🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@ned

Why would you have to invoke a topic that proves you wrong in order for me to invoke it?

Like ok you never invoked the historical versions of the bible as evidence... well they still provide evidence against you. So you dont have to invoke it in order for it to be valid for me to do so.

@rhertle

Huh? how do you know what date the scroll is, the scroll probably doesnt even exist anymore.

Obviously the **modern** version of the scroll wasnt written yet... and the earliest version of the scrolls also didnt exist yet. But to assert that we have the earliest version that was ever written just doesnt make sense. Likely there are earlier scrolls written of most things that go back well before the versions we physically find and are simply lost to time.

No one knows when the very first version was written.. all we know is random snapshots of versions at different points in time with little way to know how many iterations it had went through before then.

@ned

> you keep bringing up anachronisms, even though I have deliberately avoided biblical references as I know you have already dismissed them. You're arguing with yourself.

No I have dismissed them. In fact I specifically use them as historical evidence by looking throught he revisions and timeline of when they existed and comparing the evidence in the various versions to determine which versions are closest to fact and which versions are just the evolution of that fact over time.

We have two copies, of a book in the bible in particular, one lines up factually and explicitly states no such kingdoms existed, the other is factually inaccurate and determined to be written a long time after the time period and thus less likely historic.

Even then if we do as you say and forget about biblical source, then all your left with as your one piece of evidence is that someone at some point a person wrote "house of david" somewhere... which if totally divorced from the bible has no meaning. of any value and hardly as a sole piece of evidence suggests any sort of jewish kingdom existing.

Given its date I have already given a far more plausible reason, and that is someone who wrote or read an early version of the mythos that came to be the bible believed the mythos and for one reason or another wrote something they read in that scroll in some rock once. That makes a lot more sense to me given the preponderance of evidence.

@rhertle wait what? No one said anything about digging or traces? Somewhere along the line it seems you misunderstood what i said.

@ned

Well i have already explained why me, and a large portion of historians thinks that is absurd.. dates dont line up, the evidence is filled with verifiable errors, the one piece of writing in stone can just as easily be explained as a believer in the myth that was the scrolls that later became the bible, and more important of the two versions of the text the one that said no such nations every existed is facually more accurate than the one that says one does.

You want to believe it, go for it. But the preponderance of evidence is against you from every direction.

@rhertle ahh ok good find then.. I suspect the range in dates accounts for any reasonable error in that process.

Regardless the dates put everything in question, and even if the dates lined up someone writing "house of david" on a block of stone is pretty weak evidence of anything other than the fact that whoever wrote the scrolls either also carved the stone, or inspired people to beleive the mythos and later carved the stone as worshipers or beleivers in the myth written in scrolls.

Obviously if there was more context and evidence it might make compelling evidence... but as is its very weak and easily dismissed.

@ned

No .. not even sure how you got that, imnot trying to define kingdom in any way other than the way it always is...

I am talking about the idea that the existance of a nation called israel, judae, or judah is thought by a great many historians never to have existed, and outside of the bible there is no credible or concrete evidence to suggest otherwise.

That point I thought was clear on the original post but if not hopefully now it is... no need to redefine or use any weird definitions of kingdom, im using the word int he usual sense here.

@rhertle Off hand I dont know how they dated it exactly... but that is the general range of dates accepted by historians.. and many historians discount the existance of such a kingdom... so im willing to accept the date range and skepticism as the reasons all add up based on what facts I know and the scientific community accepts (at least many of them, its hardly a settled subject).

That said if you think the dating was wrong im happy to hear the evidence.

@ned No... thats not it.

Historians are split on if **any** kingdom existed, either a uniqued one or split.. There are two versions of the scrolls which were eventually the book of samual. You have teh monarchical version and the non-monarchial version.

In the non-monarchical version of the scroll (not the one that made it into the bible) Saul/Samual refused the call to become kind and no such kingdoms were every formed at all. In the monarchical version the kingdoms are part of the story and he accepts the call to become king and forms the kingdom.

The issue is that the monarchical is litered with enormous errors that many are anachronisms.. things that could only be known if the writer was writing many years AFTER the claimed existance of the kingdoms (things that didnt exist int he area yet were written as if they did). This lays pretty clear evidence that of the two the monarchial version is unlikely to be historic suggesting the other copy is more like to be fact.

The idea that the **only** piece of physical evidence is a stone sitting int he sand with the phrase "house of david on it" that is 60 to 180 years after the existence of such a mythical nation lends little if any evidence to the story and simply suggests someone who believed int he mythos wrote the phrase in a piece of stone at one point for some reason.

@ned

A picture is not a citation. I am familiar with most mentions of Alijah as far as I know the bible doesnt even have any dates associated with him and very very little information. I can think of just a few vague passages where he makes some prophicies.

@rhertle A rock in the sand with the phrase "house of david" on it tht was dated and found to be carved 60 to 180 years AFTER the bible claims the house of david ended.

Sorry even most historians find that question and think that phrase is more likely part of a mythos than actual evidence.. it just doesnt add up.

@ned

Yes, the last king in the "house of david" (which refers to a lineage not a kindgdom) according to the bible was in 930... There was not "house of david" alive after 930 according to the bible ..

So yea what your saying makes no sense.. like if there was such a kingdom and the people and villages somehow still existed there was literally no "house of david" .

so no matter how you split it your theory makes no sense (not to mention is not supported by the historians and experts for many of these same reasons)

Guy: You dont think we are alone out there [space]?

Guinen: I think we are alone down here!

-- Picard

@ned We arent talking about "when the south revolted" we are talkign when the kingdom no longer existed.. the process started much sooner than that.

@ned there was plenty of non-ethnical political supremacy (aka kingdoms that formed that were neither jewish nor arabic and contained both people)... sure.

Yes there was one tiny piece of rock found in some sand called the Tel Dan Stele which has the phrase "house of david" on it, which would be a reference to a lineage from king david.

That evidence is quite weak.. for one important reason...

The kingdom by which the house of david rules according to the bible was 1047 bc to 930 bc. However the Tel Dan Stele was created between 870 BV to 750 BC, which would place it 60 years after the **fall** of the kingdom at the soonest, or as late as 180 years after its fall.

This lines up more closely with the biblical scrolls than with history and is highly suggests this inscription was **not** an indication of such a kingdom at all (since it wouldnt have existed when created), and far more likely to be an inscription that was inspired by the scrolls and fictional stories of the time.

@ech @QasimRashid

> “To me this is her mocking the very thing her people has been tortured with her whole life.” – right – the raping, torturing, child-kidnapping terrorists the other day brought her this sense of mocking delight.

Yes and that is wrong.. but consider that mocking delight is in response to raping torturing and using kids as human shields by israel for 80 years against her people.. Again not saying its right but when that is how your people are treated for 80 years and you see your people dying off as a result.. then yea when they rise up and do the same to the other side and win.. there will be a sense of cruel delight... again, not right, but it is human and **expected** when you treat a people that way for so long.

> ooh ooh please be careful there. A lot of people who moved to Israel over the years were refugees fleeing some pretty bad situations.

Agreed, but if you flee a bad situation, and choose to flee to a country commiting mass genocide, and you choose to support that for your own self interests... well i can understand still seeing that as not right.. me personally id give them a pass, i mean I myself was licing in israel till jsut a few months ago. That said every day i was there i was in moral conflict and only decided to do it for a greater good... so.. its nuanced, and i agree you cant paint with a broad stroke like that.

> This is ghastly, far worse than her other comments. You join the Navy or whatever and suddenly its ok to rape you and post videos of you bleeding out from the rape online because you are or were “active military”? Can you see how this is not actually a valid, or interesting, point? (Did she really say that?? I can’t find it.)

I agree it is quite ghastly side of human nature.. but when your people are rapped and tortured you start to become ok with raping and torturing back... again it is **not** right but it is to be expected.

> Hamas doesn’t give a shit about the people of Gaza – they do things like kill babies in order to cement their own power at the Palestinians expense, whom they then use as human shields. Khalifa plays right into their game. Who would want to be suckered into amplifying such a foolish murderer-rapist-kidnapper-supporting message like hers?

I agree about your description of the hamas.. but i dont think kahlifa is so much playing into their propaganda (maybe a little) but rather responding in a somewhat human (though immoral) way to seeing her people be the victim of that same evil from israel.

> Lots of other people seem perfectly able to criticize Israel without rejoicing in the bloodshed and terror of the other day: read the last few posts on the subject from @QasimRashid for example. FWIW I disagree with almost every post he has ever made, but see how he does it without supporting kidnapping raping baby killers? Without trying to justify it with completely psychopathic arguments about “active military”? It’s really not that hard.

Yes but she refered to them as "her people" which suggests this is a personal thing for her. and it seems likely she is of palestinian heritage based on her words... so while many people more disconnected fromt he situation might be more level headed it is totally understandable her response as someone who feels she is of the same group as palestinians (not sure in what sense but presumably she has heritage from there).

@ned

No im not saying the state needs to be ethnically pure, only that its rule needs to be a jewish-prioritized rule (kinda like modern day israel is)... in other words, there is no evidence of a country that was jewish rules by right.. only countries of mixed ethnicity with no one ethnicity being the ruling ethnicity.

If we look at every time period there was either no clear side ruling and it was a mixed culture and mixed ethnicity (helenistic period) .. or it was ruled by someone that was of neither group (the romans).

@ned

I was specifically talking about a kingdom named Israel, largely because that is the point used to "certify" their choice.

While a "kingdom of hebrews" might not be the right wording I would say that it is abslutely true jewish people are native to the region. There is no evidence of them ever having an exclusive kingdom all to themselves.. there is however evidence of there being regions that were mixed with jews, arabics and others occupying the region together. So they do come from the region, but the debatable part is if they had their own kindgdom or not.

"There is no better teacher than one's enemy"