Walter could probably give you a better description of the
Christian Identity movement having spent more time trolling them.
@previous (B)
That being said, here's my not-Christian-Identity-biased sketch of it:
Basically, the Levant was the crossroads of the ancient world and the only place city-states could exist for any length of time. (I mean Phoenicia, come on) This was because the powerful kingdoms through the ages (Egyptians, Hurrians, Mitani, Assyria, Babylonia, and later Persians, Greeks, and numerous other peoples who rose to power over history for any length of time) were all around them and constantly vying for control of the territory because they had to in order to get to some other territory to trade with or war against. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah, when they weren't warring against each other, were often fending off attacks from larger powers or asking larger powers to help them defeat one another. Forced deportation was a weapon larger powers wielded against particularly rebellious regions, and the Neo-Assyrians and Babylonians deported many people from both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This is all mostly attested to historically. Mass deportation did likely happen.
Now it gets weird. Christian Identity people somehow twist that into the idea that modern Jews aren't actually God's chosen people, but some barbarian steppe tribe that was ushered in to populate an emptied province. They hold that the original inhabitants were actually an Aryan people. Whatever. Yada Yada Yada. White power propaganda. There is zero evidence of this shit in the historical record, but, much like creationists, they will not hesitate to latch on to the smallest shred of crap and build it into a big pile of turds.
Granted, that is just my understanding. I have looked into their ideas. Yes, forced deportations
were a thing and
did happen, but things like the Babylonian exile mentioned in the Bible only involve a few of the most prominent peoples. Most of the people tending the fields probably didn't matter too much to a kingdom looking to quell rebellion and didn't really have much say in the way things were run. So to expect that every person in a territory was moved (we pretty much know this isn't the case with the Babylonian exile, only a few were taken) is silly.
@previous (B)
So, basically theyre idiots? Gotcha
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I don't know. (I think the answer is probably yes) Some of their arguments may have traction in the historical record. I haven't seen any. It just looks a lot like apologetics for an ideology that the believer of can't consider to be false at any cost.
@576,461 (B)
> Most of the people tending the fields probably didn't matter too much to a kingdom looking to quell rebellion and didn't really have much say in the way things were run. So to expect that every person in a territory was moved (we pretty much know this isn't the case with the Babylonian exile, only a few were taken) is silly.
Yeah, that's actually mentioned in the book. When the Jewish aristocracy returned from the Babylonian exile, they encountered resistance from the locals who'd been left behind 70 years before.