Is the bible the word of God or men?

sigh... It is unreasonable because no-one knows whether the universe is finite or infinite, least of all you. We can't observe the entire universe. Your "reasoned preamble" consists of simply quoting Genesis. I'm after something a little for empirical than that I'm afraid. For the last time; you can't prove the Bible with the Bible!
You are only willing to listen to answers that agree with your assertions. That is arrogant and childish. It is not debate, its just shouting.
Finite or Infinite? One of those answers is indeed "sci-fi", but neither of us knows which. Just for the record, I think that the universe probably is finite, but I'm not willing to except it as a starting premise, because we don't bloody well know! Again Joseph, I don't know for sure do I? Neither do you. It is not up to me to disprove any Biblical name you care to mention, not least, because proving such things beyond doubt, would be impossible whether they were true or not. It is up to you to provide evidence of your claims. Mind you, I would hazard a guess that Noah was fictional.
You asked; I did. The ark. The ark story is "not vindicated by science". Your failure to notice this very obvious fact amazes me. You have no evidence in its favour, you just ramble on about it. Even if you believe it to be true, to say that it is "vindicated by science" is a denial of reality and is, frankly, hilarious. I encourage you to continue with this line of un-reasoning. You are doing more to discredit religion than I could ever manage.
Your explanation of Goliath as an unusually tall human is also a bit of a stretch.

quote:

---

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

---

That's 9'9" ({18"x6}+9"=117"). It's not very convincing when the tallest living person at the moment is a mere 8foot 5+1/2inches. That hardly counts as scientific vindication. The mentions of giants in the Bible make much more sense when viewed as myths written by superstitious men. You admit then, that angels and giants are not provable? In that case, they are not "verified by science". That was what you asked for wasn't it?.Oh, and I notice that you have repeated your "millions of stats" claim. Are you going to explain how millions of stat's can be squeezed into a mere 23,145 verses, or are you just going to ignore it again?

---

Mutate and Survive

That's an intelligent and interesting question for debate and investigation. It can lead to either a deficiency or something else - and is varied from the incoherence otherwise seen in this thread.What is certain is, the names and detail listed in the generations of Noah are authentic and scientific of its vicinity - this is the foremost factor here. This form of detail for ancient history is seen nowhere, and constitutes a standout feature, and hardly acknowledged and considered in the postings - thus I regard such postings deficient of scientific investigation. In ancient times, such writings was a major investment and asset for humanity, equivalent to the Pyramids and MC2 - it signifies that the recording of this history - not available elsewhere - was regarded a sacred task and duty for future generations.

quote:

---

It is unreasonable because no-one knows whether the universe is finite or infinite, least of all you. We can't observe the entire universe.

---

We can NEVER observe the uni from outside, same as we can never scientifically observe millions of theories - the most notorious being ToE and its million Years desperation. What you fail to include here is, the scientific reasonings and determinations say the Uni is 100% - not 99% - FINITE. Else all of science and maths is irrelevent. Your post is selective and unscientific - better you conclude honestly, that there is a mark of amazement the first declaration of a finite universe is from Genesis. It will put you in good scientific company - Einstein and Hubble. LOL! The BBT also says the uni is finite! Everything in the universe is likewise.FYI, the 'first and only true definition' of INFINITE is also in the OT: you want to submit a scientific definition to show us you understand this term - or anyone else here?

quote:

---

Your "reasoned preamble" consists of simply quoting Genesis. I'm after something a little for empirical than that I'm afraid. For the last time; you can't prove the Bible with the Bible!
You are only willing to listen to answers that agree with your assertions. That is arrogant and childish. It is not debate, its just shouting.

---

Again, you are wrong. I am not proving the bible with the bible, as does ToE. The OT contains verifiable historical stats - of equal importance of any other faculty. Eg: if a writing says two cites were built by the hebrews in Egypt and names those cities and gives dates - this is not called proving the bible with the bible! It is 100% emprical, and the introduction of such a premise. What you need to do here, is determine if the names and detail is correct or not, and what this signifies - then give this a points factor - instead you deflected. The rest is obstinate rubbish.

quote:

---

I think that the universe probably is finite, but I'm not willing to except it as a starting premise, because we don't bloody well know!

---

What constitutes a finite universe from a science and math premise - let's hope you know this - else your statement is irrelevent. We know the distance and size of stars from light spectrum shifts - but we have never been there physically to observe it either! Your attitudes negates all science - but selectively.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
So which name here is a myth?
{There follows a very long list of names}

​

Again Joseph, I don't know for sure do I? Neither do you. It is not up to me to disprove any Biblical name you care to mention, not least, because proving such things beyond doubt, would be impossible whether they were true or not. It is up to you to provide evidence of your claims. Mind you, I would hazard a guess that Noah was fictional.

---

Incorrect. This is more easily provable, and with greater accuracy, than C14 datings. You have to stop deflecting, and assess what if all those details are 100% authentic, and what conclusion is the best here. Science is one faculty of knowledge, in line with math and history - it is not a greater faculty of knowledge. You will find that even with historical stats, the OT does not elaborate all the details - this is upto to us to prove or disprove - and the same applies for science and scientific stats. The OT posits constants of history and science - the details is upto each generation's knowledge acumen.

quote:

---

You asked;

​

IamJoseph writes:
please show anything in Genesis which is not vindicated by science or dislodged by it?

