posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dana marniche: [QB]
Coming soon
Part II
MOVEMENT OF JAH'S PEOPLE: An explanation of the EXODUS of the Azd from Marib (Meriba Exodus 17:7) and their long fights against A'ad and Thamud - otherwise known as the Amalekites (Amlekhu)
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
All histories and written text are the same, the events' truthfulness are just a matter of the story the evidence constructs.
Don't get me wrong, it does pieve me how Abrahamic texts are "religion" and "histories" and AE Religion is "mythology". Give me a break.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Dana marniche: Your 5 points are quoted the Bible Kalonji put some historical background into your arguments and maybe I can answer your "points".
Are serious? Did you not notice I quoted three historical documents, which are found in Israel? In case you missed them (and I know you did not) I will post them again.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: 1.The monuments that are constantly being found in the Levant, while no monuments with references to Hebrews are found in Arabia. (Sheshonq 1 monument at Megiddo, the Moab inscription, Tel Dan Inscription)
You are losing your credibility and you’re losing it fast. Salibi’s whole thesis is based on the assertion that the names of biblical cities have been mistranslated, and that there are supposed to be dublicates in Arabia. His book is called, the bible came from Arabia, and it is called that for a reason. And now you’re basically telling me I shouldn’t look inside the same book Salibi used to make his claim, to test those claims? Are you out of your ever loving mind?
You were even talking about the most mythical cities of all, Sodom and Gomorrah, and now you’re telling me that I need historical background in my arguments?
The whole point of using biblical quotes, was to show that the people who wrote the bible absolutely didn’t conceive themselves as being located in Arabia. And if one cannot use the bible to do that, then your (and Salibi’s) thesis falls flat on its face.
You can try to talk around that all you want by telling me ‘’to quote outside of the bible’’ (as if I didn’t do that already in my initial responses), but it just shows how dishonest you are.
Whether characters are historical or not, the fact remains, that they (the Hebrews) saw themselves as being located on a geographical height that is north of Egypt. Which is consistent with modern day Israel.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Dana marniche: Although there is nothing in the Old Testament that refutes what Salibi
Yeah, keep saying that to yourself. Anybody who has seen 4 of the 5 points I forwarded to you were OT and NT quotes, that destroy your Israel = Southern Arabia thesis.
quote: Originally posted by Dana marniche: “When the royal authority of 'Ad was wiped out, their brethren, the Thamud, took over. They were succeeded, in turn, by their brethren, the Amalekites. The Amalekites were succeeded by their brethren, the Himyar. The Himyar were succeeded by their brethren, the Tubba's, who belonged to the Himyar. They, likewise, were succeeded, by the Adhwa'. Then, the Mudar came to power.” Muqaddimah 2:21
So basically, your quote is saying the following: -They had a finger in the pie in a southern Arabian kingdom -It gives us a static description, or a snapshot of where their elites were rulers at that specific time, without disclosing the Amalekite headquarters.
This renders it worthless for this discussion. This is exactly what I mean. You can’t even properly analyze your quotes, you just make wishy washy connections because it suits your theory. Furthermore, you’ve said that Arab traditions have placed the location of the Amalekites in Yemen. After doing a little search, I found Al-Masudi talking about the same traditions, saying that said traditions place the homeland of the Amalekites around Mecca. This is just like the bible said, to the east of Egypt. And the Thamud tribe originated in central Arabia as well. This is recorded by both a 715 BC Assyrians inscription, and rock depictions in central Arabia. So again, your quote is useless for the purpose you have used it for.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Dana marniche: Your 5 points are quoted the Bible Kalonji put some historical background into your arguments and maybe I can answer your "points".
Are serious? Did you not notice I quoted three historical documents, which are found in Israel? In case you missed them (and I know you did not) I will post them again.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: 1.The monuments that are constantly being found in the Levant, while no monuments with references to Hebrews are found in Arabia. (Sheshonq 1 monument at Megiddo, the Moab inscription, Tel Dan Inscription)
You are losing your credibility and you’re losing it fast. Salibi’s whole thesis is based on the assertion that the names of biblical cities have been mistranslated, and that there are supposed to be dublicates in Arabia. His book is called, the bible came from Arabia, and it is called that for a reason. And now you’re basically telling me I shouldn’t look inside the same book Salibi used to make his claim, to test those claims? Are you out of your ever loving mind?
You were even talking about the most mythical cities of all, Sodom and Gomorrah, and now you’re telling me that I need historical background in my arguments?
The whole point of using biblical quotes, was to show that the people who wrote the bible absolutely didn’t conceive themselves as being located in Arabia. And if one cannot use the bible to do that, then your (and Salibi’s) thesis falls flat on its face.
You can try to talk around that all you want by telling me ‘’to quote outside of the bible’’ (as if I didn’t do that already in my initial responses), but it just shows how dishonest you are.
Whether characters are historical or not, the fact remains, that they (the Hebrews) saw themselves as being located on a geographical height that is north of Egypt. Which is consistent with modern day Israel.
Misrah, Kalonji, - not Egypt - Misrah.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Misrah, Kalonji, - not Egypt - Misrah.
Give me something to disect here,
You said in reaction to my post below:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: I’m sorry but I think you have no idea what you’re talking about. Anyone who thinks that the phenomenal events of the bible that are associated with Misraim can be identified with a tribe or a village has absolutely no insight into scriptures or logistics. It doesn’t even make sense, if you swap Mizraim with the southern Arabian Masruh, it would mean that Egypt is excluded from the bible. It then begs the question, why would a tribe/village as insignificant (judging by the lack of ancient referrals) as Masruh in the ancient world have more airtime in the bible than the nation of Egypt that was well known all across the ancient world. The Arabs, who are fond of throwing pebbles at Jews, would have been the first to say this if it was true. They call Egypt ‘’Misr’’ to this day. I don’t care about nice sounding duplicates of Israeli nations/locations in Arabia that someone with an agenda has written a book about. America has dozens of names that correspond with European names, many locations are called ‘’Holland’’ or ‘’Amsterdam’’. As for you question about where the bible says that Misraim is in Africa? The bible contains numerous references to ancient Egyptian cities. Cities besides the ones I’ve already mentioned that is.
that:
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Like I said Mizraim was used for the Biblical Egypt only after the Mizrah people conquered the African land of Ta-Khem.
Can you define for me when and how exactly the bible, mizr starts referring to Egypt?
Show me in what texts Mizraim refers to Masruh and from what times/texts this association is transferred to Kmt
And what material evidence, (e.g. that is excavated in southern Arabia) do you have to substantiate this with. Because obviously, the biblical record is inconsistent with your thesis.
Can you define for me when and how exactly the whole world started to associate the events in the bible with Israel instead of Yemen?
And what material evidence, do you have to substantiate this with.
(tentative identifications of ancient tribal/location names and modern ones are not evidence)
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Dana marniche: Although there is nothing in the Old Testament that refutes what Salibi
Yeah, keep saying that to yourself. Anybody who has seen 4 of the 5 points I forwarded to you were OT and NT quotes, that destroy your Israel = Southern Arabia thesis.
quote: Originally posted by Dana marniche: “When the royal authority of 'Ad was wiped out, their brethren, the Thamud, took over. They were succeeded, in turn, by their brethren, the Amalekites. The Amalekites were succeeded by their brethren, the Himyar. The Himyar were succeeded by their brethren, the Tubba's, who belonged to the Himyar. They, likewise, were succeeded, by the Adhwa'. Then, the Mudar came to power.” Muqaddimah 2:21
So basically, your quote is saying the following: -They had a finger in the pie in a southern Arabian kingdom -It gives us a static description, or a snapshot of where their elites were rulers at that specific time, without disclosing the Amalekite headquarters.
This renders it worthless for this discussion. This is exactly what I mean. You can’t even properly analyze your quotes, you just make wishy washy connections because it suits your theory. Furthermore, you’ve said that Arab traditions have placed the location of the Amalekites in Yemen. After doing a little search, I found Al-Masudi talking about the same traditions, saying that said traditions place the homeland of the Amalekites around Mecca. This is just like the bible said, to the east of Egypt. And the Thamud tribe originated in central Arabia as well. This is recorded by both a 715 BC Assyrians inscription, and rock depictions in central Arabia. So again, your quote is useless for the purpose you have used it for.
If your going to make google your research tool I'd suggest making more than one stop in order to back up your belief structure.
You would have found a whole host of Arab writers -and not just the Syrian al Masudi- who talk about the Amalekites and their origins, including the fact that they were considered ancestral to the South Arabian Qahtan, Sabeans, Himyarites and the same thing as the Adites of the land of Aden. Their rulership of Sana'a in Yemen and Mecca in Hejaz is also well documented. I've already talked about Masudi previously in my posts by the way. Thank you for the repeat! Many historians also believe they had connection to the Hyksos of Syria and Egypt. Thamud is mentioned possibly as far north as Syria or North Arabia in late Assyrian texts of the 8th c. B.C. What does that have to do with their origins. The Sabaean ruler It'amara is also mentioned as well by the Assyrians. That doesn't mean the Sabaeans were living near Assyria or in Syria!
Learn to distinguish between supporting Biblical passages with history and using Biblical passages to confirm history! The latter is what you do and the former is what I have been doing.
And again these are not my theories Kalonji. Here is a portion of Salibi's blog since you obviously feign to know more than he and I do and are afraid to look for it.
"Friday, February 5, 2010 The Sundial of King Ahaz POSTSCRIPT TO THE SECOND EDITION OF THE HISTORICITY OF BIBLICAL ISRAEL: STUDIES IN 1& 2 SAMUEL (2010)
The Sundial of King Ahaz by Anthony Lias
In 1985, Professor Kamal Salibi, of the American University of Beirut, wrote a brilliant book entitled The Bible Came from Arabia. Having had unexpected access to a gazetteer of Saudi Arabia published at Riyadh in 1977, his study of it confirmed him in the belief that the place-names of the Hebrew Bible – the actual location of which has always troubled Biblical scholars if taken to apply to what we now call Palestine – fitted perfectly if applied to the region called Asir, situated in West Arabia abutting on the Red Sea. As someone who has a working knowledge of the original Hebrew vocabulary of the Bible, and who has published three books on place-names myself, I found the hundreds of examples listed by Professor Salibi absolutely convincing. However, I have recently found what I regard as a further powerful proof that Professor Salibi’s argument is correct. To explain why, I must point out that Asir lies (and lay) well within the tropic zone (between 17 and 19 degrees north of the Equator). Now according to Isaiah 38:7,8, the prophet Isaiah (early eighth century BC) tells King Hezekiah in Jerusalem that ‘the Lord’ will give him a ‘sign’, namely this: “I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of [your father, King] Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.” This retrograde motion of a shadow cast by a gnomon (i.e., a sundial pointer) has traditionally been regarded as a ‘miracle’, because at the latitude of the present-day Jerusalem (31 degrees 47 minutes north of the Equator), such a motion would be impossible. However, and I quote a respected figure, the English mathematician/astronomer Thomas Keith (1759-1824): “If a horizontal dial, which shows the hour by the top of the perpendicular gnomon, be made for a place in the torrid zone [i.e. the tropics], whenever the sun’s declination exceeds the latitude of the place, the shadow of the gnomon will go back twice in the day, once in the forenoon and once in the afternoon, and the greater the difference between the latitude and the sun’s declination is, the farther the shadow will go back.” Thomas Keith, A New Treatise On The Use Of The Globes. Revised Edition. London, 1855, pp. 336-7. Now according to Professor Salibi, the original Jerusalem of Isaiah’s time will not have been in today’s Palestine, but in Asir, and within the torrid zone. Therefore the retrograde shadow on the ‘dial of Ahaz’ will not have been a ‘miracle’, but a fact. And no doubt an experiment could be set up in Asir at the present time to prove this. (N.B: since declination is the angular distance north or south of any heavenly body from the celestial equator, and since the highest possible declination of the sun is 23 degrees 28 minutes, it is plain that during certain months of the year the shadow will go back for every location within Asir.) It is possible that Professor Salibi is unaware of these astronomical details, which I believe are a vindication of his thesis. The story about the odd behaviour of the sundial of King Ahaz also occurs in 2 Kings, 20:8-12. Here, the story makes it obvious that Isaiah knew that the “shadow of the degrees” on the sundial would go back, and that King Hezekiah did not. My theory is that Isaiah (who is thought by some Biblical scholars to have acquired some astronomical knowledge from the Assyrians), duped Hezekiah into thinking he was witnessing a ‘miracle’, while in reality he was witnessing a genuine phenomenon in the Jerusalem of Asir whose existence is proposed by Professor Salibi, not the later one of Palestine. The fact of the retrograde motion of the shadow of a gnomon within the tropics is independently confirmed and fully explained by Denis Savoie in his book Sundials, Design, Construction and Use (English translation by Bob Mizon, Springer Praxis Publishing, 2009), Appendix F (6), pp.163-4. I must conclude by saying that Professor Salibi nowhere impugns the religious message of the Hebrew Bible. His thesis, in The Bible Came from Arabia and in the third part of the present work, centres purely on the correct location of places mentioned in the Bible. [Note: for anyone interested, Denis Savoie provides a diagram in Appendix F (6) of his book demonstrating the shadow’s retrograde motion, as well as an explanatory mathematical formula.]
Posted by Kamal Salibi at 9:19 AM 13 comments:
mohamad jalloul said... Interesting argument. I would surely read the book at first occasion. November 17, 2009 9:30 PM
aboualfa said... This article is just what i needed to furthur mess up my conception of history and it is a great feeling to know more than the others!! I wonder if the writer's english quote of Isaiah 38:7,8 is what Dr. Salibi would have translated from old hebrew!?[ in terms of wording not the concept] November 18, 2009 9:13 AM
Kamal Salibi said... to aoualfa: the translation from the Hebrew is correct in all the versions I know, including the Arabic one by Van Dyck/Butrus Bustani/Yusuf alAsir November 18, 2009 9:55 AM
Wolfganggr said... Anthony Lias has really a brilliant mind. If i knew the text, which i did not, i surely would have taken it as a parallel to the famous 'sun stand still above gideon' passage in judges, because this behaviour of a sun-dial was unknown to me. Its really fascinating you can make such findings in a text which has been written 2800 years ago and has been studied for more than, lets say 300 years. November 18, 2009 10:24 AM
Kamal Salibi said... The Hebrew for "degrees" in the original is MA`ALOTH, which can mean "steps", as in a staircase. This his given rise to much speculation as to what the "sundial" of Ahaz was like. That this sundial involved a "shadow" being cast on "steps" marking degrees is certain. What I would like to subject to further inquiry is the word rendered in the standing interpretations as the personal name "Ahaz" (cf. Arabic AKHADHA, 'take, hold"), because the text does not plainly indicae that it was the name of King Ahaz, the father of King Hezekiah. This it could well have been, but not necessarily so. (For example, it could have been, in the context, an auxiliary verb. Do not quote me on this unless I give my OK)The issue, however, does not make the least difference to the argument presented by Mr. Anthony Lias. November 18, 2009 11:25 AM
Kamal Salibi said... My last comment was a postscript to my response to the query of Aboualfa. ks November 18, 2009 11:27 AM
Kamal Salibi said... I fully endorse the comment of Wolfganggr. In barely two pages of text, modestly yet elegantly expressed, he has brought about a revolution not only in knowledge, but in the variety of surprising ways in which virtual certainty can be reached. November 18, 2009 9:29 PM
Kamal Salibi said... Wolfgang Grassmann said:
i could prove the effect of the sundial with use of the astronomy-program 'Stellarium'. I wonder why i haven't thougt at that at once. I took the city of Abha as a Reference and i took to be the Date of the Summer-Solstitium, which means the 21 of June.
I was able not only to prove the mere existence of the effect, but also its magnitude which is very near to the ten degrees as described in the bible.
The Azimut-Angles starts ( at sunrise , i used sunrise, but the numbers are fully the same at sunset ) at 65° 1' and it goes up to 74° 59'53'' which is approximately 75°. From that point on the shadow goes back to lower values. So the difference between the values is exactly ten degree, as prophecied by isahja.
This was far more that i ever imagined. :-))))
With all best wishes November 26, 2009 10:54 AM }
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe what some of the most respected Jewish scholars and archeologists, such as Neal Silberman and Israel Finkelstein believe Kalonji and that is the following:
"Much of the biblical narrative is a product of the hopes, fears and ambitions of the kingdom of Judah. The historical core of the Bible arose from clear political, social and spiritual conditions and was shaped by the creativity and vision of extraordinary women and men, without a doubt, but what is commonly taken for "history" -- the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and the saga of the glorious united monarchy of David and Solomon -- is really "the creative expression of the religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age",
For one thing archeologists have discovered the area excavated was not populated enough at the time Solomon and David were said to have lived and been part of the 'kingdom of Israel" mentioned in the Old Testament.
Since you don't know much about the controversies going on in Biblical archeology on lack of evidence of early Old Testament Biblical sites and history I suggest you start with the basics.
The Bible Unearthed, and other works by Neal Silberman and Israel Finkelstein.
Queen of Sheba and Biblical Archeology, by Bernard Leeman 2005.
Here is just a small example from a REVIEW of Finkelstein and Silberman's discoveries regarding LACK OF EVIDENCE for the Israel and Exodus from an African Misraim and Joshua in the modern state of Zionist Israel.
From an article entitled: Fiat Lux: Archeology and the Old Testament By Sarah Belle Dougherty
"Canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept extensive records, none of which mention the Israelites or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta.
Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel, despite many Egyptian records concerning Canaan. Nor is there any archeological evidence for a body of people encamping in the desert and mountains of Sinai in the Late Bronze Age:
Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness. -- p. 64
Archeology also reveals dramatic discrepancies concerning the military campaign of Joshua, dated between 1230-1220 BCE, when the powerful Canaanite kings were supposedly destroyed and the twelve tribes inherited their traditional territories. Abundant Late Bronze Age Egyptian diplomatic and military correspondence and other existing texts give detailed information about Canaan, which was closely administered by Egypt at that time for a period of several centuries. The Canaanite cities were small and unfortified -- Jericho and some of the other cities mentioned were even unsettled altogether -- and the total population of Canaan probably did not exceed 100,000... "
All Salibi and other revisionists are saying is that the reason the evidence is lacking is due to the fact that the old Israel was much further south.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Misrah, Kalonji, - not Egypt - Misrah.
Give me something to disect here,
You said in reaction to my post below:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: I’m sorry but I think you have no idea what you’re talking about. Anyone who thinks that the phenomenal events of the bible that are associated with Misraim can be identified with a tribe or a village has absolutely no insight into scriptures or logistics. It doesn’t even make sense, if you swap Mizraim with the southern Arabian Masruh, it would mean that Egypt is excluded from the bible. It then begs the question, why would a tribe/village as insignificant (judging by the lack of ancient referrals) as Masruh in the ancient world have more airtime in the bible than the nation of Egypt that was well known all across the ancient world. The Arabs, who are fond of throwing pebbles at Jews, would have been the first to say this if it was true. They call Egypt ‘’Misr’’ to this day. I don’t care about nice sounding duplicates of Israeli nations/locations in Arabia that someone with an agenda has written a book about. America has dozens of names that correspond with European names, many locations are called ‘’Holland’’ or ‘’Amsterdam’’. As for you question about where the bible says that Misraim is in Africa? The bible contains numerous references to ancient Egyptian cities. Cities besides the ones I’ve already mentioned that is.
that:
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Like I said Mizraim was used for the Biblical Egypt only after the Mizrah people conquered the African land of Ta-Khem.
Can you define for me when and how exactly the bible, mizr starts referring to Egypt?
Show me in what texts Mizraim refers to Masruh and from what times/texts this association is transferred to Kmt
And what material evidence, (e.g. that is excavated in southern Arabia) do you have to substantiate this with. Because obviously, the biblical record is inconsistent with your thesis.
Nope - I already gave you this info above. If you are not interested n looking at the references I gave you then you need to provide that evidence yourself to me.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QUOTE] Originally posted by dana marniche: Can you define for me when and how exactly the whole world started to associate the events in the bible with Israel instead of Yemen?
And what material evidence, do you have to substantiate this with.
(tentative identifications of ancient tribal/location names and modern ones are not evidence)
Salibi talks about this in The Bible Came from Arabia in the first chapters. The book can be googled by the way. If you don't want to read about it yourself I am sure that you can get it straight from the horses mouth though.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QUOTE] Originally posted by dana marniche: Can you define for me when and how exactly the whole world started to associate the events in the bible with Israel instead of Yemen?
And what material evidence, do you have to substantiate this with.
(tentative identifications of ancient tribal/location names and modern ones are not evidence)
Salibi talks about this in The Bible Came from Arabia in the first chapters. The book can be googled by the way. If you don't want to read about it yourself I am sure that you can get it straight from the horses mouth .
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: You would have found a whole host of Arab writers -and not just the Syrian al Masudi- who talk about the Amalekites and their origins, including the fact that they were considered ancestral to the South Arabian Qahtan, Sabeans, Himyarites and the same thing as the Adites of the land of Aden. Their rulership of Sana'a in Yemen and Mecca in Hejaz is also well documented. I've already talked about Masudi previously in my posts by the way. Thank you for the repeat!
Yes, and Africans to the west and south of Egypt were ancestral to ancient Egyptians, now what?
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: "Much of the biblical narrative is a product of the hopes, fears and ambitions of the kingdom of Judah. The historical core of the Bible arose from clear political, social and spiritual conditions and was shaped by the creativity and vision of extraordinary women and men, without a doubt, but what is commonly taken for "history" -- the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and the saga of the glorious united monarchy of David and Solomon -- is really "the creative expression of the religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age",
Is there supposed to be a punch line that I missed or something? What were you trying to accomplish with that quote?
If you went through my posts, and comprehended my position, you would’ve known that I’m not religious and so the above is nothing but a straw man, since I never took the position of the historical accuracy in the first place. I DO however, take misquotations of the bible serious, especially when it’s done by people with agendas like you, who are trying to force new material to add to the accomplishments of southern Arabians. This is why I confronted you about your numerous errors that we don’t need to get into again. The other reason why I have quoted the bible is because of geographical reasons. And until you establish - besides rambling about the lack of historical accuracy of certain events in the bible (something I don’t contest) - that we shouldn’t trust their writings about their geographical position among the other tribes they had contact with, I will continue to quote these portions of the bible. See, what you’re doing, is taking something that most people here agree on, which is the lack of historical accuracy of events in the bible, and try to extrapolate that over the rest of the bible, without even knowing what you’re talking about. Even your sources agree on a certain level of geographical accuracy in the bible. There is a difference between historical accuracy and geographical accuracy. Because the former may be lacking, this doesn’t mean that the latter is erroneous as well.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: For one thing archeologists have discovered the area excavated was not populated enough at the time Solomon and David were said to have lived and been part of the 'kingdom of Israel" mentioned in the Old Testament.
This is something I have refuted already. Very few population myths match archeological finds. There is no reason to infer from that anything more than the common human tendency to exaggerate, make up events and to make fancify their traditional stories.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Since you don't know much about the controversies going on in Biblical archeology on lack of evidence of early Old Testament Biblical sites and history I suggest you start with the basics.
Again, you don’t know what you are talking about, and you just assume which is your work method. This is not some secret knowledge you’re spilling here. This is common mainstream information.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: "Canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept extensive records, none of which mention the Israelites or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta.
Exactly, they built buffers and forts in Gaza, not in Arabia. This indicates that they perceived a northern threat, not a south Eastern threat on the other side of the red sea. This exposes your flawed Hyksos/Masruh/southern Arabian myth. LOL your own quotes contradict everything you claim. Since you are so fond of talking about the lack of mention of Israelites, why don’t you show us AE records of Masruh having anything to do with the Hyksos? Like all pseudo scholarship, and complot theories, the advocates leave you to connect the dots from perceived inconsistencies, to their conclusions/theories etc. Not going to happen, why don’t you stop talking about perceived historical flaws (that nobody contests) and start to show pro-actively for a change, a breakdown of how and when exactly mistranslations/misidentifications happened. Stop insulting my intelligence with reasoning like: 1.The Hyksos worshipped Seth. 2.And according to this quote, the Amalekites worshipped Seth too. This is conclusive evidence to suggest that they were the same people.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel, despite many Egyptian records concerning Canaan. Nor is there any archeological evidence for a body of people encamping in the desert and mountains of Sinai in the Late Bronze Age:
Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness. -- p. 64
1.Like I said you can’t analyze your own quotes, and it’s becoming painfully apparent. Your quotes actually contradict you. See the highlighted parts above for what I mean. 2.Nowhere are the authors making the outrageous unsubstantiated claims that both the Hebrews and ‘’Mizraim’’ are to be found in southern Arabia. 3.Nowhere in your quotes are the biblical records about the location of identified tribes contested. To the contrary, it is supported.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: All Salibi and other revisionists are saying is that the reason the evidence is lacking is due to the fact that the old Israel was much further south.
Exactly, it is him and other outliers who make those claims.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Thamud is mentioned possibly as far north as Syria or North Arabia in late Assyrian texts of the 8th c. B.C. What does that have to do with their origins. The Sabaean ruler It'amara is also mentioned as well by the Assyrians. That doesn't mean the Sabaeans were living near Assyria or in Syria!
Like I said, you can’t analize quotes. Nowhere is it stated that the people of Thamud were simply mentioned by the Assyrians. I said their residence was recorded in central Arabia. We can bicker back and forth about things that don’t matter, but what still remains is that your quote that was supposed to substantiate a deep southern origin for the Amalekites was flawed and not suited for this discussion. Period. Better luck with your next quote!
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Learn to distinguish between supporting Biblical passages with history and using Biblical passages to confirm history! The latter is what you do and the former is what I have been doing.
Another straw man. In your attempt to point out perceived flaws in my approach, you show everyone that you can’t read. Not only from my posts, but also from your own sources. You need to learn to distinguish between what your sources are saying and what you WANT to see in your quotes and in my posts. It is not me who has invested into the idea that the biblical events are factual at all times, like I’ve said for so many times, I’m not religious. In actuality, it is you who has invested into the idea that the bible must be historical, because YOU make the claim that ‘’since we can’t find evidence for biblical events, the events must’ve taken place somewhere else’’. You are a hypocrite, who can’t even make up her own mind.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: The Sundial of King Ahaz by Anthony Lias
….. Now according to Isaiah 38:7,8, the prophet Isaiah (early eighth century BC) tells King Hezekiah in Jerusalem that ‘the Lord’ will give him a ‘sign’
See what a hypocrite you are? When it suits you, we CAN use biblical events huh? But we can’t use their own description of where they were located? We can’t use their own description that tells us they were far removed from well known southern Arabian tribes? What about Josua’s successful attempt to stop to sun from setting so that more people could get murdered before the end of the day (Joshua 10:12-13). Could that have taken place in Asir as well?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: You would have found a whole host of Arab writers -and not just the Syrian al Masudi- who talk about the Amalekites and their origins, including the fact that they were considered ancestral to the South Arabian Qahtan, Sabeans, Himyarites and the same thing as the Adites of the land of Aden. Their rulership of Sana'a in Yemen and Mecca in Hejaz is also well documented. I've already talked about Masudi previously in my posts by the way. Thank you for the repeat!
Yes, and Africans to the west and south of Egypt were ancestral to ancient Egyptians, now what?
Umm - not sure what this means. Is there a full moon out or something.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB] [QUOTE] Originally posted by dana marniche:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by dana marniche: "Much of the biblical narrative is a product of the hopes, fears and ambitions of the kingdom of Judah. The historical core of the Bible arose from clear political, social and spiritual conditions and was shaped by the creativity and vision of extraordinary women and men, without a doubt, but what is commonly taken for "history" -- the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and the saga of the glorious united monarchy of David and Solomon -- is really "the creative expression of the religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age",
Is there supposed to be a punch line that I missed or something? What were you trying to accomplish with that quote?
Yeah - you missed the fact that there is little evidence of the Israel of the Old Testament in the Bible being located in Syria/Palestine. Sorry forgot who i was talking to. I'm not trying to accomplish much of anything Kalonji, answering your questions.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QUOTE] talking about. Even your sources agree on a certain level of geographical accuracy in the bible. There is a difference between historical accuracy and geographical accuracy. Because the former may be lacking, this doesn’t mean that the latter is erroneous as well. [QUOTE] Originally posted by dana marniche: For one thing archeologists have discovered the area excavated was not populated enough at the time Solomon and David were said to have lived and been part of the 'kingdom of Israel" mentioned in the Old Testament.
This is something I have refuted already. Very few population myths match archeological finds. There is no reason to infer from that anything more than the common human tendency to exaggerate, make up events and to make fancify their traditional stories.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Since you don't know much about the controversies going on in Biblical archeology on lack of evidence of early Old Testament Biblical sites and history I suggest you start with the basics.
Again, you don’t know what you are talking about, and you just assume which is your work method. This is not some secret knowledge you’re spilling here. This is common mainstream information.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: "Canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept extensive records, none of which mention the Israelites or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta.
Exactly, they built buffers and forts in Gaza, not in Arabia. This indicates that they perceived a northern threat, not a south Eastern threat on the other side of the red sea. This exposes your flawed Hyksos/Masruh/southern Arabian myth. LOL your own quotes contradict everything you claim. Since you are so fond of talking about the lack of mention of Israelites, why don’t you show us AE records of Masruh having anything to do with the Hyksos? Like all pseudo scholarship, and complot theories, the advocates leave you to connect the dots from perceived inconsistencies, to their conclusions/theories etc. Not going to happen, why don’t you stop talking about perceived historical flaws (that nobody contests) and start to show pro-actively for a change, a breakdown of how and when exactly mistranslations/misidentifications happened. Stop insulting my intelligence with reasoning like: 1.The Hyksos worshipped Seth. 2.And according to this quote, the Amalekites worshipped Seth too. This is conclusive evidence to suggest that they were the same people.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel, despite many Egyptian records concerning Canaan. Nor is there any archeological evidence for a body of people encamping in the desert and mountains of Sinai in the Late Bronze Age:
Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness. -- p. 64
1.Like I said you can’t analyze your own quotes, and it’s becoming painfully apparent. Your quotes actually contradict you. See the highlighted parts above for what I mean. 2.Nowhere are the authors making the outrageous unsubstantiated claims that both the Hebrews and ‘’Mizraim’’ are to be found in southern Arabia. 3.Nowhere in your quotes are the biblical records about the location of identified tribes contested. To the contrary, it is supported.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: All Salibi and other revisionists are saying is that the reason the evidence is lacking is due to the fact that the old Israel was much further south.
Exactly, it is him and other outliers who make those claims.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Thamud is mentioned possibly as far north as Syria or North Arabia in late Assyrian texts of the 8th c. B.C. What does that have to do with their origins. The Sabaean ruler It'amara is also mentioned as well by the Assyrians. That doesn't mean the Sabaeans were living near Assyria or in Syria!
