- Moderator
- #51
The point I believe he was trying to make is that there was no justification for naming the country Israel. That calling the land “Israel” is pointless. It clearly is not. That’s the point I was making. It’s a point you appear to have missed.
Genetic studies? Which genetic studies would these be? For example a recent study in 2000 examined the Y chromosomes of 119 Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews and 143 Israeli and Palestinian Arabs. Their conclusion? . That the Y chromosomes of many of the men had key segments of DNA that were so similar that they revealed that most of the men must have had common ancestors within the past several thousand years. They found that many of the Jewish subjects were descended from ancestors who they believe originated in the Middle East. In another recent study of 1371 men from around the world, geneticist Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews.
Kevin Alan Brooks a geneticist, has also concluded that certain Jewish features of the Y Chromosome (that he calls the Cohen Modal Haplotype), is found also amongst Kurds, Armenians, Anatolian Turks, and Arabs. He also states that Jewish genetic diseases are also found in Middle Eastern populations. He makes the point also that Jewish mitochondrial DNA (which is inherited only through the female) resembles certain European peoples.
The latest conclusion from the geneticists is that some Jews look like their neighbors because of maternal non-Israelite ancestry, whereas the paternal roots of most Jewish communities generally stem from ancient Israel.
My point was that you asked for a map that shows Israel existing before 1948. I see one was provided.
Originally posted by Lestat
So you agree palestine also existed. Finally we agree on something
Of course. Where did I ever say that Palestine did not exist?
A quote from a reference book I have by historian Antony Bridge…
“After the victory of Ajnadin the Muslim forces spread in all directions in Jordan and Palestine. The towns of Sabtah, Gaza, Nablus, Bait-Jibrin and many other towns were captured one after the other. That cleared the way to Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem sacred to the Jews and the Christians was strongly fortified. It was protected on every side naturally by deep valleys and steep ascents. Further, military engines were mounted on the walls which were intended for playing havoc with the advancing invader. It was the winter season, and the severity of the winter added to the difficulties of the besieging Muslim force. The siege dragged on and the Byzantines offered very stiff resistance.
Amr bin al-As the Muslim Commander in the southern sector wrote to Abu Ubaida for reinforcement. By this time, northern Syria had fallen to the Muslims and Aba Ubaida was able to spare many contingents which rushed to the aid of the Muslims fighting in the southern sector. When the citizens of Jerusalem came to know that the besieging Muslim forces has been considerably strengthened they lost heart. Finding further resistance futile, the Patriarch of Jerusalem sued for peace. He said that it was written in their holy books that the city would surrender to the man who was the best among the Muslims. He accordingly desired that the Caliph Umar (ra) should come to Jerusalem personally to receive the surrender of the city.”
Er, no they didn't. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the many Christians living in Jerusalem did NOT welcome the Muslims as liberators. The negotiated a peace, yes. The Muslims eventually entered Jerusalem peacefully..yes. However that is not saying that there was no siege and neither is it saying that the inhabitants of Jerusalem "welcomed" them as liberators.
No I don’t deny it, but so what? Again what are you trying to justify?
Improved for who? The Christians or the Jews?
You implied by your previous statement that the Muslims took Jerusalem bloodlessly and then “at the time” the population of Jerusalem converted to Islam. You stated and I quote that……” However you can't deny that the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time did convert to Islam. History shows us that.
Obviously history doesn’t show us that at all.
And what evidence "on the ground" are we talking about?
You tell me. You’re the one that claimed that and I’ll quote you again…. However you can't deny that the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time did convert to Islam. History shows us that.
1929? You kidding me aren’t you? What’s a census in 1929 got to with what went on “at the time” in AD 638. During the Crusades which captured Jerusalem in 1099 (which is a full 461 years after the fall of Jerusalem) there was a majority Muslim population, but also a sizeable quantity of Jews.
I’m not surprised that after 461 years of Muslim rule that the majority of inhabitants in Jerusalem in 1099 were Muslim. However that is a LONG way from implying that the inhabitants of jerusalem saw the light in 638 and converted enmass to Islam…….as you implied by your statement.
What’s incorrect about it? I stated……”the terms of peace imposed on the Christians living in Jerusalem by Caliph Omar were moderate and there was no 'forced' conversions of Christians. That’s correct isn’t it? “ Didn’t a chronicler of the time state….”This peace….guarantees them security for their lives, property, churches, and the crucifixes belonging to those who display and honour them…..There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith.”
“Certainly if you are referring to the Jews, that is not correct.” This statement was made in reply to your claim,,,,” However you can't deny that the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time did convert to Islam. History shows us that.” I stated that wasn’t correct. You’ve backed me up by saying the Jews revolted later that year and were punished accordingly. Sounds like they didn't convert to Islam "at the time."
So in fact my statement was correct.
Exactly. So one tries to read both and come to a considered opinion. Note that I have quoted Eastern historians to you. You’ve quoted and referred to very few Western historians (or very few historians at all actually)
As you say!
Maybe, but there are some “facts”, which are generally agreed on by most historians and which refute some of ah_19’s claims.
Example:
”palestinians been there longer”.
No they haven’t.
Correct. But my comment here needs to be read in conjunction with my other comments.
This school of thought is being increasingly challenged.
Not Rameses II, but certainly of his son Merenptah. The Ashkelon Wall is throught now to have been by Merenptah, but glorifying the exploits of his father Rameses. Israel is definitely mentioned.
Correct.
Well, if it says so in the Biblical texts, it MUST be true. In fact archaeologists believe Jerusalem was a settlement long before the reputed time of Abraham. Even according to the Biblical texts, how could Abraham have founded Jerusalem when in Genesis 14:18, it was already recognised as a city of religious dispute ruled by Melchizedek, its high priest. Archaeoligst beleive Jerusalem has been the site of a settlement since about 4,000 BC, long before the accepted period for Abraham.
As I said my comment here needs to be read in conjunction with my other comments... and not in isolation. I've explained why I mentioned Jerusalem on the northern pylon.
David M. Rohl and Professor Robert Steven Bianchi.
Which dates are these? Are these based on Edwin Thiele’s chronology? As I have stated before Egyptian dates and their relation to Biblical events are constantly being re-assessed.
Shoshenk was Libyan actually, not Nubian.
Shoshenk reigned from 945-924. He wasn’t after the House of Solomon and David. After all you are arguing he went to war against Rehoboam, who was the son of Solomon.
The city of Jerusalem is NOT, I repeat NOT, listed on the list of subjugated cities on the Shoshenk’s campaign city list. I can give you a complete list of the cities that are if you like. Most have been identified and only ONE of the 39 towns identified has been located in the kingdom of Judah. That city was Aijalon. The rest are in Israel, who according to the Bible (King Jeroboam) was an ally of the Egyptian king.
Rehoboam is known to have had 14 fortified cities. Only ONE is mentioned by Shoshenk, that being Aijalon. Now if “Shishak” went up against the Kingdom of Judah, as reported in the Bible, why isn’t Jerusalem mentioned on Shoshenk’s reliefs. Surely after the reign of Solomon and David it would have been a very significant city. Rohl and Bianchi contend that Shoshenq and Shishak are in fact not the same person and that in fact Shoshenk never went to Jerusalem. They identify “Shishak” with Rameses II for reasons I have already explained.
Israel IS mentioned on the Israel Stele of Merenptah, as well as on the Ashkelon Wall of Merenptah, the son of Rameses II as well as Jerusalem at Karnak as previously explained.
Well the Egyptians called Canaan, “Pa-Canaan. ” The use of the word Israel certainly implies that the Israelites were in possession of at least parts of the land of Canaan at the time of Rameses the Great. It is a possibility that the Kingdom of Israel (as a state) did exist at the time of Rameses II.
Certainly to return to my original point, there’s no doubt that Israel did exist and not just as the name of a prophet of god.
Where’s your evidence that there was no State of Israel in ancient times? Are you suggesting that the United Monarchy of Israel under David and Solomon did not exist and never existed? Are you suggesting that the Israelite kings did not exist, that Kings such as Ahab, Josiah and Zedekiah did not exist or were ever kings over a Kingdom of Israel. The existence of the Kingdom of Israel is attested to in many places outside the Bible (in other places than Egypt) and I’d be very happy to give you a complete list of this.
However I’d like at least just one piece of evidence from you, that “there is no evidence of a State of Israel, no kingdom.”
Shoshenk was of Libyan descent, not Nubian. I don’t follow your point that Jerusalem wouldn’t have been mentioned because the Egyptian kingdom was in a state of decline. Geez, he mentioned 39 other cities. Why not Jerusalem? Why only 1 of the 14 known fortified cities of Rehoboam.
Could you quote the sources than Kenneth Kitchen was a Jew? It’s news to me.
Of course, how convenient to label any historian who may not give the Arab version of events to be labelled a part of Zionist plot. I suppose I’m part of a Zionist plot as well, because I disagree with you.
And what are the lies? How do you decide what is a “lie” and what is not. Truth, I suppose is your version of events.
No. I mean Moses. Joseph in fact has been identified by some Egyptologists as possibly being Yuya, a prominent official at the time of Amenhotep III, the father of Akhenaten.
Perhaps Akhenaten WAS Moses.
Why ludicrous? Why not Horemheb or Ay?
Horemheb succeeded Ay (who apparently reigned for four years and was the son of Yuya). Ay succeeded Tutankamen who reigned for 9 years. So there was a 13 year period between the death (disappearance, his mummy has never been found) of Akhenaten and the accession of Horemheb.
I suggest then you read Ahmed Osman’s “Stranger in the Valley of the Kings”, and “Moses: Pharoah of Egypt”.
And who have you mentioned again?
I understand perfectly the traditional way of calculating dates in Egyptian chronology. All I’m saying is that it coming under increasing questioning and re-assessment.
