GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS

I asked a pretty simple question, "What is the title of Gordon's Book"?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Willow answered ithttp://EvC Forum: GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS -->EvC Forum: GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS

He needs to say it again and show us where the title says that Greek Civilization came from the Hebrews as he has asserted numerous times.WT has a habit of making unfounded assertions and then trying to change the subject or he runs away. For example there is a very simple question waiting for him over in the LLM thread that he will not or is unable to answer.Even though he has been shown wrong when it comes to the origin of the Red Hand he continues to say that the verse in Genesis 38 shows a red hand. As has been shown numerous times, it doesn't.Now he claims that the title of Gordon's book says that the Greek civilization came from the Hebrews when again, that is simply false.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That, of course, is a different matter. Common origins is not one evolving from the other, but two paths that started out as one. However,
that is the book that W.T. mentioned. NoI have not read the entire thread. Has WT actually given a quote from
the book that he claims backs up his assertions?? If so, what chapter,
and what quote?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ramoss

​

I have not read the entire thread. Has WT actually given a quote from the book that he claims backs up his assertions?

---

Hi ramoss,Some of this got split between this thread and Brian's exodus date thread so I'll try to condense it for you here. To the best of my knowledge, these are all the quotes WT has provided thus far:

quote:

---

"What emerges is noteworthy: the first high civilization of Europe was founded by Semites [Shemites] ejected from the Delta around 1800 BC; the Hebrew nation was a kindred group of Semites emanating from the same Delta"

​

"The Nile Delta is accordingly the cradle of both Minoan and Hebraic cultures. The parallels between the later Greeks and Hebrews are thus to a great extent attributable to causes more clearly definable than could be stated in the first edition of this book."

​

"Archaeological discoveries at sites like Ugarit prevent us from regarding Greece as the hermetically sealed Olympian miracle.....the thesis of this book is that Greek and Hebrew civilizations are parallel structures built upon the same East Mediterranean foundation. This statement, like any brief formulation of a complex subject, is meaningful only in the light of evidence. It will soon be plain to the reader that there is no dearth of evidence. To the contrary, the evidence is so abundant that our problem is one of selection and arrangement."

​

"The people of Egypt have from time immemorial regarded their land as the gift of the Nile. Wherever the River's waters reach, the soil is fertile. Beyond, there is only desert.

​

The Land, almost sealed off from the rest of the world, is ideally suited for nurturing a distinctive civilisation. It is only at the north and south ends of the long, narrow country that Egypt is open to outside influences. The far south has always been open to Black Africa. The Delta (or Lower Egypt) has always been part of the Levant or East Mediterranean. Upper Egypt as the long area in between is called, has therefore been the most distinctive part of Egypt. It is the usual centre of nationalism, and because of its dry climate, where papyri and other organic material are well preserved, most of what we know archaeologically of ancient Egypt is from there. This has its unfortunate side, because it was precisely the Delta that had direct contact by land with Canaan, and by the sea with the Greeks, Phoenicians and other East Mediterranean peoples. The relative dearth of ancient remains in the Delta is in part responsible for the general underestimation of Egypt's role in the birth of Western Civilisation."

​

"Archaeologist Dr. Cyrus Gordon states that they later sailed from Greece to other European coastlands, including Ireland and Denmark. In his book, Before Columbus, Gordon relates, A group of Sea People bore the name of ‘Dan'(?).

​

Cyrus Gordon added, Virgil also designated the Greeks as ‘Danai'.

---

And these are some of the remarks WT has made which he bases on C. Gordon and offers as proof:

quote:

---

WT: Professor Gordon aligns his research with a mid 14th century Exodus to an early 15th.

​

WT: My Gordon quotes are exact. He has emigration from Egypt by Hebrews c.1800 BC.

​

WT: I quoted Gordon's Hebrew expulsion "c.1800 BC" thats what he said.

​

WT: Professor Gordon decimates any doubt as to Israel's presence in Egypt and their c.1800 BC flight when a Pharoah rose up "who knew not Joseph"

​

WT: Professor Gordon has proven the high culture of Greece originated from Egypt's Hebrew Hyksos Shepherd Kings".

​

WT: "The Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" by Professor Cyrus Gordon. [1965, 1962] The title of the above source says it all. The above source is relatively unknown and not embraced by secularists ? Why ? Because it disproves their worldview and its dogma wholesale.

---

In reading through the above provided quotes and then reading WT's remarks concerning these quotes, it will be apparent that WT has simply misunderstood what Prof. Gordon is saying. This becomes even more obvious in reading the quotes from Prof. Gordon that I had previously posted and are reproduced here:

quote:

---

As demonstrated in Chapter IX, pp. 149-152, the Exodus from Egypt occurred C. 1175 B.C.E. under the leadership of Moses. Thus . . . we can work back(wards) to an approximate date of 1295 B.C.E. for Joseph, Levi, and the other ten brothers. Working still further back, we arrive at approximate dates of 1325 for Jacob, 1355 for Isaac, and 1385 for Abraham. This date for Abraham puts him firmly in the Amarna Age . . .

​

. . . the bible presents the history of Israel in an idealized fashion. Nations simply do not descend from the offspring of one man (in this case Jacob/Israel). Instead, nations typically develop from the coming together of a variety of peoples over time . . .

​

. . .concerning the tribe of Dan. Among the Sea Peoples was a group called the Danuna, associated by many scholars with the people called the Danaoi by Homer. This group, like the Philistines, settled on the coast of Canaan, but in time joined the Israelites as the tribe of Dan. Their tribal allotment is on the seacoast immediately adjacent to Philistine territory. Judges 5:17 refers to their dwelling in ships; Genesis 49:16 suggests that Dan is joining the Israelite tribal league at a rather late date; and Judges 18:1 notes that Dan did not have an allotment of land like the other tribes. All of these factors combine to support the theory that the tribe of Dan originated as one of the Sea Peoples.

​

(The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary R. Rendsburg, Pgs. 112, 175 & 176, W.W. Norton & Co. pub., N.Y./London, 4th ed., 1997)

---

As can clearly be seen from these statements of Prof. Gordon, it would be quite impossible for these Sea Peoples (who left Egypt c. 1800 B.C.E.) to derive their name from the Hebrew tribe of Dan since he states that Dan and his brothers were not even born until c. 1295 B.C.E. Rather, he is saying that some of the Sea Peoples (Danuna) settled on the Mediterranean coast and were later integrated into the emerging Israeli nation and thus became the "tribe of Dan".It is likewise impossible for Prof. Gordon to be saying that the Semitic peoples that left Egypt c. 1800 B.C. were in any way Hebrews, since by his chronology, the patriarchal Eber hadn't been born at this time either.I informed WT that he had misunderstood Prof. Gordon's position and provided the above quotes in evidence. The response I received was less than encouraging (i.e. my blatant dishonesty, God-hating motives, yada yada) and WT continued to perpetuate this manipulation of the data. So I once again challenged him to post a referenced quote from Prof. Gordon which supported his remarks:

quote:

---

Either provide the exact quote and reference where C. Gordon states that the Hyksos were Hebrews and/or that the Greek civilization was founded by Hebrews;

​

or:

​

Drop it, and quit putting words into Prof. Gordon's mouth.

---

Well, needless to say, he wouldn't drop it but neither would he produce the referenced quote. Instead, he continued to make subsequent posts repeating these same distortions. My patience was spent. Rather than continue with this exercise in futility, I bluntly told WT that any further perpetuation of these distortions would prompt a formal objection with the moderators to cease this unethical practice.I think it was about this time that several of us began to be identified as the spawn of Satan.That pretty much brings us to the present with WT now evading jar's questions and wandering around like he doesn't understand what's being asked of him.Hope this helps bring you up to speed,AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-21-2004 02:24 AM

Thank you.Cyrus was very clearly stating that the Hebrews and the Greeks (in his opinion) came from a common source.. not surprising if you back far enough, and that is in about the proper time frame.However, it does not confirm Willowtrees thesis, and has nothing to do with the conclusions he wishes to draw.I am actually not surprised.

Quote mined out of context.What I said was that Gordon loosely interpreted could also fit these dates. I made this comment based on Gordon's use of "about" and "circa".I also made a separate comment confirming the validity of Gordon's dating as posted by Amlodhi. Actually, Gordon said "Semites", but in another context from the same source he established Abram a Hebrew.Gordon: Semites exodus from Egypt c.1800 BC.Semite/Shemite/Shem the blessed son/King of Noah of whom descended Abram. If I said this then I made a mistake.Gordon: Semites leave Egypt c.1800 BC.Gordon: Hyksos expulsion from Egypt 1570 BC (page 114)Notice this is the Hyksos expulsion NOT the Mosaic Exodus.Gordon decimates any idea that Greece culture did not originate from the Delta and its wandering Semites.The Bible says 70 souls went down to Egypt to escape the famine, 430 years later Moses brought them out.Dr. Scott: The children of Jacob/Israel were NOT in slavery 430 years.The slavery began about 100 years prior to the Mosaic Exodus. This perfectly coincides with Gordon's 1570 Hyksos expulsion, thus 330 years was the duration of the Zarahite Shepherd King rule before a "Pharoah who knew not Joseph" came to power and forced regime change.The Bible says that Pharoah exalted Joseph and according to the distribution of the birthright the Zarahites ruled after Joseph's death.The Bible provides the best identity for the Hyksos: Zarahite/Hebrews as their presence throughout Europe coincides with Gordon's expulsion dating AND his voluminous common backround research. Gordon does not make the "leap" of Hyksos = Hebrews. Gordon glosses over the issue and floods the reader with the Biblical parallels of Near East literary similarity, namely Ugarit and of course Homer.The Bible cannot be arbitrarily lightened of its clear record/position.Solomons Temple construction 968 BC minus its stated number of years since the children of Israel departed Egypt = 480 years (1Kings 6)
Add 4 years for the already duration of Solomon's reign and the 1 year for actual Temple construction start = 485 years.Subtract back 485 from 968 = 1453 BC. = date of the Mosaic Exodus.1453 BC = date of Exodus Great Pyramid.1447 BC = date of Exodus I. Velikovsky.Velikovsky had NO supernatural bias for miracle and wrote to convince that Bible miracles were caused by natural events.Thus Velikovsky confirms a tight "circa" dating corroborating the Bible and the Great Pyramid.Joseph ruled Egypt.When he died the birthright children of Zara assumed rulership. In the "fourth generation"/430 years Moses brought them forth. Gordon confirms a 1570 exodus which the Bible says MUST be Hebrews, confirmed by Zarahite presence in Europe and through out the Near East.There is no other even remotely plausible identity for the Hyksos/Shepherd Kings. To do so one must ASSERT contrary to the Biblical record.1570 BC expulsion minus Dr. Scott's 100 years Hebrew slavery period = c.1450 BC Exodus. Bare opinion.Prove it.Tell me what the title of Gordon's book means to you ?As it sits right now, you are asserting Gordon said contrary based on a different source.WT

Please show where the title of Gordon's book says that the Greek civilization developed from the Hebrews.Please show where the Red Hand is mentioned in Genesis 38.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

WT: Professor Gordon aligns his research with a mid 14th century Exodus to an early 15th.

​

Quote mined out of context. What I said was that Gordon loosely interpreted could also fit these dates. I made this comment based on Gordon's use of "about" and "circa".

