Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Palestinians were the "original Canaanites"

Page 5 of 15 [ 229 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

03 Jun 2018, 5:13 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
It was a very injudicious move on Trump's part to move the embassy to Jerusalem...….to say the least.


Anything to keep the fundie and holy roller voters, as they believe moving Israel's capitol to Jerusalem moves us that much closer to the end of the world they so yearn for.


The irony is they may manage to end the world.


That's their plan.

Personally? I like it.

But even if that’s how you feel, the problem with reading the Bible that way is the Bible only says that event (among others) will occur before the world ends. The Bible doesn’t specify that restoring temple worship is THE sign that the world will end, merely that restoration (at some point) will happen before the end. We don’t know whether the temple will be restored once or a hundred times before the end.

I mention the temple because I don’t recall “moving the capital” as being criteria for the EOW. Jerusalem is either the capital or it isn’t. The Bible doesn’t appear all that concerned with how the USA feels about it. I don’t believe the pre-ordained fate of Earth hangs on where we locate our embassy.


I see Revelations as a very minor book that's been misinterpreted the most.

There’s no such thing as a “minor” book. Though I do wish people would teach or preach more from the Song of Solomon.

Revelation is scary and difficult, which is why nobody likes it. My rule of Biblical interpretation is ALWAYS take the Bible at face value UNLESS the Bible itself says not to, e.g. Proverbs, Psalms, the parables, and so on. Some sayings are obviously idioms that don’t translate well literally, and some scholars have pointed to possible astrological meaning in Revelation. What’s important to remember when dealing with eschatology is we won’t really know until we get there. So keep calm...

Revelation is by far my favorite.


Most mainline Christian biblical scholars regard Revelations as having little actually to do with the future, but mostly a rehash of the past, as well with the history of the first century church as it was then unfolding. The bizarre imagery had been borrowed from Persian Apocalyptic literature in order to hide talk of the Roman Empire that might be regarded as treasonous.
As I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't regard every book or every passage of the Bible to be of equal worth.

If you don’t believe the Bible, why bother with any of it at all?


Who says I don't believe in it just because I hold to a different interpretation? Then again, I'm accused by other denominations for not being a real Christian because I believe in infant baptism.

What is your interpretation, exactly? Is it something relevant that we should be concerned with as potentially affecting us in our lifetimes? Does it help us understand our future? Or is it merely a “minor book” that hardly holds any value?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Jun 2018, 5:52 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
It was a very injudicious move on Trump's part to move the embassy to Jerusalem...….to say the least.


Anything to keep the fundie and holy roller voters, as they believe moving Israel's capitol to Jerusalem moves us that much closer to the end of the world they so yearn for.


The irony is they may manage to end the world.


That's their plan.

Personally? I like it.

But even if that’s how you feel, the problem with reading the Bible that way is the Bible only says that event (among others) will occur before the world ends. The Bible doesn’t specify that restoring temple worship is THE sign that the world will end, merely that restoration (at some point) will happen before the end. We don’t know whether the temple will be restored once or a hundred times before the end.

I mention the temple because I don’t recall “moving the capital” as being criteria for the EOW. Jerusalem is either the capital or it isn’t. The Bible doesn’t appear all that concerned with how the USA feels about it. I don’t believe the pre-ordained fate of Earth hangs on where we locate our embassy.


I see Revelations as a very minor book that's been misinterpreted the most.

There’s no such thing as a “minor” book. Though I do wish people would teach or preach more from the Song of Solomon.

Revelation is scary and difficult, which is why nobody likes it. My rule of Biblical interpretation is ALWAYS take the Bible at face value UNLESS the Bible itself says not to, e.g. Proverbs, Psalms, the parables, and so on. Some sayings are obviously idioms that don’t translate well literally, and some scholars have pointed to possible astrological meaning in Revelation. What’s important to remember when dealing with eschatology is we won’t really know until we get there. So keep calm...

Revelation is by far my favorite.