Like I said, you can’t analize quotes. Nowhere is it stated that the people of Thamud were simply mentioned by the Assyrians. I said their residence was recorded in central Arabia. We can bicker back and forth about things that don’t matter, but what still remains is that your quote that was supposed to substantiate a deep southern origin for the Amalekites was flawed and not suited for this discussion. Period. Better luck with your next quote!
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Learn to distinguish between supporting Biblical passages with history and using Biblical passages to confirm history! The latter is what you do and the former is what I have been doing.
Another straw man. In your attempt to point out perceived flaws in my approach, you show everyone that you can’t read. Not only from my posts, but also from your own sources. You need to learn to distinguish between what your sources are saying and what you WANT to see in your quotes and in my posts. It is not me who has invested into the idea that the biblical events are factual at all times, like I’ve said for so many times, I’m not religious. In actuality, it is you who has invested into the idea that the bible must be historical, because YOU make the claim that ‘’since we can’t find evidence for biblical events, the events must’ve taken place somewhere else’’. You are a hypocrite, who can’t even make up her own mind.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche:
I'd like to know what I opinion of yours is worthy of a response. Since you don't like my answers and since I'm a hypocrite, wh ocannot analyze my own quotes you don't have to keep blabbing about everything I quoted - especially without nothing to back up your opinions with. Is there anything you can quote besides the Bible. You're right we can bicker but I don't like stating opnions or opiniated people. Furthermore, its not just about approaches its about research which I haven't seen you introduce.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QUOTE] Stop insulting my intelligence with reasoning like: 1.The Hyksos worshipped Seth. 2.And according to this quote, the Amalekites worshipped Seth too. This is conclusive evidence to suggest that they were the same people. [QUOTE] [/b]
Like I said, you can’t analize quotes. Nowhere is it stated that the people of Thamud were simply mentioned by the Assyrians. I said their residence was recorded in central Arabia. We can bicker back and forth about things that don’t matter, but what still remains is that your quote that was supposed to substantiate a deep southern origin for the Amalekites was flawed and not suited for this discussion. Period. Better luck with your next quote!
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Learn to distinguish between supporting Biblical passages with history and using Biblical passages to confirm history! The latter is what you do and the former is what I have been doing.
Another straw man. In your attempt to point out perceived flaws in my approach, you show everyone that you can’t read. Not only from my posts, but also from your own sources. You need to learn to distinguish between what your sources are saying and what you WANT to see in your quotes and in my posts. It is not me who has invested into the idea that the biblical events are factual at all times, like I’ve said for so many times, I’m not religious. In actuality, it is you who has invested into the idea that the bible must be historical, because YOU make the claim that ‘’since we can’t find evidence for biblical events, the events must’ve taken place somewhere else’’. You are a hypocrite, who can’t even make up her own mind.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche:
I'd like to know what opinion of yours is worthy of a response since I don't see anything else as usual except you putting words in my mouth again and making up quotes I never said. Since you don't like my answers and since I'm a hypocrite, who ocannot analyze my own quotes you don't have to keep blabbing about everything I quoted - especially without nothing to back up your opinions with. You're right we can bicker but I don't like stating opnions or opiniated people, or people that put words in my mouth. I stopped going on the Mathilda site because she or whatever that was, did the same thing and I'm frankly not a therapist.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I did notice something historical you mentioned, but there are several Gazas in Arabia Kalonji and one in the Arabian region of ancient Israel. Sorry about that.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: That construct bs is some 'ole bullshit.
All histories and written text are the same, the events' truthfulness are just a matter of the story the evidence constructs.
Don't get me wrong, it does pieve me how Abrahamic texts are "religion" and "histories" and AE Religion is "mythology". Give me a break.
Actually both of them are cosmomythological and most probably originated with the same peoples. It has formed the basis of western relgion, which is why it is important to put them into their proper geographical context.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Not going to happen, why don’t you stop talking about perceived historical flaws (that nobody contests) and start to show pro-actively for a change, a breakdown of how and when exactly mistranslations/misidentifications happened. Stop insulting my intelligence with reasoning like: 1.The Hyksos worshipped Seth. 2.And according to this quote, the Amalekites worshipped Seth too. This is conclusive evidence to suggest that they were the same people.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: 1.The monuments that are constantly being found in the Levant, while no monuments with references to Hebrews are found in Arabia. (Sheshonq 1 monument at Megiddo, the Moab inscription, Tel Dan Inscription)
^Very clear. Like I said, your perceived lack of extra biblical evidence in my approach are nothing but ramblings. You have yet to produce something as conclusive as that
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods --
Thnx for refuting yourself LOL.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza.
Thnx for affirming for me that they perceived a northern threat, not a southern Arabian/Masruh one.
Analyse your quotes better before you try to prove a point that might be contradicting your other theories.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Not going to happen, why don’t you stop talking about perceived historical flaws (that nobody contests) and start to show pro-actively for a change, a breakdown of how and when exactly mistranslations/misidentifications happened. Stop insulting my intelligence with reasoning like: 1.The Hyksos worshipped Seth. 2.And according to this quote, the Amalekites worshipped Seth too. This is conclusive evidence to suggest that they were the same people.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: 1.The monuments that are constantly being found in the Levant, while no monuments with references to Hebrews are found in Arabia. (Sheshonq 1 monument at Megiddo, the Moab inscription, Tel Dan Inscription)
^Very clear. Like I said, your perceived lack of extra biblical evidence in my approach are nothing but ramblings. You have yet to produce something as conclusive as that
[ Analyse your quotes better before you try to prove a point that might be contradicting your other theories.
Thanks but like I said I will disregard YOUR OPINIONS. Especially the one about Hyksos not worshipping Seth. I already showed proactively in my various posts and in my answers to you that it is a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for HUNDREDS of place names of the Old Testament to be found in their proper places and in the southern half of Arabia and it be coincidence. I am hardly bothered by your name-calling but your badgering is kind of irritating - like a nag. Your complete utter disregard for this and your nonsense about discoveries of "real" Exodus places in Syria were naturally backed up by no evidence AS USUAL. And thus nothing but a lie. Salibi's references are historical places today. The people that are mentioned in the Bible are people living today and half of them never made it up to Palestine. If there were something more than a handful of Biblical names found in Syro-Palestine as is WELL KNOWN I would take your criticism seriously but as there aren't and as you are plain out feigning there are and that you know something other than elementary Biblical "parables" - I can't.
You are an amateur opinion-maker, and ideologue, Kalonji and not a historian, which is why you have not bothered to bring up any sources here, and refused to look at any of the ones I presented. Much like "Hammered" who also considers himself some kind of logician and says nothing at the same time.
For people truly interested in Biblical history today they can read some of my previous postings.
"According to an article written by Gary Byers on Biblical Archeology . 'The good news is that Finkelstein has publicly declared that he does not deny the existence of either David or Solomon (Shanks 2002: 45). The bad news is that he does not believe they were who the Bible described them to be. As an archaeologist, Finkelstein sees no evidence for David’s capital in Jerusalem and no evidence for his kingdom anywhere else in the region. Neither is there a capital city or temple in Jerusalem during Solomon’s time, nor is there archaeological evidence of Solomon’s reign elsewhere – especially at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer (I Kgs 9:15).""
Maybe you should be complaining to Finkelstein, Salibi, Thomas L. Thompson and other Biblical scholars who have said what I just reiterated above instead of nagging me about theories you've pronounce were mine. You should but its probably not likely since you are not an academic or interested in reasoned argument nor do you even exhibit any want to be. And then you expect me to be moved by what you have written.
As I mentioned on another post, "On the other hand Salibi found all of the Bible place names such as Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer as well as all of the over two dozen "gates of Israel" in regions further south, in the area still said to have been originally occupied by Ad, Amalek, Saba and Himyar."
What Salibi has nearly proven is that most of the names of the Biblical Judah were found in the southern Hejaz. Many of the names of the Amarna records are illiterated in the order and groups that they are found in the Hejaz. The gates of the Biblical Israel are in the Asir. The tribes of Israel and hamm wer located in the Hejaz and Yemen.
The names of the people of Judah of all the Levites and Gate Keepers and H-msrrym, and temples servants the sons of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashhur, Harim of the h-khnym are found in areas like Yemamah and Central Arabia.
The names of the villages and clans or families mentioned in rthe book of Ezra and Nehemia are almost all found today in the Jizan and in the Tihama and in the area south of Taif and other parts of the southern Hejaz. According to Salibi and other scholars they include Lehi, Ziha, Hasupha, Tabbaoth, Keros, Siaha, Padon, Leban, Hagabah, Akkub, Hagab, Shamlai Hanan, Giddel Gahar, Reiah, Rezin, Nekoda, Gazzam ,Uzza, Pasea, Besai, Asnah, Meunim, Nephisim, Bakbuk, Hakupha, Harhur, Bazluth, Mehida, Harsha, Barkos, Sisera, Tamah, Neziah, Hatipha, Solomonm Sotai, Hassophereth, Peruda, Jaalah, Darkon, Giddel Shephatiah, Hattil, Pocheret-Hazebaim, Ami Arah, Zattu, Ater, Tel Harsha, Adan Hariph, Anathoth, Azmaveth, Adonikam, Netophah, Bethel, Ai, Barzillai Azgad, Hebaiah, Adin, Elam, Cherub, Bebai, Thummim, Parosh, Gibeon, Nebo, Gibbar, Hadid, UrimKiriath Jarim, Beeroth, Jeshua, Jorah Bethlehem , Ramah, Geba, Michmas, Magbish, Tobiah, Ono, Joab, Bani, Jericho, Zaccai, Pi-Ramsses, Gaza, Guzan, Jerusalim, the Canaanites, Lashich, Israel, the tribes of Jacob, Sodom, Gommorah, Jericho, Hauran, Sharon, Naharain, the four rivers of Eden and Gan Eden, to NAME A FEW. See Chapter 8 The Bible Came from Arabia.
In some cases there were more than one of these ancient names in this southwest Arabian area. Modern Israel does not possess most or even a quarter of these towns and when they have shown up archeology has sufficiently demonstrated they are either founded in the wrong geographical and chronological places as is the case with Bethlehem, Jerusalim, and Jericho.
