The Septuagint is the original -- Second Draft
Offline All is not well in bibleland
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/bibleland.html
In consideration of the replies I have received to my first draft I have completely revised the original to put the reasons for the conclusions first instead of leading with the conclusion. This is also a draft. I haven't even given it a spell check. So be warned.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While reviewing all of the pros it is also worth keeping in mind that things are not always as represented by believers. For example, believers make much of word games in parts of the OT which are written in the Hebrew more or less used in Israel today, the squared script.What is rarely mentioned is that the oldest version of this script is found among the DSS and is no older than the mid 1st c. BC.It is important to keep in mind these claims of old inscriptions in hebrew use letters which are indistinguishable from Phoenician. I have a modest presentation of it here. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html Although the temple repair inscription is a forgery note it is "forged" using phoenician letters. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/temple-repair-inscription.jpg You can also look at the Siloam inscription and see it is also in Phoenician lettering http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/Siloam_Inscription.jpg
This inscription tells us a lot about believers. They say it confirms the bible story that the tunnel was built by King Hezehiah. But in fact it mentions no king, not god, nothing about anything in any bible story. It can no longer be dated as it was moved to the Istanbul Museum over a century ago. It is not the only tunnel dug between a spring and a city in bibleland. Whenever it was dug it was there for anyone to see down to when it was moved to Turkey in the late 19th c. so anyone could have made up a story about it.
Back to the same blunder. Scripts don't mean languages. Germany in the middle of the 20th century started using non-Gothic scripts. Using the lack of logic typical of A_Nony_Mouse, they mustn't have been Germans before then. Using the same "reasoning" the Turks who now use a Roman alphabet mustn't have existed before then. Doh! You have to look at the language to know the reality. Before Ataturk legislated the change in script, Turks used Arabic scripts. Ahh, A_Nony_Mouse thinks, they must have been Arabs! The Turks didn't exist before they started using the Roman script. Turks using Roman script? Hmm, maybe they are Roman, not Turks... Let's be bold here: there are no Turks!
When you know next to nothing about a subject you can afford to give simple explanations. More complex explanations require a lot more knowledge.
spin
Yes to all the above yet you made a point of acrostic word games being possible in a font which does not appear until the 1st c. BC and which is now used in Israel more or less.
You are making a point of this when there is no extent version of copy of any of the OT books in the font, with vowels, which you infer it was originally written.
You are not presenting anything about which remnants of religious tradition you are defending much less presenting a bottoms up theory as to the origin of the OT or when it was created.
All you are presenting is that I am wrong. Of course I am wrong but I am not working from a religious tradition as are you. I have a theory. You have ways to imagine some remnants of the religious tradition might be true but nothing more. And you are not presenting what you think might be true.
As to the script/font and beyond the acrostics game* here we have a region with very little evidence of writing despite what you list. Where are the thousands of business and government records as we find every place else? Sounds more like an itinerant scribe visiting towns creating and reading letters for a fee.
But we have the Phoenicians at Tyre and their semitic language expressed in it. We have the semitic languages of Syria, Palestine and Egypt with all of them eventually adopting it phonetic writing. And so there is an issue with the intinerent scribe writing letters in a language the RECIPIENTS could read. If anything it being found it is the local record "carbon copy" written in the language of the recipient.
In Egypt such questions do not arise as the country is filled with written material. Bibleland is not. Palestine in supposedly biblical times is not unless one considers the Maccabes biblical. But as you are trying to salvage a remnant of religious tradition anything found is explained in a biblical context as though there were no other possibility. And as though it were the simplest when it is not without assuming the religious tradition.
In attempting to salvage something of this religious tradition specious arguments are abundant. Certainly the Turks and the Germans changed scripts. They were also defined events. There were letter for letter for letter correspondances in the German case save for the esset there is no issue. The Turkoman language was better suited to the Roman than the Arabic alphabet in the first place so that transition is easily traced.
But you are talking changes over centuries without examples from the same place twice and near century long gaps which you say does not convey the same language but older versions of it. That is hardly the same as German and Turkoman.
It is of course correct that complex issues require more knowledge but religious tradition is not knowledge of anything but the tradition. It is not knowledge of fact. If Judaism and Christianity had died out in the 2nd c. AD and this traditional origin of the Septuagint were left with the forged Aristeas letter AND THAT IS THE END OF THE FACT WE HAVE on the books who would be supporting the position that the folks in bibleland could have produced it? At that time Moses was either a prince or a priest or a grandson of the king of Egypt. An Egyptian origin was the only commonality.
Would you be arguing a few fragments over centuries supports the creation of the 800,000 or so words of the current OT as well as all the books that are not presently included? Would you be another Barbara Thiering?
=====
*This acrostics game was played a few years ago to make bible prophecies. Got to love the game.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While reviewing all of the pros it is also worth keeping in mind that things are not always as represented by believers. For example, believers make much of word games in parts of the OT which are written in the Hebrew more or less used in Israel today, the squared script.What is rarely mentioned is that the oldest version of this script is found among the DSS and is no older than the mid 1st c. BC.It is important to keep in mind these claims of old inscriptions in hebrew use letters which are indistinguishable from Phoenician. I have a modest presentation of it here. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html Although the temple repair inscription is a forgery note it is "forged" using phoenician letters. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/temple-repair-inscription.jpg You can also look at the Siloam inscription and see it is also in Phoenician lettering http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/Siloam_Inscription.jpg
This inscription tells us a lot about believers. They say it confirms the bible story that the tunnel was built by King Hezehiah. But in fact it mentions no king, not god, nothing about anything in any bible story. It can no longer be dated as it was moved to the Istanbul Museum over a century ago. It is not the only tunnel dug between a spring and a city in bibleland. Whenever it was dug it was there for anyone to see down to when it was moved to Turkey in the late 19th c. so anyone could have made up a story about it.
Back to the same blunder. Scripts don't mean languages. Germany in the middle of the 20th century started using non-Gothic scripts. Using the lack of logic typical of A_Nony_Mouse, they mustn't have been Germans before then. Using the same "reasoning" the Turks who now use a Roman alphabet mustn't have existed before then. Doh! You have to look at the language to know the reality. Before Ataturk legislated the change in script, Turks used Arabic scripts. Ahh, A_Nony_Mouse thinks, they must have been Arabs! The Turks didn't exist before they started using the Roman script. Turks using Roman script? Hmm, maybe they are Roman, not Turks... Let's be bold here: there are no Turks!
When you know next to nothing about a subject you can afford to give simple explanations. More complex explanations require a lot more knowledge.
spin
Yes to all the above yet you made a point of acrostic word games being possible in a font which does not appear until the 1st c. BC and which is now used in Israel more or less.
You are making a point of this when there is no extent version of copy of any of the OT books in the font, with vowels, which you infer it was originally written.
Is this an argument based on total ignorance of the material? Because you don't understand the issues it must be something else? Is that it? Do you know the relationship between the two alphabets? Plainly you don't. It's time you learnt. The Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 letters, all consonants. (Vowels were added much later as markings usually below the consonant letters.) The Aramaic alphabet as used by the Hebrew texts have... wait for it... still... yes, that's right, the Aramaic alphabet used has twenty-two letters, mapping a one to one relationship with those of the Hebrew alphabet. If you could look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'd see Aramaic letters still in use in various texts.
If you know nothing about this stuff, why do you insist on saying ridiculous things that are trasnparently wrong? Do I have to join Rook Hawkings and assume you're a troll?
You are not presenting anything about which remnants of religious tradition you are defending much less presenting a bottoms up theory as to the origin of the OT or when it was created.
I'm not defending a religious tradition. I'm demonstrating your theory about a Greek first Hebrew bible is crackpot. (<-- Can I make this word flash?)
All you are presenting is that I am wrong.
Yup. That's all I set out to do. You are evidently,... exaggeratedly,... dramatically,... wrong. Yet you persist in your error blithely ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
Of course I am wrong but I am not working from a religious tradition as are you.
You don't need to invent a religious tradition for me to explain why you are ignorant of the evidence.
I have a theory.
When you have no evidence whatsoever, you have a conjecture, not a theory. Theories are based on evidence and you are unaware of any.
You have ways to imagine some remnants of the religious tradition might be true but nothing more. And you are not presenting what you think might be true.
I have presented what I think is true. There was a Jewish culture in the area which included Jerusalem as its chief city from at least the end of the 8th c. BCE The culture used Hebrew as a language and its people had Yahwistic names. This seems contiguous with the culture that later produced the Hebrew bible, naturally enough in Hebrew. This is a text which includes some materials that come from those historically observable periods I've already indicated. I don't know how direct that knowledge was, but it became part of the traditions which filled the bible.
As to the script/font and beyond the acrostics game* here we have a region with very little evidence of writing despite what you list. Where are the thousands of business and government records as we find every place else? Sounds more like an itinerant scribe visiting towns creating and reading letters for a fee.
Where are the thousands of Phoenician business and government records? Where are the Moabite, Edomite or Ammonite records? As a matter of fact, where are all the Seleucid business and government records from Antioch?? You don't know, but you won't be foolish enough to dismiss them. You don't have an agenda regarding them. You do with the bibleland.
But we have the Phoenicians at Tyre and their semitic language expressed in it.
No, you don't.
We have the semitic languages of Syria, Palestine and Egypt with all of them eventually adopting it phonetic writing.
Wot?
And so there is an issue with the intinerent scribe writing letters in a language the RECIPIENTS could read. If anything it being found it is the local record "carbon copy" written in the language of the recipient.
What fantasy did you get this strange notion of an "itinerant scribe" from?? Scribes were attached to palaces. They required long training and in small realms they required a palace type economy to support them.
In Egypt such questions do not arise as the country is filled with written material. Bibleland is not. Palestine in supposedly biblical times is not unless one considers the Maccabes biblical.
It's all a matter of economics.
But as you are trying to salvage a remnant of religious tradition anything found is explained in a biblical context as though there were no other possibility. And as though it were the simplest when it is not without assuming the religious tradition.
Physical evidence nullifies your quibbling. It doesn't matter how much to try to negate an obviously exitent culture, it won't change things. You must first deal with the evidence to show why your oversimplification by ignoring evidence isn't what it seems. Discussion about religious traditions is a consequence of the physical evidence, ie that Judah existed, that people spoke Hebrew, that people used Yahwistic names. You need to deal with the Hebrew bible for what it is: the traditions of a culture, a culture you want to deny for some unstated reasons.
In attempting to salvage something of this religious tradition specious arguments are abundant. Certainly the Turks and the Germans changed scripts. They were also defined events. There were letter for letter for letter correspondances in the German case save for the esset there is no issue. The Turkoman language was better suited to the Roman than the Arabic alphabet in the first place so that transition is easily traced.
It's "Turkish" in English and "Türkçe" in Turkish. They didn't have any trouble using an augmented Arabic script before Ataturk's time. His was a political decision. And your discussion doesn't further your argument.
But you are talking changes over centuries without examples from the same place twice and near century long gaps which you say does not convey the same language but older versions of it. That is hardly the same as German and Turkoman.
So, now you're accepting that there is evidence and complaining about its scarsity.
It is of course correct that complex issues require more knowledge but religious tradition is not knowledge of anything but the tradition. It is not knowledge of fact. If Judaism and Christianity had died out in the 2nd c. AD and this traditional origin of the Septuagint were left with the forged Aristeas letter AND THAT IS THE END OF THE FACT WE HAVE on the books who would be supporting the position that the folks in bibleland could have produced it? At that time Moses was either a prince or a priest or a grandson of the king of Egypt. An Egyptian origin was the only commonality.
Again, unhelpful for your original claim.
Would you be arguing a few fragments over centuries supports the creation of the 800,000 or so words of the current OT as well as all the books that are not presently included? Would you be another Barbara Thiering?
Yet again, unhelpful for your original claim. When you can't deal with the topic, do you have to waffle so much?
This acrostics game was played a few years ago to make bible prophecies. Got to love the game.
The acrostics issue was one of many pieces of evidence that demonstrate your claim to be ridiculous. Perhaps it's the one you can understand, so you can remember it more easily. And attempting to tar it with your religionist interlocutors won't improve your argument.
Yours is an indefensible position based on ignorance and a hidden agenda. When you lose them both, you may start to say something more meaningful.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline An invented religion differs from the pantheons from Persia to Rome to Egypt in that the latter are embodiments of ideas whose evollution can often be traced but has no definitive beginning. In Egypt in particular in upper Egypt close to Africa the gods are most commonly depicted with animal heads while in lower they are most commonly with human heads. Yet we have the same stories told about closely related gods all across this expanse including dying, going to the underworld and being reborn. These are not invented religions. They grew up in prehistoric times and often have the character of nature and animal gods.
As all religions are invented not based in reality this is just quibbling to justify your theories. Just because there are stories of pagan gods throughout the area this makes them somehow not invented but somehow derived from nature. Since you cannot place a definitive beginning on the pagan gods this is different than Yahweh worship where an exact beginning can't be determined either exactly how? Oh, yeah you did determine an exact beginning for Yahweh that's right. Since you reject any possible connection to people that lived in Canaan prior to 200 BCE as having any part of Yahweh worship it must have suddenly emerged as a con job by Judah Macabee.
So while Jesus is a reimagining of Adonis and is thus based upon prior mythology the new religion goes in an entirely different and new direction. So also whatever Judaism's inventors had as an input it created the new idea of personal worship obligations on individuals, god given rules and regulations for all aspects of life and a separate priesthood wtih secular powers. There is more but those are the major inventions. If one were to put it is modern times it appears to have been a religion created for the purpose of oppression.
Why do you need to bring up Jesus when you are discussing Jewish god origins? You're as bad as a Christian in pushing Jesus out to make claims. Just don't.
Somehow you think only the Jews have created a religion to oppress. There are others elsewhere just not the pagan gods in the Mid East.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In no way was I intending to give credibility to the Moses myths only the Canaanite legends.
That is good because there are no Canaanites in the archaeological record either. When you look at the record even the most fundamental things are not there. It shows the magnitude of the inventions in the OT stories. The Psalms expose the entire myth of the bible creators being any kind of monotheists. They can't steal so openly and not admit the other gods. They were polytheists or atheists.
No Canaanites. OK. So exactly who was it that lived in Palestine? Bears and goats?
You either have made a severe mistake here unintentionally or you are denying history from several sources as well as archeology.
Maybe you want to call them something else like Sea Peoples or Phoenicians, is that it? There is plenty of proof for them as well, such as the Philistines. But wait, they didn't leave any writing behind either, so maybe they didn't exist at all. Though Phoenicians are credited with the writing and development of script that we use today little survived thanks to their use of the papyrus they traded.
Since you are such an Egyptian proponent exactly who were the Hyskos that were ejected by Pharaoh Ahmrose circa 1570 BCE. Exactly who was the supposed King of Megiddo asking to be defended against when he asked Egypt for 100 soldiers to supposedly guard against attack from the King of Shecham if there were no Canaanites? Weren't Megiddo and Shechem in Canaan? Apparently there were actual cities in Canaan though they weren't very large by our standards. In fact the few soldiers requested suggest small town, though not quite the 10 hut villages or so you somewhat infer.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:By your reasoning none of the OT has been influenced by anything other than a desire to con the people after Alexander in the land of Judea into supporting a make believe religion created for no other purpose than to deceive. Legends, myths, and misunderstood stories from the area they inhabited had nothing at all to do with the content of the OT. It was all created in order to make a false religion to deceive. Any story or legend incorporated in the OT according to your view is not based or anything other than a creative scribe that wrote a poor book of Sci-Fi for the purpose of making up a fake race and giving them a fake history.
You impute a motivation to them that I have not expressed.
Perhaps you should read what you have written then. How else should one take statements such as:
But in bibleland there is not the least evidence the city existed prior to Alexander although there might have been a village there.
From post #14 to Spin when you suggest Babylon didn't destroy Jerusalem. But wait, exactly what have archaeologists found? Finklestein writing of this in his book "The Bible Unearthed" suggests otherwise on p 307 for example. Were you on these expeditions and wrote a minority report suggesting they had found nothing?
and this from your 2nd draft:
The people did not rise above shepards and dirt farmers before the Greeks. Every major population center including all of those attributed to Soloman have been identified as outposts of other civilizations. The people of bibleland made no contribution to civilization, ever, of any kind. Our religious culture has a foundation in treating the people of bibleland as praiseworthy, noble, religious and so forth. The problem is what they had for a religion does not pass muster as a religion today save for indigenous peoples far from civilization as it was solely a ritual/taboo, genital mutilating, animal sacrificing religion. It was religions like this in Africa that inspired missionaries to save them from themselves.
And this also from your 2nd draft suggesting the religion was imposed:
That the Yahweh cult and customs and behavior had to be enforced at all shows it was not the religion or the customs of the people. That these draconian punishments continued into New Testament times shows there were still problems imposing this religion at that time.
And even this:
Inventing a different god made the king the ruler of a separate people. And if there is any truth to the Maccabe story the claim did not go uncontested. And then Judah Maccabe names the land after himself and his family becomes the priests who enforce this upstart religion against the traditional religions of the region.
And this:
If I may make one more leap, they discovered it was possible not only to impose a religion but also that people would come to believe it was ancient. So they became the first religion seeking converts which would increase the power of the priests and kingdom. The Christian sect continued the tradition and the Judeans dropped the idea around the 6th c. when it was clear they were losers against the Christians.
Your use of the term "pack of lies" taken with your overall views imply that Judaism was conceived as a con in order to enslave and control and little more. Judah Macabee you suggest even went so far as to name the land after himself you assert. So you did what a really good propagandist does and make many statements that have no proof. You reinforce them with even more. Do you see how people might see an implication that it all was done on purpose only to deceive and con. They get this from your presentation which really says so as in the last quote.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So why is it the Romans consider the Jews to have an ancient religion? The Romans and the Greeks both had beliefs in gods that were quite ancient and for some reason consider the Jews to be older. Why? Was this all because the Jews supported Julius Caesar? See here for some decrees.Where is it said the Romans thought they had an ancient religion? Why did the Romans think the total fabrication of the Aenied making Romans the survivors of Troy a great origin story for themselves?
As Caesar was dead when Pompey incorporated the eastern Med into the empire I am curious where you get the idea they supported JC or why anyone would have cared in the least. Nothing on that url indicates any such thing nor even ancient as if that would matter. All it says is ancestral that I see. But if you actually read the link you will the Jews were selling a different story in those days, that Moses was an Egyptian PRIEST. This predates Josephus selling the idea that Mose was an Egyptian PRINCE which would have given Moses a different parentage than in the present version of Exodus.
So tell me what we are to make of our supposedly "oldest" book of the OT, Exodus, when in fact it was not the story being sold in the 1st c. AD and grossly different stories were being sold? Sounds like through shit against the wall to see what sticks to me.
1-From the edict of Augustus, "Since the nation of the Jews and Hyrcanus, their high priest, have been found grateful to the people of the Romans, not only in the present but also in the past, and particularly in the time of my father, Caesar, imperator,"
2- I know that according to Strabo circa 22 CE he says Moses was a priest, a claim not in the OT. He also claims Moses took possession of the land easily where Jerusalem now stands. The OT of course says otherwise, he didn't get to go to the 'promised land.'
3- And to add to how savage the Jews were in addition to circumcision they also practiced cliterodectomy according to Strabo. Does that make it so?
4- Exodus is not true and you know it. Strabo was not a Jew and called Moses as he saw fit. Many of us call Bush a brainless twit. So what will future historians think of this in a 1000 years. We had a president without a brain? Maybe they will think that was our term for AI.
If that is your disagreement when do you want it to have been created? Please be specific in your answer with whatever evidence or lack thereof you can present. And as you have presented Strabo with Moses the priest and I have presented Josephus with Moses the prince both from the 1st c. AD you might also address when the current version of the myth was created.
The older you want it created the more problems you encounter with the absence of a literate society and closer to the events fabricated. You time window is not that wide.
But please, you tell me when you imagine it was created and when the final versions were produced.
Strabo presented Moses in his understanding because of Moses hanging out with the god, so he wrongly considered that to be a priest. Josephus uses the term from Exodus calling Moses a prince of Egypt as it was the Pharaoh's daughter that brought him up as her own son in the myth.
Why do I need to place a date on something that is unknown?
The best I can do is this. Two books that are similar in writing are Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Both are likely the same author. I'd suggest these date to sometime within 100 years of Nebuchadrezzar's Palestine invasion.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Absence of evidence proves only absence. It does not help establish a point for creation of the OT. Clearly after the Persians conquered Babylon because of incorporation of Babylonian beliefs in the OT. As to when is the question. With so little evidence it is difficult to establish your theory. It is much like trying to determine when people came to North and South America and how. They were here when the Vikings came, but since they left no written explanation we can't say for sure they walked across the Bering Land Bridge. They may have.
How does the conquest of Babylon by the Persians have any impact on the OT? There were no Jews in Babylon. That is another bible myth. Just what are these Babylonian beliefs you think you see? And what would that have to do with the price of honeycakes in jerusalem?
As to your humans in the Americas pseudo-analogy, we answer that question by looking at the evidence they left just as we do in bibleland. That is exactly what I am doing. I am looking at the evidence and comparing it to the remnants of religious tradition that still remain after a century of archeology. As above I am not addressing any bottoms up theory of OT origins but only the remnants of a religious tradition that has been in retreat for a century.
The Jews incorporated many Babylonian myths in their writing including the Noah myth. Yes, these had been around since the time of Sumer. The garden of Eden myth has similarities to Sumerian legends regarding Dilmun. This includes the loss of eternal life story of Adapa and Enki where he wasn't to eat the bread of death but instead refused the bread of life. In legends of Sumer man is created from clay by Enki and Ninmah aka Ki. The goddess Nin-ti is supposedly created from a rib by Ki. These myths were mixed up possibly with those of Egypt as well as Canaan in the OT writing.
Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.
In order to create all of this stuff in the OT in the 1st or 2nd century BCE all at once as a con job as you infer from your comments about Judah Macabee, calls must have gone out for a lot of scribes. It must have been a major activity for years. So exactly where is it you say they produced all of this and where is your proof of that?
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You decide to assert the Egyptians are the likely cause based on what? All the Egyptian literature not found in Palestine?
If you noticed, Spin and I don't disagree that the OT is not true, we suggest it has basis from ancestors in the area. That's all. You differ in that you consider it some sort of complicated con job by Egyptian priests that made a "book of lies." One common denominator is none of us think the OT is true.
Egyptian rule is found in Palestine for most of the 2nd millenium BC. Egypt was the civilization to the south of Palestine-Syria. There was commerce between the two since at least 3000 BC. Pardon but why would you not expect to find a strong Egyptian influence? And of course they shared the same pantheon under different names.
It is good no one considers the OT to be true. It is then more amazing that religious traditions based upon a belief that it is true are being defended, at least the few remnants of that tradition which are left. You folks are taking the approach of imagining you can find ways to salvage the parts of that religious tradition which have not yet been definitively dismissed. You folks have presented no bottoms up theory in support of your position. You have only a retreat from religious tradition.
A true theory of OT origins would show early drafts of the stories, early temple, altars, and inscriptions. It would show parallel things about this book of fables that we find in Babylon, Egypt, Ur, Ugarit and many other places in the region. There would be a consistent argument from analogy with those other places.
Instead all I read it that it is not impossible for some (undefined) parts of the religious tradition to be true. Yet I, with the only legitimate theory working bottoms up from the available evidence, am expected to "prove" the theory in the face of these remnants of a religious tradition.
I know that Egypt was involved in Palestine and considered it to be part of their empire. What I meant was, Egyptian gods, prayer books, religious material and such were not found in great quantities in homes so it doesn't add to your point.
They do have evidence of altars and such in the "high places", though to which god is the question.
Are there draft copies of other works found? Such as Josephus, Philo, Herodutus? I don't know, do you? Would draft copies be expected?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While reviewing all of the pros it is also worth keeping in mind that things are not always as represented by believers. For example, believers make much of word games in parts of the OT which are written in the Hebrew more or less used in Israel today, the squared script.What is rarely mentioned is that the oldest version of this script is found among the DSS and is no older than the mid 1st c. BC.It is important to keep in mind these claims of old inscriptions in hebrew use letters which are indistinguishable from Phoenician. I have a modest presentation of it here. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html Although the temple repair inscription is a forgery note it is "forged" using phoenician letters. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/temple-repair-inscription.jpg You can also look at the Siloam inscription and see it is also in Phoenician lettering http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/Siloam_Inscription.jpg
This inscription tells us a lot about believers. They say it confirms the bible story that the tunnel was built by King Hezehiah. But in fact it mentions no king, not god, nothing about anything in any bible story. It can no longer be dated as it was moved to the Istanbul Museum over a century ago. It is not the only tunnel dug between a spring and a city in bibleland. Whenever it was dug it was there for anyone to see down to when it was moved to Turkey in the late 19th c. so anyone could have made up a story about it.
Back to the same blunder. Scripts don't mean languages. Germany in the middle of the 20th century started using non-Gothic scripts. Using the lack of logic typical of A_Nony_Mouse, they mustn't have been Germans before then. Using the same "reasoning" the Turks who now use a Roman alphabet mustn't have existed before then. Doh! You have to look at the language to know the reality. Before Ataturk legislated the change in script, Turks used Arabic scripts. Ahh, A_Nony_Mouse thinks, they must have been Arabs! The Turks didn't exist before they started using the Roman script. Turks using Roman script? Hmm, maybe they are Roman, not Turks... Let's be bold here: there are no Turks!
When you know next to nothing about a subject you can afford to give simple explanations. More complex explanations require a lot more knowledge.
spin
Yes to all the above yet you made a point of acrostic word games being possible in a font which does not appear until the 1st c. BC and which is now used in Israel more or less.
You are making a point of this when there is no extent version of copy of any of the OT books in the font, with vowels, which you infer it was originally written.
Is this an argument based on total ignorance of the material? Because you don't understand the issues it must be something else? Is that it? Do you know the relationship between the two alphabets? Plainly you don't. It's time you learnt. The Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 letters, all consonants. (Vowels were added much later as markings usually below the consonant letters.) The Aramaic alphabet as used by the Hebrew texts have... wait for it... still... yes, that's right, the Aramaic alphabet used has twenty-two letters, mapping a one to one relationship with those of the Hebrew alphabet. If you could look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'd see Aramaic letters still in use in various texts.
If you know nothing about this stuff, why do you insist on saying ridiculous things that are trasnparently wrong? Do I have to join Rook Hawkings and assume you're a troll?
spin
I have already given some links on this matter. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html and http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/index.html quite clearly show the aleph corresponding to alfe/alpha. You can see the letters used in the inscriptions. There you can see the Y used as a vowel. Yes, I have read what you are saying but in looking at the evidence I find these pesky vowels.
That is where I started in all of this, comparing the claims to the evidence. What do you suggest as a way of dealing with the evidence being contrary to the claims? Accept the claims?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While reviewing all of the pros it is also worth keeping in mind that things are not always as represented by believers. For example, believers make much of word games in parts of the OT which are written in the Hebrew more or less used in Israel today, the squared script.What is rarely mentioned is that the oldest version of this script is found among the DSS and is no older than the mid 1st c. BC.It is important to keep in mind these claims of old inscriptions in hebrew use letters which are indistinguishable from Phoenician. I have a modest presentation of it here. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html Although the temple repair inscription is a forgery note it is "forged" using phoenician letters. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/temple-repair-inscription.jpg You can also look at the Siloam inscription and see it is also in Phoenician lettering http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/Siloam_Inscription.jpg
This inscription tells us a lot about believers. They say it confirms the bible story that the tunnel was built by King Hezehiah. But in fact it mentions no king, not god, nothing about anything in any bible story. It can no longer be dated as it was moved to the Istanbul Museum over a century ago. It is not the only tunnel dug between a spring and a city in bibleland. Whenever it was dug it was there for anyone to see down to when it was moved to Turkey in the late 19th c. so anyone could have made up a story about it.
Back to the same blunder. Scripts don't mean languages. Germany in the middle of the 20th century started using non-Gothic scripts. Using the lack of logic typical of A_Nony_Mouse, they mustn't have been Germans before then. Using the same "reasoning" the Turks who now use a Roman alphabet mustn't have existed before then. Doh! You have to look at the language to know the reality. Before Ataturk legislated the change in script, Turks used Arabic scripts. Ahh, A_Nony_Mouse thinks, they must have been Arabs! The Turks didn't exist before they started using the Roman script. Turks using Roman script? Hmm, maybe they are Roman, not Turks... Let's be bold here: there are no Turks!
When you know next to nothing about a subject you can afford to give simple explanations. More complex explanations require a lot more knowledge.
spin
Yes to all the above yet you made a point of acrostic word games being possible in a font which does not appear until the 1st c. BC and which is now used in Israel more or less.
You are making a point of this when there is no extent version of copy of any of the OT books in the font, with vowels, which you infer it was originally written.
Is this an argument based on total ignorance of the material? Because you don't understand the issues it must be something else? Is that it? Do you know the relationship between the two alphabets? Plainly you don't. It's time you learnt. The Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 letters, all consonants. (Vowels were added much later as markings usually below the consonant letters.) The Aramaic alphabet as used by the Hebrew texts have... wait for it... still... yes, that's right, the Aramaic alphabet used has twenty-two letters, mapping a one to one relationship with those of the Hebrew alphabet. If you could look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, you'd see Aramaic letters still in use in various texts.
If you know nothing about this stuff, why do you insist on saying ridiculous things that are trasnparently wrong? Do I have to join Rook Hawkings and assume you're a troll?
spin
I have already given some links on this matter. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html and http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/index.html quite clearly show the aleph corresponding to alfe/alpha. You can see the letters used in the inscriptions. There you can see the Y used as a vowel. Yes, I have read what you are saying but in looking at the evidence I find these pesky vowels.
That is where I started in all of this, comparing the claims to the evidence. What do you suggest as a way of dealing with the evidence being contrary to the claims? Accept the claims?
When you learn something about the how the Hebrew alphabet works, get back to me. It's tiring hacking through the bushy undergrowth.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline This is getting insanely long. Please allow me extracting to respond.
I know that Egypt was involved in Palestine and considered it to be part of their empire. What I meant was, Egyptian gods, prayer books, religious material and such were not found in great quantities in homes so it doesn't add to your point.
Some have been found. That is some as oppossed to none for the god of the OT in bibleland. The only thing in question I can think of is the "silver scroll" which is clearly an incantation to Ra. There also is not much found in Egypt outside of monumental constructions and Egypt did not build such in bibleland. Neither did the "great kings" of bibleland so again it is a draw. If you are keeping score, it is Egypt Many bibleland Zero.
They do have evidence of altars and such in the "high places", though to which god is the question.Are there draft copies of other works found? Such as Josephus, Philo, Herodutus? I don't know, do you? Would draft copies be expected?
So far as I have found "high places" is simply a literal translation and no one knows what it refers to although it is assumed to have religious significance but then does not everything that is unexplained?
Finding altars, flat surfaces with an assumed religious significance, is not uncommon and believers indulge themselves. There is a pile of rocks some nutcase declared was the altar built by Joshua to sacrifice when he first entered bibleland from the East. I don't think anyone has explained how he got east of bibleland but lets pass that at the moment.
Flat surfaces were found at Qumran and believers declared they were writing tables even though there is no known connection between Qumran and the DSS nor any connection between the Essenes and Qumran for that matter. Best guess at the moment is they were used for making soap.
My point being a large, flat surface is no more than a large, flat surface without associated direct evidence as to its use. They could be used to flatten cured hides or for making soap. But without evidence of burned bones or at least burnt flesh you don't have any connection to bible stories. And finding more than one is contrary to the bible stories where there is only one.
There are very few things which might be considered draft copies of anything and that is just an unlikely guess. So far as I am aware there is no original of anything which has survived unless it was carved in stone. However we exist upon copies but usually no more than one. Some things which were popular enough to be widely quoted have been largely reconstructed from the quotes even though there is no original.
So if the "hebrew" version of this OT was around so long before the Greek, why is there no mention of it? Or of the people in it? Or of the stories in it?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:If that is your disagreement when do you want it to have been created? Please be specific in your answer with whatever evidence or lack thereof you can present. And as you have presented Strabo with Moses the priest and I have presented Josephus with Moses the prince both from the 1st c. AD you might also address when the current version of the myth was created.
The older you want it created the more problems you encounter with the absence of a literate society and closer to the events fabricated. You time window is not that wide.
But please, you tell me when you imagine it was created and when the final versions were produced.
Strabo presented Moses in his understanding because of Moses hanging out with the god, so he wrongly considered that to be a priest. Josephus uses the term from Exodus calling Moses a prince of Egypt as it was the Pharaoh's daughter that brought him up as her own son in the myth.
While one can perhaps explain away Strabo getting it wrong one cannot explain away a priest of the Yahweh cult getting it wrong. Prince has a meaning and it did not pass to bastard grandchildren in Egypt.
If of course one assumes contrary to this evidence there was a fixed form to the Exodus myth in the 1st c. BC then it is self-evident. But if one goes solely by the evidence then clearly there were at least two forms to the story and the one we have today is not in evidence.
Why do I need to place a date on something that is unknown?The best I can do is this. Two books that are similar in writing are Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Both are likely the same author. I'd suggest these date to sometime within 100 years of Nebuchadrezzar's Palestine invasion.
The fact that they appear similar at most indicates they were written by the same person or perhaps the same group at a particular time. It does not give an absolute date as to when they were written. Why not two centuries later? or three?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:How does the conquest of Babylon by the Persians have any impact on the OT? There were no Jews in Babylon. That is another bible myth. Just what are these Babylonian beliefs you think you see? And what would that have to do with the price of honeycakes in jerusalem?
As to your humans in the Americas pseudo-analogy, we answer that question by looking at the evidence they left just as we do in bibleland. That is exactly what I am doing. I am looking at the evidence and comparing it to the remnants of religious tradition that still remain after a century of archeology. As above I am not addressing any bottoms up theory of OT origins but only the remnants of a religious tradition that has been in retreat for a century.
The Jews incorporated many Babylonian myths in their writing including the Noah myth. Yes, these had been around since the time of Sumer. The garden of Eden myth has similarities to Sumerian legends regarding Dilmun. This includes the loss of eternal life story of Adapa and Enki where he wasn't to eat the bread of death but instead refused the bread of life. In legends of Sumer man is created from clay by Enki and Ninmah aka Ki. The goddess Nin-ti is supposedly created from a rib by Ki. These myths were mixed up possibly with those of Egypt as well as Canaan in the OT writing.
The reason Babylon is associated with it is that is where we have found the longest version. As you note the story was certainly around for at leat a millennium before Babylon. Clearly it was a popular story having been around for so long. And having been around for so long it clearly spread in some form or another over those centuries. Attributing it to a particular location solely to support the captivity story is not reasonable.
Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.
But Daniel is the only thing which supports the claim along with Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint where the most popular stories about Daniel are found. There is only one inscription which supposedly refers to the conquest of Jerusalem but not by name and that says the king was replaced not taken to Babylon.
Other than for preaching to the chior these rationalizations do not support the myth of captivity.
In order to create all of this stuff in the OT in the 1st or 2nd century BCE all at once as a con job as you infer from your comments about Judah Macabee, calls must have gone out for a lot of scribes. It must have been a major activity for years. So exactly where is it you say they produced all of this and where is your proof of that?
After the Greeks people who could write were available and literacy was considered a requirement for anyone above peasant. So for the first time there were people to create these stories. FIRST TIME. Although there are a lot of words they were not a single book. Josephus wrote there were only 22 books but he did not name them. Unless one is assuming without evidence the OT is the only ancient true version we clearly only have evidence of competing stories from Strabo and Josephus neither of which is the present Exodus.
And we learn there were many of the locals living in Alexandria which had a rather well known library built to hold all the official records Alexander looted and sent to the city as research material and insiration for the writers.
Ten people working for ten years is one hundred man-years. Even at the current size of about 800,000 words that is 8000 words per person per year. Why do you think this is such a difficult accomplishment?
I add about 20,000 words a year to my website and certainly there will be cracks about dubious quality but non-believers do not see quality in the OT either. For centuries the OT has had a cottage industry making its doggeral sound good. The release of the King James Version was delayed some ten years to polish up the translation as the literal was so bad.
As to the time frame where I suggest it was created, there was literacy. As of the late 1st c. AD only 22 books were considered sacred so the task was lesser than creating all the books we have today. One hundred man-years is quite up to the task. In fact it is overkill. And that can explain the creation of not only all the books we have but also the ones which once were popular which have disappeared or possibly exist today in only one copy.
And even with the hundred man-years it was a tradition in those days to make up stories about gods. They created a "Star Wars" popular collection. There is always a market for spin offs. The stories of this god in bibleland were popular. So lets create stories about this god in exotic lands like Persia and Mesopotamia sort of like the Tarzan and and Quarterman stories. Still today we create stories in a bible setting.
Consider Esther/Hadasah is a reimaging of the classic Cinderella story. Bel and the Dragon is my god is better than your god that was the basis of many Brit missionary novels like H. Rider Haggard's Wizard. Abraham is a sly, immoral trickster. Noah is absolutely not Gilgamesh. Solomon is Ramses.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.
But Daniel is the only thing which supports the claim along with Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint where the most popular stories about Daniel are found. There is only one inscription which supposedly refers to the conquest of Jerusalem but not by name and that says the king was replaced not taken to Babylon.
Other than for preaching to the chior these rationalizations do not support the myth of captivity.
As Assyria and Babylon have both been shown to relocate people from their conquered territory and locate settlers from within their empire to those areas it is not unreasonable to consider they did so following the disrespect shown to them by the supposed King of Judah Zedekiah. I go with Finkelstein and Georges Roux in this assessment.
See the exploits of Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V. This link indicates Shalmaneser V Invaded Samaria.
See this link for summary of Assyrian king events.
See this for interrelationship with Hatti and Elam as well as population relocation.
As to Nebuchadnezzar see this link.
Granted they don't discuss what form of religious practices the people in Hatti-land did. It however shows he did in fact invade these lands taking plunder and persons in 597 BCE.
See also DJ Wiseman, Chronicles pp32-35, A Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs pp 260-61, Finkelstein Bible Unearthed, pp293-295.
It is with blinders you appear to look at Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE seeing that which you choose. You don't need to assign religious beliefs to the area to understand there were people there and they had relationships with other countries as vassals as well as in conflict. Leave out the religion and look at only the civilization. Leave out the propaganda from the OT as well. No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In order to create all of this stuff in the OT in the 1st or 2nd century BCE all at once as a con job as you infer from your comments about Judah Macabee, calls must have gone out for a lot of scribes. It must have been a major activity for years. So exactly where is it you say they produced all of this and where is your proof of that?After the Greeks people who could write were available and literacy was considered a requirement for anyone above peasant. So for the first time there were people to create these stories. FIRST TIME. Although there are a lot of words they were not a single book. Josephus wrote there were only 22 books but he did not name them. Unless one is assuming without evidence the OT is the only ancient true version we clearly only have evidence of competing stories from Strabo and Josephus neither of which is the present Exodus.
And we learn there were many of the locals living in Alexandria which had a rather well known library built to hold all the official records Alexander looted and sent to the city as research material and insiration for the writers.
Ten people working for ten years is one hundred man-years. Even at the current size of about 800,000 words that is 8000 words per person per year. Why do you think this is such a difficult accomplishment?
I add about 20,000 words a year to my website and certainly there will be cracks about dubious quality but non-believers do not see quality in the OT either. For centuries the OT has had a cottage industry making its doggeral sound good. The release of the King James Version was delayed some ten years to polish up the translation as the literal was so bad.
As to the time frame where I suggest it was created, there was literacy. As of the late 1st c. AD only 22 books were considered sacred so the task was lesser than creating all the books we have today. One hundred man-years is quite up to the task. In fact it is overkill. And that can explain the creation of not only all the books we have but also the ones which once were popular which have disappeared or possibly exist today in only one copy.
And even with the hundred man-years it was a tradition in those days to make up stories about gods. They created a "Star Wars" popular collection. There is always a market for spin offs. The stories of this god in bibleland were popular. So lets create stories about this god in exotic lands like Persia and Mesopotamia sort of like the Tarzan and and Quarterman stories. Still today we create stories in a bible setting.
Consider Esther/Hadasah is a reimaging of the classic Cinderella story. Bel and the Dragon is my god is better than your god that was the basis of many Brit missionary novels like H. Rider Haggard's Wizard. Abraham is a sly, immoral trickster. Noah is absolutely not Gilgamesh. Solomon is Ramses.
My point was it was a great effort using the writing tools they had available. Yeah, you and I can knock out 8000 words in a single day now. Try that with the writing tools they had.
Perhaps I'm in error and they had already developed the Book of the Month Club.
I know they wrote literary fiction as that is what I consider nearly all of the OT. You say it is a con job or "pack of lies" inferring deception to control the population by none other than Judah Macabee. Read what you have said.
I know such works as Enoch as well as such fun stories as the Books of Adam and Eve were popular. Parts of Enoch was used in Jude as well as Revelation at least so it seems. Though the Jews in later years conclude it shouldn't be part of their canon.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.
But Daniel is the only thing which supports the claim along with Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint where the most popular stories about Daniel are found. There is only one inscription which supposedly refers to the conquest of Jerusalem but not by name and that says the king was replaced not taken to Babylon.
Other than for preaching to the chior these rationalizations do not support the myth of captivity.
As Assyria and Babylon have both been shown to relocate people from their conquered territory and locate settlers from within their empire to those areas it is not unreasonable to consider they did so following the disrespect shown to them by the supposed King of Judah Zedekiah. I go with Finkelstein and Georges Roux in this assessment.
Pardon. How does showing a thing was done mean it was done to people who are not known to exist? All we haev is a book of magic of unknown origin. Why are you assuming the conclusion? With the manner of argumentation one can say Assyria and Babylon made war, the bible reports war therefore the people existed. People need to eat. The bible says the people ate. Therefore the people existed. When assuming the conclusion all arguments lead to the same conclusion.
See the exploits of Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V. This link indicates Shalmaneser V Invaded Samaria.
See this link for summary of Assyrian king events.
See this for interrelationship with Hatti and Elam as well as population relocation.
As to Nebuchadnezzar see this link.
Granted they don't discuss what form of religious practices the people in Hatti-land did. It however shows he did in fact invade these lands taking plunder and persons in 597 BCE.
See also DJ Wiseman, Chronicles pp32-35, A Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs pp 260-61, Finkelstein Bible Unearthed, pp293-295.
It is with blinders you appear to look at Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE seeing that which you choose.
There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
You don't need to assign religious beliefs to the area to understand there were people there and they had relationships with other countries as vassals as well as in conflict. Leave out the religion and look at only the civilization. Leave out the propaganda from the OT as well. No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.
Nor does one have to assign religious beliefs to understand Rome was founded by Christians by the same reasoning. The same reasoning applies to the war between Christian Rome and Christian Gaul. The regions were populated and at some point in time their religion became Christian therefore they were Christians all the way back to prehistoric times.
One may say we know of the period in time when Christianity got started. Fact is we can say the same thing about Judaism. It arose between Alexander and Pompey. Christianity created a backstory in the gospels. Why is it no one else can invent a backstory for their religion? One may say we cannot say Judaism did not exist before Alexander. That is true. We cannot say Christianity did not exist before the 1st c. AD. That is also true. That is one reason "proof of a negative" is so popular among believers.
There was human habitation. I see human habitation. You see the anachronism of a jewish people. I posted an article on the invention of the Jewish people in this forum. Bottom line is that is a zionist invention and did not exist before the invenition of zionism itself.
With the evidence available there is no more connection between the Palestinians and Judaism than there is between the Romans and Christianity.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In order to create all of this stuff in the OT in the 1st or 2nd century BCE all at once as a con job as you infer from your comments about Judah Macabee, calls must have gone out for a lot of scribes. It must have been a major activity for years. So exactly where is it you say they produced all of this and where is your proof of that?After the Greeks people who could write were available and literacy was considered a requirement for anyone above peasant. So for the first time there were people to create these stories. FIRST TIME. Although there are a lot of words they were not a single book. Josephus wrote there were only 22 books but he did not name them. Unless one is assuming without evidence the OT is the only ancient true version we clearly only have evidence of competing stories from Strabo and Josephus neither of which is the present Exodus.
And we learn there were many of the locals living in Alexandria which had a rather well known library built to hold all the official records Alexander looted and sent to the city as research material and insiration for the writers.
Ten people working for ten years is one hundred man-years. Even at the current size of about 800,000 words that is 8000 words per person per year. Why do you think this is such a difficult accomplishment?
I add about 20,000 words a year to my website and certainly there will be cracks about dubious quality but non-believers do not see quality in the OT either. For centuries the OT has had a cottage industry making its doggeral sound good. The release of the King James Version was delayed some ten years to polish up the translation as the literal was so bad.
As to the time frame where I suggest it was created, there was literacy. As of the late 1st c. AD only 22 books were considered sacred so the task was lesser than creating all the books we have today. One hundred man-years is quite up to the task. In fact it is overkill. And that can explain the creation of not only all the books we have but also the ones which once were popular which have disappeared or possibly exist today in only one copy.
And even with the hundred man-years it was a tradition in those days to make up stories about gods. They created a "Star Wars" popular collection. There is always a market for spin offs. The stories of this god in bibleland were popular. So lets create stories about this god in exotic lands like Persia and Mesopotamia sort of like the Tarzan and and Quarterman stories. Still today we create stories in a bible setting.
Consider Esther/Hadasah is a reimaging of the classic Cinderella story. Bel and the Dragon is my god is better than your god that was the basis of many Brit missionary novels like H. Rider Haggard's Wizard. Abraham is a sly, immoral trickster. Noah is absolutely not Gilgamesh. Solomon is Ramses.
My point was it was a great effort using the writing tools they had available. Yeah, you and I can knock out 8000 words in a single day now. Try that with the writing tools they had.
However 8000 words per YEAR by each of ten people for ten years is all that is needed. BTW: I realized I was including the NT in that word count estimate. So it is even less than that. As for the writing tools, a pen that had to be dipped in ink was so hard?
Perhaps I'm in error and they had already developed the Book of the Month Club.
For an 80,000 word book it is a book of the decade club. You made a point of inventing so much so quickly. I point out how unimpressive it really is. And as I noted, the entire library at Alexandria for inspiration. Need a model for an invented great king? Ramses III is the model for Solomon. Upper and Lower Egypt? No problem, Israel and Judah.
I know they wrote literary fiction as that is what I consider nearly all of the OT. You say it is a con job or "pack of lies" inferring deception to control the population by none other than Judah Macabee. Read what you have said.
Prose fiction was invented by the Greeks. Alexander's ideal was to export the Greek culture to the world. After he takes over bibleland the bible fiction appears. What reason is there to believe the Palestinians invented prose fiction independent of the Greeks?
However I only suggested Judah Maccabe while at the same time observing there is only one bit of evidence he even existed. But as you are willing to go so far as to say
No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.
you are saying this pack of lies was invented at some point. The Koran is an invented pack of lies, no? If we compare the OT to traditional religions we find the mythology of gods in the latter. In the former we find all sorts of pseudo-historical detail and references. That crosses the line between fiction and pack of lies. What it lacks in mythology it makes up for in minute details of rituals and taboos of everyday life. Those are the kinds of things that interest human rulers not gods. All the gorey details of how such rules are misused can be found in any Protestant critique of Catholicism.
I know such works as Enoch as well as such fun stories as the Books of Adam and Eve were popular. Parts of Enoch was used in Jude as well as Revelation at least so it seems. Though the Jews in later years conclude it shouldn't be part of their canon.
Which begs the question of when the idea of a canon was invented. You can't have a canon without someone enforcing it. Otherwise it is only a currently popular collection. So other than a core collection such as the 22 books referred to by Josephus. The Septuagint was a more complete collection, closer to both the current Christian and Jewish collections, than was thought to be the religious books in 1st c. AD Judea. When push comes to shove the Septuagint becomes the most influential work on the current jewish collection.
FWIW, Revelation is maybe a Jewish creation. But then no one knows for a fact where any of the books in the collections came from. Dropping Enoch and keeping Revelation shows there was little more than a popularity contest for inclusion.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.But Daniel is the only thing which supports the claim along with Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint where the most popular stories about Daniel are found. There is only one inscription which supposedly refers to the conquest of Jerusalem but not by name and that says the king was replaced not taken to Babylon.
Other than for preaching to the chior these rationalizations do not support the myth of captivity.
As Assyria and Babylon have both been shown to relocate people from their conquered territory and locate settlers from within their empire to those areas it is not unreasonable to consider they did so following the disrespect shown to them by the supposed King of Judah Zedekiah. I go with Finkelstein and Georges Roux in this assessment.
Pardon. How does showing a thing was done mean it was done to people who are not known to exist? All we haev is a book of magic of unknown origin. Why are you assuming the conclusion? With the manner of argumentation one can say Assyria and Babylon made war, the bible reports war therefore the people existed. People need to eat. The bible says the people ate. Therefore the people existed. When assuming the conclusion all arguments lead to the same conclusion.
Denial of reality is not a good sign. The claim that the Jews who lived in Judah circa 600 BCE were "people who are not known to exist" is a clear case of denial. Hezekiah existed. Jehoahaz existed. They had a kingdom in Jerusalem the central city of Judah. They used Hebrew. They had Hebrew names. Stop the denial.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:See the exploits of Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V. This link indicates Shalmaneser V Invaded Samaria.
See this link for summary of Assyrian king events.
See this for interrelationship with Hatti and Elam as well as population relocation.
As to Nebuchadnezzar see this link.
Granted they don't discuss what form of religious practices the people in Hatti-land did. It however shows he did in fact invade these lands taking plunder and persons in 597 BCE.
See also DJ Wiseman, Chronicles pp32-35, A Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs pp 260-61, Finkelstein Bible Unearthed, pp293-295.
It is with blinders you appear to look at Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE seeing that which you choose.
There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
If you looked at the references supplied to you you might see that once again you are in denial.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You don't need to assign religious beliefs to the area to understand there were people there and they had relationships with other countries as vassals as well as in conflict. Leave out the religion and look at only the civilization. Leave out the propaganda from the OT as well. No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.Nor does one have to assign religious beliefs to understand Rome was founded by Christians by the same reasoning. The same reasoning applies to the war between Christian Rome and Christian Gaul. The regions were populated and at some point in time their religion became Christian therefore they were Christians all the way back to prehistoric times.
Non sequitur.
One may say we know of the period in time when Christianity got started. Fact is we can say the same thing about Judaism. It arose between Alexander and Pompey. Christianity created a backstory in the gospels. Why is it no one else can invent a backstory for their religion? One may say we cannot say Judaism did not exist before Alexander. That is true. We cannot say Christianity did not exist before the 1st c. AD. That is also true. That is one reason "proof of a negative" is so popular among believers.
We are not talking about christianity. Non sequitur.
There was human habitation. I see human habitation. You see the anachronism of a jewish people.
Jewish kings. Used Hebrew language. Had Yahwistic names. Walks like a duck... This response of yours is more denial.
I posted an article on the invention of the Jewish people in this forum. Bottom line is that is a zionist invention and did not exist before the invenition of zionism itself.
An article about a book you haven't read and whose aims and significance you obviously can't understand because of your commitments and denial.
With the evidence available there is no more connection between the Palestinians and Judaism than there is between the Romans and Christianity.
Proof that you don't understand the article you cited.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In order to create all of this stuff in the OT in the 1st or 2nd century BCE all at once as a con job as you infer from your comments about Judah Macabee, calls must have gone out for a lot of scribes. It must have been a major activity for years. So exactly where is it you say they produced all of this and where is your proof of that?After the Greeks people who could write were available and literacy was considered a requirement for anyone above peasant. So for the first time there were people to create these stories. FIRST TIME.
Conjecture against the facts.
Although there are a lot of words they were not a single book. Josephus wrote there were only 22 books but he did not name them. Unless one is assuming without evidence the OT is the only ancient true version we clearly only have evidence of competing stories from Strabo and Josephus neither of which is the present Exodus.
Yet, while Josephus uses other sources, he does use the books of the Hebrew bible very closely.
And we learn there were many of the locals living in Alexandria which had a rather well known library built to hold all the official records Alexander looted and sent to the city as research material and insiration for the writers.Ten people working for ten years is one hundred man-years. Even at the current size of about 800,000 words that is 8000 words per person per year. Why do you think this is such a difficult accomplishment?
I add about 20,000 words a year to my website and certainly there will be cracks about dubious quality but non-believers do not see quality in the OT either. For centuries the OT has had a cottage industry making its doggeral sound good. The release of the King James Version was delayed some ten years to polish up the translation as the literal was so bad.
As to the time frame where I suggest it was created, there was literacy. As of the late 1st c. AD only 22 books were considered sacred so the task was lesser than creating all the books we have today. One hundred man-years is quite up to the task. In fact it is overkill. And that can explain the creation of not only all the books we have but also the ones which once were popular which have disappeared or possibly exist today in only one copy.
And even with the hundred man-years it was a tradition in those days to make up stories about gods. They created a "Star Wars" popular collection. There is always a market for spin offs. The stories of this god in bibleland were popular. So lets create stories about this god in exotic lands like Persia and Mesopotamia sort of like the Tarzan and and Quarterman stories. Still today we create stories in a bible setting.
Consider Esther/Hadasah is a reimaging of the classic Cinderella story.
Oh, please! What a ridiculous comparison timewise. First, you need to show an extant version of the Cinderella story at the time, and then you can speak. Otherwise, you just wear egg on your face.
Bel and the Dragon is my god is better than your god that was the basis of many Brit missionary novels like H. Rider Haggard's Wizard. Abraham is a sly, immoral trickster. Noah is absolutely not Gilgamesh. Solomon is Ramses.
Stop talking rubbish and deal with the topic. You'll talk about anything that will help you score denial points.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.
But Daniel is the only thing which supports the claim along with Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint where the most popular stories about Daniel are found. There is only one inscription which supposedly refers to the conquest of Jerusalem but not by name and that says the king was replaced not taken to Babylon.
Other than for preaching to the chior these rationalizations do not support the myth of captivity.
As Assyria and Babylon have both been shown to relocate people from their conquered territory and locate settlers from within their empire to those areas it is not unreasonable to consider they did so following the disrespect shown to them by the supposed King of Judah Zedekiah. I go with Finkelstein and Georges Roux in this assessment.
Pardon. How does showing a thing was done mean it was done to people who are not known to exist? All we haev is a book of magic of unknown origin. Why are you assuming the conclusion? With the manner of argumentation one can say Assyria and Babylon made war, the bible reports war therefore the people existed. People need to eat. The bible says the people ate. Therefore the people existed. When assuming the conclusion all arguments lead to the same conclusion.
Deny that there were no people in Judah/Israel all you want as records indicate otherwise.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:See the exploits of Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V. This link indicates Shalmaneser V Invaded Samaria.
See this link for summary of Assyrian king events.
See this for interrelationship with Hatti and Elam as well as population relocation.
As to Nebuchadnezzar see this link.
Granted they don't discuss what form of religious practices the people in Hatti-land did. It however shows he did in fact invade these lands taking plunder and persons in 597 BCE.
See also DJ Wiseman, Chronicles pp32-35, A Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs pp 260-61, Finkelstein Bible Unearthed, pp293-295.
It is with blinders you appear to look at Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE seeing that which you choose.
There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
Since you won't consider anything but your own pet theory, there is no point in going further. You claim there was no cohesive people in Palestine yet Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian records show otherwise as does archeology.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You don't need to assign religious beliefs to the area to understand there were people there and they had relationships with other countries as vassals as well as in conflict. Leave out the religion and look at only the civilization. Leave out the propaganda from the OT as well. No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.Nor does one have to assign religious beliefs to understand Rome was founded by Christians by the same reasoning. The same reasoning applies to the war between Christian Rome and Christian Gaul. The regions were populated and at some point in time their religion became Christian therefore they were Christians all the way back to prehistoric times.
One may say we know of the period in time when Christianity got started. Fact is we can say the same thing about Judaism. It arose between Alexander and Pompey. Christianity created a backstory in the gospels. Why is it no one else can invent a backstory for their religion? One may say we cannot say Judaism did not exist before Alexander. That is true. We cannot say Christianity did not exist before the 1st c. AD. That is also true. That is one reason "proof of a negative" is so popular among believers.
There was human habitation. I see human habitation. You see the anachronism of a jewish people. I posted an article on the invention of the Jewish people in this forum. Bottom line is that is a zionist invention and did not exist before the invenition of zionism itself.
With the evidence available there is no more connection between the Palestinians and Judaism than there is between the Romans and Christianity.
We aren't discussing Christianity here so why bring it up. I already told you to leave Christians and Jesus out of this.
The human habitation you refer to means there were ancestors in Palestine. Did they all believe in Yahweh. NO!! Did they practice Canaanite, Akkad, and multiple other god beliefs, YES!! What is it you just can't see going on in ancient Palestine that leads you to the view there are no origins at all?
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:My point was it was a great effort using the writing tools they had available. Yeah, you and I can knock out 8000 words in a single day now. Try that with the writing tools they had.
However 8000 words per YEAR by each of ten people for ten years is all that is needed. BTW: I realized I was including the NT in that word count estimate. So it is even less than that. As for the writing tools, a pen that had to be dipped in ink was so hard?
Have you ever actually tried writing with a quill pen? Or even an old style fill as you go fountain pen? It's sucks.
Do you realize exactly how hard it is to write say a 300 page book? You first outline or develop the scope of the book. You then research the material that you are considering for inclusion. As you write it you may change your mind or consider other aspects to include. Try doing that on paper and not with a word processor. Then try doing that with a quill pen writing on scrolls.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I know they wrote literary fiction as that is what I consider nearly all of the OT. You say it is a con job or "pack of lies" inferring deception to control the population by none other than Judah Macabee. Read what you have said.Prose fiction was invented by the Greeks. Alexander's ideal was to export the Greek culture to the world. After he takes over bibleland the bible fiction appears. What reason is there to believe the Palestinians invented prose fiction independent of the Greeks?
However I only suggested Judah Maccabe while at the same time observing there is only one bit of evidence he even existed. But as you are willing to go so far as to say
Indian literature seems to be at least as old if not even older than Homer. Granted it's not of Greek culture so perhaps they didn't exist either. Nor perhaps did the Chinese. The ancient Epic of Gilgamesh rewritten by the Babylonians isn't of Greek culture either so perhaps the Sumerians didn't exist either.
You seem to think only Greece and Egypt influenced the world.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I know such works as Enoch as well as such fun stories as the Books of Adam and Eve were popular. Parts of Enoch was used in Jude as well as Revelation at least so it seems. Though the Jews in later years conclude it shouldn't be part of their canon.Which begs the question of when the idea of a canon was invented. You can't have a canon without someone enforcing it. Otherwise it is only a currently popular collection. So other than a core collection such as the 22 books referred to by Josephus. The Septuagint was a more complete collection, closer to both the current Christian and Jewish collections, than was thought to be the religious books in 1st c. AD Judea. When push comes to shove the Septuagint becomes the most influential work on the current jewish collection.
FWIW, Revelation is maybe a Jewish creation. But then no one knows for a fact where any of the books in the collections came from. Dropping Enoch and keeping Revelation shows there was little more than a popularity contest for inclusion.
I'm sure you know when the claim of canons were made and it's far after the time we are discussing. The Jews didn't create a canon until after the Christians.
As the Jews from the time of the Maccabees even until this day have shown they are in disagreement with one another on many things, you assume way too much in saying there was even such a thing as a Jewish collection in late 1st century BCE or 1st century CE. They had many writings and some were popular. Some were known to be fiction or works that attempted to teach some form of religious idea. The claims as to what scripture was in the first century CE are unclear. You assume just because more books are in the Septuagint and it's "more complete" this means it's what was developed. There may have been far less of the OT than people think and it was greatly expanded by the likes of Ezra and other priests. Did all of the OT exist complete by the 2nd century BCE? Who can know. Many works existed as found in the Dead Sea collection by the time the site was abandoned.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.But Daniel is the only thing which supports the claim along with Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint where the most popular stories about Daniel are found. There is only one inscription which supposedly refers to the conquest of Jerusalem but not by name and that says the king was replaced not taken to Babylon.
Other than for preaching to the chior these rationalizations do not support the myth of captivity.
As Assyria and Babylon have both been shown to relocate people from their conquered territory and locate settlers from within their empire to those areas it is not unreasonable to consider they did so following the disrespect shown to them by the supposed King of Judah Zedekiah. I go with Finkelstein and Georges Roux in this assessment.
Pardon. How does showing a thing was done mean it was done to people who are not known to exist? All we haev is a book of magic of unknown origin. Why are you assuming the conclusion? With the manner of argumentation one can say Assyria and Babylon made war, the bible reports war therefore the people existed. People need to eat. The bible says the people ate. Therefore the people existed. When assuming the conclusion all arguments lead to the same conclusion.
Denial of reality is not a good sign. The claim that the Jews who lived in Judah circa 600 BCE were "people who are not known to exist" is a clear case of denial. Hezekiah existed. Jehoahaz existed. They had a kingdom in Jerusalem the central city of Judah. They used Hebrew. They had Hebrew names. Stop the denial.
Spin you old rascal. Reading that I would get the impression you are deliberately confusing the name of the people with the name of the religion. When Judaism fist appears in history and that includes IF you beleve in the OT it was a religion of conversion, voluntary, by force, by trickery, and also to soften up the victims for genocide. But when they show up in real history they are reported to be of the 7th Day Adventist and LDS type of convert seekers.
And if you are stuck with the religious ideas then only a woman can be born a Jew. Men have to be circumcized, have a Bar Mitzvah, a Mikvah and lead a Jewish life. There is no place in the religion for the zionist invention/heresy of a jewish people.
There is no reality. There is only physical evidence.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:See the exploits of Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V. This link indicates Shalmaneser V Invaded Samaria.
See this link for summary of Assyrian king events.
See this for interrelationship with Hatti and Elam as well as population relocation.
As to Nebuchadnezzar see this link.
Granted they don't discuss what form of religious practices the people in Hatti-land did. It however shows he did in fact invade these lands taking plunder and persons in 597 BCE.
See also DJ Wiseman, Chronicles pp32-35, A Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs pp 260-61, Finkelstein Bible Unearthed, pp293-295.
It is with blinders you appear to look at Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE seeing that which you choose.
There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
If you looked at the references supplied to you you might see that once again you are in denial.
If you have a case you need not use the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. You can express your case yourself if in fact you have one. I am still waiting and you do not appear to have a case.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You don't need to assign religious beliefs to the area to understand there were people there and they had relationships with other countries as vassals as well as in conflict. Leave out the religion and look at only the civilization. Leave out the propaganda from the OT as well. No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.Nor does one have to assign religious beliefs to understand Rome was founded by Christians by the same reasoning. The same reasoning applies to the war between Christian Rome and Christian Gaul. The regions were populated and at some point in time their religion became Christian therefore they were Christians all the way back to prehistoric times.
Non sequitur.
It gave the opportunity to see the problem rather than pointing out the deliberate confusion of the name of the land, the name of a fraction from Judea and the name of the religion deriving from the same name through Greek. It follows perfectly if I make your assumption that the name of the land, Judea, and the name of the religion , Judaism, means a variation on the name of part of the land, Judean, are all taken to mean the same thing.
So to make it follow all I have to do is call the religion Romism. That was one of the derogatory descriptions applied by the Protestants and there is more than a little truth to the fact of Roman Catholicism. However the accidental naming being from the same root word in today's English is evidence of nothing. It is unhelpful to use names like that. For example in the 1930s the Brits referred not to World Jewery but to Judah as the collective name.
It we simply go back less than a century in Europe we do not find Judaism but people of the Mosaic confession. What do people of the Mosaic confession have to do with Judea and Samaria and Galilee and other named regions in Palestine? That could take us to the Herods who the people did not consider a lawful king.
And again, what is the Mosaic confession? No graven images? The "jewish" catacombs outside Rome has an image (stick figure really) of a person striking a rock and water flowing and a seven candle menorah.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:One may say we know of the period in time when Christianity got started. Fact is we can say the same thing about Judaism. It arose between Alexander and Pompey. Christianity created a backstory in the gospels. Why is it no one else can invent a backstory for their religion? One may say we cannot say Judaism did not exist before Alexander. That is true. We cannot say Christianity did not exist before the 1st c. AD. That is also true. That is one reason "proof of a negative" is so popular among believers.We are not talking about christianity. Non sequitur.
I am asking why you have an unstated assumption that those of the Mosaic confession could not possibly have invented their own backstory. You do not appear to have an answer. I correctly state when the Mosaic confession appears in some form it is not the form most popular today. You have yet to establish that a similar name from hundreds of miles away means IUDA. (No vowls so the name was written D, right? So any name with a D in it is conclusive to you, right? Or are you going to go for a DH?
So tell me why those of the Mosaic confession could not have created their own backstory and upon what basis you assert it is impossible.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There was human habitation. I see human habitation. You see the anachronism of a jewish people.Jewish kings. Used Hebrew language. Had Yahwistic names. Walks like a duck... This response of yours is more denial.
Kings of D or DH or kings of the people of the Mosaic Confession?
Sort of amazing when maybe half of all English names are from people who became popular thousands of years ago. I have come across much historical fiction and I have found most of them, at least the non-pulp ones, to use ancient names. All the character names in The 13th Tribe were old names. It is sitll fiction.
Believers are so willing to accept Shule/Sunday School level simplicities one has to ask why they think they are prepared to comment on the subject.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I posted an article on the invention of the Jewish people in this forum. Bottom line is that is a zionist invention and did not exist before the invenition of zionism itself.An article about a book you haven't read and whose aims and significance you obviously can't understand because of your commitments and denial.
Skeptics are always said to be in denial by believers. What is clear to believers who never at any time critically examined their Shule beliefs. But prove me wrong. Back when you were a skeptic and accepting none of this, what is it that convinced you?
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:With the evidence available there is no more connection between the Palestinians and Judaism than there is between the Romans and Christianity.Proof that you don't understand the article you cited.
The understanding of a REVIEW and an author's summary have nothing to do with the substance of the book if that is what you mean. You will note the specificity in both of the zionist creation of a "jewish people" as opposed to the traditional meaning of a religion only. The fact that after those of the Mosaic confession appear in real history they are actively seeking converts shows they made the distinction. What is it you think you READ that I missed? Please be specific in your response.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In order to create all of this stuff in the OT in the 1st or 2nd century BCE all at once as a con job as you infer from your comments about Judah Macabee, calls must have gone out for a lot of scribes. It must have been a major activity for years. So exactly where is it you say they produced all of this and where is your proof of that?After the Greeks people who could write were available and literacy was considered a requirement for anyone above peasant. So for the first time there were people to create these stories. FIRST TIME.
Conjecture against the facts.
You are free to produce an earlier example. If you have none then it is not conjecture but a fact.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Although there are a lot of words they were not a single book. Josephus wrote there were only 22 books but he did not name them. Unless one is assuming without evidence the OT is the only ancient true version we clearly only have evidence of competing stories from Strabo and Josephus neither of which is the present Exodus.Yet, while Josephus uses other sources, he does use the books of the Hebrew bible very closely.
You mean the "hebrew" version of Exodus recounts the military campaigns of Moses in Nubia? You mean the "hebrews" really were forced to leave Egypt because they were all leprous? You might want to read up on what he wrote some day. He only had 22 sacred books to deal with. Obviously today's version of Exodus was not among them.
But tell me why today's version of Exodus is the Septuagint version and not the version the priest, Josephus, knew. Take your time and explain this conundrum.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:And we learn there were many of the locals living in Alexandria which had a rather well known library built to hold all the official records Alexander looted and sent to the city as research material and insiration for the writers.Ten people working for ten years is one hundred man-years. Even at the current size of about 800,000 words that is 8000 words per person per year. Why do you think this is such a difficult accomplishment?
I add about 20,000 words a year to my website and certainly there will be cracks about dubious quality but non-believers do not see quality in the OT either. For centuries the OT has had a cottage industry making its doggeral sound good. The release of the King James Version was delayed some ten years to polish up the translation as the literal was so bad.
As to the time frame where I suggest it was created, there was literacy. As of the late 1st c. AD only 22 books were considered sacred so the task was lesser than creating all the books we have today. One hundred man-years is quite up to the task. In fact it is overkill. And that can explain the creation of not only all the books we have but also the ones which once were popular which have disappeared or possibly exist today in only one copy.
And even with the hundred man-years it was a tradition in those days to make up stories about gods. They created a "Star Wars" popular collection. There is always a market for spin offs. The stories of this god in bibleland were popular. So lets create stories about this god in exotic lands like Persia and Mesopotamia sort of like the Tarzan and and Quarterman stories. Still today we create stories in a bible setting.
Consider Esther/Hadasah is a reimaging of the classic Cinderella story.
Oh, please! What a ridiculous comparison timewise. First, you need to show an extant version of the Cinderella story at the time, and then you can speak. Otherwise, you just wear egg on your face.
The power of a beautiful young virgin over nobility and even the gods is very old. Have you missed them all? Zeus was always fucking them. Disney's Cinderella is not close to any of the traditional stories so one hopes you are not thinking of that version.
I used a term of art, reimagining. If you saw it, Tin Man was a reimagining of the Wizard of Oz. The Jesus story is a reimagining of the Isis/Osiris story.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Bel and the Dragon is my god is better than your god that was the basis of many Brit missionary novels like H. Rider Haggard's Wizard. Abraham is a sly, immoral trickster. Noah is absolutely not Gilgamesh. Solomon is Ramses.Stop talking rubbish and deal with the topic. You'll talk about anything that will help you score denial points.
Maybe if I say enough you will finally define exactly what you claim was written and when so you have more than what you learned in Shule to claim is being denied.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Clearly the ranting of Daniel was not from a Jew in Babylon. I don't know where the lunatic Ezekiel was, somewhere where he got really bad reports on the sieges in process.
But Daniel is the only thing which supports the claim along with Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint where the most popular stories about Daniel are found. There is only one inscription which supposedly refers to the conquest of Jerusalem but not by name and that says the king was replaced not taken to Babylon.
Other than for preaching to the chior these rationalizations do not support the myth of captivity.
As Assyria and Babylon have both been shown to relocate people from their conquered territory and locate settlers from within their empire to those areas it is not unreasonable to consider they did so following the disrespect shown to them by the supposed King of Judah Zedekiah. I go with Finkelstein and Georges Roux in this assessment.
Pardon. How does showing a thing was done mean it was done to people who are not known to exist? All we haev is a book of magic of unknown origin. Why are you assuming the conclusion? With the manner of argumentation one can say Assyria and Babylon made war, the bible reports war therefore the people existed. People need to eat. The bible says the people ate. Therefore the people existed. When assuming the conclusion all arguments lead to the same conclusion.
Deny that there were no people in Judah/Israel all you want as records indicate otherwise.
Here we go again. To repeat. I have stipulated the land has been inhabited for at least sixty thousand years. Why do you continue to post as though I have not stipulated that?
I do not see why you continue to pretend I have not made that stipulation. Perhaps it is that you realize the next step is up to you to show some specificity to that habitation that is other than mere geography. Are you unable to produce physical evidence of that?
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:See the exploits of Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V. This link indicates Shalmaneser V Invaded Samaria.
See this link for summary of Assyrian king events.
See this for interrelationship with Hatti and Elam as well as population relocation.
As to Nebuchadnezzar see this link.
Granted they don't discuss what form of religious practices the people in Hatti-land did. It however shows he did in fact invade these lands taking plunder and persons in 597 BCE.
See also DJ Wiseman, Chronicles pp32-35, A Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs pp 260-61, Finkelstein Bible Unearthed, pp293-295.
It is with blinders you appear to look at Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE seeing that which you choose.
There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
Since you won't consider anything but your own pet theory, there is no point in going further. You claim there was no cohesive people in Palestine yet Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian records show otherwise as does archeology.
Won't consider? I have been asking for physical evidence to the contrary from the very beginning and still I am waiting. So far I have gotten "evidence" of such irrelevent quality that it could be used to "prove" President George Washington was really King George of England. But in that case the names are identical and the "evidence" believers present is not that good.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You don't need to assign religious beliefs to the area to understand there were people there and they had relationships with other countries as vassals as well as in conflict. Leave out the religion and look at only the civilization. Leave out the propaganda from the OT as well. No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.Nor does one have to assign religious beliefs to understand Rome was founded by Christians by the same reasoning. The same reasoning applies to the war between Christian Rome and Christian Gaul. The regions were populated and at some point in time their religion became Christian therefore they were Christians all the way back to prehistoric times.
One may say we know of the period in time when Christianity got started. Fact is we can say the same thing about Judaism. It arose between Alexander and Pompey. Christianity created a backstory in the gospels. Why is it no one else can invent a backstory for their religion? One may say we cannot say Judaism did not exist before Alexander. That is true. We cannot say Christianity did not exist before the 1st c. AD. That is also true. That is one reason "proof of a negative" is so popular among believers.
There was human habitation. I see human habitation. You see the anachronism of a jewish people. I posted an article on the invention of the Jewish people in this forum. Bottom line is that is a zionist invention and did not exist before the invenition of zionism itself.
With the evidence available there is no more connection between the Palestinians and Judaism than there is between the Romans and Christianity.
We aren't discussing Christianity here so why bring it up. I already told you to leave Christians and Jesus out of this.
You may have noticed I do not do as I am told. I ask you why you assume it is impossible for a religion invented in the 2nd c. BC to have created a backstory for their savage, unsanitary religion. You have not answered that.
The human habitation you refer to means there were ancestors in Palestine. Did they all believe in Yahweh. NO!! Did they practice Canaanite, Akkad, and multiple other god beliefs, YES!! What is it you just can't see going on in ancient Palestine that leads you to the view there are no origins at all?
As I have said the religion is much different than those other religions. It is savage, unsanitary, and primitive in comparison. It fits with the interests of human oppressors rather than the usual god stories which did no such thing. This is the first 'god' that in fact demands worship and via a priesthood that charges. It has so many rituals and taboos that anyone can be found guilty of violating them and executed for it. That keeps the masses under control.
Can you explain how a religion unlike any other before it in recorded history can suddenly appear out of no where? You have a postage stamp piece of land surrounded by rational, sensible religions completely unlike this.
What tradition did this religion arise from?
Show it to me in the physical evidence and you have a start to make a case this is a natural religion. I have looked for it and I cannot find it in either the historical nor the archaeological record. If you have found it then present the EVIDENCE you found that convinced you. The opinion of another person is meaningless. Only the evidence matters.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:My point was it was a great effort using the writing tools they had available. Yeah, you and I can knock out 8000 words in a single day now. Try that with the writing tools they had.
However 8000 words per YEAR by each of ten people for ten years is all that is needed. BTW: I realized I was including the NT in that word count estimate. So it is even less than that. As for the writing tools, a pen that had to be dipped in ink was so hard?
Have you ever actually tried writing with a quill pen? Or even an old style fill as you go fountain pen? It's sucks.
So? Ten people for ten years is 100 man years. Have you ever noticed the size of the books of Charles Dickens? Most of them were serialized in newspapers at one chapter per month. He used a quill pen. Why must you invent a problem which did not exist?
Do you realize exactly how hard it is to write say a 300 page book? You first outline or develop the scope of the book. You then research the material that you are considering for inclusion. As you write it you may change your mind or consider other aspects to include. Try doing that on paper and not with a word processor. Then try doing that with a quill pen writing on scrolls.
300 pages, 100 manyears is three pages per man per year. If you have not been to a bookstand in the last few decades you missed the fact that novels by single authors run one to 300+ pages these days. You missed the stands are full of them, best sellers and crap that never makes it. So there is no difficulty for a single person to produce a 300 page book every two to three years. See Tom Clancy back when he was writing his own books for details. So the outlining and research is not a problem.
Then we notice the OT is not what we would call organized. There are natural groupings of books. Even believers notice even the groups do not make a lick of sense when compared to each other or have much internal consistency.
There is the Torah where sensible laws and pure idiocy laws are intermixed without distinction like a shit writer trying to make a word count. Look into the critique of believers for hundreds of other examples before bothering to look into what skeptics have to say about it. How many years were the Heberws in Egypt? There are three different answers. That shows both there was no proofreading of the product and that it could not have been based upon any tradition.
So there is no evidence of any time having been wasted on research or organization of the material. There is no evidence of the books being all that related to each other except in name. Because of that the only thing this god has in common with other gods is being both arbitrary and capricious.
So your assertion of the effort required for a work this length fails on both the the other examples with quill pens of similarly size such as Dickens and on the assumption of the time required to organize the material as it is not organized.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I know they wrote literary fiction as that is what I consider nearly all of the OT. You say it is a con job or "pack of lies" inferring deception to control the population by none other than Judah Macabee. Read what you have said.Prose fiction was invented by the Greeks. Alexander's ideal was to export the Greek culture to the world. After he takes over bibleland the bible fiction appears. What reason is there to believe the Palestinians invented prose fiction independent of the Greeks?
However I only suggested Judah Maccabe while at the same time observing there is only one bit of evidence he even existed. But as you are willing to go so far as to say
Indian literature seems to be at least as old if not even older than Homer. Granted it's not of Greek culture so perhaps they didn't exist either. Nor perhaps did the Chinese. The ancient Epic of Gilgamesh rewritten by the Babylonians isn't of Greek culture either so perhaps the Sumerians didn't exist either.
You seem to think only Greece and Egypt influenced the world.
I named the specific type of literature that the Greeks did invent. Are you saying the Palestinians were influenced by the Chinese or Aryans? Epic poetry is not prose fiction. The Greeks invented prose ficdtion. The oldest Vedic literature is not found to be older than Homer which is not in prose. The C14 matches other 1st-2nd c. AD writings quite well.
So there is no other culture which could have influienced the locals and resulted in this style of writing. A local invention by a culture which never invented anything else is laughable.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I know such works as Enoch as well as such fun stories as the Books of Adam and Eve were popular. Parts of Enoch was used in Jude as well as Revelation at least so it seems. Though the Jews in later years conclude it shouldn't be part of their canon.Which begs the question of when the idea of a canon was invented. You can't have a canon without someone enforcing it. Otherwise it is only a currently popular collection. So other than a core collection such as the 22 books referred to by Josephus. The Septuagint was a more complete collection, closer to both the current Christian and Jewish collections, than was thought to be the religious books in 1st c. AD Judea. When push comes to shove the Septuagint becomes the most influential work on the current jewish collection.
FWIW, Revelation is maybe a Jewish creation. But then no one knows for a fact where any of the books in the collections came from. Dropping Enoch and keeping Revelation shows there was little more than a popularity contest for inclusion.
I'm sure you know when the claim of canons were made and it's far after the time we are discussing. The Jews didn't create a canon until after the Christians.
The timeframe of invention of the idea of a canon was the point.
As the Jews from the time of the Maccabees even until this day have shown they are in disagreement with one another on many things, you assume way too much in saying there was even such a thing as a Jewish collection in late 1st century BCE or 1st century CE. They had many writings and some were popular. Some were known to be fiction or works that attempted to teach some form of religious idea.
The idea anything in the OT is "teaching" something is absurd. It is all arbitrary and capricious diktat.
The claims as to what scripture was in the first century CE are unclear. You assume just because more books are in the Septuagint and it's "more complete" this means it's what was developed. There may have been far less of the OT than people think and it was greatly expanded by the likes of Ezra and other priests. Did all of the OT exist complete by the 2nd century BCE? Who can know. Many works existed as found in the Dead Sea collection by the time the site was abandoned.
If in fact Josephus was a priest then there were only 22 sacred books and his version of Exodus was not the one we have today. Today the Jews have the Septuagint version. I would say just those are significant. One has to ask how the "all Jews are the product of incest between two crooks" survived in Genesis.
In any event no one knows why anything was stored to become the DSS. There is no known connection between then and Qumran and no known connection between either and the Esseneses. A recent paper I have not found to read was summarized as saying there were three distinct times the scrolls were stored there. The first in mid 1st c. BC and the second in early 1st c. AD have no hypothetical cause for storing them. Only the late 1st c. can by hypothetically connected with the 76AD revolt but that remains hypothetical.
Not knowing why they were stored means we have no knowledge of who stored them and therefore no idea why they had those books to store in the first place nor why they chose to store them.
In case you missed it the "writing tables" at Qumran also match the fixtures found elsewhere in the region to make soap.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Deny that there were no people in Judah/Israel all you want as records indicate otherwise.
Here we go again. To repeat. I have stipulated the land has been inhabited for at least sixty thousand years. Why do you continue to post as though I have not stipulated that?
I do not see why you continue to pretend I have not made that stipulation. Perhaps it is that you realize the next step is up to you to show some specificity to that habitation that is other than mere geography. Are you unable to produce physical evidence of that?
Thanks for making that clear. So you see no direct relationship at all between those that inhabited the land for 60,000 years and those that wrote the fantasy tales of the OT?
There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
This is why I keep bringing up the land was inhabited, it suggests no organized civilization which is not the case.
Earlier I tried to show you this was not the case but you don't seem to get there were people living in cities in Palestine. Assyria and Babylon were attacking and collecting booty from someone. Were they all Yahweh believers using Torah scrolls, probably not. You misconstrue my statement into they were doing that which is reported in the OT fantasy stories, which is not what I said.
You may have noticed I do not do as I am told. I ask you why you assume it is impossible for a religion invented in the 2nd c. BC to have created a backstory for their savage, unsanitary religion. You have not answered that.
Injecting Christianity into this discussion adds more smoke and confusion is my point. Staying on the subject of the development of the OT does not require this added morphed fantasy religion.
Again, all religion is invented as to when is the question.
That people, places, and events that were real are used in the OT fantasy is a given. Was the world the way the OT fiction writers indicate. No.
Ahab is shown to be an evil king, yet Assyria indicates he had a major role in a battle in 853 BCE. The OT fantasy omits it as it casts doubt on the smear campaign they produced. Is there truth to the fantasy story about him in the OT. probably not. How can it be so specific about his death and Jezebel yet overlook the great achievements he did. Easy, the OT was propaganda written afterwords as a smear campaign.
See Dutch researcher confirms seal
See black obelisk of Shalemanser III
See Zayit stone. See Work of Dennis Pardee University of Chicago.
See this from University of Chicago. They certainly agree that the OT is not true. No slaves in Egypt, no invasion of Palestine by hebrews, no mighty kingdoms of David and Solomon, and small kingdom of Judah until later on. They don't go to your level of discrediting origins.
There is far more but I don't feel like posting it all for you.
There are various indications of Hebrew on pottery shards early as in the 9th to 7th century BCE. I don't know what more you want.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The human habitation you refer to means there were ancestors in Palestine. Did they all believe in Yahweh. NO!! Did they practice Canaanite, Akkad, and multiple other god beliefs, YES!! What is it you just can't see going on in ancient Palestine that leads you to the view there are no origins at all?As I have said the religion is much different than those other religions. It is savage, unsanitary, and primitive in comparison. It fits with the interests of human oppressors rather than the usual god stories which did no such thing. This is the first 'god' that in fact demands worship and via a priesthood that charges. It has so many rituals and taboos that anyone can be found guilty of violating them and executed for it. That keeps the masses under control.
Can you explain how a religion unlike any other before it in recorded history can suddenly appear out of no where? You have a postage stamp piece of land surrounded by rational, sensible religions completely unlike this.
What tradition did this religion arise from?
Show it to me in the physical evidence and you have a start to make a case this is a natural religion. I have looked for it and I cannot find it in either the historical nor the archaeological record. If you have found it then present the EVIDENCE you found that convinced you. The opinion of another person is meaningless. Only the evidence matters.
If you bother to read through the material from the University of Chicago you'll see that these people did in fact practise polytheism. As to when it became monotheism only is the issue.
Again, all religions are invented.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Have you ever actually tried writing with a quill pen? Or even an old style fill as you go fountain pen? It's sucks.
So? Ten people for ten years is 100 man years. Have you ever noticed the size of the books of Charles Dickens? Most of them were serialized in newspapers at one chapter per month. He used a quill pen. Why must you invent a problem which did not exist?
I guess your answer is you haven't tried to use a quill pen or a fill as you go pen. Thanks.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Do you realize exactly how hard it is to write say a 300 page book? You first outline or develop the scope of the book. You then research the material that you are considering for inclusion. As you write it you may change your mind or consider other aspects to include. Try doing that on paper and not with a word processor. Then try doing that with a quill pen writing on scrolls.300 pages, 100 manyears is three pages per man per year.
[ ~ rip~ lots of unrelated modern methods ~ that supports only today we can write several books a year including drivel ~ ]
Then we notice the OT is not what we would call organized. There are natural groupings of books. Even believers notice even the groups do not make a lick of sense when compared to each other or have much internal consistency.
There is the Torah where sensible laws and pure idiocy laws are intermixed without distinction like a shit writer trying to make a word count. Look into the critique of believers for hundreds of other examples before bothering to look into what skeptics have to say about it. How many years were the Heberws in Egypt? There are three different answers. That shows both there was no proofreading of the product and that it could not have been based upon any tradition.
So there is no evidence of any time having been wasted on research or organization of the material. There is no evidence of the books being all that related to each other except in name. Because of that the only thing this god has in common with other gods is being both arbitrary and capricious.
So your assertion of the effort required for a work this length fails on both the the other examples with quill pens of similarly size such as Dickens and on the assumption of the time required to organize the material as it is not organized.
1- Yeah I have noticed the OT is a disorganized mess. This suggests exactly what. A mass writing of coordination to establish a conjob religion? Or a bunch of independents at various times?
2- If you tried writing with a quill pen the last thing you'd want to do is drive up word count.
3- You actually support the idea that independent non-coordinated writers did this through lack of research. Besides, didn't the sky daddy reveal all this to them, so why research?
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As the Jews from the time of the Maccabees even until this day have shown they are in disagreement with one another on many things, you assume way too much in saying there was even such a thing as a Jewish collection in late 1st century BCE or 1st century CE. They had many writings and some were popular. Some were known to be fiction or works that attempted to teach some form of religious idea.The idea anything in the OT is "teaching" something is absurd. It is all arbitrary and capricious diktat.
So the entire OT was what? A conjob? You may not agree with the BS that they promote, regardless the fantasy stories did have a religious lesson in mind. Perhaps you rather call it indoctrination.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The claims as to what scripture was in the first century CE are unclear. You assume just because more books are in the Septuagint and it's "more complete" this means it's what was developed. There may have been far less of the OT than people think and it was greatly expanded by the likes of Ezra and other priests. Did all of the OT exist complete by the 2nd century BCE? Who can know. Many works existed as found in the Dead Sea collection by the time the site was abandoned.If in fact Josephus was a priest then there were only 22 sacred books and his version of Exodus was not the one we have today. Today the Jews have the Septuagint version. I would say just those are significant. One has to ask how the "all Jews are the product of incest between two crooks" survived in Genesis.
In any event no one knows why anything was stored to become the DSS. There is no known connection between then and Qumran and no known connection between either and the Esseneses. A recent paper I have not found to read was summarized as saying there were three distinct times the scrolls were stored there. The first in mid 1st c. BC and the second in early 1st c. AD have no hypothetical cause for storing them. Only the late 1st c. can by hypothetically connected with the 76AD revolt but that remains hypothetical.
Not knowing why they were stored means we have no knowledge of who stored them and therefore no idea why they had those books to store in the first place nor why they chose to store them.
In case you missed it the "writing tables" at Qumran also match the fixtures found elsewhere in the region to make soap.
1- This only says Josephus used it and little more. Actually Paul did as well if you read his letters.
2- Actually I don't think incest was involved at all at least not at this point. Perhaps somewhere in the jungles of Africa 100,000 years earlier.
3-I agree no one knows why DSS was stored or even when.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:Denial of reality is not a good sign. The claim that the Jews who lived in Judah circa 600 BCE were "people who are not known to exist" is a clear case of denial. Hezekiah existed. Jehoahaz existed. They had a kingdom in Jerusalem the central city of Judah. They used Hebrew. They had Hebrew names. Stop the denial.Spin you old rascal. Reading that I would get the impression you are deliberately confusing the name of the people with the name of the religion. When Judaism fist appears in history and that includes IF you beleve in the OT it was a religion of conversion, voluntary, by force, by trickery, and also to soften up the victims for genocide. But when they show up in real history they are reported to be of the 7th Day Adventist and LDS type of convert seekers.
And if you are stuck with the religious ideas then only a woman can be born a Jew. Men have to be circumcized, have a Bar Mitzvah, a Mikvah and lead a Jewish life. There is no place in the religion for the zionist invention/heresy of a jewish people.
There is no reality. There is only physical evidence.
A fact free response if ever there was one. You seem incapable of dealing with anything people say to you. The physical evidence is in on a Jewish society circa 600 BCE and you're way out.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:See the exploits of Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V. This link indicates Shalmaneser V Invaded Samaria.
See this link for summary of Assyrian king events.
See this for interrelationship with Hatti and Elam as well as population relocation.
As to Nebuchadnezzar see this link.
Granted they don't discuss what form of religious practices the people in Hatti-land did. It however shows he did in fact invade these lands taking plunder and persons in 597 BCE.
See also DJ Wiseman, Chronicles pp32-35, A Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs pp 260-61, Finkelstein Bible Unearthed, pp293-295.
It is with blinders you appear to look at Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE seeing that which you choose.
There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
If you looked at the references supplied to you you might see that once again you are in denial.
If you have a case you need not use the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. You can express your case yourself if in fact you have one. I am still waiting and you do not appear to have a case.
Nice rhetoric, poor substance. Evidence is not authority. The references supplied to you are based on physical evidence, nice inscriptions found in situ in archaeological sites. You, poor soul, are evidenceless for your sorry bag of hollow claims.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You don't need to assign religious beliefs to the area to understand there were people there and they had relationships with other countries as vassals as well as in conflict. Leave out the religion and look at only the civilization. Leave out the propaganda from the OT as well. No one here is trying to show there were states of Israel and Judah that had all the Yahweh god beliefs of the OT.Nor does one have to assign religious beliefs to understand Rome was founded by Christians by the same reasoning. The same reasoning applies to the war between Christian Rome and Christian Gaul. The regions were populated and at some point in time their religion became Christian therefore they were Christians all the way back to prehistoric times.
Non sequitur.
It gave the opportunity to see the problem rather than pointing out the deliberate confusion of the name of the land, the name of a fraction from Judea and the name of the religion deriving from the same name through Greek. It follows perfectly if I make your assumption that the name of the land, Judea, and the name of the religion , Judaism, means a variation on the name of part of the land, Judean, are all taken to mean the same thing.
So to make it follow all I have to do is call the religion Romism. That was one of the derogatory descriptions applied by the Protestants and there is more than a little truth to the fact of Roman Catholicism. However the accidental naming being from the same root word in today's English is evidence of nothing. It is unhelpful to use names like that. For example in the 1930s the Brits referred not to World Jewery but to Judah as the collective name.
It we simply go back less than a century in Europe we do not find Judaism but people of the Mosaic confession. What do people of the Mosaic confession have to do with Judea and Samaria and Galilee and other named regions in Palestine? That could take us to the Herods who the people did not consider a lawful king.
And again, what is the Mosaic confession? No graven images? The "jewish" catacombs outside Rome has an image (stick figure really) of a person striking a rock and water flowing and a seven candle menorah.
Only one response: non sequitur.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:One may say we know of the period in time when Christianity got started. Fact is we can say the same thing about Judaism. It arose between Alexander and Pompey. Christianity created a backstory in the gospels. Why is it no one else can invent a backstory for their religion? One may say we cannot say Judaism did not exist before Alexander. That is true. We cannot say Christianity did not exist before the 1st c. AD. That is also true. That is one reason "proof of a negative" is so popular among believers.We are not talking about christianity. Non sequitur.
I am asking why you have an unstated assumption that those of the Mosaic confession could not possibly have invented their own backstory.
Perhaps modern Jewish religionists buried the inscriptions in ancient Mesopotamian archaeological sites or at Elephantine in Egypt.
You do not appear to have an answer. I correctly state when the Mosaic confession appears in some form it is not the form most popular today. You have yet to establish that a similar name from hundreds of miles away means IUDA. (No vowls so the name was written D, right? So any name with a D in it is conclusive to you, right? Or are you going to go for a DH?
As you aren't interested in getting this right, for any people who are interested, the Judean coins from the Persian period show the name YHD. One filled in the vowels. The Assyrians using a different writing system wrote the equivalent of Yakuda or Yauda -- they had some trouble with the Hebrew H, as did the Greeks and Romans, so we ended up with Judea.
A_Nony_Mouse, why do you have to try to make yourself look as though you just don't know a thing about what you are dealing with?
So tell me why those of the Mosaic confession could not have created their own backstory and upon what basis you assert it is impossible.
Interesting periphrasis here, "those of the Mosaic confession". They could have, but the physical evidence shows that Judah existed.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There was human habitation. I see human habitation. You see the anachronism of a jewish people.Jewish kings. Used Hebrew language. Had Yahwistic names. Walks like a duck... This response of yours is more denial.
Kings of D or DH or kings of the people of the Mosaic Confession?
Sort of amazing when maybe half of all English names are from people who became popular thousands of years ago. I have come across much historical fiction and I have found most of them, at least the non-pulp ones, to use ancient names. All the character names in The 13th Tribe were old names. It is sitll fiction.
Believers are so willing to accept Shule/Sunday School level simplicities one has to ask why they think they are prepared to comment on the subject.
That contentlessness took some time to write. You should try the notion of value for effort.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I posted an article on the invention of the Jewish people in this forum. Bottom line is that is a zionist invention and did not exist before the invenition of zionism itself.An article about a book you haven't read and whose aims and significance you obviously can't understand because of your commitments and denial.
Skeptics are always said to be in denial by believers. What is clear to believers who never at any time critically examined their Shule beliefs. But prove me wrong. Back when you were a skeptic and accepting none of this, what is it that convinced you?
Denial has nothing to do with your professed skepticism: it's about refusal to deal with solid evidence. Skepticism isn't a term to apply to you. That term requires an awareness of the subject under consideration.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:With the evidence available there is no more connection between the Palestinians and Judaism than there is between the Romans and Christianity.Proof that you don't understand the article you cited.
The understanding of a REVIEW and an author's summary have nothing to do with the substance of the book if that is what you mean. You will note the specificity in both of the zionist creation of a "jewish people" as opposed to the traditional meaning of a religion only. The fact that after those of the Mosaic confession appear in real history they are actively seeking converts shows they made the distinction. What is it you think you READ that I missed? Please be specific in your response.
I have no argument at all with the indicated content of the book. I do with your misuse of the indicated contents. Developments from Roman times are irrelevant to your denial of a Jewish state centered on Jerusalem in the 600 BCE.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In order to create all of this stuff in the OT in the 1st or 2nd century BCE all at once as a con job as you infer from your comments about Judah Macabee, calls must have gone out for a lot of scribes. It must have been a major activity for years. So exactly where is it you say they produced all of this and where is your proof of that?After the Greeks people who could write were available and literacy was considered a requirement for anyone above peasant. So for the first time there were people to create these stories. FIRST TIME.
Conjecture against the facts.
You are free to produce an earlier example. If you have none then it is not conjecture but a fact.
Read this and the last thread. Hebrew was being written as early as the 9th c. BCE.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Although there are a lot of words they were not a single book. Josephus wrote there were only 22 books but he did not name them. Unless one is assuming without evidence the OT is the only ancient true version we clearly only have evidence of competing stories from Strabo and Josephus neither of which is the present Exodus.Yet, while Josephus uses other sources, he does use the books of the Hebrew bible very closely.
You mean the "hebrew" version of Exodus recounts the military campaigns of Moses in Nubia? You mean the "hebrews" really were forced to leave Egypt because they were all leprous? You might want to read up on what he wrote some day. He only had 22 sacred books to deal with. Obviously today's version of Exodus was not among them.
But tell me why today's version of Exodus is the Septuagint version and not the version the priest, Josephus, knew. Take your time and explain this conundrum.
Try not to go off on wider tangents.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:And we learn there were many of the locals living in Alexandria which had a rather well known library built to hold all the official records Alexander looted and sent to the city as research material and insiration for the writers.Ten people working for ten years is one hundred man-years. Even at the current size of about 800,000 words that is 8000 words per person per year. Why do you think this is such a difficult accomplishment?
I add about 20,000 words a year to my website and certainly there will be cracks about dubious quality but non-believers do not see quality in the OT either. For centuries the OT has had a cottage industry making its doggeral sound good. The release of the King James Version was delayed some ten years to polish up the translation as the literal was so bad.
As to the time frame where I suggest it was created, there was literacy. As of the late 1st c. AD only 22 books were considered sacred so the task was lesser than creating all the books we have today. One hundred man-years is quite up to the task. In fact it is overkill. And that can explain the creation of not only all the books we have but also the ones which once were popular which have disappeared or possibly exist today in only one copy.
And even with the hundred man-years it was a tradition in those days to make up stories about gods. They created a "Star Wars" popular collection. There is always a market for spin offs. The stories of this god in bibleland were popular. So lets create stories about this god in exotic lands like Persia and Mesopotamia sort of like the Tarzan and and Quarterman stories. Still today we create stories in a bible setting.
Consider Esther/Hadasah is a reimaging of the classic Cinderella story.
Oh, please! What a ridiculous comparison timewise. First, you need to show an extant version of the Cinderella story at the time, and then you can speak. Otherwise, you just wear egg on your face.
The power of a beautiful young virgin over nobility and even the gods is very old. Have you missed them all? Zeus was always fucking them. Disney's Cinderella is not close to any of the traditional stories so one hopes you are not thinking of that version.
I used a term of art, reimagining. If you saw it, Tin Man was a reimagining of the Wizard of Oz. The Jesus story is a reimagining of the Isis/Osiris story.
If you can't remember the topic, perhaps you should take more vitamin B-12.
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Bel and the Dragon is my god is better than your god that was the basis of many Brit missionary novels like H. Rider Haggard's Wizard. Abraham is a sly, immoral trickster. Noah is absolutely not Gilgamesh. Solomon is Ramses.Stop talking rubbish and deal with the topic. You'll talk about anything that will help you score denial points.
Maybe if I say enough you will finally define exactly what you claim was written and when so you have more than what you learned in Shule to claim is being denied.
If you'd cut down on the waffle and read what you were responding to a little more carefully, you'd know the response. (Try post #64 of this thread for example.)
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Deny that there were no people in Judah/Israel all you want as records indicate otherwise.
Here we go again. To repeat. I have stipulated the land has been inhabited for at least sixty thousand years. Why do you continue to post as though I have not stipulated that?
I do not see why you continue to pretend I have not made that stipulation. Perhaps it is that you realize the next step is up to you to show some specificity to that habitation that is other than mere geography. Are you unable to produce physical evidence of that?
Thanks for making that clear. So you see no direct relationship at all between those that inhabited the land for 60,000 years and those that wrote the fantasy tales of the OT?
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There is no evidence of a cohesive people in the region to see before the 5th c. BC and then we only see the Palestinians as per Herodotus.
This is why I keep bringing up the land was inhabited, it suggests no organized civilization which is not the case.
Earlier I tried to show you this was not the case but you don't seem to get there were people living in cities in Palestine. Assyria and Babylon were attacking and collecting booty from someone. Were they all Yahweh believers using Torah scrolls, probably not. You misconstrue my statement into they were doing that which is reported in the OT fantasy stories, which is not what I said.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You may have noticed I do not do as I am told. I ask you why you assume it is impossible for a religion invented in the 2nd c. BC to have created a backstory for their savage, unsanitary religion. You have not answered that.
Injecting Christianity into this discussion adds more smoke and confusion is my point. Staying on the subject of the development of the OT does not require this added morphed fantasy religion.
Again, all religion is invented as to when is the question.
OK, when is the question. Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?
For this discussion it is only sufficient to show that a Yahwistic religion existed before 600 BCE, given the existence of Yahweh theophoric names in the Lachish letters which date from the time of the Assyrian invasion. Samarian ostraca also feature Yahweh theophoric names (amongst others) from circa 770 BCE. It's plain that there was a deity called Yahweh for whom there was a religion. People asked for blessings of this god. This is not to say anything about there being monotheism (Yahweh and his Asherah from an inscription found at Kuntillet Ajrud suggests against the idea), but that a religion centered on Yahweh existed -- the Lachish letters show interest in no other deity.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree with Spin on this. There is such evidence in that time period for Yahweh belief including his Asherah.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree with Spin on this. There is such evidence in that time period for Yahweh belief including his Asherah.
I asked the following.
OK, when is the question. Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?
He presents no evidence and not even a guess as to when these OT books were written.
What are you agreeing with?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?For this discussion it is only sufficient to show that a Yahwistic religion existed before 600 BCE, given the existence of Yahweh theophoric names in the Lachish letters which date from the time of the Assyrian invasion. Samarian ostraca also feature Yahweh theophoric names (amongst others) from circa 770 BCE. It's plain that there was a deity called Yahweh for whom there was a religion. People asked for blessings of this god. This is not to say anything about there being monotheism (Yahweh and his Asherah from an inscription found at Kuntillet Ajrud suggests against the idea), but that a religion centered on Yahweh existed -- the Lachish letters show interest in no other deity.
spin
As you have not even guessed as to when these books were created much less presented any evidence as to when they were created just what is the point of your response?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?For this discussion it is only sufficient to show that a Yahwistic religion existed before 600 BCE, given the existence of Yahweh theophoric names in the Lachish letters which date from the time of the Assyrian invasion. Samarian ostraca also feature Yahweh theophoric names (amongst others) from circa 770 BCE. It's plain that there was a deity called Yahweh for whom there was a religion. People asked for blessings of this god. This is not to say anything about there being monotheism (Yahweh and his Asherah from an inscription found at Kuntillet Ajrud suggests against the idea), but that a religion centered on Yahweh existed -- the Lachish letters show interest in no other deity.
spin
As you have not even guessed as to when these books were created much less presented any evidence as to when they were created just what is the point of your response?
Wild guess is some from 2nd century BCE, Daniel, Enoch, Macabees etc and some from 200 to 400 BCE due to priests such as Ezra. Some more from 400 BCE to 700 BCE from oral traditions, myths, and combination of other deities from Egypt, Babylon, Akkad and others.
How is this different than the Catholic Church starting to say evolution (science derived) could be the way God created the world. The Church is looking for a way to incorporate science which has shown proof and evidence so they can continue with the propagation of their particular fantasy. Why would the ancestors of the Jews be any different? They wanted to keep the myths alive so they could stay in power and collect cash.
IMO the sources are a mix especially it would seem to be a clear relationship to Ugaritic gods. Yahweh, Asherah, El and the rest were clearly documented there. See Here. And Here.
Previously we discussed Yahweh had an Asherah which is well documented. See Here. And even from your website here. It appears that as the religious ideas morphed in the area south of Syria for some reason Yahweh is not depicted but his Asherah is. I don't know why this occurred other than that which is said in the OT. Maybe as no one every saw Yahweh it was a way out for them. Like BS about Santa.
There is much of Ugaritic material in the OT and it is a source for various parts. So parts of the OT had to be written sometime afterwords.
In addition to Asherah, there are coins, the Numbers silver prayer scroll Rook mentioned, cuneiform tablets from Hittites, Assyria, Babylon and more that establish basis.
None of this supports monotheism but does support Yahweh belief. In other cultures the gods were represented as idols, these people for some reason didn't do that at some point. Perhaps a shortage of artisians?
You seem to have 2 sets of rules you use. One for Jewish myths and one for everything else. If you expect there to be Hebrew copies then there should be original Greek copies of ancient works too. Please supply links for original copies in Greek or Latin found for writing by Cicero, Homer, Aristotle, Herodotus and Plato. (originals only not copies).
I know of this copy of Homer from Egypt circa 332 to 30 BCE Here. But its a copy not an original.
The oldest copy of Herodotus is from the 11th century with 4 others from the 11th to the 13th century. So where's the original Greek copy? Are there any that have been found in Athens?
So why do you suppose there should be Hebrew copies from the origin myths when there are not Greek originals of Homer, Plato, or Herodotus?
The Rigveda dates orally to about 1100 BCE. It was written down finally sometime after the 4th century CE. Does it have all of the original? Who knows. It is another example how oral tradition preserved information. Did this happen in Palestine? Could be for part of it.
The DSS copies are older than the Greek copies of works by Homer and Herodotus. Some of the DSS are in Greek, Aramaic, and the nearly lost language of Hebrew. If Greek was the original and Hebrew was a dying language for the general populace why write it in Hebrew at all? Can you explain this?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?He presents no evidence and not even a guess as to when these OT books were written.
Do try to concentrate.
The physical evidence has already been cited for you regarding the existence of a Yahwistic religion prior to 600 BCE. When the religion was founded is irrelevant to the fact that it was in existence in 600 BCE, which is the basic date being used to deal with your fallacious stuff about there not being any Hebrew or Hebrew religion before the time of a Greek writing of the literature. Your claim is obviously dead and you're now just doing a zombie act.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline As you have not even guessed as to when these books were created much less presented any evidence as to when they were created just what is the point of your response?/quote]I don't need to guess. You have put forward the silly proposal that they were written in Greek. I have merely dealt with your silliness. If your proposition is stupid, as I think I've shown it is, you should either work hard to improve it or get another, more functional, proposition.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As to when just how is one supposed to figure that out? Make wild guesses?spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?For this discussion it is only sufficient to show that a Yahwistic religion existed before 600 BCE, given the existence of Yahweh theophoric names in the Lachish letters which date from the time of the Assyrian invasion. Samarian ostraca also feature Yahweh theophoric names (amongst others) from circa 770 BCE. It's plain that there was a deity called Yahweh for whom there was a religion. People asked for blessings of this god. This is not to say anything about there being monotheism (Yahweh and his Asherah from an inscription found at Kuntillet Ajrud suggests against the idea), but that a religion centered on Yahweh existed -- the Lachish letters show interest in no other deity.
spin
As you have not even guessed as to when these books were created much less presented any evidence as to when they were created just what is the point of your response?
If you have reason to believe the books existed BEFORE they first appear in history as the Septuagint then it is up to you to present that evidence as the basis for your position. As you have no basis for the existence of the BOOKS themselves prior to the Septuagint why are you bothering to post disagreement?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Upon what physical evidence to you base your opinion as to when it was created and what dates or time period do you conclude from that evidence?He presents no evidence and not even a guess as to when these OT books were written.
Do try to concentrate.
The physical evidence has already been cited for you regarding the existence of a Yahwistic religion prior to 600 BCE. When the religion was founded is irrelevant to the fact that it was in existence in 600 BCE, which is the basic date being used to deal with your fallacious stuff about there not being any Hebrew or Hebrew religion before the time of a Greek writing of the literature. Your claim is obviously dead and you're now just doing a zombie act.
spin
From the beginning, in both the first and second versions of the article the issue has been the existence of the written material. You cannot have missed that. If you have evidence of written material prior to the Septuagint then please present it. If you have none and you only have faith there was something earlier please admit that.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline From the beginning, in both the first and second versions of the article the issue has been the existence of the written material.
Does that mean you drop the ridiculous claim that the Hebrew bible was written in Greek?
You cannot have missed that. If you have evidence of written material prior to the Septuagint then please present it.
This sounds like you have retracted your ridiculous arguments and are now attempting to shift the burden. That's fine. It's an admission that you are totally empty-handed and are trying yet another bait and switch. Here it comes:
If you have none and you only have faith there was something earlier please admit that.
As you are well aware, my entry into your little web of deceit was because of your empty claims about the Hebrew bible having been written in Greek. That is plainly fallacious. The phonological traces in the Hebrew bible make it clear that it was written in Hebrew. You are incapable of dealing with this evidence, so you ignore it and pretend that you can make sense without knowing anything about how the language works.
It was your topic to say that the Hebrew bible was written in Greek because blah, blah, blah. Now that all the blah has been stripped away, you are left looking for a means to shift your burden. You cannot make your case. As you have no evidence to offer, you have nothing further that is useful to say. You can now sit in your corner mumbling about when the Hebrew bible was written.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
- Login to post comments
Offline As you have not even guessed as to when these books were created much less presented any evidence as to when they were created just what is the point of your response?
If you have reason to believe the books existed BEFORE they first appear in history as the Septuagint then it is up to you to present that evidence as the basis for your position. As you have no basis for the existence of the BOOKS themselves prior to the Septuagint why are you bothering to post disagreement?
You asked for wild guesses and I gave them to you. As several of us have shown you there is reason to consider some parts of the OT existed prior to the Septuagint. See Rook's post #68 or see this link for more on it.
You of course denied this was related and concluded it was this:
The only thing in question I can think of is the "silver scroll" which is clearly an incantation to Ra.
You might want to provide evidence that it is as you claim and explain why it was in Hebrew as well.
My point of conflict with this thread has been your insistence of no relationship to the ancestors of the 1st and 2nd century BCE inhabitants of Palestine as well as an apparent misconstruing of archeology or plain ignoring it in your claims. You have it appears backed away from some of that as in:
To repeat. I have stipulated the land has been inhabited for at least sixty thousand years.
Even on your web site you go further than this. There you say:
The people did not rise above shepards and dirt farmers before the Greeks. Every major population center including all of those attributed to Soloman have been identified as outposts of other civilizations.
So at least there you suggest there were population centers.
You conclude that these population centers were just outposts of other civilizations and therefore not semi-autonomous. This is where I disagree primarily with you as you have decided to ignore those same civilizations of other lands as well as the archeology in Palestine.
As you wear blinders and misinterpret criticism into support of the Bible view, one last time I'm going to make this clear to you. I'm not saying any of the fantasy stories have basis in the real world. Moses is not real, no Exodus, no invasion of Canaan, no mighty kings of David and Solomon, no proof for united kingdoms. There were kingdoms, they were far less important and smaller than the OT says. They worshiped multiple gods including Yahweh. They morphed this belief over time into new fantasies in the OT. That this happens mormonism shows. The difference between our views is you believe it happened in the 1st or 2nd century BCE and I say it was earlier and developed starting around 600 BCE. All lies, bullshit and fantasy has some truth in it. The problem is which parts. You choose to deny it all. I suggest there is proof of connections to other civilizations. Neither of us has the road map of how this developed. Do you get that.
Other things you have not addressed are related to linguistics. The hebrew language did exist and feel free to investigate that on your own. Spin has been telling you this throughout this thread. This was recently found and reported. See Here.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As to when just how is one supposed to figure that out? Make wild guesses?As you have not even guessed as to when these books were created much less presented any evidence as to when they were created just what is the point of your response?
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:If you have reason to believe the books existed BEFORE they first appear in history as the Septuagint then it is up to you to present that evidence as the basis for your position. As you have no basis for the existence of the BOOKS themselves prior to the Septuagint why are you bothering to post disagreement?
You asked for wild guesses and I gave them to you.
I did not ask for wild guesses. I asked for dates of creation with supporting evidence. I have given Josephus' citation of a forgery as the only evidence the the Septuagint is a translation of the twenty two holy books of his god. If you know of something else please produce it.
If you produce nothing else you are relying upon religious tradition not evidence.
As several of us have shown you there is reason to consider some parts of the OT existed prior to the Septuagint. See Rook's post #68 or see this link for more on it.
So you are basing your position upon the write up of a journalism major. Pardon if I don't take that seriously. I have seen dozens of these journalism major reports where they clearly are in the tabloid school on bible matters. I just gave an example of the five lines on pottery. The researcher in the only quote from him calls it "proto-canaanite" while the journalism major calls it Hebrew. I have several examples of this saved if you need more.
There is nothing in that link quoting any researcher. It is all journalism major crap.
You of course denied this was related and concluded it was this:Quote:The only thing in question I can think of is the "silver scroll" which is clearly an incantation to Ra.You might want to provide evidence that it is as you claim and explain why it was in Hebrew as well.
It is in a variation of Phoenician not hebrew. All the references clearly refer to attributes of the Sun, aka Ra. There is nothing else like it in the OT. And as Egypt ruled bibleland for some 7-800 years the influence is to be expected.
My point of conflict with this thread has been your insistence of no relationship to the ancestors of the 1st and 2nd century BCE inhabitants of Palestine as well as an apparent misconstruing of archeology or plain ignoring it in your claims. You have it appears backed away from some of that as in:Quote:To repeat. I have stipulated the land has been inhabited for at least sixty thousand years.Even on your web site you go further than this. There you say:
Quote:The people did not rise above shepards and dirt farmers before the Greeks. Every major population center including all of those attributed to Soloman have been identified as outposts of other civilizations.So at least there you suggest there were population centers.
You conclude that these population centers were just outposts of other civilizations and therefore not semi-autonomous. This is where I disagree primarily with you as you have decided to ignore those same civilizations of other lands as well as the archeology in Palestine.
I have not concluded that. I have followed the real arkie finds in bibleland not the journalism major or Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR, a newsstand magazine) sources. The problem is there is no money for any digs in bibleland without advertising a bible connection. The real arkies are the ones who have made the identification as outposts of other cultures including Finkelstein and Silverman.
The fact remains the local culture of bibleland did not rise above dirt farmers and goatherds and there were several civilizations which built outposts in these lands.
Arkies have come a long way. It is now possible to have generalities of cultural development and compare regions to them. Every independent civilization that has been found has arisen from some local source of wealth. Bibleland has no local source of wealth. It has no mineral wealth. It is too arid for lush crops to create a surplus population for an army. No indigenous civilization of interest could develop there.
As you wear blinders and misinterpret criticism into support of the Bible view, one last time I'm going to make this clear to you. I'm not saying any of the fantasy stories have basis in the real world. Moses is not real, no Exodus, no invasion of Canaan, no mighty kings of David and Solomon, no proof for united kingdoms. There were kingdoms, they were far less important and smaller than the OT says. They worshiped multiple gods including Yahweh. They morphed this belief over time into new fantasies in the OT.
Yet we know of the temple of Astarte in Jerusalem until the Roman urban renewal project in the 2nd c. AD. So this book collection is not about the religion of the region. It is only about one of the religions and maybe the only one that was written down.
So this book does NOT represent the religion of the region as it does not mention the worship of Astarte OR Astarte was a separate religion. If you like the NT, devils went into a herd of pigs so at least the women ate pork OR there was at least one other religion in the region.
Whatever came before is clearly not represented by the Septuagint stories nor the hebrew version which first appears after the Septuagint. Knowing that as late as the 2nd c. AD there was a temple to Astarte in Jerusalem means there was no morphing at all. The only thing the Septuagint/OT represents is a gross misrepresentation of the Judeans at the time it was written no matter when it was written.
That this happens mormonism shows. The difference between our views is you believe it happened in the 1st or 2nd century BCE and I say it was earlier and developed starting around 600 BCE.
As long as you admit it is no more than a belief what is your point in disgreeing with me? All you have is your belief in religious tradition.
All lies, bullshit and fantasy has some truth in it. The problem is which parts. You choose to deny it all. I suggest there is proof of connections to other civilizations. Neither of us has the road map of how this developed. Do you get that.Other things you have not addressed are related to linguistics. The hebrew language did exist and feel free to investigate that on your own. Spin has been telling you this throughout this thread. This was recently found and reported. See Here.
I have already addressed this one several times. The only citation of interest is "proto-canaanite" which the journalism majors call hebrew. The only connection with David if "from the time of" a mythical person. If you have missed the absurdity take this paragraph.
"While the inscription has yet to be deciphered, initial interpretation indicates the text was part of a letter and contains the roots of the words "judge", "slave" and "king". This may indicate that this is a legal text that could provide insights into Hebrew law, society and beliefs. Archaeologists say that it was clearly written as a deliberate message by a trained scribe."
Why "MAY IT" indicate a legal text? It contains the "ROOTS" of the words. What does proto-canaanite have to do with "hebrew law" when there were never any hebrews? And then the absurdity of saying "trained scribes" had nothing to write on but broken pottery from the trash heap. It anything it is for littly Yonnie to practice on in scribe school. Did you ever notice it is only the scribes in bibleland who were so poor they had to write on stuff dug out of the trash? What are we to make of that?
I never cease to be amazed at how otherwise intelligent people can read material like this and take it seriously. On its face it is not to be taken seriously any more than UFO abductions.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Adad-nirari III reigned from 811 to 783 BCE.
Tiglath-Pileser III exacted 1,000 talents of silver from king Menahem of Israel and slapped around the Judean king Uzziah about 740 BCE. This is hardly an example of antiquity of the Judean kingdom.
The inscription mentioning Bit-Khumri also dates to the reign of Tiglath-Pilesar III. No ancient kingdom to be found there.
Sargon II ruled Assyria beginning in 722 BCE. No help there.
You left out the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III from 841 & 839 BCE which mention Jehu the man of Bit-Humri.
Several problems with all of this, the most damning being that, rather than being evidence for an ancient Judean kingdom, it all points to a small, unimportant Judean kingdom emerging from the rubble of it's parent Canaanite kingdoms demise. All this is in accordance with Finkelstein's chronology of an 8th to 7th BCE Israel, save for the suggestion of Judaism being derived from Canaanite culture, which is my own. The very language of the OT is agrarian in nature, in keeping with Canaan's fertility cult. Yahweh's storm theophany is taken straight from the Epic of Baal. The Biblical 'wisdom ' alluded to as female comes straight from the cult of Asherah. The list goes on, but I need my sleep and it would take days if not weeks to point out all the evidence linking Judaism to the Canaanite religion.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Just to make the issue clearer, because of A_Nony_Mouse's irrational refusal to accept any biblical evidence, Assyrian texts talk about a place called Bit-Adini, named after a person naturally enough called Adini (mentioned in the third column of Ashur-nasir-pal's annals); they talk of Bit-Bakhiani and in the second column the name Bakhiani is found. There are several other examples where Assyria talks of realms named after a specific king.
It's probably laziness. It's easier to call it after the name of a defeated king rather than remember the name of a former kingdom. It's also laziness on the part of A_Nony_Mouse for never checking up any claims made.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
Nobody here is defending the literal accuracy of the bible. We are looking at the false claim that the Hebrew bible was originally written in Greek because there weren't any Hebrew speaking Hebrews to write it. This is where it is necessary to show the utter ridiculousness of the claim, by pointing out that there was a Judahite kingdom in the 7th c. BCE, which you don't dispute. Also that inscriptions and texts in Hebrew have been uncovered from the 9th-7th centuries. Along the way the relationship between Judah and Israel was mentioned. This goes to show that there is some historical information mixed in the narratives of the Hebrew bible. Nothing is being claimed of an Israelite kingdom beyond 10-8th c. BCE and a subsequent Judahite kingdom. What later Jews did with these data is inconsequential to the discussion here. We have demonstrated that there was a Judahite and an Israelite kingdom, so there is no reason why Hebrew speakers could not have written down their traditions from that time onwards.
The linguistic evidence has already been mentioned in the previous thread, which rules out Greek as the source for the Hebrew bible.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
Well then, that is what I get for combining insomnia with the internet now, isn't it? Foolish me.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Did the book come first or did the belief morph from a volcano and lightning god?
Perhaps being defensive is not the right approach as you miss the points we are making. Are we saying the "land of never was" of the OT was real? No. All we are saying is there were prior civilizations from whence came the later development.
1- You come across as if the entire area was void of population and civilization, which is why I come back with the comments I do.
2- I have never suggested or said those that lived in the area were "proto Jews". I have never given the OT stories credibility either. All I have said is Assyria and Babylon reference they invaded and took tribute in the area. They mention names which clearly could have been incorporated in stories of fiction in the OT. All people have ancestors. Mine were barbarians. Does that mean I practice what they did?
1- I'm not claiming the land of never was of the OT existed only there were people and civilizations that were there. Were some of the names the same as used in the OT. Probably. Does that make the fantasies real? No. These ancestors were misconstrued and morphed into the OT stories at a later time. As to what time is the question.
2- Egypt and Palestine have far different conditions. Egypt had a climate that helped to preserve papyrus while Palestine does not. Egypt was a more advanced civilization as well. Assyria, Sumer and Babylon were also more advanced than Palestine. They used clay tablets for records and you are clearly aware they have been found. Some of these related to trade have been found in Palestine related to Assyria and the others. The ancient land of Palestine was not a dominant superpower any time in the period we are discussing Egypt, Assyria and Babylon were. There are similar problems with the ancient people called the Hittites and the Mitani. Massive records of their civilizations are not available.
3- I am aware at the lack of archaeological finds proving the OT was in the real world and not in the 'land of never was' in Israeli museums.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Nor do I. But I was talking about the word BT/BYT not about the word chosen by by the translator for a word that may or may not be BT. Care to produce the original that is translated as house? I have suggested the many examples I can draw upon from the bible stories. I can also draw upon modern bastard version spoken in Israel and their place names. On a bet I found three regional "bt" names in one week of Haaretz.
What might the false assumptions be? Mine simply that BT was not used to mean dyansty.
Stories wherein pivotal events involve the occurance of magic are by definition fiction to adults. Children appear to be willing to believe in magic. Believers accept magical events. Entry level atheists invent simplistic, plausible explanations fo rmagic which themselves cannot stand up to skeptical examination.
However that is all opinion. Rational people look for the physical evidence of a civilization which could match that described in the stories and learn there is none. When it is admitted there is no physical evidence for a bibleland civilization which could have been the one described then it is only a question of how much later the stories were invented.
The claim it was written after the return of Babylon is nonsense as there was no captifvity in Babylon. Recall the rations story is misrepresented, the return of sacred things refers to something else and the Babylonian record which might apply to bibleland says the king was replaced not taken away. There is no evidence of any captivity. Therefore the idea that one day people who never left started writing about their time away and their return is obviously not contemporary.
Relying upon records from hundreds of miles away for believers to find names which appear similar to cover the the total absense of physical evidence of such a culture i bibleland itself is like arguing there was an Atlantis based upon the writings of Plato or the evidence of numerous writers for the existence of Camelot.
Real skeptics have a hard time taking seriously stories of battles recorded hundreds of miles from bibleland refer to events in bibleland when there is no evidence of a civilization in bibleland to match the description.
If you do not mind my digressing there are many bible claims of having entire armies of chariots. (In one case the writers show their ignorance of chariots saying they were made of iron -- believers say it is a metaphorical description.) So the question is, where was the rangeland in bibleland where they were kept and raised? Is there evidence the climate was wetter back then to permit such rangeland to exist? The nearest place wet enough is the Syrian, aka Golan, Heights from which today Israel steals enough water for 1/3 of its population. So if you want to look for a place with a chariot army look to Syria.
And as we learn from Herodotus the people of the region called themselves the Palestine Syrians we can see where the writers got the inspiration for this aspect of their bible myths.
A century ago there was no question among adventurers they were going to document the OT fables. Today we know better as percentagewise bibleland is the most dug place in the world and still no physical evidence that matches the pack of lies in the OT.
I am certain nothing will convince you to insist upon physical evidence as found in bibleland itself. I am certain you will continue as do those to believe in Atlantis to search far and wide for any indication that can be "understood" to refer to something in the bible.
What you will refuse to acknowledge is that any evidence you claim exists can have been used by writers in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC to have created the stories.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
And then we look for archaeological evidence from the region for people who were called or who called themselves Canannites and find nothing. What we do find is any prior culture from which it emerged is Egyptian which ruled all the way to the Euphrates until at least 1000 BC. IOW the Canaanites are just another invention of the bible writers.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
And I admit I am still waiting for you to tell me how you can exclude people in the 2nd c. BC from having read those same inscriptions and using the names to create their historical fictional basis for their invented religion. It is good I have not chosen to hold my breath in the waiting.
It is the absence of physical evidence in bibleland to corroborate these stories which excludes the possibility they refer to events in bibleland.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
As the "hebrews" are an invention of the bible writers clearly there were none. Why is that so hard to grasp?
All written in the Phoenician alphabet and claimed to be written by a people invented by the OT writers. The most that can be said is that it was written by people who inhabited the region. Calling them hebrews is backdating a bible invention by centuries. Claiming there is any connection between those people and the Judeans who first appear in history in the 1st c. BC beyond living in roughly the same area is something one expects only from believers. It is like calling the east anglos an example of the antiquity of the British. That is something you do not do while drinking with a Brit. This disdainflul lecture goes on past last call.
This implies you think you have shown there was an Israel and a Judah as described in the bible. And if there was not then you can practice bait and switch and save your faith in the antiquity of the Jewish people even though they are first appear in history in the 1st c. BC at a time when the worship of Astarte was a coequal in Jerusalem.
And the absence of physical evidence of either Israel and Judah as described in the bible precludes their existence. It is therefore incumbent upon the believers in the so-called linquistic evidence to explain it in light of the fact these biblical kingdoms vanished without leaving physical evidence of their existence. Believers never address the real problem.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Yahweh, like Asharah/Astarte is a nature god. He appears in bushes and trees, burning to Moses, in a tree to Abraham. His "wrath" is expressed through natural causes such as plagues of things like frogs and locust not with lightning strikes. As to volcano, what volcano? If you know of a volcano in the region that was active 2500 years ago or so tell me about it.
And I point out you can go through all the archaeological finds in bibleland and not find a culture which matches the OT description. Nor can you find one that could be the one mentioned in the inscriptions from hundreds of miles away that people are so fond of pretending no one in the 2nd c. BC could have used for inspiration. Yes the land was populated. No, you cannot find a culture which fits the description.
Yet all the talk about the linguistic evidence for the age of the language requires it to have been written with this old form of the language was current. But there is no indigenous culture to have written it to be found by archaeologists. But show me a culture advanced enough to have produced religious works of this size by showing me ten times as many words in contracts and business dealings and you have a start.
If you believe this culture was so great on writting certainly you can show correspondance from these kings in other cultures. Diplomatic and cultural correspondence among all the known kingdoms has been fouind but none to or from the bibleland kings. Why is that if they in fact existed?
As I keep saying the things we find regarding all other civilizations are not found about bibleland. If the only evidence of ancient Egypt were found in an incription in Mesopotamia all rational people would question the existence of ancient Egypt.
The ONLY thing you find on those inscriptions are vaguely similar names. You find nothing about where those names were found. There is nothing to pin down those names to a geographic city or king. Nor is there anything to exclude those names from having been read in the 2nd c. BC and used in their historical fiction.
There is no way to distinguish between a 2nd c. BC creation and a contemporary record other than finding the archaeological remains of that civilization. Fact is there is no such evidence.
Other than faith, upon what basis do you discriminate your imagininga from total fiction created around the time the OT stories AND people first appear in history? You cannot have "linguistic evidence" and later creation at the same time. How do you distinguish your imagining from the Book of Mormon? Creation would be in the language in use at the time of creation. If you see an old form of the so-called hebrew then you have to have a civilization at the time that was in use which created it. There is no evidence of such a civilization.
Let the preamble be that bibleland is known for exactly nothing. Not one single contribution to civilization came from there in any form.
You appear to be trying to excuse not find written records but are doing it rather poorly. In Egypt damned little papyrus survived. Most of what we have managed to survive in anaerobic conditions, often in literal garbage dumps.However there are plenty of stone inscriptions. When it comes to Mesopotamia mud tablets were commonly used. Was bibleland short on mud? Was it short on stone?
Even if so where are all the iron foundries and remains of iron working for all those chariot fittings? Where are the great cities and buildings with the incriptions? Where is the correspondence between its kings and the kings of other civilizations? Where are the causal mentions of these people and their cities in other documents? Why is there no mention in docutments where we would expect to find mention such as Herodotus and the inventories of Alexander? How many explanations can you find for all of the above and more before you realize the simplest explanation is that it is all fiction?
If you are aware the subjects of these stories never existed just what are you trying to claim existed? It is stipulated the land has been populated for at least 60.000 years. Mesoamerica was populated in the 1st c. AD. That puts the OT and the Book of Mormon on exactly the same footing -- except Mesoamerica was more civilized than bibleland.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I found the claim of linguistic evidence of interest many years ago until I got around to looking into it. The first thing to realize is that the squared script we consider "hebrew" is an invented "font" and first appears in the 1st c. BC and then only that old from thd Dead Sea Scrolls.
Anything older than that uses Phoenician letters as did Aramaic. This is not a secret. You can google images of any claimed ancient "hebrew" inscription and see for yourself. When Judea first appears in history they are speaking Aramaic and writing Aramaic and using Aramaic letters to write in Aramaic. The squared script is not found outside of the liturgical DSS from those times. In other words rather than being a "preserved" ancient script the squared font is invented without ancestry. Nothing that looks like that font precedes it. However Aramaic did evolve from Phoenician but not nearly as much as the western letter deviated from them.
The general problem with "linguistic" evidence for the "antiquity" of the OT stories requires the stories to have been written when that version of the language was in use. Were I given a sample of English of unknown age I would compare it to dated samples of English over the centuries such as Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare and see which it was closest to. So when I read a claim of some book of the OT being of a certain age, for example Exodus (unquestionably a total pack of lies and ignorant ones at that) is generally considered the oldest because of the style. Unfortunately Exodus survives only on the squared script that first appears in the 1st c. BC rather than in Phoenician letters which is the only one known to exist prior to the 1st c. BC and not in common use even at that late date.
So the cursory comparison of the letters to determine age is not possible as it would be from a facsimile of the Shakspeare portfolio. We have to go to the words, the spelling and the grammar. But we find the invented squared script does not have a one for one relationship between letters in the liturgical form of the OT. In the non-bible form of this hebrew there is Aleph which corresponds to the Greek Alpha and our A, a vowel. In the official bible version there are marks for vowels in a language which has vowels.
We also have a hangover of the letter Y which mascarades as a vowel on occasion. Thus we can have BT and BYT as the same word and some folks like spin introducing BIT in sort of a reverse osmosis of modern spelling to the old form of BYT.
There are other problems. Aramaic was not quite like Arabic. Arabic has a classical form which requires study to learn which is the version in the Koran. It does not have vowel marks unlike the modern Arabics. The only commonly understood version of Arabic is Egyptian due to the popularity of the Egyptian movie industry. Beyond that two arabic speaking people from different places have as much chance of understanding each other as Romance language peoples from different countries.
Aramaic did not have the benefit of schools to teach a classical form or a movie industry. It differed widely. Aramaic is a Semitic language as was ancient Egyptian and Arabic. The classical Arabic, aka Koran Arabic may not have existed any place but the east coast of the Red Sea around Mecca and Medina.
All of this leads up to the things called older forms of the backdated name hebrew do not pass muster as more than a local semitic dialect in a region ruled by Egypt for nearly a thousand years and for which Egypt was the most influential for about three thousand years.
As there is no evidence the peoples of ancient bibleland felt any more affinity to each other than Athenians and Spartans before it was imposed upon them by Alexander the fact that there may have been a local dialect they shared does not a people make.
And back to dating a sample of English by comparison, we have to have dated material for comparison. It thould be clear a few passages here and there are not sufficient. What do we have from bibleland for comparison? Next to nothing. Yes there are some formal letters from different periods. It is not reasonable to assume a formal language is contemporary any more than it is reasonable to assume all English speaking people address each other as dear. There isn't much else for comparison. This is not to suggest that anyone like spin will give the comparisons he is making to claim something is an old hebrew. Funny thing he identifies in me his own failing.
So what are we to make of a language with no standard form in a time before the idea of dictionaries and grammars were centuries in the future? We can accept on faith the irreconcilable problems with assuming it is an ancient collection of writings. (We cannot claim it was oral tradition as when put into writing it would be in form of the current written language of the time. Besides, oral tradition is bullshit.) We can throw up our hands and say there is no explanation for it. Or we can come up with hypothesises with fewer internal contradictions.
I am trying to come up with an explanation of origins with fewer irreconcilable problems. I believe I have as the total absence of archaeological evidence is irreconcilable with any creation prior to the arrival of the Greek Empire.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Because this clueless rejection of a culture which plainly existed given the linguistic and epigraphic evidence isn't particularly convincing.
Argument by denial.
Certainly not. You seem to have missed most of what I have written. It implies I think I have shown there was an Israel and a Judah as described in the archaeological and epigraphic record.
You are the expert at bait and switch, so I'll leave that to you to talk about nearly anything else but the subject we are dealing with.
Cherry-picking the bit to comment on. You leave out the stuff about the evidence. Thus you make meaningless comments.
The real problem revolves around your state of denial. Judah existed. The Assyrians tell you so. The Babylonians tell you so. You however choose to ignore them because you believe that there were no Jews. I think everyone here has seen that you fall over your presuppositions and ignore anything that disturbs your fantasy.
spin
MOD EDIT (Rook): Fixed quotes. You're welcome. =)
Trust the evidence, Luke
It is sufficient that the ancient writers of the bible used "BYT DWYD" to show that your original statement is false. You are talking rubbish. However, I also provided you with examples from Neo-Assyrian texts to show that the Assyrians did exactly what you were trying to bullshit that they didn't.
If you doubt the presentation of the text translated as Bit-Khumri and a transliteration is provided (which I've given), the onus is on you to get off your ass and deal with real evidence.
I guess you didn't read the paragraph you wrote above beginning "So even if the lineage".
You've excluded yourself from the category of rational people. You know next to nothing about the physical evidence.
You may recall that but you'd be bullshitting.
This seems to be one of your fixations, but what has this got to do with anything I've said?
Although I didn't talk about this, you'll learn what it's about from 2 Kgs 24 where Jehoiakin was carried away to Babylon and Zedekiah made king in his place. And it is Jehoiakin who receives the rations in Babylon.
So the rations don't show any captives? Think again.
As all your premises are false it's not strange that you come to a funny conclusion.
As you haven't thrilled anyone with your linguistic prowess, nobody is waiting for you to do so now.
Why do you insist on babbling about "bibleland" incessantly? It's as though you've got some negative fixation that you have wrapped in linguistic subterfuge in order to deal with it.
If you have trouble with descriptions of battles recorded in Assyria, perhaps you might look at the reliefs which deal with the siege of Lachish. They help you to understand the archaeological signs at the site of Lachish and the siege mound that the Assyrians raised against the city. Do you doubt that Assyria took control of much of Palestine and left enough archaeological evidence for you to find out about if you consult a decent book on Palestinian archaeology?
Bait and switch...
I'm sorry, I couldn't parse that.
How many times do christians pull this old trick. A century ago people, blah, blah, blah. But gosh the bible is wonderful, etc. You don't sound much different, A_Nony_Mouse.
Ground control to A_Nony_Mouse, we are reading the archaeology of Palestine in the light of the Assyrian and Babylonian records. We are looking at Palestinian inscriptions to find references to Yahweh and his Asherah, at letters written in Lachish and Arad which evince Yahwistic names and use Hebrew as a language. You seem not to be aware of anything found in your fantasy "bibleland".
When you do this performance that you can't see what's put before your eyes, your silly rhetoric about Atlantis won't cover your state of denial.
So inscriptions buried in Asshur and Nineveh can be read by people in Palestine in the 2nd and 1st c. BCE? Maybe they were transported there with flying saucers which used energy beams to uncover them temporarily and given special glasses to help them read cuneiform.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
What's not a secret is that you are confusing scripts with languages. If you knew anything at all about the evidence, you'd stop smearing egg all over your face and deal with the Hebrew inscriptions that exist from the 9th c. BCE onwards.
As is obvious you cannot distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic. You wouldn't know what you're talking about.
Still jabbering about scripts and nothing about languages.
More stupidity confusing scripts with languages.
More of the same plus ignorance about the Hebrew alphabet.
I'm tired of trying to clarify your linguistic follies. Bit as in Bit-Khumri comes from Assyrian cuneiform which works differently from the Aramaic script used by the Hebrews. FIgure the rest out yourself.
Aramaic was never quite like Arabic. They are two distinct languages. Shite stop spewing this utter rubbish.
Hebrew is a dialect of Canaanite. That's where it came from, just as that is where Phoenician came from. You've said nothing meaningful so far.
In Hebrew and your claim about "formal language" is a nice bait waiting for the switch (you fail, by the way). At the end of the eighth century BCE people were using Hebrew, the language found later in the biblical literature. As you admit that these letter exist and that they are from Palestine, you should stop your silliness about the language. It existed well before the LXX was translated from Hebrew.
(Bingo! There's the switch...)
Now hands up anyone who thinks this makes sense?
...
Thought not.
Let's ignore the evidence for a Hebrew language used from the 9th century onwards.
That certainly makes for a hypothesis with fewer internal contradictions. Leaving out conflicting evidence tends to do that. It also makes the hypothesis rubbish:
I'm starting to get repetitive stress. Here we have a culture which existed in the 7th c. BCE. That culture used the Hebrew language and its people had Yahwistic names. A_Nony_Mouse simply ignores the evidence. You can really make some wonderful hypotheses if you ignore enough evidence. There's another nutter over on my usual forum who believes that christianity was invented by Eusebius of Caesarea. Nutty hypotheses are a dime a dozen, usually formulated by people who don't know much about the subject they are fooling with. I hope by now readers of this sad series of posts are able to make decisions for themselves on the data available.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
1- So you admit the book did not create Yahweh but legends and myths did.
2- As to your lack of knowledge regarding volcanic activity in the region please see here.
Most of this activity is from the Holcene period with eruptions even in the Middle Ages. You should also be aware there are volcanic fields in western Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq.
You seem to be very good at misconstruing that which is presented to you.
1- I have not said that there was a culture that precisely matched the OT description rather only these people had ancestors in the area.
2- I have not said the inscriptions from Assyria and Babylon precisely match the culture or alleged Jews rather it indicates there were people in the area that are likely ancestors. That's all.
3 - I have previous stated that the ancient people inhabiting this area were not shown to be prolific writers nor generally literate. I do not suggest they were members of an ancient book of the month club nor were they given to writing grocery lists and leaving them in their house. Few people had these skills.
4 - What part of my calling the OT the "Land of Never Was" leads you to think I consider their stories as based in reality?
The fact inscriptions contain names that are similiar to those in the OT suggest specifically that there were civilizations in the area. This does not mean the Land of Never Was" existed only that it could be the source for the stories used. This is no different than any other culture that incorporates either real or mythological figures in their writing. An again, I'm still not placing an exact date on the stories describing the "Land of Never Was", as I don't see how that is possible.
Since I have no faith, I base my observations not imaginings on the archaeological finds in the area that suggest people did inhabit the area. I do not claim these people were as described in the OT book describing the "Land of Never Was" only that they were the basis for such creative writing.
Clay tablets related to trade have been found in Palestine. This suggests that people lived in the area and conducted trade. Is it proof the OT is true. No. Bibleland was short on literate persons in late bronze and early iron age. As to iron age archeaology in the area, see Finkelstein's work as well as Amihai Mazar and Ginny Mathias 'Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan.
You continue to miss that all I have said is there were people in the area from whence the OT stories were derived. That does not mean the OT is based in the real world any more than Romulus and Remus founding Rome.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
1. Admit? I am aware the god yahweh coresponds to the god Amun of Egypt if that is what you mean. It had the head of a ram, as in the shofar horm and putting sins onto a ram and of course the ever-popular Amen. The ram customs being otherwise unexplained. It made the first man and woman out of clay on his potter's wheel. It was also the oldest so it was not permitted to believe any god was older than it, "shalt not have other gods before me [in time.] As to the exact name of this god I came across a mention that the name was used with Asharah as found at Ugarit but I have been unable to find that assertion again. The rule that makes sense of the ancient pantheons is that they are the same god when the stories told about them are reimaginings of the same story.
2. If you will look at my question regarding volcanoes you will notice there is a time frame attached. If you read the links on the url you gave you will note all are unknown as to last eruption save one that was about 150 years ago which is about two millenia off the time of 500BC.
The source of the "volcano" claim is trying to salvage the rumbling and smoke the porcinophobics heard when Moses was talking to some god on Mt. Sinai. It is a very lame save for an imaginary people and an imaginary Moses during an imaginary Exodus. May I ask why you brought up volcanoes in the first place and why you are now trying to salvage something that was invented to salvage a myth?
You are still talking about a nature god who works through animals and diseases not through lightning bolts. If children tease one of his whacked out prophets he sends a bear to eat them. Zeus used lightning. Poseidon used storms. Yahweh used boils. It is an odd thing about Christians, Muslims and Jews, while claiming to have the only god they also try to make it more impressive than pagan gods in pagan terms.
1.I have stipulated the land has been inhabited for at least 60,000 years. Dianetics/Scientology got its start in New York City. So the early Scientologists had ancestors in New York City. Thus we can study NYC to see how it gave rise to Scientolgy. That is the same reasoning you are expressing. Similarly we can study Palmyra, New York to learn of the ancestors of the Mormons. That is the same reasoning you are expressing.
That there were ancestors of the later followers of Judaism in the region does NOT establish any connection between them and the religion any more than it does in the above cases.
2. True that the publication of Astounding Science Fiction and the editorials of John W. Campbell are not precisely scientology although there were many articles and discussions of the precursor Dianetics. Again that fact has no bearing upon the ancestry of Scientologists.
The fact the people lived in bibleland does not give them any connection to the invented religion beyond perhaps turning over in their graves for its invention.
As we know the Diaspora, the Jews forced to leave the land by the Romans, is nothing more than another jewish fable we know who the Palestinians are. People whose ancestors converted from Judaism to Islam either directly or via Christianity. (No, they are not recent immigrants. That is a Zionist lie.) So whatever you are talking about as applying to the Judeans when they appear in history also applies to Palestinians and applied to Christians in the interim. So precisely what can you be talking about that applies to all three equally because they all shared the same ancestors?
3. And I have pointed out, where there is writing, religous tales are greatly outnumbered in quantity and in word count by the mundane uses of writing and that those are not found in bibleland prior to the arrival of the Greeks. This indicates such a quantity of writing was created after Alexander in addition to no prior mention of these people or their religion. The religion was most likely invented after the region had the benefit of Greek civilization.
4. I object to anything goes beyond the available evidence. And the available evidence is that the OT was the instrument of the invention of a new religion and that the invention occurred after Alexander. The evidence supports no other conclusion.
It is possible to make an educated guess as to when it first excluding all tradition and Sunday school stories and History Channel nonsense. It is first necessary to get over the idea that the Jews who appeared in history after Pompey had any more connection with their ancestors in the region than Scientologists do with the people of New York City. The entire idea of a "people" held together by a common mythology has no basis in evidence.
Argument from similarity in names is as weak as you can get. But let me give you a chance to educate me. What were the naming customs in those days? Just in general. You mean there is no record of naming customs? So where are you going with this? Are the recorded names private or public names? Do the pubilc names include titles? To get a name recorded means they were not peasants.
I am not claiming I know the naming conventions over the centuries. I do know there are going to be a lot of boys named Barack showing up in schools six years from now.
But without knowing the naming convention of the writings you are talking about and noting they are only similar and not the same, tell me why it is imossible for anyone writing after the fact and even today to make up names like that? How would they know? They read the same writings you are talking about. Can you show that is impossible?
Similar names is clearly no discriminant.
As I can see no basis for disagreement, what precisely is your disagreement? If you are not claiming anything other than the ancestors of the authors lived there for up to 60,000 years and that the stories are no more than an exercise in creative writing what is your disagreement?
If you agree they are all imaginary then you can take the OT book that is the most recent, date it and say the stories were imagined a reasonable number of generations after that -- far enough after anyone who could proclaim the stories BS had died. That puts you close to the arrival of Alexander for any reasonable estimate of when the stories were invented. This assumes you do not take Daniel which was written in the 1st BC. But if you do take Daniel then we have the continuing creation of this religion in that century.
As I have noted, bibleland has been on the Silk Road since about 3000 BC. The issue of having literate people is a civilization of a level sufficient to need them. There is no sign of such a civilization until after Alexander. You have read those sources. Why not re-read them and look for there expositions of when literacy is needed in the region as evidenced by the appearance/discovery of large quantities of written material. That is the time when this religion was created.
Once there is an agreement on when it is possible to line up the usual suspects and see who is most likely guilty of this atrocity.
You say the stories were DERIVED from real people. I say the stories have no connection to real people because there is no physical evidence of it. As there is no evidence of a derivative nature for these stories it is an invention. Amun was called Yahweh, Ra was called Lucifer for his one appearance in Job, A servile obedience to the theocracy was invented as an aspect of this religion.
So obviously our first suspects for creating these stories are priests. The priests of Amun after watching Egypt lose to all comers for centuries changed their chief god's name from Amun to Yahweh, banned competing gods and instituted the death penalty for disrespect to Amun/Yahweh and for worshipping other gods as well as a host of other trivial things of which everyone could be found guilty if necessary.
[HR]As to the dirth of literacy have you noticed spin disagrees with his arguments from the "old" forms of "hebrew" in some of the books?
I notice this quite often when I discuss this subject. People with mutually exclusive positions such as your's and spin's both agree I am wrong and are happy with the support of the other even though there is no possible agreement between them.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
What you have previously said is
So you are agreeing it was from legends and myths of other gods and not the book where the god originated that is incorporated in the book. In order for a religion to be created some form of deity must be created first. This is also true of LDS where a god is created or assumed to exist as a basic building block in the development of Smith's con job.
The ancient gods of the Canaanites included Ba'al/Hadad sometimes called just Ba'al who was also an Akkardian god. He was a god of thunder. See Ba'al cycle. Yahweh is sometimes used interchangeably with him in some records. That Canaanite gods are also the same as many Egyptian is a given. That the Egyptian chaos legend has been incorporated in Genesis is obvious. That even OT Psalms has the Ba'al Cycle included in 74:13-14 is also easy to see. Even in Psalms 89:5-7 there is the polythesit origns revealed. As Canaan was on the trade routes gods and legends from Egypt, Syria, and even Akkardian myths were woven together into their beliefs.
In no way was I indending to give credibility to the Moses myths only the Canaanite legends.
As to the eruption of volcanoes in Syria there were events in ancient times but since even Thera can't be accurately documented except for +/- 100 years my point was cultures had gods for them which added into the myths. I can't find the link that gives better detail and I don't have access to my books as I'm on a 3 month business trip in the Western US from Florida.
By your reasoning none of the OT has been influenced by anything other than a desire to con the people after Alexander in the land of Judea into supporting a make believe religion created for no other purpose than to deceive. Legends, myths, and misunderstood stories from the area they inhabited had nothing at all to do with the content of the OT. It was all created in order to make a false religion to deceive. Any story or legend incorporated in the OT according to your view is not based or anything other than a creative scribe that wrote a poor book of Sci-Fi for the purpose of making up a fake race and giving them a fake history.
So you dismiss any possible reference to ancestors of these people and see only that which supports your assertion or rather unproven theory?
So why is it the Romans consider the Jews to have an ancient religion? The Romans and the Greeks both had beliefs in gods that were quite ancient and for some reason consider the Jews to be older. Why? Was this all because the Jews supported Julius Caesar? See here for some decrees.
I agree the OT is not true. It is myths and legends mixed with Sci-Fi and creative writing. We disagree as to where they found these myths and how. We also disagree as to if it was in what is your theory of a 2nd century BCE creation or earlier. We don't disagree that it is fantasy.
Absence of evidance proves only absence. It does not help establish a point for creation of the OT. Clearly after the Persians conquered Babylon because of incorporation of Babylonian beliefs in the OT. As to when is the question. With so little evidance it is difficult to establish your theory. It is much like trying to determine when people came to North and South America and how. They were here when the Vikings came, but since they left no written explanation we can't say for sure they walked across the Bering Land Bridge. They may have.
You decide to assert the Egyptians are the likely cause based on what? All the Egyptian literature not found in Palestine?
If you noticed, Spin and I don't disagree that the OT is not true, we suggest it has basis from ancestors in the area. That's all. You differ in that you consider it some sort of complicated con job by Egyptian priests that made a "book of lies." One common denominator is none of us think the OT is true.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
A_Nony_Mouse is obviously a troll. He meets all the characteristics of a troll. He does not read posts entirely, refuses to answer questions directly, continually recites the same points over and over without offering substantial evidence (or even a clear argument based on data) that is needed to give some validation to his claims. My concern is that those reading his "pros" on the Old Testament, who do not have an understanding of historical method, will fall into the trap he is presenting. To those reading this thread with interest, I implore you to examine every piece of data for yourself; in fact pick up any standard introduction to Hebrew Bible studies and you will see that A_Nony_Mouse is not just misconstruing the criticisms to his position but the state of the evidence.
For example, these scrolls in the image above contain prayers from the Numbers, dated to about 600 BCE. They are not written in Greek (call this a hint to our troll).
At this point it may be prudent to ask everyone to stop feeding the troll.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
While reviewing all of the pros it is also worth keeping in mind that things are not always as represented by believers. For example, believers make much of word games in parts of the OT which are written in the Hebrew more or less used in Israel today, the squared script.What is rarely mentioned is that the oldest version of this script is found among the DSS and is no older than the mid 1st c. BC.
It is important to keep in mind these claims of old inscriptions in hebrew use letters which are indistinguishable from Phoenician. I have a modest presentation of it here. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html Although the temple repair inscription is a forgery note it is "forged" using phoenician letters. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/temple-repair-inscription.jpg You can also look at the Siloam inscription and see it is also in Phoenician lettering http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/Siloam_Inscription.jpg
This inscription tells us a lot about believers. They say it confirms the bible story that the tunnel was built by King Hezehiah. But in fact it mentions no king, not god, nothing about anything in any bible story. It can no longer be dated as it was moved to the Istanbul Museum over a century ago. It is not the only tunnel dug between a spring and a city in bibleland. Whenever it was dug it was there for anyone to see down to when it was moved to Turkey in the late 19th c. so anyone could have made up a story about it.
As for being dismissed as a troll for not giving credence to long discredited claims by believers that is a hazard of dealing with believers. They do not critically examine what supports their beliefs. They consider anyone who does not believe as they do to being refusing to do so willfully.
These believers have been in retreat for over a century and today refuse to define exactly what they think there was. There was some nebulous people who lived there therefore something about the OT is legitimate but they aren't specific as to what. It is the old jelly-to-the-wall problem.
Yes in fact the interpretation of what they claim is evidence is rejected when there is a simpler explanation or, in many cases, needs no explanation at all such as when they make much of the land having been inhabited for 60,000 years.
Is it permitted to ask what those "prayers" from Numbers might be? Is it also trolling to point out that no matter what these "prayer" might be they do not constitute the book called Numbers. Do you happen to have an images of these "prayers" so we can see what language it is written in?
Is this too much to ask? I did not remember any prayers in it and I did a quick scan and found Francis the talking ass but no praryers.
After all the "silver scroll" prayer is to Ra as Yahweh is not protrayed as a sun god. But in any event no god name is used on the scroll.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Back to the same blunder. Scripts don't mean languages. Germany in the middle of the 20th century started using non-Gothic scripts. Using the lack of logic typical of A_Nony_Mouse, they mustn't have been Germans before then. Using the same "reasoning" the Turks who now use a Roman alphabet mustn't have existed before then. Doh! You have to look at the language to know the reality. Before Ataturk legislated the change in script, Turks used Arabic scripts. Ahh, A_Nony_Mouse thinks, they must have been Arabs! The Turks didn't exist before they started using the Roman script. Turks using Roman script? Hmm, maybe they are Roman, not Turks... Let's be bold here: there are no Turks!
When you know next to nothing about a subject you can afford to give simple explanations. More complex explanations require a lot more knowledge.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
The LDS mythology starts with Jesus, aka god, appearing in the New World after his resurrection. Yes, the god already existed and also the LDS have an invented religion that draws heavily on the NT but is still an invented religion in the guise of the restored "real" Christianity.
An invented religion differs from the pantheons from Persia to Rome to Egypt in that the latter are embodiments of ideas whose evollution can often be traced but has no definitive beginning. In Egypt in particular in upper Egypt close to Africa the gods are most commonly depicted with animal heads while in lower they are most commonly with human heads. Yet we have the same stories told about closely related gods all across this expanse including dying, going to the underworld and being reborn. These are not invented religions. They grew up in prehistoric times and often have the character of nature and animal gods.
So while Jesus is a reimagining of Adonis and is thus based upon prior mythology the new religion goes in an entirely different and new direction. So also whatever Judaism's inventors had as an input it created the new idea of personal worship obligations on individuals, god given rules and regulations for all aspects of life and a separate priesthood wtih secular powers. There is more but those are the major inventions. If one were to put it is modern times it appears to have been a religion created for the purpose of oppression.
That is good because there are no Canaanites in the archaeological record either. When you look at the record even the most fundamental things are not there. It shows the magnitude of the inventions in the OT stories. The Psalms expose the entire myth of the bible creators being any kind of monotheists. They can't steal so openly and not admit the other gods. They were polytheists or atheists.
However this does not address when this religion was created. So we still have the first appearance of this religion after Alexander.
Which beats the weather we have been having in Florida the last two weeks.
My point was simply the volcano connection is solely from those who are trying to salvage something from the OT stories. The Sinai volcano is one. Parting the Red Sea is another. Both concentrate on the trees while missing the forest that Exodus never occurred.
You impute a motivation to them that I have not expressed. While that might be attributable to Scientology it was not that way in the beginning. Nor can such an attribution be made to Islam or the LDS. I have another suggestion which would hold true until 1945 AD. In that year members of the UN abjured conquest as the right to rule. For all prior human history, conquest was the same as the right to rule. It was not until the 1960s or so that the idea of ingidenous peoples having rights was invented. The local king of bibleland had a history of conquest of bibleland created to legitimize to the Greeks his right to rule the land.
If there is any truth to the Maccabe story they are candidates for commissiong the stories. If they had used existing god names and stories then they would have been identified as other known people. Inventing a different god made the king the ruler of a separate people. And if there is any truth to the Maccabe story the claim did not go uncontested. And then Judah Maccabe names the land after himself and his family becomes the priests who enforce this upstart religion against the traditional religions of the region.
If I may make one more leap, they discovered it was possible not only to impose a religion but also that people would come to believe it was ancient. So they became the first religion seeking converts which would increase the power of the priests and kingdom. The Christian sect continued the tradition and the Judeans dropped the idea around the 6th c. when it was clear they were losers against the Christians.
As I am presenting a theory against another unproven theory, several of them actually, I do not see a problem. Tradition is not an established theory. For a century now tradition has been hacked away with each new discovery or failure to discover evidence. The last bit of tradition standing has no greater merit than the full blown tradition of two centuries ago. Believers have NEVER started from nothing and built up a theory. They have done nothing but create arguments that attempt to salvage some part of tradition.
So yes, I have an unproven theory but it is as opposed to the few remnants of a centuries old tradition that have managed to keep a few believers. I am against nothing more than that. Frankly anything is better than a rear guard action trying to salvage religious tradition.
Where is it said the Romans thought they had an ancient religion? Why did the Romans think the total fabrication of the Aenied making Romans the survivors of Troy a great origin story for themselves?
As Caesar was dead when Pompey incorporated the eastern Med into the empire I am curious where you get the idea they supported JC or why anyone would have cared in the least. Nothing on that url indicates any such thing nor even ancient as if that would matter. All it says is ancestral that I see. But if you actually read the link you will the Jews were selling a different story in those days, that Moses was an Egyptian PRIEST. This predates Josephus selling the idea that Mose was an Egyptian PRINCE which would have given Moses a different parentage than in the present version of Exodus.
So tell me what we are to make of our supposedly "oldest" book of the OT, Exodus, when in fact it was not the story being sold in the 1st c. AD and grossly different stories were being sold? Sounds like through shit against the wall to see what sticks to me.
I agree the OT is not true. It is myths and legends mixed with Sci-Fi and creative writing. We disagree as to where they found these myths and how. We also disagree as to if it was in what is your theory of a 2nd century BCE creation or earlier. We don't disagree that it is fantasy.
If that is your disagreement when do you want it to have been created? Please be specific in your answer with whatever evidence or lack thereof you can present. And as you have presented Strabo with Moses the priest and I have presented Josephus with Moses the prince both from the 1st c. AD you might also address when the current version of the myth was created.
The older you want it created the more problems you encounter with the absence of a literate society and closer to the events fabricated. You time window is not that wide.
But please, you tell me when you imagine it was created and when the final versions were produced.
How does the conquest of Babylon by the Persians have any impact on the OT? There were no Jews in Babylon. That is another bible myth. Just what are these Babylonian beliefs you think you see? And what would that have to do with the price of honeycakes in jerusalem?
As to your humans in the Americas pseudo-analogy, we answer that question by looking at the evidence they left just as we do in bibleland. That is exactly what I am doing. I am looking at the evidence and comparing it to the remnants of religious tradition that still remain after a century of archaeology. As above I am not addressing any bottoms up theory of OT origins but only the remnants of a religious tradition that has been in retreat for a century.
Egyptian rule is found in Palestine for most of the 2nd millenium BC. Egypt was the civilization to the south of Palestine-Syria. There was commerce between the two since at least 3000 BC. Pardon but why would you not expect to find a strong Egyptian influence? And of course they shared the same pantheon under different names.
It is good no one considers the OT to be true. It is then more amazing that religious traditions based upon a belief that it is true are being defended, at least the few remnants of that tradition which are left. You folks are taking the approach of imagining you can find ways to salvage the parts of that religious tradition which have not yet been definitively dismissed. You folks have presented no bottoms up theory in support of your position. You have only a retreat from religious tradition.
A true theory of OT origins would show early drafts of the stories, early temple, altars, and inscriptions. It would show parallel things about this book of fables that we find in Babylon, Egypt, Ur, Ugarit and many other places in the region. There would be a consistent argument from analogy with those other places.
Instead all I read it that it is not impossible for some (undefined) parts of the religious tradition to be true. Yet I, with the only legitimate theory working bottoms up from the available evidence, am expected to "prove" the theory in the face of these remnants of a religious tradition.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml