Archaeologica.org

You really need to learn the difference between creating a theory and throwing up a prayer.

sorry, i will disagree with you on that as it makes sense while finkelstein is concluding his thinking based upon a 'lack of evidence' without looking at all the influential factors.

it is unreasonable to think that a group of people, who came to egypt under invitation, would be included in the annals of history.

then it would also be idealistic to assume that they maintained their own culture and ways of doing things without adopting thier hosts countryu's culture or be influenced by them.

plus, it would be wrong to assume that when they were made slaves that they would be allowed to have their own culture in competition with the host country's. i.e. businesses, artwork, writings.

with the edict to kill all male children, it is not hard to see that the israelite's liberties were suppressed thus it would not be a stretch to conclude that they would leave any evidence of their presence.

then given the egyptian determination to re-write their own history, do you not think they would erase all record of the israelites after such a devastating loss. we know they did this to their own people so why not do it to strangers. it would be a lot easier and would find little resistance in proceeding with such a task as the defeat affected all egyptians.

i think if you look at all the evidence and not just select a few tidbits that support your own stance, like finkelstein does, you will see a better picture of the situation and realize thatthe israelites were there.

who came to egypt under invitation

WTF do you get that idea!


They were about as welcome as Mexicans swimming across the Texas border!


You aren't looking to find an archaeological theory....you are trying to pull fictional Israelites out of a hat.

If after 150 years of painstaking searching archaeology has not found a single reference to 'Israel in Egypt' ( a fine oratorio but lousy history!) the burden of proof shifts to the bible thumpers.

Come up with some real evidence or stop wasting our time.

Come up with some real evidence or stop wasting our time

since when is constructing a plausible, credible theory a waste of time? of course i have more work to do on it, i am just presenting the thought here initially as a good rebuttal to your arguments.

you are trying to pull fictional Israelites out of a hat.

you haven't proven that they are fictional, that is one big assumption based on less evidence than i have proposed in my above theory.

You aren't looking to find an archaeological theory

let's use a more modern example shall we: the african slaves when brought over to america were not allowed to pracice their own cultural habits. they were given new names, new clothes, new religion, they were split from their families and so on. what physical evidence (outside of the written records) can you find that they weren't originally american? or that they traveled from africa to virginia or wherever?

all you have is a written record, granted there is more of it than for the israelites but given the length of time span between each and modern life, that is understandable.

you are just angry because i am making more sense than finkelstein.

since when is constructing a plausible, credible theory a waste of time

When its based on air.


Or was that a trick question?

you are just angry because i am making more sense than finkelstein.

That will be the day. I can't imagine where you developed this hyperinflated opinion of yourself!

[quote]since when is constructing a plausible, credible theory a waste of time? [/quote]

When you are not coming up with an original theory.

So far eveything coming from you is some sort of Biblical tale. As usual you twist and turn things around, but it's still the same old stuff. Your words my change, but the tune is always the same.

As usual you twist and turn things around, but it's still the same old stuff. Your words my change, but the tune is always the same

you say this everytime i make a point that makes sense. i haven't twisted any words, concocted anything but used old fashioned reasoning, with help from God.

I can't imagine where you developed this hyperinflated opinion of yourself!

sorry didn't mean to come across that way but my theory mkaes more sense and is far more plausible than his denial.

You have no theory.

You have no evidence.

You have wishful thinking and an outdated book.

let's use a more modern example shall we: the african slaves when brought over to america were not allowed to pracice their own cultural habits. they were given new names, new clothes, new religion, they were split from their families and so on. what physical evidence (outside of the written records) can you find that they weren't originally american? or that they traveled from africa to virginia or wherever

this example makes my thinking a lot more plausible so why not deal with the issue.

try to prove it wrong. remember this is still in the thoery stage.

The Hyksos were not 'slaves.'

They were running the fucking country until the Egyptians kicked them out.


What part of that is giving you the most trouble?


(PS - the search string 'archaeological remains african slaves' brought up 525,000 hits in .37 seconds.)

The Hyksos were not 'slaves.'

how many times do i have to say it--i am not talking about the Hyksos! get that ou tof your head and deal with the issue instead of trying to malign the theory.

you know i make sense, you know i have a credible theory, deal with the issue and stop trying to change it to what you want it to say.

how many of those actually present african artifacts found in america? i told you it was an example not proof.

But those are the Canaanites who were THERE. There were no Israelites.

Unless you can figure out a way to fit something other than the HYksos into bible chronology you are wasting your time.

The way you are going at this you would have Israelites enslaved by their fellow countrymen....which is not what your precious bible says.

There were no Israelites

you act like 'the club' you so readily despise.

But those are the Canaanites who were THERE

this is the point i am making. was there an israelite 'culture' at that time or did it come later. the patriarchs lived their lives under God but also used a lot of local culture so it would be hard to distinguish between groups.

The way you are going at this you would have Israelites enslaved by their fellow countrymen

now you are saying that the Hyksos were the Israelites, which is not what i am saying at all. you confuse me with the documentary. i am speaking of the Israelites as described in the Biblical account and not even considering the Hyksos.

Horseshit. Don't put words in my mouth.

There were no 'israelites' until the end of the 12th century BC.

The Hyksos were Canaanites who were not israelites...although they may have been distant ancestors, as Dever claims.

You are trying to re-write history. Why not add in some Apaches? Or Samurai?? Or SS Storm Troopers, for that matter? (That would be ironic, huh?)

The bible is little more than a historical novel....emphasis on the 'novel.' If you want to re-write it, be my guest. Let me know how many followers you attract.