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.
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?
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?
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" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh]
The traditional religious view on the origin of the Torah is that it was written by Moses between 1446 BC and 1406 BC. While this view is still held by conservative Christians and Jews, modern scholars argue that the whole of the Torah was composed in the mid-1st millennium BC as a "prequel" to the prophetic books (books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings).
The line of text after the wiki quote you provided:
quote: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.
It is older and alphabetical is irrelevant. The first book was not Hebrew.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
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.
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.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
