Peanut Gallery - The Hebrew Bible (Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)

"Peanut Gallery" topic for The Hebrew Bible (Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)(Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)[/color]Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph are NOT to post to this PG topic (see proposed PG guidelines here: Message 255).

I was just searching the topic of the "dead Sea Scrolls" and found this fresh article:Dead Sea Scrolls now available to all online [VIDEO] - CSMonitor.comLooks interesting. Im going to check it out.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Butterflytyrant needs to remember that the claims he pulled came from the Bible Study Forum on the religious side, not the science side. Religious terminology will come into play, but even our definitions of the English word book includes this one: The words translated as book and scroll are rather interchangeable in the Bible. See the parallels to Psalm 40:7. In the NT, biblion is sometimes translated as scroll and sometimes book even though it means a papyrus roll. Depends on the translation.I feel that IamJoesph has clarified his terminology concerning the use of the word books in Message 4 and again in Message 8. IamJoseph is correct in his terminology and isn't excluding scrolls when he uses the word "book".

Yeah. This is also from the article I posted above:

BFT seems to interchange the idea of oldest manuscript still existing and when the text is considered to have been written.IAJ is correct that the oldest manuscripts we possess don't really tell us when the books or stories were first written. We can only speculate, but I feel that scholars have come up with various thoughts on the issue. Dating the BibleBFT needs to be more consistent with his questions.IAJ also needs to do a better job of providing links to his support. That's what BFT wants.We bring evidence to the thread. We don't make our opponents hunt for it.

quote:

---

We bring evidence to the thread. We don't make our opponents hunt for it.

---

Agreed. But one cannot abuse this premise. One cannot ask for proof of the blatant, and what is more blatant than questioning the most known verse of all writings, that the opening verse of Genesis is IN THE BEGINNING. A whole serialized debate was ensued over this matter and all because this well known verse was questioned to kingdom come for "PROOF". Lucky I never mentioned the alphabets start with ABC.

quote:

---

IamJoseph is correct in his terminology and isn't excluding scrolls when he uses the word "book".

---

Is not the issue made moot with the qualification of 'AN APHABETICAL MULTI-PAGE CONTINUEING NARRATIVE'? An auto defense mode which does not allow any agreement on anything is hardly a debate - it becomes just another fundamentalist, talibanic theological stance, while beating one's chest and decrying all as theological nonsense.

This is wholly besides the point of what IAJ is supposed to be arguing, but it's also, of course, not true. The ancient Greeks were well aware that the earth was spherical, and thanks to them so were Islamic and Hindu scholars - for many, many centuries.The Bible itself is a bit ambiguous on the shape of the earth. There are verses which could be interpreted as describing a flat earth, though we could charitably forgive them as poetic imagery.

Would the performers please vacate the audience and return to the stage? Thank you.

I think a fundamental problem with the dating argument is that (I assume) IAJ believes the Hebrew Bible to have been authored by Moses, and assigns a date for that based on his view of Exodus.So, this would bring in the historicity of Moses (and the Exodus) and greatly widen the scope of the debate. That is, if IAJ assumes that Moses was the author. I think this is a brick wall, because IAJ will not be able to bring evidence (outside of tradition, say) of an extremely ancient origin for the Hebrew Bible, and Butterfly won't be able to accept that IAJ takes the tradition that Moses authored the texts as evidence.At least, that's my assumption at this point. Could very well be wrong. Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

I'd appreciate any evidence of the Greeks observing anything other than only a flat earth with a circus canopy of stars atop - this is infact what Christianity took on board till the telescope was discovered. Islam is not in the loop - it is a new belief system, its scriptures upholding a flat earth, with 90% of ts scriptures being a lift off from the Hebrew and Christian bibles; Arabic itself is a new writings emerging as recently as 300 CE.When examing the workings of the Hebrew calendar, which is unquely based on the solar, lunar and earth movements, there is no other understanding than of a sphearical earth.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia

Hi IAJ,The way this is supposed to work is that you and BFT have a discussion over in the The Hebrew Bible (Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)(Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)[/color] thread while the audience discusses the performance in this one.

Coyote, don't you understand that all that proves is the fact that the Greeks stole the idea from the Hebrew Bible??Sorry, couldn't resist

OK. You may talk about me when I'm not here.