JM2C
CHRISTIAN
“The Patriarchs, Israel ancestor’s, are typically Amorite/Canaanite pastoral nomads, tribally organized.” - Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? –William G. Dever.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
No were not. We never were. Your just making it up as you go.
Blindly questioning what you do not understand, and cannot comprehend. There was no Abraham and no patriarchs. David is about where it starts.
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? - William G Dever : Eerdmans
According to Dever, the authentic ancestors of the "Israelite peoples" were most likely Canaanites -- together with some pastoral nomads and small groups of Semitic slaves escaping from Egypt
And my statement posed as a question as to what other people joined the Canaanite stands substantiated.
According to Dever pastoral nomads and other Semitic slaves joined the Canaanites
WOW JUST LIKE I STATED, almost verbatim!
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
Tell me “what other people joined the Canaanite”? And when did they join them?
outhouse
Atheistically
Possible suspects are.
pastoral nomads
Semitic slaves escaping from Egypt
Sea peoples
And another other Semitic people who found themselves displaced after the Bronze age collapse.
A lot happened during the period between of 1260 BC and 1200 BC
At 1200 BC we see settlements in the highlands of Israel start to increase, and this continued for a 200 year period all the way to 1000BC.
We see they are for the most part displaced Canaanites for the most part during this 200 year period. So the others that may have joined did so between 1200 BC and 1000 BC
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No........... Never!
Not an Exodus story?
I reckon that a high % of the OT stories from Exodus onwards do have some substance, carried forward from the distant past by OT.
outhouse
Atheistically
NOVA | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.
So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.
So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.
here ya go.
The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.
So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.
So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.
here ya go.
outhouse
Atheistically
Some people claim that nomadic trans Jordan peoples went in and out of Egypt during good and bad times and we may have vague memories. But there is nothing to substantiate that claim.
What we see without doubt, is that the book is theological in nature, and history was not the important part, the loyalty to Yahweh was. And we all know this is a product of the exile after King Josiah's reforms in 622 BC.
We see quite clearly it is a theological literary creation.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
So............. we have no evidence either way in those sentences.
No we don't. There is no consensus amongst us about that.
There is no 'we'.
No we don't. We have a totally misty and astigmatic picture of those distant and past times.
Look, let us show you a very brief review of Professor Schiffman's 'take' on all this:-
Lawrence H. Schiffman is Ethel and Irvin A. Edelman Professor in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, where he serves as Chair of the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies. He is an internationally known scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and recently co-edited the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford, 2000).
Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven?
............doubt seems to have been turned into historical fact.
In reality, though, no such consensus actually exists.
Many archaeologists, Bible scholars and historians conclude from the evidence that the Exodus did indeed occur,
Further support for the historicity of the Exodus comes from a stele of the Egyptian ruler Merneptah (1224-1214 BCE).
.................... who would invent a history of slavery and disgrace?
several different accounts of the Exodus exist in the Bible, in books written at different periods, thus providing corroborative evidence for the basic scheme of events.
Exodus’ historicity, and ample evidence that the biblical account is entirely plausible.
What can be stated with certainly, however, is that there is no consensus that the Exodus is a myth.
outhouse
Atheistically
False.
The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is founding myth of Israel;
Is great on some topics, but this is not his area of study or expertise. He is a jew and showing his bias here.
The Canaanite origins are no longer up for CREDIBLE debate, factual evidence supports this.
Some people argue a flat earth, and a global flood. Doesn't mean it happened.
outhouse
Atheistically
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That was fun! I watched the first ten seconds, which contained the first three words!
And how did this educated 'scholarly piece of research' report itself?
GOD IS DEAD!
In your earlier post you mentioned that Schiffman:-
Best 'Smile' this afternoon..........
outhouse
Atheistically
Way to take it out of context
Its exact words are ,,,,,, "god is dead or so it must have seemed to the ancestors of the Jews in 585 BC"
Because their temple gods house was in flames. Out of this destruction comes a book that would change the world.
outhouse
Atheistically
And I could sit down with him, and embarrass him by his outright denial of factual evidence. Of course your taking an older view and exploiting it.
Lawrence
Further, this theory must explain away the historical and archaeological evidence. Numerous cities from this period show a cultural change at precisely the point when the Israelites are said by the Bible to have appeared
This is factually incorrect, almost all of the Canaanites cities destroyed, were done so at different times. Almost none of the 20-30 cities destroyed were don so in a time when the bible states biblical Joshua came to town.
Their are two cities that are close to this time period but not exact, not numerous cities, this is blatant lie on his part. Hazor is one, and what we see not signs of a war torn city. All evidence points to the internal struggle of its native people during the well known bronze age collapse which also accounts for the other city.
According to this approach, the masses revolted against their Canaanite overlords and, after taking control, forged for themselves the new collective identity and mythology of the Israelites
This only applies to Hazor, not all of the cities. Not only that the people after taking control did not forge anything. They were displaced and slowly migrated to the highlands with many other Semitic people.
some scholars have substituted a Marxist theory
This is very weak and pathetic on his part. It shows his bias and it factually unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Watch the video I posted. It shows the actual archeologist who states this and you can listen to the words coming out of her mouth.
Third, the doubters have claimed that few cities from this period show evidence of armed destruction.
Here he dishonestly makes this claim, but it is from one of the cities destroyed from a date and war no where near he exodus mythology.
But careful consideration of the biblical narrative, with due attention to the account in Judges and the evidence that the Canaanites were never entirely displaced, eliminates this inconsistency fully
Here he dishonestly denies the effect the bronze age collapse and invading sea people had on the region during this period. And no one argues Canaanites were wiped out completely so he is being dishonest again. The destruction of Canaanite cities took place over a thousand years. Not in the 20 years required to make the bible historically accurate.
NOW watch the video, every statement I have made is backed and substantiated by the actual archeologist with shovels in the ground who are actually the experts here.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No..... you couldn't.
................ you're calling a Professor a liar.
Not mistaken. Not in error. Not an adverse opinion. Not an opposite viewpoint.
You call him a liar..........
Now go find any words by any acknowledged recognised impartial historian who calls Schiffman a liar!
You can't win a debate with insults like that.
outhouse
Atheistically
That's correct.
Its very common for biased people to lie to protect their faith.
The reason you cannot prove what I stated was wrong, was because I spoke the truth, so in desperation you attack me, since my statements stand.
The difference is I know the truth here, so I can see where his dishonesty lies. It is also a quote from 2001. maybe he has changed his ways since then.
NOW watch the video, every statement I have made is backed and substantiated by the actual archeologist with shovels in the ground who are actually the experts here.
outhouse
Atheistically
The lie
and the truth below.
Joshua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The apparent setting of Joshua is the 13th century BCE,[20] a time of widespread city-destruction, but with a few exceptions (Hazor, Lachish) the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time
Not telling the whole truth is a lie
outhouse
Atheistically
Lets show you the reality of the situation here.
The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence.[14] Nevertheless, the discussion of the historicity of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention.
Since I feel you have trouble comprehending this simple statement above, I will spell this out for you.
Most histories is not "ALL" histories. So one Dead Sea Scrolls scholar who has never put a shovel in the ground who is a known orthodox jew and thinks the Exodus is real. Means nothing at all.
It just proves his orthodox Jewish bias. We cannot argue with people who go against all others based on faith.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That's the kind of dumb comment I would expect in an ignorant post. You are certain of absolutely diddly-squat.
There is no certainty about any ancient history................
The historians work with plausibility, possibility and 'balance of probability' only.
You're not going to win this debate by chucking filthy posts at eminent professors.
You can disagree with them, but you don't call them liars.
The accounts and reports of and after Exodus are repeated in different parts of the OT. This does not suggest a fabrication, more of an ancient tradition of passed down memoirs.
Of course the details have been built upon and embellished, but the old tales, passed along by oral tradition, are sure to have reason for their existence, however distorted by time. The fact that so many of the old stories were an embarrassment or even a disgrace to the tribes can only help to support the fact that there is a misty foundation of truth behind them.
You discarded Schiffman's article and mentioned that it was written in 2001............ you need to consider what will be the (so-called) truth in 2030!
I feel confident that the tales of Exodus (and after) will be supported (to some extent) in the years to come.
Instead of chucking the baby out with the bathwater, there will be a time when historians can approach 'reason' for the existence of the old tales, rather than a shredding and dumping.
Stonehenge is as old as most of this, (older) and we have absolutely no OT passed down about any of it. We just know what came from where, and when......... but the cultural details? Nah! But..... since the building of the pyramids and the henges was so amazing, we should not discard the old tales quite so fast.
I blame extremist-atheism for the present trend to smash everything up. Yes, I do........
outhouse
Atheistically
This is a position from severe lack of understanding. No one is doing that. Having a greater understanding of how the books were written and why, gives more beauty to the text.
Those using a literal interpretation ruin the beauty.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
That's because you lack so much required education to understand a thousand year process.
You have no clue that devoted people of all religions are scholars. By your factually false conclusion that history equals atheism, you might as well be arguing a flat earth, your opinion has been self rendered as completely useless.
I cannot debate that. off to ignore you go..