​

I did. The ark. The ark story is "not vindicated by science". Your failure to notice this very obvious fact amazes me. You have no evidence in its favour, you just ramble on about it. Even if you believe it to be true,

---

I do not make conclusions by 'belief', nor have I failed in backing up anything with science and logic. FYI, the ark and flood are NOT disputed - only the size of this is disputed by an overwhelming majority - a secondary issue.

quote:

---

Your explanation of Goliath as an unusually tall human is also a bit of a stretch.

---

The historicity of Goliath and david, and Goliath's tribe and ancestry is not a stretch. First factor the foremost, then discuss what is relevent here.

quote:

---

You admit then, that angels and giants are not provable? In that case, they are not "verified by science". That was what you asked for wasn't it?.

---

Angels and miraces are not provable, and this does not constitute non-science. The texts tself says so - else they would not be miracles if provable any Friday. Science is only provable or disprovable when scientific factors are discussed. Thus I asked you to disprove what is disprovable in emperical terms. Miracles are like one's emotions - they do not come under science. But you have also negated science when you dispute Genesis' finite premise. If your pursuit of science is genuine, you should acknowledge your deficiency and selectivism here.

quote:

---

Oh, and I notice that you have repeated your "millions of stats" claim. Are you going to explain how millions of stat's can be squeezed into a mere 23,145 verses, or are you just going to ignore it again?

---

I don't have to explain what I totally reject. ToE retreats to the million years scenario, which is itself a slight of hand trick: why do you need millions of years to evidence an ON-GOING PROCESS?

Let's get back to the point here. I am trying to demonstrate that absurdities and contradictions in the Bible prove that it was not written by god, at least not by an inerrant god. They also highlight the fact that the Bible is not scientific. Further, I have argued that contradictions in the Torah prove that Moses did not write it either.
Do you accept that an inaccuracy in the Bible would disprove the claim of an divine author or not? That is exactly why I can't accept your finite universe premise as 100% correct (ToE is off topic). Scientific consensus currently leans toward a finite, but ever expanding universe I believe. The universe may well be finite, but we can never be 100% sure of that, or indeed, anything else. It is only reasonable to leave open the possibility that we might be wrong. Nothing is 100% in science, only the best explanation that we can provide, based on the evidence available. As you point out, observing the entire universe is not possible, therefore we must retain an element of doubt.
Einstein did not claim that the universe is 100% certainly finite, as demonstrated by this quote;

quote:

---

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein

---

Note that he says "not sure". As for Hubble, you mentioned him earlier, but never brought up an actual quote to prove your case. Hubble's work on red-shift doesn't prove the finite-infinite question either way, and I doubt that he was ever foolish enough to say that he knew for 100% certain either way. If I'm wrong, show me the quote. Sure. Infinite means without limit, boundless, continuing without end. In maths infinity refers to an imaginary number larger than any other. Of course, if you insist that the "only true definition" is in the OT, then I suppose I am probably wrong by default again. You say you do not prove the Bible with the Bible, yet you have not provided any evidence for the veracity of its accounts from any other source. In your city example, it would indeed lend weight to the Bible's account if it described your cities and then independent corroboration were found. You have not provided such evidence, despite the fact that there is plenty of it. It is not my job to provide evidence for your arguments.
Anyway, some of the Bible is true. I don't deny that. The problem is, proving one Biblical fact does not prove that the rest is true, or that the Bible is the word of god; only that the relevant section was true. To demonstrate that the Bible is not the work of an inerrant deity, I need only demonstrate one item that is not true. To prove the Bible account itself inerrant would require that one prove every last bit of it true, an impossible task. A finite universe is one in which space-time is bounded. This is all irrelevant anyway. The universe is either finite or infinite. The Bible has a 50/50 chance either way, so it's hardly amazing if it is right. If it is vindicated it proves nothing, any more than similarities with modern physics prove that ancient Hindu texts are reliable(some mention an expanding/contracting universe).
Your point about red-shift is strange. Light comes in our direction and we physically observe those photons when they reach telescopes here on Earth. This is empiricism. The entire universe can't be observed. Light from a specific star can. What we know about a single star is far more reliable than what we know about the entire universe, where we can observe that star. Go ahead and prove it then. If the OT is 100% authentic in detail, this should be easy. I don't see how it advances an argument about whether the bible is the word of god or men, though. Proving a specific piece of Biblical genealogy true does not negate the inconsistencies I have mentioned. Yes you do, yes you have and yes it is (here for example Flood geology - Wikipedia ). I say again, you don't have to agree with the refutations, but to say that they do not exist is just silly. You are right about one thing though; the flood is a secondary issue here. Show me the evidence then, and note that evidence of the existence of Goliath's people would not be relevant. Only proof that a ten-foot man could exist would be relevant here, since that is the point I raised. You said, in message 90; Angels and giants are not vindicated by science. You asked, I answered. Don't sulk just because you don't like the answer you got. As for your goalpost-shifting request for empirically disprovable stuff, I have already given you the pi=3 bit. Try measuring a circle, and see if pi=3. So just to clarify, you are withdrawing your claim that there are millions of statistics in the Bible? Is that right? I wouldn't blame you, since it is an almighty piece of crap.

---

Mutate and Survive

Granny Magda,You do realize Joseph is not going to learn anything here. It seems that Joseph does not follow evidence but instead he follows content. Anyways.Edited by tthzr3, : revision

---

Thank you

quote:

---

I am trying to demonstrate that absurdities and contradictions in the Bible prove that it was not written by god, at least not by an inerrant god. They also highlight the fact that the Bible is not scientific.

