# What falsifiable claims do the holy books make? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2013, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952 "2013-09-16T06:02:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/121 "2013-09-18T12:30:25Z")
Nearly forgot the _Teresh_. They might be from the region of Troy and later have settled in Italy… Etruria. The Roman claim of being decendants of the Troyan hero Aeneas, might have truth in it, albeit that they nicked it off the Etruscans, whose subjects they had been for some time. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/122 "2013-09-18T12:43:48Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > The current view is that they were the Greeks/Myceneans, plus coastal anatolians. > From the top of my head; _Ekwesh_ would be Acheans , the _Denyen_ would be the Danaoi. The _Peleset_ (or Palestinians) might be from the Pelasgian part of Crete, the _Lukka_ are probably Lykians. > It is not clear whether the _Sherden_ and _Sheklesh_ gave their names to Sardinia and Sicilia or that they came from there. > > I too am doubtful of a Sea-Hobo culture. Much more likely they were just agressive pirates/raiders and seekers of fortune, as the Illiad show the Acheans to be. > > The Acheans were known as _Ahiyawa_ to the Hittites, who were not sure the leader could be classed as a ‘Great King’. So we’re not looking at a real ‘empire’, more of a confederation, spreading by conquest, in which the Achean king just held most sway. I shy away from the “pirates” view of them simply because they never turned on each other in the age of Sea People…ing. If you got routed by Egypt, for instance, well there was a tantalizing spot that they just settled (which is when they’d be at their weakest) in the Levant or on that island over there. Why not just take one of those instead of going home? My point was that the Sea Peoples were organized in some fashion and that there wasn’t evidence of a similar Indo-Aryan organized presence that could cast it’s power across the ocean in a similar way to create the numbers needed to gain political traction (or form a competing kingdom in the Delta) and bloodlessly usurp the Egyptian throne. Egypt did hire mercenaries, but they tended to be kept at arm’s length and they weren’t really a single cultural background. The bloodless option needs a lot of buildup time, on the order of a few generations if not more. You don’t just show up with 1,000 friends and ten years later become king. If it did, those people on Facebook with 100,000 friends will be our kings in a few short years. 🙂 Now if we can find evidence that Egypt was conquered by a military force, well that changes everything. It suddenly becomes very feasible for a large number of scenarios. Sufficed to say, there’s a lot of room for debate. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/123 "2013-09-18T13:00:18Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The assumption here is that it was the same groups attacking each time, rather than successive pulses of invaders displaced from the Mycenaean heartland. (which, I think, is compounded, as is the case of the Hyksos, by the Egyptians using generic names for foreign groups - Hyksos as a name continues in use into the Hellenic period) Well, Hyksos is the Greek translation of the Egyptian for “Foreign King”. It wasn’t a cultural moniker. While we use cultural/racial names to designate where we are from, Egyptians thought more in terms of Us vs Them. “These kings are foreigners” was that in a manifest way. Any kings/rules of Egypt that were not Egyptian would have been tagged this way. > [@MrDibble](#): > > It would if the mercenaries had largely replaced native troops in positions of critical importance (Think Varangian Guard). Who would fight them if they have displaced the head (until native resistance built up - and the impetus seems to have come from Upper Egypt, not internal to the Delta, anyway)That’s kind of how I feel about a pure Canaanite origin - the cultural “feel” just isn’t right. It’s possible that they suddenly got away from using indigenous people for important military postings, but that would be against policy both before and after the Hyksos era, so I find it an odd circumstance (But not impossible). I would also think that any action out of character with that office/position would have been immediately jumped upon by those that were left from the indigenous military. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m reasonably sure the truth is somewhere in the middle - like I said, I’m not advocating a one-time, purely IE invasion. I’m a demic diffusionist at heart. Too early. I was just getting my first cup of coffee when I read your post and I thought you said “_demonic_ diffusionist” and I was both quite confused and worried for my immortal soul for a moment. 🙂 > [@MrDibble](#): > > Agreed 🙂 Want to go digging? The pay is non-existent, the working conditions are terrible, but you get a nice tent to sleep in! And you can bring home all the sand you can carry! ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/124 "2013-09-18T13:56:08Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > I shy away from the “pirates” view of them simply because they never turned on each other in the age of Sea People…ing. If you got routed by Egypt, for instance, well there was a tantalizing spot that they just settled (which is when they’d be at their weakest) in the Levant or on that island over there. Why not just take one of those instead of going home? I’m sorry, but I can’t make out what you’re trying to say. Who didn’t turn on who? and they did ‘colonise’ large areas of the mediteranean. Once you realise that the Sea-peoples are the Mycenians who are the spreading Greeks, a lot of the bronze-age mediterranean period seems to fall into place. With “Pirates/raiders” I didn’t mean something like Carribean Pirates, just seizing ships. More like Frankish, Anglo-Saxon and Viking raiders. Who also first plundered easy targets and later colonised those areas. > [@](#): > > My point was that the Sea Peoples were organized in some fashion and that there wasn’t evidence of a similar Indo-Aryan organized presence that could cast it’s power across the ocean in a similar way to create the numbers needed to gain political traction (or form a competing kingdom in the Delta) and bloodlessly usurp the Egyptian throne. Egypt did hire mercenaries, but they tended to be kept at arm’s length and they weren’t really a single cultural background. Okay, the Sea-peoples is a bit of a sidetrack we just don’t know who the Hyksos were. I agree with **mr Dibble** that they have _the feel_ of an IE origin. Could be a branch that just simply left no other trace in the written records. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/125 "2013-09-18T14:55:29Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > I’m sorry, but I can’t make out what you’re trying to say. > Who didn’t turn on who? and they did ‘colonise’ large areas of the mediteranean. > > With “Pirates/raiders” I didn’t mean something like Carribean Pirates, just seizing ships. > More like Frankish, Anglo-Saxon and Viking raiders. Who also first plundered easy targets and later colonised those areas. The connotation of “pirates” outside of the strict “I steal your ship and women” sense is that they are loosely defined and in constant friction with one another. I was addressing that point of view. > [@Latro](#): > > Okay, the Sea-peoples is a bit of a sidetrack we just don’t know who the Hyksos were. I agree with **mr Dibble** that they have _the feel_ of an IE origin. > Could be a branch that just simply left no other trace in the written records. I’m saying that the Indo-Aryans predate the interim period of Hyksos in Dynasty 17, which was roughly 1590 - 1550 BCE. The Myceneans (Sea Peoples) weren’t as aggressively pursuing the greater Mediterranean as their playground in the form of roving bands of colonizers, yet. The Mycenean culture was established in roughly 1600 BCE, and was formed/forming contemporary to Dynasty 17. They colonized a few island locations close to home and colonized a few pieces of Italy, but didn’t begin the “Sea Peoples” phase of their existence until after Dynasty 17 had fallen to the Thebian Pharaohs of Dynasty 18. For reference: Sea People’s currently understood timeline (to me) looks like this: 1600 - 1550 BCE - Primarily local, some contact with Italy, and major influence from Crete. 1550 - 1500 BCE - Started contacting non-Italy/Greek islands for trade with some “Proto-Sea-Peoples” (conquer and colonize behaviour) taking place 1500 - 1450 BCE - Conquered Crete 1400 - 1350 BCE - Began what we modernly recognize as “Sea Peoples” campaigns 1250 - 1200 BCE - Sea Peoples settled into the Levant as Philistines/Phoenicians (depending which era you’re talking about) I’ll say that while it’s _very possible_ that we have an unrecorded thrust to take over Egypt from Mycenae/Sea Peoples, I think that if it were the Mycenae/Se Peoples, we would have seen not only a good-sized war (As they weren’t around long enough to become “Friendly Neighbors”) to take the throne but also a greater push back to the Thebian Pharoahs’ war for power from Greece itself, instead of the Dynasty 17’s fall and 18 pursuing them over-land to Canaan. (Granted, this could have been the easiest route to take to GTFO) I would also like to note that I previously said that the Hyksos came between Dynasty 17 and 18, but I was wrong. The Hyksos are regarded **as** Dynasty 17. I apologize for this misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/126 "2013-09-18T17:00:38Z")
The story of Noah saving the animals is demonstrably false using any number of ways. It might be true that there was a huge (but local) flood, and a guy might have built an ark and saved a lot of animals, but this as a significant event it contradicts the distribution of species on the planet. > [@simster](#): > > A global flood - the exodus - Sodom/Ghomorah - any of jesus miracles - jesus raising the dead, being raised from the dead - Johah being swallowed (and regurgitated) by a whale - various mythological creatures in Isaiah. > > All of these things are items the bible says ‘happened’ - to ‘falsify them’ - simply state them as having never happened (null hypothesis, if you will) and look for evidence that they did - having failed that test, they have been falsified. Admittedly, a global flood would have left evidence, and there is none. Many other miracles might not have left evidence, or might have left evidence we can’t feel confident we would have seen. Regarding the miracles themselves (rather than the evidence after the fact), we can’t falsify, by definition. Assume there are miracles. They would contradict the laws of physics. Therefore, we can’t use the laws of physics to prove that miracles couldnt have happened; we can use science only to show that evidence they should have left was not left. Take for example the sun standing still in the sky. (That was a hot topic for Galileo, but for a different reason than it’s of interest here.) Of course, according to our understanding of astronomy, it’s ridiculous – unless you admit the possibility of God contravening the laws of physics. Then it’s fine, and the question that remains is, would that have left any evidence? That’s a case where we have no idea what kind of evidence it would have left. Clearly momentum wouldn’t be preserved: stopping the sun in the sky already contravenes that; presumably it’s no harder to apply the miracle to everything on and inside the planet as to the planet itself. (When you’re omnipotent, all things are equally easy!) On the other hand, we can list all the miracles that would have left evidence, and see which of those we can find evidence for. Creation of the universe, in the order specified? Nope, and this covers quite a list of miracles. Global flood? Nope. The evidence shows that this did not happen. No doubt the list could be extended. It seems to me that if God wrought miracles, we’d have the evidence by now. So far, the two most miraculous things are (1) the existance of anything at all, and (2) the existance of Life. Both are amazing, and science isn’t beyond the hypothesis stage on either, but they’re not evidence for miracles unless we try to explain everything we don’t know using miracles. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/127 "2013-09-18T17:18:56Z")
