All scholars agree that Egyptian records show that the Hebrew deity was a local deity in the area where desert nomads roamed.
You made this claim, back it up. Point to a single reputable secular source to back up this claim you are making.
Shasu of Yhw
There are two Egyptian texts, one dated to the period of Amenhotep III (14th century BCE), the other to the age of Ramesses II (13th century BCE) which refer to 'Yahu in the land of the Šosū-Bedouins' (t3 š3św jhw3), in which Yahu is a toponym. Regarding the name Yhw, Michael Astour observed that the "hieroglyphic rendering corresponds very precisely to the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH, or Yahweh, and antedates the hitherto oldest occurrence of that divine name -- on the Moabite Stone -- by over five hundred years."
Objections exist to the proposed link between the Israelites and the Shasu, given that the group[which? in the Merneptah reliefs identified with the Israelites are not described or depicted as Shasu. The Shasu are usually depicted hieroglyphically with a determinative indicating a land, not a people. The usefulness of the determinatives has been called into question, though; it has been pointed out that in Egyptian writings, including the Merneptah Stele, determinatives are used arbitrarily. The most frequent designation for the "foes of Shasu" is the hill-country determinative. Thus they are differentiated from the Canaanites, who are defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenoam. At the same time, the hill-country determinative is not always used for Shasu, as is the case in the "Shasu of Yhw" name rings from Soleb and Amarah-West. Gösta Werner Ahlström argued that this doesn't disprove a possible connection; the reason Shasu and Israelites are differentiated from each other in the Merneptah Stele is that these Shasu were nomads while the Israelites were a sedentary subset of the Shasu.
Frank J. Yurco and Michael G. Hasel would distinguish the Shasu in Merneptah's Karnak reliefs from the people of Israel since they wear different clothing, hairstyles,[verification needed] and are determined differently by Egyptian scribes. Moreover, Israel is determined as a people, though not necessarily as a socioethnic group. Egyptian scribes tended to bundle up "rather disparate groups of people within a single artificially unifying rubric."
Objections exist to the proposed link between the Israelites and the Shasu, given that the group[which? in the Merneptah reliefs identified with the Israelites are not described or depicted as Shasu. The Shasu are usually depicted hieroglyphically with a determinative indicating a land, not a people.
I would also point out that Gösta Werner Ahlström, mentioned above, is employing an argument from ignorance--if you can't disprove the connection, it must be valid.
Can you provide a link to Historical scholar without a religious bias who makes this claim? Wikipedia is not a scholarly link, and this article seems to be relying on the word one or two religion fans.
The people who use the second approach understand that there was no significant presence of Hebrews living in Egypt either as slaves or in any other circumstance. There is no real evidence that this was the case, and the circumstantial evidence that people who really really want to believe provide doesn't hold up when you look at all the facts.
Do you have the same faith that Noah's Ark is true?
What about the talking Snake?
Who are the slaves to whom you refer?
Did you decide to just ignore the evidence presented that the pyramids were built by skilled labor and not by slaves?
oralloy wrote:They were a group of Canaanites. Their escape from slavery was quite inspirational in parts of Canaan after the chaos of the societal collapse at the end of the Bronze Age.
Your answer, for which you provide zero evidence, just underscores your continuing attempt to introduce a biblical narrative into an historical discussion.
The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest Exodus. Most scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period. An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a literary device not unknown.
The Jews are Semites, very likely originally Akkadians, and came from far to the east of what you are refering to as Canaan.
This all shoots right over your head, doesn't it?
My point is that you are attempting to introduce a biblical narrative as though it were reliable history--which it is not.
Wikipedia has been vandalized by christian fanatics since at least late 2013, if not earlier. Wikipedia is an entirely unreliable source for any christian or biblical subjects.
You make your remarks about the origin of the Jews as Canaanites without a shred of substantiation.
You're peddling bullsh*t, a long established habit of yours.
The study, as expected, confirmed the Middle Eastern, or Levantine, origins of Jews as documented in ancient Hebrew scriptures. This lineage is clearly visible in communities today, ages after the Jews were expelled from Israel.
More unexpected, though, was the discovery that Jewish patterns of SNPs were closer to those of Cypriots and Druze than with the other populations of the Middle East.
No, your posts are not factual
and as usual you seem to think that all you need to do is say so and that makes it true.
I have not the least doubt that you'll claim everything you write is factural, even when it is shown that that is clearly not the case.
I've shown you making errors again and again.
This is one example.
Your constant attempts to claim that the crusades were organized to protect Europe from Muslim invasion are another example.