Palestines (Philistines) and Canaanites Were From Ham

I

IceAgeCivilizations

Banned
Banned
The Muslims who say that the original inhabitants of "Palestine" were from Abraham are mistaken. The Philistines (Palestines) were from Ham, and the Canaanites there were also from Ham, but Abraham was from Shem.

The descendents of Abraham and Hagar, and Keturah, settled in Arabia and further east.
 
Let me rephrase my question: what's the evidence for the statements you made in the OP?
 
The tribes from Ishmael settled in Arabia and the foothills of the Hindu Kush, I'm sure Muslims will tell you that. And the Midianites, for example, came from Keturah.
 
Yes, you've said all that. What I'm asking for is the evidence to support the claim. You can't just make a positive claim then not be willing to support it with verifiable and testable evidence. If its archaeological, what's the nature of it? What scholarly paper or text published it? If its epigraphical, what are the sources?
 
There's no evidence of them in the Holy Land, lots of evidence for Canaanites and Philistines, and in Genesis, it mentions the offspring of Hagar and Keturah, none of them have been associated with "Palestine," but tribes such as of Kedar, and the Midianites, are confirmed to not have lived in Canaan.
 
Skin Walker already has asked him several times, he only evades and keeps going on with positive claims with no evidence.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
The Muslims who say that the original inhabitants of "Palestine" were from Abraham are mistaken. The Philistines (Palestines) were from Ham, and the Canaanites there were also from Ham, but Abraham was from Shem.
Click to expand...

They were made of ham? That must come as something of a surprise. And what the hell is shem anyway? Some kosher kind of ham?
 
You disappoint me GeoffP, here I was thinking that you're a man of letters, but since rudimentary knowledge about the alltime best-selling book has escaped you, I guess you've got a long way to go still.
 
Midianites (descendents of Keturah) lived in Sinai and Arabia, tribes of Kedar (descendents of Hagar) lived in Arabia and east to the Hindu Kush mountains.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
You disappoint me GeoffP, here I was thinking that you're a man of letters, but since rudimentary knowledge about the alltime best-selling book has escaped you, I guess you've got a long way to go still.
Click to expand...
What's a Harry Potter novel got to do with anything??? :D

And, continuing the theme - please provide the sources for your claims, IAC.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
You disappoint me GeoffP, here I was thinking that you're a man of letters, but since rudimentary knowledge about the alltime best-selling book has escaped you, I guess you've got a long way to go still.
Click to expand...

LOL - fling your dung as you will; at least my references are sourced.

Best,

Geoff
 
The second best-selling book of "all time" (i.e. recorded history) is Conversations With Mao Tse Tung, does that mean he is nearly as credible or noteworthy?

Interestingly enough, the rate of sale for Harry Potter far out paces all other books, including the xian bible. From 100 CE to present, 6 billion copies were sold. Harry Potter has been on the market only about 10 years and has already sold about 377 million copies.

Bible sells at a rate of 3.16 million copies/year
HP sells at a rate of 3.77 million copies/year

Interesting.
 
Is the Bible really not considered a valid source? Some events have been confirmed by the likes of Livy, Josephus and Tacitus. Others unconfirmable, as other histories have not survived.

Are we to cast out Hebrew history, just because of christian zealotry?
 
The bible is a valid source only in so much as what is detailed can be verified by external sources. The sources you mentioned above are not contemporaneous with the biblical authors. Good verification would be archaeological in ideal circumstances. In that regard, many biblical accounts have been verified. The problem is, that the bible is a source of propaganda as much or more than it is an historical source.

The account of the walls of Jericho being brought down by trumpets, for instance. This simply didn't happen the way the biblical author told it. Archaeological evidence on the ground does not reveal a wall during the period in which the bible speaks. The wall didn't exist when the bible says it did. There was a fortification wall in much later periods and a short wall in very early (paleolithic) periods that would have likely been used for livestock containment or flood control.

Such biblical claims are rampant in the bible, which is the reason that any biblical claim must first be shown side-by-side with independent and verifiable evidence. The reason such claims were probably made is the period of unification that occurred in the Iron age: it was necessary to give the people a reason to abandon Canaanite religion and the Canaanite pantheon and form a new culture. Same people, just different government. Establishing a "rich history" of conquest and 'entitlement' to the land isn't a new technique in unifying people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top