madison had a greater impact on the contents of the Constitution, yet without Franklin I doubt there would have been a Constitutional Convention.  Franklin?s accomplishments went well beyond his role in the founding of a new nation.  His studies of electricity brought him world fame.  (In addition to ?discovering? electricity he is creditied with identifiy positive and negative charges.  The cgs unit of electric charge?the franklin?was named after him.)  Franklin gained lasting literary fame as the author of Poor Richards Almanac and other works.  As an inventory he produced such things as the lightning rod, the glass harmonica, the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses, and the flexible urinary catheter.  His concept of ?paying forward? revolucioned mail delivery.  As a social inovetor he gave us institutions still in use today such as public lending libraries and public fire departments.When one looks at the totality of the lives of the founding fathers I think it safe to say Benjamin Franklin was the greatest of them all.

The problem is there are various ancient texts, dating from different periods.  The Septuagint?a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek?dates to around 200 B.C. and is the text quoted by New Testament authors.  Most English Bibles use the Masoretic Hebrew text which dates from the seventh to tenth centuries A.D.  (Originally Hewbew was written without vowels.  Linguist reform, such as addition of vowell points, is one of the reasons for various texts.)In the first Century A.D. the Jews feared the Christians were ?taking control? of the scriptures.  The response was the Council of Yabneh (A.D. 90) during which the cannon of Jewish scriptures was finalized.The Book of Ezekiel was nearly omitted because of thological objections.  However, Rabbi Hananiah presented a revised version of Ezekiel that was accepteable to the council members.

The question is not was Lee a great general.  He was.  The question is, ?Is Lee overrated.?  I must respectfully disagree with the statement that ?[Lee] was the best strategic general of the Civil War hands down.?  Without a doubt Lee was a master tactician.  He was probably the best tactician in either army, but I wouldn?t call him the best strategic general of the Civil War.Lee?s victories remind me of those in Viet Nam in that strategically they didn?t accomplish a lot.  When they were over little had changed and the South was really no closer to winning the war.  In contrast, many of Grant?s victories had strategic meaning.  Fort Donaldson moved the Union cause forward.  Vicksburg split the South in half.  Etc.  I don?t see Lee?s victories having similar strategic impact.Lee was never able to launch a successful invasion of the North.   Had Lee been able to accomplish something similar to Sherman?s March to the Sea or to have split the Union like Grant split the South at Vicksburg then the North would lost heart and forced Lincoln to have sued for peace.  (Just think of what would have happened if Lee had forced Lincoln to evacuate Washinton D.C. or even seriously threatened it.)  But Lee was unable to perform such feats even when he was up against such incompetent generals as McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker   So, yes, I think Lee is overrated.

This is old historical fantasizing.  No the Minoans were not the Atlanteans.  Plato thought that Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Heracles (Gibralter). 

True.  But Plato lived around 400 B.C., about 1000 years after the Minoans and information about the Minoans had "morphed."  By then the thinking was they lived on a continent, not an island.  So Plato had to put them beyond the Pillars of Heracles.  Or at least that's how I've heard this discrepancy explained.

This author proposes that the preponderance of the evidence supports the view that Jesus was born in April 1 B.C;.There is general agreement regarding the following pertaining to the life of Jesus Christ:? He was born in Bethlehem of Judea.? A Roman census was in progress at the time of his birth.? He was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great.? His birth was heralded by a ?new star? in the heavens.? Shepherds were tending their flocks by night, indicating that Jesus was born during the lambing season as is consistent with a (spring) Passover birth.? He was visited by the Magi while still an infant because they had seen his star.? Herod had all male infants in Bethlehem under age two put to death.Most of what we know regarding the life of Herod the Great comes from the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote approximately a century following Herod.  His 34-year reign began in 37 B.C. indicating he died in 4 or 3 B.C., with 4 B.C. being the traditionally accepted date for the death for Herod the Great.  There is much evidence supporting the traditional view that Herod died in 4 B.C.  Josephus mentions there was a lunar eclipse about a month before Herod died.  It has long been know that a lunar eclipse occurred in Judea on March 13, 4 B.C.  (There was no lunar eclipse in Judea during 3 B.C.)  In the spring of 6 B.C. there were three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in Pieces (one of the Zodiac signs thought to govern Judea) while in the spring of 7 B.C. Mars joined the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn.  Many believe one of these conjunctions was the ?new star? heralding the birth of Christ, indicating Jesus was born in 7 or 6 B.C.  This would be consistent with the slaying of all infants under two years of age were their deaths to have occurred in 4 B.C.  Josephus, as well as coins found by archeologists indicates the successors of Herod began their reigns in 4-3 B.C. Josephus records numerous details surrounding death of Herod.  Between the lunar eclipse and Passover Josephus states the following occurred:? Herod died a lingering death; his body putrefying with part of it breading worms.? He was taken a distance of ten miles for treatment in hot baths.? He returned home when the treatment proved ineffective.? Herod ordered notables from throughout the kingdom to attend him.  The sending of the summons and arrival of the men summoned would be a time consuming event in those days.? Herod?s son Antipater was executed five days prior to his death.? Herod received a lavish funeral, with his body being carried 23 miles to its final resting place.? A funeral feast was held at the conclusion of a 7-day mourning period.? A separate period of public mourning was held for the Jewish patriots who were executed on the night following the lunar eclipse that preceded Herod?s death.          All these events are stated to have occurred between the lunar eclipse and Passover.  It seems very unlikely that all this could have occurred between March 13, 4 B.C. and March 29, 4 B.C., which would be necessary if Herod died in 4 B.C.  This has created the problem that historians refer to as the ?impossible month.? In addition to the problems associated with the ?impossible month? there are other items recorded by Josephus that cast doubt on the traditional view that Herod died in 4 B.C.  Several of these are worth consideration. Josephus states that Varus was the governor of Syria when Herod died, replacing Saturninus who had been governor for two years prior to the death of Herod.  Coins have been found indicating that Varus was governor in both 6 and 5 B.C.  This obviously argues against Herod?s death occurring in 4 B.C. A Roman census was being conducted at the time Christ was born.  (Even in modern times a census is not conducted in a single day.  In that era it was a process often requiring a year or so to complete.)  No record of a Roman census being conducted around 4 B.C has ever been found.  It has usually been thought this referred to the taxation of 8 B.C.  However, the 8 B.C. taxation only applied to Roman citizens so it has never been adequately explained why it would require Joseph to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. The death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. necessitates Christ being born in 7 or 6 B.C. in order for his birth to have been heralded by a new star.  The earliest possible date for his resurrection is 30 A.D. This means that he would have been in his mid thirties?not about 30 as indicated by Luke?when he began his mortal ministry.  This objection is easily ignored today because such a discrepancy is consistent with our method of reckoning time.  There is, however, a reason this discrepancy should not be ignored.Christ dutifully fulfilled the Law of Moses.  His expressed purpose for being baptized was to fulfill all righteousness.  Delaying the commencement of his ministry would have been breaking the Law of Moses.  Under the Law of Moses (see Numbers 4:3) his ministry should have begun at age thirty.  For him to have delayed his ministry by a few years would be an act totally incongruous with the rest of his life.  Lunar eclipses were common in Palestine during Herod?s era, yet Josephus only mentions the one prior to the death of Herod.  The question ?why? deserves consideration.  There are two parts to the probable answer.  The first is the eclipse was widely observed.  The second is that it occurred on the night following the execution of numerous Jewish patriots.  It should be noted that the eclipse in 4 B.C. occurred more than six hours after sunset making it unlikely that it was widely observed by the Jews.  In consideration of all the reasons mentioned above (and others not mentioned) many scholars doubt the 4 B.C. eclipse was the one that preceded Herod?s death.  For the same reasons they doubt Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.  Various alternatives have been proposed for the eclipse preceding Herod?s death.  Barnes proposes the eclipse of September 15, 5 B.C.  Filmer proposes the eclipse of January 10, 1 B.C.  Pratt proposes the December 29, 1 B.C eclipse.  I find Pratt?s proposal most probable.During the December 29, 1 B.C. eclipse (Pratt?s proposal) the full moon was nearly half eclipsed when it would first be seen rising from the Eastern sky about 20 minutes following sundown.  Thus it was widely visible by the people for over an hour. At Herod?s death the kingdom was split between Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip.  All reckoned their reigns as commencing in 4-3 B.C.  It is likely the reason Antipater traveled to Rome prior to his death is that he anticipated the infighting and breakup of the kingdom, which would follow Herod?s death.  His trip to Rome was probably to advance his claim to the entire kingdom.  Had Antipater lived (as stated above, he died before Herod) it is possible the kingdom would not have been divided and he would have been name king of a united kingdom as was his father, Herod the Great.  When Archelaus put forth his claim to the entire kingdom he argued that he was in reality continuing the rule of his brother Antipater, who was the proper heir to the entire kingdom.  Thus he antedated the commencement of his reign to the 4 B.C. co-regency in order to have the superior claim to the entire kingdom.  To avoid being disadvantaged Antipas and Philip adopted the same practice.  