The Hebrew Bible (Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)

Did you read the information you quoted?

Your claim -

From your source -

When did 158/7 BCE become the 3ed centruy BCE?

From your source -

Since when is a Jewish historian an independent source for information about Judaism?

So we have a Jew, talking up Judaism at least 500 years after the various writers put together the Old Testament.

Also, the information is wrong. Paleo Hebrew, the writing that evolved into modern day Hebrew came from the Phonecian or proto canaanie script. Greek rose from the Phonecian script as well.

Here are the sources that verify that information -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo_Hebrew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

in opposition to all of the language and liguistic professionals who actually know what they are talking about.

Just because you dont look for evidence does not mean it is not there. A simple wiki search supplies plenty of evidence to contradict your position.

A Jew talking about Judaism gives credibility to the Hebrew writings? Thats like saying a born again christian gives credability to young earth creationsim.

What was the point of your example. It is from the 2nd century BCE. The time periods we have been discussing from my examples are from 1000 BCE and before.

your next point -

From your source -

When did 1203 BCE become 3500 years ago? It is actually around 3200 but whats a mere three centuries huh?

The Stelle mentions a people or place named Israel. Great. What does this prove?

Also, the Stelle is in [bold]HEIROGLYPHICS[/bold].

Remember your arguments about heiroglyphics?

How come you are happy to use heiroglyphics when they suit your purposes to say that there is "mention of the word 'Israel' and 'war'" but when I use heiroglyphics they are mere pictures that are not possible to accurately translate?

Seriously?

Do you read any of the information before you type things?

So a guy in 400 BCE mentions a mountain in his writings. Great. What are you trying to prove with this?

Rejecting it? I cant even work out why you think it is relevant? I am scratching my head trying to work out what you think this proves?

Are you having trouble understanding the English I am using? What am I manufacturing? I provided direct quotes from your message. You can look at them with your own eyes. You said that the word Israel is "only known today via the Hebrew bible exclusively" but in the same post you used an example of an Egyptian stelle that mentioned the word Israel. Do you know what exclusively means? From your reply I think you are having language problems. Are you saying that the Egyptians who inscribed the Stelle read the Hebrew Bible?

What does any of this prove?

None of this has anything to do with what we are debating about.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I am not going to get dragged into a new debate about all of the irrellevant bullshit in that post.

Stick to the topics. They are in the original order, are well researched and sourced.

Start with a reply to Message 16. It covers the reasons why few scholars think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and the reasons they do not believe it was written 3500 years ago.

The move onto replying to Message 17 discussing your claim that the Old Testament is the firsy recording of the universe being finite.

Then a reply to Message 18 discussing your claims regarding the Old Testament grouping animals into species.

Then you can have a go at providing a sensible response to Message 19. Your claims that heiroglyphics do not show a recording of day are invalid and I have supplied sufficient evidence to support this. Your new requirement for a recording to be 'alphabetical' is moving the goal posts and I am unwilling to get further side tracked by your bullshit. I have provided multiple examples in full sentences where day is the only word that makes sense. I have also provided examples in cuniform. Your only attempt at refuting my position here is an incorrect assumption that heiroglyphics can be correctly translated. I have shown why this assumption is incorrect. Move on.

Try to deal with the issues I have covered extensiveky in my posts.

Avoiding the issues only shows you have no way of honestly refuting any of the arguments.

What the hell does any of this prove? What is the point of telling me that the Old Testament states that no one will find the grave of Moses? CS Lewis wrote that Alice went down a rabbit hole. What does this prove? Fuck all. It is a work of fiction.

You have not dealt with (or even read I suspect) any of the facts discussed in Message 16.

Ignoring the facts does not support your position. Dodging makes you look like you have no arguement to counter anything in the post. I have provided a clear, sourced and verifiable position. You have dodged the issue. Which position do you think readers of our debate will support.

This is not even begin to deal with any of the information I have supplied in Message 17. All you have done here is repeat your position with no actual evidence to support it. I have provided a clear, sourced and verifiable position. You have repeated your claim with no supporting evidence. Which position do you think readers of our debate will support.

This is not even begin to deal with any of the information I have supplied in Message 18. All you have done here is repeat your position with no actual evidence to support it. You have even included some additional information that you claim is correct (without any sources to verify) that are actually incorrect. It shows that you have not even read the post I provided. I have provided a clear, sourced and verifiable position. You have repeated your claim with no supporting evidence with the addition of some new incorrect information. Which position do you think readers of our debate will support.

This is not even begin to deal with any of the information I have supplied in Message 19. All you have done here is repeat your position with no actual evidence to support it. You have narrowed your position to define day to be a new definition of the word that is different to the standard definition. You cant just change the definition of a word to suit your own position. The information you have supplied with regards to 'week' is ridiculous. How does the 7 day week impact on biology or the environment? How did biology or the environment change with the introduction of the 7 day week? I have provided a clear, sourced and verifiable position. You have repeated your claim with no supporting evidence and tacked on some claims that are ridiculous. Which position do you think readers of our debate will support.

If you no longer wish to debate this matter, then post a message advising you no longer wish to be involved in this debate. This does not mean you are conceding, it just means you no longer wish to discuss the issue. I am certainly not going to attempt to force you to keep debating about it. This is a public debate site, you dont have to debate if you dont want to.

I dont care about the Hebrew Bible enough to discuss its mystery. And this thread is not a biblical thread. Start a new thread in the biblical side and I am sure you will find someone happy to discuss these mysteries.

Hmmm. you admitted defeat. let me see if I can find the message where you did that. Oh yeah, it right above this one. what does it say?

Then, less than 24 hours later in Message 274 you post this -

wow.

lets have a look at your claim.

1. First alphabetical book

Not one of the debate topics and as such was not discussed. How did you win a debate about an issue that was not even discussed?

2. The universe being finite

My position is outlined extensively with plenty of verifiable sources in Message 17. Total replies from you in support of your position or refuting my position - 0. How did you win a debate where you have not supplied a single word in response to the opposing position? You have not supplied a single word supporting your position.

3. Evolution is a bad rip off from the creation chapter in Genesis.

This is not a claim that was made thus was not debated. A similar subject was debated "The Hebrew Bible is the first listing of life form groups [species]". I supplied an extensive, well sourced discussion here in Message 18. Total replies from you in support of your position or refuting my position - 0. How did you win a debate where you have not supplied a single word in response to the opposing position? You have not supplied a single word supporting your position.

So, total posts supplied by you in support of positions you mentioned in that quote that were actually debated = ZERO

I know you think you are a great debater, but how exactly did you win a debate about some subjects not discussed and some subjects where you have not said one word?

And how can you claim to have won a debate that less than 24 hours before you have admitted that you have lost and have chosen to no longer attempt to support your position?

Is being an intellectually dishonest liar a description you are happy to have cultivated?

Isnt there something in your faith that frowns upon being a liar?

Do you think anyone reading your lunacy actually believes what you say?

When you develop a reputation for being a liar (and mentally ill to boot) people will know that they don't have to take your rantings seriously.

Are you aware of this?

As soon as people see the name IamJoseph as the author of a post they know that the contents will be bullshit.

The biggest danger is that one day you may have something worth hearing to say and no one will bother listening.

People see your name on the top of a post and think 'oh, its IamJoseph the lunatic' or 'IamJoseph the liar' or even 'IamJoseph the charlatan'.

They know that, while reading your posts can be entertaining (in the same way as poking an ulcer in your mouth is entertaining), they know that they contain no substance.

now take all of your clothes off, get your 'the end is nigh' sandwich board on and go scream unintelligible nonsence at strangers.

Your public awaits.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I am happy to open this up to any other who want to discuss any of the claims.

I dont think that IamJoseph is interested in attempting to defend his claims.

Some of the information is interesting to discuss and I am happy to share my research for others interested.

cheers,

BT