Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Confession of a former christian
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 196 of 219 (467643)
05-23-2008 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ramoss
05-22-2008 11:47 PM


Re: Bullshitting?
quote:
while Josephus has hearsay
Then I will also look for two other factors on Josephus, which say:
As chief Roman Scribe with appointment to write Mighty Rome's greatest and longest war, and that he wrote other volumous books of Greece and Rome's histories from their beginnings, as well as Israel's history - he was given and used, the entire archive library of these nations, in three languages. A lifetime work, with no disputation anyplace.
The only factor which may have credence is that he was blatantly not allowed to desecrate Rome's image, and this was performed by stealth - eg., he mentions upto 800 Jews being crucified in a day, and their families beheaded in front of them, while the Roman general performed oral sex looking on - this is described only as an exaggerated cruelty and anger, but one can read it by its descriptions and make their own adjectives. We also see this practice in the Gospels: Rome's depravity is later only described as its few instances of being cruel to apostles, ignoring the widespread holocaust of the jews. So Josephus is far more historical than the gospels.
Secondly, I will also give you major historican accolades that Josephus is first and foremost a scribe who excells in his historical texts like no other for a 1000 years after him.
That such is said, despite of the suspicion a passage concerning Jesus was a later implant, makes Josephus a vindicated scribe of the greatest order.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ramoss, posted 05-22-2008 11:47 PM ramoss has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 219 (467760)
05-24-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by IamJoseph
05-22-2008 5:44 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
Is there a problem having no follow-up or transit books between 13C BCE and 300 BCE?
Huh? We have text written in the current Greek script from before 300 BCE. That's how we know that the current Greek script was developed about the 9th/8th centuries BCE.
This is in contrast to Hebrew where text written in Hebrew script doesn't appear until about the 2nd century BCE.
Thus, the Greek alphabet is older than the Hebrew alphabet by almost 1000 years.
quote:
I humbly reject your evidence
Incorrect. You arrogantly do so.
We have physical objects with text on them. The ones with Greek on them are older than the ones with Hebrew on them. If you're going to insist that Hebrew writing is older than Greek writing, then you need to come up with actual, physical objects (presumably with centers) that have Hebrew writing on them that are older than the oldest objects with Greek writing on them.
quote:
and would be more convinced with some actual alphabetical greek writings pre-300 BCE
(*chuckle*)
You have been shown such items. But if you have forgotten, there's the Derveni papyrus. It is written in Greek and dates from the fourth century BCE. It is a text on the birth of the gods as well as discussion about Orpheus, who descended into the underworld to reclaim his bride.
quote:
we have not a single canaanite or phonecian alphabetical book.
Irrelevant. The question is not if we have a "book." It's whether or not we have any text. Just because it's written on stone or pottery doesn't make it something other than writing.
quote:
we have irrefutable evidence of hebrew alphabetical writings 3000 years old
Incorrect. Instead, we have no evidence of any Hebrew writings older than about the second century BCE.
This is contrasted with Greek which goes back to about the 9th/8th century BCE. This makes the Greek alphabet older than the Hebrew alphabet by about 1000 years.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by IamJoseph, posted 05-22-2008 5:44 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 5:51 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 201 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 7:14 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 198 of 219 (467761)
05-24-2008 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by iano
05-22-2008 8:41 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
If free will involves being able to choose against Gods will then clearly God has not
got a free will so assembled.
So you're a proponent of the "It is good because god does it" school. Thus, if god were to
engage in what any typical human being would describe as "evil," it is only because we don't
understand what "evil" is.
If god does it, it cannot be evil, right?
quote:
See various rebuttals
See refutations of the rebuttals.
Hint: If all you have done is repeat your original argument, it isn't actually a "rebuttal."
You have to come up with something new.
quote:
You don't need to know it is wrong to disobey God in order to sin.
Yes, you do. If you don't know it is wrong, how can you possibly be held responsible for it?
Otherwise, "original sin" has nothing to do with eating from the tree of knowledge.
quote:
Did you see the definition of sin above?
Indeed. It's in the word "shame." Since Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm, why is their eating from the tree such a sticking point?
quote:
If not deliberately disobeying Gods expressed will then they are not sinning.
But they were. The very first thing they do is panic over being naked. When they run into god, he is shocked to find out that they have figured it out. It is quite clear that being naked is against god's will. For crying out loud, god gives them clothes.
quote:
Apparently, Gods will is that they not be naked and they immmediately seek to conform to his will.
