16 December 2010

Joshua, Jericho, and Hating Jews

Mahalia Jackson sings about Jericho, as it actually happened, in this 1964 video.

There is a gulf between archaeologists and the truth regarding all things biblical. Take the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan. The goal of archaeology seems to seperate the dates of the destruction of Jericho and other Canaan cities and the dates of Joshua and the Exodus as much as possible to discredit the whole story.

Kathleen Kenyon, a British archaeologist who excavated Jericho in the 1950s claims that the city was destroyed circa 1400 BC and that the Exodus occurred in 1250 BC, so the Israelites couldn't have destroyed the city. More recent dating puts the destruction of Jericho at 1550 BC, a full three centuries before the supposed date of the Exodus. The problem could be explained as followes: Suppose archaeologists a thousand years from now want to search
for evidence of World War II, but they know with absolute certainty that the fiercest fighting of the war took place between 1744-45. They also don't believe in Nazis. So, when they look through the ruins of the old world they find a battle that took place in 1945, but none during 1745, so they conclude that the war in 1945 was some other war, certainly not World War II, and that the Nazis didn't exist because no evidence could be found for them in the ruins of the 18th century. Modern archaeologists, who don't believe in the Bible and who hate the Jews and Israel say that the Exodus happened in the 13th century BC (which they call BCE, but that's a whole other post) so when Jericho was destroyed in the 16th century it must have been someone else. Maybe it was the Syrians, oops, they call themselves Palestinians now, because we know they are the true and legitimate inhabitants of the land.

But what if the Exodus didn't happen in 1250? What if it did happen closer to 1550? After all, the grain at the city of Jericho and other sites was burned along with the cities, not plundered, just as Joshua told his army to do. Any invading army would plunder the cities they sack, but Joshua told his men not to plunder the sites. The goods of the city belong to God, not the Israelites, so they have to burn, not plunder them. This is exactly what we find, and exactly what would be expected if Joshua destroyed the city, not some fictional people hundreds of years prior. The dates of the destruction of the cities is based on hard evidence, the dates of the Exodus is based on speculation from texts. Speculation is far from evidence. Speculation can be wrong, and the Exodus can be a 16th century event. But why would anyone want to hide the truth?


Scholars claim that the story of the destruction of Jericho is etiological. The Israelites saw the cities, destroyed centuries before they arrived, and invented a fictional story to explain why those cities were destroyed. The story is fake, like all good biblical revisionists and fundamaterialists must believe, but the descriptions of the physical sites are accurate. But why should we believe that the Israelites excavated the cities, destroyed and buried three centuries before they arrived, found the broken walls, found the grain burned and not plundered, and invent a story to explain their finding? Why would a semi-nomadic people invent archaeology, undergo a huge excavation, and then write fiction about what they discovered? This is a far more complex explanation than saying the Exodus happened three centuries earlier than modern revisionists suppose.

The story has to be fake according to the revisionists. They believe there is a war between science and religion where such a war does not exist. They must debunk religion. But debunking isn't something science does, it's something the skep-dicks and TV magicians do. Science is open ended.

Debunking the conquest of Canaan deligitimises the Israelies' claim to the land. Modern liberal racists (~99% of academia) HATE Israel because it is the single light of freedom in the Near East. Liberal racists HATE freedom and every libertine idea. They are statists and Muslim theocracies are very statist regimes. Also, they hate "colonialism," which is what they see Israel as, for two reasons: 1. Israel was created by the British during the end of the colonial period, and 2. Israeli forces in the Syrian, oops, Palestinian territories is seen as a form of colonialism. Colonialism is much hated even though libocrats wouldn't exist without it. If not for colonialism there would be no
academia because there would be no rich and powerful colonial powers to set up academies, as colonial powers get their power and wealth from their colonies. Before the rise of the colonial powers all academies were religious, and the libocrats HATE religion, except Islam because it is used by statist regimes, unlike other religions, and libocrats love statism, as all aristocrats do. Libocrats are willing to do anything, especially lie about science, to get rid of Israel and religion.

Well, there does exist an exception. One colony is good: Tibet. Why? Because the Chicoms are communist, and libocrats love communism above everything else in the whole world. China invading, conquering Tibet, and slaughtering one million Tibetans is wonderful to the Libocrats because it is part of the spread of communism.

The same can be said for the Muslim "archaeologists" who control the Temple Mount. They'll say there is no evidence of the Jews being in their "Palestine" at any point in history prior to 1923, the date the British Mandate went into effect. There is no evidence of David or Solomon, nothing to suggest anything but their mosques, designed in the style of the Roman temple to Jupiter at Baalbek, Lebanon, with its hexagonal structure exactly where the Dome of the Rock sits, and its rectangular structure exactly where the Al Aqsa Mosque sits, the space between the two being where the old Herodian Jewish temple was before it was destroyed (see diagram of how the two complexes, Roman and Islamic, look overlayed). These are the same Muslim "archaeologists" who say nothing existed in the Arabian peninsula before Islam, because they destroyed evidence of the Sassanid Persians, who controlled just about the whole area, as well as the countless sophisticated empires who occupied the area for millennia. When these discrepancies are pointed out they smile their asshole smile and laugh their asshole laugh and come up with some horseshit excuse and say "oh, we cannot let Jews onto the Temple Mount or build their temples between ours," leaving out the part where they think to themselves "because we want to exterminate them." You should take notice that 24% of Syrio-Palestinians, which I may start calling them, approve of terrorism against the US, with another 15% being somewhat ambivalent. Yes, the same people who claim the Jews never occupied Israel before 1923 support killing US civilians to achieve political goals. But they're good people, really.





















This is why there exists a gulf between mainstream archaeology, which is run by fundamaterialist libocrats, and the true story of the Exodus, which likely did occur in the 16th century. Both groups want to delegitimise Israel, one out of disgust for religion and "colonialism," the other out of a desire to conquer and convert the world. Both create fictitional archaeology to support their claims.

Video, "There was nothing before Islam!

No comments: