Re: A China-Sumer connection
From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: Nath Rao: "Re: Morpheme/ word order in agglutinative languages"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- In reply to: a.manansala_at_attbi.com: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Next in thread: Doug Weller: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:36:22 GMT
a.manansala@attbi.com wrote:
>
> Doug Weller wrote:
> > On 7 Mar 2005 04:11:27 -0800, in sci.archaeology,
> phippsmartin@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
>
> > The Hebrews were almost certainly rural Canaanites, in other words, they
> > were locals. There are a variety of sources for the stories in the Bible,
> > but that doesn't prove anything about where the people who wrote it came
> > from.
> >
>
> Are you saying there is no truth to the stories of migrations from Ur
> and Egypt?
>
> Hebrew looks like a local language but it could have been adopted by
> migrating peoples.
there is no _evidence_ outside the biblical narrative itself, and works
derived from it, of an Exodus. As for evidence of the existence of
Abraham and his journey from either of the candidate Urs, what would it
be? One individual pastoral nomad is unlikely to be mentioned in any
cuneiform tablets that may have survived from his putative era.
What do you mean by "Hebrew looks like a local language"?
-- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net
- Next message: Nath Rao: "Re: Morpheme/ word order in agglutinative languages"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- In reply to: a.manansala_at_attbi.com: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Next in thread: Doug Weller: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|