It is long been known that the names of the many of the children of Shem and Qahtan, Uzal, Hadoram, Hadramaut are actually ancient south Arabian locales, but its Salibi and other historians now showing that Hamm and Shem in general were early names of tribes and/or villages in the area. These peoples carried their names northward as I have started to show in this series and many did so in relatively recent times, beginning with the Sassanid period, and not "when the Canaanites spread abroad".
Many of these are the names of dark complexioned or near black clans in Arabia even today that claim their origins to be even further south or in Africa and who were named after their tribal chiefs in Arabia. The myths surrounding their movements and migrations in many cases are similar to those described in the Old testament that supposedly happened in or near Palestine as I have already begun to illustrate.
AGAIN _ Maybe you should be complaining to Finkelstein, Salibi and other Biblical scholars who have said what I just reiterated above instead of nagging me about theories you've complained were mine!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archaeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."
Passage from - The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, by Thomas L. Thompson, 1999.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: That construct bs is some 'ole bullshit.
All histories and written text are the same, the events' truthfulness are just a matter of the story the evidence constructs.
Don't get me wrong, it does pieve me how Abrahamic texts are "religion" and "histories" and AE Religion is "mythology". Give me a break.
All histories and written texts aren't the same. Don't be a fool. Just because you haven't been able to prove the veracity of the bible doesn't mean you have to go dismissing everything else. judeophiles are so pathetic.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Thanks but like I said I will disregard YOUR OPINIONS. Especially the one about Hyksos not worshipping Seth.
You can’t read Dana, why don’t you give up your false accusations. Nowhere did I say the Hyksos didn’t worship Seth. It is these kind of dishonest and hypocritical remarks that invoke my harsh words. I corrected you when you quoted a dubious source that said Seth was introduced to the Egyptians by the Hyksos. I also pointed out your flawed reasoning where you said that the Amalekites and the Hyksos were the same because they both worshipped Seth.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: I already showed proactively in my various posts and in my answers to you that it is a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for HUNDREDS of place names of the Old Testament to be found in their proper places and in the southern half of Arabia and it be coincidence.
Then maybe there is something more going on, but you still haven’t provided evidence. Using that assertion, and jumping from that to your theories is just sloppy scholarship. When investigating data and narrowing down the solutions using Ockham's razor, usually, the simplest solution is the most likely one. You do the reverse, you and outliers like Salibi check the easiest solutions, and consider the most ‘’far out there’’ conclusions.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: I am hardly bothered by your name-calling but your badgering is kind of irritating - like a nag.
Then you need to stop being dishonest, and stop being hypocritical. Like.. bickering about the historical value of the bible, and then use it yourself when (you think) it suits you, like you did with the sundial argument.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Your complete utter disregard for this and your nonsense about discoveries of "real" Exodus places in Syria were naturally backed up by no evidence AS USUAL. And thus nothing but a lie.
O, so you’re starting to dismiss your own sources now? Just like you started to brush off the bible after using it yourself (hypocritically) and asserting that mythological cities like Sodom and Gomorra were located in Arabia. Wishy Washy-ness all over again and even calling it a lie. But this is what YOUR sources say:
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel,
Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Salibi's references are historical places today. The people that are mentioned in the Bible are people living today and half of them never made it up to Palestine.
Exactly, and that is the problem. The fact that certain cultures choose to self identifying with ancient tribes and populations, has no bearing on what was the case in ancient times. Just like the modern nation of Ethiopia has no bearing on the ancient Greek use of the word Ethiopia. Until you show ancient Arabian records that corroborate your claims, like I did several times, using sources that you ignored, you will have no case. Nobody cares about modern cities and populations. Since nothing has been found in Israel, (according to you) show me what has been found in Arabia materialistically, that corroborate your claims. Show how and when these so called ‘’mistranslations’’ happened. Your persistent avoidance and reluctance to fulfill said requests tell me I’m onto something here.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: If there were something more than a handful of Biblical names found in Syro-Palestine as is WELL KNOWN I would take your criticism seriously but as there aren't and as you are plain out feigning there are and that you know something other than elementary Biblical "parables" - I can't.
That statement came from your own source you unbelievable DORK, you still don’t get it. Do you even comprehend what you post? I try to be respectful but you’re so erratic, it’s hard for me to take you serious. Just look at your last sentence, you ran back to your earlier ‘’biblical parables’’ argument. Didn’t you just try to use a biblical passage two days ago, yes or no? Did you, or did you not write the following as well:
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Abraham was of the tribes according to both Biblical and Arabian tradition of the tribes of Peleg. Abraham lived in the area of Mecca and Misfalah (Machfelah of the Bible)
After realizing that the answer to both questions is obviously yes, I want you to realize that you are a dishonest hypocrite. I bet even Salibi is shaking his head right now.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: You are an amateur opinion-maker, and ideologue, Kalonji and not a historian, which is why you have not bothered to bring up any sources here, and refused to look at any of the ones I presented. Much like "Hammered" who also considers himself some kind of logician and says nothing at the same time
This is what your source says Here it is:
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel,
Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established
Lets deal with your misrepresentation of Finkelsteins position. This is what you had to say about him:
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: "According to an article written by Gary Byers on Biblical Archeology . 'The good news is that Finkelstein has publicly declared that he does not deny the existence of either David or Solomon (Shanks 2002: 45). The bad news is that he does not believe they were who the Bible described them to be. As an archaeologist, Finkelstein sees no evidence for David’s capital in Jerusalem and no evidence for his kingdom anywhere else in the region. Neither is there a capital city or temple in Jerusalem during Solomon’s time, nor is there archaeological evidence of Solomon’s reign elsewhere – especially at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer (I Kgs 9:15).""
Dana, do you even know what the purpose is for quoting a scholar? If you do, then why do you quote from a scholar who doesn’t support your end conclusions? Nowhere has Finkelstein said that we should look in Arabia for biblical events/cities. You are misrepresenting him because you create the impression to others that he agrees with you. He doesn’t, and if you quoted the whole piece from the website, everyone could see how sneaky you are. This is what Finkelstein believes:
Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, head of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University and co-director of the ongoing excavation at Megiddo, does not consider himself a "Minimalist." He believes the core historical books of the Old Testament were written in the late seventh century BC (the days of king Josiah) as political propaganda to support his reforms (see Shanks 2002). Thus for Finkelstein, a Biblical writer was not actually describing the period about which he was writing, instead he was inventing history about that period (Shanks 2002: 43). With these views, Finkelstein sees himself as being in the middle – between the Biblical Minimalists and Biblical Maximalists (who support the basic history of the Old Testament).
But that isn't all. Finkelstein also developed a new chronology for archaeological data that suggests there is no archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy under David and Solomon. He calls his revision the "low chronology," in opposition to the traditional or "high chronology." With Finkelstein's "low chronology," the poor material culture of the eleventh century BC (the period of the Judges) lowers and becomes the period of David and Solomon. The better architecture, ceramics and other artifacts of the tenth century BC (the period of David and Solomon) Finkelstein lowers to the ninth century BC (the days of Omri, Ahab and Jehu).
1.Not only did you purposefully misrepresent Finkelsteins opinion about the so called lack of Levantine biblical sites. 2.You obviously took the paragraph that was the easiest to quote out of context, because it contains sentences like ‘’no evidence for David’s capital in Jerusalem’’ and ‘’no evidence for his kingdom anywhere else in the region’’ so you could make it sound like he is open to the possibility that it was in another region (like Arabia), when he is NOT. 3.He also does NOT support the theory that biblical events occurred in Arabia
Again, leaving you with your pants down, as this is yet another one of your quotes that disagree with you, and refute your theories.
quote: Originally posted by dana marniche: Maybe you should be complaining to Finkelstein, Salibi, Thomas L. Thompson and other Biblical scholars who have said what I just reiterated above instead of nagging me about theories you've pronounce were mine.
What ‘’other’’ biblical scholars? I know about Salibi, and how his arguments are dismissed by virtually everyone knowledgeable who has in-field experience digging in ancient Levantine areas. Why don’t you give me all the other names so I can investigate if there has been more misrepresenting and selective quoting going on by your hands. And I’m not going to respond to irrelevant quotes about the lack of archeological sites in the Levant. Even these ‘’minimalists’’ don’t go beyond that assertion to assert that one should look in Arabia for the biblical events. List the names of respectable bible scholars that have years under their belt of investigating these sites that say that Arabians have written the bible. While you at it, see if you can find it in you to conveniently ‘’miss’’ the following quote AGAIN
1.The monuments that are constantly being found in the Levant, while no monuments with references to Hebrews are found in Arabia. (Sheshonq 1 monument at Megiddo, the Moab inscription, Tel Dan Inscription, the dead sea scrolls) ^Note that I added the dead sea scrolls, which are found in Levantine territory as well.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like i have been saying since the beginning that the original arabs and israelites were black. Nice post dana.
Posts: 108 | From: LA | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, came back and no response. I guess it is settled then.
-Claims that people involved with Levantine excavations like Finkelstein and Thompson support assertions that were made throughout this thread are false and have been misrepresented with questionable intentions.
-Requests for the names of unexpressed ''other'' excavators and/or experts that agree with the assertion that Israel was located in Arabia were not provided.
-Supplied ancient and extra biblical evidence that corroborate the correctness of status quo paradigms regarding mainstream identifications of biblical tribes were ignored again and again, while other sources like the biblical ones that were convient to notice, WERE noticed. Showing severe unwillingness to face the facts.
-The kingdom of Israel was conceived to be in the levant by the authors of the bible. This can be inferred from the bible itself. Often mentioned arguments about the historical value of the bible have, while arguably correct when dealing with events, no bearing on biblical discriptions of their own geographical location relative to other tribes and populations. Hence Salibi's attempt to dislocate everything and force a duplicate in Arabia to try to make said biblical geographical locations still ''work''.
-Identifications of ''Mizraim'' with an obscure village/tribe named Masruh who are vaguely identified with hyksos rulers, along with the Amalekites is ''out there'' by itself. But then to top it off, you claim the name Mizraim was magically swapped to Egypt after the Hyksos period. These claims fall flat on their back, since requests for dates, reasons, mechanisms and other specifics that can explain the emergence of said strange events were not provided but flat out declined and substituted with a link to Salibi's Blog. Which utilizes content of the same bible she says lacks historical value..
-The Egyptians perceived a northern threat and they built northern forts, al the way up in Gaza which is about as western as it gets (meaning extending to the left)in the levant, making it possible for us to logically infer that the Hyksos could only have come from the other side of the red sea if you are dreaming it. To accept that the Hyksos were Arabians is to imply that the Egyptians were dumb enough to place forts where no threat for retalliation existed. Also, it implies that they were dumb enough to leave everything between Gaza and the gulf of Aqada open for another wishful Masruh/Amalekite infiltration.
-There is no starting academical trend or inclination towards an Arabian Israel, even though this was stated earlier, with absolutely no sources. The sources that WERE provided disagreed with this sentiment
I guess that about sums it up.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Ahh, came back and no response. I guess it is settled then.
-Claims that people involved with Levantine excavations like Finkelstein and Thompson support assertions that were made throughout this thread are false and have been misrepresented with questionable intentions.
-Requests for the names of unexpressed ''other'' excavators and/or experts that agree with the assertion that Israel was located in Arabia were not provided.
-Supplied ancient and extra biblical evidence that corroborate the correctness of status quo paradigms regarding mainstream identifications of biblical tribes were ignored again and again, while other sources like the biblical ones that were convient to notice, WERE noticed. Showing severe unwillingness to face the facts.
-The kingdom of Israel was conceived to be in the levant by the authors of the bible. This can be inferred from the bible itself. Often mentioned arguments about the historical value of the bible have, while arguably correct when dealing with events, no bearing on biblical discriptions of their own geographical location relative to other tribes and populations. Hence Salibi's attempt to dislocate everything and force a duplicate in Arabia to try to make said biblical geographical locations still ''work''.
-Identifications of ''Mizraim'' with an obscure village/tribe named Masruh who are vaguely identified with hyksos rulers, along with the Amalekites is ''out there'' by itself. But then to top it off, you claim the name Mizraim was magically swapped to Egypt after the Hyksos period. These claims fall flat on their back, since requests for dates, reasons, mechanisms and other specifics that can explain the emergence of said strange events were not provided but flat out declined and substituted with a link to Salibi's Blog. Which utilizes content of the same bible she says lacks historical value..
-The Egyptians perceived a northern threat and they built northern forts, al the way up in Gaza which is about as western as it gets (meaning extending to the left)in the levant, making it possible for us to logically infer that the Hyksos could only have come from the other side of the red sea if you are dreaming it. To accept that the Hyksos were Arabians is to imply that the Egyptians were dumb enough to place forts where no threat for retalliation existed. Also, it implies that they were dumb enough to leave everything between Gaza and the gulf of Aqada open for another wishful Masruh/Amalekite infiltration.
-There is no starting academical trend or inclination towards an Arabian Israel, even though this was stated earlier, with absolutely no sources. The sources that WERE provided disagreed with this sentiment
I guess that about sums it up.
Thought you said our discussion was over Kalonji. My bad. Sorry I was busy as you can see. Glad you came back though. Yeah - it certainly is settled - and Once and for All!
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Ahh, came back and no response. I guess it is settled then.
-Claims that people involved with Levantine excavations like Finkelstein and Thompson support assertions that were made throughout this thread are false and have been misrepresented with questionable intentions.
-Requests for the names of unexpressed ''other'' excavators and/or experts that agree with the assertion that Israel was located in Arabia were not provided.
-Supplied ancient and extra biblical evidence that corroborate the correctness of status quo paradigms regarding mainstream identifications of biblical tribes were ignored again and again, while other sources like the biblical ones that were convient to notice, WERE noticed. Showing severe unwillingness to face the facts.
-The kingdom of Israel was conceived to be in the levant by the authors of the bible. This can be inferred from the bible itself. Often mentioned arguments about the historical value of the bible have, while arguably correct when dealing with events, no bearing on biblical discriptions of their own geographical location relative to other tribes and populations. Hence Salibi's attempt to dislocate everything and force a duplicate in Arabia to try to make said biblical geographical locations still ''work''.
-Identifications of ''Mizraim'' with an obscure village/tribe named Masruh who are vaguely identified with hyksos rulers, along with the Amalekites is ''out there'' by itself. But then to top it off, you claim the name Mizraim was magically swapped to Egypt after the Hyksos period. These claims fall flat on their back, since requests for dates, reasons, mechanisms and other specifics that can explain the emergence of said strange events were not provided but flat out declined and substituted with a link to Salibi's Blog. Which utilizes content of the same bible she says lacks historical value..
-The Egyptians perceived a northern threat and they built northern forts, al the way up in Gaza which is about as western as it gets (meaning extending to the left)in the levant, making it possible for us to logically infer that the Hyksos could only have come from the other side of the red sea if you are dreaming it. To accept that the Hyksos were Arabians is to imply that the Egyptians were dumb enough to place forts where no threat for retalliation existed. Also, it implies that they were dumb enough to leave everything between Gaza and the gulf of Aqada open for another wishful Masruh/Amalekite infiltration.
-There is no starting academical trend or inclination towards an Arabian Israel, even though this was stated earlier, with absolutely no sources. The sources that WERE provided disagreed with this sentiment
I guess that about sums it up.
Thought you said our discussion was over Kalonji. My bad. Sorry I was busy as you can see. Glad you came back though. Yeah - it certainly is settled - and Once and for All!
Dana can you point out to me where I said that? Before I continue I ask that you reproduce the exact sentence of me saying that.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, Edom (Idumea) was located south of Israel. And we know where Petra is located which would be North of your Israel in Arabia. Would you care to explain your view...
Posts: 108 | From: LA | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL Dana has nothing to feed off of. See, the deceitful strategy she employed above after my short and by no means complete summary of why I think her work method is sloppy, was throwing sand in peoples faces so she would have an excuse for not responding to anything important. Which is in fact, something Tariq, one of her felow scholarly outliers was fond of doing too.
That's exactly why I decided to stop, and confront her without putting anything extra in my reply, because that would only give her material to ignore my request to provide the quote of where I supposedly said ''this discussion is over''. I'm glad I did, because as I guessed, she is nowhere to be seen in her own thread, where her outlier positions are under scrutiny. Instead, she's arguing with total redundant shitheads like Argyle, who have nothing better to do than questioning every argument on sight, like asking people to ''define admixture''.
Yeah, there, I did it. I gave you material to respond to. You can now come in again and pretend like you didn't read my requests in the previous two days you were on this site. Pretend like you did not purposefully misrepresent Finkelsteins words to make it seem he agreed with you etc. Good luck pretending. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The defeats of Samaria and Ashdod to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls. 1 The military campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah, as recorded on the Taylor Prism. 2 The siege of Lachish by Sennacherib, as recorded on the Lachish Reliefs. 3 The destruction of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah, as recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.4 The defeat of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. 5 The Babylonian captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, as recorded in the Babylonian Ration Records. 6 The defeat of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder. 7 The freeing of the Jewish captives from Babylon by Cyrus the Great, as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder. 8
The palace at Jericho where Eglon, king of Moab, was assassinated by Ehud. The east gate of Shechem where Gaal and Zebul watched the forces of Abimelech approach the city. The Temple of Baal in Shechem, where the citizens of Shechem took refuge when Abimelech attacked the city. The pool of Gibeon where the forces of David and Ishbosheth fought during the struggle for the kingship of Israel. The royal palace at Samaria where the kings of Israel lived. The Pool of Samaria where King Ahab's chariot was washed after his death. The water tunnel beneath Jerusalem dug by King Hezekiah to provide water during the Assyrian siege. The royal palace in Babylon where King Belshazzar held the feast and Daniel interpreted the handwriting on the wall. The royal palace, gate and square at Susa where the events of Esther, the queen to the Persian king Xerxes, and Mordecai, her cousin, took place. 9
Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
Posts: 108 | From: LA | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Ketef Hinnom Amulets In 1979, a team of Israeli archaeologists discovered two tiny silver scrolls/amulets, the oldest extant pieces of the Hebrew Bible. These amulets were dated to the 7th c. BC and had the Priestly Blessing from Numbers 6:24-26. This discovery cast doubt on skeptical theories that the Torah was written much later by scribes who learned their monotheism from Zoroastrian priests in Babylon during the Babylonian Exile.
The Merneptah Stela In 1896, a seven foot slab of black granite was discovered in a temple in Thebes, Egypt. It was erected by Pharaoh Merneptah, son of Ramses the Great. The stela was dated to 1209/1208 BC and reads “Israel is laid waste; its seed is not.” This discovery definitely proves, contrary to some skeptics, that a people known as the Israelites existed and were known in Egypt.
The House of David Inscription On July 21, 1933, a basalt stone, written in Old Aramaic that mentions explicitly the House of David was found at Tel Dan in Northern Israel, near the foot of Mt. Hermon. It was dated to the end of the 9th or the beginning of the 8th c. BC and also refers to events recorded in the Old Testament Book of 2 Kings. This discovery contradicts skeptics, such as Israel Finkelstein and Thomas L. Thompson at the University of Copenhagen, who claimed biblical figures such as King David and Solomon never really existed historically.
The Moabite Stone/Mesha Stela In 1868, F. A. Klein discovered a stela written in Moabite around 930 BC. It reads, “I am Mesha, son of Kemoshmelek, the king of Moab, the Dibonite…. And [the god] Chemosh said to me, ‘Go, take Nebo against Israel and I went by night and fought against it…. And I took from there the altar-hearths of Yahweh, and I dragged them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel built Jabaz and dwelt in it while he fought with me and Chemosh drove him out from before me.”
It thus mentions Israel and its God and closely mirrors the Bible, i.e. 2 Kings 3:4-5, “Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheepbreeder, and he regularly paid the king of Israel one hundred thousand lambs and the wool of one hundred thousand rams. But it happened, when Ahab died, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. At Tel Dan in 1993, French scholar Andre Lemaire discovered that “House of David” appeared in line 31 on the stone.
Again, this discovery contradicts the claim that King David never existed and correlates with events testified to in the Bible
Pharaoh Shishak/Shoshenq’s Victory Lists Archaeologists have long known about the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq and his conquests from the carvings on the temple of Amun at Karnak. This Pharaoh and his exploits can also be found in 2 Chronicles 12 of the Bible, in which he ravages Jerusalem, Rehov, and Megiddo, and Hazor.
In 2003, scientists at Tel Rehov in Israel used carbon dating to confirm that Shoshenq’s lootings took place in the 10th c. BC and that the cities that the Bible mentions Shoshenq conquering actually existed when it said they did. This included the cities mentioned in the Book of Joshua: Beth-Horon (10:10), Gibeon (9:3), Megiddo (12:21), and Gaza (10:41).
Samaritan Ostraca In 1910, archaeologist G. A. Reisner found 63 potsherds in Samaria with Old Hebrew script on them written in ink called ostraca. They are dated to around 784-783 BC, contain ancient commercial records, and 30 of them name the clan or district of 7 of the 10 sons of Manasseh as well as two daughters of Zelophehad, all of which are mentioned in Joshua 17:2-3.
The Seal of Baruch In 1975, a bulla or clay seal was discovered in Israel. Written in Old Hebrew, it was dated to around 600 BC and authenticated by Israeli archaeologists. It reads, “Blessed of God, son of Neriah, the scribe.” This is very likely the seal of Baruch mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah: “In the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah…. Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote down in the scroll, at Jeremiah’s dictation, all the words which the Lord had spoken to him” (Jer 36:1,4). The fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign is estimated to be around 605 BC, corresponding with the time period of the seal.
In 1996, a second and similar seal was found but with a thumbprint as well.
These discoveries again provide further evidence that the people of the Bible are not fictional characters but actually lived as historical figures.
The Ebla Tablets In 1964, Italian archaeologists from the University of Rome excavated a palace at Tell Mardikh in northern Syria. Inside they found a library of thousands of cuneiform tablets dating from around 2300 BC. Written in Sumerian and Akkadian, they reveal laws, customs, and events that are in harmony with the Book of Genesis. They also explicitly mention the five undiscovered cities mentioned in Gen 14:8, including Sodom and Gomorrah, that skeptics said never existed.
The Siloam Tunnel (or Hezekiah’s Tunnel) In 1838, a 1750 foot long tunnel was found in Jerusalem. In 2003, Israeli and British scientists tested the organic material within the plaster lining of the tunnel to date the tunnel to around 700 BC. The researchers published their findings in the September 2003 issue of Nature.
According to 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30 (and perhaps verses 2-4), a great tunnel was built during the reign of Hezekiah (727-698 BC) to cut off Assyria’s water supply (who Israel was at war with) and secure their own supply. Again, Scripture seems to match up with science, archaeology, and history.
The Nuzi Tablets In 1925 at Nuzi in Northern Iraq, 4000 cuneiform tablets written in Akkadian were found and dated to 2300 BC. They describe customs parallel to those written in the Book of Genesis, such as a barren wife giving a slave (such as Hagar in Gen 16) to her husband (Abram) to produce an heir OR a father choosing a bride (like Rebekah in Gen 24) for his son.
This proves skeptics wrong who have called certain practices in the Bible cultural anomalies.
Evidence for The Exodus
Amarna Letters In the late 19th century, a series of cuneiform letters dictated by the Pharaohs Amenhotep III (c. 1391 BC) and Tutankhamen (1330 BC) were discovered. It tells of groups of foreigners that were brigands or “disenfranchised peoples on the outskirts of society.” To the clean-shaven Egyptians, the bearded Jews of the Bible probably would have counted as uncivilized riffraff.
The Hatshepsut Chapel Historian Robert Stieglitz of Ruthers University argues that the carvings on a chapel of Egyptian Queen Maakare Hatshepsut refer to the expulsion of a group of “foreigners amongst them”-a reference that closely mirrors Numbers 11:4, which states that the Israelites fleeing Egypt included “a mixed multitude” and not just the Israelites.
The Habiru In 1887, more cuneiform tablets were discovered in Egypt, written by Canaanite scribes in Akkadian. They are the correspondence between vassal kings in Canaan and the Egyptian pharaohs around 1330 BC. They mention a people known as the “habiru” attacking cities in Canaan and causing trouble in Egypt itself. The letters contain eerie similarities with the biblical accounts of the Jewish conquest of the region of Canaan. For instance, the vassal Abdu-Heba of Jerusalem writes to the Egyptian pharaoh that “the Habiru sack the territories of the king” and insists that “if there are archers [sent] this year, all the territories of king will remain (intact); but if there are no archers, the territories of the king, my Lord, will be lost!”
New Testament
The Pontius Pilate Inscription In 1962, an Italian archaeologist found inscription at Caesarea Maritima on the coast of Israel south of Haifa, the center of Roman administration of the region at the time of Christ. It reads, “Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”
This discovery proved that Pontius Pilate actually existed, for no such hard evidence existed until then.
Posts: 108 | From: LA | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good information, The material evidence like the Samaritan Ostraca and the Ketef Hinnom Amulets in combination with the material I presented earlier will have every reader laughing at the implication that similar sounding placenames are substitutes for physical evidence that is excavated in the Levant, but nowhere near and not even once in Yemen.
Also, please keep in mind, that this discussion is not necessarily about the general authenticity of the bible, but rather, whether the multidisciplinary approach and the bible (and if the latter is reliable enough to work with when it does), support a levantine kingdom Israel and an exclusively African biblical Mizraim.
Let's not give people material to move this topic astray by coming up with counter points to refute the general truth factor of the bible, which is something that is beside the point, and a waste to the material sources you quoted as they are more than relevant to this specific topic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Hi, I do believe that the biblical sinai was located in Arabia. But the Kingdom of Israel i believe was located where it is.
Example: when God led the Israelites out of Egypt He did not lead them by way of the Philistine territory from which Edom was located under them Ex:13:17-18
"17And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.18But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt."
The way of the wilderness would be today the sinai peninsula which was heavly patrolled by Egyptian forces because it was Egyptian territory.
I am not trying to bash your research. The only way we can learn is to meet on common grounds and talk about our different beliefs.
Posts: 108 | From: LA | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Ketef Hinnom Amulets In 1979, a team of Israeli archaeologists discovered two tiny silver scrolls/amulets, the oldest extant pieces of the Hebrew Bible. These amulets were dated to the 7th c. BC and had the Priestly Blessing from Numbers 6:24-26. This discovery cast doubt on skeptical theories that the Torah was written much later by scribes who learned their monotheism from Zoroastrian priests in Babylon during the Babylonian Exile.
The Merneptah Stela In 1896, a seven foot slab of black granite was discovered in a temple in Thebes, Egypt. It was erected by Pharaoh Merneptah, son of Ramses the Great. The stela was dated to 1209/1208 BC and reads “Israel is laid waste; its seed is not.” This discovery definitely proves, contrary to some skeptics, that a people known as the Israelites existed and were known in Egypt.
The House of David Inscription On July 21, 1933, a basalt stone, written in Old Aramaic that mentions explicitly the House of David was found at Tel Dan in Northern Israel, near the foot of Mt. Hermon. It was dated to the end of the 9th or the beginning of the 8th c. BC and also refers to events recorded in the Old Testament Book of 2 Kings. This discovery contradicts skeptics, such as Israel Finkelstein and Thomas L. Thompson at the University of Copenhagen, who claimed biblical figures such as King David and Solomon never really existed historically.
The Moabite Stone/Mesha Stela In 1868, F. A. Klein discovered a stela written in Moabite around 930 BC. It reads, “I am Mesha, son of Kemoshmelek, the king of Moab, the Dibonite…. And [the god] Chemosh said to me, ‘Go, take Nebo against Israel and I went by night and fought against it…. And I took from there the altar-hearths of Yahweh, and I dragged them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel built Jabaz and dwelt in it while he fought with me and Chemosh drove him out from before me.”
It thus mentions Israel and its God and closely mirrors the Bible, i.e. 2 Kings 3:4-5, “Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheepbreeder, and he regularly paid the king of Israel one hundred thousand lambs and the wool of one hundred thousand rams. But it happened, when Ahab died, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. At Tel Dan in 1993, French scholar Andre Lemaire discovered that “House of David” appeared in line 31 on the stone.
Again, this discovery contradicts the claim that King David never existed and correlates with events testified to in the Bible
Pharaoh Shishak/Shoshenq’s Victory Lists Archaeologists have long known about the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq and his conquests from the carvings on the temple of Amun at Karnak. This Pharaoh and his exploits can also be found in 2 Chronicles 12 of the Bible, in which he ravages Jerusalem, Rehov, and Megiddo, and Hazor.
In 2003, scientists at Tel Rehov in Israel used carbon dating to confirm that Shoshenq’s lootings took place in the 10th c. BC and that the cities that the Bible mentions Shoshenq conquering actually existed when it said they did. This included the cities mentioned in the Book of Joshua: Beth-Horon (10:10), Gibeon (9:3), Megiddo (12:21), and Gaza (10:41).
Samaritan Ostraca In 1910, archaeologist G. A. Reisner found 63 potsherds in Samaria with Old Hebrew script on them written in ink called ostraca. They are dated to around 784-783 BC, contain ancient commercial records, and 30 of them name the clan or district of 7 of the 10 sons of Manasseh as well as two daughters of Zelophehad, all of which are mentioned in Joshua 17:2-3.
The Seal of Baruch In 1975, a bulla or clay seal was discovered in Israel. Written in Old Hebrew, it was dated to around 600 BC and authenticated by Israeli archaeologists. It reads, “Blessed of God, son of Neriah, the scribe.” This is very likely the seal of Baruch mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah: “In the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah…. Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote down in the scroll, at Jeremiah’s dictation, all the words which the Lord had spoken to him” (Jer 36:1,4). The fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign is estimated to be around 605 BC, corresponding with the time period of the seal.
In 1996, a second and similar seal was found but with a thumbprint as well.
These discoveries again provide further evidence that the people of the Bible are not fictional characters but actually lived as historical figures.
The Ebla Tablets In 1964, Italian archaeologists from the University of Rome excavated a palace at Tell Mardikh in northern Syria. Inside they found a library of thousands of cuneiform tablets dating from around 2300 BC. Written in Sumerian and Akkadian, they reveal laws, customs, and events that are in harmony with the Book of Genesis. They also explicitly mention the five undiscovered cities mentioned in Gen 14:8, including Sodom and Gomorrah, that skeptics said never existed.
The Siloam Tunnel (or Hezekiah’s Tunnel) In 1838, a 1750 foot long tunnel was found in Jerusalem. In 2003, Israeli and British scientists tested the organic material within the plaster lining of the tunnel to date the tunnel to around 700 BC. The researchers published their findings in the September 2003 issue of Nature.
According to 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30 (and perhaps verses 2-4), a great tunnel was built during the reign of Hezekiah (727-698 BC) to cut off Assyria’s water supply (who Israel was at war with) and secure their own supply. Again, Scripture seems to match up with science, archaeology, and history.
The Nuzi Tablets In 1925 at Nuzi in Northern Iraq, 4000 cuneiform tablets written in Akkadian were found and dated to 2300 BC. They describe customs parallel to those written in the Book of Genesis, such as a barren wife giving a slave (such as Hagar in Gen 16) to her husband (Abram) to produce an heir OR a father choosing a bride (like Rebekah in Gen 24) for his son.
This proves skeptics wrong who have called certain practices in the Bible cultural anomalies.
Evidence for The Exodus
Amarna Letters In the late 19th century, a series of cuneiform letters dictated by the Pharaohs Amenhotep III (c. 1391 BC) and Tutankhamen (1330 BC) were discovered. It tells of groups of foreigners that were brigands or “disenfranchised peoples on the outskirts of society.” To the clean-shaven Egyptians, the bearded Jews of the Bible probably would have counted as uncivilized riffraff.
The Hatshepsut Chapel Historian Robert Stieglitz of Ruthers University argues that the carvings on a chapel of Egyptian Queen Maakare Hatshepsut refer to the expulsion of a group of “foreigners amongst them”-a reference that closely mirrors Numbers 11:4, which states that the Israelites fleeing Egypt included “a mixed multitude” and not just the Israelites.
The Habiru In 1887, more cuneiform tablets were discovered in Egypt, written by Canaanite scribes in Akkadian. They are the correspondence between vassal kings in Canaan and the Egyptian pharaohs around 1330 BC. They mention a people known as the “habiru” attacking cities in Canaan and causing trouble in Egypt itself. The letters contain eerie similarities with the biblical accounts of the Jewish conquest of the region of Canaan. For instance, the vassal Abdu-Heba of Jerusalem writes to the Egyptian pharaoh that “the Habiru sack the territories of the king” and insists that “if there are archers [sent] this year, all the territories of king will remain (intact); but if there are no archers, the territories of the king, my Lord, will be lost!”
New Testament
The Pontius Pilate Inscription In 1962, an Italian archaeologist found inscription at Caesarea Maritima on the coast of Israel south of Haifa, the center of Roman administration of the region at the time of Christ. It reads, “Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”
This discovery proved that Pontius Pilate actually existed, for no such hard evidence existed until then.
Oh hi Bishop i just discovered your response here and never knew you had answered me. Unfortunately I think you misunderstood what I said. I never said there was not an Israel. Salibi's thesis was that the original Israel of the Old Testament was likely in west Arabia. So much of what you say obviously doesn't nullify what i wrote above. My whole point is that the reason that so much of the Bible has in fact NOT been proven including names of hundreds of towns including Sodom and Gomorrah is the fact that they were located much further south.
We know that these Canaanites i.e. the Hebrews moved north and settled in Syria i.e. Phoenicia. There is no question that Afro-semitic i.e. the original Afro-Asiatic peoples lived in Syria in the past as well as Akkad and brought their Afro-Asiatic culture with them.
Salibi's book addresses most of your questions and comments including those on Shishak and the Amanarna records which clearly shows the towns recorded conquered were in Arabia and not the later Israel where most of them have.
The book also addresses the question of the Habiru whom Salibi believes are the Hapiru or peoples who called Aphir, and not the people called Hebrews.
I think if you get the book, The Bible Came from Arabia and read the chapter non-findings in israel you will see why some scholars are sceptical about the kinds of "discoveries" that have come up in the modern Syria/Palestinian, or modern Israel.
Here is an example in the Chapter non-findings in Palestine " There is nothing at all in the inscription on the 'Moabite Stone' to indicate that Moab was an old name for the hill country east of the Dead Sea (the Bilad al-Sharat of the Arabs), and that the Kingdom of Israel was based on Palestine. In fact, when the inscription is carefully read in the original, rather than in traslation, such as that in English by W. F. Albright, it becomes abundantly clear that the wars between israel adn Moab, which it speaks of, took place not in Transjordan, but in the Hijaz. This means that Israel and Moab must have been neighbors in West Arabia, not in southern Syria..." 77
Salibi goes on to explain how many of the inscriptions on the stone had been mistranslated by the early European archeologists, who were non-semitic speakers.
(His comments on the Tell Dan stele are below)
1. Because this inscription was found at Tall al-Qadi, in northern Palestine, near headwaters of the Jordan River, one would be justified in assuming that the first person singular pronoun or verb conjugation in it refers to the MLK or "king" of that place.
2. From the content of the inscription, it is obvious that the father (unnamed) of the man of whom the inscription speaks in the first person was king of the same place (or, at least, the same kingdom) before him.
3. The king of Tall al-Qadi, according to the inscription, was engaged at one time in a war with the King of Israel (unnamed in what remains of the inscription). The construct "King of Israel" features once in complete clarity, and twice in fragments. There can be no doubt in all three cases that the reference is to a MLK YSR'L.
4. If the hero of the inscription was a non-Israelite king of Tall al-Qadi, waging war against the king of Israel, then Tall al-Qadi could not have been the Biblical _Dan_, which marked the northern limit of the territory of biblical Israel. The Bible mentions no occasion when Dan was wrested from Israel to become the capital, or part, of an enemy kingdom. Biblical scholars have assumed Tall al-Qadi to be the biblical Dan on the grounds that the Arabic _qadi_, meaning "judge," translates the Hebrew _Dan_, meaning "judge." Nothing else confirms the identification.
5. The available fragment of the inscription does not indicate in any way where the kingdom of Israel was located. Likewise, the Moabite stele, found in Transjordan, which speaks of the wars between King Mesha of Moab and the kings of israel, does not indicate where the kingdom of Israel was geographically located.
6. Taken together, the two inscriptions provide incontrovertible evidence proving the historicity of the Biblical kingdom of Israel, for those who doubt the historicity of that kingdom on any ground. They also support what is said in the Bible about the kings of Israel being occasionally engaged in armed conflict with external enemies.
7. In line 9, the reading of BYTDWD as a construct (BYT + DWD) referring to the "house of David" by name is unjustified, as + BYTDWD + features in that line as a single word. Taken as one word, the initial B in B-YTDWD would be the prepositional B, leaving YTDWD as possibly a place name (archaic noun formation from the _hithpa`el_ form of DWD, "love, have affection for, be related"?) One would only be justified in reading the word as the construct BYT + DWD if it can be demonstrated that other constructs in this inscription, or in the Moabite stele, feature as one word, which to my knowledge they do not.
8. In its present fragmentary state, the inscription, though important and tantalizing indeed, yields little concrete information other than affirming the historical existence of kings of Israel, and of enemy kings who fought them in some place or other.
There is also the work by Bernard Leeman, Queen of Sheba, about Ethiopian Jews which seems to support Salibi's view of the southwest Arabian origin of the Hebrews and Judaeans.
Of course, Leeman has been blacklisted by many people even banned from Wikipedia.
Frankly, since there has been little archeological work done on the Arabian regions there is little that can be said about the archeological evidence there. So that until such work is done the case will remain open.
Until then i will however continue to regard the hundreds of village and people names found among south and west Arabians situated in the geographical framework and landscape the Bible indicates as more than enough evidence that ancient Israel and Canaan were located where the rest of the world, including the Arabian Jews said they were.
I would suggest you contact Salibi on some of his blogs. He can also give you the astronomical based evidence as well.
posted
I'll repost the below since it what have started the misconstrual with regards to what I'm saying. I said Israel most certainly did exist and the tribes have never been lost. --------------- "Much of the biblical narrative is a product of the hopes, fears and ambitions of the kingdom of Judah. The historical core of the Bible arose from clear political, social and spiritual conditions and was shaped by the creativity and vision of extraordinary women and men, without a doubt, but what is commonly taken for "history" -- the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and the saga of the glorious united monarchy of David and Solomon -- is really the creative expression of the religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age", from Finkelstein and N.A. Silbermans, The Bible Unearthed.
For one thing archeologists have discovered the area excavated was not populated enough at the time Solomon and David were said to have lived and been part of the 'kingdom of Israel" mentioned in the Old Testament.
Queen of Sheba and Biblical Archeology, by Bernard Leeman 2005.
Here is just a small example from a REVIEW of Finkelstein and Silberman's discoveries regarding LACK OF EVIDENCE for the Israel and Exodus from an African Misraim and Joshua in the modern state of Zionist Israel.
From an article entitled: Fiat Lux: Archeology and the Old Testament By Sarah Belle Dougherty
"Canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept extensive records, NONE OF WHICH MENTION THE ISRAELITES or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta.
Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel, despite many Egyptian records concerning Canaan. Nor is there any archeological evidence for a body of people encamping in the desert and mountains of Sinai in the Late Bronze Age:
"Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness." -- p. 64 The Bible Unearthed: Archeologies New Vision of Ancient Israel...
"Archeology also reveals dramatic discrepancies concerning the military campaign of Joshua, dated between 1230-1220 BCE, when the powerful Canaanite kings were supposedly destroyed and the twelve tribes inherited their traditional territories. Abundant Late Bronze Age Egyptian diplomatic and military correspondence and other existing texts give detailed information about Canaan, which was closely administered by Egypt at that time for a period of several centuries. The Canaanite cities were small and unfortified -- Jericho and some of the other cities mentioned were even unsettled altogether -- and the total population of Canaan probably did not exceed 100,000... "
All Salibi and other revisionists are saying is that the reason the evidence is lacking is due to the fact that the old Israel was much further south.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
A blog exploring the documented history and disappearing heritage of the original Afroasiatic speakers of Africa, affiliated peoples, and their ancient and early civilizations around the world.
posted
BLACK ARABS? MONGOLOID ARABS? humnnnn...In this old illustration they area all together with the same social tribal status... Therefore, where Black Arabs in Arabia.
The Ghassanids (Arabic: الغساسنة; al-Ghasāsinah, also Banū Ghassān "Sons of Ghassān") were an Arab kingdom, founded by descendants of the Azd tribe from Yemen who immigrated in the early 3rd century to the Levant region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids
-------------------- ---lnnnnn* Posts: 198 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
BLACK ARAB SAILORS? SEEMS LIKE BLACK SAILORS ARE TAKEN MONGOLOIDS TO SAILING AROUND. ACTUALLY, MONGOLOIDS WHICH INVADED THE MIDDLE EAST RIDE HORSES, BUT, DID NOT KNOW ABOUT NAVIGATION.
Abu Zayd and alHarith sailing Maqamat of alHariri Bibliothèque nationale de France manuscript Arabe 5847 1237AD
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic