The Palestinians were the "original Canaanites"

Post Reply New Topic

Israelites considered it as the land God *promised* to them, so their ownership of this land exists only by faith, not by heritage.

Moses didn’t seem to be the loving person we see in the Disney movie, he was a military leader and conqueror - who managed a network of spies too.

This is what your Jewish and Christian scholars say, not me.



Most radical Jews today don't consider themselves as descendants of Canaanites or originally a Canaanite tribe, but it's something they deny even the archeological evidence show otherwise.

If they were indeed a Canaanite tribe, that still doesn't justify the grand Israel dream - because the land of Canaan was certainly not all theirs.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 08 Jun 2018, 2:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

I'm of the opinion that the Hebrews had been just another Canaanite tribe who had lived in Egypt for a time, absorbing Egyptian dietary laws and possibly monotheism, as the Egyptians had for some time dominated the Levant. Canaanites, Minoans, and others who had had a long reaching relationship with Egypt often had been granted the hospitality of settling there in times of trouble. Whether the Hebrews went back to the Levant due to reasons given in the Bible, or just because whatever they were fleeing had ended, they doubtlessly were none too gentle with their ethnic kinsmen they discovered there.

Israelites considered it as the land God *promised* to them, so their ownership of this land exists only by faith, not by heritage.

Moses didn’t seem to be the loving person we see in the Disney movie, he was a military leader and conqueror - who managed a network of spies too.

This is what your Jewish and Christian scholars say, not me.

Most radical Jews today don't consider their ancestors as descendants of Canaanites or originally a Canaanite tribe, but it's something they deny even the archeological evidence show otherwise. They claim that Canaanites were children of Ham - not Shem , they don't even view Canaanites as Semitic but as a Hamitic people....that's why most devout Jews deny any ancestry relation with the Canaanites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem#Family_tree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem#/med ... y_shem.gif

^^ According to these 2 trees, Arabs (Ishmael) and Jews are more blood related than Canaanites and Jews ....but is this true genetically?


If they were indeed a Canaanite tribe, that still doesn't justify the grand Israel dream - because the land of Canaan was certainly not all theirs.

Lebanese KZ= Kfar Zubian (town); - mostly Christians
Lebanese NS= Niha el Shouff (town) - mostly Druzes

It's interesting to see that Lebanese Druze are closely related to Moroccan Jews - there's an oral transmitted history here claiming that Druzes were originally a Fatimid sect (Fatimids where in Meghred and Egypt)....interesting.



Palestinians appeared in the Bible as coming from
Crete or its empire [7]. The present day concept based in
archaeology is that most original Palestinians were
already in Canaan and some tribes were agglutinated by
Egyptian garrisons, left to their own fate in Canaan [6];
but the input of one “elite” coming from Crete may not
be discarded. Also, the bulk of Jewish people probably
came from ancient autochthonous Canaanites [6]; this
is compatible with an input of foreign leaders and
their groups (Abraham, Moses) as described in the
Bible [7].
Both Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA
genetic pool (Table 3, Figures 4, 5 and 6) that support a
common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin
of the long-lasting Jewish-Palestinian hostility is the fight
for land in ancient times. Religious and cultural have
enhanced the conflict in the last centuries, together with
the massive European, American, Asian and African Jews
settlements in the area, which has also caused a massive
displacement of Palestinians and wars. A difficult
problem has now been created between two communities
that are close genetic relatives.
Regarding Palestinian population identity, it is
clear that they spoke a language different to Arab or
Jewish in ancient times and only a few words have been
preserved. Palestinians named their leaders or princes
as “seren” (Basque, Zar = old man, en = the most important)
[7]. The study of this and other words suggests
that they spoke a Dene-Caucasian language like other
Mediterranean populations [30,31]. The typical Philistine
crest-hut already appeared in the Cretan Phaistos Disk
(1600 BC) and in the Ramses III-Medinet Habu temple,
Egypt (1200 BC, [5]).
The Eurocentric confusion “Arab = Muslim” has also
lowered the Palestinian identity by identifying the country
were Mohammed was born (Saudi Arabia) with the
Muslim religion; it also has artificially divided peoples
both coming from ancient Canaanites (Jews and Palestinians).


http://thekeyofknowledge.net/General/DL ... inians.pdf

So Palestinians were not "Arabians" , or "Ottomans" , they were not "Jordanians" who came and took the land....these lies have to stop.

Lol what is it, your thread argument was proved wrong and now you are all like "huuhh puur canunits it was wruuang!!!11!!"? It's pitiful really. Next time you insult our sacred texts make sure to read them properly before coming here to whine.

Where was I proven wrong? I was stating Zionist claims derived from the bible. Was it the whole concept of Israel is based on the bible, wasn't their main argument that the Palestinians are actually 'Arabs' sitting there who are not the original natives and therefore it's ok to kick them out?

I have seen this narrative many many many many times in forums and political websites, countless of times. The zionist narrative clearly indicates that they don't believe the Canaanites have survived. They believe that Palestinians are totally Arabians.

And if you mean that I was wrong on saying that Bible claimed that Canaanites were exterminated, ok fine...a minor mistake in details, however no one can deny that the bible God did order them to exterminate them all.

“You shall not leave alive anything that breathes,” God said in the passage. “But you shall utterly destroy them.”

It really makes no difference, it's like saying that Hitler was not so bad because he didn't succeed to kill all Jews even if it was his ultimate wish. Seriously, pshhh.

A loving, good God doesn't order a genocide against anybody. That's mortal thinking and justification.

And what you see as sacred, I don't see it as sacred at all.

I can, and so can many people. You should just apologize for insulting our sacred texts without even bothering to read them properly. And yes, if God exists it is completely in his right to decide that a whole populace has to go.

You don’t know that. God doesn’t require our understanding for his own actions. If He chooses genocide, He is at liberty to do so.

Questioning God is like a small child questioning a parent. I typically do explain myself to my children and ask them questions to make sure they understand what I’ve just said. Once I know I’ve effectively communicated to them, I tell them to go their way and that I will follow up later. They may choose to obey my directives or not. But the time for giving orders and explaining myself has passed.

While it is rare, occasionally one of them will deliberately annoy me by asking useless questions in an attempt to frustrate or distract me enough that they get out of whatever task I put before them. I just remind them that I gave them a task, they understood the task, and there are consequences for failure. If they continue to defy me, I will punish them severely.

God doesn’t owe anyone an explanation, but there often is an explanation. If you love God, if you know God is present, if you know the directive came from God, you need no further explanation. Just get it done.

Genocide is merely something we are conditioned to believe only can be evil. We don’t have a concept of how good can come from it. We can’t understand how it can ever be justified. We have become highly sensitive to it. For all we know, wiping out a tribe was just another day in paradise for the ancients. Saying that genocide is evil across the board is preference bias, an imposition of personal subjectivity on something you know nothing about. The Canaanites were documented to be wicked past the point of redemption and the Israelites were to be their wake up call. So no, I think historians who say otherwise don’t know what they’re talking about.

Finally, the Bible establishes a pattern human failure to effectively carry out God’s will. Some Canaanites were able to get a final chance at life and redemption. Some were saved spiritually, and many Israelites opted to mix with Canaanites and adopt their customs and religion, thus losing their right to God’s promise.

When the Jews returned from exile, they had a chance to restore true worship and spread their faith to the nations. It seems they were somewhat successful for a while. Under Roman rule, their religion became about playing politics and the outward display of holiness unobtainable by the masses. Priests couldn’t be bothered to tend to the sick, the poor, and the uncleansed. Jesus once again shows up to restore the spirit of the Law and bring the whole world back into the fold.

The pattern continues to play out, and I do see the Catholic Church as a Christian version of the Pharisees. The Church became married to the state, and enjoyed a period of being the only unifying element after the fall of Rome and throughout the medieval period. Between the third century and the enlightenment, theology and practice was corrupted. Once people realized they COULD leave, they did, and now you have a plethora of denominations who worship according to their conscience. And when that ultimately fails, the pattern repeats.

Everything changed when Jesus showed up. I don’t think the old justifications for things work anymore. A just war is fought to protect people. But wholesale extermination? That’s not what Jesus taught.

Then why do you people get so upset at 9/11 and ISIS actions?

This whole Trump campaign that all muslims are evils, while devout Christians use the exact same logic to justify old genocides?

They use the exactly the same arguments "Allah said to kill you, he doesn't owe us an explanation - Allah said you are disbelievers to be beheaded...bla bla".

Peacesells, I will not apologize, I can't respect texts that call for genocide - if you see them as sacred and get offended on the fact that I don't respect these texts that is your problem, not mine.





Jesus was a political reformist, he almost abolished all the ancient laws - if we look today at the Christian way of life , it has really nothing to do with the Jewish way of life, or its laws (ie. you eat pork, jews don't eat pork....etc) - the only common thing they have is the OT, but most modern Christian denominations don't live in the "OT way".

Mohammad and the sect he came from (The ebionites), who were one of the few non-Trinitarian Jesus followers who rejected to abandon the old ways, viewed this reform was taken to the extreme and wanted to restore the old Jewish laws to the region....and this agenda evolved to Islam.
This sect was hated by everybody: Jews viewed them as heretics because of Jesus , and Christians viewed them as heretics because they (the ebionites) reject Jesus' divinity. Perhaps why it turned to that violent sect called Islam.

So yeah, everything changed when Jesus showed up , but everything are getting reversed back when Mohammad showed up.

Don't you have a degree? You ask me questions that are easily answered, even a child could do that, you post a thread containing false information and you make assumptions without quoting anything. Are you f*****g with me or what? Lame provokations, that's what it is.
You should apologize for accusing our sacred texts of lying while it's not true and even a child could understand it.
Now, because you've been proven wrong and it's been exposed that your thread is full of BS, you try to jump on the moral high-horse with your atheist s**t I couldn't care less about. Go home Boo, you're drunk!

Christians justifying genocide? See, here is where I actually start having fun with these discussions. And no, this isn’t my first trip to the rodeo. Answer this very simple question, if you can:

Where precisely in the Gospels did Jesus instruct His followers to commit genocide?

Peacesells: that was awesome!

This argument again? I can't understand why Christians keep using this argument.

The Bible is so simple that a child can understand it? Yes, but what does this prove?

A child can't understand quantum mechanics. Does this mean that quantum mechanics is wrong?

I read the Bible. I understand it. I understand that the Bible regards women as men's property. It was created by a society which was undemocratic, and never even considered democracy as a possibility. That's blatantly obvious to anyone who has actually read it.

Here's the thing that surprised me most about the Old Testament: There are small portions about miracles, but most of the book is about ancient Israelite warfare and macho boasting. The book was clearly written by and for Ancient Israelites. It is no longer relevant as a book of morals or absolute truth.

At this point, the Bible is only relevant as a historical artifact.

Jesus didn't directly justify genocide, but he did say this.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
- Matthew 5:17-18

In other words, Jesus clearly said that the Old Testament is still relevant - and the Old Testament is one of the most genocidal books ever created by humankind.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Ancient societies often regarded women as property. This is not news and likely not unique to the Israelites Especially women taken in warfare. Rather than uprooting a deeply ingrained practice and risk completely upending society, Biblical law served the purpose of taking established institutions which were evil in nature and made them livable. The Bible itself does not ESTABLISH those institutions. And a Hebrew can often retain his holiness simply by sidestepping those institutions. Slavery, for instance, has been abolished in most places where Judaism and Christianity have had a lasting influence.

The status of women is, likewise, a complex issue. If women have equal rights as men, then laws governing what and how women can inherit are effectively sidestepped and you have nothing to worry about.

Another example: if a man has to worry about making trouble for women and their families and feels the need to consider divorce as an option, why can’t he just not get married? There’s no law that says everyone has to get married. In a lot of ways, men and women are better off NOT getting married as long as single life doesn’t cause them to sin. But if that’s a problem, then they should get married.

Same thing with sexual purity. The OT doesn’t make a big deal about premarital sex. It just offers protections for women and their families when they find themselves engaged in it. A woman merely had to “cry rape” and a man had to prove she conspired to entrap him to escape consequence, although under certain circumstances that would mean self-incrimination. If two people loved each other, it just meant they forfeited any future rights to a divorce. Again, that protected women. A man had certain rights if she were found to not be a virgin. But if a man loved her and knew about her status, he could simply claim that he was responsible and that would be the end of it.

Oh...and there are documented cases of women having inheritance rights and special provisions for their families. So I don’t buy the whole “women are property” argument against the Bible. It was the pre-existing patriarchy of parts of the ancient world that oppressed women and made them vulnerable. Biblical laws sought to protect them.

Anyone who actually reads the Bible would know that.

Ah, but the conquest of Canaan was long over and done when Jesus showed up. The OT directive, while still relevant, was already fulfilled as much as it was ever going to be. It was a demonstration of Israelite failure to fully comply with God’s leadership. There’s no going back and doing it over.

Your argument here fails largely because of the limitation of the directive to conquer Canaan.

But you also quote Jesus wildly out of context which, to me anyway, makes the argument comical and yet boring to near comatose. You either have no idea what you’re talking about or you’re being deliberately intellectually dishonest. Don’t feel bad, though. It’s been my experience that out of context quoting is so common as to be normalized in flimsy anti-theist arguments, so maybe you’re in good company or a victim of ignorance. Ignorance is easily cured, though. Just try reading the Bible without anti-theistic bias and you just might have a chance of getting on track. Best of luck.