The Canaanites and others Debacle

[danielost]

Most inscriptions we can still read have been exposed to sun, moon and vandalism for many centuries.

Here is one from the third millennium BC found in a dump:

Source

your also assuming that all the rocks have inscriptions on them, they dont. and an assumption that when the temple was destroyed they didnt destry the inscriptions. also i would assume that the ruins would be like todays wailing walls used for worship in place of the temple.

[questionmark]

your also assuming that all the rocks have inscriptions on them, they dont. and an assumption that when the temple was destroyed they didnt destry the inscriptions. also i would assume that the ruins would be like todays wailing walls used for worship in place of the temple.

You can assume whatever you want, the point is there is no evidence.

[Knight Of Shadows]

here's link to an arabic disscussios forums that has spoken in the topic

in arabic view questionmark ...

it's arabic language so i doubt people would make much of it

but you said you can read arabic .. and if you don't don't try

to google translate it .. it doesn't translate crap right

My link

it talks also about palestine ancient hitory and alot about canaanites

idenity

by the way i don't agree with your opinion on ibn khaldun lacking source

he is world known historian on high rate

he explained history based on facts and study ... not by bible

like some people here claim .. i had no idea they were taking sources

from the bible to discuss .. really

for example i doubt any one would take my word for crap had i brought

part of quran to prove something right ?

same goes to bible .. it proves nothing .. ink on paper to me

quran in my " science " point view is the same

when i want to prove science point view i don't give " religious "

proves

am sorry i couldn't translate the page in english for the rest

i just don't have enough time at the moment perhaps later

gotta sleep .. wish you well

[MichaelW]

I looked at that sight Knight. I noticed that it mentioned Beduoins infiltrated Syria 2200BC. Are these the Arabs you mentioned? Perhaps they passed on their language to the Canaanites during their expansion westward? It also mentions that the Phonecians descended from Canaanites, which is what Western archaeology has found as well. Although, it says that Moroccans descended from Canaanites, which I'm not sure of, since the vast majority of Moroccans are Berbers which adopted Arabic as a language and speak a dialect of it.

[questionmark]

here's link to an arabic disscussios forums that has spoken in the topic

in arabic view questionmark ...

it's arabic language so i doubt people would make much of it

but you said you can read arabic .. and if you don't don't try

to google translate it .. it doesn't translate crap right

My link

it talks also about palestine ancient hitory and alot about canaanites

idenity

by the way i don't agree with your opinion on ibn khaldun lacking source

he is world known historian on high rate

he explained history based on facts and study ...

True, his problem is that most of the fact were dug up 4-5 centuries after he lived. The best he had was sources like Herodotus, who claimed that there were two headed people in Lybia (then again, they have Ghadaffy) and that the hieroglyphs in a temple depicted the number of salads the pharaoh had to buy to feed his workers.

In fact, for a long time, until the discovery of the Rosetta stone:

which contains the same text in ancient Egyptian, demotic Egyptian and Greek nobody was capable of reading the ancient sources, and the discovery happened 300 years after Ibn Khaldun's dead. therefore he could not have known the history he was writing about except for the last 400-500 years and whatever the Romans and Greeks fabulated (at which they were as good as the authors of "holy" scriptures).

Now, about the question : Is there evidence that the Arabs created Canaan, as your forum asks, the answer is certainly not: The evidence lies therein that Arabic was spoken there.

In fact, Arabic was not spoken there but Canaanite, which was the root of the Phoenician, Punic and Moabitic, as demonstrated by the Mesha Stele

(certainly not in Arabic), and the El-Kerak inscription

is also certainly not in Arabic.

That language led a little later to the Phoenician language, which certainly has no resemblance with Arabic either, as shown by the Ahiram Sarcophagus inscriptions:

later that led to the Punic language, which has no resemblance to Arabic either, as this stele in Leptis Magna (Lybia) shows:

So, after the first page I would put your link into the chapter: Conspiracy and other nutter sites. Sorry.

Edited November 25, 2010 by questionmark

[danielost]

i would say calling the isrealites canaanites, is the samething as calling white folks in america americans.

and as i said, the 12 sons of Israel married Canaanite women, so their descendent's should have inherited genes from the Canaanites as well as from sumer. or am i wrong about how genetics works.

oh and ishmeal also married a canaanite woman. so the arabs are descendent's of canaanites as well. but since the family name has always(at least as far as i know) gone from father to son the 12 tribes of isreal remain the 12 tribes of isreal and hewbrew. and ishmeals family remain arabs and hewbrew too. since abraham was a or the hewbrew.

how ever being descended from one group of people, does not make them part of your group of people. thus the canaanites are canaanites, the isrealites are isrealites, and the arabs are arabs.

Edited November 25, 2010 by danielost

[Knight Of Shadows]

return a page or two questionmark

you will see post with link to some ancient tablet or something

that was suppose to prove canaanites weren't arab

but the fact that some arabic person proved that it was mistranslated

so yes proves can be faked .. you can see for your self in that link

it discuss it from science view

the name " canaan " is arabic name the grandfather of the tribe

it's arabic tradition to name a tribe to their elder " People of Cannan "

People Of Hashem " the prophet's family "

and canaanites is just the western naming Canaan = كنعان

the word in english even lack the exact letter the second A replaced ع

Which doesn't exist in english

and city names and all proves cannaites are arabs

and like i said you could check the link two or page ago and see

how science proves can be " manipulated " some how on purpose or not

but the fact was hidden or twisted

[questionmark]

return a page or two questionmark

you will see post with link to some ancient tablet or something

that was suppose to prove canaanites weren't arab

but the fact that some arabic person proved that it was mistranslated

so yes proves can be faked .. you can see for your self in that link

it discuss it from science view

the name " canaan " is arabic name the grandfather of the tribe

it's arabic tradition to name a tribe to their elder " People of Cannan "

People Of Hashem " the prophet's family "

and canaanites is just the western naming Canaan = كنعان

the word in english even lack the exact letter the second A replaced ع

Which doesn't exist in english

and city names and all proves cannaites are arabs

and like i said you could check the link two or page ago and see

how science proves can be " manipulated " some how on purpose or not

but the fact was hidden or twisted

Sorry, but no. At the time the Canaanites the Arabs were not even mentioned in any historical record. It was not until 853 BCE that anybody took notice of them, and that occurs in an account of King Shalmanser III of Assyria because he evidently whacked some ar$e around the Arabian Peninsula.

In 835 the Canaanite culture had already split giving place to the Phoenicians and the Punic cultures.

As far as the above poor attempt to twist language to make the evidence fit, the word comes from the Akkadian kinahhu, which denotes red died wool, that has been the main export item of the Canaanite culture and was preserved through Punic times as money bringer.

In fact, until the time of the Nabbateans we cannot see any type of national civilization except in Yemen where the Sabaeans had a kingdom.

Now, it is hardly surprising that the Arabs share myths with the Jews, and, as far as ancient history the same... slightly modified... tribal stories. After all they are from the same religious family and that some "copying" occurred while establishing the newer one pretty much a fact.

And as far as forged. modified and whatever, the question remains the good old Latin "quom bonum?" (or: who benefits?). At the time when most of the items I showed above were discovered there was nobody to benefit from changing the evidence. Most of it was discovered when Israel was over 200 years away and the Zionist movement not yet conceived.

[Knight Of Shadows]

no not really you're wrong about the language there

red what ? lol

canaan is an arabic name

i have gave you more than

suggestion really with links and i am thinking you haven't read the link

i have suggested in the previous pages

it wasn't attempt to twist the name or language ... it's blunt and bold

and like it or not .. canaan is arabic name

maybe you should look it up in arabic names or something i know

my mother language

and i didn't mention isarel making it conspirecy

the west as whole have twisted history of arabs in major way

now you see people of west think of arabs only as ' dark age " people

who still live in deserts and stone age traditions

people with no history and no laws no civilization

due to the bad image that has been brought to the western people

eiather by the media or goverment

meh the west people don't even know that most of the knowledge

they improved was taken from the arabs in it's basics at the " golden age "

more benfits ?

you wanna see how the media view arabs in westeren world ?

we have our history .. we know our history and there's no way

on hell it matches the western version of it

that was twisted for certain reasons

back on the main topic

in the link of the discussion i gave you actually tells of science

proves and cemetories .. city names .. and quotes from historians

and other " western " famous people

you sure you can read arabic coz if you don't know it well

i can translate for you some time later

[Corp]

No one says Arabs have no history. Because that would make no sense. And the fact that a lot of Western knowledge came from Arabs, or through Arab territory is widely acknowledged in universities. The Muslim nations were far more enlightened than the Christian ones in the Middle Ages. The problem comes from the vocal minority that wants to stay in that era, which then colours public opinion.

[questionmark]

no not really you're wrong about the language there

red what ? lol

back on the main topic

in the link of the discussion i gave you actually tells of science

proves and cemetories .. city names .. and quotes from historians

and other " western " famous people

you sure you can read arabic coz if you don't know it well

i can translate for you some time later

Back to the main topic, yes, so lets say the name miraculously came from an ethnicity that did not exist yet, fine with me.

As Corp says, it is true that during the Umayyad Caliphate Arabia... or better said one of its provinces, Cordoba, was the intellectual powerhouse of the world. But we are talking 600-700 AD, not 2000 BC. Notice that little gap of 2700 years? And that is the gap that interests us if we talk about Canaanites.

And yes, we have cemeteries and sarcophagus of that epoch... but funnily none with Arabic language...much less with Arabic writing. Which does not appear until 300 BCE in Petra

which still means we are 2000 years off. And yes, all stem from the Proto Sinaitic writing system. Well, most the world now uses the Latin writing system... does that prove that we all are Romans? In fact, not even what is left in Italy can call themselves Romans as they have been occupied by other cultures for most of its modern history.

And thank you for your translation offer, but having seen the first few pages of that forum is enough for me to know that it is an hare brained attempt to twist evidence in one direction by ignoring all timelines, which we should not discount but seems very little likely. And taking a citation out of context by ignoring the time it refers to can prove about everything, being exactly what you accuse the Israelis of doing (where I did not say they do not).