Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
sounds like 'the club' response to me and i thought you were open minded.There were no 'israelites' until the end of the 12th century BC.
no, i am presenting my theory of a plausible israelite sojourn in egypt for peer review. so we have heard from you, are there any others who wish to comment on what i propose?You are trying to re-write history
I have discussed your theory with several people I know and our consensus is that it is at least a possibility.(Though I must say that it became quite the explosive topic here also)But unless they entered Egypt naked and empty handed then immediately dispersed into the local population there should be at least a little bit of non-Egyptian trash hanging out somewhere. At the least it is worth looking into a bit more.archaeologist wrote:no, i am presenting my theory of a plausible israelite sojourn in egypt for peer review. so we have heard from you, are there any others who wish to comment on what i propose?
The infrastructure of the palace was remodeled throughout the centuries to fit the needs of the Babylonians, Persians, Romans and Hasmoneans who ruled the Holy Land, said Lipschits, who heads the dig with an academic from Germany's University of Heidelberg.
But it was the Persians, who took control of the region around 539 BC from the Babylonians, who renovated the water system and turned it into a thing of beauty.
Lipschits said they added small waterfalls to try to turn a desert into a paradise.
that is a possibility but i doubt the amount would be very large as they were there for 400 years so what they entered with would have to be sustained by local materials and be influenced by local experts. also they were turned into slaves, so how much of their own items would they have left?But unless they entered Egypt naked and empty handed then immediately dispersed into the local population there should be at least a little bit of non-Egyptian trash hanging out somewhere.
you are equating slaves in the ancient world with slaves in the medievil periodso how much of their own items would they have left?
archaeologist wrote:you just can't admit that i could be right or even plausible can you?
since i am basing it on an ancient source, i have evidence and it is a good theory. you just won't admit it because you are comfortable with thinking there were no israelites which you can't prove .You haven't got a single shred of evidence and yet you dare to call your wild speculation a "theory."
it is.No matter how you slice it, you still overvalue the bible because you think it is the word of god.
archaeologist wrote:since i am basing it on an ancient source, i have evidence and it is a good theory. you just won't admit it because you are comfortable with thinking there were no israelites which you can't prove .You haven't got a single shred of evidence and yet you dare to call your wild speculation a "theory."
saying there is no archaeological ecidence is just an excuse especially in light of what i propose.
it is.No matter how you slice it, you still overvalue the bible because you think it is the word of god.
archaeologist wrote:since i am basing it on an ancient source, i have evidence and it is a good theory. you just won't admit it because you are comfortable with thinking there were no israelites which you can't prove .You haven't got a single shred of evidence and yet you dare to call your wild speculation a "theory."
saying there is no archaeological ecidence is just an excuse especially in light of what i propose.
it is.No matter how you slice it, you still overvalue the bible because you think it is the word of god.
