re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

The Hebrew religion was the Canaanite religion. They were the same. The Bible doesn’t describe them as originally one group of people that splintered.

---

Abraham came from Ur in Mesopotamia, a thoroughly polytheistic culture, not from Canaan. Genesis 12:6 states that the Canaanites were already in the land when he arrived, and archaeological evidence confirms that their religion was well established by that time.

Abraham’s worship of a single, personal God was fundamentally different from the polytheistic Canaanite system, making it unlikely that his beliefs were derived from Canaanite religion.

I’m not sure why any of this is surprising or unknown, all this is clearly outline in the Abraham story in the Bible.

quote:

---

Now, could this theoretical pollution of the line of Abraham with Canaanite DNA have occurred? Possibly, but nothing suggests it, and when you break it down (as people have ITT) it requires lots of leaps of logic and 400 years of slavery in Egypt. Then we circle back to the "there isn't really evidence of that period occurring"

---

To have you directly address the archeology at Tell el-Dab'a.

We know there was a Semitic presence there in exactly that time period.

We know Egyptian records of them being expelled.

We know just after that there was the first recorded monotheistic religion.

If the Bible was written in 600 BC(E) as some have claimed they would have had no way to know those details.

How do you attribute the period in Egypt as been uniquely suited to match the Biblical record?

quote:

---

Where do you get the idea that it doesn’t match what actually happened?

---

Because of the scholarly consensus.

quote:

---

Galileo Galilei has entered the chat.

---

Oh boy. The disconnect in this thread is frustrating. I don’t care if you literally believe the stories in the Old Testament are true. If you don’t want to engage with the historical and archeological evidence, that’s fine. Just don’t engage.

quote:

---

Because of the scholarly consensus.

---

I don’t claim to know every academic theory, but I’ve noticed a trend in scholarly circles where challenging the Bible seems to be more of a default position than a conclusion based strictly on evidence. That alone makes me question the motives behind some of these claims.

Let’s take this theory that the Israelites were just Canaanites who gradually separated themselves and invented a new religious identity. On the surface, it sounds plausible, but the more you think about it, the more it raises serious questions.

For one, why would a group trying to assert itself as a native people of the land invent a founding story that clearly casts them as foreigners? The biblical narrative says Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldeans, passed through Haran, and entered Canaan as a sojourner. That’s not how people typically write national origin stories. Most cultures root their founding myths in the land itself to legitimize their presence. The Israelite story does the opposite. It insists they came from somewhere else entirely.

And then there’s the curse of Canaan in Genesis 9, where Noah says Canaan will be a servant to Shem and Japheth. If this were a story made up by Canaanites or their close relatives, why would they cast themselves in such a negative and humiliating light? It would be like writing your own foundational myth to say your ancestors were destined to be second-class citizens. That kind of narrative makes no political or social sense if you’re trying to assert your group’s importance.

So when I hear this theory that the Israelites were just Canaanites with a rebranded religion, I can’t help but wonder if it’s being shaped more by a desire to deconstruct biblical narratives than by the full weight of the evidence. The theory seems to ignore key narrative elements that don’t fit the pattern of cultural self-creation.

quote:

---

Oh boy. The disconnect in this thread is frustrating. I don’t care if you literally believe the stories in the Old Testament are true. If you don’t want to engage with the historical and archeological evidence, that’s fine. Just don’t engage.

---

You realize I posted both genetic breakdowns, archeological dig findings, and historical references.

You haven't responded except to allude to unnamed "experts".

I expected more, admittedly not from you though.

quote:

---

You really didn’t though. You only provided very cursory explanations for what those references represent.

---

You posted far less.

Do you want to lead the way with more information than I posted?

Or you can just ignore information and rant.

quote:

---

Look, it’s obvious that you have faith in the Bible, so you naturally think that anyone questioning its narrative has nefarious intentions. I understand that, and I’m not here arguing against your faith.

---

I really don't think its nefarious, there are facts in the world, dinosaurs, lava spread vs magnetic polarization, carbon 14, ice cap layers, and those facts are unavoidable.

If I believe God is in control then I have to realize that the facts out there are part of his will.

I can't hide my head and ignore the facts of the world.

quote:

---

Your post raises interesting questions. I will respond soon, but I can’t do so right now.

---

Totally understand.
Actually quite curious what information you will present.

quote:

---

it’s a widely accepted view

---

Debatable

quote:

---

Mark Smith’s The Early History of God and The Origins of Biblical Monotheism

---

This is a problematic reference because everyone respects the historical tome that it is. The problem lies in the conclusions drawn from the data. Even if Smith doesn't overtly say it with quantity, the methodology is along the lines of the documentary hypothesis which has fallen out of favor in textual criticism and source criticism. The main reason why is because no JEDP sources have ever been found which pulls the rug right out from under the whole theory. It's purely speculative and to jump to the conclusion that Israel borrowed or synchretized just because some words and symbols are similar is guilty of "correlation does not equal causation" and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

That's not to say that Smith and JEDP serve no purpose whatsoever. They continue to provide some textual insights but instead within the more up to date streams of analysis; canonical, religio-historical (sitz im leben), traditio-critical (oral tradition), etc.

quote:

---

The Old Testament also contains remnants of polytheism if you’re not predisposed to rejecting them because they offend you

---

This is just building a castle in the air. NT Wright's NT&PG chapter 9 pretty much blow this idea out of the water, from the traditio-critical approach. The documentary hypothesis and the Bauer thesis have continually proved to be academic dead ends yet internet amateurs continue to trot them out as gotchas. "Did you see Zeitgeist?!?!?!"

quote:

---

The Earth is not 6,000 years old

---

Really? You were there?

Is this like when you read the minds of the people who wrote the 14th and started inserting words into the text?

Yet another SFP assertion that you can't prove. As you say "on brand"