Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's The Best Solution For Humanity?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 245 of 301 (636043)
10-03-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Panda
10-03-2011 7:18 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
quote:
The bible existed before alphabetical writing existed, yes?
I should admit that my position here is varied from the widespread held one, which says Hebrew is a derivitive of Phoenecian, Canaanite and/or Sumerian. The evidences say my position is right. This applies to alphabetical writings per se.
When it comes to an alphabetical 'book', namely a multi-page continueing narrative, there is no question the first one was Hebrew: where are the Phoenecian/Sumerian books - those nations subsisted for upto a 1000 years after Israel emerged? With Canaan, we also have no alphabetical books, while the Hebrew writings say the Israelites entered Canaan with the five Mosaic books already completed and in hand. Also, Canaan was a vasal state of Egypt - and the Egytians spoke no Hebrew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 7:18 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 7:57 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 301 (636056)
10-03-2011 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Panda
10-03-2011 7:57 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
Gilgamash is post-Mosaic. It is also proof the Noah flood story was a regional one, not a global one as wrongly interpreted!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 7:57 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 8:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 249 of 301 (636059)
10-03-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Panda
10-03-2011 8:13 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
quote:
It is older than any Hebrew document.
Its not older and not alphabetical. It is a series, continually re-written and added to from 'existing material'; it is legendary [non-historical data containing dates and names]; none of its datings proven:
Scholars believe that it originated as a series of Sumerian legends and poems about the protagonist of the story,
"most likely in the eighteenth or seventeenth century BC, when one or more authors used existing literary material to form the epic of Gilgamesh.[3] The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh" [Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 8:13 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 8:39 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 251 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 8:41 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 252 of 301 (636063)
10-03-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Panda
10-03-2011 8:41 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
All the quotes are from the same link. Only alphabeticals are referred to - otherwise the picture writings on the pyramids are of course older than Hebrew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 8:41 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 8:52 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 254 of 301 (636069)
10-03-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Coyote
10-03-2011 8:39 PM


Re: On dating
First millinium BCE, 3000 years old, is older than Gilgamesh. Of note most of the Hebrew books are dated, according to its narratives, as after 3000 [except for the book of Joshua].
There is no positive proof of the relics found in Pakistan [Mohenjodaro] as being alphabetical - nor do we have any follow-up from that source. The oldest reference to the Hebrew is an Egyptian stelle dated 3,500 years and it mentions a 'WAR WITH ISRAEL'. The Exodus from Egypt occurs on the heels of this relic according to the Hebrew bible narratives, which also states the entire five books was written in transit to Canaan, not from the Canaanite as a deritive. This is amaxzing circumstantial evidence. The oldest Hebrew alphabeticals is dated 3000 years, recently found in Israel, denoting that an advanced knowledge of alphabeticals was held with the people of this time; the Psalms and book of kings emerged and dated on the heels of this relic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 8:39 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 9:31 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 255 of 301 (636071)
10-03-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Panda
10-03-2011 8:52 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
quote:
The pyramids are not books.
But they are writings and predates the Hebrew. Thus only alphabetical writings are referrd to by me.
quote:
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a book.
And it is older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.
These are slabs of stone and called poems. There were made at different times,updated by knowledge already held.
quote:
There is no reason to ignore cuneiform writing.
I do not, and agree they are much older than the Hebrew.
quote:
The Epic of Gilgamesh is older than any Hebrew document.
Have you never wondered why we do not have follow-up alphabetcal books from an older nation? I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 8:52 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 9:18 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 256 of 301 (636073)
10-03-2011 9:08 PM


Hebrew is older than 1,200 BCE and Greek alfa beta came from the Hebrew alef beta. Even english is substantially from the Hebrew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Bqe5rfl5s

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 259 of 301 (636077)
10-03-2011 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Panda
10-03-2011 9:18 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
quote:
Then the oldest book is not Hebrew.
Although the Hebrew bible is new in the ancient world, it remains the first/oldest 'alphabetical' book, which I see as a mystery. Further, the evidences for affirming the datings of any writings' narratives are more substantial in the Hebrew than that of other ancient writings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 9:18 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 10:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 260 of 301 (636079)
10-03-2011 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Coyote
10-03-2011 9:31 PM


Re: On dating
There is no issue with non-alphabeticals being older than the Hebrew. The Gilgamesh was a series of additions - its flood story is not older than the Hebrew but an addition from it. I am not wrong and your links do not prove me wrong - they affirm my premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 9:31 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 10:00 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 263 of 301 (636087)
10-03-2011 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Coyote
10-03-2011 10:00 PM


Re: On dating
I don't except the hebrew as derivitive of the phoenecian, and you are only quoting from links which you have not properly investigated. It is the reason you cannot produce an older phoenecian or any other alphabetical book.
Whatever datings you accept of the Noah or Gilgamesh, there is greater doubt of the latter's dating than the Hebrew: one has historically verifiable dates, names, events and icons - the other is a legend of head bashing deities with nothing therein verifiable and its dating disputed by a host of scholars.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 10:00 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 10:34 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 264 of 301 (636089)
10-03-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Panda
10-03-2011 10:03 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
Alphabetical writings is a threshold changer, as in abstract thought and analog and digital. If the exodus story is true, even partly and without any FX miracles, there was no alphabetical writings at this time, and it was not possible for the Israelites to get this mode of writings from Egypt or Canaan, nor did they yet meet the Phoenecians and Sumerians.
The Gilgamesh also verifies the Babylonians at this time never possessed alphabetical writings. So how/when did the Israelites get such an array of the most advanced literary writings and in such a volumous thread of continous books over some 1200 years - with zero for many centuries from any other nation? These then are the hard nut factors which everyone loves to ignore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 10:03 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 11:41 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 265 of 301 (636093)
10-03-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Panda
10-03-2011 10:03 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
quote:
Have you never wondered why there are not copies of the bible older that the Dead Sea scrolls?
What do you think happens to very old paper?
No. There is no equivalence here as you want to infer. There is loads of evidence the Greeks were the first translators of the Hebrew bible in 300 BCE; we also have proof of what the Hebrew bible writings says: there was a temple 2900 years ago, Kings who followed the Hebrew laws, coins, wars - all proven by archeology. Parts of the scrolls may be much older than their datings and derivitives of the first temple period.
We also know that the 3000 year old Psalms of King David mentions Moses and aligns with the entire five Moses books. Also, the book of Esther, an event 2,700 years old, is substantially backed by Persian writings and is subsequent to what the scrolls tell us, namely Esther followed the Hebrew laws after the first temple was destroyed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 10:03 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 11:44 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 269 of 301 (636102)
10-04-2011 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Coyote
10-03-2011 10:34 PM


Re: On dating
quote:
Your insistence on an alphabetical book does you no credit.
It surely does, it is important and you should acknowledge it so I should not insist on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2011 10:34 PM Coyote has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 270 of 301 (636103)
10-04-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Panda
10-03-2011 11:44 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
You are reduced to a generic syndrome in your question, relating this to the Hebrew example eronously. Consider that we have no alphabetical books for many centuries prior to the scrolls. The fact that the Hebrew books appeared some 100 years apart, says this was a monumental work which took ages to complete. Of note, the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible took 70 years and we have no such books from any of the surrounding nations, including large older nations like India and China, or in the famed Alexandra library of the Greeks. Other alphabetical books and long scrolls starting emerging after 100 BCE - this says the Hebrew was way advanced for its times. My premise is easily negated if you produce a single alphabetical book prior to 250 BCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 11:44 PM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by frako, posted 10-04-2011 4:46 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 272 of 301 (636115)
10-04-2011 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by frako
10-04-2011 4:46 AM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
Israel became a nation concurrently with introducing the first alphabetical book. Its big - it changed the world.
How it happened: Image writings, which contained images of beasts on human torsos, became unsuitable for a law book with a forbiddence of image worshipping. Therein Moses was shown how to transform picture writings to abstract writings. This bypassed the normal evolution of writings. The Greeks became the second nation to have alphabetical writings, getting their alpha beta from the Hebrew alef bet. Egypt, Babylon was stiipified!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by frako, posted 10-04-2011 4:46 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by frako, posted 10-04-2011 4:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024