---

The text says the OT was written by Moses, via an inspiration. The text also says it could not have come from the mind of one or more humans - there is knowledge there predating its spacetime by 2000 years - and past its spacetime by 4000 years - so the least which can be said here is that there is some mystery, in a manner varied from other theological and empirical writings. Try to list anyone's generations with all dob & dods, authentic and verifiable - even for 200 years - even of a royal family or via any computerised archives today? I gave examples that the names listed in Noah are quite beyond humans after 2000 years from its spacetime; if the later is vindicated, it is proof of a supre knowledge here: how was it derived? Eg, there are stats here which defy the norm: the first introduction of a finite universe; cosmology [the first orderly and scientific definition of the universe]; evolution [the first chronological order of life forms]; the oldest and most accurate active calendar [5768 years now, and the first to be based on the solar, lunar & earth movements]; and the introduction of advanced alphabetical books - these are all scientific evidences way ahead of its time.

quote:

---

Further, I have argued that contradictions in the Torah prove that Moses did not write it either.
Do you accept that an inaccuracy in the Bible would disprove the claim of an divine author or not?

---

Yes, I do. An inaccuracy would still make this an intelligent document, but still normal and man made. I see something more than this here - and it is varied from any other writings I have ever encountered. There is no question the OT is the world's most harkened and believed document, by a margin which makes anything else outside this paradigm. Millions of scientific debates on a daily basis are vested in the few but critical variances between current scientific holdings and the OT: as with what we do now. There has never been a single item in the OT which was ever dislodged. Most debates of the OT centre on some FX miracles, while disregarding all the scientifically provables factors - notwithstanding that even the miracles, which cannot be explained scientificlly, cannot be dislodged by counter proof. This is where it is at - so you should refrain from any absolutist statements, and acknowledge the status quo. Even respected scientists like dawkins, a most anti-OT advocate, can only say this mircale is not possible - he cannot dsprove it! You cannot either. Thus we should only debate what is provable, and leave out miracles: this is an equitable test, while miracles are a circular arguement. I remind again - no other document can stand up to the OT's provables, which are in their millions: in fact, the specificity here is not even seen elsewhere.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
We can NEVER observe the uni from outside, same as we can never scientifically observe millions of theories - the most notorious being ToE and its million Years desperation.

​

That is exactly why I can't accept your finite universe premise as 100% correct (ToE is off topic).

---

And I fully reject your deflection here. That we cannot physically observe the universe from outside, does not negate the scientifically legitimate sound premise it is finite. In any case, it is not disprovable, and not rejected by the world's foremost minds. This point is wholly in favour of genesis whether you admit it or not. You are now resorting to A-science and a cyclical arguement that we cannot observe the universe from afar.

quote:

---

Scientific consensus currently leans toward a finite,

---

Correction. It leans toward genesis. Precedence applies. I also stated, science is a faculty which emerged from genesis. I would say, history and its recounting and recording as well.

quote:

---

but ever expanding universe I believe. The universe may well be finite, but we can never be 100% sure of that, or indeed, anything else.

---

Yes, we can: an expanding universe means there was a beginning, which means only that it is finite. One cnnot add or subtract $5 to or from an infinite quantity of $; it means there was no infinte in the first place. If the uni is expanding, it means it was NOT infinite 10 seconds ago!

quote:

---

It is only reasonable to leave open the possibility that we might be wrong.

---

The reverse applies: it is unreasonable to debate this factor.

quote:

---

Nothing is 100% in science, only the best explanation that we can provide, based on the evidence available. As you point out, observing the entire universe is not possible, therefore we must retain an element of doubt.

---

The best explanation here of the universe status and aging, is from genesis - you fail to point this out. Mankind's thoughts of dating the universe would never happen w/o the premise the uni is finite. Science comes from here.

quote:

---

Einstein did not claim that the universe is 100% certainly finite, as demonstrated by this quote;

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Note that he says "not sure". As for Hubble, you mentioned him earlier, but never brought up an actual quote to prove your case. Hubble's work on red-shift doesn't prove the finite-infinite question either way, and I doubt that he was ever foolish enough to say that he knew for 100% certain either way. If I'm wrong, show me the quote.

---

Both Einstein and Hubble evidence a finite universe. The red shift proves the universe is expanding. You are in denial, and reducing scientifically accepted premises as meaningless. An unqualified, total retraction is the only reponse which can save here.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
FYI, the 'first and only true definition' of INFINITE is also in the OT: you want to submit a scientific definition to show us you understand this term - or anyone else here?

​

Sure. Infinite means without limit, boundless, continuing without end. In maths infinity refers to an imaginary number larger than any other. Of course, if you insist that the "only true definition" is in the OT, then I suppose I am probably wrong by default again.

---

The infinite you refer to is an academic mathematical improvision, and does not reflect to an actual, technical infinity, as per genesis.

quote:

---

You say you do not prove the Bible with the Bible, yet you have not provided any evidence for the veracity of its accounts from any other source.

---

My independent source was the scientific community does accept the uni as finite, thus I quoted Einstein and Hubble. You ignored it - instead of granting it.

quote:

---

In your city example, it would indeed lend weight to the Bible's account if it described your cities and then independent corroboration were found. You have not provided such evidence, despite the fact that there is plenty of it. It is not my job to provide evidence for your arguments.