Essentially, the Bible is demonstratably false in every case where it claims miracles - those can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that miracles are impossible. It is not necessarily demonstratably false when it chronicles purely historical matters, but it is obviously subject to much mythologizing. There are quite legitimate arguments about the extent to which the ‘historical’ chronicles are pure myth, and to what extent they have a basis in reality. For example, until the last couple of decades it was thought by many historians that King David was purely mythical. Now, it is thought, based on the discovery of a single historical inscription referencing the ‘House of David’ by an enemy of the Hebrews, that he was in point of fact a real historical king, albeit a minor one - the glittering empire of the Hebrews is still thought to be myth, as there is no evidence of it. Anything earlier that the founding of the monarchy, and you are in the realm of pure legend; there may or may not be some historical basis for some of it, but it is unlikely to be provable, and is almost certainly jumbled up with legends of various sorts. Giant floods and the like are of course pure legend, and in that case probably very ancient at that (a variant of the same story crops up in Sumeria, for example). ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/128 "2013-09-18T17:49:26Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > \*\*Assume there are miracles. They would contradict the laws of physics. \*\* (snipped for brevity and bolded by me) The default assumption is that Miracles ‘do not’ happen - not in the sense of ‘supernaturally inspired’ miracles - ‘miracles’ (things we cannot readily explain) certainly do happen in medical environments every day (people survive things that most do not). ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/129 "2013-09-18T18:53:30Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Essentially, the Bible is demonstratably false in every case where it claims miracles - those can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that miracles are impossible. Isn’t this begging the question? And “falsifiable” does not mean “demonstrably false.” > [@](#): > > Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. > > [http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html](http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html) As I said upthread, I don’t see how the _possibility_ of miracles could be falsifiable (in this sense). ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/130 "2013-09-18T18:56:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > For example, until the last couple of decades it was thought by many historians that King David was purely mythical. Now, it is thought, based on the discovery of a single historical inscription referencing the ‘House of David’ by an enemy of the Hebrews, that he was in point of fact a real historical king, albeit a minor one - the glittering empire of the Hebrews is still thought to be myth, as there is no evidence of it. There was a “golden age” of the Israeli state turning from a loose confederation of related “tribes” into a monarchy, but it was during a period from sometime before Sauls’ reign to the end of Solomon’s reign when the other (major) empires were either navel-gazing, destroyed, or pursuing conquests in other areas away from the Levant. Israel was (from what we can tell) the most powerful state in it’s immediate area, but this power did not extend far past it’s borders. It never went and conquered the neighbor’s neighbors, for instance. This “golden age” lasted for at most 150 years. (3 kings and some nebulous transition time before Saul came to power). The precise date of this is hard to know with the evidence we have, now, but the Merneptah Stella was the oldest record of Israelites yet found, from between 1213 BCE and 1203 BCE. It also referred to them not as a “State” as it did Canaan and other entries, but as a “People”. Some interpret this to mean that the Israeli peoples were idealogically distinct from Canaanites by this time but not yet a state. The monarchy would have come later than this. There are a wide variety of guesses, but not much evidence as to when Jerusalem went from “Fortified Religious Center” to “Head of State” and surrounding peoples didn’t mention Isreal in their texts until the 9th century BCE. Internal rifts then split the Israeli state in half, and multiple conquerors came through. They retained “individuality” as a precinct/province/daughter state/whatever you want to call it of more powerful empires for a lot of those years, but it was never free (or probably even capable) to enforce it’s own will on the area. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/131 "2013-09-18T19:25:05Z")
