Archaeologists find 3,100-year-old pottery bearing the name of biblical judge

[Quasar44]

Weatherman2020
Jews have been their since the creation of the planet
.

 

[Quasar44]

surada
I thought you don’t like Israel or Jews??

 

[surada]

surada
I thought you don’t like Israel or Jews??

I like Jews. Some I even love. Don't think much about Israel.

 

[surada]

Well, maybe.

But, that pottery sure has some possible linkage to the Bible, via Gideon

Read the article posted.

 

[Woodznutz]

I never thought of French, Spaniards and Germans as being from Central Asia. Your claim is pretty weird. My link is about the various Canaanite tribes. We know they were still there because of the encounter Jesus had with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 : 21-28.

The 'woman of Canaan' was an Israelite, a descendant of the poor who remained after the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom.

 

[surada]

The 'woman of Canaan' was an Israelite, a descendant of the poor who remained after the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom.

During the Babylonian exile Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria.

The Jews were Canaanites from Syria. Abraham was from Urfa near Haran. See Ugarit tablets from Ras Shamra .

 

[Woodznutz]

During the Babylonian exile Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria.

The Jews were Canaanites from Syria. Abraham was from Urfa near Haran. See Ugarit tablets from Ras Shamra .

The Canaanites were descendants of Canaan. The Jews were descendants of Jacob. The woman of Canaan was neither Canaanite or Jewish, but a descendant of the 'house of Israel', to whom Jesus was 'sent only to'.

 

[surada]

The Canaanites were descendants of Canaan. The Jews were descendants of Jacob.

The Jews were a landless tribe of Canaanites from Syria. They moved into the hill country to grow grains so they could maintain their symbiotic relationship with their herder relatives (Bedouin) They were sometimes referred to as Habiru or Apiru.

 

[Woodznutz]

The Jews were a landless tribe of Canaanites from Syria. They moved into the hill country to grow grains so they could maintain their symbiotic relationship with their herder relatives (Bedouin) They were sometimes referred to as Habiru or Apiru.

With all the uncertainty it's probably best to default to the Biblical narrative.

Were the Ancient Hebrews the Same as the Habiru?

 

[BlueGin]

So you were just trolling....as usual.
Someday, why don't you try and actually post something that is fruitful,
instead of your throwing shit against the wall?

That will never happen.

 

[Woodznutz]

.

 

[surada]

With all the uncertainty it's probably best to default to the Biblical narrative.

Were the Ancient Hebrews the Same as the Habiru?

Jonah is a comic novella... Just a story. Basic message is that God also loved the people of Nineveh.

 

[The Duke]

"Joe was here" was the best.

Wrong! It was "Kilroy was here".

​

 

[surada]

It does. It just turns out it always validates the Bible.

Actually it doesn't.

 

[Woodznutz]

Jonah is a comic novella... Just a story. Basic message is that God also loved the people of Nineveh.

Jesus confirmed the story.

 

[surada]

Jesus confirmed the story.

As a teaching narrative.... Didactic literature.. not history.

Haran and Urfa are on the road to Nineveh.

 

[surada]

Actually, there is.

You have to for the first eliminate the concept of "Global Flood" covering "all of Earth", and narrow it down to the world-view of those that recorded it. In the mind of an Indian living on the banks of the Mississippi in Louisiana, a flood that covered everything south of the modern Arkansas-Tennessee would be "global". To an ancient person who predates even the Babylonian Empire, a floor that covered the entire area around the Tigris and Euphrates would equally be "global".

And most who do believe in the Bible and other religions are not "literalists", who take every single word as written by people thousands of years ago as the literal truth.

As for Babel, like the story of Moses, that was adopted by the Hebrews during the Exile. But the accounts predate the written word, and naturally morphed greatly in the eons before it was written.

As far as an Exodus, that did happen. But not the way it is told. Even Josephus and other Historians of the First Century CE realized that the ancient Israelites who left Egypt were who we now recognize as the Hyksos. Who were not slaves, but took over part of Egypt until they were expelled (roughly 1600-1500 BCE). And in that era, many Pharaohs and high ranking officials has "Mose" in their name. Ahmose, Kamose, Ramose, and more. But the comparison between the Hyksos and "Israelites" is striking, not only in where they came from and went to after the Egyptians threw them out, but even their dress and behaviors.

More now are recognizing that much of Exodus was slanted in the folktales passed for over a thousand years before they were finally written down. So instead of invaders who were thrown out, they morphed into slaves that were delivered by God. And at one point they were granted lands and rulership over Eastern Egypt, which is where the "Brother of the Pharaoh" came from. Even more so in that era, most Monarchs referred to each other as "Brothers".

But when looking at The Bible, you have to realize first and foremost it is the written record of their history. And was a spoken tradition for well over a thousand years prior to being written down. This is obvious in how often certain numbers are repeated, that is typical of any oral tradition. Without writing, an oral historian would not bother with the 13 years between the end of the French and Indian Wars and the American Revolution, it would be shortened to "a decade". And not "Four score and seven years", but "half a century". The numbers 40 and 7 in regards to years between events (or even days) repeats all the time in the Old Testament. A holdover from when it was oral history before being written down.

In the Hebrew Culture, "40" is seen s a significant amount of time, be it 40 days (duration of the flood), to 40 years (how long the Israelites wandered in the desert). That should never be taken literally, it was simply how those that remembered oral tradition remembered things. All oral traditions around the world use similar tricks.

But if you want a good idea of what may have happened in "The Real Exodus", here is a good documentary from 2005. Which tries to cut through the "Religious nonsense", and compare real world events in roughly the same time period and tie the folklore into what was likely real history of the era.

Wonderful post.

 

[Mushroom]

Wonderful post.

I simply look at the Old Testament as it is to the majority of Jews, a history book. It is actually more history to them than religious, they have many more books that are not in it that they look to for "religion".

But it is one of the best examples we have of an ancient oral history being written down in a permanent form. And this can be seen in any oral tradition. George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree. John Henry did not hammer a tunnel in one day then drop dead. King Richard III was not a grossly deformed hunchback (although he did have scoliosis).

Oh, and "Prince John" in Robin Hood was not greedy and trying to tax the people of England into poverty out of greed. His brother Richard I ("The Lionheart") was captured by Austria during his return from the Crusades and was held for 150,000 marks, which was far more money than the kingdom had. The taxes were raised so they could ransom their king back. Hell, Richard only spent a few months in England ever, and did not know English. If any of the movies about that were accurate, he would have arrived and spoke French. No English kings spoke English until Henry V in the 14th Century. This is a perfect example of how things in folk tales change the reality. Richard II would not have said "For heaven’s sake let us sit upon the ground, and tell sad stories of the death of kings." He would have been speaking French so it would be more like "Pour l'amour du ciel, asseyons-nous par terre et racontons de tristes histoires sur la mort des rois".

The repeated uses of numbers in the Bible are clear signs of folktales where the same numbers are used repeatedly to ease their being memorized. And we know that many of the tales are very ancient, as they are actually common throughout the region. However, their forms became "corrupted" over the centuries as they were passed from one to another as they always would be. They are so old that even the language changed around them, which is why when reading the oldest books the scribes had to often explain what names and words meant. "Adam" was not a name, it was an ancient Proto-Hebrew word for "Man". Eve similarly was an ancient Hebrew word for "Life Source". But by the time it was written the language was not even the same, it was transitioning from Late Hebrew to Aramaic.

That would be like going to somebody today and trying to comprehend "twelf wintra tid, torn geþolode". Yes, that is English, but not the English we speak today. It may seem familiar, because in the modern tongue we would say "For twelve winters, seasons of woe". And that English is actually only about 1,000 years old, even closer to what we speak now than the Hebrew of the Exiles in Babylon when they were writing down their histories 2,000 years later.

But if one looks at the real history of the area, the Bible can be placed over it and a version between them emerges. Like the civil war in ancient Canaan, primarily religious over the monotheists and those who were not monotheists. The Monotheists left, and returned a few generations later and conquered the area. At the same time as the entry of the "Hebrews" into Egypt, then their expulsion (or exodus, take your pick). This is all in around 2000 BCE.

And while there was "writing" at this time, the Bible was not "written" until around 550 BCE, during the Babylonian Exile. The Hebrews still maintained most of their culture orally, and it was amazingly accurate as those oral tales have been linked through hard archaeological proof via the names of locations and rulers and was very accurate. They would place a battle at a location with an Egyptian King, and in Egypt they would find temple carvings that confirmed that it happened where and when the Bible says it did. Especially as Judea was commonly a client kingdom, so the other kingdoms they swore alliance and fealty to also had their own records of the events.

That is why I find the writings of people like Josephus (first century CE) particularly fascinating. Because ultimately almost all of his works were little but taking what they knew in that era of the real history of the region, and trying to reconcile "The Bible" with the real history as it has been compiled by the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and more.

