What good does religion offer the world today?

oralloy wrote:

Nothing other than the fact that it complies with Jewish dietary practices.

"These surveys have revealed the sudden emergence of a new culture contrasting with the Philistine and Canaanite societies existing in the Land of Israel earlier during Iron Age I.[21] This new culture is characterised by a lack of pork remains (whereas pork formed 20% of the Philistine diet in places), by an abandonment of the Philistine/Canaanite custom of having highly decorated pottery, and by the practice of circumcision."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

oralloy wrote:

History and archaeology offer very firm evidence of the existence of the northern Israelite Kingdom, and very firm evidence that it was a fairly powerful kingdom that subjugated some of its neighbors as vassals.

"The Tel Dan Stele, the Mesha Stele, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, and direct evidence from excavations, together paint a picture of the Omride kings ruling a rich, powerful, and cosmopolitan empire, stretching from Damascus to Moab,[33]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

Oralloy perhaps thinks Adam was an Israelite...

DNA indicates the Israelites are actually Canaanites.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/history-and-genetics-mesopotamia-to-canaan/

https://www.quora.com/Who-were-the-Israelites

You're confused. Once again, "Israelis" are the citizens of the state of Israel. "Israelites" are an ancient people of Palestine.

In the times of Merneptah they would have been "Canaanites."

still more confusion. In regard to Canaan, there were various peoples living in that country. Israelites were but one.

In regard to this evidence in Palestine, there is nothing specifically Jewish about it.

One thing is reality. Quite another thing is your confused take on reality and your flights of fancy.

Now you're jumping from debatable interpretations of archaeological evidence in regard to the legendary biblical figure of Saul to assertions that this archaeological evidence is that of a Jewish people. Like I said, flights of fancy.

oralloy wrote:

What would a contrary interpretation be?

That the archaeological evidence is that of Canaanite peoples.

You're merely repeating yourself.

You had said that, "the West Bank ruins from around 1200 BC showing people following Jewish dietary practices."

The lack of pig remains is evidenced in the Iron Age IIB archaeological record which began around 925 BC.

The difference had more to do with the economics and viability of pig husbandry rather than religious "Jewish dietary practices."

(cite)

These archaeological records refer to Omride kings of Israel, not Israelites, let alone Israelis.

Remains of which can be termed "Israelite" do not appear until the 8th century BCE.

(p.256)

Oralloy perhaps thinks Adam was an Israelite...

DNA indicates the Israelites are actually Canaanites.

Religion did it and new ones are born often and they understand nothing.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confused. Once again, "Israelis" are the citizens of the state of Israel. "Israelites" are an ancient people of Palestine.

They're the same people.

InfraBlue wrote:

In the times of Merneptah they would have been "Canaanites."

Strange then how the Merneptah Stele specifically refers to them as Israelites.

InfraBlue wrote:

still more confusion. In regard to Canaan, there were various peoples living in that country. Israelites were but one.

No confusion on my end. In the area known as the West Bank around the time of 1200 BC, there was only one group of people: The Israelites.

InfraBlue wrote:

In regard to this evidence in Palestine, there is nothing specifically Jewish about it.

Nothing other than the fact that it conforms to Jewish practices.

InfraBlue wrote:

One thing is reality. Quite another thing is your confused take on reality and your flights of fancy.

Notice how all the scientists, historians, and archaeologists agree with me and contradict you?

InfraBlue wrote:

Now you're jumping from debatable interpretations of archaeological evidence in regard to the legendary biblical figure of Saul to assertions that this archaeological evidence is that of a Jewish people. Like I said, flights of fancy.

Science, history, and archaeology, which establish quite clearly that the Jewish/Israeli culture existed in the West Bank area from 1200 BC on, is not a flight of fancy.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

What would a contrary interpretation be?

That the archaeological evidence is that of Canaanite peoples.

That's not a contrary interpretation. The Israelis were the Canaanite people of the West Bank area.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're merely repeating yourself.

You're merely insisting that science, history, and archaeology are fiction.

InfraBlue wrote:

You had said that, "the West Bank ruins from around 1200 BC showing people following Jewish dietary practices."

Yes.

There were certainly people in the West Bank area following Jewish dietary practices during Iron Age IIB.

The lack of pig remains is also evidenced in the Iron Age I archaeological record, which began around 1200 BC.

InfraBlue wrote:

The difference had more to do with the economics and viability of pig husbandry rather than religious "Jewish dietary practices."

Archaeologists regard these Iron Age I settlements as being continuously settled by the same population well into the time of the later Israelite kingdoms, and thus regard the Iron Age I settlements as an early version of the same Israelite culture that created those later kingdoms.

InfraBlue wrote:

(cite)

Nice link. You realize that it confirms the absence of pigs in the West Bank highlands during Iron Age I?

InfraBlue wrote:

These archaeological records refer to Omride kings of Israel, not Israelites, let alone Israelis.

The existence of very powerful northern Israelite kings in the ninth century BC, is evidence of a very powerful northern Israelite kingdom in the ninth century BC, that was filled with a large population of northern Israelite people in the ninth century BC.

InfraBlue wrote:

Remains of which can be termed "Israelite" do not appear until the 8th century BCE.

That is incorrect. Archaeologists date Israelite remains as far back as 1200 BC.

And the northern Israelite Kingdom left large and very significant remains during the ninth century BC.

InfraBlue wrote:

(p.256)

That article is about a single city only. If the northern Israelite Kingdom did not have a presence in that one specific city until the eighth century, that does not change the fact that the northern Israelite Kingdom had a very large presence in other places during the ninth century.

The article actually confirms the existence of the powerful northern Israelite kingdom during the ninth century. It refers to the Omride Dynasty as being at the same time as what they call "the first building period" (of that single city that they're referring to).

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confused. Once again, "Israelis" are the citizens of the state of Israel. "Israelites" are an ancient people of Palestine.

They're the same people.

Heh. The Zionist founders of the state of Israel were Europeans. Later, Mizrahim immigrated to that state. This occurred during the middle of the 20th century.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

In the times of Merneptah they would have been "Canaanites."

Strange then how the Merneptah Stele specifically refers to them as Israelites.

The Merneptah Stele does not make reference to "Israelites," it makes reference to "Israel" as part of the group of Canaanites within the country that Merneptah conquered.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

still more confusion. In regard to Canaan, there were various peoples living in that country. Israelites were but one.

No confusion on my end. In the area known as the West Bank around the time of 1200 BC, there was only one group of people: The Israelites.

No. Being nomadic, these people came and went among the settled groups there.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

In regard to this evidence in Palestine, there is nothing specifically Jewish about it.

Nothing other than the fact that it conforms to Jewish practices.

That's not specifically Jewish.

They agree with you in your own mind. Reality is quite another thing.

Your inferrences are flights of fancy.

See my response above about your take on science, histroy and archaeology.

They were a Canaanite people among various others in the West Bank area.

I'm pointing out that your delusional take on science, history and archaeology are wild flights of fancy.

They weren't following Jewish dietary practices. Merely, the husbandry of pigs wasn't viable for them. Jewish dietary practices developed quite some time after that time period.

Right. There is a lack of pig bones at Canaanite and Philistine sites all over Palestine in that time. The pertinent time period is Iron Age IIB where there is an almost complete lack of pig bones in Judah which indicates the beginnings of Jewish dietary practices.

oralloy wrote:

Archaeologists regard these Iron Age I settlements as being continuously settled by the same population well into the time of the later Israelite kingdoms, and thus regard the Iron Age I settlements as an early version of the same Israelite culture that created those later kingdoms.

This debatable assertion is irrelevant to the fact that Jewish dietary practices developed at a later time period.

I've responded above to your confused reading and interpretation.

oralloy wrote:

Archaeologists date Israelite remains as far back as 1200 BC.

And the northern Israelite Kingdom left large and very significant remains during the ninth century BC.

You're confusing references to Israel with Israelites.

oralloy wrote:

That article is about a single city only. If the northern Israelite Kingdom did not have a presence in that one specific city until the eighth century, that does not change the fact that the northern Israelite Kingdom had a very large presence in other places during the ninth century.

The article actually confirms the existence of the powerful northern Israelite kingdom during the ninth century. It refers to the Omride Dynasty as being at the same time as what they call "the first building period" (of that single city that they're referring to).

The article confirms the fact that distinctly "Israelite" remains begin to appear until the 8th century BCE.

the Israeli people populated the West Bank region starting around 1200 BC, and they can be identified as not eating any pigs at the time.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confused. Once again, "Israelis" are the citizens of the state of Israel. "Israelites" are an ancient people of Palestine.

They're the same people.

Heh. The Zionist founders of the state of Israel were Europeans. Later, Mizrahim immigrated to that state. This occurred during the middle of the 20th century.

They're still the same people.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

In the times of Merneptah they would have been "Canaanites."

Strange then how the Merneptah Stele specifically refers to them as Israelites.

The Merneptah Stele does not make reference to "Israelites," it makes reference to "Israel" as part of the group of Canaanites within the country that Merneptah conquered.

Same thing.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

still more confusion. In regard to Canaan, there were various peoples living in that country. Israelites were but one.

