The Moses Myth
Offline I'm sure Sapient won't mind if we discuss the Moses myth here as well!
"I've been working on my new book Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver, which is coming along nicely, although it is much longer than I expected to do - what else is new? That happens with every project I set out on, because I try to be so thorough and incorporate as much of the research on a subject as I can humanly gather. In this popular subject, one can imagine there is a ton of material to sift through, in a variety of languages, dating back to remote ages. Most of my primary-source research for this project is in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, but there is also some relevant Ugaritic and other Semitic languages, as well as Egyptian, et al.
Although many scholars of the past century to today are clear on the mythical nature of the Exodus tale and the probable (to them) non-historicity of the Moses character, there are a number of historical or quasi-historical individuals and events that have gathered attention as the possible "real Moses" and "real Exodus." These events and individuals include, of course, the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, the Hyksos and Ahmose I, Osarseph and the lepers, etc. Thus, I spend much of the first part of the book addressing these issues, while the rest of my work provides the comparative religion and mythology.
For example, there is a lengthy section concerning the profound correspondences between the tales of Moses and the Greek god Dionysus. I have created one of my (in)famous lists featuring Dionysus's attributes in relation to the Moses myth, annotating each attribute with a primary source from antiquity, including the original Greek or other language as well. These parallels have been known for centuries by many among the elite; it is therefore disturbing that they are unknown and even hidden from the masses. Why aren't these similarities between Moses and the mythical figure of Dionysus being taught from the pulpit? Because the bibliolaters have a strict hold over the minds of the masses, unfortunately. Otherwise, these same masses could investigate this material with as much fascination as I do.
The following is a draft table of contents of my book Did Moses Exist?. The order and substance will change but not very much."
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4182
Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com
- Login to post comments
It is sort of amazing how people can milk so many pages out of nothing. The story is filled with magic therefore it is no more credible than to ask if the Wizard of Oz really existed.
Nor it is credible to jump into definition creep. There is no physical evidence of Exodus therefore the Moses of Exodus did not exist and that is the only Moses of interest.
Dumbing down the claims so that any clown can be "distorted" or "exaggerated" does nothing but increase the number of potential candidates making it immaterial which one it was as whomever it was has no relation to the bible story and the question is moot.
That said, ask more interesting questions like who invented the Torah? Was Passover invented or coopted? And if coopted what was it before there was an Exodus story attached?
Eventually you will have to answer two questions with hard evidence. When did the Old Testament first appear? When did the Jews first appear? Based upon the only physical evidence available the answer to both is the mid 2nd c. BC. Anything not based upon that physical evidence is nothing more than idle speculation. While that speculation may fill chapters and give readers as sense they got something for their money it can be nothing more than meaningless speculation.
If you start from the purported 30AD for Jesus and the mid 2nd c. BC then that is about as old as Mormonism is today. There is absolutely no need to speculate for deeper roots when god as a space alien can as easily take root. You will find claims of great antiquity made by Josephus in the 1st c. AD and also his railing against those who refused to believe it because they hated Judeans, aka Jews, who were the same people under different names according to him. Back then when a hundred times more, perhaps a thousand times more historical material was available no one believed the claim.
This would be like Josesph Smith claiming in his time that the Amerinds had been practicing Mormonism since 33 AD. Everyone would know that was untrue just as everyone knew the Judean claims of antiquity were untrue.
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
Plus there's that part in the bible about Moses being buried yet he has NEVER been found! That's because he never existed to begin with!
Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com
I get tired of delving into any holy book story. To me it wouldnt matter if you claimed New York city was real, which humans certainly can prove. We can also prove George Washington was real. But proving any of those things does not make and never will make magic real.
So argue Moses or Allah or Vishnu or pink unicorns or Spiderman and incorperate real people and real places into all those bullshit stories and they are no less bullshit.
Even if we proved that Mohammed or Jesus or Moses existed, none of them would be able to fart a full sized Lamborghini out of their ass, much less talking donkeys or rivers of milk and wine or 72 virgins in a fictional after life.
Humans make up gods and that is all that is going on. It is nothing more than a comic book reflection of our own selfish narcissism. It's sales people being real only makes them successful marketers in superstition.
PT Barnum said it best, "There is a sucker born every minute".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That is not a good response. The simplest explanation is a later addendum. Simpler is there is no evidence of authorship by Moses therefore his existence is immaterial. If you want to produce a laundry list of all the reasons against Moses then by all means include it but be certain to label it as such. Believers have been all over the discussion of his own burial since the idea Exodus was to be taken literally started.
They have several ad hoc answers. The response to that answer is, if he did not write that part of it how do you know he wrote any of it? And stick to knowledge not belief.
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
The battle against "faith" is a worthless one.
Say it any way you want! Moses is simply another part of the Judeo Christian MYTH! How's that?
Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com
your "Moses myth" would have to actually be a myth for you to be credible. His blood courses through the veins of every Jew that walks this earth.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Myths don't have blood. Besides that absent transfusion it stays with the person.
Even in the romantic sense that expression would only apply to Abraham if he were not a myth also.
You really should get up to date there are very few believers still holding out for either of them really having existed.
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
Hebrew history. They hold to the Old Testament as theirs to present time. Would/do they agree that Moses didn't exist.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
Well, they worship their holy document as deity like Christians do. Any attack on the documents threatens God. Doesn't mean that their position is true.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Lack of forensic evidence doesn't prove them false. What I think is being said is, (maybe not) the Hebrews have no ancestry or record of such. Their history shouldn't be any different the any other in the middle east, or any where else. I can't say they worship the document. I find it illogical to assume that all that writing prospectively over several thousand years has no basis. That's a long time to operate a hoax. No one's written history should be overlooked.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
Not remotely what I was talking about but thanks.
What I'm saying is that when a group worships a book as though it is a God, no amount of evidence against their book/god will matter.
This is why theists take rejection of their positions as a rejection of their god.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The usage "as God" ---I agree. This is a result of the fall as The Hebrews originally weren't supposed to see or regard any material item as Holy. It's the personage as "the Image " that was to be regarded. The "Image" is the self same as them. It was supposed to be that there would be no material representation that is of value in belief. That's where their religion was to differ from others. The "Image" "self" was to be of regard. Their religion today is the same as all others.
We,ve never relied (for instance) on Israeli evidence/nonevidence that JC existed. They could be highly biased even if there were any evidence. JC's chief enemy was the Jews themselves and likely wouldn't admit to any finding as authentic. Mose's body was buried in a secret place so there's no point in looking for it. Just as Cochise who's body is buried in the Apache Stronghold at Sunsites AZ. I've been there to see the place and if anyone is going to go looking they'll be there for a while.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
"JC's chief enemy was the Jews themselves"
Unfortunately, your sole source for this claim is a book that was written by Greek Christians who wanted the Jews to look bad. They also wanted to make JC's disciples look like buffooms compared to Paul.
JC (or at least the teacher on whom the story is based) was likely a Pharisee or at least espoused Pharisaic teaching so they wouldn't have paid much attention to him
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Ever since Seeri's mother got that job from Jobs at apple it has been an idiot. The "hebrews" are an invented name post Abraham but during captivity in Egypt. As no rational person thinks there was any such time in Egypt there is no rational person who takes "hebrew" seriously.
By the mythology Jesus was a Galilean whose ancestors had been conquered by the Judeans and forced to convert to Judaism. Read fucking Josephus. That is the ONLY source of history on the subject. Come back NEVER but at least not before you learn the factual material.
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 remember going over the idea of all the similarities at one time in our studies. One idea was/is---at one time there may have been a basic religion that all others descended from. IE-Adam may have been 100,000 years ago. There doesn't seem to be a recognizable time span before or during the time of Adam. As peoples spread out they took the basic knowledge with and it became different names and labels for different peoples. Adam may be a name or label for the Hebrews. But, the similarities are very alike. What's different about the book is that it is decipherable while the Greek applications may not be so. What we have today is the people that wrote the book are still here and hold to it. We say that because the ancient religions may be obscure they are still based on fact at sometime during the time of Adam. Over time the meanings and terminology becomes out of alignment. But- our interpretation works so someone knew something at one long lost time. Using spiritual creation interprets the time of Noah to a point of understanding. Noah's time can be understood using creation terms. It gets down to---they killed each other off which makes it an Armageddon of it's time.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
IE-Adam is appropriate in only one context, an Indo-European Adam. The idea of a first man and woman is universal even if it is the crow and the peapod man. The IE concept is that "gods are people too." That is the idea that has spread with the language group. They are not spirits or essences but can be understood as having human emotions and human interactions.
You willing to swallow a claim about 100,000 years ago but claim there is no recognizable amount of time even though must of the OT is occupied with who begat who and their age when it happened. How is that unrecognizable?
But Hebrews exist only in the bible not in history and not in archaeology. As such they do not differ from leprechauns.
In other words, the people and stories which first appear in the 2nd c. BC referring to people and events found no place else can be twisted and contorted by imagining there are processes and abilities of human cuture such as long term memory where were invented to complete the circle of this fantasy.
Not very impressive.
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
Then Who wrote the Torah?
When was the Torah written?
Does this then mean there was no King David, King Solomon, or Nation of Israel as prescribed in the Torah?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
If you are a rational person and do not make up things but rely upon physical evidence only the Septuagint which includes the Torah was written in the middle of the 2nd c. BC. It was originally composed in Greek in either Judea or Alexandria. I assume the latter because the Ptolemys were the backers of the Maccabes in their border wars with the Seleucids. Also the lack of Greek educated people in Judea mitigates against creation there.
Of course none you list existed nor did any of the others in the OT stories. Nor do they found in archaeology. Of course if you have any physical evidence to present, not appealing to the authority of believers, you be sure to post 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.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
various unknown writers. a yahwist, elohist, and deuteronomical source are easily recognizable, though the documentary hypothesis in its classical form is disputed. only naive "scholars" with a religious agenda still try to contend it was written by one source (with the last eight or so verses of deuteronomy perhaps tacked on later).
the classical documentary hypothesis posits J as the oldest source, sometime around 900 B.C.E. our earliest (fragmentary) hebrew bible manuscripts come from about 200 B.C.E. the only complete manuscripts are from well into the common era.
i think you mean as described in the torah? well, in the torah proper there is no david or solomon. sometimes the hebrew bible is referred to euphemistically as the "written torah," but rabbinic jews consider the prophets (of which the southern samuel and kings narratives form a part) and the writings (of which the northern chronicles narratives form a part) to be auxiliary and inferior to the torah proper (pentateuch).
that having been said, no, there almost certainly was not any david or solomnon or nation of israel "as described in the torah." for one thing, if solomon were truly as grand as the hebrew bible describes him, it's unthinkable that there would be no archeological, inscriptional, or literary evidence for his existence outside the biblical narratives...but there isn't.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Of course that is just rationalization without evidence. It is hardly anything new for believers.
Today almost all believers agree all the stories were written after the return from the [mythical] captivity in Babylon. This is part of a retreat from the belief that the Torah was written by Moses. Back in the time when written by Moses had to be defended believers found all kinds of evidence in the Torah to show it was centuries older than the rest. They were finding "older" spellings and grammar and style to support their beliefs. The same were found to support creation dates from Moses to post Babylon.
Now that the majority have moved on to after Babylon are those differences still there or have they vanished? They are still there of course just they do not "mean" the same thing they once meant. The bible is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into it. Seek hard enough and ye shall find what ye are seeking. See Atlantis as another example.
In fact today the post Babylon creation is so inbred that essentially no one points out the whole Babylon captivity thing is a myth without physical evidence. At most it has arguments why it can be true without evidence. It might as well be the resurrection.
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
The arguments posed especially by the communist are extremely old dusty arguments via Julius Wellhausen's Higher Criticism in the 1800's. This theory has been refuted even by liberal scholars in which most (liberals) don't even include this modal. Wellhausen being ignorant of the language confused the context of matters such as Gen 1 & 2.
So then naturally, if we were to find a fragment from the book of Numbers in 800 BC that correlates to the Book of Numbers of the LXX then your entire theory would crumble? Correct?
And what about the Meneptah Stele (1200-1250 BC)? This is pretty close to the conservative date of the Exodus (1450 BC).
And how do you handle the common fallacy of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Of course, I speak loosely of what you call physical evidence.
Please answer and reconcile your wholes.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You know that is not true. What I expressed in NOT a theory. It is an observation of the total absence of physical evidence.
Of course not. Finding camel bones does not create biblical Israel. You want biblical Israel you have to find biblical Israel. A few words here ane there mean no more than the words themselves say. You do not a scribble in New York and create ancient Indians cities around it. It is not permitted in bibleland either.
A theory explains facts. I am observing the absence of facts to explain.
No biblical Israel there. Why bring it up? A word which might be construed to be similar to Israel does not imply a kingdom that ruled from the Nile to the Euphrates nor even a sliver of it.
I have not described any physical evidence only observed there is none.
You are deliberately misstating the case. The absence of evidence means no rational person accepts it. The total absence of a LITERATE culture to have created and preserved these stories prior to Greek rule should be conclusive to everyone. The STORIES could not have been written by an illiterate people in an illiterate culture. That is obvious to all but believers.
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
LOOOOLLLLL!!! you call julius wellhausen "old and dusty," then bring up an inconclusive 3,500 year-old artifact. need i point out i nowhere ascribed to the classical "four-source" documentary hypothesis--in fact, i freely acknowledged it has been disputed in the last 30 years or so? i guess i do need to point it out because you have the comprehension skills of an ant.
i simply contend that if the pentateuch was written by one person, he had a mad case of multiple personality disorder.
as for the rest of your tripe, whether or not "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is purely an axiomatic question and not worth debating. if you say david and solomon existed precisely as the hebrew bible says they existed, then you provide the evidence. the only evidence you have is the hebrew bible. if all you have to show for the existence of a monarch who was supposedly the richest of his day, with diplomatic and trade connections with much of the near east and africa, is a book that also says looking at a bronze serpent can cure snakebite, then all we can say is your hypothesis is unproven and incredibly unlikely. the existence of solomon has as much credibility as the yellow emperor, prester john, malory's king arthur, etc.
to sum up, you're fucking stupid, jean. surprise, surprise.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Hello,
I should state that this entire thread is begging the question of the very meaning of evidence being in the physical (empirical). Since this "evidence" ALWAYS has a probability, the ratio of that probability must also be understood on every subject. Since this never happens, the fallacy of ambiguity haunts you.
So if we found a fragment of Numbers with a paragraph or so on the fragment, and this is dated 800 BC this small fragment. Now if this small fragment lines up perfectly with the LXX that was written over 600 years later how does this not pose the problem for your theory that the entire TaNaK was only via the LXX?
It's interesting, most liberals tells us that the entire TaNaK was written during the time of Ezra (around 400 BC). That a set of priests decided to make crap up one day while drinking tea and wrote the TaNaK via legends and stories not found in history.
But you indicate that the LXX is now the earliest record?
So then, would the Targums also be based on the LXX in Aramaic? And what about the Psuedo-Pigraphy? Would this be part of the legends used during the time of Ezra which you have yet to mention?
If I were to say that ATHEISM was used for the very first time in 1910. No other time was this used or understood or that nobody was an atheist ever.
Now if I found a fragment 600 years earlier speaking of atheism, would this not cause problems? Let alone if I claim that this 1910 document and the document 600 years earlier corresponded completely perfectly.
An analogy only works so far.
Perhaps you can explain how a man who claims to be reasonble would say that a fragment from the book of Numbers 800 BC matches the LXX 250 BC, how this would not cause the 250BC argument to be weak or destroyed?
Logically, IF there is a fragment of Numbers in 800 BC, there would have had to of been a DIFFERENT author(s) then the LXX and even the so called elders during Ezra.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense is not axiomatical? Communist is getting off on Karl Marx work attacking Capitalism again lol
Ad Hominen about Moses, no reason applied by the Communist
Hawking, Descartes, and Plato did not adhere to the evidence of Aristotle, Hume, and Dewey.
There are several logical fallacies that are occuring among my atheistic friends and the Stalin follower (stalin killed millions, yay? )
You have yet to reconcile anything. I really would like to reason with you.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Evidence NEVER has a probability. It is, is not or is indeterminant.
May his light shine upon you is clearly a prayer to the sun god Ra. That later writers copied this prayer into their fiction has no meaning whatsoever. A fragment regardless of what it says is in fact only a fragment and says not one word more than it says. A fragment does not lead to a kingdom stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.
Ridiculous. The hillbilly country of Palestine was illiterate in the 5th c. BC.
Nor does pretending you are illiterate change what has been posted. The LXX first appears in the 2nd c. BC at the earliest along with the forgery attesting to its authenticity.
Archaeological evidence for biblical Israel is an absolute requirement just as it is for every other ancient civilization. EXACTLY of the kind and nature and content as for every other ancient civilization without exception or special pleading.
It was included in the 2nd c. BC creation of the OT people and stories. How hard is that? And that is around 150 BC at the earliest.
To repeat no rational person believes anything without physical evidence. You may believe in a fragment not an arbitrary assertion the fragment is the copy instead of the fragment being incorporated into the text later. If you believe in biblical Israel without physical evidence of exactly that biblical Israel then you are not rational.
The fact that biblical Israel is a myth is held by a huge number of believers. It has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists would love nothing more than to find the civil records of such a kingdom to learn what was really going on as opposed to the biased view of one group of priests of just one of the many gods in the hill country. We would have such records were the people literate but alas they were not.
There can be no writings in an illiterate culture. Illiterates could not create a half million words and preserve them for centuries in 1st c. AD Aramaic script before that script existed. You do recall all copies in the Aramaic texts have to letter perfect without erasures do you not? But you want illiterates using a script before it existed. Amusing at best.
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
If physical empirical evidence is not probable,then it's absolute. Please justify this empirically.
You are not answering my questions regarding a fragment. You say the earliest textualy evidence is via the LXX which is 250 BC. That's when it began.
So if we found a fragment from the Book of Numbers 600 years EARLIER then the LXX, and this fragment's portion lines up exacly with the portion in the LXX by a couple paragraphs, then how can you say according to the textual evidence that LXX is still the beginning. And what does this have to do with a prayer and Ra? Changing the subject big time.
Try to think. If a fragment lines up a couple paragraphs perfectly with the LXX 600 years later, logically, this would mean that the author for at least the Book of Numbers is earlier then the LXX for the author who wrote the fragment is dead during the LXX.
This is very basic Nony. Extremely basic textual notion here. Are you seriously not getting this hypothetical at this point so far?
Instead of responding to this, you throw ad hominems. Did you graduate from Highschool?
If no rational person believes anything without physical evidence, where is your physical evidence to prove this?
Archeological evidence for a BIblical Israel is an absolute requirement? Is this not begging the question? see my statement above.
If Biblical is a myth?
IF there is a fragment that matches up completely perfectly with the LXX on two paragraphs, textually speaking the burden of proof switches to you to prove the textual varient is not a strong witness. Liberal Scholars do not date the LXX as the beginning thus placing you outside of Liberal scholarship.
Also, you seem to be either deliberately throwing red herrings, changing the subject, ad hominems to not answer the question about this fragment.
Thus you are being irrational at this point which is kind of against this entire website.
Answer the question textually with reason. You have not and have been given shot 3 times.
Perhaps a person who is not an idiot could engage in the qualification of a hypothetical fragment on numbers dated 800 BC in retrospect to LXX in 250 BC and the textual relavence if this fragment did exist. Nony is completely spacey or doesn't have the brain fuel to engage on this topic as demonstrated 3 times.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
of course it's axiomatic, you retard, that's precisely what i fucking said. christ, are your comprehension skills really so low? first of all, i have never once used that statement in the history of my time on this website. i think that statement is pointless precisely because it's axiomatic. oh, and thanks for conceding that the term "axiom" can be used in a philosophical context.
SO (see if you can follow this, now), since that statement is axiomatic, any debate over its truth or falsehood is pointless. we either accept an axiom or we don't, and all subsequent arguments are based on that axiom or set of axioms. that's the starting point of religion, philosophy, mathematics, and aesthetics. that is the point i was making. understand now, sport? i can put it more simply if you like.
you brought up that statement, not me. i was simply pointing out that absence of evidence is no evidence at all, so you're still stuck. if you want us to believe the hebrew bible narratives in all their detail, then we ask for corroborating evidence. if you find that unreasonable, then drop the subject. it's that simple. oh wait, again, i forget i'm talking to an intellectual mite...
as for marx and capitalism, very good, you are aware of those terms. you must be very proud of yourself. get back to me when you understand them, because if you actually did you would know you're just deflecting. again.
the interesting thing is, you bring up marxism on this site way more than i ever do.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
1) What is the definition of an axoim?
2) What similarities did Euclid share with his axioms vs. this so called axiom?
3) What are the implications or theorums of this axiom?
4) How many theorums are associated to the axiom?
5) How can a person tell apart the difference between a theorum vs. an axiom.
6) Is the following an axiom also? "Question Everything."
7) Can axioms contradict themselves?
9) Did Euclid believe Axioms can be false?
10) How is evidence and/or proof demonstrated axiomatically?
I still need somebody who isn't smoking weed to answer the question regarding a fragment from the book of Numbers hypothetically found in 800 BC and how this would effect the 250 BC LXX position. If we found 2 fragments from 800 BC of Numbers, what about 3? no?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
already answered that for the context of philosophy. no other context is relevant to the discussion.
these non sequiturs are nothing but attempts to distract me and everyone else from the fact that you're looking more and more like an idiot with every post.
nope. axioms in philosophy, religion, etc., are not imperatives.
if they did, they wouldn't be axioms. axioms are not negations.
no, it implies axioms can be unaccepted. again, your logical skills are shit.
who cares??? we're not discussing geometry, a fact which you persist in willfully ignoring. stop fucking deflecting.
what????? that's like asking how a sponge cake can be properly boiled. philosophical axioms have nothing to do with "evidence" or "proof" because they are nonfalsifiable. if they were falsifisable, they would be hypotheses or posits.
christ, are you being deliberately thick?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Non Sequiturs are fallacies that apply to argument (logic). Questions by definitions are not arguments thus fallacies don't apply towards questions. lol.
Since I listed for you questions, and since questions cannot be fallacious since they are outside of argument, you absolutely are a chipmunk with no nuts.
To understand the basis of Axioms you reply with red herrings, ad hominems, strawman, and question marks of silent crickets.
Is there no evidence for a right angle in relation to it's axioms and implications?
Since you evidently failed geometry, and since you avoiding questions that you appear to not even understand, and since you mix questions up as arguments, you are absolutely failing in basic elementary understanding of structure, let alone argument.
You have demonstrated your intellectual immaturity in the willful attempts to not answer any of my questions and form ignorant fallacies of distraction as to why not to cover up your ignorance.
For us to continue, I will have to treat you like a 3rd grader and break every single little thing down just so you can keep up. I do not have time to teach communistic atheists of a 3rd grade mind in the areas of logic and philosophy. Thus, unless you can show at least a high school level of understanding in elementary logic and philosophy, I will not waste my time with atheists that possess the mind of little children. : )
A book to read to help you, Intro to Logic, by Cohen.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
After all that Moses is still a myth!
You can't rationalize with irrational people but I'm trying.
Logically Opie, if we find a fragment from the Torah several hundreds of years before the LXX and Ezra, and this fragment is congruent, then logically another author copied that specific section of the Torah way earlier.
You guys are blind fools lol for not recognizing extremely basic textual criticism.
Thus the burdn would switch back to you regarding this hypothetical fragment at this point anyway from the book of Torah dated 800 BC.
If this burden is not met, your argument is destroyed.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).