Your arguments are well elaborated, although not scrupulous.
I don’t think it's the job of the historian to account for every possibility that could have happened
It is a poor historian with tunnel vision who latches on to a single explanation, when there are alternatives even if less accustomed to.
Archeologists and historians say there’s no historical basis for the exodus account
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Your argument is built upon the assumption that every historical event that has occured must have been recorded in plain sight. Which makes even less sense in our present case; If a Pharaoh suffered humiliating plagues among other miracles, lost his army, and was drowned in a miraculous defeat while chasing runaway slaves… would that be carved or written down by the state officials while Egypt was already well-known for avoiding the recording of its shameful events?
There would be Egyptian influence in the artifacts of that period
Funny you brought this up, when Jews are notorious for refusing to assimilate. They remained just for a few centuries in a state they were so hostile against, and that 3 millenia ago, i don't think this is a strong argument.
Bible never mentions that Egyptians were in control of large parts of the country they are passing through
However Quran does. The Israelis "inherit" the blessed lands of Levant from the Egyptians tyrants in 7:137 and 26:59.
There’s also no evidence of the great genocide of the goyim tribes
Since you are a fan of making theories on account of practical use, i could say that they made up this narrative to justify their aggressive policies (see Palestine). But even without that, i beg your pardon, but stop rejecting everything which we have no evidence for unless it's an extremely unlikely account like Bible mentioning Anglo-Saxons fighting Persians. Also stop feeling like you have to force a reason for every past phenomenon with such confidence. You avowedly reject any claim without evidence yet your sociologist background makes you try and come up with an explanation for any human behavior. Maybe they did it because of this, maybe because of that... Saying "but it makes sense!" doesn't save you either. It might earn you applauses in secular (in reality anti-religious) academic circles, but not in a more objective setting.
The bible is largely political PR for the priestly caste and you can’t believe that they are describing the country as it really is at any time
I know better than to trust the kikes to accurately describe the situation. Obviously OT isn't as truthful as Jews/Christians would believe, but that shouldn't impel us to discard the entirety of the book when even the historian consensus is to be merely more picky. Especially when it's our main source.
To wrap up my position, so we are clear on this... Monotheism dates back to the 12th century BC after a man named Moses kickstarted it in Egypt, albeit the Hebrews were quick to dilute it with polytheistic influences and it wasn't until the date you mentioned that they started gradually restoring its monotheistic nature by the elites, more likely out of piety rather than material considerations. I will also add this, if i haven't made your eyes roll enough already, that the fact all the names for the Jewish deity (El, Yahweh, you tell me) were the same as neighboring polytheistic ones can be attributed to the fact that the Jews who were stranded at an ocean of familiar polytheism came to regard their own god and those of the neighbors to be the one and same thus paving the way for the later polytheistic injunctions. Your own explanation is also fine, that "the conquerors, in order to gain favor with the conquered, will identify their gods with the native gods". I'm adding this in case you held the belief that because the Hebrews referred to their god the same as those cultures before them, must mean the religion was a continuity and at no point was there monotheism introduced even if short lived. I hope you understand my flow, else i risk looking like an idiot.
Something about Muhammad, some about dna, etc
Not really relevant to our talk so i will save you the time
I just like to research this stuff, and there’s no way to be certain about most of it
I should have started reading your text from the bottom, heh. It's like we are Ivan and Alyosha from TBK, one talking from educated assumptions and the other from faith. One of these can't be proven since in the end it's still an opinion, and the other won't be since you are apparently a diehard atheist. But i will accept the stalemate, and conclude this discussion here since we seem to have covered the essentials. Until the next good one, hopefully sooner than later!
Eliack 0 points 2 weeks ago
Your arguments are well elaborated, although not scrupulous.
It is a poor historian with tunnel vision who latches on to a single explanation, when there are alternatives even if less accustomed to.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Your argument is built upon the assumption that every historical event that has occured must have been recorded in plain sight. Which makes even less sense in our present case; If a Pharaoh suffered humiliating plagues among other miracles, lost his army, and was drowned in a miraculous defeat while chasing runaway slaves… would that be carved or written down by the state officials while Egypt was already well-known for avoiding the recording of its shameful events?
Funny you brought this up, when Jews are notorious for refusing to assimilate. They remained just for a few centuries in a state they were so hostile against, and that 3 millenia ago, i don't think this is a strong argument.
However Quran does. The Israelis "inherit" the blessed lands of Levant from the Egyptians tyrants in 7:137 and 26:59.
Since you are a fan of making theories on account of practical use, i could say that they made up this narrative to justify their aggressive policies (see Palestine). But even without that, i beg your pardon, but stop rejecting everything which we have no evidence for unless it's an extremely unlikely account like Bible mentioning Anglo-Saxons fighting Persians. Also stop feeling like you have to force a reason for every past phenomenon with such confidence. You avowedly reject any claim without evidence yet your sociologist background makes you try and come up with an explanation for any human behavior. Maybe they did it because of this, maybe because of that... Saying "but it makes sense!" doesn't save you either. It might earn you applauses in secular (in reality anti-religious) academic circles, but not in a more objective setting.
I know better than to trust the kikes to accurately describe the situation. Obviously OT isn't as truthful as Jews/Christians would believe, but that shouldn't impel us to discard the entirety of the book when even the historian consensus is to be merely more picky. Especially when it's our main source.
To wrap up my position, so we are clear on this... Monotheism dates back to the 12th century BC after a man named Moses kickstarted it in Egypt, albeit the Hebrews were quick to dilute it with polytheistic influences and it wasn't until the date you mentioned that they started gradually restoring its monotheistic nature by the elites, more likely out of piety rather than material considerations. I will also add this, if i haven't made your eyes roll enough already, that the fact all the names for the Jewish deity (El, Yahweh, you tell me) were the same as neighboring polytheistic ones can be attributed to the fact that the Jews who were stranded at an ocean of familiar polytheism came to regard their own god and those of the neighbors to be the one and same thus paving the way for the later polytheistic injunctions. Your own explanation is also fine, that "the conquerors, in order to gain favor with the conquered, will identify their gods with the native gods". I'm adding this in case you held the belief that because the Hebrews referred to their god the same as those cultures before them, must mean the religion was a continuity and at no point was there monotheism introduced even if short lived. I hope you understand my flow, else i risk looking like an idiot.
Not really relevant to our talk so i will save you the time
I should have started reading your text from the bottom, heh. It's like we are Ivan and Alyosha from TBK, one talking from educated assumptions and the other from faith. One of these can't be proven since in the end it's still an opinion, and the other won't be since you are apparently a diehard atheist. But i will accept the stalemate, and conclude this discussion here since we seem to have covered the essentials. Until the next good one, hopefully sooner than later!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW5kcUUu2Ac