Biblical Exodus Out of Egypt

[Azakel]

Anything else I need to look up for you?

What makes you think you need to look up anything for me. The fact is you make claims on a Debate site be prepare to have to back them up.

 

[Kurt31416]

Well, guess I can rule out "thank you".

You just learned a couple things, each solid scientific historical evidence of the Jews being there before the Babylonians invaded. Samaritan genetics, the ancient Samaritan version of the Written Law, and the Hebrew alphabet carved in stone in the 10th century BCE. I would be grateful if someone helped me fill in a blank like that. I'd have more questions, I'd want to approach truth.

But whatever.

 

[Azakel]

Well, guess I can rule out "thank you".

You just learned a couple things, each solid scientific historical evidence of the Jews being there before the Babylonians invaded. Samaritan genetics, the ancient Samaritan version of the Written Law, and the Hebrew alphabet carved in stone in the 10th century BCE. I would be grateful if someone helped me fill in a blank like that. I'd have more questions, I'd want to approach truth.

But whatever.

Who says I didn't already know what you posted and just wasn't playing Devil Advocate?

 

[Kurt31416]

A hunch.

 

[Azakel]

A hunch.

More like an assumption, and you know what id said you you assume something?

 

[Kurt31416]

Oh, experience has taught me it's a safe assumption in this case, alright.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say that they weren't.

You didn't?

So... they weren't in the Holy Land in the Iron Age or the Bronze Age, but they may be indigenous to the area?

I'm confused.

 

[Willamena]

He probably meant "first come on the scene" historically.

Edit: If historically the Jews "come on the scene" at a certain point, that is not evidence that they were not there previously, it is simply no evidence that they were there previously.

 

[Kurt31416]

There is overwhelming evidence the Jews were there in Israel 3000 years ago, and were a mostly cohesive genetic group 3,400 years ago.

 

[Storm]

A claim of evidence with no presentation is meaningless.

 

[HipHopAvenger]

Why should all that story be based on Jews? That Jews were running out of Egypt. There were too many tribes there.

 

[Kurt31416]

A claim of evidence with no presentation is meaningless.

I already did present it. You need to keep up. Genetic evidence of a Samaritan/Jew split around 800BCE, the Hebrew writing in stone from the tenth century BCE, the Samaritan and Jewish Written Law splitting around the tenth century BCE. etc.

 

[Storm]

I already did present it. You need to keep up. Genetic evidence of a Samaritan/Jew split around 800BCE, the Hebrew writing in stone from the tenth century BCE, the Samaritan and Jewish Written Law splitting around the tenth century BCE. etc.

Not really.

This is because the Hebrew Scriptures were codified by the Jewish community (the Masoretes) and declared fixed and correct, and since then have been preserved with painstaking care and nitpicking detail by each successive generation of scribes. The schism with the Samaritans predates this canonization, though, and the Samaritans themselves never went through one like it, so their version of the Torah is more significantly different from the Masoretic text, and moreover, there are many, many more versions of their text
The Samaritan Pentateuch

This "source" cites no sources. It's just a website that presents an opinion that happens to agree with you. Unimpressive.

In the 10th century B.C., in the hill country south of Jerusalem, a scribe carved his A B C's on a limestone boulder - actually, his aleph-beth-gimel's, for the string of letters appears to be an early rendering of the emergent Hebrew alphabet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/international/middleeast/09alphabet.html

While this article is interesting, it contradicts your claim that Hebrew is

the first actual alphabet in history

when it says

Experts in ancient writing said the find showed that at this stage the Hebrew alphabet was still in transition from its Phoenician roots, but recognizably Hebrew. The Phoenicians lived on the coast north of Israel, in today's Lebanon, and are considered the originators of alphabetic writing, several centuries earlier.

ETA: Which is supported by Wiki:

Phoenician was the first major phonemic script.[6][5] In contrast to two other widely used writing systems at the time, Cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs, it contained only about two dozen distinct letters, making it a script simple enough for common traders to learn. Another advantage of Phoenician was that it could be used to write down many different languages, since it recorded words phonemically.
The script was spread by the Phoenicians, whose Thalassocracy allowed the script to be spread across the Mediterranean.[6] In Greece, the script was modified to add the vowels, giving rise to the first true alphabet. The Greeks took letters which did not represent sounds that existed in Greek, and changed them to represent the vowels. This marks the creation of a "true" alphabet, with both vowels and consonants as explicit symbols in a single script. In its early years, there were many variants of the Greek alphabet, a situation which caused many different alphabets to evolve from it.
​

Again, unimpressive.

Let's start with the Samaritans...​

Principal component analysis suggests a common
ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in
the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.​

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Shen2004.pdf

I have to admit, after seeing your other "evidence," I didn't bother downloading this PDF.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You do realize that genetic markers for "Jews" are found in many Semitic peoples. Including Arabs and Assyrians.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Not really.


This "source" cites no sources. It's just a website that presents an opinion that happens to agree with you. Unimpressive.


While this article is interesting, it contradicts your claim that Hebrew is
when it says

ETA: Which is supported by Wiki:

Phoenician was the first major phonemic script.[6][5] In contrast to two other widely used writing systems at the time, Cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs, it contained only about two dozen distinct letters, making it a script simple enough for common traders to learn. Another advantage of Phoenician was that it could be used to write down many different languages, since it recorded words phonemically.
The script was spread by the Phoenicians, whose Thalassocracy allowed the script to be spread across the Mediterranean.[6] In Greece, the script was modified to add the vowels, giving rise to the first true alphabet. The Greeks took letters which did not represent sounds that existed in Greek, and changed them to represent the vowels. This marks the creation of a "true" alphabet, with both vowels and consonants as explicit symbols in a single script. In its early years, there were many variants of the Greek alphabet, a situation which caused many different alphabets to evolve from it.
​

Again, unimpressive.



I have to admit, after seeing your other "evidence," I didn't bother downloading this PDF.

the first "writing" is cuneform but not generally accepted as an "alphabet"

even though it is,...:cover:

another case of scholars and "experts" deciding something, so that is how things are......

:sarcastic Pluto was a planet once...

 

[Storm]

the first "writing" is cuneform but not generally accepted as an "alphabet"

even though it is,...:cover:

another case of scholars and "experts" deciding something, so that is how things are......

:sarcastic Pluto was a planet once...

I know cueiform is the oldest known writing. Are you saying it's phenomic, though?

I can't tell whether you're trying to rebut or support me.

 

[elisheba]

There are images (evidence of) chariots under the water.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are images (evidence of) chariots under the water.

Great! Can you show them to us?

 

[Azakel]

There are images (evidence of) chariots under the water.

Images aren't evidence of anything let along that the Exodus happen. Pictures are a good way to make propaganda against or enemies(or tell a story). Doesn't make it real.
If picture make something real then the Images of the Egyptian make them real because they are evidence of them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You didn't?

So... they weren't in the Holy Land in the Iron Age or the Bronze Age, but they may be indigenous to the area?

I'm confused.

I'm happy to clarify:

Put it this way: it's easier to twist the historical and archaeological data to make an Exodus possible than it is to say that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6,000 years ago.

Of more interest to me personally is the conquest of the Hebrews and the subsequent kingdoms. There is almost no archeological evidence for Jews living in the holy land in the Iron and Bronze Age. The Hebrews first come on the scene - with earlier traditions - with the Egyptian, Babylonian / Persian, and Greek conquests of what is now Palestine.

When the kingdoms conquered Palestine and mentioned Palestinian kings, that's the first archaeological evidence of Hebrews that have connections to the Hebrew Scriptures, the historical records from the conquerers, and the findings of cities without pig bones (which is the single criterion for identifying an ancient city as "Jewish") .

Now the Hebrew peoples who were conquered obviously didn't appear out of nowhere...