Most mainline Christian biblical scholars regard Revelations as having little actually to do with the future, but mostly a rehash of the past, as well with the history of the first century church as it was then unfolding. The bizarre imagery had been borrowed from Persian Apocalyptic literature in order to hide talk of the Roman Empire that might be regarded as treasonous.
As I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't regard every book or every passage of the Bible to be of equal worth.

If you don’t believe the Bible, why bother with any of it at all?


Who says I don't believe in it just because I hold to a different interpretation? Then again, I'm accused by other denominations for not being a real Christian because I believe in infant baptism.

What is your interpretation, exactly? Is it something relevant that we should be concerned with as potentially affecting us in our lifetimes? Does it help us understand our future? Or is it merely a “minor book” that hardly holds any value?


The central theology of Christianity is the promise of the empty tomb. That in itself is relevant to us all yesterday, today, and the future.
The thousand year reign of Christ isn't something in the future, but the here and now. The thousand years isn't a literal thousand years, but an in determined period of time in which Christ rules in the hearts of all true believers. Many evangelicals seem to elevate Revelations above everything else in the Bible, emphasizing Christ's earthly rule at the expense of Christ's death and resurrection.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

03 Jun 2018, 6:08 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
It was a very injudicious move on Trump's part to move the embassy to Jerusalem...….to say the least.


Anything to keep the fundie and holy roller voters, as they believe moving Israel's capitol to Jerusalem moves us that much closer to the end of the world they so yearn for.


The irony is they may manage to end the world.


That's their plan.

Personally? I like it.

But even if that’s how you feel, the problem with reading the Bible that way is the Bible only says that event (among others) will occur before the world ends. The Bible doesn’t specify that restoring temple worship is THE sign that the world will end, merely that restoration (at some point) will happen before the end. We don’t know whether the temple will be restored once or a hundred times before the end.

I mention the temple because I don’t recall “moving the capital” as being criteria for the EOW. Jerusalem is either the capital or it isn’t. The Bible doesn’t appear all that concerned with how the USA feels about it. I don’t believe the pre-ordained fate of Earth hangs on where we locate our embassy.


I see Revelations as a very minor book that's been misinterpreted the most.

There’s no such thing as a “minor” book. Though I do wish people would teach or preach more from the Song of Solomon.

Revelation is scary and difficult, which is why nobody likes it. My rule of Biblical interpretation is ALWAYS take the Bible at face value UNLESS the Bible itself says not to, e.g. Proverbs, Psalms, the parables, and so on. Some sayings are obviously idioms that don’t translate well literally, and some scholars have pointed to possible astrological meaning in Revelation. What’s important to remember when dealing with eschatology is we won’t really know until we get there. So keep calm...

Revelation is by far my favorite.


Most mainline Christian biblical scholars regard Revelations as having little actually to do with the future, but mostly a rehash of the past, as well with the history of the first century church as it was then unfolding. The bizarre imagery had been borrowed from Persian Apocalyptic literature in order to hide talk of the Roman Empire that might be regarded as treasonous.
As I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't regard every book or every passage of the Bible to be of equal worth.

If you don’t believe the Bible, why bother with any of it at all?


Who says I don't believe in it just because I hold to a different interpretation? Then again, I'm accused by other denominations for not being a real Christian because I believe in infant baptism.

What is your interpretation, exactly? Is it something relevant that we should be concerned with as potentially affecting us in our lifetimes? Does it help us understand our future? Or is it merely a “minor book” that hardly holds any value?


The central theology of Christianity is the promise of the empty tomb. That in itself is relevant to us all yesterday, today, and the future.
The thousand year reign of Christ isn't something in the future, but the here and now. The thousand years isn't a literal thousand years, but an in determined period of time in which Christ rules in the hearts of all true believers. Many evangelicals seem to elevate Revelations above everything else in the Bible, emphasizing Christ's earthly rule at the expense of Christ's death and resurrection.

Why are you so sure the thousand year reign isn’t literal?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Jun 2018, 7:10 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
It was a very injudicious move on Trump's part to move the embassy to Jerusalem...….to say the least.


Anything to keep the fundie and holy roller voters, as they believe moving Israel's capitol to Jerusalem moves us that much closer to the end of the world they so yearn for.


The irony is they may manage to end the world.


That's their plan.

Personally? I like it.

But even if that’s how you feel, the problem with reading the Bible that way is the Bible only says that event (among others) will occur before the world ends. The Bible doesn’t specify that restoring temple worship is THE sign that the world will end, merely that restoration (at some point) will happen before the end. We don’t know whether the temple will be restored once or a hundred times before the end.

I mention the temple because I don’t recall “moving the capital” as being criteria for the EOW. Jerusalem is either the capital or it isn’t. The Bible doesn’t appear all that concerned with how the USA feels about it. I don’t believe the pre-ordained fate of Earth hangs on where we locate our embassy.


I see Revelations as a very minor book that's been misinterpreted the most.

There’s no such thing as a “minor” book. Though I do wish people would teach or preach more from the Song of Solomon.

Revelation is scary and difficult, which is why nobody likes it. My rule of Biblical interpretation is ALWAYS take the Bible at face value UNLESS the Bible itself says not to, e.g. Proverbs, Psalms, the parables, and so on. Some sayings are obviously idioms that don’t translate well literally, and some scholars have pointed to possible astrological meaning in Revelation. What’s important to remember when dealing with eschatology is we won’t really know until we get there. So keep calm...

Revelation is by far my favorite.


Most mainline Christian biblical scholars regard Revelations as having little actually to do with the future, but mostly a rehash of the past, as well with the history of the first century church as it was then unfolding. The bizarre imagery had been borrowed from Persian Apocalyptic literature in order to hide talk of the Roman Empire that might be regarded as treasonous.
As I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't regard every book or every passage of the Bible to be of equal worth.

If you don’t believe the Bible, why bother with any of it at all?


Who says I don't believe in it just because I hold to a different interpretation? Then again, I'm accused by other denominations for not being a real Christian because I believe in infant baptism.

What is your interpretation, exactly? Is it something relevant that we should be concerned with as potentially affecting us in our lifetimes? Does it help us understand our future? Or is it merely a “minor book” that hardly holds any value?


The central theology of Christianity is the promise of the empty tomb. That in itself is relevant to us all yesterday, today, and the future.
The thousand year reign of Christ isn't something in the future, but the here and now. The thousand years isn't a literal thousand years, but an in determined period of time in which Christ rules in the hearts of all true believers. Many evangelicals seem to elevate Revelations above everything else in the Bible, emphasizing Christ's earthly rule at the expense of Christ's death and resurrection.

Why are you so sure the thousand year reign isn’t literal?


That's my church's theology. I have yet to see anything that makes me doubt that conclusion.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

03 Jun 2018, 8:33 pm

I see. You disbelieve the Bible because your church said so. Interesting.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Jun 2018, 9:40 pm

AngelRho wrote:
I see. You disbelieve the Bible because your church said so. Interesting.


Having a different interpretation of something doesn't mean I don't believe it. Then again, evangelicals have never attempted to understand our differing theology and how it's still Christian, going back to the days when your theological ancestors, the Anabaptists, went on a rampage to cleanse Central Europe to usher in Christ's second coming.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

03 Jun 2018, 10:18 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
I see. You disbelieve the Bible because your church said so. Interesting.


Having a different interpretation of something doesn't mean I don't believe it. Then again, evangelicals have never attempted to understand our differing theology and how it's still Christian, going back to the days when your theological ancestors, the Anabaptists, went on a rampage to cleanse Central Europe to usher in Christ's second coming.

You believe an “interpretation.” You don’t take the text seriously. If the truth of the Bible is bound up in “interpretations,” why believe anything in it at all?

In essence you are saying that the Bible is reduced to fanciful fairy tales. Many so-called “scholars” display a blatant anti-supernatural bias. So if you believe “scholars” and admit your faith is nothing but fairy tales anyway...

...why believe Jesus was even real, much less had any power to save?



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

03 Jun 2018, 11:07 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Many so-called “scholars” display a blatant anti-supernatural bias.


Those "scholars" that you speak of actually are intellectual scholars.

Scholars generally question the existence of the supernatural because we never observe supernatural events in our everyday lives. We can observe and measure the natural forces of the universe ... but the existence of the supernatural has never been conformed. Most "supernatural" events ultimately turn out to misunderstandings at best, or deliberate frauds at worst.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Jun 2018, 1:20 am

AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
I see. You disbelieve the Bible because your church said so. Interesting.


Having a different interpretation of something doesn't mean I don't believe it. Then again, evangelicals have never attempted to understand our differing theology and how it's still Christian, going back to the days when your theological ancestors, the Anabaptists, went on a rampage to cleanse Central Europe to usher in Christ's second coming.

You believe an “interpretation.” You don’t take the text seriously. If the truth of the Bible is bound up in “interpretations,” why believe anything in it at all?

In essence you are saying that the Bible is reduced to fanciful fairy tales. Many so-called “scholars” display a blatant anti-supernatural bias. So if you believe “scholars” and admit your faith is nothing but fairy tales anyway...

...why believe Jesus was even real, much less had any power to save?


Actually, that theology popular among evangelicals only really gained ground with Darby, who was a very recent scholar. Prior to that, not only did Catholicism not believe that Revelations was about things to come, but so did the fathers of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin cast doubt on whether Revelations was even divinely inspired. Who I see promoting Revelations today tend to be religious frauds like Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Jun 2018, 5:52 am

Iamaparakeet wrote:
No, the "palestinians" were Syrians that had been living in Israel until the Six Day War, in which most of the nations surrounding Israel had advised them to leave so as to make it easier of the muslim league to slaughter everyone. Israel won that war in a week and the Syrians which had abandoned Israel were left holding their butts out in the wilderness.



Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Whether you label them Palestinians or Syrians or Ottomans, they are still the descendants of the original Canaanites who dwelled here before the European Jews.

Palestinian dialect is totally different than Syrian dialect btw.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Jun 2018, 6:33 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
I see. You disbelieve the Bible because your church said so. Interesting.


Having a different interpretation of something doesn't mean I don't believe it. Then again, evangelicals have never attempted to understand our differing theology and how it's still Christian, going back to the days when your theological ancestors, the Anabaptists, went on a rampage to cleanse Central Europe to usher in Christ's second coming.

You believe an “interpretation.” You don’t take the text seriously. If the truth of the Bible is bound up in “interpretations,” why believe anything in it at all?

In essence you are saying that the Bible is reduced to fanciful fairy tales. Many so-called “scholars” display a blatant anti-supernatural bias. So if you believe “scholars” and admit your faith is nothing but fairy tales anyway...

...why believe Jesus was even real, much less had any power to save?


Actually, that theology popular among evangelicals only really gained ground with Darby, who was a very recent scholar. Prior to that, not only did Catholicism not believe that Revelations was about things to come, but so did the fathers of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin cast doubt on whether Revelations was even divinely inspired. Who I see promoting Revelations today tend to be religious frauds like Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.

You didn’t answer my question. Why is Graham’s theology less than yours? Isn’t that just another “interpretation” that’s just as invalid? Why believe ANYTHING the Bible says?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Jun 2018, 12:40 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
I see. You disbelieve the Bible because your church said so. Interesting.


Having a different interpretation of something doesn't mean I don't believe it. Then again, evangelicals have never attempted to understand our differing theology and how it's still Christian, going back to the days when your theological ancestors, the Anabaptists, went on a rampage to cleanse Central Europe to usher in Christ's second coming.

You believe an “interpretation.” You don’t take the text seriously. If the truth of the Bible is bound up in “interpretations,” why believe anything in it at all?

In essence you are saying that the Bible is reduced to fanciful fairy tales. Many so-called “scholars” display a blatant anti-supernatural bias. So if you believe “scholars” and admit your faith is nothing but fairy tales anyway...

...why believe Jesus was even real, much less had any power to save?


Actually, that theology popular among evangelicals only really gained ground with Darby, who was a very recent scholar. Prior to that, not only did Catholicism not believe that Revelations was about things to come, but so did the fathers of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin cast doubt on whether Revelations was even divinely inspired. Who I see promoting Revelations today tend to be religious frauds like Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.

You didn’t answer my question. Why is Graham’s theology less than yours? Isn’t that just another “interpretation” that’s just as invalid? Why believe ANYTHING the Bible says?


I don't agree with every stance taken by my church, particularly in regard to evolution and LGBT rights. But for actual matters of theology I stand with them, as we have first rate theological scholars who can defend their positions on scripture.
Franklin Graham has become a political hack, using his theology to justify the Trump Presidency, as well as his own bigotry. In this case, the apple has fallen far from the tree.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

05 Jun 2018, 4:38 pm

Iamaparakeet wrote:
No, the "palestinians" were Syrians that had been living in Israel until the Six Day War, in which most of the nations surrounding Israel had advised them to leave so as to make it easier of the muslim league to slaughter everyone. Israel won that war in a week and the Syrians which had abandoned Israel were left holding their butts out in the wilderness.


Garbage. These claims have been debunked decades ago. Israelis are just European colonists.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Jun 2018, 5:00 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Iamaparakeet wrote:
No, the "palestinians" were Syrians that had been living in Israel until the Six Day War, in which most of the nations surrounding Israel had advised them to leave so as to make it easier of the muslim league to slaughter everyone. Israel won that war in a week and the Syrians which had abandoned Israel were left holding their butts out in the wilderness.


Garbage. These claims have been debunked decades ago. Israelis are just European colonists.




European settlers with a high degree of DNA from the Levant that is virtually indistinguishable Lebanese. Palestinians, and Syrians.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Peacesells
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,915
Location: Anzio, Italy

07 Jun 2018, 9:06 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/14/ivanka-trump-opens-u-s-embassy-jerusalem-israeli-massacre-palestinians/


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -civilians




And yesterday, Palestinian politicians were repeating what their said in February at UN.

And this was a turning point self-identity that differs greatly from the previous pan-arabic view (those believe in Arab ancestry) and pan-Islamic (Islamists also deny Canaanite ancestry due to the same biblical-based beliefs they share with the other Abrahamic religions) :

Quote:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas lashed out on Wednesday at U.S. President Donald Trump over his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In Cairo, Abbas also said that the Palestinians were the "original Canaanites" and were in Jerusalem from before the Jews.



And that's a true, Palestinians more likely share ancestry with Lebanese, and 90% of Lebanese sample been scientifically proven to be direct descendants of Canaanites:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... chaeology/

The Bible had lied when it said that Israelites had exterminated all Canaanites and took their place.

Boo go back to dating social experiments, it's better. :lol:



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2018, 10:39 am

Peacesells wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/14/ivanka-trump-opens-u-s-embassy-jerusalem-israeli-massacre-palestinians/


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -civilians




And yesterday, Palestinian politicians were repeating what their said in February at UN.

And this was a turning point self-identity that differs greatly from the previous pan-arabic view (those believe in Arab ancestry) and pan-Islamic (Islamists also deny Canaanite ancestry due to the same biblical-based beliefs they share with the other Abrahamic religions) :

Quote:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas lashed out on Wednesday at U.S. President Donald Trump over his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In Cairo, Abbas also said that the Palestinians were the "original Canaanites" and were in Jerusalem from before the Jews.



And that's a true, Palestinians more likely share ancestry with Lebanese, and 90% of Lebanese sample been scientifically proven to be direct descendants of Canaanites:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... chaeology/

The Bible had lied when it said that Israelites had exterminated all Canaanites and took their place.

Boo go back to dating social experiments, it's better. :lol:

Agreed. The Bible never said that the Israelites ever DID get rid of the Canaanites. Only that God directed them to. The Bible says the Israelites made deals with some, enslaved others, and adopted their customs and religion. Try actually reading the Bible.