An Israeli State from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea

[Az]

Well they say that it was between 1000, and 850, approximately. Our only evidence is the bible, but it's not like this is the only piece of history that's based burely on scriptures. And as the lands conquered were of the same culture ( Hebrews were basically canaanites, just as the phoencians. the same alphabet, extremely similar languages, almost identical pottery and masonery, and the religion was extremely young as well, with many polytheistic characteristics, as well), it's rather hard to pinpoint by archeological proof.

oh, and Israel is "around the dead sea?" maybe you can scan and post it?

[Kropotkin]

Sure the torah is a relible, unbiased, source. We might as well go for Mein Kampf to determine the rightful size of Germany.

[Az]

6.59/10. you've got two more tries left.

Kropo: the fact is, that Torah has lots of other correct historical reportings on geo-political issues of the time, like the wars between The Khaldeans and Egypt, for example, Assyria's conquests.... It tries to explain their impacts on the Hebrews through theological explanatons, but the events are generally verified.

[Kropotkin]

The Torah, as many other myths, are based on some sort of historical reality. Still, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. That it's right about one thing doesn't mean that it's right about another thing.

The problem is of cource that every damn country or nation with morons in charge will try to get the borders from when their nation/country was at it's peak....

[Az]

The Torah, as many other myths, are based on some sort of historical reality. Still, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. That it's right about one thing doesn't mean that it's right about another thing.

You'd agree that this is not the case of parting the sea, or a miraculous myth, just a period of time in which the hebrews ruled over a rather large area.

You might as well say that William the Conquerer never landed and took over Britian, because there is no archeological evidence.

[Kropotkin]

It's more like King Arthur and the knights of the round table than the battle of Hastings in 1066. AFAIK there's a number of sources for this historical event. Also, as a question, you're saying that there's no findings from the battlefield for example?

[Az]

That's EXACTLY what am I saying.

[Kropotkin]

Well, that's interesting.

[Kropotkin]

That kind of messes up my plan to move to Normandy and then claim to be the rightful holder the english throne.

[Az]

The sad thing is that for some reason, this issue is highly politically volatile. The web, for example, is a lost cause.

[Kropotkin]

The internet is always a lost cause.

[Az]

not always. there are always beacons of truth like www.jewwatch.com.

[gsmoove23]

I call BS on your William the Conqueror assertions. The landscape is covered with evidence of the Norman Invasion.

[St Leo]

Kropo: the fact is, that Torah has lots of other correct historical reportings on geo-political issues of the time, like the wars between The Khaldeans and Egypt, for example, Assyria's conquests....

It has problems keeping track of Persian kings, though. Well, the Old Testament does and I am assuming that the Torah is basically the same thing.

oh, and Israel is "around the dead sea?" maybe you can scan and post it?

Sure thing, pal.

[Az]

Such as? ( I am not disbuting the fact that William the Conqueror has indeed landed there, but doubting the fact that there is archeological evidence to the landing, the Battle of Hastings, and the existance of William the conqueror. Vikings have been landing on Britannia for many centuries. )