4 ms·

My comment was not meant as an argument with the last sentence as its conclusion. Sorry for the (obvious) lack of clarity on my part. Rather, the statement abo

My comment was not meant as an argument with the last sentence as its conclusion. Sorry for the (obvious) lack of clarity on my part. Rather, the statement about the Exodus was meant to expand on the "who came to dominate the region": It was meant to convey that they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites as depicted in the bible. It is my understand that there is little to no evidence of this event (or the preceding events) having occurred. The overall understanding that I was trying to communicate was simply that the ancient Isrealites were Canaanites who stayed in Canaan.

otabdeveloper4 3y ago
> they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing.
- optionalsquid 3y ago
  > That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing. It is my understanding that there is little to no evidence of such an event having occurred.
  - hobo_in_library 3y ago
    nit: (as a non-Christian) There is little to no __archeological__ evidence The Bible's testimony itself, along with conclusion that people believed in this historical event at some point in time, is at least a some evidence towards it.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      The Bible is not evidence. It's a bunch of stories written down by a bunch of people, written well after any of the supposed events they wrote about. Perhaps some of those stories can be corroborated by actual (physical) evidence, but Exodus is not one of them.
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        Generally speaking historical records are called "documentary evidence," and in real life there can be conflicting evidence, out of which may emerge a conclusion.
    - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
      Claims are not evidence. Mythology is not evidence. The more you examine the early books of the Bible, the more ridiculous they become.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      Yeah - its like say the illiad. Did the trojan war happen exactly like that? Obviously not. Was there some big war that inspired it? Probably. Like, you shouldn't take the events of the bible literally, but you could probably reasonably infer that the nations demonized in it probably were historical enemies of the people who wrote it, etc
      - Tuna-Fish 3y ago
        The problem with this thinking is that many of the "early" books of the Bible appear to be written much later than the "later" books, and while they are probably a record of the attitudes of the writers, they record their attitudes as of the time they were written, not as of the time period the claim to represent.

otabdeveloper4 3y ago

> they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing.

optionalsquid 3y ago
> That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing. It is my understanding that there is little to no evidence of such an event having occurred.
- hobo_in_library 3y ago
  nit: (as a non-Christian) There is little to no __archeological__ evidence The Bible's testimony itself, along with conclusion that people believed in this historical event at some point in time, is at least a some evidence towards it.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    The Bible is not evidence. It's a bunch of stories written down by a bunch of people, written well after any of the supposed events they wrote about. Perhaps some of those stories can be corroborated by actual (physical) evidence, but Exodus is not one of them.
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Generally speaking historical records are called "documentary evidence," and in real life there can be conflicting evidence, out of which may emerge a conclusion.
  - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    Claims are not evidence. Mythology is not evidence. The more you examine the early books of the Bible, the more ridiculous they become.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Yeah - its like say the illiad. Did the trojan war happen exactly like that? Obviously not. Was there some big war that inspired it? Probably. Like, you shouldn't take the events of the bible literally, but you could probably reasonably infer that the nations demonized in it probably were historical enemies of the people who wrote it, etc
    - Tuna-Fish 3y ago
      The problem with this thinking is that many of the "early" books of the Bible appear to be written much later than the "later" books, and while they are probably a record of the attitudes of the writers, they record their attitudes as of the time they were written, not as of the time period the claim to represent.