 

[surada]

I simply look at the Old Testament as it is to the majority of Jews, a history book. It is actually more history to them than religious, they have many more books that are not in it that they look to for "religion".

But it is one of the best examples we have of an ancient oral history being written down in a permanent form. And this can be seen in any oral tradition. George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree. John Henry did not hammer a tunnel in one day then drop dead. King Richard III was not a grossly deformed hunchback (although he did have scoliosis).

Oh, and "Prince John" in Robin Hood was not greedy and trying to tax the people of England into poverty out of greed. His brother Richard I ("The Lionheart") was captured by Austria during his return from the Crusades and was held for 150,000 marks, which was far more money than the kingdom had. The taxes were raised so they could ransom their king back. Hell, Richard only spent a few months in England ever, and did not know English. If any of the movies about that were accurate, he would have arrived and spoke French. No English kings spoke English until Henry V in the 14th Century. This is a perfect example of how things in folk tales change the reality. Richard II would not have said "For heaven’s sake let us sit upon the ground, and tell sad stories of the death of kings." He would have been speaking French so it would be more like "Pour l'amour du ciel, asseyons-nous par terre et racontons de tristes histoires sur la mort des rois".

The repeated uses of numbers in the Bible are clear signs of folktales where the same numbers are used repeatedly to ease their being memorized. And we know that many of the tales are very ancient, as they are actually common throughout the region. However, their forms became "corrupted" over the centuries as they were passed from one to another as they always would be. They are so old that even the language changed around them, which is why when reading the oldest books the scribes had to often explain what names and words meant. "Adam" was not a name, it was an ancient Proto-Hebrew word for "Man". Eve similarly was an ancient Hebrew word for "Life Source". But by the time it was written the language was not even the same, it was transitioning from Late Hebrew to Aramaic.

That would be like going to somebody today and trying to comprehend "twelf wintra tid, torn geþolode". Yes, that is English, but not the English we speak today. It may seem familiar, because in the modern tongue we would say "For twelve winters, seasons of woe". And that English is actually only about 1,000 years old, even closer to what we speak now than the Hebrew of the Exiles in Babylon when they were writing down their histories 2,000 years later.

But if one looks at the real history of the area, the Bible can be placed over it and a version between them emerges. Like the civil war in ancient Canaan, primarily religious over the monotheists and those who were not monotheists. The Monotheists left, and returned a few generations later and conquered the area. At the same time as the entry of the "Hebrews" into Egypt, then their expulsion (or exodus, take your pick). This is all in around 2000 BCE.

And while there was "writing" at this time, the Bible was not "written" until around 550 BCE, during the Babylonian Exile. The Hebrews still maintained most of their culture orally, and it was amazingly accurate as those oral tales have been linked through hard archaeological proof via the names of locations and rulers and was very accurate. They would place a battle at a location with an Egyptian King, and in Egypt they would find temple carvings that confirmed that it happened where and when the Bible says it did. Especially as Judea was commonly a client kingdom, so the other kingdoms they swore alliance and fealty to also had their own records of the events.

That is why I find the writings of people like Josephus (first century CE) particularly fascinating. Because ultimately almost all of his works were little but taking what they knew in that era of the real history of the region, and trying to reconcile "The Bible" with the real history as it has been compiled by the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and more.

Thank you. You really fill in the gaps.

 

[Mushroom]

Thank you. You really fill in the gaps.

Any time, I really do look at it in a very secular way.

And the tale we all know of Robin Hood is a perfect example. That has been passed down for centuries, and the story we all know and repeat is about the greedy Prince that tries to usurp the throne, his ruinous taxes, and the "Good King" returning to take charge again and set things right.

All true, and at the same time not true. And certainly a better tale than "The stupid King who got himself taken prisoner, and his younger brother had to almost bankrupt the country to raise the money to bail his ass out". Hence, that is the tale that is passed down from generation to generation, without the other facts that are the reality of King Richard I and the Third Crusade. Especially as he spent less than an entire year combined in England as king, his seat of power was in Normandy. As king he only went to England for a few ceremonial purposes. He was only born there because he was the son of a younger son who was holding it for his father Henry I in Normandy. It is not known in history as the "House of Normandy" for nothing. It was after the expulsion that they finally adopted the name "Plantagenet". Not unlike how the house of "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" changed to be known as "Windsor" during WWI.

And even Prince John did not originally live in England. He lived in France until he was defeated and expelled in 1204. It was his obsession with taking back France that led to the revolt of the Barons and the Magna Carta. I wonder how many even realize that the Prince John from the Robin Hood stories is the same King John that later signed the Great Charter?