OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.

Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.

In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.

In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.

Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat.  Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.

One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.

Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.

I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.

____________________________________________________________
"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
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
...

The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original. It really is that simple.

Having tried it the hard way I found the greatest success I ever achieved was gaining a "you might be right about that point" which immediately led to "but all the rest is true." It is along the lines of agreeing Dorothy did not really meet a tin man while in Oz. A currently popular one is, Maybe Solomon was only a hilltop warlord but all the rest is true even though it should be obvious you can't get there frm here. Almost all view what little they know of the bible as unconnected vignettes that introduce sermons. Maybe David didn't exist but there is a lesson to learn from his son's rule.

How true. The idea is to get across to them that it is all fairytales. If one could get them to see it was all created in Alexandria then that would be a successful technique. They will deny this though and so really you are not making any progress in breaking up their illusions. If Solomon was a tribal chief not a ruler over all from the Nile to the Euphrates then the story is clear fiction, which is what one finds upon examination.

What I have encountered is the stipulation Solomon was no more than a hilltop warlord (which is a deliberate misreading of the Finkelstein statement) leading to praise of the wise theologians ahead of their time who promoted the 20th c. form of Judaism, i.e. ignoring it was a genital mutilating ritual/taboo cult all through the Septuagint. Give them an inch and they revert to their ancient superstitions. They rationalize away the inch in order to preserve the conclusion.

Cargo cultists were brought to the US and shown the entire manufacturing and shipping process from start to finish. They were shown not an inch but the whole nine yards. They rationalized it away and preserved the cult.

As the primacy of the Septuagint gains some traction I am watching for rationalizations. In one case, a known person whom I would rather not name as I do not wish to characterize those who are not here, made the first suggestion granting Aristeas is a forgery "it means simply it was not translated all at one time." I had already addressed and was ready for it. I expect much better.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You can see this in even atheist discussions here. The constant attempts to reconcile the bible with reality for the sole purpose of salvaging something. You will find the saves for different parts are mutually exclusive. You will find they really do not care.

I know. In my discussions I take the view it is not true as written, meaning it is fiction. That names and places may be used only indicates the writer was attempting to make it sound plausible. As example, the BS of the Exodus and the Hebrew Horde invading Palestine. It all sounds likely to the believer, though archeology and history of all of the superpowers of the supposed time period indicate it could not have happened as the storytales present. Yet, instead they may say it could have been 100 who did so. 100 is not 600,000.

Anything to save the mythology. Ignoring the obvious that if 100 it could be any 100. As many 100s is a reasonable assumption it says nothing. When I would point out Joshua "attacked" with his 100 from east of the Jordan and that they passed through the promised land to get there. Obviously whoever wrote Joshua either did not know the Egypt story or did not know geography or did not know where this promised land was supposed to be. But get involved in debating which is correct leads only to rationalizing like the cargo cult.

Quote:
My view is if one destroys the foundations of the fairytales, Jewish myths, then the whole structure should fall in upon itself.

Though the Catholic Church and some sects of Judaism are prepared for this, they are willing to concede it was mostly allegory or analogies and parables, but the sky daddy is still up there somewhere.

The god could have used evolution to make the world according to scholars in the RCC, but that in itself doesn't make god not real.

There may not be a heavenly cloud place either or an actual hell as John Paul 2 discussed. But the god is still out there.

And so the fairytales are interpreted so the cash cow continues to expel gold.

When the cargo cult can rationalize away what they see with their own lying eyes one needs ask if there is a 2x4 so heavy god could not wield it to whack some sense into them.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Don't let me discourage you but you will eventually discover the piecemeal approach can make no progress.

 

No approach can make real progress with all believers. Piecemeal, nukes, or even an advanced alien civilization suddenly appearing will not alone do in the fairytale beliefs.

No matter how many times I punched that 600 lb Philipino with no neck he didn't seem to notice. But the audience admired the tenacity.

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
...

If you mean Made in Alexandria, that is 359MB. My website is 2.3GB.

Perhaps I should rephrase ... Entering into a discussion of details entails giving credence to the source material. Discussing the details of Solomon's temple gives credence to both Solomon and the temple and by implication the united kingdom along with an ancient Jerusalem ruling it all.

Perhaps discussing the details may be considered by the believer in that way, OTOH, you as a scientist and/or engineer realize that claims and ideas must be considered and the claimant must be shown why his paper, project, theory or idea is illogical, impossible, too expensive, too labor intensive, or counter to physics. Or in this case impossible to have actually happened due to the evidence to the contrary. Though they put on blinders when they are shown it cannot be and deny all. I'm sure you have dealt with this in your endeavors as a scientist just like I have as a R & D engineer. Eventually, the person involved is so disgraced professionally they are never taken seriously again or they admit their blindness to the impossibility of their theories ( I consider that this also applies to the area of god beliefs as much as technology, as the commonality to both are people who are in denial of reality).

In the same way, the claims of the believers can also be addressed. Your way is basically to tell them that it was Made in Egypt and is a forgery. This is like telling the followers of "cold fusion", LENR or Rossi that it's bullshit without providing an analysis. Though with Rossi one has little clue WTF he's really doing as he hasn't been forthcoming.

What I am telling them is neither they nor any of the founders of their religion be it jewish or christian ever had any credible reason to assume the Old Testament is other than a translation of Greek fiction. No one at any time in all of history ever presented a claim not based upon the forgery. There has never been anything but this one forgery.

And by many examples, in fact every example in which it is or should be mentioned, that the Septuagint in any language was not taken as authoritative in any sense of the word. By these examples I head off the rationalization that everyone believed it without regard to the forged letter. If they took it seriously then we reasonably expect to see it treated and used seriously. We do not.

I show it is not a matter of degree by many examples of where it should have been used if for nothing but a supporting argument but it goes unmentioned.

I have been pushing this around the edges for over a decade. I think I have all the rationalizations cut off at the pass.

Even for Christians, when did they start taking the Septuagint seriously? The trick word in there is seriously as opposed to curious antecedent. While my interests have been prior tto the 5th c. I can't think of a single thing that takes it seriously prior to the invention of theology by Aquinas and friends. For example, baptism as a ritual with moving, aka living, water was Roman and likely centuries older. It existed in Christianity long before original sin was invented which is an example of taking an OT story seriously.

Quote:
Anyway, the believers as you say usually dig their own holes to bury themselves. they stay in denial throughout the discussion even if/when you show that the story could not have happened in the dimension of reality we occupy. Perhaps, they are the one's that need a nuke exploded in their faces. Some do concede they have nothing but their own personal experiences as a basis and admit the Babble is not true as written (read as fictional story telling) though they still adhere to the fantasies.

Ya know, I didn't get interested in this on a lark. I have had some of those experiences, plural intended. Priests hijack the experience. I "achieved" enlightenment and Circle of Iron is correct but there is no way to understand it without going there yourself. It is a total waste of time to go there. All you get is a few weeks of hysteridal laughter at the thought you wasted the time going there. But laughter is its own reward.

For all the universe for all time there is only one of you. Is that not enough?

As you note the enemy is in it for the money. That is something entirely different. In fact those who were in it for the following instead of for the money were killed off by those in it for the money. Followers are directly proportional to money. Laizze faire (which I never spell right) applies to both government and religion.

I could care less what idiots believe. I care what idiots do to others. I care more what organized idiots do to make others do as they do.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is essentially counter-productive to debate details given all the implied stipulations just to participate in the debate.

I do understand, discussion of a subject does not mean the subject or details are credible, in fact the point being is to show the believer that it is not at all credible. If enough holes are put in their boat, even with constant bailing it will sink. Though they may try to hold on to the debris to remain floating.

Poking holes results in serial rationalizations which are often mutually exclusive. If you enjoy this method find the one hole that is fundamental. Fiction is obviously fundamental.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I could reduce all I have written to the simple statement, "The Letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is not a translation." That does beg the question as to what it is.

Yes, but they will still deny that you are correct. There is no real way to eradicate the belief of someone who despite all contains to grasp at god beliefs.

Google it. There are hits that confirm forgery and those that ignore forgery. There are none which claim it is not a forgery. Being so safe I simply demand evidence of something to be translated into Greek. There is no such evidence. Nor is there any reason to think there might be evidence yet to be discovered.

Yet to be discovered means as with Gilgamesh. There is copious evidence it was known in ancient times. It was not discovered in modern times until 1870 or so. The ancient evidence means there was reason to suspect it existed. There is nothing remotely comparable for the Septuagint.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Making a case against implies there is something credible that deserves the effort. There isn't.

So what are you doing bothering with the storytales of the Jews on your web site? Are you giving them legitimacy as something credible to address by even bothering?

The tales are by the Greek rulers of Egypt and the context in which they were created. Other than the above single statement they are filler. And if I can come up with double the verbiage I can self-publish as an ebook.

The tales may have been created in Egypt, but the believers sees them otherwise. It's that which needs to be addressed. How is the reaction you get from believers to your technique. Do they see the errors they make and indicate to you they have been accepting a book of fiction as a basis for life? Or do they just go off in a huff and tell you that you are wrong and never bother to see why their whole basis for belief is founded on fairytales?

Going off in a huff is a common bluff. They never do. You have seen that here.

As to the huff, it gives me practice in responding to whatever the rationalization is.

And my target is the lurkers the non-participants who read only. In many quasi-studies and surveys the lurkers outnumber the participants at least 5 to 1 and as a rule of thumb 10 to 1. Not to imply people are hanging on the exchange rather that they read all the discussions and participate in only a few. I post a lot, an opinionated bastard, so my ratio of read to participate is about 3 to 1.

In any event the target audience is many times greater than the participants.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

P.S. I am close to establishing Judah Maccabe was a Greek. I have everything but the smoking gun. Stay tuned. 

OK, that would be very interesting.

Not soon but so close I can taste it.

The key is the locals were taking up Greek style names. His son was named John Hyrcanus which is not Greek. It is the name of a Persian province on the SE Caspian sea. After conquering it Alexander set up a Greek to rule it. How does that name get into the ruling family of Judea?

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.  They know that it didn't last much further than 586 B.C. despite timing of construction.  The Babylonians destroyed it in 586 B.C.  In it's place Harod built a much larger temple which was destroyed in 70 A.D. during the seige of Jerusalem.  The whailing wall is what is left of that larger temple. 

The floor plan is a type that has a long history in Semitic religion.  (Zondervan)

This is  not a fact. Archeaology indicates Jerusalem was a small insignificant village in 960 BCE.

it is fact based on what we know from writings and whatever research has been allowed in the location despite the size Jerusalem was at the time. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There is no spoon!!!

Or in this case no Temple or even city of Jerusalem, only a small insignificant village.

Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I still don't see anything to fill up the space in history that the story of Solomon likely took place.  I see there was a lot of opposing powers within the boundaries of Solomon's reign, but that was common of any kingdom during the time.  The larger the claimed area, the more likely other powers claimed the same territory unaware of each other's claim... When those opposing claims were found out, historically there'd be a war.  This again is congruent with most kingdoms of the time and earlier.

There is nothing to fill here from the non-existent Judahite or Israelites.

The history is well covered by all other cultures, they ruled the area, not non-existent mythical people of Solomon.

As I've said in the past... show me a timeline that takes the place of this timeline and I'll research it.  I will accept it if in fact it does take its place in history.  so far this type of thing has not been brought to the table.  We have come to agreement that there's little information supporting the scripture claim and no information that would take its place.  I feel like it would be the same here.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As you described it, yes... most temples were not that small and could not be likened to a small gym.

See the dimensions of NBA basketball courts yourself.

k, see now we're getting somewhere.. you say small gym and I picture the local fitness center that would make a racquetball game feel cramped.  NBA court is not a small gym, it's more average sized from my perspective.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have not been discussing the extreme differences so far that are in 1 & 2 Chronicles versus Kings.

.................................................................

Solomon then dies.

 

Doesn't seem that there's much substantial here to talk about... More stories.  Some unusual decisions that were made, some questions that we can only assume about.  

The differences BTW were clear and known.  Which is why the books were separated eventually vs just being 4 kings as they were in the century old Bibles.  Unless you're referring to contradictory differences, then I'm interested in what you've found.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There is

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no declaration that there is only one god any place in the blble or in Christian or Jewish writings before the Koran declares there is only one god. If you can find a simple, declarative sentence saying there is only one god prior to the Koran please feel free to post it.

Ok...

The "I AM"  from Exodus.  

If you understand the languages and context within the language, you will see that it is a direct claim to the God of the Bible being the one God of all Gods.  The writings of that book have existed LONG before the Koran.  

Just in case you want to parse it to say; "will prove to be" like the JW"s or "existed before" a human life despite contextual evidence to the contrary, we can go to Job (known to be the oldest book of scriptures) to the point where God talks to Job and reminded him who He is.  

...unless you're claiming Jews were a polytheistic following before the Koran.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:We can

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

We can discuss the reasonablenss of the assumptions and guesses but that does not negate the facts which as I have stated. If you find the facts point to something different please feel free to post your ideas. No problem.

As I've said, I want to keep this thread focused on a historical runthrough.  I'm willing to discuss anything with you... on another thread if you want.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Can you produce physical evidence of that? If not why would you say something that is not in evidence?

physical evidence of what?  Jews existing before they were called Jews?  Are you telling me they just *poof* suddenly existed?  

What physical evidence would you be looking for?  The oldest physical evidence would be the dead sea scrolls... which date themselves further back than you claim the existence of the Jews are... beyond that, they yeild evidence that they are still only copies of the literal originals... which would put your dating of Jews way off.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Science shitcanned the idea of bloodlines more than a century ago. The reality of propinquity, prostitution and rape shitcanned the idea long before science was invented. Only a child could believe in bloodline claims and then only because it has not grown up.

regardless, any historian would know that bloodlines were an important aspect of life during that time and prior which is why there was... and is such significance in the heritage of calling yourself by a particular name.  Ergo, significance of bloodline reference regardless of what science has since done... It's about the name, not genetics.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

POV is not a word. Astigmatic does not apply in this context.

POV is an abbreviation for 3 words "point of view"  Astigmatic applies to your approach.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Beliefs about history are amusing at best. We have only recorded history. The only recorded history is the Septuagint is the original. There is only a forgery claiming otherwise. There is no basis for claiming the Septuagint is the translation once the forgery is removed.

I would love to have a separate discussion with you on that subject.... would also love to see your research on that topic... on a separate thread of course.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
...

If you mean Made in Alexandria, that is 359MB. My website is 2.3GB.

Perhaps I should rephrase ... Entering into a discussion of details entails giving credence to the source material. Discussing the details of Solomon's temple gives credence to both Solomon and the temple and by implication the united kingdom along with an ancient Jerusalem ruling it all.

Perhaps discussing the details may be considered by the believer in that way, OTOH, you as a scientist and/or engineer realize that claims and ideas must be considered and the claimant must be shown why his paper, project, theory or idea is illogical, impossible, too expensive, too labor intensive, or counter to physics. Or in this case impossible to have actually happened due to the evidence to the contrary. Though they put on blinders when they are shown it cannot be and deny all. I'm sure you have dealt with this in your endeavors as a scientist just like I have as a R & D engineer. Eventually, the person involved is so disgraced professionally they are never taken seriously again or they admit their blindness to the impossibility of their theories ( I consider that this also applies to the area of god beliefs as much as technology, as the commonality to both are people who are in denial of reality).

In the same way, the claims of the believers can also be addressed. Your way is basically to tell them that it was Made in Egypt and is a forgery. This is like telling the followers of "cold fusion", LENR or Rossi that it's bullshit without providing an analysis. Though with Rossi one has little clue WTF he's really doing as he hasn't been forthcoming.

What I am telling them is neither they nor any of the founders of their religion be it jewish or christian ever had any credible reason to assume the Old Testament is other than a translation of Greek fiction. No one at any time in all of history ever presented a claim not based upon the forgery. There has never been anything but this one forgery.

And by many examples, in fact every example in which it is or should be mentioned, that the Septuagint in any language was not taken as authoritative in any sense of the word. By these examples I head off the rationalization that everyone believed it without regard to the forged letter. If they took it seriously then we reasonably expect to see it treated and used seriously. We do not.

I show it is not a matter of degree by many examples of where it should have been used if for nothing but a supporting argument but it goes unmentioned.

I have been pushing this around the edges for over a decade. I think I have all the rationalizations cut off at the pass.

Even for Christians, when did they start taking the Septuagint seriously? The trick word in there is seriously as opposed to curious antecedent. While my interests have been prior tto the 5th c. I can't think of a single thing that takes it seriously prior to the invention of theology by Aquinas and friends. For example, baptism as a ritual with moving, aka living, water was Roman and likely centuries older. It existed in Christianity long before original sin was invented which is an example of taking an OT story seriously.

Quote:
Anyway, the believers as you say usually dig their own holes to bury themselves. they stay in denial throughout the discussion even if/when you show that the story could not have happened in the dimension of reality we occupy. Perhaps, they are the one's that need a nuke exploded in their faces. Some do concede they have nothing but their own personal experiences as a basis and admit the Babble is not true as written (read as fictional story telling) though they still adhere to the fantasies.

Ya know, I didn't get interested in this on a lark. I have had some of those experiences, plural intended. Priests hijack the experience. I "achieved" enlightenment and Circle of Iron is correct but there is no way to understand it without going there yourself. It is a total waste of time to go there. All you get is a few weeks of hysteridal laughter at the thought you wasted the time going there. But laughter is its own reward.

For all the universe for all time there is only one of you. Is that not enough?

As you note the enemy is in it for the money. That is something entirely different. In fact those who were in it for the following instead of for the money were killed off by those in it for the money. Followers are directly proportional to money. Laizze faire (which I never spell right) applies to both government and religion.

I could care less what idiots believe. I care what idiots do to others. I care more what organized idiots do to make others do as they do.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is essentially counter-productive to debate details given all the implied stipulations just to participate in the debate.

I do understand, discussion of a subject does not mean the subject or details are credible, in fact the point being is to show the believer that it is not at all credible. If enough holes are put in their boat, even with constant bailing it will sink. Though they may try to hold on to the debris to remain floating.

Poking holes results in serial rationalizations which are often mutually exclusive. If you enjoy this method find the one hole that is fundamental. Fiction is obviously fundamental.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I could reduce all I have written to the simple statement, "The Letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is not a translation." That does beg the question as to what it is.

Yes, but they will still deny that you are correct. There is no real way to eradicate the belief of someone who despite all contains to grasp at god beliefs.

Google it. There are hits that confirm forgery and those that ignore forgery. There are none which claim it is not a forgery. Being so safe I simply demand evidence of something to be translated into Greek. There is no such evidence. Nor is there any reason to think there might be evidence yet to be discovered.

Yet to be discovered means as with Gilgamesh. There is copious evidence it was known in ancient times. It was not discovered in modern times until 1870 or so. The ancient evidence means there was reason to suspect it existed. There is nothing remotely comparable for the Septuagint.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Making a case against implies there is something credible that deserves the effort. There isn't.

So what are you doing bothering with the storytales of the Jews on your web site? Are you giving them legitimacy as something credible to address by even bothering?

The tales are by the Greek rulers of Egypt and the context in which they were created. Other than the above single statement they are filler. And if I can come up with double the verbiage I can self-publish as an ebook.

The tales may have been created in Egypt, but the believers sees them otherwise. It's that which needs to be addressed. How is the reaction you get from believers to your technique. Do they see the errors they make and indicate to you they have been accepting a book of fiction as a basis for life? Or do they just go off in a huff and tell you that you are wrong and never bother to see why their whole basis for belief is founded on fairytales?

Going off in a huff is a common bluff. They never do. You have seen that here.

As to the huff, it gives me practice in responding to whatever the rationalization is.

And my target is the lurkers the non-participants who read only. In many quasi-studies and surveys the lurkers outnumber the participants at least 5 to 1 and as a rule of thumb 10 to 1. Not to imply people are hanging on the exchange rather that they read all the discussions and participate in only a few. I post a lot, an opinionated bastard, so my ratio of read to participate is about 3 to 1.

In any event the target audience is many times greater than the participants.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

P.S. I am close to establishing Judah Maccabe was a Greek. I have everything but the smoking gun. Stay tuned. 

OK, that would be very interesting.

Not soon but so close I can taste it.

The key is the locals were taking up Greek style names. His son was named John Hyrcanus which is not Greek. It is the name of a Persian province on the SE Caspian sea. After conquering it Alexander set up a Greek to rule it. How does that name get into the ruling family of Judea?

Here's where I stand on the whole believer vs. non-believer thing.  Stepping away from all the religious flack and atheistic propaganda, I've heard compelling debates from both sides.  When it comes down to the evidences, both sides crumble under the pressure mainly because the evidences each side has is not sufficient enough for the other side... either that or the opposing side falls into a foggy state of denial and you lose them completely... and I've seen this on both sides.  

Therefore, my question to you then... mainly Nony... What is someone who is sitting on the sidelines watching both sides banter in endless loops, constantly stepping on each other suppose to conclude?  

i've concluded both sides are delusional.  

This is a serious question btw, not an attempt to degrade the conversation.   


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1469
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia dont crack up on us :~

caposkia wrote:

 .. both sides crumble under the pressure mainly because the evidences each side has is not sufficient enough for the other side... either that or the opposing side falls into a foggy state of denial and you lose them completely... and I've seen this on both sides.  

Therefore, my question to you then... mainly Nony... What is someone who is sitting on the sidelines watching both sides banter in endless loops, constantly stepping on each other suppose to conclude?  

i've concluded both sides are delusional.  

This is a serious question btw, not an attempt to degrade the conversation.   

 

    Caposkia  I can tell immediately you did not get enough time away. Joking about the Cracking up on us remark, you should know. Bit of a jokster.  We have biases  and it is seen as you say 'on either side'. I know for myself I was studying a line of inquiry about tracking down Yahweh in the Ugaritic and ANE materials.  I spent some personal time and a good deal of spare cash  trying  to find  him  among the 70, the 70 sons. I remember after fruitless searches I took a break. Came back and kept plugging away at it. Until one day I ran into an independent party doing the very same thing at a scholarly level. I read two of his blogs and decided to quit for a while. Why? The obvious bias was even noticed by me. End of story.

 

.

.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:   

danatemporary wrote:

    Caposkia  I can tell immediately you did not get enough time away. Joking about the Cracking up on us remark, you should know. Bit of a jokster.  We have biases  and it is seen as you say 'on either side'. I know for myself I was studying a line of inquiry about tracking down Yahweh in the Ugaritic and ANE materials.  I spent some personal time and a good deal of spare cash  trying  to find  him  among the 70, the 70 sons. I remember after fruitless searches I took a break. Came back and kept plugging away at it. Until one day I ran into an independent party doing the very same thing at a scholarly level. I read two of his blogs and decided to quit for a while. Why? The obvious bias was even noticed by me. End of story.

 

I see your reasoning in taking a break.  

I am doing it at the scholarly level, therefore likely not going to run into another party doing the same thing at a higher level.  Working on the languages as we speak... though slacked off a bit lately.

Anyway, I'm on this particular thread because PJTS and I agreed to have a fun and intellectual historical run through of scripture.  Way back at the beginning, we both agreed the run through was for intellectual purposes and in no way was going to be an attempt to change each others mind... We've both worked hard to keep bias out of the equation... occasionally it will come up though and we'll call each other on it.

I just can't resist however when those who believe they have all the answers comes by.  It's fun to get into it sometimes... most will start running in circles, but every once in a while, I'll learn something from them.  I have learned so much about the different angles of belief on both sides just from talking to bias individuals and parties.  I better understand my own belief because of it.  

I don't need a break.  I would appreciate continuing conversations that don't apply to an unbias intellectual historical runthrough of scripture on another thread though.  I will never rest and continue learning every day.  It's the only way you can be sure what you think you know is true.  


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
...

it is fact based on what we know from writings and whatever research has been allowed in the location despite the size Jerusalem was at the time.

That is one of the problems using bible words. We know there was a settlement of some sort there. Calling it Jerusalem is biblical archaeology, not real archaeology. What has been found is not up on the hill. It does appear Egyptian in character.

Quote:
... Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.

Excuse but biblical Israel could not possibly be entirely hidden in modern Jerusalem. If there had been a biblical Israel then the entire eastern Med would be littered with artifacts and evidence as is Egypt. 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
There is no declaration that there is only one god any place in the blble or in Christian or Jewish writings before the Koran declares there is only one god. If you can find a simple, declarative sentence saying there is only one god prior to the Koran please feel free to post it.

Ok...

The "I AM"  from Exodus. 

See my avatar.
Quote:

If you understand the languages and context within the language, you will see that it is a direct claim to the God of the Bible being the one God of all Gods.  The writings of that book have existed LONG before the Koran.

You are going to have to clarify what you mean by languages when the subject is archaeological context. As archaeology has shown the Judeans had at least Ashara there is no way that could have been a fact. Also chief god as in Amun, the father of the gods, would also qualify for that appelation and it is not uncommon in other culture referring to the eldest god. And yes, the Egyptians do say that about Amun. Yahweh and Amun make the first people out of clay for example.

But still not a simple, declarative sentence. Believers invented henotheism to explain away the absence of such a statement. In this case henotheism constitutes a special pleading for bible believers.

Quote:
Just in case you want to parse it to say; "will prove to be" like the JW"s or "existed before" a human life despite contextual evidence to the contrary, we can go to Job (known to be the oldest book of scriptures) to the point where God talks to Job and reminded him who He is.
Please quote the reminder exactly.
Quote:

...unless you're claiming Jews were a polytheistic following before the Koran.  

Of course they were else the inscriptions of Yahweh and his Ashara could not exist. Herod built a temple to Ashara in Caesarea showing she was alive and kicking in his day. One of her temples was next to the Antonine barracks and both were on the same hill as the Al Aqsa mosque today. There is no secret about this.

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

We can discuss the reasonablenss of the assumptions and guesses but that does not negate the facts which as I have stated. If you find the facts point to something different please feel free to post your ideas. No problem.

As I've said, I want to keep this thread focused on a historical runthrough.  I'm willing to discuss anything with you... on another thread if you want.

I have never disagreed. I simply insist upon history and historians. There are standard dictionaries of historians. There is not a single biblical historian in them. That is because they do not discuss history. Even, or especially, Israeli universities have history departments separate from biblical and jewish history departments. In all cases it is because biblical and jewish histories fail the test of real history. It is the same with archaeology and biblical archaeolgy. I insist upon real archaeology.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Can you produce physical evidence of that? If not why would you say something that is not in evidence

physical evidence of what?  Jews existing before they were called Jews?  Are you telling me they just *poof* suddenly existed?

As you should know in the late 1st c. AD the name Jews still refers to Judeans as reported by Josephus. From the writings of the Emperor Justin in the early 3rd c. AD we know the Christians were still called Galileans as opposed to Judeans. It is not until the mid 4th c. or so that Jews comes to mean a religion instead of a geographic location. This should not be suprising as it was not until the 4th c. that the concept of religion was invented.

Why do you post as though you do not know these things?

Quote:
What physical evidence would you be looking for?  The oldest physical evidence would be the dead sea scrolls... which date themselves further back than you claim the existence of the Jews are... beyond that, they yeild evidence that they are still only copies of the literal originals... which would put your dating of Jews way off.

The oldest physical evidence consists of the books included in what is commonly called the Septuagint. They are in Greek. There is no evidence of anything older than them. They date to the mid 2nd c. BC. The DSS are no older than the mid 1st c. BC. They are in a language commonly called Hebrew but which appears to be a pidgin of Aramaic and Greek. In any event there is no evidence this "hebrew" was ever a spoken language so the issue is moot.

Beyond that there is no evidence of a literate culture in bibleland until a century or so after Alexander so the idea that something existed to translate into Greek is untenable.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Science shitcanned the idea of bloodlines more than a century ago. The reality of propinquity, prostitution and rape shitcanned the idea long before science was invented. Only a child could believe in bloodline claims and then only because it has not grown up.

regardless, any historian would know that bloodlines were an important aspect of life during that time and prior which is why there was... and is such significance in the heritage of calling yourself by a particular name.  Ergo, significance of bloodline reference regardless of what science has since done... It's about the name, not genetics.

Any reference to bloodline does not differ from any other mention usage of the idea or concept in any other ancient culture. Some 1500 years after the Chaldeans faded from the stage of history Nebuchadnezzer is referred to as a Chaldean. It appears to have no more significance than any other label like Galilean or Judean.

If you want to go further take a look at Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, for excruciating detail on the Zionist invention. Before that political movement it was only a religion. And it had been only a religion since the mid 4th c. when religion separate from geographic region was invented.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

POV is not a word. Astigmatic does not apply in this context.

POV is an abbreviation for 3 words "point of view"  Astigmatic applies to your approach.

If you are going to try to be clever, at least be clever.
Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Beliefs about history are amusing at best. We have only recorded history. The only recorded history is the Septuagint is the original. There is only a forgery claiming otherwise. There is no basis for claiming the Septuagint is the translation once the forgery is removed.

I would love to have a separate discussion with you on that subject.... would also love to see your research on that topic... on a separate thread of course.

I must have posted it a dozen times here.

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
Here's where I stand on the whole believer vs. non-believer thing.  Stepping away from all the religious flack and atheistic propaganda, I've heard compelling debates from both sides.  When it comes down to the evidences, both sides crumble under the pressure mainly because the evidences each side has is not sufficient enough for the other side... either that or the opposing side falls into a foggy state of denial and you lose them completely... and I've seen this on both sides.  

Therefore, my question to you then... mainly Nony... What is someone who is sitting on the sidelines watching both sides banter in endless loops, constantly stepping on each other suppose to conclude?  

i've concluded both sides are delusional.  

This is a serious question btw, not an attempt to degrade the conversation.   

Here is where I stand. If you don't have physical evidence you don't have jack. Debates are meaningless unless over the interpretation of physical evidence.

So until there is physical evidence for the Septuagint subject matter to the same degree and of the same kind as there is of other ancient civilizations but completely independent of the Septuagint there is nothing to discuss. This is the same that was done for Egypt after it was realized Genesis and Exodus got nothing right about Egypt. There are no special pleadings permitted for bibleland. There are no exceptions just because lots of people believe the bible. There was never anything but the Aristeas forgery claiming the Septuagint was the translation. period. nothing.

There has to be physical evidence for the civilization described in the Septuagint before there is any discussion whatsoever of how to interperate that physical evidence. And then ALL discussion has to be separate from anything in the Septuagint until the interpretation indicates the Septuagint is a possible enhancement to that interpretation.

As it stands right now and as it has always been the archaeological evidence cannot be interpretated in any manner that comes within a lightyear of the Septuagint. Here I mean real archaeology not the fraudulent biblical archaeolgy. Is that clear enough?

If you ever come across any physical evidence 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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
Here's where I stand on the whole believer vs. non-believer thing.  Stepping away from all the religious flack and atheistic propaganda, I've heard compelling debates from both sides.  When it comes down to the evidences, both sides crumble under the pressure mainly because the evidences each side has is not sufficient enough for the other side... either that or the opposing side falls into a foggy state of denial and you lose them completely... and I've seen this on both sides.

Let me be clear on this. There is only one side, my side. No rational person accepts anything based upon a forgery. The Letter of Aristias is a forgery. Therefore the Septuagint is the original. The other side is irrational as it accepts a forgery as legitimate 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.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
Therefore, my question to you then... mainly Nony... What is someone who is sitting on the sidelines watching both sides banter in endless loops, constantly stepping on each other suppose to conclude?  

i've concluded both sides are delusional.  

This is a serious question btw, not an attempt to degrade the conversation.

What you conclude is your business.

You are talking about endless debate between degrees or quantity or whatever of "truth" or history in the OT. What I conclude about them is they are all bible believers and all belong in the category of flat out wrong without difference or discrimination among them. They are all in the same category. They are all believers differing only in degree.

I have nothing to do with anyone in that category. I have nothing to do with that category in any form.

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...

Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.

Excuse but biblical Israel could not possibly be entirely hidden in modern Jerusalem. If there had been a biblical Israel then the entire eastern Med would be littered with artifacts and evidence as is Egypt. 

It's not... *pause*  I thought we were still on the temple.  Reread some of the thread, we've covered some of that


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkiia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkiia wrote:

 

The "I AM"  from Exodus. 

See my avatar.

right... what does that mean to you?  "I am" is not literal and not taken in the way we would today.  It's a neuter.  It references to existence past present and future.  Neuter's cannot be accurately translated into English, ergo the I AM.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You are going to have to clarify what you mean by languages when the subject is archaeological context. As archaeology has shown the Judeans had at least Ashara there is no way that could have been a fact. Also chief god as in Amun, the father of the gods, would also qualify for that appelation and it is not uncommon in other culture referring to the eldest god. And yes, the Egyptians do say that about Amun. Yahweh and Amun make the first people out of clay for example.

Referencing to the oldest languages of the Texts that we have in our possession today which is Hebrew and coyne Greek... and an understanding that those were likely translated from an earlier language theorized to be Aramaic possibly.  Considering the differences from Aramaic to Hebrew, there would be minimal diffierence, but Hebrew to English caused many problems.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Of course they were else the inscriptions of Yahweh and his Ashara could not exist. Herod built a temple to Ashara in Caesarea showing she was alive and kicking in his day. One of her temples was next to the Antonine barracks and both were on the same hill as the Al Aqsa mosque today. There is no secret about this.

Interesting, so the existence of other gods at the time eludes to the point that Jews were polytheistic?  Herod wasn't exactly a follower of the Jewish tradition mind you.   This would also go against everything the Jews of today stand for.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I have

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have never disagreed. I simply insist upon history and historians. There are standard dictionaries of historians. There is not a single biblical historian in them. That is because they do not discuss history. Even, or especially, Israeli universities have history departments separate from biblical and jewish history departments. In all cases it is because biblical and jewish histories fail the test of real history. It is the same with archeology and biblical archeology. I insist upon real archeology.

it's what this whole thread has been based on... you need to I think do some homework with a skim through.  

I'm guessing you can list the historians then huh... who exactly would be a known historian... that's not in the dictionaries of historians, that would be considered a biblical historian?  

I'm also assuming you're talking specifically about BIBLE historians and not historians that might have had a focus on Judaism or Christianity.   Which would negate any historian before the early 2nd millennium A.D. be it that the Bible was compiled in the early 2nd millennium.  Just need to be clear.  

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As you should know in the late 1st c. AD the name Jews still refers to Judeans as reported by Josephus. From the writings of the Emperor Justin in the early 3rd c. AD we know the Christians were still called Galileans as opposed to Judeans. It is not until the mid 4th c. or so that Jews comes to mean a religion instead of a geographic location. This should not be suprising as it was not until the 4th c. that the concept of religion was invented.

despite world views today, most Jews around the world claim to be such because of heritage and not necessarily religious following, though of course most of them do follow Jewish belief... There's a reason why there is a group of Christians that call themselves Jews for Christ and not Christian.  Same with Muslim... most first reference to it as a heritage or a race and not a religion.  Due to the strict guidelines a Muslim must follow, the religion is pretty much mandatory for a Muslim.  

My point:  Again, it's just a name.  The following was there long before.  the God of scriptures.. as said in scriptures has been called by many names... history backs that up.  Regardless, history shows the following hasn't changed beyond what scriptures claims.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Why do you post as though you do not know these things?

I've learned after 5 years on RRS, that posting like you know things gives rise to those who ignore what you're saying and post as if they have all the answers and you don't.  I also find that posting like I don't know allows someone to think about what they're saying rather than be impulsive about it and post ignorantly.  Keeps them in control of the conversation, which is what I want in the first place.  Asking questions makes us think about how we're going to respond.  The conversation is more progressive that way and we both get more out of it.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The oldest physical evidence consists of the books included in what is commonly called the Septuagint. They are in Greek. There is no evidence of anything older than them. They date to the mid 2nd c. BC. The DSS are no older than the mid 1st c. BC. They are in a language commonly called Hebrew but which appears to be a pidgin of Aramaic and Greek. In any event there is no evidence this "hebrew" was ever a spoken language so the issue is moot.

The spoken Hebrew is different, and you're right...  The point I was making is clear here.  The following dates much further back than you originally tried to claim by referencing names alone.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Beyond that there is no evidence of a literate culture in bibleland until a century or so after Alexander so the idea that something existed to translate into Greek is untenable.

There are evidences of this existence if you look into it.  It's not just an idea.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Any reference to bloodline does not differ from any other mention usage of the idea or concept in any other ancient culture. Some 1500 years after the Chaldeans faded from the stage of history Nebuchadnezzer is referred to as a Chaldean. It appears to have no more significance than any other label like Galilean or Judean.

If you want to go further take a look at Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, for excruciating detail on the Zionist invention. Before that political movement it was only a religion. And it had been only a religion since the mid 4th c. when religion separate from geographic region was invented.

I see where we're missing the mark here.  Yes, you're right.. Religion wasn't really invented as "religion" until the times you reference... however, nothing was referred to beyond heritage before that regardless of belief or following.  Which is why the name doesn't matter.  The focus point here is the following not the heritage.  They're 2 completely different focuses.  Throughout the history of the Jewish bloodline regardless of what it was called, there were many followings of many different gods.  This is mentioned in scripture.  Among those followings was the God of the Bible.  Looking into the history of gods, this Biblical God existed through the generations despite others coming and going.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If you are going to try to be clever, at least be clever.

I was being snide really... though it did pull the wool over your eyes didn't it.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Beliefs about history are amusing at best. We have only recorded history. The only recorded history is the Septuagint is the original. There is only a forgery claiming otherwise. There is no basis for claiming the Septuagint is the translation once the forgery is removed.

I must have posted it a dozen times here.

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

 

I'll check that out.. thanks


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Here's where I stand on the whole believer vs. non-believer thing.  Stepping away from all the religious flack and atheistic propaganda, I've heard compelling debates from both sides.  When it comes down to the evidences, both sides crumble under the pressure mainly because the evidences each side has is not sufficient enough for the other side... either that or the opposing side falls into a foggy state of denial and you lose them completely... and I've seen this on both sides.

Let me be clear on this. There is only one side, my side. No rational person accepts anything based upon a forgery. The Letter of Aristias is a forgery. Therefore the Septuagint is the original. The other side is irrational as it accepts a forgery as legitimate evidence.

 

Heard that one too... from both sides.  The "only one side, my side" thing.  I'm looking into your forgery claim.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Therefore, my question to you then... mainly Nony... What is someone who is sitting on the sidelines watching both sides banter in endless loops, constantly stepping on each other suppose to conclude?  

i've concluded both sides are delusional.  

This is a serious question btw, not an attempt to degrade the conversation.

What you conclude is your business.

You are talking about endless debate between degrees or quantity or whatever of "truth" or history in the OT. What I conclude about them is they are all bible believers and all belong in the category of flat out wrong without difference or discrimination among them. They are all in the same category. They are all believers differing only in degree.

I have nothing to do with anyone in that category. I have nothing to do with that category in any form.

 

That's fine and of course what I conclude is my business... sometimes people are curious of my business.

BTW, Already skeptical of the quality of research your link has based on its summary... for example:

"no one knows who wrote the books of the OT"

   Very generalized.  Though there are books that have unknown authors, there are also books that do have known authorship in the OT

"no one knows when the idea they were religious works started"

   Answer:  right around the time the idea of religion started, which was clearly referenced by you.

"no one knows when they became a component of religion"

   Answer:  When they were first compiled into a book in the mid 11th-12th century.

The rest seemed quite subjective and irrelevant to the point of the following.  Regardless of the original language, or authorship, or when they were written (which btw, the dating is also fairly clear) the following still existed during the general timeframe.  

Ultimate problem with initial focus:

     Religion is not the issue here.

I will still investigate the links involved within your link.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...

Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.

Excuse but biblical Israel could not possibly be entirely hidden in modern Jerusalem. If there had been a biblical Israel then the entire eastern Med would be littered with artifacts and evidence as is Egypt. 

It's not... *pause*  I thought we were still on the temple.  Reread some of the thread, we've covered some of that

Of course there was a temple to Yahweh as well as Astarte. They are mentioned in historical documents as late as the Bar Kochbah revolt. Finding only one temple at any time would have no bearing upon the special pleading of henotheism used by bible believers. Special pleadings are not permitted in the first place.

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkiia wrote:

The "I AM"  from Exodus. 

See my avatar.

right... what does that mean to you?  "I am" is not literal and not taken in the way we would today.  It's a neuter.  It references to existence past present and future.  Neuter's cannot be accurately translated into English, ergo the I AM.

Mainly it means to me the translation works better in ebonics. Eye-wink

You will note most of my position is based upon rejecting that for which there is no physical evidence. I also agree things back then could not possibly mean what we mean by them today. However you are making assertions as to what it does mean and thus I must insist upon the source of this knowledge. I have no interest in explanations based upon theological argumentation. There was no theology until Acquinas invented it.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are going to have to clarify what you mean by languages when the subject is archaeological context. As archaeology has shown the Judeans had at least Ashara there is no way that could have been a fact. Also chief god as in Amun, the father of the gods, would also qualify for that appelation and it is not uncommon in other culture referring to the eldest god. And yes, the Egyptians do say that about Amun. Yahweh and Amun make the first people out of clay for example.

Referencing to the oldest languages of the Texts that we have in our possession today which is Hebrew and coyne Greek... and an understanding that those were likely translated from an earlier language theorized to be Aramaic possibly.  Considering the differences from Aramaic to Hebrew, there would be minimal diffierence, but Hebrew to English caused many problems.

There is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. It is never mentioned by historical sources. What is called Hebrew is filled with Koine Greek idioms which supports the "Hebrew" is the translation. Before Koine Greek was discovered in the late 19th c. The "Hebraisms" in the classical Greek of the Septuagint were used to confirm the Septuagint was the translation. Clearly the argument is now reversed. Because of all the Koine Greek constructions in "hebrew" it appears to be simply an Aramaic heavily influenced by Greek. Aramaic is mentioned as one of the languages the locals speak in bibleland. The other language mentioned is Greek. There is no "hebrew" mentioned. Hebrew is Greek by Joseph Yehud covers this in exhausting detail and Greek prefixes being Hebrew suffixes and vice versa, many Hebrew words being simple Greek words spelled backwards. Lots of material in the book.

Considering Hebrew a source for the text is misleading for another reason. The current text comes from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic is a shortened version of the DSS version. The DSS in turn is a shortened version of the Septuagint. Further there is no material in either the DSS or the Masoretic that is not in the Septuagint indicating there was no other source than the Septuagint. There is no reason to look at anything but the Greek. Differences from the Greek found in the DSS can attributed to different degrees of mastery of Greek. That also explains how the "style" of Genesis and Exodus can have all the evidence for being the oldest works now that all but a few hold outs agree they were written at the same time as Kings and Chronicles. Simply the guy who translated the latter was more accomplished in Greek than whoever did Genesis and Exodus.

So for the English look to the Septuagint. At least we have lots of examples of Koine Greek as well as classical. There is nothing but the DSS for Hebrew but the Mishna from centuries later and then the Masoretic a thousand years later. This again points to it being a pigin Aramaic or at most an invented liturgical language. Think Yiddish and Ladino.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Of course they were else the inscriptions of Yahweh and his Ashara could not exist. Herod built a temple to Ashara in Caesarea showing she was alive and kicking in his day. One of her temples was next to the Antonine barracks and both were on the same hill as the Al Aqsa mosque today. There is no secret about this.

Interesting, so the existence of other gods at the time eludes to the point that Jews were polytheistic?  Herod wasn't exactly a follower of the Jewish tradition mind you.   This would also go against everything the Jews of today stand for.

Excuse but to repeat, the absence of a simple declarative sentence stating there is only one god is quite sufficient. People always write about what makes other people different. No one mentions either they or the pre-Islam Christians believed there was only one god.

You come at this like it is something new. The special pleading of henotheism had to be invented to explain away the absence of any indication of one god only.

As to what Jews say today, so what? It also goes against what Christians say today. They both jumped on the bandwagon after Islam. Neither has the simple declarative sentence that there is only one god. There are several christian creeds. "I believe in one god" is a great distance from "I believe there is only one god." In the former it is believe as in trust.

Why would I care in the least when it is trivial in comparison to their entire Yahweh cult having been invented in 2nd c. BC Egypt?

Until someone produces evidence there was anything to translate into Greek or historical evidence for the substantive content of the Septuagint my position is unassailable.

Substantive means reconstructing the entire bibleland narrative from archaeology alone as has been done for so many other ancient cultures such as Egypt and Babylon. It does not mean a couple minor things that can be force fit into minor portions of the narrative.

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Here's where I stand on the whole believer vs. non-believer thing.  Stepping away from all the religious flack and atheistic propaganda, I've heard compelling debates from both sides.  When it comes down to the evidences, both sides crumble under the pressure mainly because the evidences each side has is not sufficient enough for the other side... either that or the opposing side falls into a foggy state of denial and you lose them completely... and I've seen this on both sides.

Let me be clear on this. There is only one side, my side. No rational person accepts anything based upon a forgery. The Letter of Aristias is a forgery. Therefore the Septuagint is the original. The other side is irrational as it accepts a forgery as legitimate evidence.

Heard that one too... from both sides.  The "only one side, my side" thing.  I'm looking into your forgery claim

You have found it is hardly just my claim but a well known fact that is at most ignored.

Now tell me where you have heard of rational people accepting a forgery as true.

It is my conceit that I can suggest a credible origin for the OT.

Aristeas is the ONLY provenance for the OT. Without the letter it has no provenance. It appears out of no where.

History and archaeology have eliminated bibleland as its place of origin.

=====

Note the Book of Mormon appeared in history with a sworn affadivit signed by real people claiming the golded plates existed. That is better than a forgery. The BOM has a greater claim to authenticity than the OT.

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Therefore, my question to you then... mainly Nony... What is someone who is sitting on the sidelines watching both sides banter in endless loops, constantly stepping on each other suppose to conclude?  

i've concluded both sides are delusional.  

This is a serious question btw, not an attempt to degrade the conversation.

What you conclude is your business.

You are talking about endless debate between degrees or quantity or whatever of "truth" or history in the OT. What I conclude about them is they are all bible believers and all belong in the category of flat out wrong without difference or discrimination among them. They are all in the same category. They are all believers differing only in degree.

I have nothing to do with anyone in that category. I have nothing to do with that category in any form.

That's fine and of course what I conclude is my business... sometimes people are curious of my business.

BTW, Already skeptical of the quality of research your link has based on its summary... for example:

"no one knows who wrote the books of the OT"

   Very generalized.  Though there are books that have unknown authors, there are also books that do have known authorship in the OT

You say unknown authors, I say no one knows.

I wait you revealing which books have known authors along with the source of that knowledge. Knowledge of a tradition about a fact is not knowledge of the fact.

Quote:
"no one knows when the idea they were religious works started"

   Answer:  right around the time the idea of religion started, which was clearly referenced by you.

Please present the physical evidence that you KNOW they came to be considered religious works at the time I suggested. I know of nothing. All I know is the dating for the Sinai Codex which contains them. What do you know that I don't?

Quote:
"no one knows when they became a component of religion"

   Answer:  When they were first compiled into a book in the mid 11th-12th century.

The Sinai Codex is dated much older than that and the Vatican claims to have one even older.

In the last two the dates are so far from 2nd c. BC or even earlier as to make the point I intended. If your issue is the words I use to express it, you will find more than sufficient exposition on those short statements to see what I am saying. As one example in Against Apion Bk 2 Josephus does not use the most devasting of all possible responses to the idea the Moses was an Egyptian priest leading lepers. He does not say, Everyone knows the real story is in Exodus. He writes as though he never heard of it. His reply is unrelated to it. It is as though he does not consider it a story of real events. (Bk 1 is a hoot. If you don't believe the stupid claims Jews make it is only because you hate Jews. That BS has been going on for nearly 2000 years.)

Quote:
The rest seemed quite subjective and irrelevant to the point of the following.  Regardless of the original language, or authorship, or when they were written (which btw, the dating is also fairly clear) the following still existed during the general timeframe.  

Ultimate problem with initial focus:

     Religion is not the issue here.

I will still investigate the links involved within your link.

My position is simply I can negate essentially any reference or citation of the OT on the grounds it is of unknown origin even if there are a couple points still not negated by archaeology.

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
I see where we're missing the mark here.  Yes, you're right.. Religion wasn't really invented as "religion" until the times you reference... however, nothing was referred to beyond heritage before that regardless of belief or following.  Which is why the name doesn't matter.  The focus point here is the following not the heritage.  They're 2 completely different focuses.  Throughout the history of the Jewish bloodline regardless of what it was called, there were many followings of many different gods.  This is mentioned in scripture.  Among those followings was the God of the Bible.  Looking into the history of gods, this Biblical God existed through the generations despite others coming and going.

In fact it is trivial to read what people said about themselves and their loyalties in ancient times. It was to cities, period. Part of the problem is inconsistent terminology.

Athens was the capital of the city-state of Attica. Or you can the city-state of Athens ruled Attica. To be consistent Jerusalem ruled the city-state of Judea or was its capital. Bloodlines were incidental.

The Septuagint emphasis on lineage is solely for the purpose of who gets to rule who. It is nothing more than that. Until a couple centuries ago all European kings had geneologies going back the Adam and passing through Solomon as part of their right to rule. No difference.

Next there are sufficient records of Judeans circumcising their slaves to make them Jews. That is not bloodline. These records appear from when Jews first appear in history to when it was outlawed by Christian emperors. You are talking theory. I am talking fact. Circumcision made a Jew, no bloodline involved.

By the laws of Rome Judeans were subject to the temple tax any place a priest could find them no matter where they lived in the empire. If they were circumcised they had to pay the tax. Priests make good tax collectors. Obviously there was always a financial gain in making new members of the Judean Yahweh cult by circumcision.

But it is more fun than that. The Judeans conquered the Samaritans and Galileans and forced them to circumcise and thus be subject to the priest kings of which the Maccabes and descendants ruled as priest kings. (Another good use for bloodlines there.) This is why we can most easily look at the old Galilean religion as having a chief god as a father figure (whom Jesus never gives a name much less Yahweh) and the Galileans as rebels. This is not an opinion on whether there really was a Jesus rather that the narrative makes much more sense in context of the recounting of conquests given by Josephus. They also conquered the Idumaeans of which Herod was one but he ruled them. No wonder they hated him. Even retroactive circumcision did not quell their hatred. The Judeans destroyed his tomb and desecrated his remains. (When Judeans don't like you they really don't like you.)

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
despite world views today, most Jews around the world claim to be such because of heritage and not necessarily religious following, though of course most of them do follow Jewish belief... There's a reason why there is a group of Christians that call themselves Jews for Christ and not Christian.  Same with Muslim... most first reference to it as a heritage or a race and not a religion.  Due to the strict guidelines a Muslim must follow, the religion is pretty much mandatory for a Muslim.  

My point:  Again, it's just a name.  The following was there long before.  the God of scriptures.. as said in scriptures has been called by many names... history backs that up.  Regardless, history shows the following hasn't changed beyond what scriptures claims.

As to what Jews do today, that is well documented by Shlomo Sand in The Invention of the Jewish People. Short form is it was an invention of Zionists based upon 19th c. nationalism. The slightly longer form is it  was adopted by the Nazis and was the reason they had the same jewish by ancestry policies as Israel. If Zionists had not invented the jewish "race" Nazis would have had nothing to copy.

If you think there is a jewish race, there are Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid but no Jewisoid on any list.

What people decide to start calling themselves is their business. We are still allowed to snicker at them for what they call themselves. It they try to push a claim back prior to its invention, such as the jewish people invention, we have an obligation to call bullshit. An atheist Christian, an atheist Muslim and an atheist Jew are all in the same category, absurd! That 60% of Israeli Jews claim they are does not make them Jews. It makes them idiots.

However note what you call the god of scripture is the creation of Greek educated people and is first embodied in the Septuagint absent physical evidence to the contrary. Septuagint prayers end with an appeal to the  first and oldest god of the Egyptian pantheon, Amen or Amun if you are a believer who cannot bear the truth. Amun was depicted with the head of a ram, the shofar horn. Forelocks are his horns. These are things the Septuagint does not explain but which it recounts.

The oldest god, thou shalt have no other gods before me. Amun made the first people out of clay. Yahweh is a different name of Amun. It shouldn't take a 2x4 to get across the obvious.

 

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
...

The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original. It really is that simple.

Having tried it the hard way I found the greatest success I ever achieved was gaining a "you might be right about that point" which immediately led to "but all the rest is true." It is along the lines of agreeing Dorothy did not really meet a tin man while in Oz. A currently popular one is, Maybe Solomon was only a hilltop warlord but all the rest is true even though it should be obvious you can't get there frm here. Almost all view what little they know of the bible as unconnected vignettes that introduce sermons. Maybe David didn't exist but there is a lesson to learn from his son's rule.

How true. The idea is to get across to them that it is all fairytales. If one could get them to see it was all created in Alexandria then that would be a successful technique. They will deny this though and so really you are not making any progress in breaking up their illusions. If Solomon was a tribal chief not a ruler over all from the Nile to the Euphrates then the story is clear fiction, which is what one finds upon examination.

What I have encountered is the stipulation Solomon was no more than a hilltop warlord (which is a deliberate misreading of the Finkelstein statement) leading to praise of the wise theologians ahead of their time who promoted the 20th c. form of Judaism, i.e. ignoring it was a genital mutilating ritual/taboo cult all through the Septuagint. Give them an inch and they revert to their ancient superstitions. They rationalize away the inch in order to preserve the conclusion.

I see your point. Note, I'm not saying Solomon was a tribal chief, I do not see anything to indicate he existed in the real world at all. The OT story is unsupported in the real world, hence it is fiction until proved otherwise.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Cargo cultists were brought to the US and shown the entire manufacturing and shipping process from start to finish. They were shown not an inch but the whole nine yards. They rationalized it away and preserved the cult.

Of course they did, John Frum will return on Feburay 15th and bring them all prsoperity and "cargo".

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You can see this in even atheist discussions here. The constant attempts to reconcile the bible with reality for the sole purpose of salvaging something. You will find the saves for different parts are mutually exclusive. You will find they really do not care.

I know. In my discussions I take the view it is not true as written, meaning it is fiction. That names and places may be used only indicates the writer was attempting to make it sound plausible. As example, the BS of the Exodus and the Hebrew Horde invading Palestine. It all sounds likely to the believer, though archeology and history of all of the superpowers of the supposed time period indicate it could not have happened as the storytales present. Yet, instead they may say it could have been 100 who did so. 100 is not 600,000.

Anything to save the mythology. Ignoring the obvious that if 100 it could be any 100. As many 100s is a reasonable assumption it says nothing. When I would point out Joshua "attacked" with his 100 from east of the Jordan and that they passed through the promised land to get there. Obviously whoever wrote Joshua either did not know the Egypt story or did not know geography or did not know where this promised land was supposed to be. But get involved in debating which is correct leads only to rationalizing like the cargo cult.

Exactly. If it could have been but 100, they indicate it is still possible that it could have happened and it was but exaggerated.

However, Enki could have brewed beer in ancient Mesopotamia as well.

The Vedas could be telling a real story of a world wide nuclear war between those across the sea and those in Southern Asia.

The Predators could have used Earth to hunt the Aliens using mankind for bait.

It is also possible that John Frum will return on February 15th in that view as well. There are a lot of February 15ths left in the future. Someone else could come forward with the name John Frum on a Febuary 15th, someday.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
My view is if one destroys the foundations of the fairytales, Jewish myths, then the whole structure should fall in upon itself.

Though the Catholic Church and some sects of Judaism are prepared for this, they are willing to concede it was mostly allegory or analogies and parables, but the sky daddy is still up there somewhere.

The god could have used evolution to make the world according to scholars in the RCC, but that in itself doesn't make god not real.

There may not be a heavenly cloud place either or an actual hell as John Paul 2 discussed. But the god is still out there.

And so the fairytales are interpreted so the cash cow continues to expel gold.

When the cargo cult can rationalize away what they see with their own lying eyes one needs ask if there is a 2x4 so heavy god could not wield it to whack some sense into them.

Hard to see through rose colored welding helmets.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Even for

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Even for Christians, when did they start taking the Septuagint seriously? The trick word in there is seriously as opposed to curious antecedent. While my interests have been prior tto the 5th c. I can't think of a single thing that takes it seriously prior to the invention of theology by Aquinas and friends. For example, baptism as a ritual with moving, aka living, water was Roman and likely centuries older. It existed in Christianity long before original sin was invented which is an example of taking an OT story seriously.

 

Water immersion or baptism is found throughout the world. Dating before Romans, in the Greek cities and in ancient rites in Mesopotamia. Also found in N & S America in the Aztecs, Peru, in Indian tribes.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Anyway, the believers as you say usually dig their own holes to bury themselves. they stay in denial throughout the discussion even if/when you show that the story could not have happened in the dimension of reality we occupy. Perhaps, they are the one's that need a nuke exploded in their faces. Some do concede they have nothing but their own personal experiences as a basis and admit the Babble is not true as written (read as fictional story telling) though they still adhere to the fantasies.

Ya know, I didn't get interested in this on a lark. I have had some of those experiences, plural intended. Priests hijack the experience. I "achieved" enlightenment and Circle of Iron is correct but there is no way to understand it without going there yourself. It is a total waste of time to go there. All you get is a few weeks of hysteridal laughter at the thought you wasted the time going there. But laughter is its own reward.

I also didn't just jump into this for fun and games.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

For all the universe for all time there is only one of you. Is that not enough?

Of course.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As you note the enemy is in it for the money. That is something entirely different. In fact those who were in it for the following instead of for the money were killed off by those in it for the money. Followers are directly proportional to money. Laizze faire (which I never spell right) applies to both government and religion.

So it seems.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I could care less what idiots believe. I care what idiots do to others. I care more what organized idiots do to make others do as they do.

Organized idiots pass laws that suppress freedoms and impose their fantasy beliefs on others.

This has been going on far sometime now in supposed advanced countries.

How is it that the right wing is against government in their lives in regard to taxes and money but is all for imposition of their beliefs on you using the government to do so on what they consider to be moral?

How can a mind hold these opposing views without being schizophrenic?

The view they put forth is this: I don't want the government in my life but the government should enforce on you what you can or cannot do to yourself.

The soda farce in NYC is but a small example. Consider: smoking, pot, drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, same sex marriage.....

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is essentially counter-productive to debate details given all the implied stipulations just to participate in the debate.

I do understand, discussion of a subject does not mean the subject or details are credible, in fact the point being is to show the believer that it is not at all credible. If enough holes are put in their boat, even with constant bailing it will sink. Though they may try to hold on to the debris to remain floating.

Poking holes results in serial rationalizations which are often mutually exclusive. If you enjoy this method find the one hole that is fundamental. Fiction is obviously fundamental.

My thought exactly. If the stories are not true, then they are fiction. Regardless if the fiction contains some reality, they occurred on the planet Earth, in the Mid-East, and have names of some real places, people, or such, the entire story is fiction if the events did not occur in the reality we occupy just like Buffy was a fictional storytale made for TV.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

P.S. I am close to establishing Judah Maccabe was a Greek. I have everything but the smoking gun. Stay tuned. 

OK, that would be very interesting.

Not soon but so close I can taste it.

The key is the locals were taking up Greek style names. His son was named John Hyrcanus which is not Greek. It is the name of a Persian province on the SE Caspian sea. After conquering it Alexander set up a Greek to rule it. How does that name get into the ruling family of Judea?

I see. Looking forward to your research.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.  They know that it didn't last much further than 586 B.C. despite timing of construction.  The Babylonians destroyed it in 586 B.C.  In it's place Harod built a much larger temple which was destroyed in 70 A.D. during the seige of Jerusalem.  The whailing wall is what is left of that larger temple. 

The floor plan is a type that has a long history in Semitic religion.  (Zondervan)

This is  not a fact. Archeaology indicates Jerusalem was a small insignificant village in 960 BCE.

it is fact based on what we know from writings and whatever research has been allowed in the location despite the size Jerusalem was at the time.

What writings indicate a temple was constructed in the village of Jerusalem in 960 BCE?

Are these writing of the time period in question, circa the 900s BCE? Are they from any of the other counties/cultures that existed?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There is no spoon!!!

Or in this case no Temple or even city of Jerusalem, only a small insignificant village.

Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.

The information is sufficient on the point Jerusalem was a village in 960 BCE. No other country noted a great city state in Palestine in this time period. Archealogy indicates the area was sparsely populated, hence no great empire.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I still don't see anything to fill up the space in history that the story of Solomon likely took place.  I see there was a lot of opposing powers within the boundaries of Solomon's reign, but that was common of any kingdom during the time.  The larger the claimed area, the more likely other powers claimed the same territory unaware of each other's claim... When those opposing claims were found out, historically there'd be a war.  This again is congruent with most kingdoms of the time and earlier.

There is nothing to fill here from the non-existent Judahite or Israelites.

The history is well covered by all other cultures, they ruled the area, not non-existent mythical people of Solomon.

As I've said in the past... show me a timeline that takes the place of this timeline and I'll research it.  I will accept it if in fact it does take its place in history.  so far this type of thing has not been brought to the table.  We have come to agreement that there's little information supporting the scripture claim and no information that would take its place.  I feel like it would be the same here.

How can there be a timeline for a country that did not exist?

This part of Palestine was sparsely populated and ruled by the powerful city states and/or countries surrounding it.

Aram Damascus was very powerful in this period. The Aramaeans were at the time even causing issues to the Assyrians. They were expanding upon them from the time of Tiglathpileser I to Ashur-dan II (approx 1077 to 934 BCE)

Information from Egypt is unclear as to their role in Palestine at this time, though by 925 BCE Sheshonq I set upon it and took much booty leaving mention of such at Karnak. Not mentioned is the village of Jerusalem or great treasures supposedly held there.

See - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sheshonqi.htm and it's very doubtful that Sheshonq I was the Shishak discussed in the OT, feel free to research why they weren't. The Karnak inscription also does not mention Judah and Israel by name or the names of kings either.

Read the following web page which goes into great detail why David and Soloman are myths and storytales and the stories could never have been.

See - http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

I have been telling you much of the same thing found in the above link. You can consider this as a substitute timeline to consider as well, though there aren't storytales of daily activities in the villages of the non-existent country of Solomon included.

 

caposkia wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As you described it, yes... most temples were not that small and could not be likened to a small gym.

See the dimensions of NBA basketball courts yourself.

k, see now we're getting somewhere.. you say small gym and I picture the local fitness center that would make a racquetball game feel cramped.  NBA court is not a small gym, it's more average sized from my perspective. 

What I had in mind was the gyms in public schools, which are slightly smaller than a NBA court. I see your point in being confused as to what I meant. I don't meam the workout center in a fitness gym, I mean the gyms in an elementary school which are small compared to an NBA court and about the size of the dims given.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have not been discussing the extreme differences so far that are in 1 & 2 Chronicles versus Kings.

.................................................................

Solomon then dies.

 

Doesn't seem that there's much substantial here to talk about... More stories.  Some unusual decisions that were made, some questions that we can only assume about.  

The differences BTW were clear and known.  Which is why the books were separated eventually vs just being 4 kings as they were in the century old Bibles.  Unless you're referring to contradictory differences, then I'm interested in what you've found.

Yes I mean contradictory differences which we can get to shortly.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

...


Cargo cultists were brought to the US and shown the entire manufacturing and shipping process from start to finish. They were shown not an inch but the whole nine yards. They rationalized it away and preserved the cult.

Of course they did, John Frum will return on Feburay 15th and bring them all prsoperity and "cargo".

A few years ago on soc.history.what-if I proposed Howard Hughes had started delivering cargo and set himself up as a god. And in his will he set up a trust to deliver cargo forever. Then they would have the best evidence of a real god of any on the planet.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Anything to save the mythology. Ignoring the obvious that if 100 it could be any 100. As many 100s is a reasonable assumption it says nothing. When I would point out Joshua "attacked" with his 100 from east of the Jordan and that they passed through the promised land to get there. Obviously whoever wrote Joshua either did not know the Egypt story or did not know geography or did not know where this promised land was supposed to be. But get involved in debating which is correct leads only to rationalizing like the cargo cult.

Exactly. If it could have been but 100, they indicate it is still possible that it could have happened and it was but exaggerated.

When the thing is exaggerated beyond recognition there is no point to speculation. Further imagining a singular aspect of the story can characterize the only thing that needs a similarity is another unwarranted assumption. How about instead some nerf brain gets lost in the desert, has delusions and starts talking about commandments and all the people he see while delusional? How about a highwayman bragging about all he stole becomes all the gold they Hebrews stole on the way out? How about any other aspect of the story exaggerated beyond recognition?

The reason a small group is the preferred "kernel of truth" is preserves something of the story. Of course what it preserves has already been negated by archaeology so that is out. Negated in that there is no known change at any time that is without evidentiary explanation. 

 

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...

Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.

Excuse but biblical Israel could not possibly be entirely hidden in modern Jerusalem. If there had been a biblical Israel then the entire eastern Med would be littered with artifacts and evidence as is Egypt. 

It's not... *pause*  I thought we were still on the temple.  Reread some of the thread, we've covered some of that

Of course there was a temple to Yahweh as well as Astarte. They are mentioned in historical documents as late as the Bar Kochbah revolt. Finding only one temple at any time would have no bearing upon the special pleading of henotheism used by bible believers. Special pleadings are not permitted in the first place.

This thread is covering the whole Bible and everything in it.. not just one temple


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Mainly it

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Mainly it means to me the translation works better in ebonics. Eye-wink

You will note most of my position is based upon rejecting that for which there is no physical evidence. I also agree things back then could not possibly mean what we mean by them today. However you are making assertions as to what it does mean and thus I must insist upon the source of this knowledge. I have no interest in explanations based upon theological argumentation. There was no theology until Acquinas invented it.

Just research the languages and how they're parsed and conveyed.  No assertions here.  It's general knowledge as far as the languages are concerned.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. It is never mentioned by historical sources. What is called Hebrew is filled with Koine Greek idioms which supports the "Hebrew" is the translation. Before Koine Greek was discovered in the late 19th c. The "Hebraisms" in the classical Greek of the Septuagint were used to confirm the Septuagint was the translation. Clearly the argument is now reversed. Because of all the Koine Greek constructions in "hebrew" it appears to be simply an Aramaic heavily influenced by Greek. Aramaic is mentioned as one of the languages the locals speak in bibleland. The other language mentioned is Greek. There is no "hebrew" mentioned. Hebrew is Greek by Joseph Yehud covers this in exhausting detail and Greek prefixes being Hebrew suffixes and vice versa, many Hebrew words being simple Greek words spelled backwards. Lots of material in the book.

I found the Hebrew easier to comprehend and translate than the Greek... Either way, it is believed that Aramaic was likely the original language of the scriptures.  Spoken or not, we have the scripts in a Hebrew translation.  Be it that we can't find any evidence of it being spoken is also what makes it so complicated to translate.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Considering Hebrew a source for the text is misleading for another reason. The current text comes from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic is a shortened version of the DSS version. The DSS in turn is a shortened version of the Septuagint. Further there is no material in either the DSS or the Masoretic that is not in the Septuagint indicating there was no other source than the Septuagint. There is no reason to look at anything but the Greek. Differences from the Greek found in the DSS can attributed to different degrees of mastery of Greek. That also explains how the "style" of Genesis and Exodus can have all the evidence for being the oldest works now that all but a few hold outs agree they were written at the same time as Kings and Chronicles. Simply the guy who translated the latter was more accomplished in Greek than whoever did Genesis and Exodus.

we've covered this before too, but even the Septuagint was put together from hundreds of pieces or scraps and notes that were compiled.  Also "the guy" who translated most of OT scripture and likely NT was a group of monks who's sole job during the times was translations.  These monks are referenced in the Bible and in history.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Excuse but to repeat, the absence of a simple declarative sentence stating there is only one god is quite sufficient. People always write about what makes other people different. No one mentions either they or the pre-Islam Christians believed there was only one god.

that goes back to the I AM again and now we're going in circles.  The problem here is you're looking for a strait forward English rendition that says, "I am only one god".  Lack of understanding of the languages, (spoken or not) is causing this issue for you.  Lemme see if I can find something more strait forward for you:

Malachi 2:10:  "Do we not all have one father?  Has not one God created us?"  NASB

This would make it pretty clear I think in English that the general belief was "one God"

The other thing is, Jews today are very particular about the scriptures, so much so that they teach their followers to read the Hebrew.  Considering that, if what you say is true and that they were not monotheistic, they would today also not be monotheistic.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As to what Jews say today, so what? It also goes against what Christians say today. They both jumped on the bandwagon after Islam. Neither has the simple declarative sentence that there is only one god. There are several christian creeds. "I believe in one god" is a great distance from "I believe there is only one god." In the former it is believe as in trust.

I think i can see where the break is.  The Judeo-Christian God is believed to be "the one TRUE God"  there are other gods and the Bible declares that many times, esp. in the OT.  Which is why in the NT Jesus emphasizes how He is "the way, the truth and the life"  and "no other gods before me" and all of that.  If there really was only one god and that's it, then those statements would make no sense and not need to be said.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Why would I care in the least when it is trivial in comparison to their entire Yahweh cult having been invented in 2nd c. BC Egypt?

Until someone produces evidence there was anything to translate into Greek or historical evidence for the substantive content of the Septuagint my position is unassailable.

Substantive means reconstructing the entire bibleland narrative from archaeology alone as has been done for so many other ancient cultures such as Egypt and Babylon. It does not mean a couple minor things that can be force fit into minor portions of the narrative.

 

seems then that most of history is fantasy to you be it that reconstructing the entire story of any part of history is virtually impossible.  

Beyond that, if you do research into the translations and the whys and hows, you will find also that there is plenty of evidence that what we have are translations from the originals.  This is also why many atheists/non-believers have a hard time accepting or grasping the scriptures as true.  The question comes, how can we be sure what is translated is translated accurately?  The answer is in all the translations we do have, the comparisons are almost identical.   Also, the monks are known to be a reliable non-bias source be it that they were relied on to translate everything from any following.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You have

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You have found it is hardly just my claim but a well known fact that is at most ignored.

Now tell me where you have heard of rational people accepting a forgery as true.

pretty much every time I come on this site Eye-wink

it comes down to the "forgery" claim is contingent upon your adjenda.  it seems a lot is concluded by opinion and not so much solid research.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

History and archaeology have eliminated bibleland as its place of origin.

right, and every time I've asked someone with that POV to show me their research, little comes of it.  from what I've seen from your link, the same applies here.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You say

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You say unknown authors, I say no one knows.

I wait you revealing which books have known authors along with the source of that knowledge. Knowledge of a tradition about a fact is not knowledge of the fact.

Several statements in Exodus indicate that Moses wrote certain sections of the book.  In addition Josh 8:31 references to Mosaic authorship as well as the NT claiming Mosaic authorship in various passages (Zondervan)  

As researched and understanding the process of determining authorship, the statement "statements in X indicate"  are taken into consideration literary style, verbage, personality and literary traits (wording) which would inidcate it would unlikely be others who wrote those sections.  Again only sections here because all the books are fragments put together.

Skipping ahead, most of the Book of Joshua is written by Joshua simply based on the personal references e.g. the pronoun "us" in 5:8 suggesting it is written by the subject.

Skipping the books that don't have known authorship, we get to Ezra.  Certain materials from Ezra are first person extracts from his memoirs.  Other sections are written in the third person.  We know for certain that the memoirs are Ezra's (Zondervan)

Going through a few more, Psalms is just too in depth to get into.  Most of the Psalms have superscriptions.  34 lack superscriptions of any kind.  Some of the ones who do have superscriptions are in question as to the validity of the superscriptions, but some of them are known by the clarity of the superscirptions.  Not getting into it here... moving on

proverbs:  Solomon authored at least some of psalms, again many fragments, many parts.  It is known not all of it is solomons, but the books references itself by referencing Solomon as the author.  1:1 "The proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel"  It's in the writing

Ecc and Songs has parts, and strong suggestions, but nothing definite, we'll move on to Isaiah.

Though scholars have tried to question the authorship of Isaiah, son of Amos, there is nothing anywhere suggesting it's not him.  

Again, we get a self referencing book "The words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah"  making it very clear that the book of Jeremiah was written by Jeremiah.  Dont' need to reference sources for these types of books other than researching the languages, translations and fragments for authenticity.  There is no question from any scholar that these are Jeremiah's words, therefore, i see no reason to question it either.

Lamentations is Anonymous

Ezekiel is one of the major prophets and is written by Ezekiel again by writing style and verbage.  These would reference again back to the fragments and the translation.

The book of Daniel references Daniel as the author many times

Amos was written by Amos as referenced in teh book "The words of Amos"

Obediah was written by Obediah as referenced in the book

Jonah does not identify its author

Not much is known about Micah or Nahum or Habakkuk though they are understood to be the authors

Zephaniah is a self referencing book

Haggai is self referencing

Zechariah is self referencing

some thing Malachi was written by malachi, others think it was just a reference... unknown here because not much is known about him

Generally speaking, my source was Zondervan for this brief overview of authorship.  Zondervan if you research has their own sources to go by.  I figure you're capable of going further into their sources if you doubt their research.  

The books that are self referencing are further supported by again verbage, literary style and source.  
these were not just concluded on a whim, but thoroughly researched and referenced.  If there was any doubt of authorship, it is referenced just as you saw with some of the books who has exerpts of the assumed author but possible other sources.  

I'll stop here for now.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

My position is simply I can negate essentially any reference or citation of the OT on the grounds it is of unknown origin even if there are a couple points still not negated by archaeology.

 

Then again, most of history must be a fantasy to you


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I see where we're missing the mark here.  Yes, you're right.. Religion wasn't really invented as "religion" until the times you reference... however, nothing was referred to beyond heritage before that regardless of belief or following.  Which is why the name doesn't matter.  The focus point here is the following not the heritage.  They're 2 completely different focuses.  Throughout the history of the Jewish bloodline regardless of what it was called, there were many followings of many different gods.  This is mentioned in scripture.  Among those followings was the God of the Bible.  Looking into the history of gods, this Biblical God existed through the generations despite others coming and going.

In fact it is trivial to read what people said about themselves and their loyalties in ancient times. It was to cities, period. Part of the problem is inconsistent terminology.

Athens was the capital of the city-state of Attica. Or you can the city-state of Athens ruled Attica. To be consistent Jerusalem ruled the city-state of Judea or was its capital. Bloodlines were incidental.

The Septuagint emphasis on lineage is solely for the purpose of who gets to rule who. It is nothing more than that. Until a couple centuries ago all European kings had geneologies going back the Adam and passing through Solomon as part of their right to rule. No difference.

Next there are sufficient records of Judeans circumcising their slaves to make them Jews. That is not bloodline. These records appear from when Jews first appear in history to when it was outlawed by Christian emperors. You are talking theory. I am talking fact. Circumcision made a Jew, no bloodline involved.

By the laws of Rome Judeans were subject to the temple tax any place a priest could find them no matter where they lived in the empire. If they were circumcised they had to pay the tax. Priests make good tax collectors. Obviously there was always a financial gain in making new members of the Judean Yahweh cult by circumcision.

But it is more fun than that. The Judeans conquered the Samaritans and Galileans and forced them to circumcise and thus be subject to the priest kings of which the Maccabes and descendants ruled as priest kings. (Another good use for bloodlines there.) This is why we can most easily look at the old Galilean religion as having a chief god as a father figure (whom Jesus never gives a name much less Yahweh) and the Galileans as rebels. This is not an opinion on whether there really was a Jesus rather that the narrative makes much more sense in context of the recounting of conquests given by Josephus. They also conquered the Idumaeans of which Herod was one but he ruled them. No wonder they hated him. Even retroactive circumcision did not quell their hatred. The Judeans destroyed his tomb and desecrated his remains. (When Judeans don't like you they really don't like you.)

 

people know their history.  some of it is bloodline, some of it is not.  We would have to sit here and go through each lineage to consider whether that sect is bloodline or not.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What writings indicate a temple was constructed in the village of Jerusalem in 960 BCE?

From what I understand, the source is this book.  The fragments are more numerous, but have been compiled.  I don't know the details of the fragments

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Are these writing of the time period in question, circa the 900s BCE? Are they from any of the other counties/cultures that existed?

never looked into it so far.  The temple was never a deciding factor in the faith, only a grain of sand in the bigger picture.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

How can there be a timeline for a country that did not exist?

there wouldn't be... instead, there would be a timeline for one that did exist taking the place of the alleged false one.  This is the evidence I'm looking for.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sheshonqi.htm and it's very doubtful that Sheshonq I was the Shishak discussed in the OT, feel free to research why they weren't. The Karnak inscription also does not mention Judah and Israel by name or the names of kings either.

Read the following web page which goes into great detail why David and Soloman are myths and storytales and the stories could never have been.

See - http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

I have been telling you much of the same thing found in the above link. You can consider this as a substitute timeline to consider as well, though there aren't storytales of daily activities in the villages of the non-existent country of Solomon included.

I will look into that.  Thank you.  It might be a few weeks at this point.  Though I'll reply to other posts, I will take my time to do this research.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What I had in mind was the gyms in public schools, which are slightly smaller than a NBA court. I see your point in being confused as to what I meant. I don't meam the workout center in a fitness gym, I mean the gyms in an elementary school which are small compared to an NBA court and about the size of the dims given.

that sounds more reasonable.  Thanks for clarifying


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...

Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.

Excuse but biblical Israel could not possibly be entirely hidden in modern Jerusalem. If there had been a biblical Israel then the entire eastern Med would be littered with artifacts and evidence as is Egypt. 

It's not... *pause*  I thought we were still on the temple.  Reread some of the thread, we've covered some of that

Of course there was a temple to Yahweh as well as Astarte. They are mentioned in historical documents as late as the Bar Kochbah revolt. Finding only one temple at any time would have no bearing upon the special pleading of henotheism used by bible believers. Special pleadings are not permitted in the first place.

This thread is covering the whole Bible and everything in it.. not just one temple

As I see the subject it is the reality of which the fictional Septuagint is only a part. The reality is neither the old nor new parts of the bible describe bibleland as it really was. From the getgo there is no reason to expect to find the Septuagint stories to be related to reality. The simplest way to divorce the fiction from the reality is to observe the polytheist nature of the people of bibleland.

The issue of a temple is meaningless even if one were found dedicated to Yahweh. Finding one would be no more than one, small step for believers in establishing the fiction they believe in is not fiction.

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Mainly it means to me the translation works better in ebonics. Eye-wink

You will note most of my position is based upon rejecting that for which there is no physical evidence. I also agree things back then could not possibly mean what we mean by them today. However you are making assertions as to what it does mean and thus I must insist upon the source of this knowledge. I have no interest in explanations based upon theological argumentation. There was no theology until Acquinas invented it.

Just research the languages and how they're parsed and conveyed.  No assertions here.  It's general knowledge as far as the languages are concerned.

You know I would love to do that but there is nothing to compare it to. It is not like there are examples of "hebrew" outside of the Septuagint to be found any place. Even if there were today even believers are will to accept these words were written in the 5th c. BC by Ezra and friends. So whatever the meaning was whatever they invented.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. It is never mentioned by historical sources. What is called Hebrew is filled with Koine Greek idioms which supports the "Hebrew" is the translation. Before Koine Greek was discovered in the late 19th c. The "Hebraisms" in the classical Greek of the Septuagint were used to confirm the Septuagint was the translation. Clearly the argument is now reversed. Because of all the Koine Greek constructions in "hebrew" it appears to be simply an Aramaic heavily influenced by Greek. Aramaic is mentioned as one of the languages the locals speak in bibleland. The other language mentioned is Greek. There is no "hebrew" mentioned. Hebrew is Greek by Joseph Yehud covers this in exhausting detail and Greek prefixes being Hebrew suffixes and vice versa, many Hebrew words being simple Greek words spelled backwards. Lots of material in the book.

I found the Hebrew easier to comprehend and translate than the Greek... Either way, it is believed that Aramaic was likely the original language of the scriptures.  Spoken or not, we have the scripts in a Hebrew translation.  Be it that we can't find any evidence of it being spoken is also what makes it so complicated to translate.

Hebrew is most likely a pidgin Greek used by Aramaic speakers sort of like Yiddish. That being where the Dead Sea Scrolls came from. Those being the only example until the abbreviated Masoretic appears about a thousand years later. As it was never spoken means it was a made up language and as such never had a proper grammar. That is the simplest explanation for the problems with translation.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Considering Hebrew a source for the text is misleading for another reason. The current text comes from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic is a shortened version of the DSS version. The DSS in turn is a shortened version of the Septuagint. Further there is no material in either the DSS or the Masoretic that is not in the Septuagint indicating there was no other source than the Septuagint. There is no reason to look at anything but the Greek. Differences from the Greek found in the DSS can attributed to different degrees of mastery of Greek. That also explains how the "style" of Genesis and Exodus can have all the evidence for being the oldest works now that all but a few hold outs agree they were written at the same time as Kings and Chronicles. Simply the guy who translated the latter was more accomplished in Greek than whoever did Genesis and Exodus.

we've covered this before too, but even the Septuagint was put together from hundreds of pieces or scraps and notes that were compiled.  Also "the guy" who translated most of OT scripture and likely NT was a group of monks who's sole job during the times was translations.  These monks are referenced in the Bible and in history.

Except the Septuagint is a straight forward read quite as though it were written at the same time. The Hebrew version is a collection of sloppy "translations" which is the simplest explanation for all the different styles. At one time people were seeing all kinds of differences to "date" the books but after the Ezra writing down became popular the differences are all still there. How could that be with Ezra's scribes doing it all at one time? Only the "hebrew" appears to have come from scraps even though it cannot have been that way. The simplest explanation is translation of the Septuagint into pidgin Aramaic. Meaning did not really matter as long the priest-kings ruled by secret oral law.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Excuse but to repeat, the absence of a simple declarative sentence stating there is only one god is quite sufficient. People always write about what makes other people different. No one mentions either they or the pre-Islam Christians believed there was only one god.

that goes back to the I AM again and now we're going in circles.  The problem here is you're looking for a strait forward English rendition that says, "I am only one god".

No. I am looking for those people to say there is only one god. I am looking for someone to notice they were the strangest people in all the world who believed there was only one god. I find nothing. You do not seem to know what a simple, declarative sentence is.

Quote:
Lack of understanding of the languages, (spoken or not) is causing this issue for you.  Lemme see if I can find something more strait forward for you:

Malachi 2:10:  "Do we not all have one father?  Has not one God created us?"  NASB

And other gods created other people. In fact the pairing with one father indicates a literal demigod origin.

Quote:
This would make it pretty clear I think in English that the general belief was "one God"

That there was at least one god.

Quote:
The other thing is, Jews today are very particular about the scriptures, so much so that they teach their followers to read the Hebrew.  Considering that, if what you say is true and that they were not monotheistic, they would today also not be monotheistic.

What people are post Islam after monotheism was popularized is immaterial. Believers with questions always consult the "what it really means" companion text instead of believing their own lying eyes like you are doing with that last quote. It says what it says and no more than what it says. If you insist is really means something else then one what authority?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As to what Jews say today, so what? It also goes against what Christians say today. They both jumped on the bandwagon after Islam. Neither has the simple declarative sentence that there is only one god. There are several christian creeds. "I believe in one god" is a great distance from "I believe there is only one god." In the former it is believe as in trust.

I think i can see where the break is.  The Judeo-Christian God is believed to be "the one TRUE God"

The point is to look up the word used that is translated true and find it means loyal, faithful not true as the opposite of false. The translation of false also comes with the original meaning of unfaithful. The other gods were fickle. This one was not according to the priests profiting off of it.

Quote:
there are other gods and the Bible declares that many times, esp. in the OT.  Which is why in the NT Jesus emphasizes how He is "the way, the truth and the life"  and "no other gods before me" and all of that.  If there really was only one god and that's it, then those statements would make no sense and not need to be said.

Again, believers, what a frustration. Even when dealing with words invented at least a century later they try to insert "what it really means" into the words in front of their lying eyes. Even "no other gods before me" clearly states there are other gods. Before in time is also the implication as Amun was the eldest god of the Egyptians and is clearly Yahweh of the Septuagint.

As for the other attributed quote I have idea what point you are trying to make. If you want to make a point by quotation then you need so physical evidence to start with. Anybody could say that and century or more later those words could be put in anyone's mouth.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Why would I care in the least when it is trivial in comparison to their entire Yahweh cult having been invented in 2nd c. BC Egypt?

Until someone produces evidence there was anything to translate into Greek or historical evidence for the substantive content of the Septuagint my position is unassailable.

Substantive means reconstructing the entire bibleland narrative from archaeology alone as has been done for so many other ancient cultures such as Egypt and Babylon. It does not mean a couple minor things that can be force fit into minor portions of the narrative.

seems then that most of history is fantasy to you be it that reconstructing the entire story of any part of history is virtually impossible. 

As I gave examples of where it has been done your statement is contrary to reality. If you are trying to play a game with "entire" then it is a very silly game.

Quote:
Beyond that, if you do research into the translations and the whys and hows, you will find also that there is plenty of evidence that what we have are translations from the originals.  This is also why many atheists/non-believers have a hard time accepting or grasping the scriptures as true.  The question comes, how can we be sure what is translated is translated accurately?  The answer is in all the translations we do have, the comparisons are almost identical.   Also, the monks are known to be a reliable non-bias source be it that they were relied on to translate everything from any following.

As you have not produced a single declarative sentence of monotheism nor even an unambiguous implication of it all you are showing is your reliance upon what it really means. You rationalize the words from their clear meanings to what you "know" it must mean because of what is believed today.

And even in this response you have found henotheism too hard to address because its very invention supports what I have said.

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You have found it is hardly just my claim but a well known fact that is at most ignored.

Now tell me where you have heard of rational people accepting a forgery as true.

pretty much every time I come on this site Eye-wink

it comes down to the "forgery" claim is contingent upon your adjenda.  it seems a lot is concluded by opinion and not so much solid research.

The existence of an agenda NEVER negates the facts. As everyone can be accused of having an agenda that becomes a strawman to avoid dealing with the facts.

Fact is it is a forgery. It appears at the same time as the Septuagint. The Book of Mormon comes with a sworn affidavit as to the existence of the golden plates. The affidavit is notarized and the people who signed it did exist. The Book of Mormon has been credentials than the Septuagint as translation.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
History and archaeology have eliminated bibleland as its place of origin.

right, and every time I've asked someone with that POV to show me their research, little comes of it. from what I've seen from your link, the same applies here.

 

You appear to be asking for proof of a negative. Observing the absence of evidence is the research.

 

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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You say unknown authors, I say no one knows.

I wait you revealing which books have known authors along with the source of that knowledge. Knowledge of a tradition about a fact is not knowledge of the fact.

Several statements in Exodus indicate that Moses wrote certain sections of the book.

Produce the sections and show what the indications are.

Quote:
 In addition Josh 8:31 references to Mosaic authorship as well as the NT claiming Mosaic authorship in various passages (Zondervan)

And you claim Mosaic authorship. All the claims are equal.

Are you really such a benighted believer?

Quote:
As researched and understanding the process of determining authorship, the statement "statements in X indicate"  are taken into consideration literary style, verbage, personality and literary traits (wording) which would inidcate it would unlikely be others who wrote those sections.  Again only sections here because all the books are fragments put together.

No it does not work that way. First you show the people actually existed and then you establish what their viewpoint would have been and then you see if that person wrote the text.

As it is Exodus is still a myth therefore Moses is a myth. Therefore it is absurd to go further.

Quote:
Skipping ahead, most of the Book of Joshua is written by Joshua simply based on the personal references e.g. the pronoun "us" in 5:8 suggesting it is written by the subject.

I did not realize how gullible and foolish you were until this point.

US is used thousands of times in the Lord of the Rings books. Same 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.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
people know their history.  some of it is bloodline, some of it is not.  We would have to sit here and go through each lineage to consider whether that sect is bloodline or not.

Those statements are so detached from reality it is impossible to respond. People are not born with knowledge.

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As I see

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As I see the subject it is the reality of which the fictional Septuagint is only a part. The reality is neither the old nor new parts of the bible describe bibleland as it really was. From the getgo there is no reason to expect to find the Septuagint stories to be related to reality. The simplest way to divorce the fiction from the reality is to observe the polytheist nature of the people of bibleland.

The issue of a temple is meaningless even if one were found dedicated to Yahweh. Finding one would be no more than one, small step for believers in establishing the fiction they believe in is not fiction.

 

If you sit down and read the Ot, you will find that the... as you would say; "polytheist nature of the people of bibleland"  is clear.  I don't see how that in any way helps your case.  The polytheistic nature of the people does not suggest that the Bible teaches polytheism.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You know

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You know I would love to do that but there is nothing to compare it to. It is not like there are examples of "hebrew" outside of the Septuagint to be found any place. Even if there were today even believers are will to accept these words were written in the 5th c. BC by Ezra and friends. So whatever the meaning was whatever they invented.

What do you need to compare?  It is as is just like any other language?  If you need to compare, it's a derivative of Aramic and was likely translated from the Greek, compare from those 2 if you need to compare at all.  Either way, it still stands as is.  

BTW any meaning in the English language is also what they've invented be it that the English language has historically been found to be a man made language.  Therefore anything we say must be false right? ;P  

Don't get caught up in that... just making a snide point, regardless that we've established it, it still has meaning.  Same with the Hebrew.  Context is how the Bible is translated and not necessarily verbatum, though each word is taken into consideration in the context.   

You can try to find all the language excuses you can, but when it comes down to it, those challanges have already been made and refuted and/or corrected.  

Anything that's not very clear is noted in most Bibles, not hidden like you want to believe.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Hebrew is most likely a pidgin Greek used by Aramaic speakers sort of like Yiddish. That being where the Dead Sea Scrolls came from. Those being the only example until the abbreviated Masoretic appears about a thousand years later. As it was never spoken means it was a made up language and as such never had a proper grammar. That is the simplest explanation for the problems with translation.

Again, made up or not, it had to be comprehended, otherwise there'd be no point in wasting parchment or time writing it down...  writing and tools were not as easy to come by as running to the dollar store.  They were also written on what was understood to be expensive products... quite an extravagant method to write down pig Latin among friends.  Daddy must have had an unlimited credit card.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Except the Septuagint is a straight forward read quite as though it were written at the same time. The Hebrew version is a collection of sloppy "translations" ...

From what I understood, these "sloppy translations" were translated by the same monks that everyone relied on to translate, so either all historical documents were sloppily transcribed, or your research is mistaken... May I ask where you got that information from?  I want to see the source and their methodology.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

No. I am looking for those people to say there is only one god. I am looking for someone to notice they were the strangest people in all the world who believed there was only one god. I find nothing. You do not seem to know what a simple, declarative sentence is.

Quote:
Lack of understanding of the languages, (spoken or not) is causing this issue for you.  Lemme see if I can find something more strait forward for you:

Malachi 2:10:  "Do we not all have one father?  Has not one God created us?"  NASB

And other gods created other people. In fact the pairing with one father indicates a literal demigod origin.

Your issue was a declaritive sentence that specified 1 god... now that I've given that to you, you're abandoning that and trying another excuse???  What gives?  Are you being serious right now?  I'm trying to keep this thread focused and serious... with the occasional crack at humor for fun.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The point is to look up the word used that is translated true and find it means loyal, faithful not true as the opposite of false. The translation of false also comes with the original meaning of unfaithful. The other gods were fickle. This one was not according to the priests profiting off of it.

"True" means the same in English too...  Either way it references ONE, which is what is in question at this point.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Again, believers, what a frustration. Even when dealing with words invented at least a century later they try to insert "what it really means" into the words in front of their lying eyes. Even "no other gods before me" clearly states there are other gods. Before in time is also the implication as Amun was the eldest god of the Egyptians and is clearly Yahweh of the Septuagint.

As for the other attributed quote I have idea what point you are trying to make. If you want to make a point by quotation then you need so physical evidence to start with. Anybody could say that and century or more later those words could be put in anyone's mouth.

Here's the difference between you and me.  I'm on here with an open mind.  I will challenge what goes against my understanding, but I am open to everything presented.  If it can be substantially backed up, i will change my ways... you on the other hand have an adjenda to prove your point without consideration of what is being presented to you.  with that approach, we'll never get anywhere.  Each moment that passes, I have a harder and harder time taking into consideration what you have to present.  It just seems to me that it doesn't matter what counters I might have for what your presenting.  To this point, I've looked carefully into everything you've presented.  Whether you want to believe that or not is up to you, but ask most others and they'll support me on that.  

As for your need for the physical evidence... I suggest you look into getting the Archealogical study bible.  They made it for people like you.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The existence of an agenda NEVER negates the facts. As everyone can be accused of having an agenda that becomes a strawman to avoid dealing with the facts.

...and yet a lot of non-believers on this site use that exact excuse to try to discredit the Bible... I've said that so many times.  However, in this instance, I was not calling your adjenda out to try to negate teh facts, only to expose that you have an adjenda vs a sincere effort.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Fact is it is a forgery. It appears at the same time as the Septuagint. The Book of Mormon comes with a sworn affidavit as to the existence of the golden plates. The affidavit is notarized and the people who signed it did exist. The Book of Mormon has been credentials than the Septuagint as translation.

Of course it has, they had to make it sound as legitimate as possible.  Someone had to exist to write down everything that was written.  The fact that 100's of unrelated fragments come together and make a single timeline is evidence enough for most people that there's more to the Bible than just stories about non-existent peoples.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You appear to be asking for proof of a negative. Observing the absence of evidence is the research.

 

No, as I've said many times, I'm looking for that evidence of the timeline that takes the place of the Biblical timeline.  /Lack of evidence in history is hardly a reason to negate anything be it that we only have about 1% of all history in our books at this time.  Either that or the history we know is likely false based on that angle.  


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1469
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dana was not raised that way .. ..

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
  ..claims and ideas must be considered and the claimant must be shown why his paper, project, theory or idea is illogical, impossible, .. Or in this case impossible to have actually happened due to the evidence to the contrary

 

caposkia wrote:
Caposkia said, I've learned after 5 years on RRS, that posting like you know things gives rise to those who ignore what you're saying and post as if they have all the answers and you dont. Asking questions makes us think about how we're going to respond.

 

 

   I have always assumed if someone states something with a great amount of conviction and it is wrong. They were the victim [of] bad information. But There is always another possibility, we seldom consider. Remember Jan Hendrik Schon, a star researcher in electronics, was fired after the outside committee found he falsified experimental data, whole programs on PBS and the science channel aired on Jan Hendrik Schon. Falsification became so infamous, it reached the general public (in the forementioned). I found upon researching  you've dismantled  any  other conclusion.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Scientific-fraud-found-at-Bell-Labs-1096933.php  http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Scientific-fraud-found-at-Bell-Labs-1096933.php

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:

Several statements in Exodus indicate that Moses wrote certain sections of the book.

Produce the sections and show what the indications are.

If i do this will you produce your research as I've asked?  probably not... either way (don't worry, I know you've given some links)

Ex. 17:14 - God tells Moses to write what is written in the book. (easy to make up though right?)

Ex. 24:4 - "Moses wrote..."

Ex. 334:27 - another command to Moses to write something down

Many other books make reference as I've already presented to Moses' authorship to parts.

As I've already said, you can look it up yourself, but to determine authorship, they also take into consideration writing style, language and verbiage in teh writing.  Everyone has their own style.  They've researched the differences.  

Everything I present to you is likely false according to you, so I think it'd be benificial for you to research that yourself.  It's harder to refute what you discover on your own and it's a dangerous thing for me to say if I'm trying to hide something from you.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And you claim Mosaic authorship. All the claims are equal.

Are you really such a benighted believer?

no, but I'm starting to believe you are.

I claim Mosaic authorship for small parts in the book of Exodus.  I don't claim authorship of all the books or even the whole Torah like many do.  YOu really don't see the difference in the claims?  Open your eyes man.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

No it does not work that way. 

tell the scholars that then... I'm not the one who claims that.  I do not try to claim I'm any type of historian or scholar.   I'm not talking about just Biblical scholars either.  sounds like you have a breakthrough in historical research that you might want to share with the rest of the world.   I see a Nobel Prize in your future!!

It has been established that these people were real in some way shape or form.  We know history by genealogies, artifacts, documentation and consistent timelines (which aren't always able to come by)  The Bible has all of that.  It wouldn't be a debate if it was as cut and dry as you're trying to make it.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As it is Exodus is still a myth therefore Moses is a myth. Therefore it is absurd to go further.

I think with you, it is absurd to go further.  good call

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I did not realize how gullible and foolish you were until this point.

US is used thousands of times in the Lord of the Rings books. Same evidence. 

...and in ancient times, people didn't waste expensive parchment and years of their lives scribing a fictional story.  It was told by word of mouth, like Job (which has question in reality)  

Us is one of many reasons, included still is everything I've mentioned about the methodology of historians discovering authorship of any ancient document, likely still more than I know as well.  

Again, I take into consideration everything you present and have an open mind to all information given to me.  You have an adjenda.  Is it that I'm gullible and foolish, or is it that what you have to present is not as substantial as you would like it to be.  A gullible person will believe anything.  A foolish person will take everything at face value... which one of us is gullible and foolish?

 a penny is a penny so it can never be worth more than 1 cent right?  Without the proper research that's true... anyone will tell you a penny is worth a penny.. if I did my research and looked to the right sources, I would find that my VDB 1909 wheat penny is actually worth $500 despite what the banks are telling me.  But because I believe the banks becasue they're the ones who deal with all kinds of currency and therefore should know the value of every type of currency, I miss out on the bigger picture.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
people know their history.  some of it is bloodline, some of it is not.  We would have to sit here and go through each lineage to consider whether that sect is bloodline or not.

Those statements are so detached from reality it is impossible to respond. People are not born with knowledge.

 

That's what you get from that?  People are born with knowledge?  Wow dude. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
  ..claims and ideas must be considered and the claimant must be shown why his paper, project, theory or idea is illogical, impossible, .. Or in this case impossible to have actually happened due to the evidence to the contrary

 

caposkia wrote:
Caposkia said, I've learned after 5 years on RRS, that posting like you know things gives rise to those who ignore what you're saying and post as if they have all the answers and you dont. Asking questions makes us think about how we're going to respond.

 

 

   I have always assumed if someone states something with a great amount of conviction and it is wrong. They were the victim [of] bad information. But There is always another possibility, we seldom consider. Remember Jan Hendrik Schon, a star researcher in electronics, was fired after the outside committee found he falsified experimental data, whole programs on PBS and the science channel aired on Jan Hendrik Schon. Falsification became so infamous, it reached the general public (in the forementioned). I found upon researching  you've dismantled  any  other conclusion.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Scientific-fraud-found-at-Bell-Labs-1096933.php  http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Scientific-fraud-found-at-Bell-Labs-1096933.php

You can show by questioning.  Make them think about why their idea might be wrong rather than telling them it's wrong.

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
a reply to PJTS links

 As I look through the links.  Some issues give rise that we've already covered.  I will reiterate why their basis doesn't hold water.

One link claims the dating of writing is far beyond the actual events and therefore should be taken with caution.  Most of history was written down far beyond the actual events and all of history needs to be taken in the same manner.  This places the Bible in the same category as the rest of history still.

Also, the other link quesitons the numbers (we've talked about how they're exaggerated)

They add that exaggerations suggest a made up story (which must apply to all historical writings with exaggerations... which applies to 99% of history as we know it.. we've covered this as well)

Also, The article is assuming Egypt is meaded out and boardered as clearly as it is today.  We've covered way back that the writers... who are scribing events, probably on notes or fragments themselves are referencing location based on waht they know that day and not neccessarily what was when the events took place.. what is Egypt when the writers compiled the information may not have been at the time.  It may have likely been open territory.  There are no specific references to parts of Egypt other than some unnamed pharohs and temples.  It is well known the history of Egypt to the point that the Biblical accounts could have happened in the Torah.  

I think the biggest thing to take from these links is their assumption of specific boarders as to which there weren't and taht history is written differently than the Bible.  

yea, was able to read the links sooner than I thought I would... If I missed something, let me know.