Thus all of Herod?s successors claimed to have commenced their reign in 4 B.C.; whereas in reality none of them started ruling before 1 A.D.  In effect all chose to consider the appointment of a co-regent as ending Herod?s reign and all considered themselves the rightful sole king whose rightful reign commenced at the end of Herod?s reign. At Herod?s death, Josephus states that Herod ruled 34 years, but then adds he ruled 37 years from the time he was named king in 40 B.C.  All other dates used by Josephus are reckoned from 37 B.C. when Herod took control of Jerusalem.  Why the change in dating methodology?  Again, the answer is interesting. The probable answer is that Josephus was using source material that stated Herod the Great ruled 37 years.  (His principle source--who he plagiarized--is Nicolaus of Damascus, Herod?s ?official? historian.  Which partly explains why Josephus is able to cover the reign of Herod in great detail, in contrast to Herod?s successors.)  This would be consistent with a 1 A.D. death if the beginning of his reign was measured from the time Herod took control of Jerusalem?the practice Josephus, like his source, followed.  However, if Josephus did not know that Herod?s successors antedated the dates on which they claimed their reigns commenced it is easy to see how Josephus would conclude that his source obtained the 37 years for the length of Herod?s reign by counting from 40 B.C. instead of 37 B.C. Is it possible that Josephus was unaware that Herod?s successors antedated the commencement of their reigns?  There are two possible answers.  One is that it was not politically expedient for him to publicly expose their practice, which resulted in his ?cooking the books.?  The second is that he was unaware of what happened.  Josephus devotes 30 chapters to Herod the Great.  In contrast his successors are scarcely mentioned.  Thus it appears well within the realm of probability that Josephus was unaware that Herod?s successors antedated the date on which they claimed to have commenced their reign.  (It should also be remembers these events did not occur during the adult life of Josephus.  Josephus?s situation is somewhat analogous to a veteran of Desert Storm writing about World War One.)The earliest coins found for any of Herod?s successors is ?year 5.?  This is exactly what would be expected if they had claimed to have begun their rule in 4 B.C. but had not actually coined money until 1 A.D.?the year they truthfully began to reign. As mentioned above, Josephus says that Varus was governor of Syria at the time of Herod?s death.  It is not known who was governor of Syria around 1 A.D.  However, an inscription found near the villa of Varus speaks of a man who was twice governor of Syria.  It therefore seems safe to conclude that Varus was twice governor of Syria.  The first time around 6-5 B.C. and the second around 1 A.D. As stated above, the 8 B.C. taxation only applied to Roman citizens.  Supporters of the 4 B.C. death date for Herod think it was the census requiring Mary and Joseph to undertake their journey to Bethlehem.  There is a better option. On February 5, 2 B.C. the Roman Senate awarded Augustas Caesar the title of ?Pater Patriae? (Father of the Country).  It is thought by many that the census mentioned by Luke also required an oath of allegiance to Augustus Caesar.  Josephus states that a year or so before Herod died that over 6,000 Pharisees refused to pledge their good will to Caesar.  If an oath was administered as part of the census it is easy to understand how Josephus knew the number of non-compliant Pharisees; without a census it would be more formidable task. Orosius, a fifth century historian, also links an oath of allegiance to the census.  He identifies the census as occurring in 2 B.C.  Conducting a census took a long period of time, as it required both informing provincial leaders of what was expected as well as enrolling all the subjects of the empire.  Consequently this 2 B.C. census seems a perfect fit for the census mentioned by Luke if Christ were born in the spring of 1 B.C.  Refusing to take the oath of allegiance accompanying the 2 B.C. census might also explain the death of the Jewish patriots at a lunar eclipse preceding Herod?s death.  It should also be noted that Luke?s phrase ?in those days a decree went forth? refers back to the birth of John the Baptist, in 2 B.C., making this an even better fit for the census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem so Joseph could be counted as being of the house and linage of David. One possibility for the Star of Bethlehem deserves serious consideration.  On June 17, 2 B.C. there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus rear the king-star Regulus in Leo.  The two planets seemed to merge.  In the 2000 years before and after this 2 B.C. conjunction there has never been another such perfect conjunction of Jupiter and Venus near Regulus.  The sign of the tribe of Judah, of course, is the lion.  Regulus, within Leo, is associated both with kings and with the kingdom of Judah.  Jupiter was the father god and was often associated with the birth of kings.  Venus was the mother god as well as the goddess of love and fertility.  Thus it is likely that the Magi seeing Jupiter and Venus join together in ?marriage union? near Regulus would predict, not the birth of a king of Judah, but rather the conception of the king of Judah. This explanation for the Star of Bethlehem fits well for a 1 B.C. birth of Christ.  It also supports two ancient Christian traditions mentioned by a fourth century churchman named Epipanius.  The first is that Christ was conceived on June 20th, which is very close to the June 17th conjunction.  The second is that Mary?s pregnancy lasted 10 months. There was a Passover feast on April 9, 1 B.C.  The Law of Moses was interpreted as requiring parents to present a newborn child at the temple within 40 days of birth.  It is likely that Joseph and Mary would combine their enrollment in the Roman census together with a Passover visit to Jerusalem.  A trip to Jerusalem for Passover is the likely reason there was ?no room at the inn? for them.  Jerusalem was always packed during Passover.  The uncertainties of travel being what they were in those days it is likely Mary and Joseph would try to arrive in Jerusalem a few days prior to Passover.  Thus a birth date for Jesus early in April of 1 B.C. seems probable, as that would put Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem shortly before Passover.  (Bethlehem is a suburb of Jerusalem located about 5 miles distant from the center of the larger city.  Then as now, those residing in the surrounding suburbs were consider to be ?in Jerusalem? for Passover.) Shepherds are recorded as tending their flocks by night.  This is a common practice during the lambing season.  A Passover birth would coincide with the spring lambing season.  The Biblical mention of shepherds tending their flocks by night is consistent with a Passover birth in 1 B.C. If the ?new star? was indeed a sign of Christ?s conception, rather than his birth, it might also help explain other events.  It would explain how the Magi had sufficient time to arrive when the Christ child was still an infant in or near Bethlehem.  Especially when one considers that it is likely Mary and Joseph would remain near Jerusalem in order to be able to present Jesus at the temple 40 days following his birth as was required by the Law of Moses.  Herod is reported to have killed the male infants of Bethlehem under age two after receiving the Magi.  It is likely that he wanted to take no chance that the Magi made an error.  Herod might have feared that an earlier conjunction?perhaps that of September 14, 3 B.C.?was the sign of either Christ?s conception or birth. There were other events in the skies during the pervious years that might also had made him select age two in order to be sure his perceived rival did not escape.  They are worth discussing as they also help us to understand why the Magi would view the June 17, 2 B.C. conjunction as the sign of Christ?s conception.Jupiter is brighter in the night sky than any star or planet except Venus.  As viewed from the Earth, planets generally move eastward through a series of constellations known as the Zodiac.  However, planets do not always move eastward, sometimes they move westward for a few months before again moving eastward.  This westward movement is known as retrograde motion.  (Retrograde motion occurs in the planets that are further from the Sun than is the Earth because these planets take longer to complete their orbit.  For example, Jupiter appears to move eastward until the Earth overtakes it in its orbit, then for a time Jupiter appears to move westward.  The effect is similar to what a person experiences when traveling in a car that overtakes another car.  At the moment the faster car overtakes the slower car, the slower car appears to move backward.) Astronomers tell us that on September 14, 3 B.C., Jupiter appeared to pass very close to the star Regulus, ?the King?s star.?  This conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus appeared in the eastern sky.  In the following months at first Jupiter continued its eastward movement, it then?as viewed form the Earth?it stopped and moved westward for a period of time.  On February 17, 2 B.C. Jupiter passed even closer to Regulus than it had on September 14, 3 B.C.  On May 8, 2 B.C. Jupiter passed Regulus a third time.  Thus, over a period of nearly eight months the Magi saw Jupiter appear to draw a circle, or crown, above ?the King?s star,? beginning in the east.  Astrologers would probably have predicated the coming birth of a king in Judea after observing this movement. Then on the evening of June 17, 2 B.C. as the sky became dark over Babylonia, Jupiter and Venus drew closer and closer together until at 8:51 p.m. that night over Babylon they appeared to merge into a single, brilliant star?a marriage union?in the western sky.  It would to be seen as pointing towards Bethlehem.  Thus it is likely the Magi concluded that a new king of Jews, the promised Messiah, had been conceived and shortly thereafter began their journey to worship him.  (It is possible a ten-month pregnancy was needed for the Magi to arrive in Jerusalem when Jesus was born.  Or that with a shorter pregnancy Mary would have delivered in Nazareth.)Thus in my mind the most like date for Christ?s birth is in April 1 B.C.

I think the Hyksos were a Semitic people.  But not Israelites.The Bible records how Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt?and how he rose in power to become second only to Pharaoh.  It records how during a period of famine the rest of this family (the Israelites) came to live with him in Egypt.  Additionally it speaks of a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph and how the Israelites became slaves.The Hyksos (Shepard Kings) were foreigners who ruled Eqypt.  They were probably a Semitic people, which explains their willingness to accept Joseph and his family.  It appears that initially the Israelites were part of the ruling class.  When the Hyksos rulers were overthrown the Israelites went from being rulers to slaves.