Is Hebrew a Canaanite dialect?

[MassuhDGoodName]

A further clarification of "...why don't you endorse it?"

I take no responsibility for anything other than listing two hyperlinks.  No one has to read them; and anyone who does read them is free to draw their own conclusions as regards the information they contain.

I strongly reject the idea that only science can determine "the facts".  It is most likely that two to three thousand years time into the future there will be no archaeological evidence that I ever existed, but would such evidence be "proof" that I was never logged on and writing this reply? 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

A further clarification of "...why don't you endorse it?"

I take no responsibility for anything other than listing two hyperlinks.  No one has to read them; and anyone who does read them is free to draw their own conclusions as regards the information they contain.

I strongly reject the idea that only science can determine "the facts".  It is most likely that two to three thousand years time into the future there will be no archaeological evidence that I ever existed, but would such evidence be "proof" that I was never logged on and writing this reply? 

I see what you are saying.

I would point out and stress that there is a difference between a hard science, which does uncover facts many times indisputable, and something like archaeology (NOT a hard science), in which an ample amount of interpretation and guesswork forms the backbone of the entire discipline.   It is not the "scientific method" itself that is at fault here but the limited capacity to actually apply the scientific method to this discipline (archaeology) unlike others (say, biology).   Whatever they use to analyze these discoveries can often only very loosely be termed 'scientific method' if even at all.