No confusion on my end. In the area known as the West Bank around the time of 1200 BC, there was only one group of people: The Israelites.

No. Being nomadic, these people came and went among the settled groups there.

Archaeology shows that the Israelites were the settled group of the West Bank area.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

In regard to this evidence in Palestine, there is nothing specifically Jewish about it.

Nothing other than the fact that it conforms to Jewish practices.

That's not specifically Jewish.

If non-Jews chose to engage in Jewish practices, that was their choice I guess.

InfraBlue wrote:

They agree with you in your own mind. Reality is quite another thing.

No, the consensus of scientists, historians, and archaeologists agrees with me in reality.

You may not like what science has to say about the matter, but it is silly for you to deny science.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your inferrences are flights of fancy.

I am not making inferences. I am relaying the consensus of the world's scientists, archaeologists, and historians. And that consensus is not a flight of fancy.

InfraBlue wrote:

See my response above about your take on science, histroy and archaeology.

Your denials of science, history, and archaeology do not invalidate the findings of the scientists.

InfraBlue wrote:

They were a Canaanite people among various others in the West Bank area.

Archaeology shows that the Israelites populated and controlled the entire West Bank area.

InfraBlue wrote:

I'm pointing out that your delusional take on science, history and archaeology are wild flights of fancy.

No, you are simply denying what the scientists say.

InfraBlue wrote:

They weren't following Jewish dietary practices. Merely, the husbandry of pigs wasn't viable for them. Jewish dietary practices developed quite some time after that time period.

If the absence of pigs started first as a practical matter and then developed later as a religious custom, that is certainly an interesting part of the development of their religion. But it doesn't change the fact that the Israeli people populated the West Bank region starting around 1200 BC, and they can be identified as not eating any pigs at the time.

Although that Finkelstein article that you linked does show that the non-pig thing was ultimately more of a Judah thing than a northern Israelite thing.

InfraBlue wrote:

Right. There is a lack of pig bones at Canaanite and Philistine sites all over Palestine in that time. The pertinent time period is Iron Age IIB where there is an almost complete lack of pig bones in Judah which indicates the beginnings of Jewish dietary practices.

Since the point was about the population of 1200 BC, the pertinent time period would seem to be Iron Age I.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Archaeologists regard these Iron Age I settlements as being continuously settled by the same population well into the time of the later Israelite kingdoms, and thus regard the Iron Age I settlements as an early version of the same Israelite culture that created those later kingdoms.

This debatable assertion is irrelevant to the fact that Jewish dietary practices developed at a later time period.

That "debatable" assertion is the consensus of the world's archaeologists.

InfraBlue wrote:

I've responded above to your confused reading and interpretation.

There is no confusion on my end.

I am not interpreting anything.

I am merely relaying the consensus of the world's scientists.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Archaeologists date Israelite remains as far back as 1200 BC.

And the northern Israelite Kingdom left large and very significant remains during the ninth century BC.

You're confusing references to Israel with Israelites.

It doesn't matter since they are the same people regardless.

But no confusion on my end.

The term "Israelite" is the term used to refer to the ancient Iron Age culture.

Especially when it refers to the powerful northern kingdom, which specifically referred to themselves as "Israelites".

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

That article is about a single city only. If the northern Israelite Kingdom did not have a presence in that one specific city until the eighth century, that does not change the fact that the northern Israelite Kingdom had a very large presence in other places during the ninth century.

The article actually confirms the existence of the powerful northern Israelite kingdom during the ninth century. It refers to the Omride Dynasty as being at the same time as what they call "the first building period" (of that single city that they're referring to).

The article confirms the fact that distinctly "Israelite" remains begin to appear until the 8th century BCE.

No it doesn't (and that is anything but a fact).

When that article talks about remains starting in the 8th century BC, it is referring only to remains within one single city on the far outskirts of the northern Israelite Kingdom.

That article also makes a direct reference to the Israelites existing as a powerful kingdom in the early ninth century BC.

And the northern Israelite Kingdom left large and very significant remains during the ninth century BC.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

"Israelis" are the citizens of the state of Israel. "Israelites" are an ancient people of Palestine.

They're the same people.

Heh. The Zionist founders of the state of Israel were Europeans. Later, Mizrahim immigrated to that state. This occurred during the middle of the 20th century.

They're still the same people.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

Archaeology shows that the Israelites were the settled group of the West Bank area.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

Archaeology shows that the Israelites populated and controlled the entire West Bank area.

Nuh-uh.

Right. The point is, however, that the practice wasn't due to Jewish dietary custom. That came about much later.