And you don't find that odd? They've only been told one thing: Don't eat from the tree. Shouldn't the first thing they panic about be the one thing they've been told not to do?
You're contradicting your own definition of sin: It doesn't matter if god told them or not. God's will defines it and since they were defying it, that necessarily means they were sinning even though they weren't told they were.
If you need to be told, then they should be panicking over having eaten from the tree. If you don't need to be told, then why is the tree such a problem?
quote:
What we don't know is how a total knowledge of good and evil was revealed to them.
Irrelevant. What we do know is that the conversion process is completed before they take any sort of action. Their eyes open and they become as gods, knowing good and evil. It is only then that they take any action and one would think that it would be shame over having disobeyed the only commandment they had ever been given.
Instead, they panic over something else.
Something isn't right there.
quote:
Which kind of dying are you talking about, temporal or eternal?
They were going to die a literal, physical death within 24-hours of having eaten from the tree of knowledge, according to god. Instead, Adam lives for nearly 1000 years after.
Note, there is no such thing as "eternal death" in Judaism. That is a Christian imposition upon a Jewish text.
quote:
And how do you conclude what you conclude.
By reading the text. How do you?
quote:
Hopefully you have already seen what the definition of sin does to this fig leaf of an argument of yours.
Indeed: It shows that you don't even understand your own argument. You will contradict it the moment it becomes inconvenient for you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by iano, posted 05-22-2008 8:41 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by iano, posted 05-24-2008 9:34 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 199 of 219 (467766)
05-24-2008 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
05-24-2008 2:11 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
quote:
Thus, the Greek alphabet is older than the Hebrew alphabet by almost 1000 years.
Check post 189 again. Those links make your statements look ubsurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2008 2:11 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2008 6:04 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 200 of 219 (467767)
05-24-2008 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rrhain
05-22-2008 4:08 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
quote:
Incorrect. The very first commandment: I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
But the First Amendment directly contradicts that: You can have whatever god you want.
Not if you entered into a covenant of alliegence to ONE God, of leave that belief system.
quote:
And I think you are confused about what "the law" is. "The law" is the word of god telling Jews how to behave. That is, by definition, the equivalency of church and state.
If your law comes from god, if your law tells you how to engage in religious activities, then it can never be claimed to be "separation."
The ritual laws are specifif to Israel; the moral/ethical laws are encumbent whether one is religious or not, and part of the judiciary. The state [king] does not rule by himself; the Prophet of the day [of the people] has transcendent rights - I gave historical examples of this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no laws in the NT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*chuckle*)
Except for those that Jesus and Paul came up with.
Chukle indeed - the greeks and romans said the same thing.
There are no laws from the NT or Quran, because these are not followed by outside nations. A law becomes vindicated when it is followed by the institutions of the world, and those which do not act outside the law. There are thus no laws which are not OT contained - not a single one.
quote:
The law from the OT says you're supposed to be circumcised. Paul said you don't have to be.
Whoppee. So did the greeks and romans before christianity.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you forgotten Isaac?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It says 'offer', not sacrifice, and this was stopped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant. If human sacrifice was never supposed to happen, then Abraham would never have taken Isaac up the mountain. The fact that it was stopped doesn't change the fact that god demanded it of Abraham and he obeyed.
Check the 613 OT laws. Human sacrifice was first forbidden in the OT. Abraham was not asked to sacrifice nor did he do it. That he was stopped marks what was to come in the law. Capital punishment was also first forbidden by Israel some 3000 years ago. You are not debating anymore - just clinging.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, even animal sacrifice was forbidden as an anullment of sins and crimes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. The law provides very specific animal sacrifices for the expiation of sin. Leviticus 3 tells us how to carry out the animal sacrifices depending upon the type of animal being sacrificed. Not specific enough?
Specifically, its about english textual composition. Read again your own post, then consider what 'by ignorence' means. Animal sacrifice was limited to accidental sins, and when a culprit of a crime cannot be found despite all efforst to determine who.
quote:
Leviticus 4:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance
For all wanton crimes and sins, specific laws applied, including murder, stealing, etc. there is good reason why the world turns around the OT laws. Not a single animal rights law comes from elsewhere - considering its anciency, this makes the OT laws transcendent of all else.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this ceased when the temple fell, ending humanity's tradition of this act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect.
Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.
Whew. Its about basic english. The animal sacrifice laws also state they can only be conducted at the temple and forbidden all other places. Thus they becaume obsolete and could not be performed when the temple fell.
quote:
Hmm...perhaps that's why you're so cranky: The world did end and this is hell.
The world did not end; only some bad nations disappeared.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 05-22-2008 4:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2008 6:19 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 201 of 219 (467769)
05-24-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
05-24-2008 2:11 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
quote:
This is in contrast to Hebrew where text written in Hebrew script doesn't appear until about the 2nd century BCE.
LOL. Tell me when to stop...
quote:
Scientists unearth earliest known Hebrew ABCs
By John Noble WilfordPublished: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005
In the 10th century B.C., in the hill country south of Jerusalem, a scribe carved his ABCs on a limestone boulder - actually, his aleph-beth-gimels, for the string of letters appears to be an early rendering of the emergent Hebrew alphabet.
Archaeologists digging in July at the site, Tel Zayit, found the inscribed stone in the wall of an ancient building. After an analysis of associated pottery and the position of the wall in the layers of ruins, the discoverers concluded that this was the earliest known specimen of the Hebrew alphabet and an important benchmark in the history of writing, they said this week.
If the discoverers are right, the stone bears the oldest reliably dated example of an abecedary - the letters of the alphabet written out from beginning to end in their traditional sequence. Several scholars who have examined the inscription tend to support this view.
Not Found - The New York Times
quote:
Origins
Paleo-Hebrew alphabet - Wikipedia
The earliest known inscription in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was discovered on the stone on a wall at Tel Zayit, in the Beth Guvrin Valley in the lowlands of ancient Judah. The 22 letters were carved on one side of the 38lb-stone (17kg) - which resembles a bowl on the other. Next would be the Gezer calendar dated to the late 10th century BCE. The script of the Gezer calendar bears strong resemblance to the akin contemporaneous Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos. Clear Hebrew features are visible in the scripts of the Moabite inscriptions of the Mesha Stele. The 8th-century Hebrew inscriptions exhibit many specific and exclusive traits, leading modern scholars to conclude that already in the 10th century BCE the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was used by wide scribal circles. Even though very few 10th-century Hebrew inscriptions have been found, the quantity of the epigraphic material from the 8th century onward shows the gradual spread of literacy among the people of Israel and Judah.
quote:
The modern Hebrew script was developed from a script known as Proto-Hebrew/Early Aramaic. The earliest known writing in Hebrew dates from the 11th century BC.
Hebrew is a member of the Canaanite group of Semitic languages. It was the language of the early Jews, but from 586 BC it started to be replaced by Aramaic as the everyday language of the Jews. Since then it has continued to be used as a liturgical language and to some extent as a spoken vernacular.http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hebrew.htm
quote:
A Is for Ancient, Describing an Alphabet Found Near Jerusalem
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: November 9, 2005
A string of letters on a stone from the 10th century B.C. seems to be the oldest written alphabet ever found. http://www.nytimes.com/.../09alphabet.html
quote:
The earliest known alphabet is from Palestine, about 1700 BC. Alphabetic writing now takes many forms - for example, the Hebrew aleph-beth and the Arabic script, both written from right to left http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Alphabetic+writing+systems
quote:
EARLY ALPHABET
by Naim Dangoor
The suggestion, (Letters, Jewish Chronicle, June 4th) that the Ten Commandments were handed down at Sinai in Egyptian hieroglyphics is a gross insult to our rich and ancient Jewish heritage.
The writer argues that the earliest example of alphabetical writing discovered in Palestine goes back to only 11th century BCE. But, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
During their sojourn in the Land of Goshen, the Children of Israel spoke Hebrew - an Israelitish dialect of Canaanitish, and were little acquainted with the 'alien' Egyptian tongue and its form of writing.
It is generally agreed that the first alphabet appeared around 1700 BCE in the Canaan area, fully 400 years before the Exodus from Egypt and was most certainly available to Moses and the Priesthood. In fact, John F. Healy's "Reading the Past: The Early Alphabet" (British Museum) illustrates such a carved alphabetic inscription on a sandstone sphinx, dating from c. 1700 BCE.
All this accords with my own projection that this simple form of writing was invented by none other than our Patriarch Abraham during one of his trips to Egypt to study their system of writing. He came up with the first 16 letter phonetic alphabet which is the basis of all the alphabets in the world. (See: Monograph "Was the Alphabet a Hebrew Invention by Dr. Diringer, published by The World Jewish Congress.")
Those 'Ancient Hebrew' letters were used by Abraham to write down the oral traditions received from earlier generations and which became the first chapters of the Bible. At Sinai, the Ten Commandments, as well as the whole Torah was given in Hebrew and recorded in that alphabet. It exists in the Samaritan Scroll of the Torah and the Book of Joshua. (For a Samaritan copy of the Ten Commandments in Ancient Hebrew, see Scribe No. 70 page 28).
Early Alphabet
Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2008 2:11 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2008 6:29 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 202 of 219 (467818)
05-24-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by IamJoseph
05-24-2008 5:51 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
Check post 189 again. Those links make your statements look ubsurd.
(*chuckle*)
I think I will trust the actual objects with writing on them more than your claims.
You are confusing Hebrew with Canaanite. Your own source lists Greek as being older than Hebrew:
Examples of Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite and Ugaritic alphabetic writing and the earliest known Greek alphabet are listed below.
So when your own source puts Greek before Hebrew, why do you contradict it?
Your PlanetMath.org source doesn't say anything about the age of the writing. It simply discusses that the lowercase letters in Greek weren't invented until the time of Alexander the Great.
But notice, this contradicts your claims. The time of Alexander was the 4th century BCE. You are claiming that Greek didn't exist until the 3rd century BCE.
How could lowercase letters be added to the Greek alphabet before the Greek alphabet even existed?
That the Greek alphabet doesn't contain a "V" is irrelevant for many reasons:
1) Not all languages use all sounds. English, for example, has both central and lateral approximants (/r/ and /l/, respectively). Asian languages, however, don't use either one but instead use a velar approximant. This is why people who speak Japanese as a first language have such a hard time with /r/: They've never had to speak it and thus never learned how. Similarly, when a speaker of English learns Japanese, their approximants are off: They never learned how to speak the velar.
2) Just because you don't have a letter doesn't mean you don't use the sound. English, for example, doesn't have a letter for the unvoiced interdental (/th/). Greek does: Theta. To represent that sound in English, though, you use two letters: th.
3) In Greek, Beta is normally pronounced as /v/. If you were to ask a speaker of Greek to pronounce the letter, it would sound as "veeta." In order to get a /b/ sound, you have to do in Greek what English does for /th/: Put another letter, specifically Mu.
Thus, the way you spell "Avram" in Greek, while maintaining the /v/ sound, is to use Beta.
And since we have writing in Greek from the 9th century BCE and no writing in Hebrew from before the 2nd century BCE, this indicates that the Greek alphabet predates the Hebrew alphabet.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 5:51 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 203 of 219 (467821)
05-24-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by IamJoseph
05-24-2008 6:14 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
Not if you entered into a covenant of alliegence to ONE God, of leave that belief system.
Irrelevant. We're talking about the law, not your personal beliefs. The Constitution for the United States recognizes every god you would care to imagine as legitimate and equal to all the others.
That's a direct violation of the first commandment. Ergo, the US Constitution is not based upon the Bible.
quote:
The ritual laws are specifif to Israel
You will notice that the US is not Israel. Thus, the laws of Israel do not apply here.
Ergo, the US Constitution is not based upon the Bible.
quote:
There are no laws from the NT or Quran
Except for those that Jesus and Paul came up with.
quote:
There are thus no laws which are not OT contained - not a single one.
Except for all the ones that aren't.
Freedom of religion, for example, is nowhere to be found in the OT. In fact, it is anathema to the OT as the very first commandment is that "Thou shalt have no other god before me."
quote:
So did the greeks and romans before christianity.
And since Paul contradicted the OT law, which is it? You're the one saying there is no NT law, and yet here is Paul changing the law.
quote:
Check the 613 OT laws. Human sacrifice was first forbidden in the OT.
I did. Why do you think I was quoting Leviticus at you?
Human sacrifice isn't mentioned.
quote:
Capital punishment was also first forbidden by Israel some 3000 years ago.
Except Leviticus specifically describes when and how to kill people for their crimes.
Leviticus 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother>, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
So not only is capital punishment required, there are different ways to do it depending upon the crime for which it is being carried out.
quote:
Specifically, its about english textual composition.
You will note that the Bible wasn't written in English.
quote:
Animal sacrifice was limited to accidental sins
Incorrect. You clearly didn't read my post. While there are animal sacrifices to be made for accidental sins, there are also animal sacrifices to be made for deliberate sins. That's what a "sin offering" is all about in Leviticus 5, 6, and 7. I didn't want to quote every single verse of those three chapters, but since seem to have not read your own holy book:
Leviticus 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
5:4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
5:5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
5:7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
5:8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
5:9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.
5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
5:11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
5:12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.
5:13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.
So where do you get this idea that animal sacrifice is not part of the law?
quote:
The world did not end
Then why do you disobey the law?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 6:14 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by IamJoseph, posted 05-25-2008 1:48 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 212 by IamJoseph, posted 05-25-2008 5:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 204 of 219 (467823)
05-24-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by IamJoseph
05-24-2008 7:14 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
LOL. Tell me when to stop...
It would help if you would start, first. You need to read your own source:
The text is the predecessor of both Greek and Hebrew. Ergo, it is neither Greek nor Hebrew. It is a Phonecian alphabet in transition. That's why it is called "Paleo-Hebrew." It isn't actually Hebrew yet.
Since you seem to like Wikipedia, let's see what it has to say about Greek:
The Greek alphabet (Greek: ‘ ) is a set of twenty-four letters that has been used to write the Greek language since the late 9th or early 8th century BC. It was the first alphabet in the narrow sense, that is a writing system that uses a separate symbol for each vowel and consonant. It is the oldest alphabetic script in continuous use today.
At any rate, you still haven't responded to the fact that Linear B is even older.
ABE: And by the way...why the fetish for "alphabetic" scripts? Chinese is older than Hebrew: 14th century BCE for the Bone Script and the 5th MILLENNIUM BCE for Bnp and Jingzhi. Why do you discount it simply because it is pictographic rather than alphabetic? What's so special about orthography?
Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 7:14 AM IamJoseph has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 205 of 219 (467844)
05-24-2008 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Rrhain
05-24-2008 2:36 AM


Rrhain writes:
So you're a proponent of the "It is good because god does it" school. Thus, if god were to engage in what any typical human being would describe as "evil," it is only because we don't understand what "evil" is.
No, it's that the typical fallen human being would be utilising a different definition of evil to the one used hithertofore by me.
-
If god does it, it cannot be evil, right?
Right. Given the definition being utilised.
-
You don't need to know it is wrong to disobey God in order to sin.
Yes, you do. If you don't know it is wrong, how can you possibly be held responsible for it?
Otherwise, "original sin" has nothing to do with eating from the tree of knowledge.
I gave you a definition of sin extracted from a dictionary. It doesn't require that you to know "it is wrong" in order for you to sin.
Besides, you don't need to know anything about right and wrong in order to reap the consequences of a consequential choice. God promised consequences and they got consequences - after sinning according to the dictionary definition of sin given. They are responsible for receiving consequences because they chose to receive them. We know they weren't moral creatures so a consequential choice is the only one they could have been making (as far as I can see)
-
Indeed. It's in the word "shame." Since Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm, why is their eating from the tree such a sticking point?
You've forgotten the definition of sin: it involved deliberately acting against the known will of God. No will of God known = no sin. No deliberateness = no sin. This sinning up a storm business is looking a little shipwrecked.
Its interesting to note that this definition of sin doesn't demand that one necessarily has to know Gods will is the one being expressed. You only have to know what his will expresses. For example, if you know it's wrong to murder but you don't believe in God then you still know Gods expressed will. Meaning you sin when you murder - whether you believe in God or not.
-
And you don't find that odd? They've only been told one thing: Don't eat from the tree. Shouldn't the first thing they panic about be the one thing they've been told not to do?
They've only been told one thing before choosing. On choosing they now have a new 'voice' in their ear. The newly gained knowledge of good and evil (commonly called conscience). Apparently it's shouting the loudest. So no, I don't find that odd.
-
You're contradicting your own definition of sin: It doesn't matter if god told them or not. God's will defines it and since they were defying it, that necessarily means they were sinning even though they weren't told they were.
As mentioned above, you've omitted a surprising amount from what is a pretty short dictionary definition of sin. I've highlighted the relevant bits dealing with your point.
quote:
Sin 2. Theology a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
-
If you need to be told, then they should be panicking over having eaten from the tree. If you don't need to be told, then why is the tree such a problem?
They do panic over eating from the tree it seems. Pretty soon after the nakedness issue arises.
-
They were going to die a literal, physical death within 24-hours of having eaten from the tree of knowledge, according to god. Instead, Adam lives for nearly 1000 years after.
Note, there is no such thing as "eternal death" in Judaism. That is a Christian imposition upon a Jewish text.
And if it was the Christian God doing the "imposing" on the Jewish text?
By reading the text. How do you?
By reading more text.
-
Indeed: It shows that you don't even understand your own argument. You will contradict it the moment it becomes inconvenient for you.
Perhaps you would be prepared to nest the the dictionary definition of sin we are referring to alongside relevant quoted text of mine. And alongside relevant rebuttals of yours. That way we could see more easily whether it's me contradicting or you missing huge swathes of the definition along the way. Like this:
quote:
quote:
Sin 2. Theology a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
Rrhain writes:
You're contradicting your own definition of sin: It doesn't matter if god told them or not. God's will defines it and since they were defying it, that necessarily means they were sinning even though they weren't told they were.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2008 2:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by bluegenes, posted 05-25-2008 1:23 AM iano has not replied
 Message 208 by Rrhain, posted 05-25-2008 5:59 AM iano has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 206 of 219 (467859)
05-25-2008 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by iano
05-24-2008 9:34 PM


iano writes:
For example, if you know it's wrong to murder but you don't believe in God then you still know Gods expressed will. Meaning you sin when you murder - whether you believe in God or not.
So, if I stone someone to death for working on the Sabbath, murder under the law of this land, will I have sinned in the eyes of your God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by iano, posted 05-24-2008 9:34 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 207 of 219 (467860)
05-25-2008 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Rrhain
05-24-2008 6:19 PM


Re: Bullshitting?
Ypur posts contain too many distortions and dis-histories. It does appear you prefer to hold those views than relent them. It is a form of denial, and commonplace when it concerns Israel's history: some 90% of the world holdings of belief become undone if Israel is right. Its a tuff position to be in.
All these languages preceded Greek, and Hebrew predated all of these:
PALMYRENE
NABATEAN
PERSIAN
ETRUSCAN
SANSCRIT.
Controversial writings, which does not effect the above, are:
Canaanite
Syriac
Aramaic
Phonecian
http://phoenicia.org/alphabet.html
Now Hebrew and Aramaic are placed second only to Phoenecian in almost all records and scientific assessments; Aramaic being an oral street language with no official writing system - the Passover liturgy is in aramaic, but transliterated in Hebrew writings.
Now we know that the ancient egyptian writings, is older than all languages, perhaps only not of Babylon [Mesopotamia]. But this is not alphabetical. And the oldest record of the ancient Egyptian language, and transformed into an alphabetical, is not seen anyplace else but in the OT. This is the opening two words of The Ten Commandments, namely:
'I AM' ['Ano Chi'/non-alphabetical ancient Egyptian, transliterated in Hebrew alphabeticals].
Why so, when the rest of the OT is in Hebrew? Because it was addressed directly to the Pharoah, who deemed himself divine - and who could not speak Hebrew. The factor which is important here is - Hebrew was contemporary to a date when Egypt possessed only an oral and picture writings. And one need not be a rocket scientist to know what that means.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 05-24-2008 6:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 05-25-2008 6:40 AM IamJoseph has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 208 of 219 (467872)
05-25-2008 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by iano
05-24-2008 9:34 PM


iano responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So you're a proponent of the "It is good because god does it" school. Thus, if god were to engage in what any typical human being would describe as "evil," it is only because we don't understand what "evil" is.
No, it's that the typical fallen human being would be utilising a different definition of evil to the one used hithertofore by me.
Um, isn't that what I just said?
By the way, you just contradicted your own book. The reason that we are "fallen" is because we know what good and evil are. That's the entire point behind the tree of knowledge.
The "if god does it, it can't be evil" school of thought makes "evil" a meaningless term for it resolves god of any responsibility for anything. That's fine, I jsut want to make sure.
So now that we've established that, we still haven't solved the problem: If god can do anything, why did he not create creatures that would never choose other than what he wants? Since it is trivial to create beings who have the ability to choose but will never disobey, the only possible reason is that god wants there to be evil.
But if it is true that if god does it, it can't be evil, then that means there is no evil in the world of any kind.
And as stated at the beginning, this means "evil" is a meaningless term. I'm reminded of George Carlin's bit about cats:
Have you ever seen a cat slide on a wooden floor and crash into a plate glass window? BAM! "I meant that. I meant that. I meant that. That's exactly how I wanted that to look...
"...Fucking meow!"
It would seem that god has a similar problem: Everything is working exactly as he wants it, so why would anybody be upset? Of course, that raises the question that he's not.
quote:
I gave you a definition of sin extracted from a dictionary.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. A dictionary definition of "theory" is "educated guess," but we all know that isn't what it means in science. A dictionary definition of "religion" is "devotion," but that makes football and Christianity the same thing, which they clearly are not.
But that said, your definition actually helps me: It requires "deliberate" action which Adam and Eve were incapable of doing as they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
quote:
It doesn't require that you to know "it is wrong" in order for you to sin.
Then why do we make the distinction between "accident" and "deliberate"?
quote:
Besides, you don't need to know anything about right and wrong in order to reap the consequences of a consequential choice.
Irrelevant. If I have an accident and somebody dies, that's certainly tragic, but there are to be no consequences to befall me precisely because it was an accident, not a deliberate act. That's why the cliche is, "You should have known better." There is a distinction between actions that are known to be wrong and yet you do them anyway and actions that you don't know are wrong.
quote:
We know they weren't moral creatures so a consequential choice is the only one they could have been making (as far as I can see)
But the only consequences that were laid out were that they would die right there on the spot.
That was a lie. So why does god flip out? Now that they know what good and evil are, there can be other consequences for doing wrong, but seeing as how they were in no position to make a choice, any actions they take were completely innocent.
And punishing the innocent is evil.
quote:
You've forgotten the definition of sin: it involved deliberately acting against the known will of God.
But this definition makes "evil" a meaningless term. You have to be able to choose and Adam and Eve were incapable of choice as they had not eaten from the tree yet. They didn't "deliberately" do anything because that requires knowledge of good and evil. Since they hadn't eaten from the tree, they were constitutionally incapable of such an act.
Remember: Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm according to your definition of "sin." And yet, god didn't seem to mind. What was so special about this one act? If it was so important, why is it not the very first thing they panic over?
quote:
They've only been told one thing before choosing.
Except they are incapable of choosing as they don't have knowledge.
Again, Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm according to your definition of "sin." And yet, god didn't seem to mind. What was so special about this one act? If it was so important, why is it not the very first thing they panic over?
quote:
As mentioned above, you've omitted a surprising amount from what is a pretty short dictionary definition of sin.
As I said, your definition actually supports my position: "Deliberate" and "willful" are things Adam and Eve were incapable of being as they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
quote:
They do panic over eating from the tree it seems. Pretty soon after the nakedness issue arises.
Only because god brought it up. The only thing on their minds is that they're naked. That would seem to be the least of their worries. If you're doing a bunch of things wrong and you get caught, the first thing that goes through your mind is either the most recent thing you did or the most important thing. The others will come along, but it's either the one that's still hanging in the air because you've just done it or because it's the one that will cause the most trouble.
Being naked is neither. The only thing they've been told not to do is eat from the tree. The thing they just did was eat from the tree. Therefore, they should immediately be panicking over having eaten from the tree.
Where did being naked come from?
quote:
And if it was the Christian God doing the "imposing" on the Jewish text?
What makes you think the god of the Christians is the same one as the god of the Jews? There's a reason they're separate religions. They don't follow the same god.
quote:
By reading more text.
And that "more text" would be? I've been the one quoting it. What else is there?
quote:
Perhaps you would be prepared to nest the the dictionary definition of sin we are referring to alongside relevant quoted text of mine.
As I said, it supports my argument: Sin requires will and deliberation, two things Adam and Eve couldn't do as they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.
When you figure out what your own argument is, please let us know.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by iano, posted 05-24-2008 9:34 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by iano, posted 05-25-2008 7:41 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 209 of 219 (467874)
05-25-2008 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by IamJoseph
05-25-2008 1:48 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:
All these languages preceded Greek
I never said there weren't. Again, Greek has been written in at least three scripts. But the current one is the oldest script of any language currently in use. Greek used to be written in Linear B, but nobody uses that anymore.
quote:
Hebrew predated all of these
You're confusing language with script. Hebrew, the script, did not predate any of the languages you mentioned.
At any rate, you have your chronology wrong.
Palmyrene is a dialect of Aramaic spoken in the first few centuries CE. It is younger as a language, let alone a script, than either Greek or Hebrew.
Nabataean is another dialect of Aramaic spoken in the first few centuries BCE. It is younger as a language than both Greek and Hebrew. Modern Arabic script is based on the Nabataean script.
Persian goes back to the 6th century BCE making is younger than Greek as a language. Old Persian was written in a type of cunieform, invented during the reign of Darius I. The city of Persepolis (a Greek name) was founded by Darius.
At any rate, Persian is now written in Arabic script, making its script on the order of Nabataean which didn't develop its script until the 4th century CE, only becoming finalized around the 8th century CE.
The Etruscan alphabet is derived from Euboean Greek. This eventually gave rise to the Roman alphabet.
Sanskrit is more a method of speaking than an actual language, per se. Sanskrit is contrasted with Prakrit.
At any rate, Sanskrit is a dead language: Nobody uses it anymore such as nobody uses Linear B. If you're simply going off of the age of first writing, then Chinese has most everybody beat as writings in Chinese date from the 5th MILLENNIUM, beating all Indo-European languages.
This leads me back to my question: Why are you so hooked on orthography? Why must a language be alphabetic in order for you to consider it legitimate? What is it about syllabic, pictographic, ideographic, or heiroglyphic that makes the writing somehow "less"?
quote:
Now Hebrew and Aramaic are placed second only to Phoenecian in almost all records and scientific assessments
Incorrect. Hebrew script didn't come into being until the 2nd century BCE. Proto-Hebrew scripts existed before that, yes, but so did proto-Greek scripts.
Phoenecian is from about 1050 BCE.
Linear B, in which Greek was written before the current script, dates from the 1500s BCE.
It seems you want to confuse the language with the script in which it was written.
Hebrew as a language long predates the 2nd century BCE. However, the script in which it is written didn't come into being until the 2nd century. Instead, it was written in a different script that is no longer used.
Greek as a language long predates the 9th century BCE. However, the script in which it is currently written didn't come into being until the 9th century. Instead, it was written in a different script that is no longer used.
quote:
But this is not alphabetical.
Why is this important? Egyptian hieroglyphs are phonetic. Why is orthography important?
quote:
And the oldest record of the ancient Egyptian language, and transformed into an alphabetical, is not seen anyplace else but in the OT.
Huh? The oldest copies of the Old Testament we have are written in Greek.
And Egyptian hieroglyphics are all over the place and are older than that.
quote:
Hebrew was contemporary to a date when Egypt possessed only an oral and picture writings.
Huh? You're confusing langauge and script again. Hebrew as a language is somewhat old, descending from the Canaanite group of languages, but Egyptian is just as old.
And Egyptian hieroglyphs are not "picture writing." They are phonetic writings. But even so, why does that make any difference? Why is orthography important?
And you still haven't responded to the fact that Chinese is older than anything to the west. Chinese writings date back to the 5th MILLENNIUM when Hebrew hadn't even been invented yet either as a language or a script.
quote:
And one need not be a rocket scientist to know what that means.
Indeed. It means you don't know what you're talking about.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by IamJoseph, posted 05-25-2008 1:48 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 05-25-2008 7:14 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 211 by IamJoseph, posted 05-25-2008 7:25 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 210 of 219 (467876)
05-25-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rrhain
05-25-2008 6:40 AM


Re: Bullshitting?
quote:
Hebrew script didn't come into being until the 2nd century BCE.
So the D.S. Scrolls [dated upto 3C BCE] is not a script? Or maybe all those 100s of copies of some 90 books were all written the same century, and able to recall a 1000 years of history, with minutae details by oral recall?
quote:
Proto-Hebrew scripts existed before that, yes, but so did proto-Greek scripts.
95% of all archeological dating is via NAMES; followed by mentionings of historical factors which are vindicated. While factors like the Illiad are deficient of any historial factors and dated to 6C BCE, it is contrasted with a 3,200 year reference of Israel, by name, in an Egyptian monument. There is not a single confirmable alphabetical book put out in Greek, linear B or any other even 700 years near this date, yet to equate the greek as older?
What has been put forth in this thread as evidence is a vase, with letters which appear as alphabets, dated even less than 100s of older similar relics in Israel - with no historical factor there to date it. I put it to you, if Greek alphabeticals are even the same age, as opposed older than hebrew, we should have at least 10% of such books as we see in the Hebrew - which number in their 100s, from the book of kings, isaiah, jeremia, Micah, etc. Considering that the hebrews were numerously in dispersion, I see no excuse for the vacancy of the greek books.
Why alphabeticals you ask? Because this leads to advanced nations [as opposed mighty ones], and the issue of democrasy's first descriptions [no alphabetical books - no democrasy], state & religion seperation, the lack of any Hebrew writings in the gospels, the forbidence of human sacrifice and Capital punishments, and a host of important issues. Your rejection of capital punishment being annuled first in israel is of course quite mindless: it is a fact there was no capital punishment here since 850 BCE, and this is also indicated in the Gospels. Your error here is in a sense understandable, because the laws you read out, do not include the exit clauses allowed therein; but there is no excuse for your historical distortions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 05-25-2008 6:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024