---

Yes, it is your job to provide counter disproof. Genesis is an established account for 1000s of years, and if you have no new, contradicting evidence the names are not authentic in the Noah story - you cannot dismiss or ignore it. Why do you think these names are so copiously and specifically listed in genesis - for who's benefit? It is a mark of anticipation of future generations, so they can use it as a verification: this is a far more credible evidence than resorting to miracles, as we see in the net these days. Here, you can only question the Noah story by disproving what is provable and disprovable. Of note in these names, although it is the Hebrew bible, we find no hebrew names in the Noah story, because this nation did not yet begin at this time: its called credibility; the first hebrew names emerge only with the first hebrew, namely Abraham, who ancestry is tracable to a name 'Shem' and 'Eber' in the Noah listing, which also corresponds to the OT calendar. The latter is not dismissable or ignorable as a credible and scientific disposition.

quote:

---

Anyway, some of the Bible is true. I don't deny that. The problem is, proving one Biblical fact does not prove that the rest is true, or that the Bible is the word of god; only that the relevant section was true.

---

Agreed - 100%.

quote:

---

To demonstrate that the Bible is not the work of an inerrant deity, I need only demonstrate one item that is not true. To prove the Bible account itself inerrant would require that one prove every last bit of it true, an impossible task.

---

Agreed. One cannot deny this - its either the work of supre advanced, ever displaced wondering Hebrews - or something else is occuring here. The least says the former supre advanced applies, but this is not the point of the debate. I have also stated, this document is clearly varied from any theological work anyplace else: the buck stops here.

quote:

---

A finite universe is one in which space-time is bounded. This is all irrelevant anyway. The universe is either finite or infinite. The Bible has a 50/50 chance either way, so it's hardly amazing if it is right. If it is vindicated it proves nothing, any more than similarities with modern physics prove that ancient Hindu texts are reliable(some mention an expanding/contracting universe).
Your point about red-shift is strange. Light comes in our direction and we physically observe those photons when they reach telescopes here on Earth. This is empiricism.

---

This is not reality at all. When a document says the universe is finite, 3500 years ago - while the world at large held a flat earth even 2000 years later - it is not the same thing. Nor is it a 50/50 chance, because the infinite aspect [its other half], was not known, considered or mentioned till telescopes happened. The red shift foremost outcome is its proof the universe is finite. That this also gave us knowledge of a star's distance for the first time - is its subsequent, secondary effect. Its first meaning is it proves genesis correct. Sorry if Hubble bursts some anti-creationist bubbles!
That the stars are immeasurable is also given in Genesis, which compares it to the dust of the earth - also immeasurable [this was stated to Abraham].

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Incorrect. This is more easily provable, and with greater accuracy, than C14 datings.

​

Go ahead and prove it then. If the OT is 100% authentic in detail, this should be easy. I don't see how it advances an argument about whether the bible is the word of god or men, though. Proving a specific piece of Biblical genealogy true does not negate the inconsistencies I have mentioned.

---

The word of God or man is irrelevent here; what is relevent is if the stats of genesis are correct or not, and how was it able to do so ahead of its spacetime. Scientifically and logically, a phtograph, a burial site, an archive with a date and historical stats - are greater proofs than only C14. The issue of C14 becomes moot and irrelevent with a 3500 year text, because the generations would not understand this till only a 150 years ago. Genesis correctly puts forth the correct mode of evidence here. Further, I can post you numerous links stating C14 is not reliable for small period margins - but this does not apply here.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
I do not make conclusions by 'belief', nor have I failed in backing up anything with science and logic. FYI, the ark and flood are NOT disputed - only the size of this is disputed by an overwhelming majority - a secondary issue.

​

Yes you do, yes you have and yes it is (here for example Flood geology - Wikipedia ). I say again, you don't have to agree with the refutations, but to say that they do not exist is just silly. You are right about one thing though; the flood is a secondary issue here.

---

The proof must apply to what is provable: the names in Noah are not disproved. The focus only on what cannot be proved or disproved - miracles - is not the operable factor. We still have to deal with the issue, how can Genesis come up with historically and scentifically validated names 2000 years behind its spacetime? One must consider how they would include proof in a 3500 year document, and make it applicable for all generations. Genesis does that.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The historicity of Goliath and david, and Goliath's tribe and ancestry is not a stretch.

​

Show me the evidence then, and note that evidence of the existence of Goliath's people would not be relevant. Only proof that a ten-foot man could exist would be relevant here, since that is the point I raised.

---

There is nothing alarming of such descriptions. Some such humans exist today [Guiness book of records; Harlem globbtrotters; etc]. Big, strong, formidable looking people recieved frontline positions in armies. This report says, as with the Roman Gladiator reportings, the biggest soldier was selected to confront David. Its not worth exploring.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Angels and miraces are not provable,

---

And this does not constitute non-science. The texts itself says so - else they would not be miracles if provable any Friday. Science is only provable or disprovable when scientific factors are discussed. Thus I asked you to disprove what is disprovable in emperical terms. Miracles are like one's emotions - they do not come under science. But you have also negated science when you dispute Genesis' finite premise. If your pursuit of science is genuine, you should acknowledge your deficiency and selectivism here.

quote:

---

Angels and giants are not vindicated by science. You asked, I answered. Don't sulk just because you don't like the answer you got. As for your goalpost-shifting request for empirically disprovable stuff, I have already given you the pi=3 bit. Try measuring a circle, and see if pi=3.

---

If angels could be proven, they would not be angels. pi is a recognition of an underlying structure of precedent and hovering intelligence in the universe - it is hardly invented by science; its acknowledgement inclines with genesis, namely that the universe was created with a precedent wisdom, and the antithesis of a random occurence.IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

I don't have to explain what I totally reject. ToE retreats to the million years scenario, which is itself a slight of hand trick: why do you need millions of years to evidence an ON-GOING PROCESS?

​

So just to clarify, you are withdrawing your claim that there are millions of statistics in the Bible? Is that right? I wouldn't blame you, since it is an almighty piece of crap.

---

Not at all - every word and verse is a stat which can be vindicated. Miracles do not come under that category, nor the proving of the Creator here, pointed out in the texts itself - which seems to be the extent you are relying upon. A mark of supreme intelligence is the correct definition of infinity, and genesis does this very credibly - and you have not offered any explanation here.The fact is, genesis is the only document which best defines what infinity means, and the reason this cannot be compared with anything else humanity has encountered. Infinity is only possible where there is no 'change' of state - and whatever is subject to a change, means whatever changes it is transcendent of it - negating thereby its infinity claim. Can you name anything in the universe or the imagination which can pass this test? No - you cannot. Is there anything in the universe which has not changed? Negative. This is the question Moses asked of God, what is your source of power, how come you know about Abraham being my forefather, when he lived 400 years before and in another land than Egypt: IOW, God was telling Moses of transcending both time and space. These are a most credible and vindicating account, that the operable and relevent factors are considered in the text.The OT definition of infinity is thus:'I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [Book of Exodus].Since that statement and reponse, Moses described God as 'from everlasting to everlasting'. This is a scientifcally credible statement, and the best - nay the only - definition of infinity. Edited by IamJoseph, : quotes

What text?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

I only will give extremely short responces to a few issues. (I have a feeling that the types of posters making these claims wont be open to debating in an honest and honorable way, so I wont waste much time)FIRST issue.Hebrew was not the first language, and it is only a (late) development of a specific language family: Semitic (and Semitic is actually a development of an even larger family)There are enough ancient Semitic texts from around 2500 BCE to 700 AD, and the evolution is VERY clear.Hebrew was the result of a slow development from the West-Semitic branch of Semitic, and "Hebrew" didnt exist till around 1000 BCE (even later for "Biblical Hebrew").Arabic (especially as used in the Koran) is actually much less-evolved from the proto-Semitic language than any other current Semitic language. (in many of the most important and common words, it is literally unchanged from the oldest form of West-Semitic)Take the word for *SUN* (a "scientific term" according to the logic of many posting on this thread).In Hebrew it is Shemesh. In Arabic it is Shams(u).Go back to the early days of West-Semitic and you will see that it was Shamsu (nominative) or Shamsi (genetive or "of the sun")As Hebrew was developing (from oher West-Semitic strains), it dropped all case endings which caused two consonants to meet at the end of the word like SHa-M-S.Hebrew was intolerant of such and the speakers added an "e" to open the gap in the final consonants.Shams became shamesh.In many words (a class ones like Shamsh,Shemesh), the "e" also took over the first vowel as well thus Shemesh became the word for sun in hebrew.(ALSO,the often seen shift from final *Sh* to *S* is a Canaanite sound-shift which is seen in hebrew because it is descendant Canaanite)Add a pronominal suffix to the Hebrew words like Shemesh, and the archaic form can bee seen as it becomes Shamshi or "my sun". (like the lost case endings, they take the form in an ending)In Arabic (which sort of still retains the case endings which Hebrew lost over 3000 years ago, Koranic Hebrew does/did), the word Shamsi will be linguistically identical to the pre-Hebrew genetive "of the sun".It is interesting because the common Genesis 1 word 'erev (translated "evening" in the King James) dropped the genetive(IMO it is plausible and backed up by some genuine evidence) shamsi (of the sun) which in older Semitic dialects the term Erbu Samsi would mean "sinking of the sun". ('erev also semantically means "west" , infact the Arabic word for westerner is from the same root)Creationists claim that Hebrew was the original language of God and that "sun" isnt mentioned before day 4.Maybe their interpretation of the Bible is wrong.Just because Creationism , a worldwide flood, and c1200 Conquest have been absolutely demonstrably falsified 100% does not mean that the Bible has been.(I will respond to each issue in the future if time allows)The second issue I want to briefly respond to is the 100% falsified claim that the Bible has an "accurate calendar". (and the person making this claim is a proven bold-faced liar who shouldnt even be allowed to post here)Even fundamentalists has long noticed that the Bibles dates dont add up 100% when compared to precise and frequent Babylonian and Assyrian data.The amount of scholarly and (yes!)*SCIENTIFIC* work done by specialists has shown that the Bibles chronology has some human-errors, and this is even the later well-documented Biblical history which is generally accepted by secular scholars as mostly accurate.Though there have been many works done since the 1920's (Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,Handbook of Biblical Chronology , etc.) , this was generally-understood even 90 years ago when this book (quoted below) was written by leading scholars of their day. I wish I had the time to quote many other volumes from both the recent editions and old ones. One can get a great appreciation of how difficult is was for scholars to attempt to match all the confused Monarchy period Biblical reign dates with the scientific Mesopotamian dates (which make references to Biblical events).That is an issue that can only be discussed with honorable posters. The less-honest ones will simply ignore every last work of scholarship , and thus wont even have the ability to engage in a debate (not that I have time anyway).A message to those with integrity; discard falsified conclusions.It doesnt mean that certain Jewish traditions from the post-ancient world (in various periods) shouldnt be read; it only means that uncritical-swallowing of late-traditions by fundamentalist Christians should hopefully be grown out of.Everything should be read and enjoyed. Nothing should bebelieved uncritically.Its amazing how much stronger one will be when extremely fascile (that means short and very incomplete) research does NOT cause one to form a strong conclusion.EXAMPLE.There is a fundamentalist Christian archaeological organization that employees many PhD's to try and prove the Biblical Conquest happened at the end of the Late Bronze 1 Period (typically dates 1550-1400).They based that on the 1 Kings "480 years' period from the Temple founding of Solomon to the Exodus.I asked (on the phone a few years back) why they couldnt allow for a *possible* terminal Middle Bronze Age Conquest.The responce was simply that we shouldnt start to reject Biblical dates.I didnt mention that they already "rejected" (albeit rightly!) Biblical dates when they use "966 BCE" as the date for the temple founding.The reason is that it was arrived at by using corrected Biblical dates via Mesopotamian synchronisms. I did however mention that they were rejecting the Bibles account of giant walled-towns during the Conquest since the Late Bronze 1 period lacked such. The person on the other end of the phone gave me that point.He told me that the organization was working on a Study Bible with other Christian academics and that he would pass on the word to the contributors.It came out about a year or so later and was called the Archaeological Study Bible.To my shock, it actually gave many honest reasons for looking at the terminal Middle Bronze period for the Conquest (though the commentary made it very clear that the end date for the Middle bronze Age was "too early" to match Joshua's supposed time).The Study Bible was very very weak in many area's but I was pleased to see honorable second guessing of the Late Bronze 1 Conquest that fundamentalists swear by uncritically.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

quote:

---

FIRST issue.

​

Hebrew was not the first language, and it is only a (late) development of a specific language family: Semitic (and Semitic is actually a development of an even larger family)

---

I never said it was [you never mentioned who said so]. I did say the first 'alphabetical books' were in hebrew. i stand by that statement, and also that is constitutes a mystery, seeing this comes from a small nation which arrived relatively late in the scene.

quote:

---

There are enough ancient Semitic texts from around 2500 BCE to 700 AD, and the evolution is VERY clear.

---

It is NOT very clear, even while I acknowledge it is held by the majority sector of scientists that hebrew is in the second or third tier level of original languages: I accept this, albiet with reservations. My problem here is, there is an indisputable degree of bias against Israel's history among non-creationist and even christian and islamic renderings. Note: sumeria and phoenecia were older, mightier nations, and subsisted a 1000 years after Israel emerged: but where are their equvalent alphabetical books, if they preceded? In contrast, we see a consecative, unbroken thread of writings in the hebrew, almost every 80 years apart, displaying an authentic record of history. When the matter is further examined, what are these predating alphabetical writings? These are bits and pieces of burial epitaphs and commercial reciepts in the main, with stray half alphabets, deemed to be akin to the hebrew alphabets, and concluded as older - because those nations were precedent. Thus, the absence of historical [dated, with place names, etc] alphabetical books in phoenecian and sumerian makes it NOT clear and not fully acceptable. The Hamurabi, Gilmesh and egyptian book of the dead [its not a 'book'] - are non-alphabetical, and not historical in its texts, and their datings are unconfirmed and in dispute - although they do not impact negatively with the hebrew.

quote:

---

Hebrew was the result of a slow development from the West-Semitic branch of Semitic, and "Hebrew" didnt exist till around 1000 BCE (even later for "Biblical Hebrew").

---

Yes, this is a reasonable expectation - but it appears the hebrew emerged suddenly and in an already advanced state: unless you can point us to precedent advanced alphabetical books? How do you account for the scientific cencus in the book of Exodus - in their millions, with sub-toals of gender and ages, and affirming final totals: this appears a writing with numerals inherent in its alphabets. I call this an advanced writings, with no equavelnce seen from phoenecia or sumeria. The canaanites did not speak this particular language, nor did they leave any alphabetical books, while the OT narratives say the Mosaic five books were in hand before the israelites entered canaan; the latter is not an independent proof, but when it is combined with the absence of such writings in egypt and canaan - it becomes encumbent to regard it with caution.

quote:

---

Arabic (especially as used in the Koran) is actually much less-evolved from the proto-Semitic language than any other current Semitic language.

---

True, but this does not signify a greater anciency: the arabic writings only occured recently, 350 CE; and this peoples have lived relatively a closed door society, never being dispersed from their region. Also, the arab race per se is not so old, first seen as an identifiable ethnic group in 500 BCE, well after Persia was conquered by Greece. It is irrelevent with the hebrew datings.

quote:

---

Take the word for *SUN* (a "scientific term" according to the logic of many posting on this thread).

​

In Hebrew it is Shemesh. In Arabic it is Shams(u).

​

Go back to the early days of West-Semitic and you will see that it was Shamsu (nominative) or Shamsi (genetive or "of the sun")

---

This only affirms the hebrew's anciency. we find the term 'EL' for Lord/God/Master/High one/Sir etc, predates the israelites, as does the practice of circumsizion. here, the OT uses the traditions of the people to illustrate its narratives.

quote:

---

In Arabic (which sort of still retains the case endings which Hebrew lost over 3000 years ago, Koranic Hebrew does/did), the word Shamsi will be linguistically identical to the pre-Hebrew genetive "of the sun".

​

It is interesting because the common Genesis 1 word 'erev (translated "evening" in the King James) dropped the genetive(IMO it is plausible and backed up by some genuine evidence) shamsi (of the sun) which in older Semitic dialects the term Erbu Samsi would mean "sinking of the sun". ('erev also semantically means "west" , infact the Arabic word for westerner is from the same root)

---

I doubt anything of significance is evidenced here. The arabic did not contain numerous alphabetic sounds, as is the case with the greek and latin. Eg: no 'V' - thus Abraham is spelt with a B instead of its original V.

quote:

---

Creationists claim that Hebrew was the original language of God and that "sun" isnt mentioned before day 4.

---

No, they do not. The narratives does say the Ten Commandments was in the Hebrew. here, very significantly, and a pointer of the OT's unequalled contemporaous credibility, we find the first two opening words of the 10 C's in the ancient egyptian language, namely 'I AM' ['ANNO CHI'], apparently directed at the Pharoah, who never spoke hebrew, but decreed himself divine. This, aside from the Pyramid writings, constitutes the earliest recording of ancient egyptian - in an alphabetical hebrew script. This is an evidence of the OT texts being true to its spacetime.

quote:

---

Just because Creationism , a worldwide flood, and c1200 Conquest have been absolutely demonstrably falsified 100% does not mean that the Bible has been.

---

The flood is 100% vindicated, more so than any other ancient writings of any event. What is disputed is the size of the flood only. Here, there is a good debate possible that it relates only to a regional flood, namely of the 'then known world'.

quote:

---

The second issue I want to briefly respond to is the 100% falsified claim that the Bible has an "accurate calendar". (and the person making this claim is a proven bold-faced liar who shouldnt even be allowed to post here)

---

The term 'lie' here is exaggerated. I too can post you 100s of links and evidences refuting your claim. There is no doubt this is the oldest, active calendar, that it is a diary of history, and that it can make accurate predictions of a sunset upto 100,000 years in advance. It is also the only one based on the solar, lunar and earthly movements, and examining its construction, one can only conclude the earth is a non-flat, moving spheare. In fact, I have posted scientific evidences of this in this forum.

quote:

---

Even fundamentalists has long noticed that the Bibles dates dont add up 100% when compared to precise and frequent Babylonian and Assyrian data.

---

EG? Do you dispute, for example, the dates of the babylonian invasion of Israel in 586 BCE? if anything, just as one can trace christianity emanating from Israel and the OT, one can trace every law and tradition in the quran as emanating from the israelie exile in babylon, where they lived for 2700 years till 1948, and practiced the OT. Babylon developed into Iraq, before being conquered by Persia and Greece, than Rome. The greeks were the first to translate the OT in another language, and from here did they beget their own alphabetical writings, as well as the concept of democrasy. What this says, is that most of the nations benefited many of their core knowledge from the OT and Israelites, while any such derivitive from pheonecia and sumeria is elusive - despite that those nations were older and mightier.

quote:

---

The amount of scholarly and (yes!)*SCIENTIFIC* work done by specialists has shown that the Bibles chronology has some human-errors, and this is even the later well-documented Biblical history which is generally accepted by secular scholars as mostly accurate.

---

Then you would also be aware, that a host of scientists declared King david as a myth; this was overturned 15 years ago with the Tel Dan discovery. Those scholars have never recovered from their shame. The tel dan overturn numerous scandalous reprts, still held by an otherwise uninitaited sector of peoples: King david wrote the psalms 3000 years ago, which mentions Moses and alligns with the entire narratives of the OT; David was a mere 250 years from Moses! Factor this, and what does it point to?

quote:

---

It doesnt mean that certain Jewish traditions from the post-ancient world (in various periods) shouldnt be read; it only means that uncritical-swallowing of late-traditions by fundamentalist Christians should hopefully be grown out of.

---

Here, you failed to mention any document which is more reliable or with less errors? This even giving you a portion of doubt there are some errors, obviously resultant from translations by numerous, far away nations, performed 2000 years after the OT emergence. We see a host of variances of dates and names in the Quran: yet the world stands by the OT, as does all other independent scientific assessments. That you can point out a discrpency of 10,000 chariot wheels in the book of Kings, while elsewhere it says 100,000 - a variance of a '0', and this not via bona fide copties - is hardly impacting.

quote:

---

Its amazing how much stronger one will be when extremely fascile (that means short and very incomplete) research does NOT cause one to form a strong conclusion.

​

EXAMPLE.

​

There is a fundamentalist Christian archaeological organization that employees many PhD's to try and prove the Biblical Conquest happened at the end of the Late Bronze 1 Period (typically dates 1550-1400).

​

They based that on the 1 Kings "480 years' period from the Temple founding of Solomon to the Exodus.

---

Perhaps you should examine the OT via OT sages' commentaries, and the NT from christian scholars. Your problem here with regard the biblical conquest will be adequately quelled.

quote:

---

It came out about a year or so later and was called the Archaeological Study Bible.To my shock, it actually gave many honest reasons for looking at the terminal Middle Bronze period for the Conquest (though the commentary made it very clear that the end date for the Middle bronze Age was "too early" to match Joshua's supposed time).The Study Bible was very very weak in many area's but I was pleased to see honorable second guessing of the Late Bronze 1 Conquest that fundamentalists swear by uncritically.

---

This is easily negated. While there is no dispute of the text, its datings can be explained and verified. The Tel Dan and Egytpian stele shows that Israel was at war in this region before 3000 yers, and the latter described its history 250 years later. The proving of dates to such critical margins is exemplary here - it does not occur with other writings.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The text says the OT was written by Moses,

​

What text?

---

This was in response to a post which said the OT was written by God. Its texts says, Moses wrote it.

