By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ 2 hours ago
Edit Thread
SvennoJ said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

I agree with that but I need to add that there was no Exodus from Egypt. A group of hundreds of thousands can't wander around the desert for 40 or 50 years and not leave archeological evidence. Yet we find none in the Sinai desert. Not to mention Egypt owned and controlled the Sinai and Palestine areas at the time of the so called Exodus.  So were the Israelites fleeing from Egypt into Egypt?

True, there's no evidence, only a lot of inconsistencies in the stories

For example

If you start with the assumption that an Exodus occurred, then one is bound to find some likely date. You have begged the question and supported a gigantic fiction. One might as well ask what the exact date was than Captain Ahab harpooned Moby Dick. The probability that an Exodus occurred in 1186 BCE vanishes in comparison to the probability that no Exodus occurred at all. All of the archaeological and linguistic evidence shows that the Israelites developed peacefully in Canaan as Canaanite — there was no sojourn in Egypt, there was no Moses, there was no Exodus, and there was no conquering war. It’s all just a nice story book, like Moby Dick.

That view is supported of course by the impossibility of fixing a date, with estimates ranging from 1600 BCE to 1100 BCE, along with the utter absence of any evidence of Israelite slaves in ancient Egypt, and the absence of any archaeological evidence in Sinai. If Mount Sinai was a real place, where is it? Why was the site not preserved and revered? Why has it not been a site of pilgrimage for Jews for 3,000 years not to mention modern tourism?

But the big problem is that your date is nonsensical in the general chronology of Genesis and Exodus. If the Israelites left Egypt around 1186 BCE, that means that they entered Egypt around 1586 BCE. But that is impossible because Abraham, from Ur, was said to be a Chaldean (according to Genesis) or a Sumerian assuming he predated the Chaldeans. The Chaldeans did not exist until 900 BCE at the earliest, so you have Moses predating Abraham. On the other hand, if Abraham was born in Sumer, then he dated to before 2000 BCE and standard estimates similar to yours put him at about 2200 BCE. But if that was the date of Abraham then you are suggesting that four generations of his family spanned 600 years. That, of course, is impossible under any chronology. The whole thing is just an absurdity.


So more likely is Israelites and Palestinians lived together peacefully as Canaanites until the Philistines showed up and later the Romans. Both Jews and Muslims continued to live in the area peacefully until the 1900s when Zionist immigration began.

David either never conquered Jerusalem or conquered it from his own people...

2 Sam 5:6-10 David captures Jerusalem from the fiercely independent Canaanite tribe of Jebusites in c.1004BC.

Jebusites being Canaanites that lived in Jerusalem.

Ancient propaganda!



Anyway typical for an American president to cite the bible as a right to claim to land...

The First Amendment
The phrase "separation of church and state" is a paraphrase of the First Amendment.

It should go both ways, religion should not have influence on politics.

 




drkohler said:
SvennoJ said:

The Israelites invaded in 1,290 BC, led by Moses across the Red Sea into then called Canaan.

According to Marc Heber et al.

Seriously, that is NOT what Heber et al describe in their paper. And good grief, absolutely noone in serious archeology believes the Moses and exodus fairytale.

While you are perfectly ok do carpet bomb this thread with Hamas propaganda, you should at least stick to scienetific facts and not engulf in nonsense.

It was already corrected in the election thread as you can see above.
(Although peacefully might be a bit strong as plenty crap happened in the region in the middle ages)

Yeah I guess I fell for Israeli propaganda on that one, or rather Bill Clinton's biblical propaganda. As well as the history channel that went along with it and presented a way for the Red Sea to part. (planting the seed in my mind there might actually have been an exodus) I see they made a whole movie out of it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/08/no-really-there-is-a-scientific-explanation-for-the-parting-of-the-red-sea-in-exodus/

But no other scientific evidence nor theories for wandering the desert.


The whole purpose was to debunk the notion that Israel was there first. That still stands, Natufians, Caananites all predate the biblical stories and there is indeed no evidence of the Exodus. So this whole promised land is based on nothing but fairy tales. Israelites didn't get there 'first', at least not as the promised land stories that the revisionist Zionists base their claim to Greater Israel on.


Fact is, modern Israel is mostly immigrants, while Palestinians are still mostly native to the area.
Israel is a Settler Colonial Apartheid state, indulging in genocide.


I'm not carpet bombing with Hamas propaganda. Try to open your eyes instead of judging with prejudice. For someone concerned with facts you're closing your eyes to an awful lot of them.

Last edited by SvennoJ - 1 hour ago