...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
ISRAEL, MISRAH AND CANAAN IN CONTEXT: AFRICANS IN ARABIA Part I
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB] [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 [b]considered ancestral to the South Arabian Qahtan, Sabeans, Himyarites and the same thing as the Adites of the land of Aden.[/b] 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! [/QUOTE]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", [/QUOTE]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 [b]of certain events[/b] 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 [b]of events[/b] 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. [/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]Exactly, they built buffers and forts in [b]Gaza[/b], not in Arabia. This indicates that they perceived a [b]northern threat[/b], 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 [b]pro-actively[/b] for a change, a breakdown of [b]how and when exactly[/b] 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 [b]one mention of the name Israel[/b], 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: [b]Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. [/b] A few were [b]well known[/b] and [b]apparently occupied[/b] 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 [/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]Exactly, it is him and other [b]outliers[/b] 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 [b]It'amara is also mentioned as well by the Assyrians. That doesn't mean the Sabaeans were living near Assyria or in Syria! [/b] [/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]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’ [/QUOTE]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? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3