Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist

Ehrman says: "Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Why did he say this?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:How do you

Jimenezj wrote:
How do you read Isaiah 53? Do you use literal or non literal Method when reading Isaiah 53? And Why?

I obviously do not use a Captain Midnight Magic Decoder Ring like you do.

Why? I live in the real world not in the dimension of Never Was and Never Will Be in the Land of Sci-Fi and Fantasy.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Part 3 Response to Anony

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
...

Buffy and Angel were clearly from the mind of Joss Wheldon.


He is a creator of fiction. I use him as a point of comparison to other fiction writers.


And even Joss used legends in his fiction. Though they eventually started making up names of demons as they were running out. See the DVD's extra material for details

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:



Quote:
There was probably no singular basis for the storytelling, the Jewish book of myths draws on many others incorporating rewritten tales of others in the Sci-Fi and creative writing.


It is clear from the Whedon example there is no need for multiple sources. It cannot be other than idle speculation as to the number of sources without concrete examples of what was copied. It adds nothing to the subject.

I have exchanged posts with a man who claims to read Greek and to have read the Septuagint who told me it reads uniformly and with the same style throughout.


There may have been no need, yet the Babble does use other storytelling myths. Perhaps taken out of the archives in the Library.

The Genesis myths incorporate Egyptian where there existed only the primeval ocean of chaos for example. If created in Alexandria as you claim, many of these would be used. Though this story is not unique to them.

In Sumer a similar story is explained, Nammu, the sea, gave birth to heaven and earth or An and Ki, see ETCSL.

According to Sumerian myths, man did not receive eternal life thanks to Adapa who fails to drink the water of life and the bread of life when he is called before An after disrupting the south wind.

The goddess Nin-ti is the lady of the rib in Sumerian myths.

Enki and Ninmah (aka Nunhurgsag or Ki) create man out of clay in Sumerian myths.

Then we have the flood myths, Sumerian and ancient Babylonian where the noise of man disturbed the gods and either Gilgamaesh or Ziudsura was saved by building a boat.

Psalm 74:13-14 is a rewrite of The Ba'al Cycle which is Sumerian based as well. In it Ba'al kills the henchman of Yamm, Litan and the twisty serpent that had 7 heads or the Leviathan in the OT. Babylon had it as Marduk crushing Tiamat and Kingu.

Isaiah 27:1 refers to this mistranslating sea serpent to be a dragon.

Samson is much like the Greek hero Herakles or Heracles (Roman Hercules is slightly different) - from wiki - "Samson bears many similar traits to the Greek Herakles (and the Roman Hercules adaptation), inspired himself partially from the mesopotamian Enkidu tale: Herakles and Samson both battled a Lion bare handed (Lion of Nemea feat), Herakles and Samson both had a favorite primitive blunt weapon (a club for the first, an ass's jaw for the latter), they were both betrayed by a woman which led them to their ultimate fate (Herakles by Dejanira, while Samson by Delilah). Both heroes, champion of their respective people, die by their own hand: Herakles ends his life on a pyre while Samson makes the Philistine temple collapse upon himself and his enemies."

There are many more.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Myths from Canaan are found within as well as all of the pagan gods from Egypt to Greece and even some from the "captivity period". Babylonian and Persian myths and stories are also drawn upon. That all of these stories circulated with caravans throughout trading routes gave those who developed the stories into a religion many sources to use.  The same holds true for all of the religions of the ancients. Many were similar or were the same gods. Jews and Christians deny the connections but they are prevalent throughout the texts.


I find the distinction "pagan" to be meaningless and distracting as there is no difference save for the power of summary execution it gives the priest kings.


OK then, the gods of their ancestors which were not a single god.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Talking about caravans and trade routes and such is again nothing idle fantasy. They are unnecesary inventions serving only to make the stories appear to be other than they are. It gives a false impression of ancient or traditional when there is none in evidence. There is never a justification for extraenious hypothesis. Trust Penn Gillette but use Occam.


Sorry, there is ample proof of caravans and trade in olive oil especially from Samaria. One of the things Assyria gained after conquering Samaria (Israel) was control of the olive oil trade. Many olive oil presses dating to this period have been found.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


I see no point whatsoever for such unnecessary speculation. But it appears necessary if and only if one is trying to salvage the idea the stories were written in bibleland by illiterate people who could not write.


I'm certainly not giving them credit for writing the stories, if anything they were rehashed and spit out by priest shamans trying to control the people in specific areas.

Salvage, not hardly.

Even if your claim of "Created in Alexandria" is true, the stories still have myths and legends in them. The myths obviously could have been in the Library as I said.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
And of course archeology also supports that the people of Palestine and Judea clearly worshiped the pagan gods, as in mini idols and statuettes found in the homes throughout the land. These are not just from one century either, but date throughout the periods where the storytelling indicates the Yahweh was the god of the land.  Of course they deny that it is significant and represents only those that fell away from the one true god.


The only two inscriptions found are funerary and mention Yahweh and his consort Ashara. There is no indication of Yahweh alone. The statues that have been found are most all of Ashara alone but a few have room for her consort Yahweh. A god/goddss pair was the norm for local deities. As for the written historical records there are mentions of both Beit Astarte and Beit Yahweh. Herod built a Beit Astarte in Caesarea. That the pious translate the former as Strato's Tower and the later as temple of Yahweh is justified solely by knowing Astarte was not worshipped -- because the women left no written records of course. aSTaRT and STRaTo are the same name without vowels. Beit is dwelling place and takes its English translation based upon what the believer knows it cannot mean.


So it appears we still agree. The Yahweh of old was derived from Ugaritic origins and was a sub god of El. His consort was Astarte or Ashara sometimes just called Asherah. Asherah is the name for any consort of a god. Yahweh and one of the Ba'als may also be considered the same god as well.

See - The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S Smith.

p 64 - " In conclusion, according to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbors in either number or configuration of deities. Rather the number of deities in Israel was typical for the region."

Throughout this book the author makes clear that Israel (Samaria and its allied cities) was not different than any other kingdom in the area. The Yahweh was worshiped along with Ba'al. One also needs to be aware that there were many ba'als, almost every town and city had one. The major deity called Ba'al is generally thought to have been Ba'al Shemen, a storm god, at least in the time of Ahab. Yahweh also was a storm god in Ugaritic literature as well as in artifacts.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


When Alexander took Tyre, a "Strato's Tower" was north of causeway he build on the shore side of it. The bogus idea that Strato was some local military genius a centur and a half after Alexander goes back to the 4th c. AD. It is also the first mention of a military origin. Needless to say the emperor who mentioned it was a Christian.


Sounds possible, I'd have to look into that further.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

The first problem is we know what literate cultures are like. Items of religious content are the least common. If this were a legitimate local product there should be indications of tens of times more civil laws and decrees, court rulings and official records. But there is nothing. Shall we plead bibleland exceptionalism?
The second is, in what language was it written? So they are dragged off to Babylon from bibleland where all the known inscriptions are written in Phoenician script and they come back to an illiterate culture and choose to write in hebrew a language no one ever spoke using Aramaic script from the 1st c. AD. Something has to give there. I prefer to let the believers fight and drop back to the simplest explanation, it didn't happen.
The third problem is, after 70 years in a land of dirt cheap clay to write on and a reportedly quick method of writing (despite appearances) they did not use it. They did not even use the clay. In fact, from the archaeological evidence, they did not write at all.
For believers the answer to all these problems is simple. The OT exists therefore they could write. The rest is simply rationalizing away the problems. Pardon if I find the reasoning circular.
There are more problems of course. If Ezra wrote chronological history then he, not Herodotus, is the father of history. Want to deal with that one?

I think the Ezra claim in Esdras was a writer trying to explain how these story tales suddenly appeared. There may have been legends that circulated that he's the one that saved the history of the Judeans. Legends can be creative fiction with no basis or they can have basis. I don't see basis to it.



What is the point of speculating upon the origin of material that does not appear until centuries later in Greek? As there is no physical evidence for this speculation and no need to explain anything other than origin in Egypt under the Greeks you introduce the unnecessary to salvage an origin in bibleland. That is not reasonable. But first you need a literate culture and there is no evidence of one. Therefore the speculation is a priori impossible. It is not rational to speculate that the impossible occurred.


So your view is that a scribe in Egypt just created the whole story without any myths or legends at all?

He just wrote a complete fiction drawing on nothing but his own imagination? He or they more likely had a huge library from which to paraphrase stories and you don't think they did so?

How many people does it take to write down a myth? Can one person document a myth or do they have to have school houses in every village for that to happen?

Why do we have storytelling from the Sumerians? Somebody wrote them. Did everyone there read and write? Possibly more literacy in Sumer than in backwoods places like Syria - Palestine. Lots of clay tablets even with grocery lists from Sumer.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


By local product I mean the apparent belief that it was written down by illiterate people. It is further compounded by the belief these people actually existed.


Someone existed in Hatti-land. They left behind evidence that has been found.

Not the great vast bunch of bullshit empire as in the babble stories, but small settlements and a slow growth in the southern section and a much faster growth in the Northern part.
 I do not know where the stories and myths originated. The ones not specific to the Babble have been documented in many cultures. No, I do not think illiterate people wrote anything. Clearly done by priest shamans or in the courts of kings

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Time in Babylon is a myth therefore people returning from a myth are also myths. QED


Various inscriptions by Assyrians and Babylonians claim to have captured and relocated persons from Hatti-land.

These inscriptions don't document what religious bullshit the people practiced though.

Do you want a list of them or do you already know?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.


Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms?


Assyria and Babylon documented these in clay tablets and artifacts regarding their campaigns and relocations.

They do not indicate the Bullshit found in the Babble. And NEVER do they indicate what religious bullshit was practiced.

They went out on annual booty ventures? Or you think that the part of Hatti-land where Samaria and those south of them in the hick town of Jerusalem and Lachish were special and not attacked?

Are you asking that those parts of Hatti-land be given special treatment or something? That because the Assyrians made military trips to the cities of Hatti they didn't find anyone in these areas?

If you question that they relocated people see:

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html Here Nebuchadrezzar captured the city of Judah in Hatti-land, deposing its king and setting another on the throne. This is in ABC 5 as translated by AK Grayson on the reverse lines 11-13.

The heavy tribute is not detailed in the tablet. The religion of the city of Judah is not mentioned, they could have worshiped Hadad far as anyone would know from this.  Do you think this is make belief?

Examples of Assyria taking captives goes back many years:

King Arik-den-ili approximately 1296-1308 BCE in the following tablet - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/cm/arik-den-ili.html captured an unknown city and took the captives to Ashur.

See lines 19-36.

Shalmaneser I about 1274 to 1245 BCE - See Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon (ARAB) by Daniel David Luckerbill volume 1 chapter 5 . available online at: http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/Luck/arabtoc.html

He was one of the early Assyrian kings to relocate people. See p39 section 114 where he detailed he selected their young men for service of those he conquered.

Shalmaneser III 858-824 BCE invaded Hatti-land several times. He has left several stele indicating his battles and the submission of various kings, including those of Hatti-land. see pp 200-252 in the above book.

These include:

Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III

Calah Bulls of Shalmaneser III

Marble Slab inscription of Shalmaneser III

The battle of Qarqar is also detailed.

One of the kings of Assyria practiced mass deportation on a scale never before seen, that would be Tiglath-pileser III 744-727 BCE

see pp 269-297 in ARAB above.

In his detail of tribute received he mentioned Azariah of Judah giving much tribute. (No religion mentioned) On various expeditions he killed Rezin of Damascus and worked his way down the coast. Devastating the Northern kingdom taking all of the towns but Samaria. He deposed the Meneham then installed his own named Hoshea. Most of Israel was administered by Assyria after this.

The king installed in Samaria stupidly revolts seeking help from Egypt. Shalmaneser V, the son of Tiglath-pilesar III is king and sieges Samaria for about 3 years. He dies and his successor Sargon II finished it of or he did, which is not very clear.

Either way he takes the credit - "The inhabitants of Samaria/Samerina, who agreed [and plotted] with a king [hostile to] me, not to do service and not to bring tribute [to Ashshur] and who did battle, I fought against them with the power of the great gods, my lords. I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted. I formed a unit with 200 of [their] chariots for my royal force. I settled the rest of them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria/Samerina more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands. I appointed my eunuch as governor over them. And I counted them as Assyrians.(Nimrud Prisms."

It appears from Assyrian records about 20% of the Northern kingdom were relocated. You have something to dispute the records of Assyria on this?

The next event affecting Hatti-land would be Lachish which was totally destroyed - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lachish_Relief,_British_Museum_1.jpg

Sennacherib would then force the Kingdom of Judah (or whatever you'd like to call it to submit):

"As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him— the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I lad upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers." - From Column 3 of the Sennacherib Prisim

Is Sennacherib lying about Lachish and Hezekiah? Did the Assyrians invade a land that you claim did not exist?

Note, no religion is mentioned here, Judah is documented being invaded by Assyria, did it happen or not?

He is exaggerating about the captives probably unless he counted all of the animals with the people and even then I'd have doubts.

Nebuchadrezzar II claimed in ABC 5 to have deposed a king  of Judah and put another on the throne taking heavy tribute - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

Once again Note : there is nothing here that tells one the religion of these people.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.


I use the clay tablets for such, not bullshit by those in Hatti-land. See above. I do not know who these people prayed to, it's not in the clay tablets, your favorite, Buffy perhaps.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.

Nor is there any evidence of a southern kingdom for all the same reasons. Why not come to the same conclusion about both? This is like grasping at any straw to hold on to the belief Buffy is a real person.


The inscriptions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians do not indicate what religious bullshit was practiced in the southern part of Hatti, only that there were people and kings.

Some sort of kingdom existed in the city called Jerusalem in the land of Hatti.

So, no I'm not saying that the Babble tales have dick for validity at all. All I've indicated is the myths and legends existed that were partly utilized by the fiction writer to create his bullshit tale.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.


Again no evidence anyone was taken there. But then how are you going to salvage the idea they returned literate at all? And after that without the tools of literacy?



It appears some people were taken there according to Assyria and Babylon.

The tales may have been written in Greek or in Pig Latin as far as anyone knows, it matters not. They contain the myths and bullshit that is impossible. That some of them use actual events means someone read or knew of the events connected to Assyria and Babylon. That the rest is Sci-Fi and fiction is obvious.

Why deny there were countries in Hatti-land? It appears that Assyria and Babylon could tell they were there.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today reimagining a story like many people today reimagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.


Except the tales you claim were being given legitimacy are not in evidence rather only in your imagination. It is not reasonable to imagine something and then come up with a rationalization for your imaginings that salvages a bibleland origin which is based upon nothing but a forgery.

 

The tales and myths I refer to are in Ugaritic stories, Egyptian myths, and Sumerian as well. The other BS in the Babble is creative fiction fitting some of the myths and real historical people into the storytales. If done in Egypt then the use of alot of the myths from there would make sense. As Egypt was not isolated and had a large library the fiction writers would have had access to the myths and legends of others. Perhaps you are correct the Babble was created there. As it contains references to many real kings and leaders, misunderstood many times, and lots of events that could never have happened, someone had access to historical info. That they even got much of that wrong indicates they were using inaccurate info or altered it to suit their goals.

So, all in all I see why you consider it made in Egypt, you may be on to something. I can see how they could have done it.

____________________________________________________________
"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
.

Jimenezj wrote:
It's a simple question Mouse, even for a student. Perhaps you would like To answer it. Which method do you use and why?

I use the same method I use on all psychics. I laugh at them and pity the poor fools dumb enough to believe they are psychics.

 

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
pt 1

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
...

Buffy and Angel were clearly from the mind of Joss Wheldon.


He is a creator of fiction. I use him as a point of comparison to other fiction writers.


And even Joss used legends in his fiction. Though they eventually started making up names of demons as they were running out. See the DVD's extra material for details

We recognize the use of legends because we can point to the legends. We can recognize a few legends in the Septuagint because know of them independently such as the Gilgamesh flood although I do not consider that necessarily correct as any remarkably large flood would do. However none of them are specific to the bibleland stories. We may speculate specific to bibleland legends existed but absent evidence they did in fact exist it is nothing but speculation. No rational person accepts speculation as fact.

Further when the entire purpose of the speculation is to salvage some fragment of the Septuagint stories, ancient origins in far away lands in this case, the objective is clearly self-serving to the ends of the believers, without value other than in preserving belief and assumes the conclusion in the speculation which is a logical fallacy.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
There was probably no singular basis for the storytelling, the Jewish book of myths draws on many others incorporating rewritten tales of others in the Sci-Fi and creative writing.


It is clear from the Whedon example there is no need for multiple sources. It cannot be other than idle speculation as to the number of sources without concrete examples of what was copied. It adds nothing to the subject.

I have exchanged posts with a man who claims to read Greek and to have read the Septuagint who told me it reads uniformly and with the same style throughout.


There may have been no need, yet the Babble does use other storytelling myths. Perhaps taken out of the archives in the Library.


The Alexandrian library gets us right back to Greek authorship. Greek interest gets us to the proxy war in the mid 2nd c. BC. Aramaic was the language of bibleland at that time so any use of Greek resources for creation by Judeans could only have been into Aramaic which thus excludes them as authors. Assuming they were written by Judeans in Alexandria writing in Greek adds needless complexity and cannot be verified at this time.


Quote:
The Genesis myths incorporate Egyptian where there existed only the primeval ocean of chaos for example. If created in Alexandria as you claim, many of these would be used. Though this story is not unique to them.

 

Not only that I believe I have made a credible case that the characteristics of Amun were given to the minor deity Yahweh. This further establishes authorship by Greeks in Egypt.

 

Quote:
In Sumer a similar story is explained, Nammu, the sea, gave birth to heaven and earth or An and Ki, see ETCSL.

According to Sumerian myths, man did not receive eternal life thanks to Adapa who fails to drink the water of life and the bread of life when he is called before An after disrupting the south wind.

The goddess Nin-ti is the lady of the rib in Sumerian myths.

Enki and Ninmah (aka Nunhurgsag or Ki) create man out of clay in Sumerian myths.

Amun in Egyptian mythology also created the first people out of clay. One does not have to go to ancient Sumaria to get the same myth. Amun was also the first god. There were no gods before him.

Quote:
Then we have the flood myths, Sumerian and ancient Babylonian where the noise of man disturbed the gods and either Gilgamaesh or Ziudsura was saved by building a boat.

Of course we have flood myths all over the world so no particular one can be elevated to the "real" source of the one in the Septuagint.

Quote:
Psalm 74:13-14 is a rewrite of The Ba'al Cycle which is Sumerian based as well. In it Ba'al kills the henchman of Yamm, Litan and the twisty serpent that had 7 heads or the Leviathan in the OT. Babylon had it as Marduk crushing Tiamat and Kingu.

Isaiah 27:1 refers to this mistranslating sea serpent to be a dragon.

Pardon but I am aware of no evidence supporting that speculation. That variations upon dragon, worm and serpent exist all over the world does not make one source more credible than all the others as the source any more than one flood story over all the others as the source.

Quote:
Samson is much like the Greek hero Herakles or Heracles (Roman Hercules is slightly different) - from wiki - "Samson bears many similar traits to the Greek Herakles (and the Roman Hercules adaptation), inspired himself partially from the mesopotamian Enkidu tale: Herakles and Samson both battled a Lion bare handed (Lion of Nemea feat), Herakles and Samson both had a favorite primitive blunt weapon (a club for the first, an ass's jaw for the latter), they were both betrayed by a woman which led them to their ultimate fate (Herakles by Dejanira, while Samson by Delilah). Both heroes, champion of their respective people, die by their own hand: Herakles ends his life on a pyre while Samson makes the Philistine temple collapse upon himself and his enemies."

There are many more.

As with dragons and floods so also with heroes. But this one takes us back to a Greek source. As Sampson is more in the mold of the heroes of the Illiad than Herakles only strengthens the Greek connection. The heel of Achilles or the hair of Sampson matters little. Running directly to demigods often confuses the issue.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Myths from Canaan are found within as well as all of the pagan gods from Egypt to Greece and even some from the "captivity period". Babylonian and Persian myths and stories are also drawn upon. That all of these stories circulated with caravans throughout trading routes gave those who developed the stories into a religion many sources to use.  The same holds true for all of the religions of the ancients. Many were similar or were the same gods. Jews and Christians deny the connections but they are prevalent throughout the texts.


I find the distinction "pagan" to be meaningless and distracting as there is no difference save for the power of summary execution it gives the priest kings.


OK then, the gods of their ancestors which were not a single god.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Talking about caravans and trade routes and such is again nothing idle fantasy. They are unnecesary inventions serving only to make the stories appear to be other than they are. It gives a false impression of ancient or traditional when there is none in evidence. There is never a justification for extraenious hypothesis. Trust Penn Gillette but use Occam.


Sorry, there is ample proof of caravans and trade in olive oil especially from Samaria. One of the things Assyria gained after conquering Samaria (Israel) was control of the olive oil trade. Many olive oil presses dating to this period have been found.

The existence of trade does not mean one can pin any desired crime on traders. Mere knowledge of ideas from far away can be attributed to trade. The wholesale importation of that knowledge to replace local myths cannot.

The common understanding of a trade route implies the Chinese traveled to Egypt to sell silk. The Chinese travled to Persia. Persians traveled to Mesopotamia which in turn traveled to Phoenicia which then shipped to Egypt. A later or perhaps parallel route was Mesopotamia to Nabatea to Egypt. Contact with actual believers was limited to those on the previous leg of the trade.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


I see no point whatsoever for such unnecessary speculation. But it appears necessary if and only if one is trying to salvage the idea the stories were written in bibleland by illiterate people who could not write.


I'm certainly not giving them credit for writing the stories, if anything they were rehashed and spit out by priest shamans trying to control the people in specific areas.

Salvage, not hardly.

Even if your claim of "Created in Alexandria" is true, the stories still have myths and legends in them. The myths obviously could have been in the Library as I said.

As the material was most likely in the library as Alexander did collect such material and ship it there speculation upon other sources is superfluous and cannot be verified. As such it adds nothing to the subject. As an example the connection to Gilgamesh in the context of the land of its origin is superfluous as the epic was known in the west. Josephus mentions it in Against Apion. Superfluous connection to an "ancient" source appears to be salvage. Knowing the epic was known in the west why bring up its origin in this context?

Also why bring up priests and shamen when there is no need to look beyond their political value to a proxy in the conflict between the Ptolemys and the Seleucids? What is the point of ignoring the obvious? Why invoke a religious context when none is needed? Is this not salvaging the belief it is religious material when it is political material?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
And of course archeology also supports that the people of Palestine and Judea clearly worshiped the pagan gods, as in mini idols and statuettes found in the homes throughout the land. These are not just from one century either, but date throughout the periods where the storytelling indicates the Yahweh was the god of the land.  Of course they deny that it is significant and represents only those that fell away from the one true god.


The only two inscriptions found are funerary and mention Yahweh and his consort Ashara. There is no indication of Yahweh alone. The statues that have been found are most all of Ashara alone but a few have room for her consort Yahweh. A god/goddss pair was the norm for local deities. As for the written historical records there are mentions of both Beit Astarte and Beit Yahweh. Herod built a Beit Astarte in Caesarea. That the pious translate the former as Strato's Tower and the later as temple of Yahweh is justified solely by knowing Astarte was not worshipped -- because the women left no written records of course. aSTaRT and STRaTo are the same name without vowels. Beit is dwelling place and takes its English translation based upon what the believer knows it cannot mean.


So it appears we still agree. The Yahweh of old was derived from Ugaritic origins and was a sub god of El. His consort was Astarte or Ashara sometimes just called Asherah. Asherah is the name for any consort of a god. Yahweh and one of the Ba'als may also be considered the same god as well.

Sidebar: One of the several problems with name transliteration is the spelling used by the most prominent translator (or writer) is used. Problem is he used his language as a guide. (There may be more than one prominent persons who used different spellings.) If for example it was Italian it is used as such in English regardless of the pronunciation differences are the preferred English spelling. Thus Ra is Ray not Rah despite SG-1. After discovering several spelling differences were no more than differences in modern languages I started ignoring most them.

Quote:
See - The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S Smith.

One hopes we are not assuming the conclusion there was an ancient Israel.

Quote:
p 64 - " In conclusion, according to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbors in either number or configuration of deities. Rather the number of deities in Israel was typical for the region."
Hopes dashed with mythical israelites.
Quote:
Throughout this book the author makes clear that Israel (Samaria and its allied cities) was not different than any other kingdom in the area. The Yahweh was worshiped along with Ba'al. One also needs to be aware that there were many ba'als, almost every town and city had one. The major deity called Ba'al is generally thought to have been Ba'al Shemen, a storm god, at least in the time of Ahab. Yahweh also was a storm god in Ugaritic literature as well as in artifacts.

 

Abandon all hope ye who see Israel in the title. He recites a generic single male god worship when we know that was not the case. For example the Nabateans had Dushara and Al Uzzi as their male/female pair. West of Nabatea (Petra) were Yahweh and Ashara as the pair. When you see Israel in the tltle always expect some aspect of the Septuagint to be the object of salvage. In this case it is about single male god even if one has to lie by omission to deceive.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


When Alexander took Tyre, a "Strato's Tower" was north of causeway he build on the shore side of it. The bogus idea that Strato was some local military genius a centur and a half after Alexander goes back to the 4th c. AD. It is also the first mention of a military origin. Needless to say the emperor who mentioned it was a Christian.


Sounds possible, I'd have to look into that further.

The other problem being this military genius is otherwise unknown. He is invoked solely to explain away temples to Astarte where believers know they could never have existed.
Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

The first problem is we know what literate cultures are like. Items of religious content are the least common. If this were a legitimate local product there should be indications of tens of times more civil laws and decrees, court rulings and official records. But there is nothing. Shall we plead bibleland exceptionalism?
The second is, in what language was it written? So they are dragged off to Babylon from bibleland where all the known inscriptions are written in Phoenician script and they come back to an illiterate culture and choose to write in hebrew a language no one ever spoke using Aramaic script from the 1st c. AD. Something has to give there. I prefer to let the believers fight and drop back to the simplest explanation, it didn't happen.
The third problem is, after 70 years in a land of dirt cheap clay to write on and a reportedly quick method of writing (despite appearances) they did not use it. They did not even use the clay. In fact, from the archaeological evidence, they did not write at all.
For believers the answer to all these problems is simple. The OT exists therefore they could write. The rest is simply rationalizing away the problems. Pardon if I find the reasoning circular.
There are more problems of course. If Ezra wrote chronological history then he, not Herodotus, is the father of history. Want to deal with that one?

I think the Ezra claim in Esdras was a writer trying to explain how these story tales suddenly appeared. There may have been legends that circulated that he's the one that saved the history of the Judeans. Legends can be creative fiction with no basis or they can have basis. I don't see basis to it.



What is the point of speculating upon the origin of material that does not appear until centuries later in Greek? As there is no physical evidence for this speculation and no need to explain anything other than origin in Egypt under the Greeks you introduce the unnecessary to salvage an origin in bibleland. That is not reasonable. But first you need a literate culture and there is no evidence of one. Therefore the speculation is a priori impossible. It is not rational to speculate that the impossible occurred.


So your view is that a scribe in Egypt just created the whole story without any myths or legends at all?

He just wrote a complete fiction drawing on nothing but his own imagination? He or they more likely had a huge library from which to paraphrase stories and you don't think they did so?

I did not say he. I said they. I said there was no need to go beyond Alexandria for source material. I said there is no way to demonstrate they did go beyond Alexandria even if they did. In his own time Alexander was criticized for robbing the conquered of their histories. That indicates he was very thorough in taking everything in writing.

The simplest explanation consistent with the facts is most likely correct. A theory need not be extended until there are additional facts in evidence.

Quote:
How many people does it take to write down a myth? Can one person document a myth or do they have to have school houses in every village for that to happen?

Why do we have storytelling from the Sumerians? Somebody wrote them. Did everyone there read and write? Possibly more literacy in Sumer than in backwoods places like Syria - Palestine. Lots of clay tablets even with grocery lists from Sumer.

Why does one need to invoke those locations when their written material was sent to Alexandria by Alexander himself a century and a half before the Septuagint was created? 

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


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
PaulJohn

The reason why I ask the simple question is because
Your translation of Isaiah 53 leads the reader to a
Presupposition.

If you don't want to answer the question , then it would
Be for the reason of ignorance in the subject of translation.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pt 2

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


By local product I mean the apparent belief that it was written down by illiterate people. It is further compounded by the belief these people actually existed.


Someone existed in Hatti-land. They left behind evidence that has been found.

Yes, the land was inhabited. It would be remarkable if it were not.

Quote:
Not the great vast bunch of bullshit empire as in the babble stories, but small settlements and a slow growth in the southern section and a much faster growth in the Northern part.

Apparently it was at one time part of the trade route. However so far only one rich city has been found so it was not extensive growth.

Quote:
I do not know where the stories and myths originated. The ones not specific to the Babble have been documented in many cultures. No, I do not think illiterate people wrote anything. Clearly done by priest shamans or in the courts of kings

Speculation without evidence. Without evidence, nothing. Assertion of fact without evidence, foolish.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Time in Babylon is a myth therefore people returning from a myth are also myths. QED


Various inscriptions by Assyrians and Babylonians claim to have captured and relocated persons from Hatti-land.

These inscriptions don't document what religious bullshit the people practiced though.

Do you want a list of them or do you already know?

Hostages from the family of the puppet rulers left behind is not in question. The idea that something was lost because some family members were in Babylon is not reasonable. The return of family members of the ruling king imposing a religious revolution is not reasonable. The Ezra story is incredible on its face.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.


Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms?

Assyria and Babylon documented these in clay tablets and artifacts regarding their campaigns and relocations.

They do not indicate the Bullshit found in the Babble. And NEVER do they indicate what religious bullshit was practiced.

They went out on annual booty ventures? Or you think that the part of Hatti-land where Samaria and those south of them in the hick town of Jerusalem and Lachish were special and not attacked?

Are you asking that those parts of Hatti-land be given special treatment or something? That because the Assyrians made military trips to the cities of Hatti they didn't find anyone in these areas?

If you question that they relocated people see:

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html Here Nebuchadrezzar captured the city of Judah in Hatti-land, deposing its king and setting another on the throne. This is in ABC 5 as translated by AK Grayson on the reverse lines 11-13.

Quote:
12'. and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addaru he seized the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin; note 2]. 13'. He appointed there a king of his own choice [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon.

Judah not Jerusalem. King names are added by the website. Tribute not people is mentioned. How Judah was derived from non-phonetic cuneiform is anyone's guess. Arguing Judah means Jerusalem is assuming the bible conclusion. That would be special treatment. It is always advisable to read material before citing it.

Quote:
The heavy tribute is not detailed in the tablet. The religion of the city of Judah is not mentioned, they could have worshiped Hadad far as anyone would know from this.  Do you think this is make belief?

What I think is immaterial. What I know is that it is not the bible story as it does not mention anything in the bible story and is contrary to it in the matter of tribute not people. Pardon if I am one of the yes of little faith.
Quote:
Examples of Assyria taking captives goes back many years:

King Arik-den-ili approximately 1296-1308 BCE in the following tablet - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/cm/arik-den-ili.html captured an unknown city and took the captives to Ashur.

See lines 19-36.

What conceivably is there to see? I do not see how anything from that timeframe could apply.
Quote:
Shalmaneser I about 1274 to 1245 BCE - See Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon (ARAB) by Daniel David Luckerbill volume 1 chapter 5 . available online at: http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/Luck/arabtoc.html

He was one of the early Assyrian kings to relocate people. See p39 section 114 where he detailed he selected their young men for service of those he conquered.

I see no section 114. I do not see how anything those years could apply.
Quote:
Shalmaneser III 858-824 BCE invaded Hatti-land several times. He has left several stele indicating his battles and the submission of various kings, including those of Hatti-land. see pp 200-252 in the above book.

These include:

Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III

Calah Bulls of Shalmaneser III

Marble Slab inscription of Shalmaneser III

The battle of Qarqar is also detailed.

One of the kings of Assyria practiced mass deportation on a scale never before seen, that would be Tiglath-pileser III 744-727 BCE

see pp 269-297 in ARAB above.

Rather than me going through all that and guessing what you consider relevant perhaps you could QUOTE exactly what you consider relevant. What I have looked at I do not see as even of remote interest. I see no point in going it on my own and guessing.

Quote:
In his detail of tribute received he mentioned Azariah of Judah giving much tribute. (No religion mentioned) On various expeditions he killed Rezin of Damascus and worked his way down the coast. Devastating the Northern kingdom taking all of the towns but Samaria. He deposed the Meneham then installed his own named Hoshea. Most of Israel was administered by Assyria after this.

However if it all comes down to Azariah then it clealy has no connection with the Septuagint. We have the same problem with Judah in a non-phonetic language.
Quote:
The king installed in Samaria stupidly revolts seeking help from Egypt. Shalmaneser V, the son of Tiglath-pilesar III is king and sieges Samaria for about 3 years. He dies and his successor Sargon II finished it of or he did, which is not very clear.

Samaria has been stipulated. The later conquest by Judea indicates no cultural connection other than propinquity. Speculation as to what it might have been in the past is speculation, amusing entertainment but not fact.
Quote:
Either way he takes the credit - "The inhabitants of Samaria/Samerina, who agreed [and plotted] with a king [hostile to] me, not to do service and not to bring tribute [to Ashshur] and who did battle, I fought against them with the power of the great gods, my lords. I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted. I formed a unit with 200 of [their] chariots for my royal force. I settled the rest of them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria/Samerina more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands. I appointed my eunuch as governor over them. And I counted them as Assyrians.(Nimrud Prisms."

It appears from Assyrian records about 20% of the Northern kingdom were relocated. You have something to dispute the records of Assyria on this?


Stilll no connection with the Septuagint stories. You calling it Northern Kingdom is nothing more than a desire to believe the Septuagint stories. It is northern nothing until established by real arkies not fake biblical arkies.

Quote:
The next event affecting Hatti-land would be Lachish which was totally destroyed - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lachish_Relief,_British_Museum_1.jpg

For the umpteenth time, I do not deal with anonymous sources.
Quote:
Sennacherib would then force the Kingdom of Judah (or whatever you'd like to call it to submit):

"As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him— the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I lad upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers." - From Column 3 of the Sennacherib Prisim

Is Sennacherib lying about Lachish and Hezekiah? Did the Assyrians invade a land that you claim did not exist?

I have no idea where the anonymous wiki got this translation. The idea bibleland had 46 cities large enough to be walled begs the question of what country he was conquering.
Quote:
Note, no religion is mentioned here, Judah is documented being invaded by Assyria, did it happen or not?

And you suggest none of this was in the library in Alexandria?
Quote:
He is exaggerating about the captives probably unless he counted all of the animals with the people and even then I'd have doubts.

Nebuchadrezzar II claimed in ABC 5 to have deposed a king  of Judah and put another on the throne taking heavy tribute - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

Once again Note : there is nothing here that tells one the religion of these people.

Nor any need for any material not in Alexandria and likely long before Alexander was born. I do not see your point in this exercise.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.


I use the clay tablets for such, not bullshit by those in Hatti-land. See above. I do not know who these people prayed to, it's not in the clay tablets, your favorite, Buffy perhaps.

You are not showing they shared a common culture or a common set of gods nor a common ruler voluntarily. What is your point?
Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.

Nor is there any evidence of a southern kingdom for all the same reasons. Why not come to the same conclusion about both? This is like grasping at any straw to hold on to the belief Buffy is a real person.


The inscriptions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians do not indicate what religious bullshit was practiced in the southern part of Hatti, only that there were people and kings.

Some sort of kingdom existed in the city called Jerusalem in the land of Hatti.

So, no I'm not saying that the Babble tales have dick for validity at all. All I've indicated is the myths and legends existed that were partly utilized by the fiction writer to create his bullshit tale.

The inscriptions indicate nothing beyond a few names given phonetic assignment which just happens to match Septuagint names. As such they are indistinguishable from Buffy type fiction. No matter what the inscriptions they say absolutely nothing beyond what is contained in the inscriptions. They cannot be construed to show local creation of the stories.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.


Again no evidence anyone was taken there. But then how are you going to salvage the idea they returned literate at all? And after that without the tools of literacy?



It appears some people were taken there according to Assyria and Babylon.

The tales may have been written in Greek or in Pig Latin as far as anyone knows, it matters not. They contain the myths and bullshit that is impossible. That some of them use actual events means someone read or knew of the events connected to Assyria and Babylon. That the rest is Sci-Fi and fiction is obvious.

Why deny there were countries in Hatti-land? It appears that Assyria and Babylon could tell they were there.

The inscription you gave does not mention people to Babylon, therefore myth. That some may have had some relation to real events is a common conceit of historical fiction. That does not reflect credibility of the fiction. Nor does it indicate where or by who the fiction was created.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today reimagining a story like many people today reimagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.


Except the tales you claim were being given legitimacy are not in evidence rather only in your imagination. It is not reasonable to imagine something and then come up with a rationalization for your imaginings that salvages a bibleland origin which is based upon nothing but a forgery.

The tales and myths I refer to are in Ugaritic stories, Egyptian myths, and Sumerian as well. The other BS in the Babble is creative fiction fitting some of the myths and real historical people into the storytales. If done in Egypt then the use of alot of the myths from there would make sense. As Egypt was not isolated and had a large library the fiction writers would have had access to the myths and legends of others. Perhaps you are correct the Babble was created there. As it contains references to many real kings and leaders, misunderstood many times, and lots of events that could never have happened, someone had access to historical info. That they even got much of that wrong indicates they were using inaccurate info or altered it to suit their goals.

So, all in all I see why you consider it made in Egypt, you may be on to something. I can see how they could have done it.

The only vaguely related inscription refers to the replacement of one unnamed king by another unnamed king and tribute only without taking any people to Babylon.

It should be clear that EVERYTHING you have cited comes from places far from bibleland. If there were inscriptions found in bibleland that tell the local versions of these events then and only then would it be credible to suggest there were local versions of these stories. There are none. Suggesting there were local versions of these stories is nothing but imagining. Any implication of knowing the content of these imaginary local stories is delusional.

 

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
.

Jimenezj wrote:
The reason why I ask the simple question is because Your translation of Isaiah 53 leads the reader to a Presupposition. If you don't want to answer the question , then it would Be for the reason of ignorance in the subject of translation.

Not wasting time on psychics is the ratinoal thing. I question myself wasting time on you who believes in psychics.

 

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: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response to Anony #104

It's clear to me you and I are talking around each other.

One has to tread very carefully when one has a discussion with you, you make that very clear.

It appears your only interest in the ancient Mid-East is after 200 BCE.

When someone discusses an earlier period with you perhaps a list of acceptable names for countries or city-states might be required.

Or maybe you should just say you don't care to talk about it at all.

I had to revert to Assyrian names because you seem to get the wrong idea when other names are used.

As I mentioned, the Assyrians called the area Hatti or Hatti-land.



What names do you use for the city states in place in:

1000 BCE to 800 BCE?

800 BCE to 600 BCE?

You obviously have the wrong impression of what I've been trying to say to you:

One - When I mentioned Israel, a term I also detest, I only mean the city-state and alliance of Semaria aka Samaria. The kingdom called Israel was called (Bet Hu-um-ri-ia)  Bit-Humria (House of Omri) by the Assyrians with a country name of (Sa-mir-i-na) Samerina. The name I will use with you from here on will be either Bit-Humria of Samerina.

This does not indicate I have bought into the storytale of Babbleland, it indicates I consider there was a city-state that had control in the territory that is erroneously described to be part of the Babbleland fairy tales. I have seen no evidence to indicate that this city-state that was generally considered to be in the area South And West of Damascus over to what was called Lebanon somewhere near Acre with a southern border somewhere about 10 to 15 miles North of the city-state called Jerusalem ruled by Jebusites or whoever these people were.

Does this mean I buy into Babble tales? Not at all, it means I recognize the area was populated and various city-states had control over specific areas.

Two - The city-state called Jerusalem and supposed country of Judah showed no sign of any modernization or major populations until AFTER the kingdom of Bit-Humria, Samerina was decimated by the Assyrians. This is in complete contrast to the Babble myths and fairytales. See Finkelstein Bible Unearthed for more.

One of the things that frustrates me is how Christians have contaminated and attempted to alter and insert Babble crap into the words and history that there is. It's virtually impossible to do a Goggle search without getting pages of babble about this and that that are nothing more than conjecture based on fantasy stories in the Babble. In reality, the clay tablets do not support or say that which the believers misconstrue them to indicate. Perhaps that is why you take such a hard ass position so you do not have to deal with myths promoted as real and distortion by believers. Unfortunately, I attempt to understand these civilizations in Palestine-Syria and have to wade through the crap weaved by believers. It makes it very difficult to communicate with both believers and those like you and me who see nothing at all to support the fairy tales in history.

You have chosen the time of the creation of the LXX to be the creation date of the fairy tales, perhaps it is a good date as any. That there is nothing found in any way to support any of the fairy tales should be obvious to any educated person. Yet, a simple mention of a city or finding a pot shard with some scribbles on it suddenly validates for them all is true. If such was the case, you'd think we'd have also found the gods of Mt Olympus by now as well.



A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:



And even Joss used legends in his fiction. Though they eventually started making up names of demons as they were running out. See the DVD's extra material for details


We recognize the use of legends because we can point to the legends. We can recognize a few legends in the Septuagint because know of them independently such as the Gilgamesh flood although I do not consider that necessarily correct as any remarkably large flood would do. However none of them are specific to the bibleland stories. We may speculate specific to bibleland legends existed but absent evidence they did in fact exist it is nothing but speculation. No rational person accepts speculation as fact.


OK, I see your point and why you are so hard about it. I agree, none of the legends are specific to the fairy tales of Babbleland.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Further when the entire purpose of the speculation is to salvage some fragment of the Septuagint stories, ancient origins in far away lands in this case, the objective is clearly self-serving to the ends of the believers, without value other than in preserving belief and assumes the conclusion in the speculation which is a logical fallacy.


My purpose is not to salvage anything from the storytales. As with Urban Legends, there is an origin, usually nothing at all like what is propagated.

All that I or anyone knows for sure is:

The area of Palestine - Syria or Hatti-Land had some population centers in the period from 2000 BCE to 200 BCE.

The area was dominated by the Old Babylonian Empire, the Mitanni, the Hittites, Egypt, Assyia, Babylon, Persia, Seleucids, Ptolemy, and Rome.

There were cities and towns. There were many gods worshiped.

There were some kings and city-states. Some of the kings had names which are found in various clay tablets or stela.

Some of the kings wrote detail propaganda in regard to their victories over others (mostly those from Mesopotamia)

There were many invasions and battles.

That's about all there is to know for sure.

What archeology has found indicates exactly that and no more.


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
PJTS wrote:


There may have been no need, yet the Babble does use other storytelling myths. Perhaps taken out of the archives in the Library.



The Alexandrian library gets us right back to Greek authorship. Greek interest gets us to the proxy war in the mid 2nd c. BC. Aramaic was the language of bibleland at that time so any use of Greek resources for creation by Judeans could only have been into Aramaic which thus excludes them as authors. Assuming they were written by Judeans in Alexandria writing in Greek adds needless complexity and cannot be verified at this time.


Since the Library burned, we don't know what languages were there, but supposedly many. I do understand your rigid viewpoint and position for the Greek.

The Greek exists, it pops out suddenly at the time of the Judean Wars. Judeans spoke Aramaic generally. So it is pure conjecture to consider it made in Judea.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
The Genesis myths incorporate Egyptian where there existed only the primeval ocean of chaos for example. If created in Alexandria as you claim, many of these would be used. Though this story is not unique to them.

 

Not only that I believe I have made a credible case that the characteristics of Amun were given to the minor deity Yahweh. This further establishes authorship by Greeks in Egypt.

 


Sounds plausible.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
In Sumer a similar story is explained, Nammu, the sea, gave birth to heaven and earth or An and Ki, see ETCSL.

According to Sumerian myths, man did not receive eternal life thanks to Adapa who fails to drink the water of life and the bread of life when he is called before An after disrupting the south wind.

The goddess Nin-ti is the lady of the rib in Sumerian myths.

Enki and Ninmah (aka Nunhurgsag or Ki) create man out of clay in Sumerian myths.


Amun in Egyptian mythology also created the first people out of clay. One does not have to go to ancient Sumaria to get the same myth. Amun was also the first god. There were no gods before him.


I have spent years studying Ancient Iraq and their legends and stories. The commerce between the earliest cities in Mesopotamia and Egypt intermixed the stories of both in my opinion. Which really does not matter for the points you are making.

I use Sumer, as I'm more familar with them than any other, while you use Egypt. Some idea, different way to get there.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Then we have the flood myths, Sumerian and ancient Babylonian where the noise of man disturbed the gods and either Gilgamaesh or Ziudsura was saved by building a boat.


Of course we have flood myths all over the world so no particular one can be elevated to the "real" source of the one in the Septuagint.


True, and the Sumerian one was only 7 days not 40, more like a hurricane going up the Persian Gulf from the descriptions. It proves only that people liked to discuss tragic events then just like now. Over time, all of them morphed from whatever may have actually happened such that it's impossible to determine anything of substance.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Psalm 74:13-14 is a rewrite of The Ba'al Cycle which is Sumerian based as well. In it Ba'al kills the henchman of Yamm, Litan and the twisty serpent that had 7 heads or the Leviathan in the OT. Babylon had it as Marduk crushing Tiamat and Kingu.

Isaiah 27:1 refers to this mistranslating sea serpent to be a dragon.


Pardon but I am aware of no evidence supporting that speculation. That variations upon dragon, worm and serpent exist all over the world does not make one source more credible than all the others as the source any more than one flood story over all the others as the source.


Go read the Ba'al cycle of Ugaritic origin and the Sumerian version of Tiamat and Kingu (it's found on ETCSL) and compare to the Psalm for yourself.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Samson is much like the Greek hero Herakles or Heracles (Roman Hercules is slightly different) - from wiki - "Samson bears many similar traits to the Greek Herakles (and the Roman Hercules adaptation), inspired himself partially from the Mesopotamian Enkidu tale: Herakles and Samson both battled a Lion bare handed (Lion of Nemea feat), Herakles and Samson both had a favorite primitive blunt weapon (a club for the first, an ass's jaw for the latter), they were both betrayed by a woman which led them to their ultimate fate (Herakles by Dejanira, while Samson by Delilah). Both heroes, champion of their respective people, die by their own hand: Herakles ends his life on a pyre while Samson makes the Philistine temple collapse upon himself and his enemies."

There are many more.


As with dragons and floods so also with heroes. But this one takes us back to a Greek source. As Sampson is more in the mold of the heroes of the Illiad than Herakles only strengthens the Greek connection. The heel of Achilles or the hair of Sampson matters little. Running directly to demigods often confuses the issue.


I know it's from a Greek Source, which adds to your point.



A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
PJTS wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Talking about caravans and trade routes and such is again nothing idle fantasy. They are unnecesary inventions serving only to make the stories appear to be other than they are. It gives a false impression of ancient or traditional when there is none in evidence. There is never a justification for extraenious hypothesis. Trust Penn Gillette but use Occam.


Sorry, there is ample proof of caravans and trade in olive oil especially from Samaria. One of the things Assyria gained after conquering Samaria (Israel) was control of the olive oil trade. Many olive oil presses dating to this period have been found.


The existence of trade does not mean one can pin any desired crime on traders. Mere knowledge of ideas from far away can be attributed to trade. The wholesale importation of that knowledge to replace local myths cannot.

The common understanding of a trade route implies the Chinese traveled to Egypt to sell silk. The Chinese travled to Persia. Persians traveled to Mesopotamia which in turn traveled to Phoenicia which then shipped to Egypt. A later or perhaps parallel route was Mesopotamia to Nabatea to Egypt. Contact with actual believers was limited to those on the previous leg of the trade.


What crime do you speak of?

I'm aware of the trade routes. There was also olive oil shipped out of Hatti-land, sunken ships in the Med also attest to that. Olive presses dating to the period right after Assyria stomped Samerina into final submission have been found in great abundance in Ekron or Tel Miqne. See Finkelstein p269 of Bible Unearthed and see - http://www.aiar.org/docs/ekronsummary.pdf Ekron was in fact a city of the Philistines or Sea Peoples, but the data supports the production of olive oil for trade under the Assyrians.

This in no way supports Babble Tales.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


I see no point whatsoever for such unnecessary speculation. But it appears necessary if and only if one is trying to salvage the idea the stories were written in bibleland by illiterate people who could not write.


I'm certainly not giving them credit for writing the stories, if anything they were rehashed and spit out by priest shamans trying to control the people in specific areas.

Salvage, not hardly.

Even if your claim of "Created in Alexandria" is true, the stories still have myths and legends in them. The myths obviously could have been in the Library as I said.


As the material was most likely in the library as Alexander did collect such material and ship it there speculation upon other sources is superfluous and cannot be verified. As such it adds nothing to the subject. As an example the connection to Gilgamesh in the context of the land of its origin is superfluous as the epic was known in the west. Josephus mentions it in Against Apion. Superfluous connection to an "ancient" source appears to be salvage. Knowing the epic was known in the west why bring up its origin in this context?

Also why bring up priests and shamen when there is no need to look beyond their political value to a proxy in the conflict between the Ptolemys and the Seleucids? What is the point of ignoring the obvious? Why invoke a religious context when none is needed? Is this not salvaging the belief it is religious material when it is political material?


Not really, it only indicates people liked to tell stories and they bought into mystical bullshit because of ignorance. Though, we have many people today who should be able to tell bullshit fantasy from reality that are educated and they delude themselves for one reason or the other.

Pretty much, they think there has to be something more and piss away the life they have ignoring the obvious.

I will try to not give holes for people to grasp at scraps to validate their bullshit beliefs in the future. Sorry you got the wrong idea.


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
See - The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S Smith.


One hopes we are not assuming the conclusion there was an ancient Israel.


Not in a biblical sense I'm not. The area in question was inhabited as documented by Assyria.

Again, a city-state called Bit-Humria or Samerina existed, I do not see where it ever was called Israel by any of the main players in the time period, so I will not use that name ever again. I agree it is mythical, though it means I have to describe what I mean to the believers each and ever time what I mean, though they won't get it even then.


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
p 64 - " In conclusion, according to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbors in either number or configuration of deities. Rather the number of deities in Israel was typical for the region."

Hopes dashed with mythical israelites.


Sorry the author used Israelite, he should have used the word Samerina or Bit-Humria to which it really means, as there was never a country called Israel in the time period mentioned by other countries that I have seen specifically correctly translated.


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Throughout this book the author makes clear that Israel (Samaria and its allied cities) was not different than any other kingdom in the area. The Yahweh was worshiped along with Ba'al. One also needs to be aware that there were many ba'als, almost every town and city had one. The major deity called Ba'al is generally thought to have been Ba'al Shemen, a storm god, at least in the time of Ahab. Yahweh also was a storm god in Ugaritic literature as well as in artifacts.

 

Abandon all hope ye who see Israel in the title. He recites a generic single male god worship when we know that was not the case. For example the Nabateans had Dushara and Al Uzzi as their male/female pair. West of Nabatea (Petra) were Yahweh and Ashara as the pair. When you see Israel in the tltle always expect some aspect of the Septuagint to be the object of salvage. In this case it is about single male god even if one has to lie by omission to deceive.


I see your point, as in fact multiple male gods are described for the time period in question. And I agree with your frustration and people's grasping at straws to create Israel a land that never was.




A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
How many people does it take to write down a myth? Can one person document a myth or do they have to have school houses in every village for that to happen?

Why do we have storytelling from the Sumerians? Somebody wrote them. Did everyone there read and write? Possibly more literacy in Sumer than in backwoods places like Syria - Palestine. Lots of clay tablets even with grocery lists from Sumer.

Why does one need to invoke those locations when their written material was sent to Alexandria by Alexander himself a century and a half before the Septuagint was created?



I'm not certain that the written material of the Sumerians and the Old Babylonian Empire made it to Alexandria, probably not, they weren't on paper but on clay tablets. Many were lost to time for centuries and probably forgotten by the time Alexander reached Mesopotamia. Even in the time of Nebuchadrezzar many had been lost.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
pt 1

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It's clear to me you and I are talking around each other.

One has to tread very carefully when one has a discussion with you, you make that very clear.

I have been in public discussion of these issues for decades. Take for example I will not use "canaanite" as shorthand because I have had third parties jump in with 'you believe in the Canaanites but not the Jews.' Worse than just believers, when it comes to the Septuagint there is a legion of pseudo-atheist political hacks for Israel. According to Israeli papers Israel even trains and pays some of them. I can't say for sure I have seen them here. The characteristic is a person who has never participated in the discussion jumps on a typo of mine with a post that shows he has been closely following the discussion essentially waiting for an opportunity to score points.

Call me paranoid but it only causes me to maintain an "academic" precision in my posts which is a good thing. I agree it can annoy others.

Quote:
It appears your only interest in the ancient Mid-East is after 200 BCE.

When someone discusses an earlier period with you perhaps a list of acceptable names for countries or city-states might be required.

Or maybe you should just say you don't care to talk about it at all.

I have no idea how I have given that impression. To the contrary when an inscription related to conquest in what is presumably bibleland I pointed out it says Judah not Jerusalam, it talks about one unnamed king replacing another and tribute only being sent to Babylon. When connecting ancient Ur with certain bible stories was raised I pointed out the same stories existed in then contemporary Egypt.

I have also talked rather extensively of the archaeology of bibleland back to nearly 1000 BC. Agreed my discussion is largely to dismiss a connection but I receive no reply arging for a substantive connection.

Quote:
I had to revert to Assyrian names because you seem to get the wrong idea when other names are used.

As I mentioned, the Assyrians called the area Hatti or Hatti-land.

Should some day a map or extensive verbal description of what was meant by that name I will deal with it. Until that happens I cannot see using it as a synonym for or a different name for the lands in the Septuagint. It leads believers and political hacks to 'there really was an Israel just under a different name.' I have seen it happen when the Egyptian term for the general region was introduced.

Specifically there is no reason to believe from any contextual usage that either name means any more than our term middle east. I have no problem with using middle east. I have no problem with eastern Med or east coast of the Med. However believers and pseudo-atheists will not use regional or geographic references. They will only use terms that can be construed as alternate names for names used in the Septuagint.

Quote:
What names do you use for the city states in place in:

1000 BCE to 800 BCE?

800 BCE to 600 BCE?

So far as I am aware several places have names based on the Amarna letters but from a different time frame. I have no problem with archaeological or historical discovery of names. I have a problem with arbitrarily assigning names from the Septuagint without evidence. I have a greater problem with fake archaeologists declaring a known name is "really" a city named in the bible. Everyone should have a problem with biblical (fake) archaeologists who are looking for places named in the Septuagint because they know what they must discover before they discover it. Torturing the data until it confesses is a disreputable procedure.

Quote:
You obviously have the wrong impression of what I've been trying to say to you:

One - When I mentioned Israel, a term I also detest, I only mean the city-state and alliance of Semaria aka Samaria. The kingdom called Israel was called (Bet Hu-um-ri-ia)  Bit-Humria (House of Omri) by the Assyrians with a country name of (Sa-mir-i-na) Samerina. The name I will use with you from here on will be either Bit-Humria of Samerina.

An alliance requires at least two. I see no way to get two out of the existence of Samaria alone. I see no way to jump from city-state to kingdom. I see no reason to do so other than the Septuagint in English translation refers to kingdom. English often requires a distinction between kingdom and hereditary kingdom which were different political systems such as the currently popular president for life.

The introduction of country is also not warranted. The capital of the city-state of Attica was Athens despite the confused common usage. One could go as far as the capital of the city-state of Samaria was the city of Omri. Bit, Byt, BT, Beth all mean dwelling place. The specific English translation follows who or what lives in the word it modifies. City, house, temple, region are all valid translations depending upon what it refers to.

Which leaves us with a single city-state which, because of things found there by archaeologists, appears to have been on a trade route to Egypt. That gives it no connection whatsoever with the Septuagint stories which do not seem to know about trade routes.

You still haven't worked an Israel into this save by assertion.

Quote:
This does not indicate I have bought into the storytale of Babbleland, it indicates I consider there was a city-state that had control in the territory that is erroneously described to be part of the Babbleland fairy tales. I have seen no evidence to indicate that this city-state that was generally considered to be in the area South And West of Damascus over to what was called Lebanon somewhere near Acre with a southern border somewhere about 10 to 15 miles North of the city-state called Jerusalem ruled by Jebusites or whoever these people were.

There is a huge gap between 'erroneously described' and fairytale. Archaeology gives us nothing but a name similarity. One cannot go from name similarity to erroneous description. One cannot go further than picking an old name for use in a fanciful tale. Words not only have meanings they have semantic baggage. Erroneous implies an intent to be correct. Description implies the reality is related to the description in more than one point, i.e. rich.

As to your geographical description I am unaware of any arkie find supporting that. What are you using? Imagining is not a substitute for evidence.

Quote:
Does this mean I buy into Babble tales? Not at all, it means I recognize the area was populated and various city-states had control over specific areas.

Nor can one jump from a single example to multiple city states save as a general political organization of the time. Once you go to the plural believers take it as confirmation of a city-state of Jerusalem at that time when by the only available evidence it appeared some time after Alexander and before Pompey which is centuries later.

Quote:
Two - The city-state called Jerusalem and supposed country of Judah showed no sign of any modernization or major populations until AFTER the kingdom of Bit-Humria, Samerina was decimated by the Assyrians. This is in complete contrast to the Babble myths and fairytales. See Finkelstein Bible Unearthed for more.

I do not remember Finkelstein presenting any evidence of such a Jerusalem or of a Judah in this time frame or before it or any time after it nor of any sudden growth immediately after. If it is not immediately after there is no basis for holding there was a causal connection. Arguing things happened more slowly is argumentation not evidence. Mere assertion is not evidence. I have found no evidence of this from any source. What have you found?

I do remember the gratuitous use of Judah leaving believers with plenty of wiggle room to believe whatever they want. Unfortunately believers are happy with "entirely different but still the same" which appears to come part and parcel with believerhood. I do remember him in later interviews and discussions declining to provide specifics declaring his expertise was in another time frame and another place and deferring to unnamed people who claimed it as their area of expertise. I view the book as ill-conceived and politically constrained.

Quote:
One of the things that frustrates me is how Christians have contaminated and attempted to alter and insert Babble crap into the words and history that there is.

And that compares to justifying a jewish military tyranny, on-going murder and land theft, and oppression in mythical "judea" and "samaria" in which reality? You are looking in the wrong place for negative impact.

Quote:
It's virtually impossible to do a Goggle search without getting pages of babble about this and that that are nothing more than conjecture based on fantasy stories in the Babble.

Rather than virtually impossible it is literally impossible to read the news from Israel and not be confronted with real atrocities in the name of this fantasy on a daily basis except for Saturdays when they don't publish but the Sunday editions make up for it.

Quote:
In reality, the clay tablets do not support or say that which the believers misconstrue them to indicate. Perhaps that is why you take such a hard ass position so you do not have to deal with myths promoted as real and distortion by believers. Unfortunately, I attempt to understand these civilizations in Palestine-Syria and have to wade through the crap weaved by believers. It makes it very difficult to communicate with both believers and those like you and me who see nothing at all to support the fairy tales in history.

Archaeology is a science. What you choose to call hard ass is that same attitude I take to any science. It is archaeology which establishes without question and in need of no further discussion the Septuagint did not originate in bibleland. From there the question becomes where. Most all the rest I say on the subject is to show there is nothing inconsistent with Greek authorship in Alexandria.

That may be what gives you the impression I am only interested in that time frame. Archaeology has excluded anything before the Septuagint or in bibleland as a possible origin.

Quote:
You have chosen the time of the creation of the LXX to be the creation date of the fairy tales, perhaps it is a good date as any. That there is nothing found in any way to support any of the fairy tales should be obvious to any educated person. Yet, a simple mention of a city or finding a pot shard with some scribbles on it suddenly validates for them all is true. If such was the case, you'd think we'd have also found the gods of Mt Olympus by now as well.

The time frame for creation comes from dating the letter and political events and a proxy war and the two books of Maccabe appearing all occurring at roughly the same time.

 

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: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response to Anony post 106

Further attempt to clarify.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


By local product I mean the apparent belief that it was written down by illiterate people. It is further compounded by the belief these people actually existed.


Someone existed in Hatti-land. They left behind evidence that has been found.


Yes, the land was inhabited. It would be remarkable if it were not.


OK then.

Samerina was not the biblical land of Israel. Whatever the area around Jerusalem was it also was not as the biblical fairytales indicate.
 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Time in Babylon is a myth therefore people returning from a myth are also myths. QED


Various inscriptions by Assyrians and Babylonians claim to have captured and relocated persons from Hatti-land.

These inscriptions don't document what religious bullshit the people practiced though.

Do you want a list of them or do you already know?


Hostages from the family of the puppet rulers left behind is not in question. The idea that something was lost because some family members were in Babylon is not reasonable. The return of family members of the ruling king imposing a religious revolution is not reasonable. The Ezra story is incredible on its face.


The actual inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar do not go into detail. There are no inscriptions of the supposed 2nd attack and seige of Jerusalem at all to support the Babble tales. As far as Babylon records are concerned it is undocumented.

Undocumented means there is no support for the Captivity from any record of Nebuchadrezzar.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:




Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.


Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms?


Assyria and Babylon documented these in clay tablets and artifacts regarding their campaigns and relocations.

They do not indicate the Bullshit found in the Babble. And NEVER do they indicate what religious bullshit was practiced.

They went out on annual booty ventures? Or you think that the part of Hatti-land where Samaria and those south of them in the hick town of Jerusalem and Lachish were special and not attacked?

Are you asking that those parts of Hatti-land be given special treatment or something? That because the Assyrians made military trips to the cities of Hatti they didn't find anyone in these areas?

If you question that they relocated people see:

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html Here Nebuchadrezzar captured the city of Judah in Hatti-land, deposing its king and setting another on the throne. This is in ABC 5 as translated by AK Grayson on the reverse lines 11-13.


Quote:
12'. and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addaru he seized the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin; note 2]. 13'. He appointed there a king of his own choice [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon.


Judah not Jerusalem. King names are added by the website. Tribute not people is mentioned. How Judah was derived from non-phonetic cuneiform is anyone's guess. Arguing Judah means Jerusalem is assuming the bible conclusion. That would be special treatment. It is always advisable to read material before citing it.


OK, the word used is Judah, which city is not detailed.

I agree, the details of what tribute meant are not given.

Actually, AK Grayson added the names, how he did that would mean me going to a large library or the local Jesuit one where I have access to read the details as the book costs too much and is not online.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:




Quote:
The heavy tribute is not detailed in the tablet. The religion of the city of Judah is not mentioned, they could have worshiped Hadad far as anyone would know from this.  Do you think this is make belief?

What I think is immaterial. What I know is that it is not the bible story as it does not mention anything in the bible story and is contrary to it in the matter of tribute not people. Pardon if I am one of the yes of little faith.
Quote:
Examples of Assyria taking captives goes back many years:

King Arik-den-ili approximately 1296-1308 BCE in the following tablet - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/cm/arik-den-ili.html captured an unknown city and took the captives to Ashur.

See lines 19-36.

What conceivably is there to see? I do not see how anything from that timeframe could apply.
Quote:
Shalmaneser I about 1274 to 1245 BCE - See Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon (ARAB) by Daniel David Luckerbill volume 1 chapter 5 . available online at: http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/Luck/arabtoc.html

He was one of the early Assyrian kings to relocate people. See p39 section 114 where he detailed he selected their young men for service of those he conquered.

I see no section 114. I do not see how anything those years could apply.
Quote:
Shalmaneser III 858-824 BCE invaded Hatti-land several times. He has left several stele indicating his battles and the submission of various kings, including those of Hatti-land. see pp 200-252 in the above book.

These include:

Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III

Calah Bulls of Shalmaneser III

Marble Slab inscription of Shalmaneser III

The battle of Qarqar is also detailed.

One of the kings of Assyria practiced mass deportation on a scale never before seen, that would be Tiglath-pileser III 744-727 BCE

see pp 269-297 in ARAB above.


Rather than me going through all that and guessing what you consider relevant perhaps you could QUOTE exactly what you consider relevant. What I have looked at I do not see as even of remote interest. I see no point in going it on my own and guessing.


The only point of bringing up all of the older Assyrian kings and inscriptions was your statement in post # 89

A_Nony_Mouse #89 wrote:


PJTS wrote:
The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.



Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms? Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.


Your response seemed to me to be a denial that Assyria and Babylon relocated people. As to specific countries, I did not mention any in my statement.

My response to this was to give you details of inscriptions where they captured and relocated people.

We were talking around each other here and not grasping what was being said.

I did not indicate here the Babble story had basis in clay tablets for the captivity.

The inscriptions of Sargon II, Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser III indicate persons from Samerina were relocated, They did not call it the mythical name Israel either.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:



Quote:
The king installed in Samaria stupidly revolts seeking help from Egypt. Shalmaneser V, the son of Tiglath-pilesar III is king and sieges Samaria for about 3 years. He dies and his successor Sargon II finished it of or he did, which is not very clear.

Samaria has been stipulated. The later conquest by Judea indicates no cultural connection other than propinquity. Speculation as to what it might have been in the past is speculation, amusing entertainment but not fact.


We are once again talking around one another.

My point was to show that the Assyrians decimated Samerina because of your statement in post 89 that seemed to deny they did so or relocated persons.

As to there being any relationship between Samerina and the Bible fantasy kingdoms supposedly south of them, I have never found any in clay tablets.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Either way he takes the credit - "The inhabitants of Samaria/Samerina, who agreed [and plotted] with a king [hostile to] me, not to do service and not to bring tribute [to Ashshur] and who did battle, I fought against them with the power of the great gods, my lords. I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted. I formed a unit with 200 of [their] chariots for my royal force. I settled the rest of them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria/Samerina more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands. I appointed my eunuch as governor over them. And I counted them as Assyrians.(Nimrud Prisms."

It appears from Assyrian records about 20% of the Northern kingdom were relocated. You have something to dispute the records of Assyria on this?


Still no connection with the Septuagint stories. You calling it Northern Kingdom is nothing more than a desire to believe the Septuagint stories. It is northern nothing until established by real arkies not fake biblical arkies.


Exactly, no connection. Henceforth I use Samerina not Northern Kingdom or Israel since I do not buy into the mythical Israel either, so no desire to believe them, actually I'm arguing against the LXX stories.

No mythical Israel is documented in any clay tablets or Inscriptions except by fake bible Arkies who misconstrue the wordings.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
The next event affecting Hatti-land would be Lachish which was totally destroyed - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lachish_Relief,_British_Museum_1.jpg

For the umpteenth time, I do not deal with anonymous sources.


 

That was just a JPG or a photo.

 


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Sennacherib would then force the Kingdom of Judah (or whatever you'd like to call it to submit):

"As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by leveling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him— the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I lad upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers." - From Column 3 of the Sennacherib Prisim

Is Sennacherib lying about Lachish and Hezekiah? Did the Assyrians invade a land that you claim did not exist?

I have no idea where the anonymous wiki got this translation. The idea bibleland had 46 cities large enough to be walled begs the question of what country he was conquering.


You seem to have a word file on your own web site that goes into this from 4-8-2005.

So it seems you argue against the translations of all of the inscriptions of Sennacherib, The Taylor prism, and The Prism of Sennacherib.

The following link is from univ of Texas adopted from David Daniel Luckenbill's translation - http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/readings/sennprism.html

Column 3 is the one referring to this in lines 18-49.

The parts you object to is his translation of a city called Jerusalem for one based on your web site.

Your objection is noted in regard to 46 walled cities. As Lachish has been excavated and found to have relics such as Assyrian arrowheads in the thousands as well as the earthen seige ramp, it would appear that part of Sennacherib's claim is true. As to the rest of his claims, they run counter to the Babble stories discrediting them since he claimed much booty and lived for many years after this event unlike the bullshit in 2 Kings and 2 Chron where he dies soon after. The other babble claim of the Assyrian army being decimated is also discredited by these inscriptions as well, plus 185,000 bodies might have been noticed as a loss you'd think.
 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:



Quote:
Note, no religion is mentioned here, Judah is documented being invaded by Assyria, did it happen or not?

And you suggest none of this was in the library in Alexandria?
Quote:
He is exaggerating about the captives probably unless he counted all of the animals with the people and even then I'd have doubts.

Nebuchadrezzar II claimed in ABC 5 to have deposed a king  of Judah and put another on the throne taking heavy tribute - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

Once again Note : there is nothing here that tells one the religion of these people.


Nor any need for any material not in Alexandria and likely long before Alexander was born. I do not see your point in this exercise.



 

I forget now what the point was as you and I have been talking around each other.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.


I use the clay tablets for such, not bullshit by those in Hatti-land. See above. I do not know who these people prayed to, it's not in the clay tablets, your favorite, Buffy perhaps.

You are not showing they shared a common culture or a common set of gods nor a common ruler voluntarily. What is your point?


 

We are actually agreeing and have been talking past each other with exception of small details, perhaps not small in some cases but insignificant to the positions anyway.

You appear to deny that a city called Jerusalem existed for example.

Is that correct?

 

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.

Nor is there any evidence of a southern kingdom for all the same reasons. Why not come to the same conclusion about both? This is like grasping at any straw to hold on to the belief Buffy is a real person.


The inscriptions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians do not indicate what religious bullshit was practiced in the southern part of Hatti, only that there were people and kings.

Some sort of kingdom existed in the city called Jerusalem in the land of Hatti.

So, no I'm not saying that the Babble tales have dick for validity at all. All I've indicated is the myths and legends existed that were partly utilized by the fiction writer to create his bullshit tale.


The inscriptions indicate nothing beyond a few names given phonetic assignment which just happens to match Septuagint names. As such they are indistinguishable from Buffy type fiction. No matter what the inscriptions they say absolutely nothing beyond what is contained in the inscriptions. They cannot be construed to show local creation of the stories.


 

I'm tending to agree that there was no local creation of the stories as nothing has been found in any way to support that. My previous likely errounous position was they were created in Babylon. Babylon is not local either to Palestine. But I see from our discussion that all could have been made in Alexandria.

Regardless of where the fairy tales were written, they have no historical support from other cultures such as Assyria, Babylon or Egypt. All of who ruled the area during the time of the fairy tales making the fairy tales clearly part of a world that Never Was.



A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.


Again no evidence anyone was taken there. But then how are you going to salvage the idea they returned literate at all? And after that without the tools of literacy?



It appears some people were taken there according to Assyria and Babylon.

The tales may have been written in Greek or in Pig Latin as far as anyone knows, it matters not. They contain the myths and bullshit that is impossible. That some of them use actual events means someone read or knew of the events connected to Assyria and Babylon. That the rest is Sci-Fi and fiction is obvious.

Why deny there were countries in Hatti-land? It appears that Assyria and Babylon could tell they were there.


The inscription you gave does not mention people to Babylon, therefore myth. That some may have had some relation to real events is a common conceit of historical fiction. That does not reflect credibility of the fiction. Nor does it indicate where or by who the fiction was created.


You are probbaly correct in saying I took tribute too far here.

 


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


PJTS wrote:


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today re imagining a story like many people today re imagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.


Except the tales you claim were being given legitimacy are not in evidence rather only in your imagination. It is not reasonable to imagine something and then come up with a rationalization for your imaginings that salvages a bibleland origin which is based upon nothing but a forgery.


The tales and myths I refer to are in Ugaritic stories, Egyptian myths, and Sumerian as well. The other BS in the Babble is creative fiction fitting some of the myths and real historical people into the storytales. If done in Egypt then the use of alot of the myths from there would make sense. As Egypt was not isolated and had a large library the fiction writers would have had access to the myths and legends of others. Perhaps you are correct the Babble was created there. As it contains references to many real kings and leaders, misunderstood many times, and lots of events that could never have happened, someone had access to historical info. That they even got much of that wrong indicates they were using inaccurate info or altered it to suit their goals.

So, all in all I see why you consider it made in Egypt, you may be on to something. I can see how they could have done it.


The only vaguely related inscription refers to the replacement of one unnamed king by another unnamed king and tribute only without taking any people to Babylon.

It should be clear that EVERYTHING you have cited comes from places far from bibleland. If there were inscriptions found in bibleland that tell the local versions of these events then and only then would it be credible to suggest there were local versions of these stories. There are none. Suggesting there were local versions of these stories is nothing but imagining. Any implication of knowing the content of these imaginary local stories is delusional.
 


It does indicate that Nebuchadrezzar replaced a king, though one can't trust the names.

OK, I agree, all I cite is from other cultures. Nothing is from Babble Land. There is no local content either in stone or clay tablets.

Babble stories have no historical local basis in the land of never was and never will be.

I was previously considering Ezra as a possibility and after going through this with you I no longer see it that way at all. I admit to making a conclusion on weak evidence.

I have always been aware there is nothing at all to support either a Biblical Israel or a Biblical Judah as detailed in the OT. Even if there was a city-state of Jerusalem in Judah, there is no records supporting the fairy tales of the OT in connection with it.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response to Anony #109

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It's clear to me you and I are talking around each other.

One has to tread very carefully when one has a discussion with you, you make that very clear.


I have been in public discussion of these issues for decades. Take for example I will not use "canaanite" as shorthand because I have had third parties jump in with 'you believe in the Canaanites but not the Jews.' Worse than just believers, when it comes to the Septuagint there is a legion of pseudo-atheist political hacks for Israel. According to Israeli papers Israel even trains and pays some of them. I can't say for sure I have seen them here. The characteristic is a person who has never participated in the discussion jumps on a typo of mine with a post that shows he has been closely following the discussion essentially waiting for an opportunity to score points.

Call me paranoid but it only causes me to maintain an "academic" precision in my posts which is a good thing. I agree it can annoy others.


I do understand as I have had this done to me as well. Agree that such and such could have been and suddenly they flip it on you to say, but you agreed that Egypt existed so why do you argue against ......

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
I had to revert to Assyrian names because you seem to get the wrong idea when other names are used.

As I mentioned, the Assyrians called the area Hatti or Hatti-land.


Should some day a map or extensive verbal description of what was meant by that name I will deal with it. Until that happens I cannot see using it as a synonym for or a different name for the lands in the Septuagint. It leads believers and political hacks to 'there really was an Israel just under a different name.' I have seen it happen when the Egyptian term for the general region was introduced.

Specifically there is no reason to believe from any contextual usage that either name means any more than our term middle east. I have no problem with using middle east. I have no problem with eastern Med or east coast of the Med. However believers and pseudo-atheists will not use regional or geographic references. They will only use terms that can be construed as alternate names for names used in the Septuagint.


Pretty much. The Assyrians called the whole area Hatti no matter the name of the city in question. When a specific city was described in their booty trips it was given. That some have attempted to put names on them that do not mesh is also true.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
What names do you use for the city states in place in:

1000 BCE to 800 BCE?

800 BCE to 600 BCE?


So far as I am aware several places have names based on the Amarna letters but from a different time frame. I have no problem with archaeological or historical discovery of names. I have a problem with arbitrarily assigning names from the Septuagint without evidence. I have a greater problem with fake archaeologists declaring a known name is "really" a city named in the bible. Everyone should have a problem with biblical (fake) archaeologists who are looking for places named in the Septuagint because they know what they must discover before they discover it. Torturing the data until it confesses is a disreputable procedure.


OK, I understand. I usually use Assyrian and Sumerian names because of my familiarity with them. I'm also aware of the names in the Armana letters.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
You obviously have the wrong impression of what I've been trying to say to you:

One - When I mentioned Israel, a term I also detest, I only mean the city-state and alliance of Semarina aka Samaria. The kingdom called Israel was called (Bet Hu-um-ri-ia)  Bit-Humria (House of Omri) by the Assyrians with a country name of (Sa-mir-i-na) Samerina. The name I will use with you from here on will be either Bit-Humria of Samerina.


An alliance requires at least two. I see no way to get two out of the existence of Samaria alone. I see no way to jump from city-state to kingdom. I see no reason to do so other than the Septuagint in English translation refers to kingdom. English often requires a distinction between kingdom and hereditary kingdom which were different political systems such as the currently popular president for life.

The introduction of country is also not warranted. The capital of the city-state of Attica was Athens despite the confused common usage. One could go as far as the capital of the city-state of Samaria was the city of Omri. Bit, Byt, BT, Beth all mean dwelling place. The specific English translation follows who or what lives in the word it modifies. City, house, temple, region are all valid translations depending upon what it refers to.

Which leaves us with a single city-state which, because of things found there by archaeologists, appears to have been on a trade route to Egypt. That gives it no connection whatsoever with the Septuagint stories which do not seem to know about trade routes.


Samerina the main city-state in the area appeared to have control over nearby towns and villages. As the idea of country was not developed other than the empires of some of the superpowers you have a point. The Assyrians were not completely into trade, booty hunts and tribute yes. Egypt seemed to be more into trade than the Mesopotamians.


A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You still haven't worked an Israel into this save by assertion.

Not trying to. Israel as a country as depicted in the LXX never existed.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
This does not indicate I have bought into the storytale of Babbleland, it indicates I consider there was a city-state that had control in the territory that is erroneously described to be part of the Babbleland fairy tales. I have seen no evidence to indicate that this city-state that was generally considered to be in the area South And West of Damascus over to what was called Lebanon somewhere near Acre with a southern border somewhere about 10 to 15 miles North of the city-state called Jerusalem ruled by Jebusites or whoever these people were.


There is a huge gap between 'erroneously described' and fairytale. Archaeology gives us nothing but a name similarity. One cannot go from name similarity to erroneous description. One cannot go further than picking an old name for use in a fanciful tale. Words not only have meanings they have semantic baggage. Erroneous implies an intent to be correct. Description implies the reality is related to the description in more than one point, i.e. rich.

Perhaps the word choice could have been more explicit on my part. I should have said the fictional claim that a city-state in the area was the mythical country of never was.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


As to your geographical description I am unaware of any arkie find supporting that. What are you using? Imagining is not a substitute for evidence.

The general area given by Finkelstein in this case, see the chapter "Israel's Forgotten 1st Kingdom" where he indicates this in several places such as on p177 in regard to the Mesha Stele. And the timeframe would be the mid 9th century BCE for it. He also indicates Megiddo and Hazor were cities of Samaria under the Omride kings. Also the city of Dan, which is mentioned by Hazael as being taken from Aram by the Omris, see p184.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
Does this mean I buy into Babble tales? Not at all, it means I recognize the area was populated and various city-states had control over specific areas.


Nor can one jump from a single example to multiple city states save as a general political organization of the time. Once you go to the plural believers take it as confirmation of a city-state of Jerusalem at that time when by the only available evidence it appeared some time after Alexander and before Pompey which is centuries later.

Quote:
Two - The city-state called Jerusalem and supposed country of Judah showed no sign of any modernization or major populations until AFTER the kingdom of Bit-Humria, Samerina was decimated by the Assyrians. This is in complete contrast to the Babble myths and fairytales. See Finkelstein Bible Unearthed for more.


I do not remember Finkelstein presenting any evidence of such a Jerusalem or of a Judah in this time frame or before it or any time after it nor of any sudden growth immediately after. If it is not immediately after there is no basis for holding there was a causal connection. Arguing things happened more slowly is argumentation not evidence. Mere assertion is not evidence. I have found no evidence of this from any source. What have you found?

Finkelstein has Jerusalem to be a very very small village in the 10th century BCE, one of 20 small hamlets in the highlands believers call Judah.In the 8th century prior to the Assyrian devastation of Samerina, it was still insignificant and small. By the 7th century, it was still a tiny little city on 150 acres or less with a max population of perhaps 15,000 - from pp 2-3 of Finkelstein. Considering the rest of the sparsely populated area, it was more or less a city state only then. Perhaps the city of Lachish was larger until the late 7th century BCE. According to Finkelstein on p 245 the sudden growth only happened after the Assyrian devastation of Samerina in the late 8th century BCE.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


I do remember the gratuitous use of Judah leaving believers with plenty of wiggle room to believe whatever they want. Unfortunately believers are happy with "entirely different but still the same" which appears to come part and parcel with believerhood. I do remember him in later interviews and discussions declining to provide specifics declaring his expertise was in another time frame and another place and deferring to unnamed people who claimed it as their area of expertise. I view the book as ill-conceived and politically constrained.

He did use the name Judah a lot, but he pretty much destroyed the history of the Land that Never Was. Believers who read Finkelstein should be left with the impression that they have been deceived and lied to by both Jews and Christians promoting the Fantasy kingdoms of countries that Never Were.

If not, they are deceiving only themselves.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


Quote:
In reality, the clay tablets do not support or say that which the believers misconstrue them to indicate. Perhaps that is why you take such a hard ass position so you do not have to deal with myths promoted as real and distortion by believers. Unfortunately, I attempt to understand these civilizations in Palestine-Syria and have to wade through the crap weaved by believers. It makes it very difficult to communicate with both believers and those like you and me who see nothing at all to support the fairy tales in history.


Archaeology is a science. What you choose to call hard ass is that same attitude I take to any science. It is archeology which establishes without question and in need of no further discussion the Septuagint did not originate in bibleland. From there the question becomes where. Most all the rest I say on the subject is to show there is nothing inconsistent with Greek authorship in Alexandria.

That may be what gives you the impression I am only interested in that time frame. Archaeology has excluded anything before the Septuagint or in bibleland as a possible origin.

I agree archeology is a science. Science requires facts not conjecture. Those who go searching with a Bible as a map are like a person trying to find casinos in Las Vegas NM with a map of Las Vegas NV. No, worse actually. It's like using Greek myths of Mt Olympus to find Caesar's Palace In Las Vegas.

Probably why I get that idea.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
In answer to your answer to 109

Obviously I am not bothering with quotes and responses.

If I may speak about myself for a bit as it is easier than dealing directly with your posts.

Back when I started trying to make sense of this I read just about everything. Since I shitcanned it all I have realized i had considered just about every idea ever presented including the areligious jewish inventions going back to the mid-19th c. (Remember literally 20 years of focused interest after a previous 20+ years of general interest.

The most difficult thing for me and from what I have seen for nearly everyone is UNlearning nonsense. Unlearning to the point of learning never to say kingdom in bibleland context because of its semantic load coming from the bible.

Once I did that I found research was trivially easy. I could find facts not argumentation. For example I discovered Amun by simply searching for an Egyptian god with the head of a ram because of the Shofar horn. I expected to find nothing but a minor deity in bibleland. I found Amun/Amen the first god of the Egyptian (there were no gods before him in time) and who made the first people out of clay.

I had been looking (in vain) for evidence pro or con the fanciful arguments. I spun my wheels for years. Once i started looking for evidence I not only found it with east I found i was able to make correct predictions about what I would find. And not in the delusional sense. I posted in soc.history.ancient several times I was certain Maccabe was a proxy war and expected to find evidence it was. That was at least a year before I found it spelling out by Josephus in Wars of the Jews.

The best theory is the one that explains the most facts. A robust theory is able to predict facts. I have successfully predicted facts I would later discover. And not in the sense that I can torture an inscription until it confesses sense. In the sense that the man who started the revolt against the Seleucids was maintained in Egypt as a government in exile by Ptolemy.

If I may now reverse the discussion. You still have a huge amount to unlearn. This is not to denigrate what you know about the ancient world, far from it. You are looking into all the wrong places I looked into before I managed to unlearn so much. As I once realized, it is not what you don't know that will hurt you. It is what you know that is not true that will hurt you. The facts you know are likely correct. That there is a Septuagint connection is not a fact in evidence and therefore "knowing" there is a connection is false.

Example. Believers have been looking to Ur to validate Abraham since Ur was rediscovered by Europe solely because Ur is mentioned in the Septuagint. But everything they wanted to find in Ur because of the Septuagint also existed in Egypt including circumcision. Everything that might undermine the Septuagint was not only studiously ignored but that which could not be ignored was speciously argued against. ALL of these arguments are still current among believers even the ones a century and a half old.

Every rationalization has turned to be not old news but long discredited news. Where they get this stuff these days they refuse to tell me.

Thus one can spend one's next two reincarnations demolishing those arguments or one can simply start over dealing solely with facts in evidence and ignore everything else. That is what I  have done. A robust theory useful for prediction has been the result. As a scientist, this passes every test.

There is no blame for false connections when western culture is replete with dozens of them. We agree we cannot even say kingdom in regard to bibleland without some cultural artifact jumping from kingdom to biblical kingdoms. Life is to short to deal with all of them.

It is completely legitimate to reject the oldest evidence as the least reliable as it is also the least rigorously examined before being accepted. In fact the oldest had no review beyond a press release. The Moabite stone has no provenance therefore it is rejected. If that is not enough all the "bible parts" are not found on the fragments that exist. Discovering the unprovenanced part was easy. Discovering the bible parts are not on it took I have no idea how many hours and different sources and false leads.

[Hint: Be provacative and confrontational and believers will do a lot of the legwork for you. Works for me. Believers found the lead as to what was not on the Moabite stone when I could not.]

Bottom line: If you leap over the crap I did you can cut years off your efforts. Worth a try? I hope the end result is you come up with many things I have missed and that you tell me. Please do better than I have.

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
In answer to your answer to 109

Obviously I am not bothering with quotes and responses.

If I may speak about myself for a bit as it is easier than dealing directly with your posts.

Back when I started trying to make sense of this I read just about everything. Since I shitcanned it all I have realized i had considered just about every idea ever presented including the areligious jewish inventions going back to the mid-19th c. (Remember literally 20 years of focused interest after a previous 20+ years of general interest.

The most difficult thing for me and from what I have seen for nearly everyone is UNlearning nonsense. Unlearning to the point of learning never to say kingdom in bibleland context because of its semantic load coming from the bible.

Once I did that I found research was trivially easy. I could find facts not argumentation. For example I discovered Amun by simply searching for an Egyptian god with the head of a ram because of the Shofar horn. I expected to find nothing but a minor deity in bibleland. I found Amun/Amen the first god of the Egyptian (there were no gods before him in time) and who made the first people out of clay.

I had been looking (in vain) for evidence pro or con the fanciful arguments. I spun my wheels for years. Once i started looking for evidence I not only found it with east I found i was able to make correct predictions about what I would find. And not in the delusional sense. I posted in soc.history.ancient several times I was certain Maccabe was a proxy war and expected to find evidence it was. That was at least a year before I found it spelling out by Josephus in Wars of the Jews.

The best theory is the one that explains the most facts. A robust theory is able to predict facts. I have successfully predicted facts I would later discover. And not in the sense that I can torture an inscription until it confesses sense. In the sense that the man who started the revolt against the Seleucids was maintained in Egypt as a government in exile by Ptolemy.

If I may now reverse the discussion. You still have a huge amount to unlearn. This is not to denigrate what you know about the ancient world, far from it. You are looking into all the wrong places I looked into before I managed to unlearn so much. As I once realized, it is not what you don't know that will hurt you. It is what you know that is not true that will hurt you. The facts you know are likely correct. That there is a Septuagint connection is not a fact in evidence and therefore "knowing" there is a connection is false.

Example. Believers have been looking to Ur to validate Abraham since Ur was rediscovered by Europe solely because Ur is mentioned in the Septuagint. But everything they wanted to find in Ur because of the Septuagint also existed in Egypt including circumcision. Everything that might undermine the Septuagint was not only studiously ignored but that which could not be ignored was speciously argued against. ALL of these arguments are still current among believers even the ones a century and a half old.

Every rationalization has turned to be not only old news but long discredited news. Where they get this stuff these days they refuse to tell me.

Thus one can spend one's next two reincarnations demolishing those arguments or one can simply start over dealing solely with facts in evidence and ignore everything else. That is what I  have done. A robust theory useful for prediction has been the result. As a scientist, this passes every test.

There is no blame for false connections when western culture is replete with dozens of them. We agree we cannot even say kingdom in regard to bibleland without some cultural artifact jumping from kingdom to biblical kingdoms. Life is to short to deal with all of them.

It is completely legitimate to reject the oldest evidence as the least reliable as it is also the least rigorously examined before being accepted. In fact the oldest had no review beyond a press release. The Moabite stone has no provenance therefore it is rejected. If that is not enough all the "bible parts" are not found on the fragments that exist. Discovering the unprovenanced part was easy. Discovering the bible parts are not on it took I have no idea how many hours and different sources and false leads.

[Hint: Be provacative and confrontational and believers will do a lot of the legwork for you. Works for me. Believers found the lead as to what was not on the Moabite stone when I could not.]

Bottom line: If you leap over the crap I did you can cut years off your efforts. Worth a try? I hope the end result is you come up with many things I have missed and that you tell me. Please do better than I have.

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: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Obviously

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Obviously I am not bothering with quotes and responses.

If I may speak about myself for a bit as it is easier than dealing directly with your posts.

Back when I started trying to make sense of this I read just about everything. Since I shitcanned it all I have realized i had considered just about every idea ever presented including the areligious jewish inventions going back to the mid-19th c. (Remember literally 20 years of focused interest after a previous 20+ years of general interest.

The most difficult thing for me and from what I have seen for nearly everyone is UNlearning nonsense. Unlearning to the point of learning never to say kingdom in bibleland context because of its semantic load coming from the bible.

I agree, Un-learning the nonsense is extremely difficult.

One can not say kingdom, Jew, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Palestine, mention any name of the period at all that has been used in the fairy tales. Even if there is substantial evidence for the name or person. The believers then jump on it quoting the Babble fairy tale chapter and verse that discusses said person, place, or event.

That the Babble fairy tale grabbed the name from common knowledge and used it is ignored.

Which is as asinine as claiming Hercules was a real half god because he's mentioned in ancient storytales. or the Mt Olympus was the home of the gods because there's a place called Mt Olympus.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Once I did that I found research was trivially easy. I could find facts not argumentation. For example I discovered Amun by simply searching for an Egyptian god with the head of a ram because of the Shofar horn. I expected to find nothing but a minor deity in bibleland. I found Amun/Amen the first god of the Egyptian (there were no gods before him in time) and who made the first people out of clay.

Which is what I did as well but with Sumerian gods.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I had been looking (in vain) for evidence pro or con the fanciful arguments. I spun my wheels for years. Once i started looking for evidence I not only found it with east I found i was able to make correct predictions about what I would find. And not in the delusional sense. I posted in soc.history.ancient several times I was certain Maccabe was a proxy war and expected to find evidence it was. That was at least a year before I found it spelling out by Josephus in Wars of the Jews.

The best theory is the one that explains the most facts. A robust theory is able to predict facts. I have successfully predicted facts I would later discover. And not in the sense that I can torture an inscription until it confesses sense. In the sense that the man who started the revolt against the Seleucids was maintained in Egypt as a government in exile by Ptolemy.

OK, I see your point. I admit to having skeptical views on when and where the storytales of the Babble originated. In Egypt? Derived from myths? Created out of thin air and bullshit? As you correctly point out there is nothing at all in Palestine prior to the LXX showing up that gives any evidence at all for the Yahweh Jewish type religion. In fact as we both have mentioned, the exact opposite is the case.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If I may now reverse the discussion. You still have a huge amount to unlearn. This is not to denigrate what you know about the ancient world, far from it. You are looking into all the wrong places I looked into before I managed to unlearn so much. As I once realized, it is not what you don't know that will hurt you. It is what you know that is not true that will hurt you. The facts you know are likely correct. That there is a Septuagint connection is not a fact in evidence and therefore "knowing" there is a connection is false.

I always say this:

"What I was taught is not true. What is true? I have no idea but not what I was taught."

My approach to the Bible fairytales is they are not true. Any discussion I have on them with believers is with the goal of showing them they are not true and are storytales only.

Names, places and people may be mentioned. Some may be real, most are only storybook characters. The believers suck themselves into delusion by accepting the occasional real place or name as verification that the storybook tale has basis in reality. Yet the History of the World according to Xena also used the same such names and places and it is nothing but fictional.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Example. Believers have been looking to Ur to validate Abraham since Ur was rediscovered by Europe solely because Ur is mentioned in the Septuagint. But everything they wanted to find in Ur because of the Septuagint also existed in Egypt including circumcision. Everything that might undermine the Septuagint was not only studiously ignored but that which could not be ignored was speciously argued against. ALL of these arguments are still current among believers even the ones a century and a half old.

Which is why I always bring up the Lord Enki to the believers, as he's actually mentioned in clay tablets from Mesopotamia and the fairytale Abe is not.

Ur existed, so what? That's pretty clear from the Assyrians and Akkadians. So did a long list of cities in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Twin Towers still exist in the Alternate Universe in Fox's TV show Fringe. Last I checked they were still gone in the dimension we call reality.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Every rationalization has turned to be not only old news but long discredited news. Where they get this stuff these days they refuse to tell me.

Thus one can spend one's next two reincarnations demolishing those arguments or one can simply start over dealing solely with facts in evidence and ignore everything else. That is what I  have done. A robust theory useful for prediction has been the result. As a scientist, this passes every test.

I agree, one can argue every waking minute detailing the issues with the fairytales and the believers will not crack under even obvious evidence that the Babble story is false and cannot be. I have done this like you many times. My hope is to get through to the few who are in the grey areas. The believers do the job for me by defending their beliefs in fantasy well enough that someone who has doubts will sometimes see the stupidity of the belief or storytale. The hardcore believer never gives in and will wait until he's never reanimated in his fantasy vision of heaven. Yeah, that means they never will actually know because, dead is dead. When RAM loses it's power source, all the data is gone.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no blame for false connections when western culture is replete with dozens of them. We agree we cannot even say kingdom in regard to bibleland without some cultural artifact jumping from kingdom to biblical kingdoms. Life is to short to deal with all of them.

It is completely legitimate to reject the oldest evidence as the least reliable as it is also the least rigorously examined before being accepted. In fact the oldest had no review beyond a press release. The Moabite stone has no provenance therefore it is rejected. If that is not enough all the "bible parts" are not found on the fragments that exist. Discovering the unprovenanced part was easy. Discovering the bible parts are not on it took I have no idea how many hours and different sources and false leads.

[Hint: Be provacative and confrontational and believers will do a lot of the legwork for you. Works for me. Believers found the lead as to what was not on the Moabite stone when I could not.]

Bottom line: If you leap over the crap I did you can cut years off your efforts. Worth a try? I hope the end result is you come up with many things I have missed and that you tell me. Please do better than I have.

The Moabite stone actually is detrimental to their storytales, it actually discredits them.

As to where they got the names of Israel from I have no clue, as no one else in the ancient world had every referred to the area in question by that name. They obviously used the Babble as the basis and assumed the conclusion and the name. Omri may have been a leader, king or tribal chief, but that does not create a nation called Israel at all. He may be mentioned in the inscriptions and tablets of Assyria, but Israel is not so mentioned at all.

In the Babble version, 2 Kings 3:4-27, the Moabites are defeated by Israel. Mesha on the other hand indicates not so that he drove them from his land and took land from them and defeated the people of Omri.

A believer should grasp from this stele that the Babble version has problems and is actually contradicted by the Moabite Stone. Even with the supposed naming a kingdom of Israel that had no such name in the ancient world by the Bible believing translators that assumed names that were not there. It tells a very different story. The believers ignore the points that Mesha defeated the forces of Omri and grab on to only it substantiates Israel and the Yahweh. Who Yahweh may have been at this point in it's development is not clear. He had been one of the gods of the pantheon of Ugarith. So why should one suddenly conclude that it is another god now part of the fairytales of the Babble. I have seen nothing that indicates it's reference here means it was the fairytale god of the Jews. This does not substantiate anything of the fairytales as far as I see, it discredits them.

Evidence from Egypt, Assyria, the Mitani and the Hittites all give a very different picture of the area generally called Palestine in stark contrast to the fairy tales of the LXX.

There could not have ever been a Hebrew Horde invading the area. It could not have happened. There is nothing, nothing at all to indicate the Horde invaded and displaced people living there. They would have been eliminated by one of the super powers of the period in nothing flat.

There are too many other accounts from other cultures that indicate dominance over the area in question to allow for development of an advanced country called Judah as described in the fairytales. It could not be so. As to who the Babylonians actually displaced from the cities they destroyed such as Lachish is unknown. As to what gods they believed in is also not known.

You are correct in that I have residual remnants of many years of Babble propaganda. I will try harder to be even more confrontational on these subjects as I address the issues. Outright rejection of it all is an option as you indicate, thus exploding it all as created in Egypt as a complete fabrication that it truly was. That clearly is an excellent point and method to utilize.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I should have known better

I posted this mysterious story in this thread a few months ago:

It baffled me when I read it as it suggested there was actual evidence.

Live and learn...

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/nazareth-rene-salms-preliminary-response-to-bart-ehrman/#more-28054

Ehrman closes by making a big deal of the ‘Nazareth house of the time of Jesus’ excavation (Alexandre again) which news broke in the press in Dec. 2009. Once again, we have no written report, only press releases. Furthermore, the excavation site was quickly covered over (by a religious tourist venue) making further digging impossible.

Do you smell a rat? Maybe half a dozen rats?

 


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

x wrote:

I posted this mysterious story in this thread a few months ago:

It baffled me when I read it as it suggested there was actual evidence.

Live and learn...

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/nazareth-rene-salms-preliminary-response-to-bart-ehrman/#more-28054

Ehrman closes by making a big deal of the ‘Nazareth house of the time of Jesus’ excavation (Alexandre again) which news broke in the press in Dec. 2009. Once again, we have no written report, only press releases. Furthermore, the excavation site was quickly covered over (by a religious tourist venue) making further digging impossible.

Do you smell a rat? Maybe half a dozen rats?

 

Ever since the mother of Constantine made a pilgrimage to Palestine and started buy up sacred relics such as the true cross there has been a cottage industry in producing them, selling them, and attracting the gullible to the marketplace. Nothing that keeps the tourist/pilgrimage industry alive is surprising.

A few years back I came across an interview of a student at Oxford studying archaeology of the middle east. He was specializing in uncovering forgeries for his doctoral thesis. He told the reporter his family was paying all his expenses and that they were in the forgery business. He was studying to improve their products.

 

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


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
No, it isn't surprising

Part of the problem is that I expected better of The Guardian, which is generally a respectable newspaper, but they too sometimes just republish press releases.

In the short time I've been reading about this issue, there's been The Jesus Tomb Hoax, The James Ossuary Hoax, The Jonah Ossuary Hoax and others I can't recall offhand.

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Did jesus exist

I finished Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" a couple months ago.  Since Jimenezj is back, I'll post about it now.

In the book, Ehrman goes over many of the mythicists' positions, distinguishing between the hare-brained such as Zeitgest and Acharya S., and the more scholarly, as advanced by Carrier and Price.  Ehrman insists that jesus most certainly did exist, and that there is information that can be known about his life that meets the standard of historical truth.  

Nonetheless, Ehrman maintains that he himself is agnostic, and does not believe in the resurrection or a divine jesus.  His explanation for the development of the belief in a divine and resurrected jesus is:  jesus a following who believed he was the messiah, who would lead a military insurrection against the Romans, and overthrow them.  This came to failure with jesus' arrest and execution.  Some of his followers did not want to admit failure and abandon hope in their messiah, whereupon emerged the belief that jesus would return to fulfill their expectations. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Depends how the character is

Depends how the character is portrayed, really. If we're speaking of a mortal man with no super powers or relation to a god, then there is enough to suggest he may have existed.
As a son of god who worked miracles, there is absolutely nothing to go on, and he almost certainly didn't exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
PJ

An answer for Isaiah 9:1

Jimenezj wrote:
168. Isaiah 9:1,2...His ministry to begin in Galilee...Matthew 4:12-17

No mention of Galilee or a ministry:

JPS version "1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 Thou hast multiplied the nation, Thou hast increased their joy; they joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil."

The KJV has the Jordan and Galilee included but have no meritorious basis for doing so. If you think so, provide proof as to why the additional words that KJV translators inserted have relevance.

It is in the JPS.

Isaiah 8: 23

23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations.

The land of Zebulun - Zebulun, Naphtali, Manasseh, that is, the country of Galilee all round the sea of Gennesareth, were the parts that principally suffered in the first Assyrian invasion under Tiglath-pileser; see 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chronicles 5:26

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.