Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's The Best Solution For Humanity?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 257 of 301 (636074)
10-03-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 9:04 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
IamJoseph writes:
But they are writings and predates the Hebrew. Thus only alphabetical writings are referrd to by me.
Why are alphabetical writings more important than cuneiform writings?
IamJoseph writes:
These are slabs of stone and called poems.
It is a multi-page continuing narrative.
IamJoseph writes:
There were made at different times,updated by knowledge already held.
The poems were. The tablets weren't.
Panda writes:
There is no reason to ignore cuneiform writing.
IamJoseph writes:
I do not, and agree they are much older than the Hebrew.
Then the oldest book is not Hebrew.
IamJoseph writes:
Have you never wondered why we do not have follow-up alphabetcal books from an older nation? I do.
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?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 9:04 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 9:32 PM Panda has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 258 of 301 (636076)
10-03-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 8:59 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].
Epic of Gilgamesh
The earliest Sumerian poems are now considered to be distinct stories rather than constituting a single epic.[2]:45 They date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BC).[2]:41-42 The earliest Akkadian versions are dated to the early second millennium [2]:45, 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
Don't you ever tire of being proven wrong?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 8:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 9:36 PM Coyote has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 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 3669 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 261 of 301 (636083)
10-03-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 9:36 PM


Re: On dating
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 claims

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 9:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:11 PM Coyote has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 262 of 301 (636085)
10-03-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 9:32 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
IamJ writes:
Have you never wondered why we do not have follow-up alphabetcal books from an older nation? I do.
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?
IamJ writes:
Although the Hebrew bible is new in the ancient world, it remains the first/oldest 'alphabetical' book, which I see as a mystery.
What is so important about alphabetical writing?

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 9:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:22 PM Panda has replied
 Message 265 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:32 PM Panda has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 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 3669 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 3669 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 266 of 301 (636094)
10-03-2011 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 10:11 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:11 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 12:13 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 267 of 301 (636100)
10-03-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 10:22 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
IamJ writes:
Alphabetical writings is a threshold changer
Please provide evidence of this.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:22 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 268 of 301 (636101)
10-03-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by IamJoseph
10-03-2011 10:32 PM


Re: ITS CALLED BEING WRONG (again)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by IamJoseph, posted 10-03-2011 10:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by IamJoseph, posted 10-04-2011 12:21 AM Panda has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 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 3669 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024