• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mystery of ancient Canaanites is finally solved, genetic research shows

Logicman said:
You misrepresented that. Your own link ONLY records God commanding the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. I don't recall the Bible saying they ever accomplished that.

Deuteronomy 20:17 Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.

So you have a false argument.
Click to expand...

You got it exactly right.


Not only does the biblical record not say that the Canaanites were wiped out, it deals with the issue quite a lot. For instance, Judah married a Canaanite (see Genesis 38: 2 and 3) despite God's commands not to. I'll skip over all the O.T. that deals with these people, but we find them popping up again in the New Testament.

In John 8: 33 "They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Here are these descendants of Judah, attempting to claim part in biblical Israel's inheritance under false pretenses. How do we know they are fakes and phonies? They claim to be Abraham's "seed" (descendants of the Israelites) but, were never in bondage to any man. They couldn't be Israelites, could they? Israel was in bondage for hundreds of years according to the book of Exodus.

This link looked promising as a way to examine the biblical references of the Canaanites and follow their generations through the Bible.

https://archive.org/stream/2seedsge...is 3-15 by Charles Lee Mange#page/n0/mode/2up
 
DarkWizard12 said:
But that's the problem. If they don't know theology, they shouldn't be making claims like this. Genetics is one thing, and albiet very interesting, but saying the bible is false as a result is outside their field, especially when we know what happened to the canaanite tribes, and only some were wiped out, but the rest were eventually mixed over time under Nebuchadnezzar and the babylonian empire when they absorbed the ancient jewish kingdom, and archeaology proves this and this genetics study further confirms it.
Click to expand...

To be fair, none of the people who actually did the study mentioned the Bible, that's from the reporters.
 
The Resister said:
Here are these descendants of Judah, attempting to claim part in biblical Israel's inheritance under false pretenses. How do we know they are fakes and phonies? They claim to be Abraham's "seed" (descendants of the Israelites) but, were never in bondage to any man. They couldn't be Israelites, could they? Israel was in bondage for hundreds of years according to the book of Exodus.
Click to expand...

They could be descended from Abraham, who had several children other than Isaac, who became the patriarch of Israel (indeed, he bore the name "Israel" after his encounter with the angel). Alternately, and more simply, they could be saying that they themselves, personally, were never in bondage to anyone.
 
ashurbanipal said:
They could be descended from Abraham, who had several children other than Isaac, who became the patriarch of Israel (indeed, he bore the name "Israel" after his encounter with the angel). Alternately, and more simply, they could be saying that they themselves, personally, were never in bondage to anyone.
Click to expand...

More likely, they meant what they said. Their roots go back to Abraham, but they were never in bondage because they are not the Israelites of the Bible. The link I quoted seems to trace their lineage through the Bible.
 
The Resister said:
More likely, they meant what they said. Their roots go back to Abraham, but they were never in bondage because they are not the Israelites of the Bible.
Click to expand...

How is that more likely than what I said, since it's exactly what I said? Well, the first option I gave, anyway. But the second is entirely consistent with their words as well. I and my brothers can truthfully say that we are the seed of Mvskokee, but we have never been in bondage. Our Creek ancestors were in bondage, but we ourselves never have been.

The Resister said:
The link I quoted seems to trace their lineage through the Bible.
Click to expand...

The link you quoted seems to be written by an insane person with a transparent, and equally insane, agenda.
 
Dragonfly said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ally-solved-genetic-research-shows/519349001/




Wait.....what???? :mrgreen:

SHOCKING
Click to expand...

I haven't read the article online yet, but read a synopses about finding they were the ancestors of the Lebanese.

I have subscriptions to Nature, and other science journals. Nature had a short writeup on this:

It may be paywallwd, but at least you should be able to read the abstract:

Mysterious Canaanite people were ancestors of modern Lebanese

They refer to this:

Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences

LOL...

I just noticed my second link is also in your source article.
 
ashurbanipal said:
How is that more likely than what I said, since it's exactly what I said? Well, the first option I gave, anyway. But the second is entirely consistent with their words as well. I and my brothers can truthfully say that we are the seed of Mvskokee, but we have never been in bondage. Our Creek ancestors were in bondage, but we ourselves never have been.



The link you quoted seems to be written by an insane person with a transparent, and equally insane, agenda.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure you read every sentence of that book before making that statement. Disbelief, however, does not disprove facts.
 
Heyzoos said:
It doesn't take much reading to realize the bible is a complete work of fiction.
Click to expand...

Funny how nobody can back up that claim that about the original writings, before it was translated into English for powerful rulers
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
You misrepresented that. Your own link ONLY records God commanding the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. I don't recall the Bible saying they ever accomplished that.

Deuteronomy 20:17 Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.

So you have a false argument.
Click to expand...

Young's, in context:


[SUP]10[/SUP]‘When thou drawest near unto a city to fight against it, then thou hast called unto it for Peace, [SUP]11[/SUP]and it hath been, if Peace it answer thee, and hath opened to thee, then it hath come to pass — all the people who are found in it are to thee for tributaries, and have served thee. [SUP]12[/SUP]‘And if it doth not make peace with thee, and hath made with thee war, then thou hast laid siege against it, [SUP]13[/SUP]and Jehovah thy God hath given it into thy hand, and thou hast smitten every male of it by the mouth of the sword. [SUP]14[/SUP]Only, the women, and the infants, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, thou dost seize for thyself, and thou hast eaten the spoil of thine enemies which Jehovah thy God hath given to thee. [SUP]15[/SUP]So thou dost do to all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. [SUP]16[/SUP]‘Only, of the cities of these peoples which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee [for] an inheritance, thou dost not keep alive any breathing; [SUP]17[/SUP]for thou dost certainly devote the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee, [SUP]18[/SUP]so that they teach you not to do according to all their abominations which they have done to their gods, and ye have sinned against Jehovah your God.
​
 
The Resister said:
And I'm sure you read every sentence of that book before making that statement. Disbelief, however, does not disprove facts.
Click to expand...

I did not read every sentence, but in this case, doing so isn't necessary before passing judgment. I don't need to read all of Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to realize they're written by nutbags. You'd have to be crazy to think otherwise.

In this case, I read about half the "essay," and it's so chock-full of bad assumptions, misreadings, and mistakes in reasoning, all of which seem bent toward convincing one group of people that another group is inherently and irredeemably evil, that no other judgment is possible. That kind of thesis--that one group is inherently evil and unable to change--has been used to underwrite and motivate every genocide that has ever happened. The Germans said it about the Jews (and this author, Charles Mange, seems to have the same idea), the Khmer Rouge about the educated, the Hutu about the Tsutsi, The Turks about the Armenians, and so on.

Doesn't matter what the other half says--in just the same way that it doesn't matter that Jack the Ripper was probably a nice guy most of the time.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
I did not read every sentence, but in this case, doing so isn't necessary before passing judgment. I don't need to read all of Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to realize they're written by nutbags. You'd have to be crazy to think otherwise.

In this case, I read about half the "essay," and it's so chock-full of bad assumptions, misreadings, and mistakes in reasoning, all of which seem bent toward convincing one group of people that another group is inherently and irredeemably evil, that no other judgment is possible. Doesn't matter what the other half says--in just the same way that it doesn't matter that Jack the Ripper was probably a nice guy most of the time.
Click to expand...

Often, fact is stranger than fiction.
 
Dragonfly said:
Funny thing that.

The bible is chock full of facts an stuff.

Right up until those "facts" are shown to be not so factual, then and only then is it OBVIOUSLY a book that's not to be taken literally.
Click to expand...

Your own OP shows that if you do take the Bible literally, it lines up EXACTLY with what the study you linked to shows. Your problem is that you are an anti-Christian chauvinist and thus will do everything you can to twist the Bible to try to disprove it, yet your own efforts to do only served to show that what the Bible says is accurate. Your failure to study the Bible, in its cultural context, within its literary context and within its original language meanings only shows your shortcomings.
 
faithful_servant said:
Your own OP shows that if you do take the Bible literally, it lines up EXACTLY with what the study you linked to shows. Your problem is that you are an anti-Christian chauvinist and thus will do everything you can to twist the Bible to try to disprove it, yet your own efforts to do only served to show that what the Bible says is accurate. Your failure to study the Bible, in its cultural context, within its literary context and within its original language meanings only shows your shortcomings.
Click to expand...

That's the key.

"within its original language"

Today's Bible is very inaccurate.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I did not read every sentence, but in this case, doing so isn't necessary before passing judgment. I don't need to read all of Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to realize they're written by nutbags. You'd have to be crazy to think otherwise.

In this case, I read about half the "essay," and it's so chock-full of bad assumptions, misreadings, and mistakes in reasoning, all of which seem bent toward convincing one group of people that another group is inherently and irredeemably evil, that no other judgment is possible. That kind of thesis--that one group is inherently evil and unable to change--has been used to underwrite and motivate every genocide that has ever happened. The Germans said it about the Jews (and this author, Charles Mange, seems to have the same idea), the Khmer Rouge about the educated, the Hutu about the Tsutsi, The Turks about the Armenians, and so on.

Doesn't matter what the other half says--in just the same way that it doesn't matter that Jack the Ripper was probably a nice guy most of the time.
Click to expand...

Like I keep saying, disbelief is not the same as disprove. The point stands. The Bible does not say that Canaanites were ever wiped out and we have an historical record of what happened to them.
 
The Resister said:
Like I keep saying, disbelief is not the same as disprove.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this.

The Resister said:
The point stands. The Bible does not say that Canaanites were ever wiped out and we have an historical record of what happened to them.
Click to expand...

A point I've already made in this thread.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's the key.

"within its original language"

Today's Bible is very inaccurate.
Click to expand...

..and yet we have access to those original language documents and it is possible and even common among Biblical scholars (and almost non-existent among the anti-Christian chauvinists) to study the Bible using those original languages.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Funny how nobody can back up that claim that about the original writings, before it was translated into English for powerful rulers
Click to expand...

Why, indeed we can. If we look at , for example, Bere****e in the original Hebrew (Genesis), you can see from the words and the puns it is quite allegorical. For example , the name 'adam' means mankind, which is a related term to odom, red and also blood, and adamah means earth.

Here is an essay from a lutheran source that is pretty accurate on the lingquistics. It doesn't hit all the points, but it hits most of them

Adam/Adamah
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Odd thing to assert, given that the bibles I'm looking at right now say both "Completely destroy them" and "But thou shalt utterly destroy them".;
Click to expand...

"Yet the people of Manasseh could not take possession of those cities, but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land. Now when the people of Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom