Popular misconceptions about historical things being older than they are

This. If IP's whole argument is we can only tell how old a civilization is by their written texts I'd say its misguided. Until not so long ago the oldest copies of the bible were in greek. This was used as evidence to deride any claims of antiquity and jewish claims of it being a jewish text. Later discoveries lead scholars to revise these opinions.

Tl;dr there are a multitude of methods in dating a culture and through the interaction of these we get a more accurate picture

From what I'm looking at, Athens is the oldest known. Then Byblos, Damascus, Beirut, and Jericho are about tied. There's also Luxor Egypt and Kandahar.

Jericho is older (9000 bc)

Jericho and Byblos are both older, there was a Mycenean citadel where Athens stands now so we might classify that as a city, I don't know if the earlier settlements and or signs of human presence could be classified as a city

Jericho: 9000-7000 bc was a walled proto city

Byblos was a full fledged city by at least the third millenium bc and maybe even before that

You guys are right, that's cool didn't realize Jericho was that old. Sorry, I was just doing a quick scan. Thanks for correcting me.

>Ashkenazi Jews are actually Khazars
Obviously not but I guess this counts as /pol/ and /x/ shit.
>The Manchus were nomads
They were horse archers but they lived sedentary lifestyles.

>The first Biblical texts all date back after the Babylonian captivity around 550 bc

kek. 950 BC

Hebrew wasn't even attested anywhere in 950 bc as far as I know

so how old is judaism? jidf always claims shit like they've been around for 10000 years or whatnot to boost legitmacy

Judaism as we know, such as Torah and shit, didn't become a thing until after the exile of Babylon and the creation of the Torah by Ezra so between 600-500bc. Before that, there was Yahwehism, which was just a cult in the Canaanite pantheon.

so what about the claim that they've been in the region for 5000 years?

I'm pretty sure it's around the bronze age collapse, so around 11th century bc. Because when they migrated North into the Israel area they pushed the Philistines out.

Incorrect as it doesn't account for the Samaritan spit who don't have Ezra as a prophet and write in the pre Babylonian Phoenician type script.
The earliest Hebrew scripts are dated to around that time and during and before that period the distinction between Canaanite languages is blurry.

Damascus.

>it doesn't account for the Samaritan spit
Samaritans aren't Jews. And the most popular theory for why the split happened is that the Babylonian captivity caused developments in the local religion that made it different enough for the returning Jews and Samaritans to consider themselves different. In other words, Samaritans and Jews were the same thing (or very similar), but the development of Judaism in Babylon made them distinguish themselves. The split is not only accounted for, it was caused by the founding of Judaism.

They're idiots. You cannot have 9000 year old cities on a 6000 year old world.

And they excavated Jericho not that long ago; it has not been occupied for centuries.

Anti-semetic drivel.

Judaism did not develop in Babylon, you twit.

Pharisaical Judaism did.

>there was no Incan civilization, since they didn't have writing
Dumbass

spot the butthurt jidf

spotted the literal demon worshiper

>anti-Semitic
>My favorite parts of history are semitic kingdoms and mythology in the near east

Nice try, but nope.

Judaism wasn't founded until after the exile though. Ezra made the first standard version of the Torah.

Go back to that containment board. People are trying to have a real conversation here.

Do you have an argument besides insulting me and saying "nuh uh?"

Read this section from the introduction of the Oxford Annotated Bible, which is probably the least controversial source on the planet. It uses very neutral language, but still makes it clear that the people who returned from exile established a new form of the religion. Other sources will be more clear-cut about that happening. At this point, I'm assuming you're going to argue about what "Judasim" means, but it's clear that the religion as it conceives of itself was founded during this period.

books.google.com/books?id=Nc-i_pQsiW8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=continuing conflict in the fifth century&f=false

They did though

Then Chinese civilization existed before writing too.

>In reality the first Chinese texts date back to 1200-1050 bc, so that's 3000 years.
In reality this text is falsification "excavated"/"detected" in 19-20 century, such as most of "ancient" temples, walls, fortresses. "2000-years civilization" still sounds stupid, memes about 15 century and earlier arent worth to be learned.
>The first Biblical texts all date back after the Babylonian captivity around 550 bc
Jewish version of Old Testament was firtstly printed in London in 1650s.

He probably means that the silly ropes count as writing.

Even the Xia only go back to around 4000 years ago at best.

Adding to this, the assumption that all castles were made of stone.

Motte and baileys of wood were the primary fortification type in the early middle ages, and remained very common/important till the late me.

>Ashkenazi Jews are actually Khazars

This one pro-Palestinian white girl won't shut the fuck up about this. I'm not even Jewish but I wanna punch her in the face. It's like she's a Zionist shill sent solely to make the Palestinian movement look as retarded as possible.

Longer. The Israelites were a mixture of Canaanite and other Semitic people. They came around the Bronze Age collapse as far as we know today.

That's not longer than 5000 years though

That's when they emerged as a group, yes. Hebrew is still a Canaanite dialect though.

I would also say that Chinese civilization any more continous than say the middle east. There was a lot of upheaval and admixture into China throughout most of its history. The biggest difference is that China was more prone to unity in the political sense.

Judaism dates from the time of Moses, who was probably an Egyptian of Canaanite ancestry, who brought monotheism out of Egypt to his Canaanite homelands along with a "tribe" (the Levites) who were to become the priestly caste of the new nation of Israel and who were probably originally the early followers of Moses from before he left Egypt. To this time also dates the ethnicity of "Hebrew", which is what the Canaanites who converted to Judaism called themselves, and to the nation of Israel. As to WHEN this was, there's considerable uncertainty, but maybe as long ago as the 12th century BC or as recently as the 10th.

They have been Canaanites had lived in that region for thousands of years before they became Jews. Ironically, modern Palestinian "Arabs" are mostly descended from the very same Canaanites.

Really though. If Palestinians hadn't been so adamant about being Arabs the whole conflict would have solved itself.

When you say the Jews worship the same demons as the Canaanites, you're anti-semetic by definition.

>established a new form of the religion

Which is exactly what I said above. Pharisaical Judaism is that "new form of the religion".

The old form goes back 3500 years.

>Leaving Harappa civilization aside which wasn't India)
Source?

The Hebrews are semites, you dolt.

Bullshit.

When you consort with demons, you are forced to lie about everything.

No, because the Bible teaches Jews that all the land of Israel and Judah is theirs and theirs alone, and to slay Amalek wherever he is found.

Do you get paid by the lie? Seriously, this is the most fucked up post in this god forsaken thread yet.

Do you have ANY evidence of ANY of this?

He probably means that it was pre-Indian, which is true: The Indians only arrived in what we now call India after the Harrapans civilization had died out.

kek

Try "Greater Israel", pleb. Modern day Israel is just a sliver of what the Jews will inherit. And there are no two distinct countries, Israel and Judah. Haven't been for dozens of centuries.

No part of what I said is even controversial. Read a book.

So NO evidence for ANY of it.

Discounting any books written by Hitler....oh, wait, that's the only book you have, isn't it.

>Amalek wherever he is found

Amalek represents whoever the enemy of the Jews are. Before it was the Nazis, now it's Islamic terror.

More bullshit.

The Amalekites were a distinct enemy of Israel, not some HaSatan.

Indo Aryans you mean dravida tribes and kingdoms were still around. The most sensible assessment would be that the Dravidians were members of the Indus Valley. And such a large established people don't just disappear. So his assumption seems disingenious and exclusive.

Somewhat true, but the identification with Arabs is more generally accepted.

I am myself a Jew, what the fuck are you even babbling about? Take your meds.

Again, "Indian" means "of Indo-European culture". Harrapans were filthy mlecchas, NOT Indians.

>filthy

I'm OP and kyd

IT IS ENDEARING TO ME HOW THEY TOOK THE CARE TO TRACE THE MARGINS ON THE PAGE; IT REMINDS ME OF MY DAYS OF KINDERGÄRTEN, AND PRIMARY SCHOOL.

Except Semitic includes Canaanites and Arabs. In fact, Hebrews came from the canaanite branch. That's why Ugaritic, phoenician, hebrew, and canaanite are so close linguistically.

They used to worship other semetic gods as well.

Why is there always this one shitposter to ruin these threads. Any other topic tends to be find. But start discussing anything Christian or Jewish and these guys just have to throw in pointless comments.

So still NO evidence of anything, and NO evidence you are even a Jew. And of course there is NO such thing as a self-hating Jew.

kek

Please be more quiet, my baby is napping

And Hebrews. Hebrews are semetic people distinct from Arabs. Related, and distinct. Something that may elude your double digit IQ.

I have no clue why you're such a retard and I don't much care. I just want you to know I think you're a moron.

You realize that by replying, YOU are the dope, right? HE has severe mental retardation, what's YOUR excuse?

Why do you reply to yourself?

I said they are all semetic people. Why did you just ignore my response but reply

It was a joke, calm down

He didn't, I made the quiet down comment

Did ad homs replace evidence in 2017? I didn't get the memo.

Must be tough going through life on the verge of mental retardation.

>HURR prove this well-accepted fact I could investigate on wikipedia in a few seconds!

Get fucked, moron. I'm not interested in wiping your ass for you.

Not really, mommy takes good care of me.

Thats not true since Hinduism is a syncretic of local and info Aryan religions. Prime gods of Hinduism are the trimurthi, Pashupathi deal indicates a possible proto shaivaite cult.

Mlecchas are those Who do not observe homa and oblations to the gods, and that was a word used to describe outsiders in around 4th-2nd century BC when the Mauryans expanded. So it is an incompatible terminology

The Samaritan Torah and the Judean Torah aren't much different but the Samaritans have an older form of the script. While the Jews returning form Babylon came back with Babylonized script. There are also some texts in the Dead Sea scrolls in the Paleo-Hebrew script and in some it's used only for the sacred name.
So probably everything in the cannon except for the Torah was only of relevance to the Judean community.

>The old form goes back 3500 years.
If you want to consider a polytheistic religion that didn't use the Torah, or a temple in Jerusalem as Judaism, then sure, it goes back before the exile. Like I said, it's really a matter of semantics at that point, but the religion as everyone (including Jews themselves) see it was established post-exile.

The reason there were conflicts with the Samaritans is that both sides viewed themselves as practicing distinct religions. It's compatible to the situation between every other Abrahamic religion: they all see themselves as practicing new forms of Judaism, but no one would consider Mormonism the same thing as Catholicism, let alone Judaism.

What's the earliest we have? I'm not founding anything that predates Babylonian exile.

>Modern scholarship connects the formation of the Samaritan community with events which followed theBabylonian Captivity. One view is that the Samaritans are the people of the Kingdom of Israel who separated from the Judaites (people of Judah). Another view is that the event happened somewhere around 432 BCE

What do you mean.
A great deal of the Jewish canon developed post exile. Samaritans also have their own texts. I guess it shows that they at least had the Torah in common although the Samaritan text resembles earlier Dead Sea scrolls, Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopian, and maybe even Targumic versions in some places. The earliest Samaritan manuscript is from the 12th century. But there were also Samaritan Targums. The earliest Masoretic texts date from around the 9th to 10th centuries.

> The earliest Samaritan manuscript is from the 12th century. But there were also Samaritan Targums. The earliest Masoretic texts date from around the 9th to 10th centuries.

Bc or Ad?

AD of course. You don't think there'd be any debate about it if we had any evidence that old.

Nope. God giving Moses the 10 Commandments and the Hebrews foolishly agreeing to follow them, and all the other ones to follow.

3500 years ago.

One God.

Four posts, ZERO evidence.

You're quite the scholar.

The clash between the Jews and Samaritans was genetic; the Samaritans married non-Jews. Simple as that. And were cut off from Temple worship for it.

So they worshiped God on their own mountain, and waited for the messiah there.

The only thing that happened of any note was the returning Jews from Babylon went from being patrilineal to matrilineal, precisely because of the problem of "who's the real Jew" between the Hebrews and Samaritans.

So.....this isn't a real Jew then?

idk

Ask a Jew.

>this isn't a real Jew then?

Samaritans aren't Jews. They are Israelites. The girl you posted is a Samaritan who converted to Judaism so she actually technically is a Jew on top of being a Samaritan Israelite.

>The clash between the Jews and Samaritans was genetic

Not really. That became the reasoning, but was never the initial cause. The Jews who came back from Babylon brought back a lot of apocalyptic bullshit that's not in the Samaritan's Torah. The Samaritans rejected this as Babylonian horseshit and said the Temple was actually supposed to be on Mt. Gerizim. This pissed off the Jews so they made up a story that the Samaritans were actually Assyrian infiltrators who are trying to trick the Israelites. Jews believed this shit for centuries until they sat down in the 1700's or so and agreed they were both Israelites. The idea that they all come from the city of Cutha or whatever was just a way to convince Jewish Israelites to ignore what they have to say.

Does "admixture" matter when you still have cultural continuity? "Racial purity" never existed anyway and only retards believe genes = ethnicity rather than a whole combination of different factors.

>Does "admixture" matter when you still have cultural continuity?
No. As long as there is a common origin, it really doesn't matter.

A group that remained pure that lost their identity < A group that's been admixed but has completely maintained their identity

the most famous and iconic part of Chinas Great Wall was only built in the 1400s ac.

The degree to which Hinduism is non-Indo-European is debatable, certainly they took on some of the Mleccha gods (goddesses, mainly) but the character of those adopted goddesses is still very IE.

As to the use of the word mleccha for the Harrapans, it parallels the Sumerian term for the Indus Valley Civilization "Melukhkha", which seems to similar to be a mere coincidence, but which might still be one.

>Ethnic groups sharing the same language and culture means they must be genetically related

It means at the very least that they must have had close contact for a prolonged period, it's very likely at least some intermixing took place during that period. Even in the most extreme examples, such as the English language and political institutions of Nigeria, there is a non-trivial English genetic contribution to the Nigerian genepool, and most examples of one people adopting the language and customs of another are not nearly as extreme as this.

Meluha is what you are thinking of. Mila is the root etymology which means tongue or language the cthonic kha is added later on as a archaic descriptive for the north western neighbours who did not follow the established traditions a dharma and even at that the word was used first in shatapatha brahmana written somewhere between 5th and end century BC

>First Emperor Qin's purge
>Great Library of Alexandria burns

Are there other times when idiots sent humanity back hundreds of years?

The creation of Veeky Forums