So did the Italians, and I'm not sure if I would like Meloni ruling either Madrid or Barcelona... or the whole Mediterranean Europe and a chunk of Asia.
user fldsk means to say 6000 year history, of course. But I'm willing to come down on that, since Genesis is a bit of a chronological hand-wave.
I'm relying on whatever Synod counted the ages of people in the talks and arrived at a creation date of 4004 BC, of course
If we grant that Italy is Rome, which is a separate conversation, then we're still left with Roman conquest, which we don't consider legitimate today, and a long period of documented Jewish inhabitation.
I don't take a position on the legitimacy or otherwise of Israel, because there are already plenty of indignant westerners with insufficient information. But I will say: that written history is weighty evidence.
It's perfectly valid. The word you're looking for is "reliable".
If we were discussing the virgin birth, I wouldn't put any stock in the Bible. The gospels were written after the fact, by people who weren't there and had a strong motivation to make shit up. We conclude that it is _unreliable_ on the topic of the Virgin birth. (It's a reliable source on the topic of Christian beliefs in Nicaea in 300AD, however.)
But the Talmud describes Jews living in Judea at _great length_, which, I'll remind you, implies many hours spent reciting oral history or copying text by hand. It's supported by the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The conspiracy that you suppose is of a flat-earth scale.
I won't discuss the middle east any further. Cunningham's Law got me. if you do want to learn more, try books.
