The Septuagint is the original -- Second Draft

A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The Septuagint is the original -- Second Draft

All is not well in bibleland

http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/bibleland.html

In consideration of the replies I have received to my first draft I have completely revised the original to put the reasons for the conclusions first instead of leading with the conclusion. This is also a draft. I haven't even given it a spell check. So be warned.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

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

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks. I'm not at all a

Thanks. I'm not at all a bible scholar, but I appreciated reading your work, as you made some xlint points. I use the bible as an atheist preaching guide only because of it's sad huge world view influence.

I hope Rook and others will have some thoughts to share, as I enjoy seeing the bible eventually ending up where it belongs, in the mythology section.


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I just want to say thanks

I just want to say thanks for your work, this is a subject I've had a casual interest in over the last year or so.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
To: I AM GOD AS YOU and

To: I AM GOD AS YOU and hazindu I recently read a couple reviews of this book in Israeli newspapers and other sources. It is a best seller in Israel. No one in Israel is condemning it for any reason. Prof. [of history] Zand teaches at Tel Aviv University. His book, "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" (published by Resling in Hebrew) The bottom line is the "jewish people" were invented by the Zionists. Before that as far back as there are records (roughly from the 1st c. BC) until the Zionists in the late 19th c. they are only people who follow the Jewish religion. He also agrees with me that the Judeans were never forced to leave Judea by the Romans, the Diaspora is a myth, and that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Judeans who converted to Islam or Christianity. That is a bit of a digression but it explains some of the defensive responses I get that deliberately confound the people and the religion. Bibleland may have been inhabited but that does not make them followers of Judaism. And as there is no jewish people outside of criminal zionism you can't substitute human habitation for Jews. As I say, no bait and switch. When someone claims there was a biblical people or culture it has to be as described in the bible. Any other response is bait and switch. When dealing with the Old Testament it is difficult to speak without prejudicing the discussion as our culture has incorporated biblical terms into real history. Also there are biblical archaeologists and biblical historians who are openly unscientific and ahistorical in their interpretations of known facts. They put facts into a biblical context without the least justification for it but their belief in the bible. In comparison with Egypt we can say they worshipped Amun, Ra, Isis, Osiris and a mess of lesser gods. We know that solely from digs in Egypt. There are statues, temples, inscriptions all of which declare these gods. The same can be done in Babylon, Ur, Ugarit, Greece, Rome, Persia, Meso-america and every place else I can think of. We can also find their worship services in some detail. If the same is done for the very little there is to be found in bibleland we do not find the Old Testament stories. It is as simple as that. Nor do we find any indication the OT stories could have been true. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/index.phtml is another work in progress attempting to list everything that is claimed to be evidence the OT stories are true. The sad thing for the believers is even if everything I have included so far were legitimate it would not confirm the OT in any way. There are so few things that even if true they would confirm such a trivial fraction of the OT that they are barely worth mentioning. Unfortunately for the believers they are all wishful thinking. It was only 20 years ago believers were still arguing for Exodus, David and Solomon. It doesn't really matter to anyone if a couple of families got on their donkeys and moved to the Egyptian province of Palestine. That is not Exodus as described in the bible therefore there was no Exodus. BAIT: Yes there was a Solomon. SWITCH: But he was no more than a hilltop warlord. Besides, is a lousy hilltop worth giving up pork? It is definitely not worth circumcision. There is no rational basis for genital mutilation. I wish you gentlemen well and I thank you for letting me know my observations have been of interest to you.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

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

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Add some paraghraphs noney

Add some paragraphs Nony using the "edit" button under your post, before someone clicks the "reply" button to your post. I will read that tomorrow .... thanks for sharing. 

[ ADD-ed next evening ] I have no argument with your summary, as I see those ancient writers as largely patriots of their society, as today I read the "land of the free" from ours, and Batman policing New York. 


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Besides the problem that the

Besides the problem that the page seems relatively fact-free, I'm sure it will titillate people who know even less about the subject.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Could you list your sources

Could you list your sources please?


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:...I

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
...I enjoy seeing the bible eventually ending up where it belongs, in the mythology section.

I bristle against this attitude, as many books that are already in the "mythology section" are treated with little respect. There are few problems with the bible, once one understands it as a collection of cultural traditions of a long dead society (and modern Jews reflect that society as much as modern Romans reflect ancient Rome, ie nada). The problems come when a bunch of knuckleheads who don't understand the bible for what it is try to dictate other people's lives based on the precepts current in the society of those who wrote the bible. Guns don't kill people: people kill people.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Umm, how come the Greek Gods

Umm, how come the Greek Gods don't get such a break? How about the Ancient Jewish Literature" section then?   

Yeah, Science doesn't kill people: people kill people.


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Umm,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Umm, how come the Greek Gods don't get such a break? How about the Ancient Jewish Literature" section then? 

It's a classical case of indifference.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:Could you list

hazindu wrote:

Could you list your sources please?

<P>

Most of my observations are that there is no evidence. One cannot expect proof of a negative. Is there anything in particular you have in mind?

 

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


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:hazindu

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

hazindu wrote:

Could you list your sources please?

<P>

Most of my observations are that there is no evidence.

This is stunning when one considers that the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans all knew about the Judeans and left records of them. The Assyrians extracted tribute from a non-existent bunch. The Babylonians destroyed the major city of the Judeans according to the Babylonian chronicle. The Persians sent some of the descendants of the nobles deported to Babylonia home -- though some of them elected to stay, it seems, going on the existence of the Murashu and Egabi archives. Darius II even writes to the leaders of a Jewish colony in Elephantine in southern Egypt, according to the letter found at Elephantine.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
One cannot expect proof of a negative. Is there anything in particular you have in mind?

Yes, why don't you deal with existing evidence rather than pretending to be an ostrich? It's there if you want to do the research, but you don't. You seem to prefer your sty of contentment.

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
spin wrote:I AM GOD AS YOU

spin wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
...I enjoy seeing the bible eventually ending up where it belongs, in the mythology section.

I bristle against this attitude, as many books that are already in the "mythology section" are treated with little respect. There are few problems with the bible, once one understands it as a collection of cultural traditions of a long dead society (and modern Jews reflect that society as much as modern Romans reflect ancient Rome, ie nada). The problems come when a bunch of knuckleheads who don't understand the bible for what it is try to dictate other people's lives based on the precepts current in the society of those who wrote the bible. Guns don't kill people: people kill people.

spin

 

Bristling is not a good thing. I leads to boils of biblical proportions.<P>

My issue is what you would have us understand when there is no evidence such a culture ever existed. Only faith leads one to believe it existed. And from real history we know such a culture could not have existed as the real history of bibleland tells us it was always under foreign rule of some sort. We also know of the temple of Astarte, aka STRaTo's Tower, BYT STRT in Jerusalem until Rome rebuilt the city in the early 2nd c. AD. Pray tell, what possible "culture" could be divined from stories which describe a culture which never existed? <P>

One imagines the virtues Homer incororated into his epics were no more than poetic license and did not represent the Achean culture -- even if there was a war with Ilium that resembles the story in the Iliad. <P>

Trying to elevate the OT to being representative of a culture that clearly did not exist or, if you prefer, left no trace from which bible information could be deduced, is like learning of Aztec and Mayan culture from the Book of Mormon.<P>

But consider silk appeared in Egypt in the 3rd millennium BC. Bibleland was on that trade route, technically part of the sild road. Places along trade routes tend to be cosmopolitan almost liberal in terms fo what was liberal in those days. All the cultures which participated the trade routes passing through bibleland had more advanced religions than the bible says was in bibleland.<P>

According to the bible the good guys were genital mutilating savages with a ritual/taboo primitive religion. It also paints their neighbors in a worse light with human sacrifice. <P>

First it is unlikely such a culture could have existed along a major trade route. Second it is incredible the civilized cultures would have failed to remark on the existence of these savages. Third, it is only partially understandable that they may have chosen not to wipe them out or at least their human sacrifice neighbors just for the sake of human decency.<P>

One may not like my explanation but believers have even greater problems. If they want the OT to have been written in the 5th c. BC then anything before that is fiction and there is nothing to be learned. Any claim it was based upon records has to produce the records before talking about them. And if one wants these books created earlier than that one has to address them being all wrong about Egypt and the time when it ruled bibleland. No matter how one looks at it the OT is at best historical fiction without the punch of Homer.<P>

But if you can produce some evidence which makes it at least plausible that the OT describes a culture which actually existed please feel free to do so. A few letters here and there cannot substantiate the entire OT. What should be even easier, produce evidence of the non-religious records which in every other culture are at least ten times more common. Where are the Judean king lists carved in stone as in Egypt? Where are the secular records of bible events to be found in bibleland? A few questionable mentions in other civilizations do not answer the mail. Such prolific writers as the bible good guys left no local records of their amazing victories in battle? How is this possible?<P>

Of course I do not accept an appeal to authority as that is a logical fallacy. I do not accept, What else could it be? as that is another logical fallacy. Certainly tradition is unacceptable as all but the biblethumpers agree that Solomon and evenything before him is myth.<P>

The time at which myth starts in the OT has been moving ever more recent even among believers. As in the past so also today beleivers decline to be pinned down as to when they claim the stories were created. After X date does not pin it down. The 2nd c. BC is also "post-exilic" on the false presumption there was an exile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

spin wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

hazindu wrote:

Could you list your sources please?

<P>

Most of my observations are that there is no evidence.

This is stunning when one considers that the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans all knew about the Judeans and left records of them. The Assyrians extracted tribute from a non-existent bunch. The Babylonians destroyed the major city of the Judeans according to the Babylonian chronicle. The Persians sent some of the descendants of the nobles deported to Babylonia home -- though some of them elected to stay, it seems, going on the existence of the Murashu and Egabi archives. Darius II even writes to the leaders of a Jewish colony in Elephantine in southern Egypt, according to the letter found at Elephantine.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
One cannot expect proof of a negative. Is there anything in particular you have in mind?

Yes, why don't you deal with existing evidence rather than pretending to be an ostrich? It's there if you want to do the research, but you don't. You seem to prefer your sty of contentment.

spin

At least the claim has gone from destroying Jerusalem to destroying a major city. I still have idea where one gets major city but at least it is an improvement. Now let me ask how one gets the name from pictographic cuneiform. I still ask how it is possible to exclude people in the 2nd c. BC from reading the Babylonian records and concocting a local historical fiction about it. If you know of physical evidence of such a conquest in bibleland please post it.<P>

While you are at it you might also post the Greek (pre-Roman) records of Judea as you are apparently the only one who knows about them. The Maccabe revolt against educated, cultured locals is in qusetion as it is the only record of it. Of course the Romans knew of it as it was there when Pompey arrived to take over. <P>

The Persians did no such thing. The single passage is that Cyrus returned holy things to their places. When Babylon conquered it took the local supreme god idol to Babylon. That is what Persia returned. Else one has to deal with the Judeans being holy things, neutered, which can only salvaged as a reference to circumcision. I am unaware anyone still considers Elephantine to be an outpost of the followers of the Jewish religion but please tell me the latest on how that fact has been divined from what is written. <P>

If you can provide a citation on Assyria collecting tribute I will much appreciate it. <P>

If what you posted is an example of existing evidence it has been examined and discarded long ago. Do you have anything better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Umm,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Umm, how come the Greek Gods don't get such a break? How about the Ancient Jewish Literature" section then?   

Yeah, Science doesn't kill people: people kill people.

Our culture is selective on which god gets the benefit of the doubt and which people are credited with credibility. We have the Iliad. We know the Achean culture existed. We know their gods. We even have Ilium although there are still questions of the war having happened as described or even happened at all. This is all in the archaeological finds. The general facts do not disagree with the story of the war.<P>

But from the beginning the claim that Ilium was discovered was in question. It still is today although the most recent finds may support it. That is recent as in the last few months. <P>

But in bibleland there is not the least evidence the city existed prior to Alexander although there might have been a village there. Certainly there is no evidence of any temple of Solomon. There is evidence of a temple in Roman times from multiple sources but they also indicate it could not have been where the Dome of the Rock is today. <P>

But if we were to take the Iliad seriously the gods intervened and occasionally required human sacrifice as the price of intervention. But as they did win clearly the Greek gods were and are real. And then the "sophisticated" come along and claim the ideals in the Iliad were real. <P>

It is quite like believing a Hollylwood war movie prior to Vietnam. Everyone was patriotic, idealist and fought for mom, apple pie and the flag. But when it comes to the bible, the people really were like that. Fine with me. They were genital mutilating savages. Believers can't have it both ways.

 

 

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Add

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Add some paragraphs Nony using the "edit" button under your post, before someone clicks the "reply" button to your post. I will read that tomorrow .... thanks for sharing. 

[ ADD-ed next evening ] I have no argument with your summary, as I see those ancient writers as largely patriots of their society, as today I read the "land of the free" from ours, and Batman policing New York. 

There were paragraphs when I created it. I haven't figured out the quirks of this software. Patience. One thing missing here is a option to edit what was posted to correct such errors. That also hastens the learning process.

 

 

 

 

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


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

spin wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

hazindu wrote:

Could you list your sources please?

<P>

Most of my observations are that there is no evidence.

This is stunning when one considers that the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans all knew about the Judeans and left records of them. The Assyrians extracted tribute from a non-existent bunch. The Babylonians destroyed the major city of the Judeans according to the Babylonian chronicle. The Persians sent some of the descendants of the nobles deported to Babylonia home -- though some of them elected to stay, it seems, going on the existence of the Murashu and Egabi archives. Darius II even writes to the leaders of a Jewish colony in Elephantine in southern Egypt, according to the letter found at Elephantine.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
One cannot expect proof of a negative. Is there anything in particular you have in mind?

Yes, why don't you deal with existing evidence rather than pretending to be an ostrich? It's there if you want to do the research, but you don't. You seem to prefer your sty of contentment.

spin

At least the claim has gone from destroying Jerusalem to destroying a major city. I still have idea where one gets major city but at least it is an improvement.

 

Don't try to be pedantic. Of course the city was Jerusalem, the same one that Sennacherib called Ur-sa-li-im-mu in  his description of the siege of Jerusalem.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Now let me ask how one gets the name from pictographic cuneiform. I still ask how it is possible to exclude people in the 2nd c. BC from reading the Babylonian records and concocting a local historical fiction about it. If you know of physical evidence of such a conquest in bibleland please post it.<P>

If you must know about Akkadian cuneiform, why not buy a book on the subject. I really don't understand why you have to bend  over backwards to show your willful lack of knowledge.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
While you are at it you might also post the Greek (pre-Roman) records of Judea as you are apparently the only one who knows about them.

I referred you to the Zenon archive. Try buying a book, such as Martin Hengel's "Judaism and Hellenism". If you want to know about the Palestinian encounter with Alexander the Great, look up the Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The Maccabe...

Do me a favor and at least try to spell the name as is recognized in English.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
... revolt against educated, cultured locals is in qusetion as it is the only record of it. Of course the Romans knew of it as it was there when Pompey arrived to take over. <P>

If you so need to see evidence for Yehud, why don't you look at the coins here?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The Persians did no such thing. The single passage is that Cyrus returned holy things to their places. When Babylon conquered it took the local supreme god idol to Babylon. That is what Persia returned. Else one has to deal with the Judeans being holy things, neutered, which can only salvaged as a reference to circumcision.

Actually I was using the last verses of 2 Chronicles a book whose latter parts feature a fair amount of history. If you don't want to admit it as a source please explain why not citing why it is wrong on that count while being right about most things checkable from the conflict with Sennacherib down to the captivity of Jehoiachin.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I am unaware anyone still considers Elephantine to be an outpost of the followers of the Jewish religion but please tell me the latest on how that fact has been divined from what is written. <P>

Well, why not check out the following articles?

 

 

The Jewish Temple at Elephantine 

Stephen G. Rosenberg


Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 4-13

 

 

Exchange of Inherited Property at Elephantine (Cowley 1)

H.Z.Szubin

Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 102, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1982), pp. 651-654

 

This latter deals with Jewish law as evinced at Elephantine. Now, please stop bullshitting. You know nothing about Elephantine. No scholar that I've read in a peer-reviewed journal doubts the Jewishness of the Elephantine colony. If you have a rabbit up your sleeve, now is the time to produce it.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
If you can provide a citation on Assyria collecting tribute I will much appreciate it. <P>

See Broken Prism A, Sargon II, "The the rulers of Philistia, Judah, Ed[om], Moab (and) those who live (on islands) and bring tribute". Jehoahaz of Judah is mentioned in an inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III, and it seems obvious that it is a tribute list, though it's fragmentary.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
If what you posted is an example of existing evidence it has been examined and discarded long ago. Do you have anything better

Stop talking rot. Your desire to keep your eyes glued shut is very sad and you should get over it. There is enough evidence out there for you to obtain on your own without trying to get someone to hold your hand over it.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Was ancient history written

Was ancient history written by free honest people???


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
>Don't try to be pedantic.

>Don't try to be pedantic. Of course the city was Jerusalem, the same one that Sennacherib called Ur-sa-li-im-mu in his description of the siege of Jerusalem.

I don't even know how to spell pedantic. Why do you accuse me of it? If you can get that name out of non-phonetic glyphs you can get most anything you want. Now all you need do is find evidence in this oddly spelled city of this conquest with proper carbon dating. Without the carbon dating you cannot distinguish this from a later story invented around this description. I can create a story around it today. That does not make my story authentic.

>If you must know about Akkadian cuneiform, why not buy a book on the subject. I really don't understand why you have to bend over backwards to show your willful lack of knowledge.

Why would I need a book when you are here as an expert on the subject and can explain it all to everyone reading this? Please feel free to do so. Yes it was an attempt to adapt the synonym cuneiforms into a phonetic language. It is the language of the tablets found at Ugarit giving the same biblical titles of Yahweh as a minor deity and his consort as Ashara. You make assumptions which are unwarranted.

>> The Maccabe... >Do me a favor and at least try to spell the name as is recognized in English.

I spell it in the preferred English of Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, both Israeli newspapers in a "hebrew" speaking country. It also matches Makkah, hammer, in Arabic. So Judah Maccabe would be the equivalent of Abu Maccabe today. Judah then means nom de guerre.

>>The Persians did no such thing. The single passage is that Cyrus returned holy things to their places. When Babylon conquered it took the local supreme god idol to Babylon. That is what Persia returned. Else one has to deal with the Judeans being holy things, neutered, which can only salvaged as a reference to circumcision.

>Actually I was using the last verses of 2 Chronicles a book whose latter parts feature a fair amount of history. If you don't want to admit it as a source please explain why not citing why it is wrong on that count while being right about most things checkable from the conflict with Sennacherib down to the captivity of Jehoiachin.

So you assumed Chronicles contains history and therefore used it to demonstrate it contains history. IF you have physical evidence of a captivity in Babylon please present it. If not please stop pretending you do. There is exactly one claim of physical evidence from Babylon which is a joke to say the least.

>Well, why not check out the following articles?

As you are familiar with those articles why do you not present the evidence in them? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

>This latter deals with Jewish law as evinced at Elephantine. Now, please stop bullshitting. You know nothing about Elephantine. No scholar that I've read in a peer-reviewed journal doubts the Jewishness of the Elephantine colony. If you have a rabbit up your sleeve, now is the time to produce it.

That depends upon what you have read to find no doubts. Barely two decades ago there were no doubts of Moses and Solomon. So please recite what you have learned from peer reviewed journals as appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

As for "jewishness" I have no idea how to make sense of that. A local primitive superstition that was incorporated into the later invention of the OT does not make it intrinsic to the later creation. It is no different from saying the Aztecs and Incas and Mayans existed therefore the Book of Mormon is authentic.

You are claiming genital mutilating savages really did exist in the midst of civilized cultures. That is not reasonable. That is worse than Ozark hillbillies existing in the US.

>See Broken Prism A, Sargon II, "The the rulers of Philistia, Judah, Ed[om], Moab (and) those who live (on islands) and bring tribute". Jehoahaz of Judah is mentioned in an inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III, and it seems obvious that it is a tribute list, though it's fragmentary.

How does this differ from proving Atlantis by reference to Plato without primary evidence of Atlantis? Please show me the physical evidence from Judah of biblical Judah. Show me the physical evidence of this kingdom from the kingdom itself. Why is this so hard if it is so certain? I have asked for this from the beginning and still nothing.

Believers are constantly into secondary evidence. There is nothing to eliminate a story inspired by this inscription created in the 2nd c. BC. We know biblical Egypt did not exist. Why would anyone assume biblical Judah existed?

I have no gripe with you. You have a position very much in favor of the genital mutilating savages and their ritual/taboo society. Why you think it is something of value I have not the least idea unless you were told you were born jewish and bought into the zionist mythology of a jewish people instead of only a religion. I assume you are not a murderer and thief and therefore you cannot be a zionist.

So I do not see why you want to believe. I have been in many science related exchanges over the years and as a physicist I do not tell people to read books. I give them the facts and if they do not understand I explain further until there is no misunderstanding. You do not do that. You keep appealing to authority.

Why is it you do not require primary evidence from bibleland but have to go far afield to find imaginings of references?

<hr>

Please keep in mind I would be the first to jump at a secular version of the bible stories to see what was really going one. From what I have found I would expect to find warring priests inciting riots against other priests of other gods and the local king trying to keep the peace. That is almost the story we find in the Bar Kochba revolt except they agreed on the god but not on what it wanted. A secular version would make sense of all of this nonsense.<P>

But we find no secular record at all. Was it destroyed? How did that happen without leaving evidence? How is it ALL secular records were destroyed even though unrelated to biblical stuff? Where are the secular records of this great kingdom  of Judah? Who destroyed them and why? At one time I was told the devil inspired their destruction . What is your explanation for no evidence in bibleland itself?

 

 

 

 

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Was

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Was ancient history written by free honest people???

<P>

 

Presuming you mean the OT even Spin the Defender does not try to claim there was an Abraham or David or Solomon so there is broad agreement here that whoever wrote the OT were liars. <P>

Of course I can note the OT does not claim it is history but that is an out used by "secular" Jews who are in fact atheists and not Jews at all as a Jew is only a person who follows the precepts of Judaism. <P>

The last century was a time of upheaval in belief in the OT. On one hand that century saw the elimination of all the claims of the OT. On the other hand it saw a great effort by believers to salvage everything that was not clearly disproven. Believers such as Spin the Defender have been retreating with the advance of arch\aeology leaving themselves with an OT of the gaps. What is not disproven is true. <P>

I would find it interesting for a sociolotgical perspective if in fact genital mutilating savages did exist in bibleland at the dates claimed. That is the stuff of horror movies such as, The Hills have Eyes. <P>

There is really no other way to describe them. Picking and choosing from the "laws" the rituals and the taboos so as to only talk about the FEW that make sense in today's society is not addressing the bulk of the Torah.<P>

Were the writers honest? <P>

As a matter of fact ancient inscripions from Egypt are at least as honest as US descriptions of its wars including WWI, WWII and Vietnam. These inscriptions were in real time, produced soon after events. <P>

When the OT writers invented Solomon it could not have invented him at the time it claimed he ruled. That would be like creating a story claiming I have been president for the last eight years. It would not pass the giggle test. All inventions had to have been so long after the fact that almost no one would know it was a pack of lies. <P>

Inventing a religion is nothing new. Islam, LDS and Scientology are just three well known examples of invented religions.

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


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Was

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Was ancient history written by free honest people???

Is modern history written by free honest people?

What one uses as raw material for ancient history is certainly not unbiased material. Historians have to wade through it with difficulty and care. But there is often lots of strange collaboration.

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:>Don't

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

>Don't try to be pedantic. Of course the city was Jerusalem, the same one that Sennacherib called Ur-sa-li-im-mu in his description of the siege of Jerusalem.

I don't even know how to spell pedantic.

But you've done admirably!

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Why do you accuse me of it? If you can get that name out of non-phonetic glyphs you can get most anything you want.

All this means is that you can be arbitrary when you choose.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Now all you need do is find evidence in this oddly spelled city of this conquest with proper carbon dating.

Why? The stratigraphy is better. C14 is only statistical, while stratigraphy relates directly to events in history. You know when the fall of Jerusalem happened, through stratigraphy and that coincides with the Babylonian data.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Without the carbon dating you cannot distinguish this from a later story invented around this description. I can create a story around it today. That does not make my story authentic.

Crap.

 

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin wrote:
If you must know about Akkadian cuneiform, why not buy a book on the subject. I really don't understand why you have to bend over backwards to show your willful lack of knowledge.

Why would I need a book when you are here as an expert on the subject and can explain it all to everyone reading this?

I'm not paid to relieve you of your lack of kn owledge.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Please feel free to do so. Yes it was an attempt to adapt the synonym cuneiforms into a phonetic language. It is the language of the tablets found at Ugarit giving the same biblical titles of Yahweh as a minor deity and his consort as Ashara. You make assumptions which are unwarranted.

Yahweh is not found in Ugarit. If you disagree, please cite the catalog number of the text.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin wrote:
A_Nony_mouse wrote:
The Maccabe...
Do me a favor and at least try to spell the name as is recognized in English.

I spell it in the preferred English of Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, both Israeli newspapers in a "hebrew" speaking country. It also matches Makkah, hammer, in Arabic. So Judah Maccabe would be the equivalent of Abu Maccabe today. Judah then means nom de guerre.

The scholarly world uses "Maccabee" or "Maccabaeus".

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The Persians did no such thing. The single passage is that Cyrus returned holy things to their places. When Babylon conquered it took the local supreme god idol to Babylon. That is what Persia returned. Else one has to deal with the Judeans being holy things, neutered, which can only salvaged as a reference to circumcision.

Actually I was using the last verses of 2 Chronicles a book whose latter parts feature a fair amount of history. If you don't want to admit it as a source please explain why not citing why it is wrong on that count while being right about most things checkable from the conflict with Sennacherib down to the captivity of Jehoiachin.

So you assumed Chronicles contains history and therefore used it to demonstrate it contains history.

Working on the fact that much of the latter part can be confirmed, have you got reason to doubt it? If so, what?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
IF you have physical evidence of a captivity in Babylon please present it. If not please stop pretending you do. There is exactly one claim of physical evidence from Babylon which is a joke to say the least.

I've already cited the rations provided in Babylon for Jehoiakin and for the five sons of the king of Judah. The Judean nobles were carted off to Babylon. Some of them, as I said, stayed.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin wrote:
Well, why not check out the following articles?

As you are familiar with those articles why do you not present the evidence in them? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

No appeal to authority. You need to do your own work and not try to depend on wheedling information you're too lazy to get by yourself out of others. Doh!

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin wrote:
This latter deals with Jewish law as evinced at Elephantine. Now, please stop bullshitting. You know nothing about Elephantine. No scholar that I've read in a peer-reviewed journal doubts the Jewishness of the Elephantine colony. If you have a rabbit up your sleeve, now is the time to produce it.

That depends upon what you have read to find no doubts. Barely two decades ago there were no doubts of Moses and Solomon. So please recite what you have learned from peer reviewed journals as appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

When you have an argument, I'll listen. You are just talking hype here.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
As for "jewishness" I have no idea how to make sense of that. A local primitive superstition that was incorporated into the later invention of the OT does not make it intrinsic to the later creation. It is no different from saying the Aztecs and Incas and Mayans existed therefore the Book of Mormon is authentic.

You are claiming genital mutilating savages really did exist in the midst of civilized cultures. That is not reasonable. That is worse than Ozark hillbillies existing in the US.

More blather. When are you going to try to defend your stuff?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin wrote:
See Broken Prism A, Sargon II, "The the rulers of Philistia, Judah, Ed[om], Moab (and) those who live (on islands) and bring tribute". Jehoahaz of Judah is mentioned in an inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III, and it seems obvious that it is a tribute list, though it's fragmentary.

How does this differ from proving Atlantis by reference to Plato without primary evidence of Atlantis? Please show me the physical evidence from Judah of biblical Judah. Show me the physical evidence of this kingdom from the kingdom itself. Why is this so hard if it is so certain? I have asked for this from the beginning and still nothing.

You're an artist at baiting and switching.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Believers are constantly into secondary evidence. There is nothing to eliminate a story inspired by this inscription created in the 2nd c. BC. We know biblical Egypt did not exist. Why would anyone assume biblical Judah existed?

When you want to deal with the evidence, do start.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I have no gripe with you. You have a position very much in favor of the genital mutilating savages and their ritual/taboo society.

And you are evincing a difficulty to keep to an argument.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Why you think it is something of value I have not the least idea unless you were told you were born jewish and bought into the zionist mythology of a jewish people instead of only a religion. I assume you are not a murderer and thief and therefore you cannot be a zionist.

I don't really care about your assumptions. If you had an argument you'd be making it. As you are not, obviously you don't. You do seem to have built a cone of silence around yourself.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
So I do not see why you want to believe. I have been in many science related exchanges over the years and as a physicist I do not tell people to read books. I give them the facts and if they do not understand I explain further until there is no misunderstanding. You do not do that. You keep appealing to authority.

Either you don't do it often or you have plenty of time on your hands.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Why is it you do not require primary evidence from bibleland but have to go far afield to find imaginings of references?

"[B]ibleland"? Why have you invented your own little subterfuge language?

 

 

spin

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Please keep in mind I would be the first to jump at a secular version of the bible stories to see what was really going one. From what I have found I would expect to find warring priests inciting riots against other priests of other gods and the local king trying to keep the peace. That is almost the story we find in the Bar Kochba revolt except they agreed on the god but not on what it wanted. A secular version would make sense of all of this nonsense.<P>

But we find no secular record at all. Was it destroyed? How did that happen without leaving evidence? How is it ALL secular records were destroyed even though unrelated to biblical stuff? Where are the secular records of this great kingdom  of Judah? Who destroyed them and why? At one time I was told the devil inspired their destruction . What is your explanation for no evidence in bibleland itself?

Trust the evidence, Luke


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:hazindu

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

hazindu wrote:

Could you list your sources please?

<P>

Most of my observations are that there is no evidence. One cannot expect proof of a negative. Is there anything in particular you have in mind?

 

The reason why A_Nony_Mouse hasn't got any sources is because A_Nony_Mouse doesn't know what's available. In fact A_Nony_Mouse doesn't want to know about the evidence that Judah did in fact exist in 600 BCE. The Assyrian data makes in around 700 BCE with Senncherib's siege of Hezekiah's Jerusalem. Strangely enough this Hezekiah is mentioned in the bible along with Sennacherib's siege. Around 600 we learn about Nebuchadnezzar's siege of the city of Judah, which corresponds with the archaeological data for the fall of Jerusalem and the biblical data for the fall. If one can't say that the writers made it up, A_Nony_Mouse will try to say that the people translating the cuneiform made it up. However it happened, someone made it up.

 

Yeah, sure.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Phlogiston and aether

The name of this thread is "The Septuagint is the original -- Second Draft". Nothing tangible has been said about that subject so far. The only way to deal with the subject is from the linguistic evidence. A_Nony_Mouse doesn't have any, probably doesn't understand the languages and is incapable of dealing with the task.

I've presented some of the linguistic evidence to show that Hebrew consistently seems to be the original language. The response has been simply underwhelming.

The Matt Giwer material seems to be preaching to one person, the writer.

Our task is always to follow the evidence, follow it wherever it goes. Nice ideas might help you find evidence, but a lot of nice ideas have gone to the wall. Just think of the geocentric cosmos, phlogiston, aether, steady state universe. Nice ideas. Not worth a pinch of piss these days. Ideas are only as good as the evidence to support them, no better. We tend to hold onto our ideas too long. That's when we lose touch with evidence and start wasting our time.

There was an Israel. There was an Ahab and a Pekah and a Hoshea. Until Assyria hit them and Israel was no more. In the power vacuum Hezekiah's little Judah sprang up only to be severely mauled by Sennacherib and then crushed by Nebuchadnezzar. Over the next several centuries people from Judah were spread from Babylon to Lower Egypt. They were  bankers in Mesopotamia. They were fodder for the slave markets in Ptolemaic Egypt; they made it big in the Ptolemaic army and in Alexandrian commerce. A_Nony_Mouse doesn't want to face the evidence available for this. It's too inconvenient, so it is dismissed without consideration. The idea is more important than the evidence. You know that that's the time to let go of the idea.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I read your draft and it is

I read your draft and it is interesting. I agree that people are predisposed to grant too much probability to the stories of Ancient Israel and Judah you call bibleland. I don't however see how one can tell the BS, myths, legends, and fiction from any possible reality. As Spin has said there is sufficient evidence that ancient Israel and Judah did exist though not quite as the Rah Rah stories of the OT present. You have chosen to consider anything to do with ancient Palestine a Pack of Lies it would appear. I think that is going too far. I consider the ancient people of Palestine somewhat savage though they weren't given to cutting out hearts of the living as say the Aztecs to placate their god or so it seems. I realize that I have remnants of indoctrination from my years as a believer that float around in my brain. I however do not grant them basis in reality unless there is substantial evidence from other cultures.

As far as I can tell from my research: there was an ancient land of Israel and Judah, they had kings, they fought each other possibly,  they had relationships with other nations at the time, they banded together to fight off invaders such as Assyria. They sold each other out to gain advantage possibly. As to if they had a god named Yahweh who was the god of a mythical dude named Abraham I see nothing to substantiate that. Temples by Solomon and a great nation, probably only a hut in a back ass village of goat herders for Judah for sure. Ahab and the Omride kings seem to have existed and they were not likely Yahweh ass kissers. More than that who really knows.

As to when the bible fantasies were written who can tell. I have seen nothing to indicate when these Rah Rah aren't we the shit stories were written. Most likely after the Persians knocked off the Babylonians but beyond that is anyone's guess. I see your point in suggesting sometime after Alexander but I don't see any proof. Yeah Daniel was no doubt written in the 2nd century BCE based on its a piss poor Sci-Fi adventure in places. But parts of the OT do seem to have some correlation with histories of Assyria and Babylon. That Assyria used Palestine as a place to extract tribute is well established. That they invaded it several times has been shown. Babylon also has been clearly established as an invader of Judah by their accounts as well as excavations at sites such as Mizpah. Do I accept any of the bible's history as accurate, no not really not beyond they were some people identified as Judah and Israel by other cultures. As to what happened with this king or that , that is pretty much not possible to determine.

So far I haven't seen your evidence that the Greek came first. I suggest you look at some of the work of Rook Hawkins on this site as he has far more knowledge of this subject than I do.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
spin wrote:I AM GOD AS YOU

spin wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Was ancient history written by free honest people???

Is modern history written by free honest people?

That's what I wanted to hear ... Let's strive to be honest, with a willingness to always re-examine our ideas. Thanks everyone.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
spin:A_Nony_Mouse wrote: Now

spin:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Now all you need do is find evidence in this oddly spelled city of this conquest with proper carbon dating.

Why? The stratigraphy is better. C14 is only statistical, while stratigraphy relates directly to events in history. You know when the fall of Jerusalem happened, through stratigraphy and that coincides with the Babylonian data.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Without the carbon dating you cannot distinguish this from a later story invented around this description. I can create a story around it today. That does not make my story authentic.

Crap.

Here you are asserting the horizons in Babylon and in Jerusalem have been reconciled. Do you happen to remember where that is documented? Or at least which team did it ans when? I find it quite interesting this has been accomplished in such different climates and geographies over two and a half millennia.

 

A_non: So you assumed Chronicles contains history and therefore used it to demonstrate it contains history.

spin: Working on the fact that much of the latter part can be confirmed, have you got reason to doubt it? If so, what?

As for doubting it, it is up to the believer to establish a "fact" that otherwise exists only in tradition. As for cause 1Cronicles starts off with begats from Adam and 2Chronicles starts with the mythical Solomon. So all of 1 is out along with the first nine chapters of 2 without question one hopes. How much is much? What in particular do you claim is real history and upon what evidence?

spin: I've already cited the rations provided in Babylon for Jehoiakin and for the five sons of the king of Judah. The Judean nobles were carted off to Babylon. Some of them, as I said, stayed.

The old rations story. I do not recall reading your mention of that but if you do as most do you divide the rations by normal eating and determine the number of people. As grain was the form of taxes in the city that is what was paid out. As there no mention of anything else one rationally assumes the grain provided for all their living expenses, servants, clothing, housing, firewood, oil, food besides grain and everything else. The numbers are quite small after that. And that still leaves you with establishing the Judah folk were among the recipients.

spin: No appeal to authority. You need to do your own work and not try to depend on wheedling information you're too lazy to get by yourself out of others. Doh!

That is a common response of believers when faced with the fact they have no basis for their beliefs. It is an appeal to authority without naming the authority. I could read everything ever written, still disagree with you, and your response would be the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Bait and switch

spin>There was an Israel.

Even jewish Israeli archaeologists such as Finkelstein and Silverman has written that IF there was a Solomon he was nothing more than a hilltop warlord. There is a biblical Solomon and a hilltop warlord is not a substitute. Note the emphasis on the IF. Following from the warlord Israel is no more than a hill. It is incredible anyone would accept just a hill as the quid pro quo for compliance with the Torah.

spin>There was an Ahab and a Pekah and a Hoshea. Until Assyria hit them and Israel was no more. In the power vacuum Hezekiah's little Judah sprang up only to be severely mauled by Sennacherib and then crushed by Nebuchadnezzar.

It is not credible to take a possible name similarity and leap from that the biblical Israel and Judah any more that it is credible to accept a hilltop warlord in place of biblical Solomon and a hill as biblical Israel.

spin>Over the next several centuries people from Judah were spread from Babylon to Lower Egypt. They were  bankers in Mesopotamia.

This does leave one begging the question as to what was meant by bankers in those days and the evidence for it. Banking in the modern sense first appears in 16th c. Holland. Unsavory money lenders have likely been with us since money was invented some time after their supposed appearance in Mesopotamia.

spin>They were fodder for the slave markets in Ptolemaic Egypt; they made it big in the Ptolemaic army and in Alexandrian commerce.

Ptolemaic Egypt is quite a leap from biblical times. I would also ask where you found evidence of slavery and military involvement. Of course you will keep your sources secret.

spin>A_Nony_Mouse doesn't want to face the evidence available for this. It's too inconvenient, so it is dismissed without consideration. The idea is more important than the evidence. You know that that's the time to let go of the idea.

On the assumption I have not examined what you consider evidence you say I dismiss it without ever bringing a particular item up for discussion. The underlying presumption is, everything you have read is uncontestable. I am merely asking you to demonstrate what you are talking about that you consider uncontestable. But you refuse.

In addtion to the misinterpretation of the "rations" record there is also a claim from the story of whatever city was conquered. The babylonian record reads quite clearly that things were returned to Babylon and the local king replaced NOT shipped to Babylon. Clearly it is not the bible story. But it could have served as the basis for later historical fiction. As it tells a different story it is clearly fiction.

There is another record saying that "holy things" were returned to their places which matches the return of idols that the Babylonians brought to their city. There is nothing indicating it refers to people.

You will continue to say I will not face the evidence but you will continue to refuse to present the evidence you are talking about.

You missed your calling as a preacher.

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic>I read

pauljohntheskeptic>I read your draft and it is interesting. I agree that people are predisposed to grant too much probability to the stories of Ancient Israel and Judah you call bibleland. I don't however see how one can tell the BS, myths, legends, and fiction from any possible reality.

My question goes to when it was written. As for separation there are two things. First one removes the magic, aka miracles, from thes stories to see what is left. Not much to the skeptical observer. Then one looks to the description of persons and places and kingdoms in the OT and requires the archaeological and historical finds to match the bible description. Solomon as a hilltop warlord and Israel as a hill is not an acceptable replacement. That is bait and switch, a con game.

pauljohntheskeptic>As Spin has said there is sufficient evidence that ancient Israel and Judah did exist though not quite as the Rah Rah stories of the OT present.

I am saying the facts are so different from the stories that the stories cannot be distinguished from historical fiction. As such they could have been written at any time. The facts are so different they cannot have been contemporary records. And as the facts do not show a dominant Yahweh cult the entire religion part of it is also a fabrication, total fiction. After all that is removed, what is left? That land was inhabited and long after the supposed events fiction was created with lots of poetic license.

For example in 2 Chronicles there is a mention of the Egyptian king Shishek conquering Jerusalem. While there was an Egyptian campaign within a century of the bible chronology his name was not that given in the bible nor do the Egyptian records mention Jerusalem or anything like it as the site of a conquest. How forgiving does one have to be to assume it is a contemporary record? But if it is a later record then the question is how much later? When it comes ot fiction it could be written today as the known facts are ignored.

pauljohntheskeptic>You have chosen to consider anything to do with ancient Palestine a Pack of Lies it would appear. I think that is going too far.

What do you consider stories which are crucially dependent upon magic? I call them fairytales.

pauljohntheskeptic>I consider the ancient people of Palestine somewhat savage though they weren't given to cutting out hearts of the living as say the Aztecs to placate their god or so it seems.

But they were into ritual genital mutilation as a criteria for tribal membership. They also collected foreskins and wore them as necklaces to show their prowess in combat. But we have only the bible as a source for those stories so there is no point in taking them seriously.

pauljohntheskeptic>I realize that I have remnants of indoctrination from my years as a believer that float around in my brain. I however do not grant them basis in reality unless there is substantial evidence from other cultures.

From a believer background you accept much more than you would for any other culture. It is not just a matter of being told there is evidence but skeptically examining it and comparing it to the bible story. A single substantive difference means it is not a contemporary record. The version without magic is presumed the credible version. When the skeptic looks at what is claimed to have been found in other cultures one finds little more than wishful thinking.

>As far as I can tell from my research: there was an ancient land of Israel and Judah, they had kings, they fought each other possibly,  they had relationships with other nations at the time, they banded together to fight off invaders such as Assyria.

Without appealing to authority I would point out you are in the biblethumper minority these days to be defending the existence of a biblical Israel. I am in a much smaller minority than you in that belief so size does not matter.

>They sold each other out to gain advantage possibly. As to if they had a god named Yahweh who was the god of a mythical dude named Abraham I see nothing to substantiate that. Temples by Solomon and a great nation, probably only a hut in a back ass village of goat herders for Judah for sure. Ahab and the Omride kings seem to have existed and they were not likely Yahweh ass kissers. More than that who really knows.

If you want Solomon's temple to have been a hut what is your objection to pack of lies? And if you toss out Yahweh then you cannot have any objection to pack of lies. Which brings me back to when the OT was created. You describe the goatherds and you expect them to have created this fiction? How long afterward are you comfortable with the creation of this fiction, aka pack of lies?

Frankly I don't see much difference between your "defense" of the OT and an LDS defense of the Book of Mormon. Take away the magic and the god part and eliminate all the exageration and "all the rest is true." There really isn't much left to be true.

>As to when the bible fantasies were written who can tell.

We can rationally assume they were written centuries after the real events. Reading and writing were reserved for the wealthy. They cannot be contemporary records and false at the same time unless intended as fiction. If writing were expected to survive the ages it would have been in stone. There is nothing of this in stone.

>I have seen nothing to indicate when these Rah Rah aren't we the shit stories were written. Most likely after the Persians knocked off the Babylonians but beyond that is anyone's guess. I see your point in suggesting sometime after Alexander but I don't see any proof.

It is simply that the people appear AFTER the stories appear. And by people appear I mean as identifiable as followers of this religion by the way they are described. Even if the handful of ancient passages did refer to the characters in the OT there is no description of them which would identify them. So again, the issue is not proof of a negative as you suggest. The issue is the first descriptions of these people by which they can be identified are after the books appear.

>Yeah Daniel was no doubt written in the 2nd century BCE based on its a piss poor Sci-Fi adventure in places. But parts of the OT do seem to have some correlation with histories of Assyria and Babylon.

So do some of the stories of Conan the Barbarian. So what?

>That Assyria used Palestine as a place to extract tribute is well established.

And Herodotus mentions the Palestine Syrians as a source of tribute to Persia. I don't see any Jews in either.

>That they invaded it several times has been shown. Babylon also has been clearly established as an invader of Judah

At best, of Palestine only. The only Babylonian inscription needs a healthy dose of wishful thinking and then does not match the bible story. In the Babylonian version the king is replaced not shipped off to Babylon. Which is more credible? The one without magic.

>by their accounts as well as excavations at sites such as Mizpah. Do I accept any of the bible's history as accurate, no not really not beyond they were some people identified as Judah and Israel by other cultures. As to what happened with this king or that , that is pretty much not possible to determine.

If the history is wrong then the stories are fiction. If they are fiction they could have been written at any time. Similar stories can be written today. Although not biblical Leon Uris wrote the total fiction of Masada.

>So far I haven't seen your evidence that the Greek came first. I suggest you look at some of the work of Rook Hawkins on this site as he has far more knowledge of this subject than I do.

I have said the people first appear in real history as identifiable by the description of them after the Septuagint appears. It is the same for the Mormons, Muslims and Scientologists. I do not feel it necessary to demonstrate Mormons, Muslims and Scietologists did not exist before their founding books but believers expect me to do that for Jews.

I have pointed out the sole ancient claim the Septuagint is a translation is a forgery. But the assumption of a translation became the dominant Christian belief and we know how easy it is for believers to find confirmation of their beliefs. I would be more impressed if the Septuagint had been considered the official version and maybe around the Renaissance the hebrew version came to be accepted. That would eliminate the power of believers to find confirmation of their beliefs. Eastern rite Catholics still hold the Septuagint is the intended meaning if not the original.

If I am completely wrong, then the Septuagint is more than 2000 years closer to the original and thus unqustionably closer to the original meaning of the hebrew as understood by the Judean translators.

I have also given reasons why they should have been mentioned by Herodotus and Alexander's chronicelers but they did not. I have given the generic cause for mentioning them as being the strangest people in the whole world as having only one god but no one did. And if they had more than one god you have just shitcanned the entire OT.

As the OT is fiction at best loosely based upon fact and nothing substantive can be taken seriously what is the point of claiming goatherds and dirt farmers created and preserved the volume of material and more that today is not included in the 6th c. BC? Pick a century. It is incredible enough that it was produced in the 2nd c. BC.

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:spin

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

spin wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Was ancient history written by free honest people???

Is modern history written by free honest people?

That's what I wanted to hear ... Let's strive to be honest, with a willingness to always re-examine our ideas. Thanks everyone.

But can anyone name any modern history that is clearly contrary to the facts? The closest I can think of are the jokes about the Russian communist version of history. Perhaps better, The Producers where Goebbels tells Hilter he told the people they had invaded England and won.

Faking history has two prerequisites, that the creators have complete control of the narrative and that what really happened has passed from cultural memory, e.g. campfire tales. Thus the fake history is not created for the ruling class that creates it. They know better. It is not written for the peons as they cannot read.

So the creation time has to be long after the events. It is difficult to set a minimum time but it should be on the order of a century. The problem is that is the lower bound. There is no way to set an upper bound on how long after.

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


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I AM GOD

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

spin wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Was ancient history written by free honest people???

Is modern history written by free honest people?

That's what I wanted to hear ... Let's strive to be honest, with a willingness to always re-examine our ideas. Thanks everyone.

But can anyone name any modern history that is clearly contrary to the facts?

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was necessary. (Japan had no navy, nor air force left)

It was dropped on a military target. (Pure lie)

Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK. (Fourth bullet)

There were WMDs in Iraq. (Pure lie)

(Etc.)

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

spin>There was an Israel.

Even jewish Israeli archaeologists such as Finkelstein and Silverman has written that IF there was a Solomon he was nothing more than a hilltop warlord. There is a biblical Solomon and a hilltop warlord is not a substitute. Note the emphasis on the IF. Following from the warlord Israel is no more than a hill. It is incredible anyone would accept just a hill as the quid pro quo for compliance with the Torah.

Putting aside your irrelevances about Solomon, please deal with the topic.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin>There was an Ahab and a Pekah and a Hoshea. Until Assyria hit them and Israel was no more. In the power vacuum Hezekiah's little Judah sprang up only to be severely mauled by Sennacherib and then crushed by Nebuchadnezzar.

It is not credible to take a possible name similarity and leap from that the biblical Israel and Judah any more that it is credible to accept a hilltop warlord in place of biblical Solomon and a hill as biblical Israel.

It's not credible to comment without looking at the sources, as you comment clearly shows you haven't looked.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin>Over the next several centuries people from Judah were spread from Babylon to Lower Egypt. They were  bankers in Mesopotamia.

This does leave one begging the question as to what was meant by bankers in those days and the evidence for it. Banking in the modern sense first appears in 16th c. Holland. Unsavory money lenders have likely been with us since money was invented some time after their supposed appearance in Mesopotamia.

Once again, as you haven't looked at the sources, your comments have no value.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin>They were fodder for the slave markets in Ptolemaic Egypt; they made it big in the Ptolemaic army and in Alexandrian commerce.

Ptolemaic Egypt is quite a leap from biblical times. I would also ask where you found evidence of slavery and military involvement. Of course you will keep your sources secret.

Assyrian records, Babylonian records, Elephantine archives, Jewish coins of the Persian era, Ptolemaic indications. They make a relative continuum. Don't ignore evidence.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin>A_Nony_Mouse doesn't want to face the evidence available for this. It's too inconvenient, so it is dismissed without consideration. The idea is more important than the evidence. You know that that's the time to let go of the idea.

On the assumption I have not examined what you consider evidence you say I dismiss it without ever bringing a particular item up for discussion. The underlying presumption is, everything you have read is uncontestable. I am merely asking you to demonstrate what you are talking about that you consider uncontestable. But you refuse.

In addtion to the misinterpretation of the "rations" record there is also a claim from the story of whatever city was conquered.

I've referred you to the literature. Your job is to read it.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The babylonian record reads quite clearly that things were returned to Babylon and the local king replaced NOT shipped to Babylon. Clearly it is not the bible story. But it could have served as the basis for later historical fiction. As it tells a different story it is clearly fiction.

There is another record saying that "holy things" were returned to their places which matches the return of idols that the Babylonians brought to their city. There is nothing indicating it refers to people.

You will continue to say I will not face the evidence but you will continue to refuse to present the evidence you are talking about.

You missed your calling as a preacher.

I understand why you didn't waste money on an academic career.

 

I've held your hand long enough on this. I realize you won't look at any evidence but are content with your prejudices, so there can be no exchange of ideas. I'll leave you to

 

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, enjoying this

Thanks, enjoying this discussion ... lots of good points from you all ... understanding reality is the goal ... I hope this thread will get more friendly now ... be nice as you disagree, please.  Let's help each other respectively .... We are all in this together ... carry on you titans ... as ignorant me and the kids are reading ....  

  Yeah, all history is full of lies .... on that we all agree.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Please learn to use the

 Please learn to use the quote function go to Quote Function

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>I read your draft and it is interesting. I agree that people are predisposed to grant too much probability to the stories of Ancient Israel and Judah you call bibleland. I don't however see how one can tell the BS, myths, legends, and fiction from any possible reality.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

My question goes to when it was written. As for separation there are two things. First one removes the magic, aka miracles, from thes stories to see what is left. Not much to the skeptical observer. Then one looks to the description of persons and places and kingdoms in the OT and requires the archaeological and historical finds to match the bible description. Solomon as a hilltop warlord and Israel as a hill is not an acceptable replacement. That is bait and switch, a con game.

Clearly one removes the magic, the impossible, the places where the wrong technology is mentioned, the cities that weren't there such as Ai, the millions of wandering idiots from Exodus that left no trace, and on and on. There is no disagreement on this. Archealogy clearly doesn't substaniate the hype in the OT. No Jericho walls to blow down, no kingdom of Edom to go around by Josh, no proof hebrews were ever in Egypt. In all likely possibilities those in Palestine all were related as Finkelstein suggests in his books. You see a con game while I see typical made up history to make ones country look like more than it was. Con or typical propaganda?

What's left is badly done contadictions, overly hyped stories about insiginificant people. Is it fiction, lies, propaganda or literature? Some of all most likely. But which parts exactly was my point. All lies have some truth but which parts. Does it matter? Not really. It has no real merit to the world except for fundies and extremists. I give none of it much value other than in painting a distorted view of some ancient people.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>As Spin has said there is sufficient evidence that ancient Israel and Judah did exist though not quite as the Rah Rah stories of the OT present.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I am saying the facts are so different from the stories that the stories cannot be distinguished from historical fiction. As such they could have been written at any time. The facts are so different they cannot have been contemporary records. And as the facts do not show a dominant Yahweh cult the entire religion part of it is also a fabrication, total fiction. After all that is removed, what is left? That land was inhabited and long after the supposed events fiction was created with lots of poetic license.

For example in 2 Chronicles there is a mention of the Egyptian king Shishek conquering Jerusalem. While there was an Egyptian campaign within a century of the bible chronology his name was not that given in the bible nor do the Egyptian records mention Jerusalem or anything like it as the site of a conquest. How forgiving does one have to be to assume it is a contemporary record? But if it is a later record then the question is how much later? When it comes ot fiction it could be written today as the known facts are ignored.

The facts as you say do not match the OT. Yes there are many problems. If as in your example Shishek looted the Temple, there would have been no valuables to loot later by Assyria or Babylon such as Solomon's vessels which were pilfered several times. Wait! Maybe they just reappeared ever time. Probably not.

People in this area did not generally have reading and writing skills until sometime around 600 BCE or so. This did not obviously include the common people. Some higher educated persons did, but did they write and continue to recopy the stuff ever few years, not likely. Here I agree to some extent. I never have said the OT back to ancient times was written as it occurred in fact I said it was likely around the Persian period at best guess. But guess is all anyone can do. I am very aware Kings and Chronicles as well as Jeremiah have many issues, contradictions, and fuck ups when compared to each other. Is any of this stuff true? Who can tell. As I said, there were kings and countries in the area, call them whatever you'd like. Country A and country B. Were they led by David and Solomon. Pleeze. I Never said that. These 2 have little basis in reality. David was mentioned in a stele not much different than referring to Zeus of the house of XYZ.

Much of the writing may have been little more than propaganda to build up the people's view of themselves. Is this a pack of lies? Or is it creative writing? Is it possibly literature?  It's certainly not all true.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>You have chosen to consider anything to do with ancient Palestine a Pack of Lies it would appear. I think that is going too far.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What do you consider stories which are crucially dependent upon magic? I call them fairytales.

I consider them myths, legends, fairytales, bullshit, fiction and creative writing. I don't consider them history or factual.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>I consider the ancient people of Palestine somewhat savage though they weren't given to cutting out hearts of the living as say the Aztecs to placate their god or so it seems.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But they were into ritual genital mutilation as a criteria for tribal membership. They also collected foreskins and wore them as necklaces to show their prowess in combat. But we have only the bible as a source for those stories so there is no point in taking them seriously.

Many cultures took babies and sacrificed them to gain favors with the gods. The Aztecs killed thousands in human sacrifice to placate their gods when they had droughts. They were all savages from our point of view.

Did the Yahweh crowd really collect foreskins? As you say, we only have their word for it in a book of many fables.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>I realize that I have remnants of indoctrination from my years as a believer that float around in my brain. I however do not grant them basis in reality unless there is substantial evidence from other cultures.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

From a believer background you accept much more than you would for any other culture. It is not just a matter of being told there is evidence but skeptically examining it and comparing it to the bible story. A single substantive difference means it is not a contemporary record. The version without magic is presumed the credible version. When the skeptic looks at what is claimed to have been found in other cultures one finds little more than wishful thinking.

There is very little I accept from ancient Palestine that is documented in the Bible.

There were people who lived in it. There were some sort of kingdoms. They were invaded. They fought back as suggested by a stone monument found in Nimrod documenting Shalmaneser III adventures circa 853 BCE. He claimed a win but also that Israel under Ahab had a large force. Other cultures have documentation of contact and invasion. I accept their versions not Jewish stories. I am more predisposed to accept a propaganda tale from Assyria than a story with Rah Rah magic in the Bible.

I never take the word of the Bible on anything at all. My background helps me to discredit the claims because I remember the BS remanents and look for rational ways to analyze. Most of the time there is no proof to the claim as it is a single documentation without substantiation. This suggests it has no basis. It may be propaganda or it may be fiction. Who can tell?

I wrote wrote:

>As far as I can tell from my research: there was an ancient land of Israel and Judah, they had kings, they fought each other possibly,  they had relationships with other nations at the time, they banded together to fight off invaders such as Assyria.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Without appealing to authority I would point out you are in the biblethumper minority these days to be defending the existence of a biblical Israel. I am in a much smaller minority than you in that belief so size does not matter.

No where do I claim these ancient countries of people were "Biblical Israel". I only said they were countries that existed. If you must, call them country A and country B. Archeaology indicates there were in fact civilzations in the area.

I wrote wrote:

>They sold each other out to gain advantage possibly. As to if they had a god named Yahweh who was the god of a mythical dude named Abraham I see nothing to substantiate that. Temples by Solomon and a great nation, probably only a hut in a back ass village of goat herders for Judah for sure. Ahab and the Omride kings seem to have existed and they were not likely Yahweh ass kissers. More than that who really knows.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If you want Solomon's temple to have been a hut what is your objection to pack of lies? And if you toss out Yahweh then you cannot have any objection to pack of lies. Which brings me back to when the OT was created. You describe the goatherds and you expect them to have created this fiction? How long afterward are you comfortable with the creation of this fiction, aka pack of lies?

Really I see no proof Solomon even existed yet alone built a temple. If there was such a king he was insignificant at best. Israel was more dominant than Judah and there is only the OT to claim it was one country and they worshipped Yahweh alone.

I previous said in my comments there were few people who even had the reading and writing skills in anceint times before 600 BCE. It was not written by Abe or the backwoods desert prophets as events happened. Much was most likely written in later periods such as in and after the Persian conquests. Exactly when, in what language and by whom will never be known imho.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Frankly I don't see much difference between your "defense" of the OT and an LDS defense of the Book of Mormon. Take away the magic and the god part and eliminate all the exageration and "all the rest is true." There really isn't much left to be true.

No where have I defended the OT. All I have said is there were ancient countries in the area. Call them whatever name makes you happy. What did they believe. Who knows. Was it that which is presented in the OT? Probably not. Archeaology has shown the people in the area seemed to worship multiple gods as they had Asherah in their homes even in the area suggested to be Judah.

I wrote wrote:

>As to when the bible fantasies were written who can tell.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

We can rationally assume they were written centuries after the real events. Reading and writing were reserved for the wealthy. They cannot be contemporary records and false at the same time unless intended as fiction. If writing were expected to survive the ages it would have been in stone. There is nothing of this in stone.

They were not written at the time of the supposed events and so are not contemporary history, no disagreement. When is the problem. Sometime later such that scrolls were found in the Dead Sea area. These were created sometime between 100 BCE and 70 CE. Many scholars argue over when. No one knows for sure. Were there written religious scrolls before that? Probably. Do we have copies. Nope.

All is conjecture. Putting a date on it is not accurate. Did they exist by the first century? Maybe.

I wrote wrote:

>I have seen nothing to indicate when these Rah Rah aren't we the shit stories were written. Most likely after the Persians knocked off the Babylonians but beyond that is anyone's guess. I see your point in suggesting sometime after Alexander but I don't see any proof.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is simply that the people appear AFTER the stories appear. And by people appear I mean as identifiable as followers of this religion by the way they are described. Even if the handful of ancient passages did refer to the characters in the OT there is no description of them which would identify them. So again, the issue is not proof of a negative as you suggest. The issue is the first descriptions of these people by which they can be identified are after the books appear.

I see your point and understand your view. The people living in very ancient Palestine may or may not be the very same ethnic groups that are in the area by the 2nd century BCE. How could one tell? Over an 800 year period with much warfare much changed as no doubt did thei god ideas.

 

I wrote wrote:

>Yeah Daniel was no doubt written in the 2nd century BCE based on its a piss poor Sci-Fi adventure in places. But parts of the OT do seem to have some correlation with histories of Assyria and Babylon.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

So do some of the stories of Conan the Barbarian. So what?

Conan wasn't real! Yeah I knew that.

The point is there was some sort of civilzation in the area, other cultures point to that. What they believed in for religion is not mentioned by others. There were interactions that are mentioned. Does that mean the OT could have taken this knowledge and info and incorporated it as part of creative writing. OF COURSE. Does that make it a pack of lies. Sure if you want to call all fiction, literature or creative writing lies, why not. Is the OT true? OF COURSE NOT.

I wrote wrote:

>That Assyria used Palestine as a place to extract tribute is well established.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And Herodotus mentions the Palestine Syrians as a source of tribute to Persia. I don't see any Jews in either.

When did I use the word Jews? I said Palestine not Jewish Land.

I wrote wrote:

>That they invaded it several times has been shown. Babylon also has been clearly established as an invader of Judah

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

At best, of Palestine only. The only Babylonian inscription needs a healthy dose of wishful thinking and then does not match the bible story. In the Babylonian version the king is replaced not shipped off to Babylon. Which is more credible? The one without magic.

Call it whatever makes you happy. They left artifacts that have been found in the area.

I wrote wrote:

>by their accounts as well as excavations at sites such as Mizpah. Do I accept any of the bible's history as accurate, no not really not beyond they were some people identified as Judah and Israel by other cultures. As to what happened with this king or that , that is pretty much not possible to determine.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If the history is wrong then the stories are fiction. If they are fiction they could have been written at any time. Similar stories can be written today. Although not biblical Leon Uris wrote the total fiction of Masada.

Clearly most of the OT is not history but is fiction or creative writing. As to when it was written it clearly could be any time up to the point of the documents age that we have in possession. That puts in into the 2nd or 1st century. Since documents rot that are on scrolls so far none older have been found. Are there any? Who knows. Even if there are it doesn't put the savages beliefs into the real world it only shows they believed in BS and fantasy.

I wrote wrote:

>So far I haven't seen your evidence that the Greek came first. I suggest you look at some of the work of Rook Hawkins on this site as he has far more knowledge of this subject than I do

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have said the people first appear in real history as identifiable by the description of them after the Septuagint appears. It is the same for the Mormons, Muslims and Scientologists. I do not feel it necessary to demonstrate Mormons, Muslims and Scietologists did not exist before their founding books but believers expect me to do that for Jews.

I have pointed out the sole ancient claim the Septuagint is a translation is a forgery. But the assumption of a translation became the dominant Christian belief and we know how easy it is for believers to find confirmation of their beliefs. I would be more impressed if the Septuagint had been considered the official version and maybe around the Renaissance the hebrew version came to be accepted. That would eliminate the power of believers to find confirmation of their beliefs. Eastern rite Catholics still hold the Septuagint is the intended meaning if not the original.

If I am completely wrong, then the Septuagint is more than 2000 years closer to the original and thus unqustionably closer to the original meaning of the hebrew as understood by the Judean translators.

I have also given reasons why they should have been mentioned by Herodotus and Alexander's chronicelers but they did not. I have given the generic cause for mentioning them as being the strangest people in the whole world as having only one god but no one did. And if they had more than one god you have just shitcanned the entire OT.

As the OT is fiction at best loosely based upon fact and nothing substantive can be taken seriously what is the point of claiming goatherds and dirt farmers created and preserved the volume of material and more that today is not included in the 6th c. BC? Pick a century. It is incredible enough that it was produced in the 2nd c. BC.

Even the OT seems to indicate there were more then one god worshipped. Jeremiah writes against the Queen of Heaven. Artifacts or Asherah are found in the area suggested to have been Judah as well as in the multiple god worshipping part called Israel. The dominate religion of Palestine was the Cannanite entities of which El and Yahweh were likely part.

Did Herodotus visit and notice every detail? Probably not. He missed things in other countries too as do we all. His lack of mention is a point but he could have been distracted or on a wine binge.

I understand you view and point. Book of OT shows up about time Jews show up. Is this proof they wrote it the week before? No, it only means that it was around by then.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Please learn to use the quote function go to Quote Function

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>I read your draft and it is interesting. I agree that people are predisposed to grant too much probability to the stories of Ancient Israel and Judah you call bibleland. I don't however see how one can tell the BS, myths, legends, and fiction from any possible reality.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

My question goes to when it was written. As for separation there are two things. First one removes the magic, aka miracles, from thes stories to see what is left. Not much to the skeptical observer. Then one looks to the description of persons and places and kingdoms in the OT and requires the archaeological and historical finds to match the bible description. Solomon as a hilltop warlord and Israel as a hill is not an acceptable replacement. That is bait and switch, a con game.

Clearly one removes the magic, the impossible, the places where the wrong technology is mentioned, the cities that weren't there such as Ai, the millions of wandering idiots from Exodus that left no trace, and on and on. There is no disagreement on this. Archaeology clearly doesn't substantiate the hype in the OT. No Jericho walls to blow down, no kingdom of Edom to go around by Josh, no proof hebrews were ever in Egypt. In all likely possibilities those in Palestine all were related as Finkelstein suggests in his books. You see a con game while I see typical made up history to make ones country look like more than it was. Con or typical propaganda?

What's left is badly done contadictions, overly hyped stories about insiginificant people. Is it fiction, lies, propaganda or literature? Some of all most likely. But which parts exactly was my point. All lies have some truth but which parts. Does it matter? Not really. It has no real merit to the world except for fundies and extremists. I give none of it much value other than in painting a distorted view of some ancient people.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>As Spin has said there is sufficient evidence that ancient Israel and Judah did exist though not quite as the Rah Rah stories of the OT present.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I am saying the facts are so different from the stories that the stories cannot be distinguished from historical fiction. As such they could have been written at any time. The facts are so different they cannot have been contemporary records. And as the facts do not show a dominant Yahweh cult the entire religion part of it is also a fabrication, total fiction. After all that is removed, what is left? That land was inhabited and long after the supposed events fiction was created with lots of poetic license.

For example in 2 Chronicles there is a mention of the Egyptian king Shishek conquering Jerusalem. While there was an Egyptian campaign within a century of the bible chronology his name was not that given in the bible nor do the Egyptian records mention Jerusalem or anything like it as the site of a conquest. How forgiving does one have to be to assume it is a contemporary record? But if it is a later record then the question is how much later? When it comes ot fiction it could be written today as the known facts are ignored.

The facts as you say do not match the OT. Yes there are many problems. If as in your example Shishek looted the Temple, there would have been no valuables to loot later by Assyria or Babylon such as Solomon's vessels which were pilfered several times. Wait! Maybe they just reappeared ever time. Probably not.

People in this area did not generally have reading and writing skills until sometime around 600 BCE or so. This did not obviously include the common people. Some higher educated persons did, but did they write and continue to recopy the stuff ever few years, not likely. Here I agree to some extent. I never have said the OT back to ancient times was written as it occurred in fact I said it was likely around the Persian period at best guess. But guess is all anyone can do. I am very aware Kings and Chronicles as well as Jeremiah have many issues, contradictions, and fuck ups when compared to each other. Is any of this stuff true? Who can tell. As I said, there were kings and countries in the area, call them whatever you'd like. Country A and country B. Were they led by David and Solomon. Pleeze. I Never said that. These 2 have little basis in reality. David was mentioned in a stele not much different than referring to Zeus of the house of XYZ.

Much of the writing may have been little more than propaganda to build up the people's view of themselves. Is this a pack of lies? Or is it creative writing? Is it possibly literature?  It's certainly not all true.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>You have chosen to consider anything to do with ancient Palestine a Pack of Lies it would appear. I think that is going too far.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What do you consider stories which are crucially dependent upon magic? I call them fairytales.

I consider them myths, legends, fairytales, bullshit, fiction and creative writing. I don't consider them history or factual.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>I consider the ancient people of Palestine somewhat savage though they weren't given to cutting out hearts of the living as say the Aztecs to placate their god or so it seems.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But they were into ritual genital mutilation as a criteria for tribal membership. They also collected foreskins and wore them as necklaces to show their prowess in combat. But we have only the bible as a source for those stories so there is no point in taking them seriously.

Many cultures took babies and sacrificed them to gain favors with the gods. The Aztecs killed thousands in human sacrifice to placate their gods when they had droughts. They were all savages from our point of view.

Did the Yahweh crowd really collect foreskins? As you say, we only have their word for it in a book of many fables.

I wrote wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic>I realize that I have remnants of indoctrination from my years as a believer that float around in my brain. I however do not grant them basis in reality unless there is substantial evidence from other cultures.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

From a believer background you accept much more than you would for any other culture. It is not just a matter of being told there is evidence but skeptically examining it and comparing it to the bible story. A single substantive difference means it is not a contemporary record. The version without magic is presumed the credible version. When the skeptic looks at what is claimed to have been found in other cultures one finds little more than wishful thinking.

There is very little I accept from ancient Palestine that is documented in the Bible.

There were people who lived in it. There were some sort of kingdoms. They were invaded. They fought back as suggested by a stone monument found in Nimrod documenting Shalmaneser III adventures circa 853 BCE. He claimed a win but also that Israel under Ahab had a large force. Other cultures have documentation of contact and invasion. I accept their versions not Jewish stories. I am more predisposed to accept a propaganda tale from Assyria than a story with Rah Rah magic in the Bible.

I never take the word of the Bible on anything at all. My background helps me to discredit the claims because I remember the BS remanents and look for rational ways to analyze. Most of the time there is no proof to the claim as it is a single documentation without substantiation. This suggests it has no basis. It may be propaganda or it may be fiction. Who can tell?

I wrote wrote:

>As far as I can tell from my research: there was an ancient land of Israel and Judah, they had kings, they fought each other possibly,  they had relationships with other nations at the time, they banded together to fight off invaders such as Assyria.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Without appealing to authority I would point out you are in the biblethumper minority these days to be defending the existence of a biblical Israel. I am in a much smaller minority than you in that belief so size does not matter.

No where do I claim these ancient countries of people were "Biblical Israel". I only said they were countries that existed. If you must, call them country A and country B. Archeaology indicates there were in fact civilzations in the area.

I wrote wrote:

>They sold each other out to gain advantage possibly. As to if they had a god named Yahweh who was the god of a mythical dude named Abraham I see nothing to substantiate that. Temples by Solomon and a great nation, probably only a hut in a back ass village of goat herders for Judah for sure. Ahab and the Omride kings seem to have existed and they were not likely Yahweh ass kissers. More than that who really knows.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If you want Solomon's temple to have been a hut what is your objection to pack of lies? And if you toss out Yahweh then you cannot have any objection to pack of lies. Which brings me back to when the OT was created. You describe the goatherds and you expect them to have created this fiction? How long afterward are you comfortable with the creation of this fiction, aka pack of lies?

Really I see no proof Solomon even existed yet alone built a temple. If there was such a king he was insignificant at best. Israel was more dominant than Judah and there is only the OT to claim it was one country and they worshipped Yahweh alone.

I previous said in my comments there were few people who even had the reading and writing skills in anceint times before 600 BCE. It was not written by Abe or the backwoods desert prophets as events happened. Much was most likely written in later periods such as in and after the Persian conquests. Exactly when, in what language and by whom will never be known imho.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Frankly I don't see much difference between your "defense" of the OT and an LDS defense of the Book of Mormon. Take away the magic and the god part and eliminate all the exageration and "all the rest is true." There really isn't much left to be true.

No where have I defended the OT. All I have said is there were ancient countries in the area. Call them whatever name makes you happy. What did they believe. Who knows. Was it that which is presented in the OT? Probably not. Archeaology has shown the people in the area seemed to worship multiple gods as they had Asherah in their homes even in the area suggested to be Judah.

I wrote wrote:

>As to when the bible fantasies were written who can tell.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

We can rationally assume they were written centuries after the real events. Reading and writing were reserved for the wealthy. They cannot be contemporary records and false at the same time unless intended as fiction. If writing were expected to survive the ages it would have been in stone. There is nothing of this in stone.

They were not written at the time of the supposed events and so are not contemporary history, no disagreement. When is the problem. Sometime later such that scrolls were found in the Dead Sea area. These were created sometime between 100 BCE and 70 CE. Many scholars argue over when. No one knows for sure. Were there written religious scrolls before that? Probably. Do we have copies. Nope.

All is conjecture. Putting a date on it is not accurate. Did they exist by the first century? Maybe.

I wrote wrote:

>I have seen nothing to indicate when these Rah Rah aren't we the shit stories were written. Most likely after the Persians knocked off the Babylonians but beyond that is anyone's guess. I see your point in suggesting sometime after Alexander but I don't see any proof.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is simply that the people appear AFTER the stories appear. And by people appear I mean as identifiable as followers of this religion by the way they are described. Even if the handful of ancient passages did refer to the characters in the OT there is no description of them which would identify them. So again, the issue is not proof of a negative as you suggest. The issue is the first descriptions of these people by which they can be identified are after the books appear.

I see your point and understand your view. The people living in very ancient Palestine may or may not be the very same ethnic groups that are in the area by the 2nd century BCE. How could one tell? Over an 800 year period with much warfare much changed as no doubt did thei god ideas.

 

I wrote wrote:

>Yeah Daniel was no doubt written in the 2nd century BCE based on its a piss poor Sci-Fi adventure in places. But parts of the OT do seem to have some correlation with histories of Assyria and Babylon.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

So do some of the stories of Conan the Barbarian. So what?

Conan wasn't real! Yeah I knew that.

The point is there was some sort of civilzation in the area, other cultures point to that. What they believed in for religion is not mentioned by others. There were interactions that are mentioned. Does that mean the OT could have taken this knowledge and info and incorporated it as part of creative writing. OF COURSE. Does that make it a pack of lies. Sure if you want to call all fiction, literature or creative writing lies, why not. Is the OT true? OF COURSE NOT.

I wrote wrote:

>That Assyria used Palestine as a place to extract tribute is well established.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And Herodotus mentions the Palestine Syrians as a source of tribute to Persia. I don't see any Jews in either.

When did I use the word Jews? I said Palestine not Jewish Land.

I wrote wrote:

>That they invaded it several times has been shown. Babylon also has been clearly established as an invader of Judah

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

At best, of Palestine only. The only Babylonian inscription needs a healthy dose of wishful thinking and then does not match the bible story. In the Babylonian version the king is replaced not shipped off to Babylon. Which is more credible? The one without magic.

Call it whatever makes you happy. They left artifacts that have been found in the area.

I wrote wrote:

>by their accounts as well as excavations at sites such as Mizpah. Do I accept any of the bible's history as accurate, no not really not beyond they were some people identified as Judah and Israel by other cultures. As to what happened with this king or that , that is pretty much not possible to determine.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If the history is wrong then the stories are fiction. If they are fiction they could have been written at any time. Similar stories can be written today. Although not biblical Leon Uris wrote the total fiction of Masada.

Clearly most of the OT is not history but is fiction or creative writing. As to when it was written it clearly could be any time up to the point of the documents age that we have in possession. That puts in into the 2nd or 1st century. Since documents rot that are on scrolls so far none older have been found. Are there any? Who knows. Even if there are it doesn't put the savages beliefs into the real world it only shows they believed in BS and fantasy.

I wrote wrote:

>So far I haven't seen your evidence that the Greek came first. I suggest you look at some of the work of Rook Hawkins on this site as he has far more knowledge of this subject than I do

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have said the people first appear in real history as identifiable by the description of them after the Septuagint appears. It is the same for the Mormons, Muslims and Scientologists. I do not feel it necessary to demonstrate Mormons, Muslims and Scietologists did not exist before their founding books but believers expect me to do that for Jews.

I have pointed out the sole ancient claim the Septuagint is a translation is a forgery. But the assumption of a translation became the dominant Christian belief and we know how easy it is for believers to find confirmation of their beliefs. I would be more impressed if the Septuagint had been considered the official version and maybe around the Renaissance the hebrew version came to be accepted. That would eliminate the power of believers to find confirmation of their beliefs. Eastern rite Catholics still hold the Septuagint is the intended meaning if not the original.

If I am completely wrong, then the Septuagint is more than 2000 years closer to the original and thus unqustionably closer to the original meaning of the hebrew as understood by the Judean translators.

I have also given reasons why they should have been mentioned by Herodotus and Alexander's chronicelers but they did not. I have given the generic cause for mentioning them as being the strangest people in the whole world as having only one god but no one did. And if they had more than one god you have just shitcanned the entire OT.

As the OT is fiction at best loosely based upon fact and nothing substantive can be taken seriously what is the point of claiming goatherds and dirt farmers created and preserved the volume of material and more that today is not included in the 6th c. BC? Pick a century. It is incredible enough that it was produced in the 2nd c. BC.

Even the OT seems to indicate there were more then one god worshipped. Jeremiah writes against the Queen of Heaven. Artifacts or Asherah are found in the area suggested to have been Judah as well as in the multiple god worshipping part called Israel. The dominate religion of Palestine was the Cannanite entities of which El and Yahweh were likely part.

Did Herodotus visit and notice every detail? Probably not. He missed things in other countries too as do we all. His lack of mention is a point but he could have been distracted or on a wine binge.

I understand your view and point. Book of OT shows up about time Jews show up. Is this proof they wrote it the week before? No, it only means that it was around by then.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Book of OT shows up about time Jews show up. Is this proof they wrote it the week before?

You can see what comes of confusing terminus post quem with terminus ad quem (*).

 

 

spin

 

 

Trust the evidence, Luke


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

spin wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

spin wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Was ancient history written by free honest people???

Is modern history written by free honest people?

That's what I wanted to hear ... Let's strive to be honest, with a willingness to always re-examine our ideas. Thanks everyone.

But can anyone name any modern history that is clearly contrary to the facts?

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was necessary. (Japan had no navy, nor air force left)

It was dropped on a military target. (Pure lie)

Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK. (Fourth bullet)

There were WMDs in Iraq. (Pure lie)

(Etc.)

 

spin

There was a Hiroshima. There was a bomb. There was no biblical Israel. There was no Solomon.

Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK existed as opposed to Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon who did not exist. That is independent of your whacked out belief in Dealy Plaza as portrayed in a Lexx episode.

Do you get the picture? How about somone publishing the history of the nuclear war that came to be called WWIII and nearly ended civilization? How many wars of the non-existent bible people are reported in the bible? All of them.

How about publishing a history of the dominance of worship of the god Zeus in modern American society culminating in the conversion of the Capital building in DC into a temple to him? That would be comparable to the bible claims about Yahweh and bibleland.

As I was saying, ficticious events cannot be created when people are around who know better. They have to be written after people have forgotten the real history. And as I noted that is only the lower limit on when. They can be written centuries after everyone has forgotten or, as in the case of the book of  Mormon, 1800 years after the events it describes.

 

 

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


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There was

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
There was a Hiroshima. There was a bomb. There was no biblical Israel. There was no Solomon.

Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK existed as opposed to Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon who did not exist. That is independent of your whacked out belief in Dealy Plaza as portrayed in a Lexx episode.

Do you get the picture?

Yep. You're not dealing with what I'm saying. I didn't talk about Solomon or a biblical Israel. I did mention a historical Israel, for which you refuse to look at the evidence (see for instance the Wiki entry for Qarqar and its link to the Kurkh monolith). The picture seems to be you want not to know.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What's left is badly done contadictions, overly hyped stories about insiginificant people. Is it fiction, lies, propaganda or literature? Some of all most likely. But which parts exactly was my point. All lies have some truth but which parts. Does it matter? Not really. It has no real merit to the world except for fundies and extremists. I give none of it much value other than in painting a distorted view of some ancient people.

In the late 19th/ earty 20th c. there were farms in Kansas. There were traveling snake oil salesmen and there were hot air balloons. I think that exhausts all the truth there is in The Wizard of Oz.

What does it matter? If you have no interest in how the OT came into existence it makes no difference to you. It actually made no difference to me until the thumpers started making impossible claims about it which affronted my amateur interest in the ancent world and archaeology.

What matters is there is no way to reconcile the OT with the ancient world as known from every other source. In any field of learning where there is an effort for a consistent understanding of what is sore thumbs like the OT are anathema.

Any attempt to accept it's existence is a plea for exceptionalism from this group of goatherds and dirt farmers over every other similar society in ancient times. If believers are to taken seriously these otherwise illiterate and uncultured peasants created and preserved this collection.

Do you really expect to find a kernel of fact greater than in The Wizard in all of this? But if you have no interest in the ancient world or have some idea they were superior to us then there is nothing for you to interest you in this matter. However exceptionalism is never the way to explain anything as anything that does not make sense can be explained by exceptionalism. It is pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It is the reason catastrophies are the last resort of science.

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
spin wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

spin wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
There was a Hiroshima. There was a bomb. There was no biblical Israel. There was no Solomon.

Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK existed as opposed to Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon who did not exist. That is independent of your whacked out belief in Dealy Plaza as portrayed in a Lexx episode.

Do you get the picture?

Yep. You're not dealing with what I'm saying. I didn't talk about Solomon or a biblical Israel. I did mention a historical Israel, for which you refuse to look at the evidence (see for instance the Wiki entry for Qarqar and its link to the Kurkh monolith). The picture seems to be you want not to know.

spin

And as you have produced no evidence of any historical Israel and as no reputable or even disreputable archaeologist has produced any evidence of any "historical" Israel including those jewish, Israeli or both, you are the one with the secret evidence.

As you apparently missed part of your freshmen orientation lecture in college no encyclopedia is considered acceptable for college level work much less wikipedia where for all you know I wrote that article.

That said, nothing in it mentions any Israel.

Perhaps you were thinking of the obelisk of Shalamanser http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/ob-shal-comment.phtml

This is the translation of the obelisk. You have to go all the way to the bottom to find the line of interest which is

[2] The tribute of Yahua son of Khumri: silver, gold, bowls of gold, vessels of gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for the King's hand, (and) staves: I received.

People want to read Yahua son of Khumri as Yehu son of Omri. If one does not choose to read it that way the believers are screwed. In fact just about every reference to this cities this as proof. However the bible says

1 Kings, chapter 16 1: Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying,
2: Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins;

This does not mention Israel. So those who claim it does are trying to go from a peculiar reading of two names so that they names are found in the OT to claiming it is a mention of Israel. All we have are two names, nothing more. But as we see they are not the two kings whose names are in the OT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

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

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


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
To  pauljohntheskeptic:In

To  pauljohntheskeptic:

In general you appear to be arguing for decisive maybe.

I certainly am not arguing for Herodotus being all inclusive. I give him as only one example with his three different listings of people in the region including those who practiced circumcision and the absence of any who could have been Jews from all of them.

But that is not all. Later we have Alexander in the course of conquering the world conquering this region while the chronicles of his campaigns make no mention of any conquest of Judea. Moreover there are two surviving inventories of his conquests. When glorifying the conqueror one expects the list of conquests to be as long as possible rather than abbreviated. No mention of any Judah, Judea or anyone who could have been Jews.

But that is not all. There is no mention of these people, their stories or their traditions until after Pompey conquers the region. The Greeks ruled for centuries and not a single mention of them.

We all know that relatively little survived from ancient times but that is not license to assert the existence of Atlantis. Neither is it license to assert the existence of the good guys in the bible stories.

Were that all there is one could still argue for the stories having the same amount of fact in them as The Wizard of Oz. But we have archaeology. Percentagewise bibleland is the most dug place in the world. Professionals and amateurs have been digging there for more than a century. Since 1948 every construction effort by Israel in Israel and the occupied territories also constitutes a dig with their strict antiquities laws. If construction is falling behind, salt it with some fake artifacts to the law stops you and pays for your loss. Every home, storm drain, parking garage, street, and everything else which disturbs the earth constitutes a dig. And still nothhing, nada, zilch.

Everything points to the sudden creation of this religion between Alexander and Pompey. And as I have noted that is like the sudden appearence of Islam, the LDS and Scientology as created not traditional religions like the Greek and Roman pantheons or the committee religions like Christianity.

If you are happy with a Wizard of Oz match with reality that defines your level of interest, any explanation will do. I am not satisfied with that.

The "any explanation will do" approach allows much of the selling of religion to continue. It supports theism because people will accept just about anything as long as it supports their religious beliefs.

If that is to esoteric for you all this OT fiction has lead to nearly 2/3rds of Americans supporting the atheist fake Jews in Israel over the rightful owners. The open plan to dirve out or murder the Palestinians started with Zev Jabotinski in the 1920s and was openly implemented by the Zionist murderers.

 

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

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

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Not following the details of

Sociology tells me more, but I find it interesting the varying historical opinions. Not following the details of so much personally worthless ancient writings, BUT how can someone claim a right to re-occupying some dirt of long distant, long gone dead ancestors, as if sacred? That is fucking stupid. Sacred anything is stupid stupid stupid. Nothing is sacred. NOTHING.

   Total Bull Shit it indeed is, Zionism

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Zionist&btnG=Google+Search


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

spin wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
There was a Hiroshima. There was a bomb. There was no biblical Israel. There was no Solomon.

Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK existed as opposed to Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon who did not exist. That is independent of your whacked out belief in Dealy Plaza as portrayed in a Lexx episode.

Do you get the picture?

Yep. You're not dealing with what I'm saying. I didn't talk about Solomon or a biblical Israel. I did mention a historical Israel, for which you refuse to look at the evidence (see for instance the Wiki entry for Qarqar and its link to the Kurkh monolith). The picture seems to be you want not to know.

spin

And as you have produced no evidence of any historical Israel and as no reputable or even disreputable archaeologist has produced any evidence of any "historical" Israel including those jewish, Israeli or both, you are the one with the secret evidence.

As you apparently missed part of your freshmen orientation lecture in college no encyclopedia is considered acceptable for college level work much less wikipedia where for all you know I wrote that article.

That said, nothing in it mentions any Israel.

Perhaps you were thinking of the obelisk of Shalamanser http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/ob-shal-comment.phtml

This is the translation of the obelisk. You have to go all the way to the bottom to find the line of interest which is

[2] The tribute of Yahua son of Khumri: silver, gold, bowls of gold, vessels of gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for the King's hand, (and) staves: I received.

People want to read Yahua son of Khumri as Yehu son of Omri. If one does not choose to read it that way the believers are screwed.

What is always fun to me is when someone parades their ignorance in an effort to show themselves very clever. Philology requires study. People who know nothing about it almost always make a balls-up.

The Hebrew name Omri is spelt (MRY (AYIN MEM RESH YOD). There is no letter in Assyrian equivalent to the AYIN. The pronunciation at the time when the Assyrians came into contact with the inhabitants of Samaria/Israel/Bit-Khumri led the Assyrians to transcribe the name as variations on Khumri. Although the Assyrian records don't record many place names in Palestine which start with an AYIN, there is another example: the Hebrew name of Gaza is (ZH (AYIN ZAYIN HE). The initial sound ends up a G in Greek but it also ends up Kh in Assyrian, where Gaza is Khazata (for example in Tiglath-Pileser III's inscriptions), so when we see Omri written as Khumri, this is what we should expect from the Assyrians.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
In fact just about every reference to this cities this as proof. However the bible says

1 Kings, chapter 16 1: Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying,
2: Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins;

This does not mention Israel. So those who claim it does are trying to go from a peculiar reading of two names so that they names are found in the OT to claiming it is a mention of Israel. All we have are two names, nothing more. But as we see they are not the two kings whose names are in the OT.

It's fun isn't it, when someone who totally repudiates the bible is forced to try to quote it against you?

 

A few facts. One doesn't necessarily expect a foreign conqueror to get your lineage right -- then again should we expect the bible to get the facts straight in this case? One name the Assyrians used for Israel was Bit-Khumri, the "house of Omri". Calling Yehu "Yahua son of Khumri", seems quite reasonable for someone ruling the house of Omri.

Another Assyrian record, again from Tiglath-Pileser III, talks about Bit-Khumri and mentions the Assyrians overthrowing king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and placing Hoshea (A-u-si-') as king [Pritchard, p.194]. The same inscription mentions Jehoahaz of Judah -- this is Hezekiah's father Ahaz. Adad-nirari III places Bit-Khumri in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre, as well as Edom and Philistia [p.192]. Shalmaneser III also mentions Ahab of Israel, A-ha-ab-bu matSir-'i-la-a-a (which spells out the Hebrew name Y$R)L), as participating in the battle of Qarqar. Sargon II states that he was the "conqueror of Samaria [the principal of Israel] and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195] From his annals he says "I besieged and conquered Samaria and led away 27,290 inhabitants" and later "Samaria and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195-6] Bit-Khumria leaves the Assyrian records and the Assyrians look further south to Philistia, Judah, Edom and Moab.

An interesting side issue is that while Adad-nirari III and earlier kings mention Bit-Khumri, we have to wait until the time of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727BCE) for the first instance of Judah paying tribute to Assyria.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I want to weigh in very

I want to weigh in very quickly.  First, A_nony_mouse, I think you need to quit while you're behind.  Seriously, you are really in a deep hole here and you've got little chance of redeeming yourself.  Your conclusions are sloppy and the fact that you seem unfamiliar with not only the primary material (sic!) but also the secondary studies, as well as the overview studies done of the available data as a whole!  You are so far from making a case here that you should take a few years off to get acquainted with the resources available before you start trying to defend this position.  Both I and Spin have given you more than enough resources to keep you busy for a while. 

Second, it has been almost unanimously concluded based on primary evidence that the so-called "ancient Israelites" have existed in some form dating to roughly the first millennium BCE.  Once again, any study done on the state of the evidence would demonstrate this.  The Biblical traditions, as we know them today, have some roots in the Persian Period, and *perhaps* go as far back as the 9th century BCE, although more than likely I find Thompson's understanding of the literary traditions to be that, even if the core literary traditions of the patriarchs did go back to the 9th century BCE, it would mean relatively little (as the literary traditions themselves stem back at least another millennium BCE).  Regardless, your conclusions on the dating of the Hebrew language is shifty and I'm fairly certain that, just from knowing a few philologists, they would not agree with your conclusions based on epigraphical data.

Third, Jerusalam has existed as early as (probably earlier than) the conquest of the ancient Near East by the Egyptian pharaohs of the New Kingdom.  There are Assyrian inscriptions (correspondance) from the governing head to the Pharaohs from inside the city on current situations with the region.  So dust off your dictionarys and commentaries and start reading.  Just making unlearned assumptions can kill your reputation and hurt your progress. 

Spin, keep up the good work.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What's left is badly done contadictions, overly hyped stories about insiginificant people. Is it fiction, lies, propaganda or literature? Some of all most likely. But which parts exactly was my point. All lies have some truth but which parts. Does it matter? Not really. It has no real merit to the world except for fundies and extremists. I give none of it much value other than in painting a distorted view of some ancient people.

In the late 19th/ earty 20th c. there were farms in Kansas. There were traveling snake oil salesmen and there were hot air balloons. I think that exhausts all the truth there is in The Wizard of Oz.

What does it matter? If you have no interest in how the OT came into existence it makes no difference to you. It actually made no difference to me until the thumpers started making impossible claims about it which affronted my amateur interest in the ancent world and archaeology.

What matters is there is no way to reconcile the OT with the ancient world as known from every other source. In any field of learning where there is an effort for a consistent understanding of what is sore thumbs like the OT are anathema.

Any attempt to accept it's existence is a plea for exceptionalism from this group of goatherds and dirt farmers over every other similar society in ancient times. If believers are to taken seriously these otherwise illiterate and uncultured peasants created and preserved this collection.

Do you really expect to find a kernel of fact greater than in The Wizard in all of this? But if you have no interest in the ancient world or have some idea they were superior to us then there is nothing for you to interest you in this matter. However exceptionalism is never the way to explain anything as anything that does not make sense can be explained by exceptionalism. It is pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It is the reason catastrophies are the last resort of science.

Saying something has no merit and is accepted by fundies et al. does not mean I have no interest in how the OT came into existence. I'd really like to understand how people fell for the fraud of Mormonism as well. 

You make some broad assumptions in many instances that are completely unwarranted. It seems you have the purpose in mind that the Jews and their questionable book just dropped out of the sky one day in the first or second century BCE. You seem to suggest they came forth and wrote a book of fables on the spot and immediately promoted it as the truth. Joe Smith may have done such but there is considerable evidence there were people in this area that were the ancestors of the later Jews. These people had to come from somewhere yet you choose to ignore the Assyrian and Babylonian records. No one is saying that just because a group of people lived in ancient Israel that the OT is a true account of their misadventures.

Again I suggest you review some of Rook's work and perhaps look much closer at Assyrian and Babylonian history.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
spin wrote:A few facts. One

spin wrote:

A few facts. One doesn't necessarily expect a foreign conqueror to get your lineage right -- then again should we expect the bible to get the facts straight in this case? One name the Assyrians used for Israel was Bit-Khumri, the "house of Omri". Calling Yehu "Yahua son of Khumri", seems quite reasonable for someone ruling the house of Omri.

Another Assyrian record, again from Tiglath-Pileser III, talks about Bit-Khumri and mentions the Assyrians overthrowing king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and placing Hoshea (A-u-si-') as king [Pritchard, p.194]. The same inscription mentions Jehoahaz of Judah -- this is Hezekiah's father Ahaz. Adad-nirari III places Bit-Khumri in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre, as well as Edom and Philistia [p.192]. Shalmaneser III also mentions Ahab of Israel, A-ha-ab-bu matSir-'i-la-a-a (which spells out the Hebrew name Y$R)L), as participating in the battle of Qarqar. Sargon II states that he was the "conqueror of Samaria [the principal of Israel] and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195] From his annals he says "I besieged and conquered Samaria and led away 27,290 inhabitants" and later "Samaria and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195-6] Bit-Khumria leaves the Assyrian records and the Assyrians look further south to Philistia, Judah, Edom and Moab.

An interesting side issue is that while Adad-nirari III and earlier kings mention Bit-Khumri, we have to wait until the time of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727BCE) for the first instance of Judah paying tribute to Assyria.

 

 

spin

Good job Spin, that's what I have been trying to tell him. I didn't have time to go look up all the facts to show him where he was wrong. I remembered the Shalmaneser III mention and told him but he ignored it completely.

____________________________________________________________
"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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Sociology tells me more, but I find it interesting the varying historical opinions. Not following the details of so much personally worthless ancient writings, BUT how can someone claim a right to re-occupying some dirt of long distant, long gone dead ancestors, as if sacred? That is fucking stupid. Sacred anything is stupid stupid stupid. Nothing is sacred. NOTHING.

   Total Bull Shit it indeed is, Zionism

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Zionist&btnG=Google+Search

The first thing one discovers quckly upon researching Zionism itself, not what Zionists say about it is that it is an atheist, marxist movment.

It does not take much reading to discover the Revisionist movement by Jabotinsky took over the Zionist movement in the early 1920s. It openly advocating driving out or murdering the Palestinians in order to steal their land. By definition all Zionists are murderers and thieves. They did leave a modest loophole, Palestinians could stay as servants without civil rights. If they did have civil rights with the first election the entire zionist crap would have been shitcanned.

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
spin> A few facts. One

spin> A few facts. One doesn't necessarily expect a foreign conqueror to get your lineage right -- then again should we expect the bible to get the facts straight in this case? One name the Assyrians used for Israel was Bit-Khumri, the "house of Omri". Calling Yehu "Yahua son of Khumri", seems quite reasonable for someone ruling the house of Omri.

And I find it interesting when people impose the British, not American, use of the word house upon ancient peoples to mean dynasty. BT always means a place to live from house to palace to temple to town as in BT LHM, Bethlehem, to geographic region. But when it comes to the LAND of KHUMRI which is most likley Samaria the writers become modern Englishmen in their usage of the word.

spin> Another Assyrian record, again from Tiglath-Pileser III, talks about Bit-Khumri and mentions the Assyrians overthrowing king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and placing Hoshea (A-u-si-') as king [Pritchard, p.194]. The same inscription mentions Jehoahaz of Judah -- this is Hezekiah's father Ahaz. Adad-nirari III places Bit-Khumri in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre, as well as Edom and Philistia [p.192]. Shalmaneser III also mentions Ahab of Israel, A-ha-ab-bu matSir-'i-la-a-a (which spells out the Hebrew name Y$R)L), as participating in the battle of Qarqar. Sargon II states that he was the "conqueror of Samaria [the principal of Israel] and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195] From his annals he says "I besieged and conquered Samaria and led away 27,290 inhabitants" and later "Samaria and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195-6] Bit-Khumria leaves the Assyrian records and the Assyrians look further south to Philistia, Judah, Edom and Moab.

So even if the lineage is wrong and they have the Brit usage of house meaning dynasty and if the names are vaguely close it means no matter how you look at it everything confirms the existence of a bible civilization that vanished without a trace. Or fantastic stories were created using names preserved on monuments around the region explaining why there is no trace of this civilization. It is like Oz and Atlantis.

spin> An interesting side issue is that while Adad-nirari III and earlier kings mention Bit-Khumri, we have to wait until the time of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727BCE) for the first instance of Judah paying tribute to Assyria.

At least you have gotten to the obilesk instead of the other inscription. You are now insisting that a civlization that vanished without a trace existed because there are some vaguely similar names. Fiction is fiction no matter when created. There is no archaeological evidence of the civilization such inscriptions might refer to.

It is a clear sign of bias to default in favor of a collection of books that suddenly appeared in history out of no where with only a forged letter as provenence. That certainly would not pass muster today. As there is no archaeological evidence of the civilization described explicitly and as implied in the OT its origin is clearly not contemporaneous with the events being told.

 

 

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


spin
spin's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-10-29
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:spin> A

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin> A few facts. One doesn't necessarily expect a foreign conqueror to get your lineage right -- then again should we expect the bible to get the facts straight in this case? One name the Assyrians used for Israel was Bit-Khumri, the "house of Omri". Calling Yehu "Yahua son of Khumri", seems quite reasonable for someone ruling the house of Omri.

And I find it interesting when people impose the British, not American, use of the word house upon ancient peoples to mean dynasty. BT always means a place to live from house to palace to temple to town as in BT LHM, Bethlehem, to geographic region. But when it comes to the LAND of KHUMRI which is most likley Samaria the writers become modern Englishmen in their usage of the word.

Umm, I don't think the writer of 1 Sam 20:16 was either British or American.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin> Another Assyrian record, again from Tiglath-Pileser III, talks about Bit-Khumri and mentions the Assyrians overthrowing king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and placing Hoshea (A-u-si-') as king [Pritchard, p.194]. The same inscription mentions Jehoahaz of Judah -- this is Hezekiah's father Ahaz. Adad-nirari III places Bit-Khumri in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre, as well as Edom and Philistia [p.192]. Shalmaneser III also mentions Ahab of Israel, A-ha-ab-bu matSir-'i-la-a-a (which spells out the Hebrew name Y$R)L), as participating in the battle of Qarqar. Sargon II states that he was the "conqueror of Samaria [the principal of Israel] and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195] From his annals he says "I besieged and conquered Samaria and led away 27,290 inhabitants" and later "Samaria and all Bit-Khumria". [p.195-6] Bit-Khumria leaves the Assyrian records and the Assyrians look further south to Philistia, Judah, Edom and Moab.

So even if the lineage is wrong and they have the Brit usage of house meaning dynasty and if the names are vaguely close it means no matter how you look at it everything confirms the existence of a bible civilization that vanished without a trace. Or fantastic stories were created using names preserved on monuments around the region explaining why there is no trace of this civilization. It is like Oz and Atlantis.

When you work on false assumptions you get to false conclusions.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
spin> An interesting side issue is that while Adad-nirari III and earlier kings mention Bit-Khumri, we have to wait until the time of Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727BCE) for the first instance of Judah paying tribute to Assyria.

At least you have gotten to the obilesk instead of the other inscription. You are now insisting that a civlization that vanished without a trace existed because there are some vaguely similar names. Fiction is fiction no matter when created. There is no archaeological evidence of the civilization such inscriptions might refer to.

When you decide something is fiction a priori, evidence means nothing.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
It is a clear sign of bias to default in favor of a collection of books that suddenly appeared in history out of no where with only a forged letter as provenence.

Which books, the Assyrian and Babylonian records? Your dismissiveness when you ignroe the data, is merely a sign of your not doing your job. Bias is denying evidence because of your a priori commitments, a priori commitments which you have trumpeted in two threads.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
That certainly would not pass muster today. As there is no archaeological evidence of the civilization described explicitly and as implied in the OT its origin is clearly not contemporaneous with the events being told.

Even though I'm in the middle of the highway I know that's not a bus hurtling towards me, so I'm safe.

 

 

spin

Trust the evidence, Luke


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins> I want to

Rook_Hawkins> I want to weigh in very quickly.  First, A_nony_mouse, I think you need to quit while you're behind.  Seriously, you are really in a deep hole here and you've got little chance of redeeming yourself.  Your conclusions are sloppy and the fact that you seem unfamiliar with not only the primary material (sic!) but also the secondary studies, as well as the overview studies done of the available data as a whole!  You are so far from making a case here that you should take a few years off to get acquainted with the resources available before you start trying to defend this position.  Both I and Spin have given you more than enough resources to keep you busy for a while. 

My main error was in overestimating the familiarity of this audience with the total absence of physical evidence of the civilization the OT supposedly describes. This audience is still mired in the Schule and Sunday School assurances of biblical archaeology which equivalent to flat earth geography or creationist biology. I present my estimate of when it was created as an explanation that fits the earliest period in which it could have been created, after the Greek empire was established over the region.

I also made a mistake is assuming atheists would have not only rejected the religion of the OT but also all of its stories as most all of them pivot upon religious magic. I am quite surprised to find people here still fighting tooth and nail to preserve the kernel of truth even though it cannot be any greater than in the Wizard of Oz.

If I am in a hole it is mostly in the minds of those who believe in biblical archaeology. I have the fact of no archaeological evidence of such a culture. I also have the fact there is no mention of these people in the time of Alexander and are first mention after Pompey arrives in the region. Those are facts.

Rook_Hawkins> Second, it has been almost unanimously concluded based on primary evidence that the so-called "ancient Israelites" have existed in some form dating to roughly the first millennium BCE.  Once again, any study done on the state of the evidence would demonstrate this.  The Biblical traditions, as we know them today, have some roots in the Persian Period, and *perhaps* go as far back as the 9th century BCE, although more than likely I find Thompson's understanding of the literary traditions to be that, even if the core literary traditions of the patriarchs did go back to the 9th century BCE, it would mean relatively little (as the literary traditions themselves stem back at least another millennium BCE).  Regardless, your conclusions on the dating of the Hebrew language is shifty and I'm fairly certain that, just from knowing a few philologists, they would not agree with your conclusions based on epigraphical data.

In fact it is agreed the area was inhabited by humans for some 60 to 80, 000 years and a claim of a mere 1000 BC is not worth mentioning. Backdating the bible invention of Israelites to 1000 BC is arbitrary as it could as well be backdated 60,000 years to the same effect. Picking 1000 BC in line with some of the die-hard bible thumpers in retreat is biblical archaeology.

As for the Persian period that was the occasion of Herodotus traveling the region and he found Palestiians but no one who could have been these bible people you want to believe in. And of course Alexander was there at the end of the Persian period and still these people do not exist.

If one wishes to claim the existence of the PEOPLE who are related to the Judeans of the 1st c. AD one has to do much more than claim the written language is related. One has to show a cultural identity from 1000 BC to 100 AD in social organization, self naming, gods, and associated culture. This can be done for Egyptians from 4000 BC to the present. It can be done from the Acheans to the ancient Greeks and ancient Greeks into modern times. A developing language is perhaps the smallest aspect of doing this. Yet that is the only thing you not-quite-atheists have going for you. And that is strongly influenced by several centuries of believers studying it and knowing the conclusion they had to reach.

As to my dating of a language called Hebrew, that name cannot be any older than the invention of the name Hebrew and that name was invented by whomever created the OT. There is no historical reference to bibleland as the land of the Hebrews. There are no historical references to the region being the land of any people until Herodotus who learns it is called the land of the Palestinains. That is the first mention in history of any 'people' who could be considered analogous to the Greeks or Romans or Persians.

So you believers are left in the position of a book of magic being the only mention of any such identifiable people held together by a religion. And we know that was not the religion of judea when it appears in history.

Rook_Hawkins> Third, Jerusalam has existed as early as (probably earlier than) the conquest of the ancient Near East by the Egyptian pharaohs of the New Kingdom.  There are Assyrian inscriptions (correspondance) from the governing head to the Pharaohs from inside the city on current situations with the region.  So dust off your dictionarys and commentaries and start reading.  Just making unlearned assumptions can kill your reputation and hurt your progress. 

I am certain real archaeologists would be eternally grateful to you if you would present the physical evidence of the antiquity of Jerusalem you claim. Of course I do not expect you to bait and switch and claim a hilltop warlord without physical evidence of that warlord. But as you are enraptured by the biblical archaeolgists and possibly creationist biologists you are more than happy with their "assurances" without the least physical evidenc whatsoever.

As to dusting things off, you and spin appear to be of the same mold, chanting "I'm not gonna tell you" when it comes to exactly what physical evidence you are talking about. Real archaeologists Finkelstein and Silverman professors at Israeli universities are not supportive of your bibiical archaeology.

So, yes, I started posting without getting a feel for the type of atheism of this audience. This is one which looks at the bible, substitutes plausible guesses for the reality of the god, and accepts everything else as fact. That is the beginner level.

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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic> Saying

pauljohntheskeptic> Saying something has no merit and is accepted by fundies et al. does not mean I have no interest in how the OT came into existence. I'd really like to understand how people fell for the fraud of Mormonism as well. 

And I simply point to one more religion invented by a book. However this one appears to have been imposed on the people due to the liberal use of capital punishment to enforce it.

pauljohntheskeptic> You make some broad assumptions in many instances that are completely unwarranted. It seems you have the purpose in mind that the Jews and their questionable book just dropped out of the sky one day in the first or second century BCE. You seem to suggest they came forth and wrote a book of fables on the spot and immediately promoted it as the truth. Joe Smith may have done such but there is considerable evidence there were people in this area that were the ancestors of the later Jews. These people had to come from somewhere yet you choose to ignore the Assyrian and Babylonian records. No one is saying that just because a group of people lived in ancient Israel that the OT is a true account of their misadventures.

I do not suggest Judaism dropped out of the sky. I have specifically compared the invention of the religion at one point in time to the invention of Islam, the Latter Day Saints and Scientology. I simply say it is no different. There is certainly evidence in all three of those cases that they had ancestors in the regions where they were invented. That does not make the ancestors proto-muslims, proto-mormons or proto-scientologists. it does not warrant claiming there were identifiable "peoples" prior to those inventions. And I believe I have offered to post a review of a current best seller in Irael by a historian who demonstrates the idea of a Jewish people was invented by the Zionists and did not exist before them. If I did not I will post it if you wish.

This constant talk of a "people" is a turn of the 20th century anachronism imposed upon people thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all to do so.

pauljohntheskeptic> Again I suggest you review some of Rook's work and perhaps look much closer at Assyrian and Babylonian history.

I look at the archaeological finds in bibleland itself. If such a culture existed the greatest quantity of evidence is to be found there. Percentagewise, modern Israel is the most dug place in the world. And there even biblical archaeologists do not have any hard evidence such as is found in Egypt of Egyptian culture and in all other known ancient cultures. Were it not for the bible no one could possibly make the claims that are made for bibleland.

So why is it necessary to go hundreds of miles from bibleland to find evidence of anything about bibleland? Why is not the land littered with evidence as in Egypt? The saying goes in Greece you can't dig a flower garden without finding antiquities. In bibleland things that support the bible are found only by biblical archaeologists, those who explain all finds in the context of a bible story that has no factual relation to the find.

Israeli museums are online. Why not take a look at what they have found and see what is explicit confirmation of the OT. Given the audience in the US you would expect those museums would have exhibits touring the country to raise research funds. They do not.

 

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