|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's The Best Solution For Humanity? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
Why are alphabetical writings more important than cuneiform writings?
But they are writings and predates the Hebrew. Thus only alphabetical writings are referrd to by me. IamJoseph writes:
It is a multi-page continuing narrative.
These are slabs of stone and called poems. IamJoseph writes:
The poems were. The tablets weren't.
There were made at different times,updated by knowledge already held. Panda writes:
There is no reason to ignore cuneiform writing.IamJoseph writes:
Then the oldest book is not Hebrew.
I do not, and agree they are much older than the Hebrew. IamJoseph writes:
Have you never wondered why there are not copies of the bible older that the Dead Sea scrolls? Have you never wondered why we do not have follow-up alphabetcal books from an older nation? I do.What do you think happens to very old paper? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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]. Epic of Gilgamesh Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia Don't you ever tire of being proven wrong?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There is no issue with non-alphabeticals being older than the Hebrew. "Alphabeticals" is a poor standard. "Phonetic alphabet" is far more accurate. I suspect you are only using alphabeticals because that's what your favorite writings are in. There are a lot of writings far earlier. What you are doing is akin to studying the history of cars and declaring that the V-8 was the most important event, and that nothing before that counted for squat. Nice work if you can get it.
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. Scholars propose that the flood story was written around 550—450 BC as a reworking of the ancient Mesopotamian myth of the flood-hero Utnapishtim. For the ancient author or authors, the purpose of the story was theological, elevating Hebrew monotheism over Babylonian polytheism. Flood geology - Wikipedia Please don't try to make a living as a scientist. There you have to be right, all the time, or nearly so. There is no credit for being wrong. I suppose you can get away with being wrong when you're a religious apologist, but that doesn't cut it in the real world where you need evidence to back up your claimsReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJ writes:
Have you never wondered why there are not copies of the bible older that the Dead Sea scrolls? Have you never wondered why we do not have follow-up alphabetcal books from an older nation? I do.What do you think happens to very old paper? IamJ writes:
What is so important about alphabetical writing? Although the Hebrew bible is new in the ancient world, it remains the first/oldest 'alphabetical' book, which I see as a mystery.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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. Your insistence on an alphabetical book does you no credit. As per my analogy above, that is like writing the history of automobiles as starting with the V-8 and ignoring all that went before. But I guess when you're doing apologetics you don't need to rely on evidence, just rhetoric, eh? Your posts are certainly showing that to be the case.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJ writes:
Please provide evidence of this. Alphabetical writings is a threshold changerAlways remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Two simple questions....
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? ...but too difficult for you to answer. Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It surely does, it is important and you should acknowledge it so I should not insist on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024