attn Firaxis: Petition for the Hebrews

[snuggs]

Dear me.

[L13]

What else should I have expected from a European....

What shall I say?

But you could say that the jews pulled "a chronology out of nowhere"


And just because someone have a different view on the subject on jews that you doesn't mean they are rabbid jew haters.

And perhaps if you really read it your, hrm, constructive critique would be a lot easier to read.

But admit that OT is somewhat boooring and often lacks a little bit of realism.

[SeferKoheleth]

Originally posted by L13



What shall I say?

But you could say that the jews pulled "a chronology out of nowhere"


And just because someone have a different view on the subject on jews that you doesn't mean they are rabbid jew haters.

And perhaps if you really read it your, hrm, constructive critique would be a lot easier to read.

But admit that OT is somewhat boooring and often lacks a little bit of realism.

"a different view on the subject of jews"--

as in what? a crazed dislike? I'm sorry but if you use a terrible pseudo-history to deny clear historical events, just for the sake of slandering Jews as recent imposters, you qualify as a Jew-hater. Let me ask you this.... why do you except the "histories" of every ancient people as 100% correct, except for the history of the Jews? Modern historians recognize problems in EVERY ancient history (such as a reluctance to record defeats, an exaggerated list of accomplishments). Why are you solely fixated on your "different view"?

You might jump at the accusation, but I think it's borne out by your actions.

The so-called "OT" and modern archeology do not match up entirely... but that's a far cry from denying all of Jewish history until the year 65 b.c.e. with a highly implausible theory that pulls supposition from here, ignores facts from there etc.

Modern mainstream archeology can basically prove the Bible from the period of the middle kings on (i.e. Hezekiah, Ahab etc.) through the Babylonian Captivity, the return to the land and the Second Commonwealth. So we can "prove" Jewish history until about 800 b.c.e. or so... a pretty long ways.

The patriarchs, judges and early kings do not appear in archeology, but there's not necessarily any reason to believe they didn't exist-- absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. For example, from the Bible's own account, Abraham, Issac and Jacob were simply wealthy shepards and landowners. There's no reason or expectation for such people to leave behind historical records attesting to their existance.

Given their mention in the Bible, it's reasonable to expect that something like Biblical events happened--- maybe "enhanced" from reality, but so does every other people's history. You can't find any evidence of the Hyksos or Egyptian military defeats from Egyptian history, for example... you learn about that stuff from Babylonian and Assyrian history. Why? Because the Egyptians (like other ancient peoples, with the EXCEPTION of the Bible) didn't record their defeats... only their victories. For their defeats, you have to learn the history of their enemies.

So what does archeology show? Basically that semetic peoples in the land of canaan with an egyptian influence (look at early Hebrew script for example, closely resembling Egyptian pictograms) coallessed and formed a state.

Interestingly (though I personally don't buy this account entirely), some non-mainstream archeologists note that if you redate Egyptian history (where all dates are quite speculative) you find a perfect artictecutal match for the so-called "OT"--- http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by L13
What shall I say?

But you could say that the jews pulled "a chronology out of nowhere"

And just because someone have a different view on the subject on jews that you doesn't mean they are rabbid jew haters.

And perhaps if you really read it your, hrm, constructive critique would be a lot easier to read.

But admit that OT is somewhat boooring and often lacks a little bit of realism.

Just an observation for all you people that believe "Well, I've never shook hands with Moses, so therefore he doesn't exist..."

Science and archaeology are continuing to prove that all the stuff we've dismissed as nonsense, ancient propaganda, and fable actually happened. For Example:

Atlantis.

The Amazons.

The thousands of Terra Cotta statues of the first Chinese Emperor.

The city of Troy.

The world turned out not to be flat.

Wow, going over the speed of light doesn't generate time travel.

And the moon wasn't made of cheese.

When people start making blatant statements and leave no wriggle-room for the possibility that they might be wrong, I just think back to all of the previous instances listed above.

Some people never learn......

[snuggs]

Hey, although I agree it was a weak article that's no excuse to go slandering Europeans and calling the poster a 'Jew-hater'. Grow up.

[August Borms]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Science and archaeology are continuing to prove that all the stuff we've dismissed as nonsense, ancient propaganda, and fable actually happened. For Example:

Atlantis.

They found Atlantis?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by August Borms


They found Atlantis?

I didn't say they found Atlantis. They used to think it was a myth but they've discovered more and more artifacts describing it and in more detail, so its considered to have been an actual city.

Yeah, it ain't there no more but they've pretty much nailed down that it was in the Aegean built on a bay that was the crater of a dormant volcano.

Course it was vaporized when the volcano decided not to be dormant anymore....

One theory is that Atlantis was THE central marketplace of the time and its destruction was the final nail in the coffin of the Minoan civilization in Crete. The market at Atlantis being their primary source of trade revenue.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by snuggs
Hey, although I agree it was a weak article that's no excuse to go slandering Europeans and calling the poster a 'Jew-hater'. Grow up.

Would that make you a European ""Jew-hater" hater"?

-Just kidding

[Chronus]

Shouldn't God be their leader AND their UU?

Stats:

10000/10000/10000 (moves over all terrain, etc.)

They can't build Him but He appears as soon as their capital is built. And, of course, only one such unit appears.

Hmmm . . . considering how often the Israelites had forsaken the Lord and chased after other gods, maybe God should be their UU only and not their leader.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would only accept the Hebrews if the Arabs were included as well.

[dnassman]

Other features for the Hebrew civ would be very cheap propaganda and ease of turning other civ cities to their civilization. I think this is a good idea as think about how many movies come out every year about the holocost, about terrerist killing jews and so on. Most of the world who watch these movies have pity on them and will side with them as they don't usually know any better. That's why in Australia, for example, most news stroies always paint the Israelis in a good light no matter what they do. Very good propaganda machine and think it should be a feature of theirs if they were to be included.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Chronus
Shouldn't God be their leader AND their UU?

Stats:

10000/10000/10000 (moves over all terrain, etc.)

They can't build Him but He appears as soon as their capital is built. And, of course, only one such unit appears.

Hmmm . . . considering how often the Israelites had forsaken the Lord and chased after other gods, maybe God should be their UU only and not their leader.

Shouldn't She be omnipresent as well?

[GhengisFarb™]

No one's convinced me to switch from my preferred UU, the Hebrew "Wrath of God".

[Caliban]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
No one's convinced me to switch from my preferred UU, the Hebrew "Wrath of God".

Could be some kind of ancient nuke...

[Chronus]

Shouldn't She be omnipresent as well?

Very well. Give the Hebrews total disclosure to the world map as well.