---

The context was self-evident. Or did you really expect us to believe that c. 1175 B.C. should be "loosely interpreted" as mid-14th century?Remember, we're not talking about what you think here. We're talking about your (mis)use of Prof. Gordon as a source.

quote:

---

WT:

​

I also made a separate comment confirming the validity of Gordon's dating as posted by Amlodhi.

---

Agreed, and since you have retracted your original claim, this will no longer be an issue.

quote:

---

WT:

​

Previously: My Gordon quotes are exact. He has emigration from Egypt by Hebrews c.1800 BC.

​

Now: Actually, Gordon said "Semites", but in another context from the same source he established Abram a Hebrew.

---

Yes, "actually, Gordon said Semites", which can refer to Akkadian, Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew, Eblaite, Amorite, Ammonite, Ugaritic, Amharic, Canaanite, Phoenician, & etc.And there is no "but" to it. Whether or not Abram was a Hebrew is completely irrelevant to Gordon's use of "Semites" here.

quote:

---

WT:

​

Semite/Shemite/Shem the blessed son/King of Noah of whom descended Abram.

---

"Semitic", in the sense that Prof. Gordon uses the term, is a language group; not an extended family.According to C. Gordon's dating, the biblical Shem would not have even been born yet in 1800 B.C.E. So he most certainly does not contend that the Semitic people leaving the delta then were in any way "descendants of Shem".

quote:

---

WT:

​

WT: Professor Gordon decimates any doubt as to Israel's presence in Egypt and their c.1800 BC flight when a Pharoah rose up "who knew not Joseph"

​

If I said this then I made a mistake.

---

You said it. Your retraction is noted. This will also no longer be an issue then.

quote:

---

WT:

​

Tell me what the title of Gordon's book means to you ?

---

Actually, I find it prudent to read more than mere titles.Nonetheless, Prof. Gordon's position is that a group of Semitic (Canaanitic/Ugaritic language group) peoples entered the delta region of Egypt pre-1800 B.C.E. Then, c. 1800 B.C.E., some of these Semitic peoples sailed to the Aegean and eventually became the Minoans. Some members of this Aegean group became what Prof. Gordon refers to as the Sea Peoples and they eventually settled the west coast of the Mediterranean as Phoenicians and (relatedly) Philistines.The Hyksos (rulers of foreign countries), who were almost certainly Asiatic/Semitic/Canaanitic also, overran Egypt much later and were eventually ousted by Khamose and pursued into southern Palestine.Then much later yet a particular tribal group (Hebrews), a subset of the general classification of "Semites", left Egypt and settled in central Palestine.Some of the Sea Peoples who had, much earlier, settled the western coastline, eventually integrated into the emerging Israeli expansion as the tribe of "Dan", from the term Danuna or Danoai.Now this is Prof. Gordon's position, which is all this post is intended to address. Your other arguments can be further addressed once you cease manipulating this data.

quote:

---

WT:

​

Prove it.

---

{sigh}. . yet again:

quote:

---

As demonstrated in Chapter IX, pp. 149-152, the Exodus from Egypt occurred C. 1175 B.C.E. under the leadership of Moses. Thus . . . we can work back(wards) to an approximate date of 1295 B.C.E. for Joseph, Levi, and the other ten brothers. Working still further back, we arrive at approximate dates of 1325 for Jacob, 1355 for Isaac, and 1385 for Abraham. This date for Abraham puts him firmly in the Amarna Age . . .

​

. . . the bible presents the history of Israel in an idealized fashion. Nations simply do not descend from the offspring of one man (in this case Jacob/Israel). Instead, nations typically develop from the coming together of a variety of peoples over time . . .

​

. . .concerning the tribe of Dan. Among the Sea Peoples was a group called the Danuna, associated by many scholars with the people called the Danaoi by Homer. This group, like the Philistines, settled on the coast of Canaan, but in time joined the Israelites as the tribe of Dan. Their tribal allotment is on the seacoast immediately adjacent to Philistine territory. Judges 5:17 refers to their dwelling in ships; Genesis 49:16 suggests that Dan is joining the Israelite tribal league at a rather late date; and Judges 18:1 notes that Dan did not have an allotment of land like the other tribes. All of these factors combine to support the theory that the tribe of Dan originated as one of the Sea Peoples.

​

(The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary R. Rendsburg, Pgs. 112, 175 & 176, W.W. Norton & Co. pub., N.Y./London, 4th ed., 1997)

---

quote:

---

WT:

​

As it sits right now, you are asserting Gordon said contrary based on a different source.

---

As it sits right now, you're busted, unless you provide alternate referenced quotations from Prof. Gordon. Something which, so far, you have repeatedly and conspicuously failed to do.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-21-2004 10:02 PM

The audacity to conclude all of the above based upon no other source except yourself.How could you possibly know what Gordon argues since you do not own a copy of the book in question ?The exact reverse is true: You are asserting your position to be Gordon's.It doesn't matter what you claim - Gordon proves Greek culture originated from Egypt via Shemites who became Hebrews.The source we are discussing, a source you do not have, substantaites the following SEQUENCE while never deviating:Shemite/Hebrew origins exported to the entire Near East/Ugarit/Greece.THEN each specific proof:Ugarit litertature and Hebrew similarity.Greek literature and Hebrew similarity.NEVER is the evidence presented in reverse - not a single time.IMPORTANT: Gordon never actually says Hebrew is the origin - he only presents it this way WHILE laboriously pointing out that Greek and Hebrew civilizations are PARALLEL structures "built upon the same East Mediterranean foundation."Only the source called the Bible provides the best evidence for the identity of the Hyksos.Gordon dates the expulsion 1570 BC which perfectly corroborates the Biblical chronology/claim of 430 year sojourn into Egypt by Israel.
The Pharoah "who knew not Joseph"/successfull expulsion happened about 330 years into the sojourn which leaves Israel in slavery for about 100 years.1570 BC is when Zarahite presence commences in Eurasia.1570 minus 100 = c.1450 BC Mosaic Exodus.c.1450 BC Exodus = Bible's date.If archaeology disagrees then we are speaking about modern revisionism archaeology and their motive to reverse the confirmations of the first goers (1850's - to mid 20th century).The suspicious irony of secular/atheist archaeologists correcting the "bias" of the first goers !Where would we be without the "objective findings" of modern secular archaeology ?Ancient respected sources are constantly proven accurate. Schliemann single handedly proved every scholar in his day wrong about Homer and Troy.Layard did the same with Nineveh and Nimrod - assumed to be mythical.Gordon smashes any doubt as to the importance of Hebrew civilization, hence its proven existence and the modern attempts to question its existence.The only obstacle to Bible veracity is secular revisionism reacting to reverse its substantiation.

So are you now conceeding that Genesis 38

quote:

---

27: And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
28: And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first,
29: And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez.
30: And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

---

does not mention a red hand and there is no connection between the red hand as seen in heraldry and the asserted Red Hand of Zarah?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

WT:

​

The source we are discussing, a source you do not have . . .

---

The source we are discussing is Cyrus H. Gordon. He has written in excess of 35 books of which I have four. Are you insinuating that he says something different in your book than he does in all the others?If he does, and if you have a copy of this one particular book of his, why is it that you are having such an impossible time providing a contrary quote?

quote:

---

WT:

​

Shemite/Hebrew origins exported to the entire Near East/Ugarit/Greece. NEVER is the evidence presented in reverse - not a single time.

---

Nothing is being "reversed". A group of Semitic peoples left Egypt c. 1800 B.C.E. Some of them (which C. Gordon refers to as Sea Peoples) settled the west coast of the Mediterranean and became the Phoenicians; others, the Philistines; others settled Crete, becoming the Minoans.The only thing I can imagine you thinking is "reversed" is that the Sea Peoples (Danaoi) that settled on the (Phoenician) Canaanite coast, only later became integrated into the Israelites as the tribe of Dan. But you have already been shown that C. Gordon is very clear as to his position on this:

quote:

---

. . . (the Danaoi) settled on the coast of Canaan, but in time (at least some of them) joined the Israelites as the tribe of Dan . . .

​

(The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg, pg. 176, W.W. Norton pub., 4th ed., 1997)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT:

​

IMPORTANT: Gordon never actually says Hebrew is the origin - he only presents it this way WHILE laboriously pointing out that Greek and Hebrew civilizations are PARALLEL structures "built upon the same East Mediterranean foundation."

---

Yes, that is what we keep trying to tell you; "Gordon never says Hebrew is the origin". There is no (implied) "but" here either. Gordon makes it very clear that this "East Mediterranean foundation" is not Hebrew but, rather, that both the Hebrew and the Greek civilizations emerge out of this foundation.Understand? This "foundation" was not Hebrew, but was an international syncretism of Egyptian, Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Aegean, and other influences around the Eastern Meditteranean. (Cyrus H. Gordon, Before the Bible: the Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilisations, pg. 19, Collins, London 1962.)The question is why you keep trying to put the word "Hebrew" into Gordon's mouth; like this:

quote:

---

WT:

​

Shemite/Hebrew origins exported to the entire Near East/Ugarit/Greece.

---

quote:

---

As in all comparative studies, we must beware of equating parallel and related structures. Greeks were not Hebrews, however close their interrelations were during the Mycenaean Age.

​

(Cyrus H. Gordon, Before the Bible: the Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilisations, pg. 286, Collins, London 1962.)

---

I don't know what simpler terms can be used to try to explain this to you:

quote:

---

. . .Greeks were not Hebrews. . . {ibid}

---

Cyrus H. Gordon on East Mediterranean Culture of 1500-1000 BC, precursor to Greek and Hebrew Civilisations; Phoenician/Babylonian influence on the Greeks (italics added):

quote:

---

The parallels that form the core of this book fit into a historical framework in the wake of the Amarna Age during the closing centuries of the second millennium. Prior to the Amarna Age (i.e., before 1400 B.C.) Egyptian, Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Aegean and other influences met around the East Mediterranean to form an international order, by which each was in turn affected. Out of the Amarna Age synthesis emerged the earliest traditions of Israel and Greece. {p. 19}

​

As in all comparative studies, we must beware of equating parallel and related structures. Greeks were not Hebrews, however close their interrelations were during the Mycenaean Age. {p. 286}

​

(Cyrus H. Gordon, Before the Bible: the Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilisations, Collins, London 1962.)

---

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/gordon.html.According to Cyrus Gordon, the syncretistic international order out of which the Hebrew and Greek culture both sprang was not Hebrew. The people that left Egypt and settled Crete and the Canaanite coast were not Hebrews. The Minoans were not Hebrews. The Greeks were not Hebrews.Got it yet?AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-23-2004 11:15 PM

There is also the question of the origin of the Indo-Europeans that later became the Celts. The most common explanation is that they originated in the Transcaucasus region around present day Armenia. So except for some words picked up through trade from some of the Semitic peoples, there is no indication that the Indo-Europeans were descended from the Sea Peoples.Here is a link to one of the recent works on the origins. Early History of the Indo-Europeans;and the the family tree and the route they took.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

According to the official genealogy chart of the Royal House of Britain the throne and all who have occupied it descend from David and the Pharez line of Judah.I suppose the monarchy is somehow mistaken or deluded.They know their lineage exactly.This is why the British monarchy commands so much respect.If anyone requests I will post the entire chart.I suppose the Royals are British Israelites Cult members according to certain debate disruptors.

I would love to see you try to support that nonsense. It will be interesting since much of the royal line of Britian includes quite a few bastards with questionable parentage. Hell, there's even a question just what Horsa was?Bring it on and I promise you it will get shot down as quick as all the others.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion