Biblical Exodus Out of Egypt

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I had a quick look on Google. The main reference I found to this "images of chariots" thing was an article on WorldNetDaily about a man who took some photos in th 1970s of something that looked kinda like a wheel but may have been a coral foundation, which nobody has been able to find again since.

However, something else occurred to me: just about anything you'll find on land, you can find as the cargo of a ship. There's nothing unreasonable or implausible about a chariot being the debris from a shipwreck... and if you found an ancient chariot underwater anywhere other than the Red Sea (which is something that does happen occasionally, especially in the Mediterranean), that would be the automatic conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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...

Ah... gotcha. I somehow got the idea that you were saying that the Hebrew people were descended from the invaders.

 

[Nepenthe]

I had a quick look on Google. The main reference I found to this "images of chariots" thing was an article on WorldNetDaily about a man who took some photos in th 1970s of something that looked kinda like a wheel but may have been a coral foundation, which nobody has been able to find again since.

However, something else occurred to me: just about anything you'll find on land, you can find as the cargo of a ship. There's nothing unreasonable or implausible about a chariot being the debris from a shipwreck... and if you found an ancient chariot underwater anywhere other than the Red Sea (which is something that does happen occasionally, especially in the Mediterranean), that would be the automatic conclusion.

I thought she might be referring to the controversial German archeologist Werner Keller's book The Bible as History where he makes a similar claim about the chariots.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah... gotcha. I somehow got the idea that you were saying that the Hebrew people were descended from the invaders.

haha, no.

The invaders encountered the Hebrews who had some long relationship with the indigenous peoples of the area.

 

[Azakel]

I had a quick look on Google. The main reference I found to this "images of chariots" thing was an article on WorldNetDaily about a man who took some photos in the 1970s of something that looked kinda like a wheel but may have been a coral foundation, which nobody has been able to find again since.

However, something else occurred to me: just about anything you'll find on land, you can find as the cargo of a ship. There's nothing unreasonable or implausible about a chariot being the debris from a shipwreck... and if you found an ancient chariot underwater anywhere other than the Red Sea (which is something that does happen occasionally, especially in the Mediterranean), that would be the automatic conclusion.

Okay I see what see meant. But yes you are right that does make sense, that it would more likely have been the cargo of a ship(the wheel).

 

[Kurt31416]

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

It describes in detail the differences and great age of the Samaritian Torah. Lots of detailed facts by a scholar. That's one more source than you have produced, and of course, there's plenty more out there.

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

It contradicts nothing. It's Hebrew writing, the complete alphabet, in the tenth century BCE, right next to Jerusalem. That Phonecian was the first writing has nothing to do with it.

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

Don't confuse me with someone that gives a damn if you wallow in your ignorance.

 

[Kurt31416]

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

Not with the same frequency.

 

[Storm]

It describes in detail the differences and great age of the Samaritian Torah. Lots of detailed facts by a scholar. That's one more source than you have produced, and of course, there's plenty more out there.

It doesn't provide any credentials whatsoever.

It contradicts nothing. It's Hebrew writing, the complete alphabet, in the tenth century BCE, right next to Jerusalem. That Phonecian was the first writing has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it does. If you want to retract your claim, that's fine. But don't pretend that this supports it.

Don't confuse me with someone that gives a damn if you wallow in your ignorance.

When all else fails, ad hom!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not with the same frequency.

What????
Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Palestinians all share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.

Almut Nebel at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem concluded in 2001;
"We propose that the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews (Nebel et al. 2000). According to our working model, the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula..."

 

[Kurt31416]

It doesn't provide any credentials whatsoever.

Feel free to check it against your sources. Oh, that's right, you don't have any. Plenty more where that came from, but why bother.

Yeah, it does. If you want to retract your claim, that's fine. But don't pretend that this supports it.

FALSE. I said it was a tenth century Hebrew alphabet next to Jerusalem, and that's exactly what it said. Proving the Jews were there at least by 1000BCE

When all else fails, ad hom!

From someone that ignores the link to Samaritans splitting from the Jews 800 BCE, once again proving they were there at least by 1000BCE?

 

[Kurt31416]

What????
Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Palestinians all share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.

Not the Jewish Cohen gene with the same frequency.

 

[Storm]

Feel free to check it against your sources. Oh, that's right, you don't have any. Plenty more where that came from, but why bother.

I haven't made a claim to support, so why are you whining about my lack of sources?

FALSE. I said it was a tenth century Hebrew alphabet next to Jerusalem, and that's exactly what it said. Proving the Jews were there at least by 1000BCE

No, you said Hebrew was the first alphabet in history, a claim which your own source debunked. Shall I quote it again?

From someone that ignores the link to Samaritans splitting from the Jews 800 BCE, once again proving they were there at least by 1000BCE?

Even if this were accurate, how does it defend your personal attack?

 

[Kurt31416]

I haven't made a claim to support, so why are you whining about my lack of sources?

Sure you made a claim, you disputed my source.

No, you said Hebrew was the first alphabet in history,

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz...Deliberate Strawman. Never said any such thing. It's the oldest existing alphabet.

a claim which your own source debunked. Shall I quote it again?

My claim as you well know, was that it demonstrates the Jews were there at least by 1000BCE.

And once again ignores, (and we all know why) the genetic proof that the Jews and Samaritans split at 800 BCE.

 

[Storm]

Sure you made a claim, you disputed my source.

That's not a claim. What, is this your first debate?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz...Deliberate Strawman. Never said any such thing. It's the oldest existing alphabet.

Bull****. Here's the quote again:

False. They have a Hebrew alphabet from 900BCE carved on a wall, the first actual alphabet in history.

Which makes you a dirty liar.

My claim as you well know, was that it demonstrates the Jews were there at least by 1000BCE.

And once again ignores, (and we all know why) the genetic proof that the Jews and Samaritans split at 800 BCE.

Which I haven't bothered to dispute.

 

[Kurt31416]

Which makes you a dirty liar.

A deliberate lie. I never said anything of the kind. If not deliberate lies, what else would you have?

"If they are right, the stone bears the oldest reliably dated example of an abecedary - the letters of the alphabet written out in their traditional sequence."

It's the oldest existing alphabet, not that Hebrew was the first language with an alphabet.

And it's the tenth century BCE. Proving the Jews were there by 1000BCE

 

[Storm]

Which makes you a dirty liar.

A deliberate lie. I never said anything of the kind. If not deliberate lies, what else would you have?

Dude, I quoted you twice.

 

[Kurt31416]

Those facts, those stubborn, stubborn facts.

 

[Kurt31416]

You are deliberately acting stupid, and deliberately lying.

A real enemy of truth.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, if only I didn't know how to use the quote feature, you might get away with denying you called Hebrew "the first actual alphabet in history."

 

[Kurt31416]

Deliberate lie.

I called the 10th century Hebrew carving in rock, next to Jerusalem the first known alphabet in history.

No one is so stupid they don't know that.