Well, what about the injunction against “adultery”? That is at best debatable and at worst rather bad advice. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/132 "2013-09-18T20:30:58Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Isn’t this begging the question? I’m not misdirecting or misleading anyone. I’m simply and straightforwardly saying that miracles do not happen, by definition. Therefore, stories containing miracles must be untrue, and can be safely dismissed out of hand as legend, or at least, a misunderstanding of the facts. I dunno whether that’s an informal fallacy or not, but it seems a pretty safe bet when reading accounts claiming to be historical. > [@](#): > > And “falsifiable” does not mean "demonstrably false."As I said upthread, I don’t see how the _possibility_ of miracles could be falsifiable (in this sense). I know that. I was responding to the post immediately above mine, which used the term “demonstratably false”. Miracles are non-falsifiable; rather, stories claiming miracles are false. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/133 "2013-09-18T20:32:01Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I wonder why a Heavenly Father would tell some of his children to go into a city,and kill all the people so the chosen could have the land. It was nothing personal against Jericho. It was the standard policy laid out in Deuteronomy 20 — a) when attacking distant cities, if they immediately surrender, enslave them. If they fight back, kill all the men, and take the women. b) for cities in the “Promised Land,” kill everything that breathes. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Moses in Deut 20 (KJV): > > 10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. > > 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. > > 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: > > 13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: > > 14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. > > 15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. > > 16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: > > 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/134 "2013-09-19T00:20:50Z")
Matthew 5:7, “_blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy_”, yeah, that whole beatitude business is supremely unsupportable. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/135 "2013-09-19T10:42:39Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > The bloodless option needs a lot of buildup time, on the order of a few generations if not more. The Hyksos had the buildup time - they were a presence in the Delta from at least the 11th Dynasty (1800s BCE) > [@](#): > > I would also like to note that I previously said that the Hyksos came between Dynasty 17 and 18, but I was wrong. The Hyksos are regarded as Dynasty 17. This is incorrect - the Hyksos are regarded as Dynasty 15. It’s confusing because they are co-temporal with the Theban-based native 16th and 17th Dynasties. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/136 "2013-09-19T11:18:56Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > 1250 - 1200 BCE - Sea Peoples settled into the Levant as Philistines/Phoenicians (depending which era you’re talking about) Philistines, maybe, but the Phoenecians don’t seem to be anything but Canaanite. They spoke a Hamito-Semitic language, worshiped gods like El, Astarte, and the various baals, had the same material culture, and so on. So if there was a Sea People component, they didn’t leave a mark. One theory, though, is that the Sea People incursion weakened the Egyptians and Hittites enough that Canaanite cities were able to become independently powerful to full the vacuum. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/137 "2013-09-19T12:21:20Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > It was nothing personal against Jericho. It was the standard policy laid out in Deuteronomy 20 — > > a) when attacking distant cities, if they immediately surrender, enslave them. If they fight back, kill all the men, and take the women. > > b) for cities in the “Promised Land,” kill everything that breathes. Doesn’t sound like a merciful, just, or loving being to me. If a being is so powerful, why not create a land of milk and honey for his favorite people and let the others live in peace? Of course I know this is the work and words of other humans so take it with a grain of salt ! Nice to have a God who is so caring for his favorites but so eager to kill or have the others of his own creation be killed. It seems this god can work all kinds of miracles when he chooses but takes the hard way when dealing with others. Just doesn’t add up to me! On second thought, maybe he took the other’s to heaven and let the favorites live to suffer? Either way it makes no sense! ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/138 "2013-09-19T12:31:55Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Philistines, maybe, but the Phoenecians don’t seem to be anything but Canaanite. They spoke a Hamito-Semitic language, worshiped gods like El, Astarte, and the various baals, had the same material culture, and so on. So if there was a Sea People component, they didn’t leave a mark. One theory, though, is that the Sea People incursion weakened the Egyptians and Hittites enough that Canaanite cities were able to become independently powerful to full the vacuum. You are right. I incorrectly associated Phoenician with “Philistine” but it’s actually the Greek term for Canaanite. I offer my apologies. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/139 "2013-09-19T13:56:09Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Doesn’t sound like a merciful, just, or loving being to me. If a being is so powerful, why not create a land of milk and honey for his favorite people and let the others live in peace? Of course I know this is the work and words of other humans so take it with a grain of salt > > ! Nice to have a God who is so caring for his favorites but so eager to kill or have the others of his own creation be killed. It seems this god can work all kinds of miracles when he chooses but takes the hard way when dealing with others. Just doesn’t add up to me! > > On second thought, maybe he took the other’s to heaven and let the favorites live to suffer? No chance of that. Yahweh made it very clear that the reason they had to die was that they worshipped the wrong gods, i.e., not him. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952/140 "2013-09-20T11:14:05Z")
BTW, not to continue a hijack, but just because I think it’s pretty comprehensive about available sources for info, I like [this site about the Sea Peoples](http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/sea.htm). Lots of pics of original source material (some pretty funky helmets those guys were rocking!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-falsifiable-claims-do-the-holy-books-make/668952.md?page=8)