@Trampadoo. Tacitus always put disclaimers if something was just rumor.He did it over 70 times in his writings.When he said Christus was executed by Pontius Pilate there was no disclaimer of that being just a rumor.And Roman soldiers that were in Judea at that time were still alive when Tacitus wrote that.So Tacitus would have lost all credibility as a historian if this was false because people from that time were still alive and would have corrected him.Sayin "I was there and that didnt happen"
@Trampadoo And its not semantics when it comes to Canaanites. Canaanites are descendants of Ham, Israelites descend from Shem. Israelites fought Canaanites. They are not the same people. And they do have hieroglyphics of Isrealites slaves in egypt. Actually they have them right next to Nubian and Assyrian slaves. There is evidence for Israelite slaves in Egypt, there is just no evidence for the Exodus story.
@Trampadoo The bible got more then one thing right. Rome really did take over Isreal. King Herod was a real king of Israel. Xerxes really was the son of Darius. There are so many true historical things in the bible I cant list them all. Now you can say there is no evidence for the supernatural events. But there is plenty of evidence for many of the historical events in the bible.
That or they were never there at all I am afraid, as there is never anything close to a whole tribe being kicked out of the country but the incident when tribes accompining the hyksos were chased out after terrorizing the natives.
"Israel would have just been a small section of the slave inventory."
Since Egypt didn't use many slaves a whole tribe would have been a huge section of the "slave inventory"
" Its true that not all the workers were slaves but there still were slaves there."
Pretty much all workers were regular Egyptians and moving people. In fact the "Israelites" were part of the assholes trying to conquere Egypt and they harrassed the Egyptians and vandalized temples.
No, I'm not. Semantics. That is why I wrote later to become Israelites. Because before "conquering" Canaa they were just moving people who pissed everyone else off.
"And the Egyptians did have slaves from all over the the Mediterranean."
Small numbers of pows, no "Israelites", as they were just moving people who got chased out of the country.
Oh, so the bible got one thing right? XD Now that makes everything that has zero or tons of contradicting evidence correct as well.. And Tacticus, Lucian and Celsus were just talking about what the christians believe and whom they worship. No contemporary sources whatsoevery. Weird, isn't it?
@Trampadoo You are confusing Canaanites with Israelites. The land now known as Israel was formely known as Canaan but the Israelites conquered Canaan and renamed the land Israel. And some of the some of the people like the Midianites did merge with Israel. And the Egyptians did have slaves from all over the the Mediterranean. Israel would have just been a small section of the slave inventory. Its true that not all the workers were slaves but there still were slaves there.
@Trampadoo And to say there is no historical evidence for any of the stories in the bible is just false. Israel was indeed held captive in babylon and was freed by King Cyrus. There is none biblical sources that tell this story the same way. Tacitus, Lucian, Josephus, and Celsus, all talk about a guy that was crucified that the hebrews worshiped. All none biblical historians. They also found a tablet from the 900 BC with the inscription "House of David" on it. So there is evidence
So IF those tribes also involved the later to become ppl of Isreal, they had 1000 years or more to embellish this shameful episode for their kids. Nooo, we were not the baddies, we were of course the slaves. And nooo, we did not get our asses kicked, gawd punished the Egyptians. Only that he didn't, because they practically chased those tribes all the way to Caana, an area they pretty much controlled in this time.
@Trampadoo. Tacitus always put disclaimers if something was just rumor.He did it over 70 times in his writings.When he said Christus was executed by Pontius Pilate there was no disclaimer of that being just a rumor.And Roman soldiers that were in Judea at that time were still alive when Tacitus wrote that.So Tacitus would have lost all credibility as a historian if this was false because people from that time were still alive and would have corrected him.Sayin "I was there and that didnt happen"
ScholarVisual 2 days ago
@Trampadoo And its not semantics when it comes to Canaanites. Canaanites are descendants of Ham, Israelites descend from Shem. Israelites fought Canaanites. They are not the same people. And they do have hieroglyphics of Isrealites slaves in egypt. Actually they have them right next to Nubian and Assyrian slaves. There is evidence for Israelite slaves in Egypt, there is just no evidence for the Exodus story.
ScholarVisual 2 days ago
@Trampadoo The bible got more then one thing right. Rome really did take over Isreal. King Herod was a real king of Israel. Xerxes really was the son of Darius. There are so many true historical things in the bible I cant list them all. Now you can say there is no evidence for the supernatural events. But there is plenty of evidence for many of the historical events in the bible.
ScholarVisual 2 days ago
@ScholarVisual:
That or they were never there at all I am afraid, as there is never anything close to a whole tribe being kicked out of the country but the incident when tribes accompining the hyksos were chased out after terrorizing the natives.
Trampadoo 4 days ago
@ScholarVisual:
"Israel would have just been a small section of the slave inventory."
Since Egypt didn't use many slaves a whole tribe would have been a huge section of the "slave inventory"
" Its true that not all the workers were slaves but there still were slaves there."
Pretty much all workers were regular Egyptians and moving people. In fact the "Israelites" were part of the assholes trying to conquere Egypt and they harrassed the Egyptians and vandalized temples.
Trampadoo 4 days ago
@ScholarVisual:
"You are confusing Canaanites with Israelites."
No, I'm not. Semantics. That is why I wrote later to become Israelites. Because before "conquering" Canaa they were just moving people who pissed everyone else off.
"And the Egyptians did have slaves from all over the the Mediterranean."
Small numbers of pows, no "Israelites", as they were just moving people who got chased out of the country.
Trampadoo 4 days ago
@ScholarVisual:
Oh, so the bible got one thing right? XD Now that makes everything that has zero or tons of contradicting evidence correct as well.. And Tacticus, Lucian and Celsus were just talking about what the christians believe and whom they worship. No contemporary sources whatsoevery. Weird, isn't it?
Trampadoo 4 days ago
@Trampadoo You are confusing Canaanites with Israelites. The land now known as Israel was formely known as Canaan but the Israelites conquered Canaan and renamed the land Israel. And some of the some of the people like the Midianites did merge with Israel. And the Egyptians did have slaves from all over the the Mediterranean. Israel would have just been a small section of the slave inventory. Its true that not all the workers were slaves but there still were slaves there.
ScholarVisual 1 week ago
@Trampadoo And to say there is no historical evidence for any of the stories in the bible is just false. Israel was indeed held captive in babylon and was freed by King Cyrus. There is none biblical sources that tell this story the same way. Tacitus, Lucian, Josephus, and Celsus, all talk about a guy that was crucified that the hebrews worshiped. All none biblical historians. They also found a tablet from the 900 BC with the inscription "House of David" on it. So there is evidence
ScholarVisual 1 week ago
@ScholarVisual:
So IF those tribes also involved the later to become ppl of Isreal, they had 1000 years or more to embellish this shameful episode for their kids. Nooo, we were not the baddies, we were of course the slaves. And nooo, we did not get our asses kicked, gawd punished the Egyptians. Only that he didn't, because they practically chased those tribes all the way to Caana, an area they pretty much controlled in this time.
Trampadoo 1 week ago