🇳🇱
Just a reminder... While the jews are obviously wrong for taking land from the palestines in modern time the argument has always been "well its our ancestral land"... well even that is more or less a lie.
Below is the original borders of Israel in Blue (some might consider Judah part of it since they were jewish, but it was a separate country).
Regardless of if you consider the yellow and blue together as one it is obvious that most of ancient israel was contained in the borders of the modern bank.. and at least half of modern day israel was never part of the ancient lands of israel according to its first borders (obvious we dont count places it invaded as that isnt their ancestral land).
No matter how you slice it #Israel is in the wrong here and #Palestine is an occupied country.
The yellow would be debatable... but at least that would be an attempt at actually making sense when they say "its our ancestral land"... obviously to me the argument itself is nonsense on so many accounts... for starters, modern day jews have little genetic relationship to jews 3000 years ago... second, their claim to the terrotitories is largely based on biblical reference not histroy... and third, why should anyone have a right to land that 1/400th of your ancestry **might** come from rather than the people who live there now where 100% of their ancestry comes from it...
Logically the ancestry argument makes no sense if it werent a lie. The fact that it is a lie (int he sense its not the land they stole) makes it even worse of an argument.
second, their claim to the terrotitories is largely based on biblical reference not histroy
Are there historical records that refute the Bible’s account of the general layout of those territories? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that disputed before.
@realcaseyrollins There is no historical record proving the existence of ancient Israel. Yes there is quite a bit of historical record that contradicts or puts its existance in question.
The debate about is Israel **ever** existed is a very long one with a great deal of evidence, but not enough to really prove anything either way, as is often the case when we are talking 3000+ years ago.
There is no historical record proving the existence of ancient Israel. Yes there is quite a bit of historical record that contradicts or puts its existance in question.
🤨 I’m a bit surprised by this take. Do you think that, for example, King David existed in real life?
I am not personally claiming if my **opinion** is he or israel existed.. I can only say that I dont use the bible as a historical reference and neither should anyone else. Least of all to justify a war.
The history is lost.. its possible they existed, its possible they didnt.. my spirtual beleifs or "gut" take really shouldnt matter there.
But if you want my answer anway I'd say this... There was probably someone and something that resembles the things int he bible in one way or another.. I dont think they are complete fiction. But since the bible spent ~100 years as oral tradition before being written down in most cases we know the stories in it have changes **dramatically** between versions. The version we have says literally different stuff than the version first written... So while there was probably someone that resembled a king david the reality of who he was and what he did is probably radically different than the word for word details int he bible.
@freemo I don’t agree, but that take does make sense to some extent. There are actually many (but not most) Christians who would agree with you.
I mean if you want to agree with the bible as a word for word facual account (which means you think the whole world is just a few thousand years old).. and you do so bath on faith in the book (rather than historical or scientific process)... then .. well.. i cant argue with you because it isnt a stance based on logic, its one based on authority... treating the bible as an axiom... so i cant do anything with that even if i had undeniable proof (which i dont).
That said, regardless of what you **beleive** and your **opinions** as I said, I stand strongly by the fact that we shouldnt be starting or condoning wars based on what the bible says history was, without any other credible sources to back that up.
@freemo I did take Apologetics in High School so it’s a bit of faith, and a bit of research into the historicity of the Scriptures. Not everything in the Bible is corroborated elsewhere, but a lot of it is, and not much of it is refuted by more reliable sources, so to me, that’s a pretty good indicator that the entirety of the Scriptures are true.
My position on the accuracy of what we have today though is largely due to faith, as I have faith that God allowed the Hebrew and Aramaic texts we use as sources for translation to be preserved either perfectly, or nearly perfectly. I do however think there are probably small flaws in every translation from the source to the English language.
@realcaseyrollins Not sure what you mean, there are literally thousands of objectively provable inaccuracies in the bible. The fact that sometimes the bible will say something that is true like "The city of england existed" (not actually in the bible just an absurd example) doesnt make the rest of it real.... most of what it gets right are the big things in history that any schmuck would know 100 years past... so yea there will be some things that line up.. but since it is written by people many hundreds of years after the events that they are written about you get like 5% accurate and 95% nonsense.. cause sure **some** things will be preserved and accurate but the vast majority gets distorted.
And like i said this is objectively verifiable, you can get entire books as big as the bible where all they do is list the inaccuracies int he bible.
@freemo Which inaccuracies would you say are the most damning?
I mean where do you want to start.. im not sure "damning" is the right word... like some stuff is very obviously factually wrong, but many things for different reasons.. some is just lack of knowledge (like the stuff about what space is)... other stuff is due to the fact that the bible was oral tradition and then became written and even changed drastically when written
As long as we are treating the bible as a historical account in **some** sense (for borders)... how do you account for the fact that earlier copies said something totally different? The book of Samuel is where the kingdom of Israel is described and the rise of King Saul/Samuel.. thats the modern day version. The earlier version of this text had Samuel **denying** becoming king and no kingdom of israel was founded int he earlier version of the text (we call these the non-monarchial versions).. they were the earlier versions so historically written earlier and closer to the time period.
How do you explain the fact that the earlier text of the bible specifically claims no Israel was formed at all?
How do you explain the fact that the earlier text of the bible specifically claims no Israel was formed at all?
What’s that earlier text called?
@realcaseyrollins The book of Samuel, the non-monarchical version (the earlier version)
@freemo I couldn’t find anything about a non monarchial version at first Google. Do you know where I can read more about it?
@realcaseyrollins you want a copy to read? I should have it in my collection somewhere, I collect and read anctient versions of religious texts
@realcaseyrollins ill see if i can find an article that has a write up on that... i dont have that in my library anywhere but the internet might have something.
Actually wait.. i may have an anlysis in my physical library somewhere... i think i remember having something... let me look one sec... I might know where it is.
@freemo Not a copy, but an analysis and background of its historicity, how many copies of it were made, etc.