Sodom and Gomorrah Discovered

[shunyadragon]

The same applies to Hebrew traditions as we have seen from earlier posts in this thread. The Hebrew people is identified as being in Canaanite or Hittite territory in Egyptian records dating to roughly 1300 BC, and their distinctive religion is attested in those same records. 1300 BC - already an identifiable people with distinctive religious practices. Guaranteed - those practices didn't come out of India.

You cannot back up that guarantee. Vedic peoples were a well defined urban culture with scripture is older then any known Hebrew scripture. Your playing one reference trying to make the Hebrews a distinctive people. Not enough, because at the time they were one or more nomadic tribe(s) among many.

Already been there: henotheistic adherence to YHVH wasn't the only religious practice of the Hebrews prior to the Babylonian exile. Your own posts, the Bible, and the investigation by myself and others all give that same information. Nothing you have provided shows any "development" of a henotheistic religion. No more than there is any line of development in Amenophis' sudden break with tradition and attempt to impose a monotheistic religion on Egypt. That is a bolt out of the blue with no apparent precursor and no known relationship with any prior devotional practices. It may be that later excavations will reveal something of the underlying causes, but as things stand, the most likely cause would be at least something of the events recorded in the account of Moses.

The bible does not help you, because nothing found in the Bible was written down prior to the exile. The account of Exodus is too late to be accurate. The OT itself is testimony to a religion evolved from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic religion. I referred to the thread dealing with it, read it. Your still relying on speculation from a religious bias to support the relationship between Egypt monotheism and Hebrew, later monotheism. No evidence connects the two.

I assume you don't like the idea of being taken seriously.

That is the problem with your speculative claims.

[Mr. Anderson]

The problem is . . .'what your looking for' . . . and not simply looking at the evidence.

What established scientific evidence has been presented?!?!? I have seen none so far. I have cited the reference directly referred to tabibito that clearly supported my argument, and cited other references.

If archaeological evidence doesn't count nothing else will,because that's the only evidence available. From the works of Dever specifically the 300 distinct Iron Age villages were presented. The same could be pulled from Hess, Smith, Zevit, and even Finklestine. Almost no cultic objects,no pigs, abundance of water cistrens,natural springs found in many places,(yes thats a new one but Dever claims that is what is there.). The villages were positioned in the hills but close enough to plains that agriculture was established.(new as well but the same)

Your references don't speak specifically to the area in question but to semi-arid regions in general and the area where proto-Israel supposedly came from. Then claim that all such areas should look alike. These references are refuted by the archaeological evidence on the ground in the hill country area, that is scientific evidence and it is presented as such.

No argument has been refuted. Again and again, 'What scientific evidence from scholars. . .??? has been presented. Please note you referred to 'scientific evidence . . .'

This post adds nothing of substance to the argument.

Your dodging is infantile.

Not clear nor rational.

Continually presenting refuted evidence is irrational. I haven't presented are page #'s for the evidence I present. But if you wont accept archaeological evidence as scientific what would it matter? You're just gonna keep on dancing and representing a dead horse.

[shunyadragon]

If archaeological evidence doesn't count nothing else will,because that's the only evidence available. From the works of Dever specifically the 300 distinct Iron Age villages were presented. The same could be pulled from Hess, Smith, Zevit, and even Finklestine. Almost no cultic objects,no pigs, abundance of water cistrens,natural springs found in many places,(yes thats a new one but Dever claims that is what is there.). The villages were positioned in the hills but close enough to plains that agriculture was established.(new as well but the same)

Your references don't speak specifically to the area in question but to semi-arid regions in general and the area where proto-Israel supposedly came from. Then claim that all such areas should look alike. These references are refuted by the archaeological evidence on the ground in the hill country area, that is scientific evidence and it is presented as such. 'as such?' [False, this is not scientific evidence. It is your interpretation of limited archeological evidence.]




Your dodging is infantile.





Continually presenting refuted evidence is irrational. I haven't presented are page #'s for the evidence I present. But if you wont accept archaeological evidence as scientific what would it matter? You're just gonna keep on dancing and representing a dead horse.

So far you not presented what you claimed. Your stretch of the interpretation of some archeological evidence is not 'scientific evidence' as you claimed.

Resorting to name calling is not flattering to take the place of 'scientific evidence' nor your weak argument

[tabibito]

https://www.academia.edu/438637/An_I...eh_and_Asherah
What do you think Mr Anderson? Information here would seem to indicate that the author has reason to believe that the temple didn't have Asherah/Astarte prior to the 8th century, but he doesn't seem to have provided a reason for that assessment. Or have I misunderstood the presentation?

[shunyadragon]

Summary of some the results of the discussion:

(1) There are two mentions of YHWH in non-Hebrew sources before the exile that indicate that YHWH was a Hebrew Go regiond.

(2) References from Egypt depict the Hebrews as just another nomadic tribe(s) among other tribes in the Palestine, at a time (1300 BCE) when the surrounding cultures were advanced urban trading cultures with writing, and relatively advanced civilizations.

(3) There is no evidence of Old Testament Scripture prior to the exile. The only writings with early dates that match or are comparable to OT scripture, are Ugarit, Canaanite and pre-Babylonian cuneiform texts.

(4) Hebrew writing evolved from earlier Canaanite writing, and only became a distinctive writing much later.

(5) Iron Age Judah only had villages no cities with an urban culture.

(6) Babylonian, Phoenician, Ugarit, Canaanite, Egyptian, and Vedic (Hindu) cultures were advanced urban trading cultures with writing and cities long before Hebrew culture, therefore trying to trace religious beliefs in these civilizations to the Hebrews is futile, It is most likely that these cultures influence the development of Hebrew culture, language and religion as the evidence shows.

Next I will provide references that show the evolution of Hebrew polytheism to monotheism is well founded on OT text.

[tabibito]

(1) Yes

(2) References from Egypt depict the Hebrews as just another nomadic tribe(s) among other tribes in the Palestine, at a time (1300 BCE)

No such reference exists. The inference is not substantiated.

(3) There is no evidence of Old Testament Scripture prior to the exile.

The only writings with early dates that match or are comparable to OT scripture, are Ugarit, Canaanite and pre-Babylonian cuneiform texts.

Hebrew writing exists in that time period. The alphabet used is not uniquely Hebrew. Claiming that there is nothing written in Hebrew because it wasn't written in the (then non existent) Hebrew alphabet is akin to claiming that nothing is written in German, English, French, or Dutch because each of them uses the Roman alphabet. The point is demonstrated by your point 4.

(4) Hebrew writing evolved from earlier Canaanite writing, and only became a distinctive writing later.

(5) Iron Age Judah only had villages no cities with an urban culture.

Prior to roughly 1000 BC that would seem to verify the Biblical record.

(6) Babylonian, Phoenician, Ugarit, Canaanite, Egyptian, and Vedic (Hindu) cultures were advanced urban trading cultures with writing and cities long before Hebrew culture, therefore trying to trace religious beliefs in these civilizations to the Hebrews is futile,

Given that no-one involved in this discussion ever tried to say that other civilisations were subject to Hebrew influence, what is the relevance?

It is most likely that these cultures influence the development of Hebrew culture, language and religion as the evidence shows.

Aside from the geographically distant (relatively) Vedic culture, none of these had anything like a henotheistic or monotheistic culture - Hebrew theology therefore was not informed by the local cultures. Egypt had a very brief affair with monotheism, which did not have any traceable precursor in Egyptian society and beliefs. Trade with India may have informed that particular fling, but doesn't explain the vehemence with which it was implemented.

And Point 7:
Absence of pigs in such highland sites as Shiloh during late bronze and iron age, despite their presence during the middle bronze age and despite their continuing presence in other and nearby areas of Samaria. Shiloh is not in the tribal territory of Judah, where there is a distinct absence of pigs during the iron age, but prior to David, it was the religious centre of Israel.

And Point 8:
While argument may be entertained about the time of original editing (not writing) of the Pentateuch, the book of Judges is considered most likely to date to no later than 1000 BC

[shunyadragon]

The following is a series of posts from an old thread by showmeproof started April, 2010 on the old Tweb.

As an atheist, I think that religions are explicable by cultural evolution and are thus completely man made. I have been spending a great deal of time lately towards learning about Canaanite (Levant) religion. I have very far to go, but as of right now my sources include Robert Wright's The Evolution of God which then pointed me towards Israel Finkelstein's and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, Richard Elliot Freidman's The Bible With Sources Revealed (a color coded Pentateuch revealing sources J,E,P,D, and redactors...slight twist to Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis) and of course the Bible itself (NIV at home, but I use Bible Gateway to compare alternate translations). This is a topic which is of extreme interest to me as it shows us the environment in which the Israelite religion grew up. If you could recommend other sources that would be splendid, and I encourage you to discuss their ideas here...I'm just using what I'm familiar with at this point.
Basic Premise: The Israelites were not originally monotheistic. They were polytheists, and then went through periods of monolarity, and then finally towards monotheism.
Monolarity is basically the belief that there are other gods, but you worship the best. Usually a nationalistic God which is exactly what Yahweh is in the OT
Polytheism in Israelite history had a long run until under Hezekiah and then later Josiah destroyed the temples, idols and altars of other gods. Josiah's reign is one of monolarity pushing towards monotheism which doesn't fully take root until after the exile.

This shouldn't sound too surprising as a cursory glance at the Old Testament frequently has the Israelites worshiping other deities. It is argued that there are many factors that led to the progression from polytheism to monotheism and they include both domestic and foreign politics. Consider first the foreign politics; Israel was a small nation which had really large neighbors: Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Phoenicia. Israel went through many periods in which it attempted to court treaties with Egypt, Babylon and Assyria which amounted towards vassalage. Israel didn't have a bargaining chip and had to pay high tribute to which ever country dominated during a certain time. This created a domestic xenophobic environment in which Israelites were almost always in zero sum relationships and they realized it and resented it. As a result much contempt stirs towards the aggressor of the day in the writing of the major and minor prophets including the great disparity between the Israelite elite and poor. One exception might be Solomon's reign which prospered under a strong international policy including the marrying of foreign wives whom are derided by the bible as having turned Solomon's heart by influencing him to acknowledge or at the very least tolerate their home countries gods.

Furthermore, Archaeology is revealing that the Israelites were merely nomadic Canaanites that lived in the hill country not a vast exodus of slaves from Egypt that forcibly took Canaan. These nomadic tribes may have included assimilated surviving members of the Shasu whom are mentioned on the Merneptah Stele as being from Yhw (a place which happens to be the hill country). [showmeproof considers the references in the Mernepatah stele and the Egyptian reference to be a place name and not the name of a God. I am neutral as to this at present awaiting further evidence.] Part of the assimilation included some traditions of the Shasu being transmitted into the nomadic Canaanites and vise versa...thus the exodus.
So back to the Canaanite pantheon. This included El the creator god and father of all gods, Baal, Mot, Dagon, Ashtar, Astarte, Lotan, Melqart, Resheph, and others. These of course make appearances in the bible, but are found in Ugaritic Texts preserved in clay. Yahweh is included as well, as a son of El. Yahweh has many encounters with these characters in the bible and is said to rise above them often paralleling feats accomplished by Baal.
Lets look at a few bible verses to see this interaction.

Exodus 6:2-3 - God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai) but by my name the Lord (YHWH) I did not make myself known to them.”

Deuteronomy - 32:7-9 - “Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you; When the Most High (El Eloyn) gave the nations their inheritance, when he set up the boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (EL). For the Lord’s (YWHY) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”

Psalm 89:6-10 - For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings (gods)? O Lord God Almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O Lord, and your faithfulness surrounds you. You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.

Psalm 74:12-17 - “But you, O God, are my king from of old; you bring salvation upon the earth. It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert. It was you who opened up springs and streams; you dried up the ever flowing rivers. The day is yours and yours also the night; you established the sun and the moon It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth ; you made both summer and winter.”

Psalm 82:1 - “God presides in the great assembly (council of El) he gives judgment among the gods.”

These verses are clarified by the Ugaritic texts which explain the Canaanite pantheon. It isn't merely the sea or river, or moon or sun or day or night, these are gods which he is said to rise above. There are many places where Yahweh is spoken of as one of, but not the only god. There are also places where it is emphatic that he is the only one. However, the earlier Canaanite traditions include Yahweh as a son of El (as does the bible), and furthermore the Phoenician pantheon bears many resemblances as does some of Babylonian traditions.

To summarize: There is much evidence that the Israelites were originally polytheistic and Yahweh was only one of the gods in their pantheon, but being their national god he became the prominent figure and eventually the only one to survive in the Israelite tradition due largely to both foreign and domestic political pressure. Israelite religion is a product of its neighbor's religion and changed over time...cultural evolution in action.
There is much to talk about here, and I welcome discussion. Again, please bring in some of your own sources as well to enrich the topic.

The most great God among lesser gods, and enemy gods is a common them in many cultures of the world, and the Hebrew evolution of religion and the concept of god(s)

Post #98 from showmeproof

Quick correction from the OP. The Shasu are not mentioned on the Mernetaph stele, but rather on the Moabite stone. The Mernetaph stele is the earliest Egyptian reference to a specific people known as the Israelites, and speaks of the pharaoh's triumph over them "Israel's seed is not". He mistakenly thought he wiped them out.

The Shasu are however thought to be nomads of the levant. Many scholars reject the idea that they are the one and same Israelites due to their depiction on the steele being incongruent with Hebrew attire, and culture. However, other scholars argue the Shasu from Yhw indicates a possible influence (by assimilation?) on the Hebrews whom were originally also nomads from the Levant. The import of the Moabite stone is that it is one of the earliest sources of a reference to Yhw, and in the context used it is a place (which could be named after a god).

[shunyadragon]

No such reference exists. The inference is not substantiated.

Your reference to YHWH in the Egyptian text (God or place name?) made this description of the Hebrews.

Source: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/03/08/The-Name-Yahweh-in-Egyptian-Hieroglyphic-Texts.aspx

INTRODUCTION

Among ancient Egyptian designations for types of foreign peoples in the New Kingdom Period, the term Shasu occurs fairly frequently. It is generally accepted that the term Shasu means nomads or Bedouin people, referring primarily to the nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples of Syria-Palestine. There are two significant hieroglyphic references in New Kingdom Period texts to an area called “the land of the Shasu of Yahweh.”1 Except for the Old Testament, these are the oldest references found in any ancient texts to the God Yahweh. The purpose of this paper is to study these two references and assess their possible importance in dating the Exodus story.

[Note conclusion]

It is clear that there once was a group of Shasu Bedouin/nomads living in Syria-Palestine who were associated with either a deity or a place named Yahweh. It is also clear that the name Yahweh was known to the Egyptians in the 18th Dynasty during the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep III.

© Copyright Original Source

Hebrew writing exists in that time period. The alphabet used is not uniquely Hebrew. Claiming that there is nothing written in Hebrew because it wasn't written in the (then non existent) Hebrew alphabet is akin to claiming that nothing is written in German, English, French, or Dutch because each of them uses the Roman alphabet. The point is demonstrated by your point 4.

No it is not equivalent. These languages can be logically traced to non English, German, Dutch and French languages without trying to call these origins English, French, Dutch or German as you are trying to label earlier languages Hebrew when it is not. Phoenician, Ugarit, Canaanite and Babylonian show an evolution of writing going back at least 800 years before any remote evidence or notion of an primitive Hebrew, which is, when found evolved forms of Phoenician/Ugarit/Canaanite writing, NOT Hebrew. Yes nothing written in Hebrew. You have to come up some evidence to support this other then an assertion.

Prior to roughly 1000 BC that would seem to verify the Biblical record.

No known verification known, speculation gets you nowhere. Please cite specifics.

Given that no-one involved in this discussion ever tried to say that other civilisations were subject to Hebrew influence, what is the relevance?

You did here and elsewhere attributing Egyptian monotheism to Hebrew monotheism:

Zoroastrianism developed in the Middle East, and came into being some when between 700 and 300 BC. According to Parsi records, Zoroaster was born around 660 BC. Again, there is a clear presence of an Abrahamic religion long before Zoroastrianism was thought of. So, while Zoroastrianism and Sikhism are not direct line Abrahamic religions, they amalgamate other religions with Abrahamic traditions.

Aside from the geographically distant (relatively) Vedic culture, none of these had anything like a henotheistic or monotheistic culture - Hebrew theology therefore was not informed by the local cultures. Egypt had a very brief affair with monotheism, which did not have any traceable precursor in Egyptian society and beliefs.

Trade with India may have informed that particular fling, but doesn't explain the vehemence with which it was implemented.

Speculation based on religious bias does not work here. See below trade with India dates from at least the 4th millennium BCE

Needs more explanation. Trade with India across Arabia to as far away as Egypt is well known when the Hebrew culture was referred to as simply one of many nomadic tribes, and continued through history.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_trade

By the second half of the 4th millennium BCE, the gemstone lapis lazuli was being traded from its only known source in the ancient world—Badakshan, in what is now northeastern Afghanistan—as far as Mesopotamia and Egypt. By the 3rd millennium BCE, the lapis lazuli trade was extended to Harappa, Lothal and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley Civilization (Ancient India) of modern day Pakistan and northwestern India. The Indus Valley was also known as Meluhha, the earliest maritime trading partner of the Sumerians and Akkadians in Mesopotamia. The ancient harbor constructed in Lothal, India, around 2400 BCE is the oldest seafaring harbour known.

© Copyright Original Source

And Point 7:
Absence of pigs in such highland sites as Shiloh during late bronze and iron age, despite their presence during the middle bronze age and despite their continuing presence in other and nearby areas of Samaria. Shiloh is not in the tribal territory of Judah, where there is a distinct absence of pigs during the iron age, but prior to David, it was the religious centre of Israel.

Presence in nearby areas are in wetter climates as previously noted in detail a number of times. The coastal region to the East inhabited by Philistines have a climate suitable for swine, thus swine were a part of their diet. Grasping at straws for the pig bones found at Shiloh in the Bronze Age has problems as other references to pig bones found on trade routes. Shiloh is on the East West trade route with Philistines in the coastal East where pigs is part of their diet in a wetter climate, and Arabia in the West which is consistent with other isolated pig bone finds on trade routes.

Absence of pigs is again simply explain by the fact that pastoral cultures in regions of limited water resources never have adopted swine as a part of their diet. That is already addressed in detail. The possibility that a culture could adopt swine gets you nowhere. Possibilities without evidence are never a good argument. Except pig bones on trade routes connecting the Philistines in the East no significant pig bones are found.

And Point 8:
While argument may be entertained about the time of original editing (not writing) of the Pentateuch, the book of Judges is considered most likely to date to no later than 1000 BC

Absolutely no evidence for this early date other then the weak text argument, which is unfortunately too circular. There is no problem that the Books of the Pentateuch and other books of the OT refer to earlier events, no evidence of the text before the exile. If you feel there is evidence for text at this early date please present it. I have been waiting for years on Tweb for someone to present such evidence.

[tabibito]

Absence of pigs is again simply explain by the fact that pastoral cultures in regions of limited water resources never have adopted swine as a part of their diet. That is already addressed in detail. The possibility that a culture could adopt swine gets you nowhere. Possibilities without evidence are never a good argument. Except pig bones on trade routes connecting the Philistines in the East no significant pig bones are found.

You keep spouting this totally irrelevant objection despite the fact that the climate restrictions play no significant role after 3000 BC. And despite the information being repeatedly posted that the places in the Northern and Southern kingdoms, where pigs ARE found compared with the places where they ARE NOT found are neither climatically nor topographically different in any significant way. In fact, in one specific location and particularly interesting case - pigs are found prior to Israeli occupation, but not afterwards:

I'll say it - yet again. in simple terms. so that there can be no misunderstanding.
Place ......... Middle Bronze Age ... Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age
Shiloh .............Pigs Present.................Pigs Not Present.


And Point 8:

Absolutely no evidence for this early date other then the weak text argument, which is unfortunately too circular.

Zoroastrianism developed in the Middle East, and came into being some when between 700 and 300 BC. According to Parsi records, Zoroaster was born around 660 BC. Again, there is a clear presence of an Abrahamic religion long before Zoroastrianism was thought of. So, while Zoroastrianism and Sikhism are not direct line Abrahamic religions, they amalgamate other religions with Abrahamic traditions.

I never said Vedic traditions derived from anywhere. I said Sikhism was influenced by Abrahamic tradition via a mingling of Buddhist tradition with Islam. That is documented history. Sikhism is a late development. Zoroastrianism developed in the Middle East, and can be traced to an individual who lived at a time when Israel's henotheistic (or monotheistic, if you must call it that) culture was assuredly established. Maybe independent developments, but the Hebrews certainly didn't derive their beliefs from Zarashustra.

Aside from the geographically distant (relatively) Vedic culture, none of these had anything like a henotheistic or monotheistic culture - Hebrew theology therefore was not informed by the local cultures. Egypt had a very brief affair with monotheism, which did not have any traceable precursor in Egyptian society and beliefs.

If you think any of that says Egypt's monotheism was informed by Hebrew traditions, you are drawing an immediately apparent conclusion that isn't even implicit in what I posted. The question arises - where did the concept originate? And even with the following comment

Trade with India may have informed that particular fling, but doesn't explain the vehemence with which it was implemented.

you still claim I am attributing the source to the Hebrews.

Speculation based on religious bias does not work here.

Then stop indulging in the practice - the practice in particular of pretending that the contents of the Old Testament were invented during the Babylonian Exile, and not collated from traditional material.

Speculation based on religious bias does not work here.

Indeed it doesn't. Speculation that monotheism somehow develops from a refinement of polytheistic beliefs in stages has absolutely nothing by way of support:
doesn't work.

{and} Speculation based on religious bias does not work here {either}.

Speculation that Hebrew words written in the Ugartic script are in fact not Hebrew
doesn't work.
Speakers of any other language using that script could not read it. Only people who know both the sounds that Ugartic characters represent, and the Hebrew language, can read it.

[shunyadragon]

You keep spouting this totally irrelevant objection despite the fact that the climate restrictions play no significant role after 3000 BC. And despite the information being repeatedly posted that the places in the Northern and Southern kingdoms, where pigs ARE found compared with the places where they ARE NOT found are neither climatically nor topographically different in any significant way. In fact, in one specific location and particularly interesting case - pigs are found prior to Israeli occupation, but not afterwards:

That specific location was on an east west trade route as cited, which is the same reason the pig bones were found in the other iron age trade route cite as described in the source you cited.

I'll say it - yet again. in simple terms. so that there can be no misunderstanding.
Place ......... Middle Bronze Age ... Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age
Shiloh .............Pigs Present.................Pigs Not Present.

It does not make any difference how many times you say it. It does not make any sense based on the source you cited. The only locations where pig bones were found in the south hill country are on East West trade routes as cited. No pig bones were found elsewhere in the hill country of Judah. Yes as described in the source you cited there is a climatic difference between the coastal region and northern river valley where pig bones were common, and the dryer hill country of the south where they are absent.

So what pig bones found at one time and not the other. The location is on a trade route from the Philistines in the East to the West. It is an obvious location for pig bones to be found at some time or the other. Read your source more carefully as to why pig bones were found in different localities. If the Philistines were present on the trade route in the Bronze Age the pig bones are logically present. If the were not present at a later date it is logical that there would not be pig bones present on the trade route. The Philistines dominated the southern coastal region more suitable for swine production. If they used the trade route through Shillo it reasonable they took some pigs with them due to dietary preference.

Your own source disagrees with you and climate is an issue.

I never said Vedic traditions derived from anywhere.

I never said you did. I said Vedic (Hindu) were derived from whatever. They are the older much more civilized influential cultures like, Ugarit, Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian traditions then the relatively primitive Hebrew culture, and likely influence Hebrew culture. Zarathustra rose out of Babylonian culture, not Hebrew Culture. Buddhism rose out of Vedic (Hindu). It is speculation from a religious bias that Egyptian monotheism arose from Hebrew monotheism for which there is absolutely no evidence.

I said Sikhism was influenced by Abrahamic tradition via a mingling of Buddhist tradition with Islam. That is documented history. Sikhism is a late development. Zoroastrianism developed in the Middle East, and can be traced to an individual who lived at a time when Israel's henotheistic (or monotheistic, if you must call it that) culture was assuredly established. Maybe independent developments,

A little confusing since you are talking about the influence of Islam on a minor religion Sikhism. Not really on subject back up a few thousand years or more to be on topic.

. . . but the Hebrews certainly didn't derive their beliefs from Zarashustra.

It is very possible that Hebrew culture was influenced by Zorastrianism, since they were influenced by Ugarit, Canaanite and Babylonian cultures.

If you think any of that says Egypt's monotheism was informed by Hebrew traditions, you are drawing an immediately apparent conclusion that isn't even implicit in what I posted. The question arises - where did the concept originate? And even with the following comment
you still claim I am attributing the source to the Hebrews.
Then stop indulging in the practice - the practice in particular of pretending that the contents of the Old Testament were invented during the Babylonian Exile, and not collated from traditional material.

It is a fact that none of the Old Testament scripture was known to exit prior to the exile, and parts of the Old Testament are clearly from and influenced by Ugarit, Canaanite and Babylonian writings and Cultures.

Indeed it doesn't. Speculation that monotheism somehow develops from a refinement of polytheistic beliefs in stages has absolutely nothing by way of support:
doesn't work.

Works very well based on the evidence provided. showmeproof's post cited begins the evidence directly from OT scripture, more to follow.

Speculation that Hebrew words written in the Ugartic script are in fact not Hebrew
doesn't work.
Speakers of any other language using that script could not read it. Only people who know both the sounds that Ugartic characters represent, and the Hebrew language, can read it.

The written Hebrew comes from Ugarit and Canaanite, no where else. There is no evidence of a prior Hebrew written language. A few characters in the whole text does not lead to conclusion that it was Hebrew, nor whether it was readable.

[tabibito]

That specific location was on an east west trade route as cited, which is the same reason the pig bones were found in the other iron age trade route cite as described in the source you cited.

Shiloh is in the North Kingdom, Samaria. It is not in Judah, the Southern Kingdom, the location of the town in JUDAH positioned on a trade route which is the one place in Judah where pig bones have been unearthed.
Pig bones are found scattered through many sites in Samaria, but, despite their prior presence on that same site, not in Hebrew occupied Shiloh - the religious centre prior to the construction of the temple.
Northern Kingdom - Samaria/10 of land holding tribes - mixed polytheistic and YHVH worshiping practices.
Southern Kingdom, Judah, the only remaining land holding tribe - almost exclusively YHVH worshiping practices.

The written Hebrew comes from Ugarit and Canaanite, no where else. There is no evidence of a prior Hebrew written language.

The plaque of Hezekiah's tunnel is written in an Ugaritic derived script:

The Shiloah (Siloam) inscription (כתובת השילוח) or Silwan inscription is a passage of inscribed text found in the Hezekiah tunnel which brings water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam, located in the City of David in East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shiloah or "Silwan". The inscription records the construction of the tunnel in the 8th century BCE. It is among the oldest extant records of its kind written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, and its association with the tunnel provides evidence for the ancient Biblical narrative.

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום) is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic alphabet and closely related to the Phoenician alphabet from which it descends. It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier. It was used as the main vehicle for writing the Hebrew language by the Israelites, who would later split into Jews and Samaritans.

It began to fall out of use by the Jews in the 5th century BCE when they adopted the Aramaic alphabet as their writing system

[tabibito]

Initially, the Old Testament Scriptures were exclusively written in Paleo-Hebrew.
Then, after borrowing the new alphabet from the Assyrians, the Jews began transliterating large portions of Scripture into the newer version.
For a period of time, Jews transcribed the majority of the Old Testament using the new Hebrew alphabet, while retaining the more ancient way of writing God’s name. Thus, for a while, the Hebrew Scriptures were written with a mixture of two different alphabets.

I cannot find any records disputing the foregoing, so I'll assume that it is generally accepted by archaeologists. (subject of course, to no creditable dispute surfacing.)

[shunyadragon]

I cannot find any records disputing the foregoing, so I'll assume that it is generally accepted by archaeologists. (subject of course, to no creditable dispute surfacing.)

The Shiloah (Siloam) inscription (כתובת השילוח) or Silwan inscription is a passage of inscribed text found in the Hezekiah tunnel which brings water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam, located in the City of David in East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shiloah or "Silwan". The inscription records the construction of the tunnel in the 8th century BCE. It is among the oldest extant records of its kind written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, and its association with the tunnel provides evidence for the ancient Biblical narrative.

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום) is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic alphabet and closely related to the Phoenician alphabet from which it descends. It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier. It was used as the main vehicle for writing the Hebrew language by the Israelites, who would later split into Jews and Samaritans.

It began to fall out of use by the Jews in the 5th century BCE when they adopted the Aramaic alphabet as their writing system

Source?!? Initially ?? Do you consider paleoHebrew post exile since the Old Testament Scriptures date after the exile, and the paleoHebrew written language evolved from Ugarit, and Canaanite (Syrian?).

I do not believe you can separate the Aramaic 'as being later adopted' from the evolution of the Hebrew from the Ugarit, Canaanite and Phoenician languages. By the evidence it is part of the evolution of the language.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

Aramaic (Classical Syriac: ܐܪܡܝܐ Aramaya) is a family of languages or dialects, belonging to the Semitic family. More specifically, it is a part of the Northwest Semitic subfamily, which also includes Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. The Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages and is ancestral to both the Arabic and modern Hebrew alphabets.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet

The Aramaic alphabet is adapted from the Phoenician alphabet and became distinctive from it by the 8th century BCE. It was used to write the Aramaic language. The letters all represent consonants, some of which are matres lectionis, which also indicate long vowels.

© Copyright Original Source

The key remains the dominant advanced trading civilizations influenced script and spoken language of the whole region.

[tabibito]

I cannot find any records disputing the foregoing, so I'll assume that it is generally accepted by archaeologists. (subject of course, to no creditable dispute surfacing.)

The Shiloah (Siloam) inscription (כתובת השילוח) or Silwan inscription is a passage of inscribed text found in the Hezekiah tunnel which brings water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam, located in the City of David in East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shiloah or "Silwan". The inscription records the construction of the tunnel in the 8th century BCE. It is among the oldest extant records of its kind written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, and its association with the tunnel provides evidence for the ancient Biblical narrative.

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום) is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic alphabet and closely related to the Phoenician alphabet from which it descends. It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier. It was used as the main vehicle for writing the Hebrew language by the Israelites, who would later split into Jews and Samaritans.

It began to fall out of use by the Jews in the 5th century BCE when they adopted the Aramaic alphabet as their writing system

Why have you reversed the order of and conflated the contents of two separate posts? I'd expect that kind of thing from a trained gossip columnist.

Do you consider paleoHebrew post exile since the Old Testament Scriptures date after the exile, and the paleoHebrew written language evolved from Ugarit, and Canaanite (Syrian?).

Why would I consider Paleo Hebrew to be post exile when it clearly existed 500 years before the exile? 8th Century BC (200+ years before the exile), the Hezekiah Tunnel was constructed. A plaque attesting that construction is written in Paleo-Hebrew. Pottery shards dating to 1000 BC are inscribed with Paleo-Hebrew. Your claim - that Hebrew language was not put to writing before the exile - is confuted. Paleo Hebrew continued in some small parts of liturgical use until the sacking of the second temple. Why would the obsolete written form continue in use for liturgical purposes? Or rather, to word the question in accord with your claims - why would the obsolete form be introduced for liturgical purposes?

The bible does not help you, because nothing found in the Bible was written down prior to the exile.

The claim is made that sections of the Old Testament (and possibly the entire Pentateuch) were written in Paleo-Hebrew, then transcribed to Biblical Hebrew during the exile. Which is to say, the Old Testament substantially existed prior to the exile, and after commencement of the exile redacted and edited. The claim is supported by the continuing practice of using Paleo-Hebrew for parts of the scripture after the exile. I have not been able to find any authoritative source contesting the claim. The evidence that the scriptures were in fact put to writing before the exile though scant, in the absence of any contrary claim, makes it reasonable to assume that at least some of the scriptures did in fact exist in written form before the exile.

The key remains the dominant advanced trading civilizations influenced script and spoken language of the whole region.

There never was a trade tongue that didn't. Relevance?

[tabibito]

Mernetaph Stele circa 1213 – 1203 BC

The Stele inscription section C - The Defeat of the other Enemies of Egypt.
"(For) Ra has turned himself again to Egypt;
He is bom to avenge it,
The King of Upper and Lower Egypt Banera
Meriamen, sun of Ra Merenptah-Hetephermaat.
The princes bend down, saying 'Hail!' (Shalom)
Not one raises his head among the Nine bows.
Devastated is Tehenu,
Kheta is quieted,
Seized is the Kanaan with every evil,
Led away is Askelon,
Taken is Gezer,
Yenoam is brought to nought,
The foreign people of Israel is laid waste, — their crops are not,
Khor (Palestine) has become as a widow for Egypt,
All lands together — they are in peace.
Every one who roamed about
Is punished by King Merenptah, gifted with life,
like the sun every day."

The normative Egyptian use of "wasted, bare of seed" was as a repeated, formulaic phrase to declare victory over a defeated nation or people group whom the Egyptian army conquered and had literally destroyed their grain supply in the specific geographic region that they inhabited.
the majority of biblical archeologists translate a set of hieroglyphs on Line 27 as "Israel", such that it represents the first documented instance of the name Israel in the historical record

According to The Oxford History of the biblical World, this "foreign people" "sign is typically used by the Egyptians to signify groups or peoples, without a fixed city-state home. The foreign people sign does not distinguish between rural and nomadic groups.

With grain stock being declared destroyed, rural rather than nomadic would be the natural understanding. Nomads generally don’t have grain stores.
Opinions are divided about the interpretations of reliefs that may be associated with the stele, or maybe not. One of a set of four reliefs depicts battle in hill country against an enemy in Canaanite dress.
Interpretations vary, with no better than majority opinion to rely on. However, the balance of evidence tends to show that Israel occupied hill country in Canaanite territory in the late 1200s BC. If the relief is related to the stele, it can be assumed that the Israelites of the time wore clothing similar to to that of their neighbours.