I dont feel like taking the time to paste out your long post.
(webtv only pastes the entire page,twice!, and then it takes forever to delete the mess).I dont know what it will take to convince you to actually *research* before posting.Ill only cover the most absurd of your comments.I really really want to quote your comments about Canaanites, Phoenicians, etc. not having an alphabet. LOL!How can I put this to you gently?LOL!Anyway, the evolution of the alphabet is as 100% clear as the evolution of the Semitic languages.If I was an artist then I could literally draw you a picture (infact it would require several!) showing how the Canaanites alphabet evolved into the one the Hebrews finally borrowed LONG after it was invented.Actually, I think I could draw the alphabetic characters and their evolution.You date Moses around 1250 BCE.Another group of Canaanites also had a seperate alphabet (this one was made up via an adaption from the Sumerians script!) even before that date.Infact, the Greeks had their alphabet about the same time (earlier) we find Hebrew inscriptions in their current alphabet.Your comment that there are tons of Palestinian inscriptions is simply jaw-dropping.(especially since you compare it to the amount of Sumerian inscriptions)One can literally quote and comment on every Palestinian inscription from c1200to 550 BCE in a single 200 page booklet! (I know, I have it!)It would take about 200,000 pages to just scratch the surface of Mesopotamian writings.And the amount of Palestinian Iron Age writings before 700 BCE would only be a few pages (I forget but its very very small).You simply have no clue about even the basics yet you claim to know all there is to know on this and many other subjects!RELATED ISSUE (slightly different)You said that a host of scientists rejected the existence of King David.Name me one.Most scholars however did seem to believe he existed BEFORE the Tel Dan discovery.YES THEY BELIEVED HE EXISTED.And even before the discovery, critical-scholars like Israel Finkeletein still believed that parts of Samuel were true. To this date, Finkelstein still holds up older evidence (like Shiloh) to support older traditions being behind some Biblical stories (Shiloh was destroyed in the 11th century and never was a significant settlement after that).The issue isnt so much with David but whether there was a United Monarchy over all of Palestine (especially from Judah) and especially the issue of it being such a regional power.The issue still isnt settled.The textual and archaeological evidence can easily be used to cast doubt.Especially textual evidence (essentially nothing).For a few hundred years after Davids time, the textual discoveries have been miniscule.There is no egg on anybody's face.(and this Tel Dan issue is the ONLY part of your post that wasnt 100% full of crap,and even it was 90% crap)

quote:

---

I really really want to quote your comments about Canaanites, Phoenicians, etc. not having an alphabet. LOL!

​

How can I put this to you gently?

​

LOL!

---

Everyone knows of those charts of canaanite alphabets. I referred to 'alphabetical books' - which is reasonable to expect from all those predating nations, including phoenecians. What is your problem - the LOL is indicative only of your absence of any context to my post. Read again, carefully. I won't embarrass you to produce any alphabetical history books akin to the OT: there are none - notwithstanding those alphabet charts pervasive in all the net today, of older and mightier nations: its an anomoly you also failed to address, despite my repeated clarifications.

quote:

---

You date Moses around 1250 BCE.

​

Another group of Canaanites also had a seperate alphabet (this one was made up via an adaption from the Sumerians script!) even before that date.

---

Every one knows the canaanites predated Moses. All the more reason to produce some canaanite alphabetical historical books: what happened?! if you can enlighten here, you will have contributed something.

quote:

---

Infact, the Greeks had their alphabet about the same time (earlier) we find Hebrew inscriptions in their current alphabet.

---

Then you can evidence some greek books along the same period as the Hebrew - is that what you are saying? In fact, I can produce evidence the greeks got their alphabeticals from the hebrew, as well the conceot for democrasy.

quote:

---

Your comment that there are tons of Palestinian inscriptions is simply jaw-dropping.(especially since you compare it to the amount of Sumerian inscriptions)

​

One can literally quote and comment on every Palestinian inscription from c1200to 550 BCE in a single 200 page booklet! (I know, I have it!)

---

The term 'palestinian' only surfaced 70 CE by a Roman decree, and applied exclusively to jews till 1965; it was taken by arabs as a political tool when Arafat came on the scene. There was no Palestinian name in 550 BCE. I'm unsure what your point is about palestinian inscriptions - it does not make any sense nor does it refer to any historical term or archives. Your history is confused and distorted here.

quote:

---

It would take about 200,000 pages to just scratch the surface of Mesopotamian writings.

---

But if this was an older and mightier nation, the anomoly I pointed to remains so, with no effect of your post: where are the meso alphabetical books: just one will do - and if you have none, why is this the case of an older nation? i cannot see what is so special about the Hebrews only evidencing such advanced historical books - specially when they were constantly in wonderings and wars.

quote:

---

And the amount of Palestinian Iron Age writings before 700 BCE would only be a few pages (I forget but its very very small).

​

You simply have no clue about even the basics yet you claim to know all there is to know on this and many other subjects!

---

While the 'palestinian iron age writings' is an incoherent, ficticious terminology, there is no confusion of the writings of the hebrew: these are the most known writings of the ancient world, from the OT to Micah, and these are all in alphabetical hebrew, denoting an advancement and prowess not seen with mesopotamia, phoenecia or sumer: it is an anomoly. This is my point, and you keep deflecting.

quote:

---

RELATED ISSUE (slightly different)

​

You said that a host of scientists rejected the existence of King David.

​

Name me one.

​

Most scholars however did seem to believe he existed BEFORE the Tel Dan discovery.

​

YES THEY BELIEVED HE EXISTED.

​

And even before the discovery, critical-scholars like Israel Finkeletein still believed that parts of Samuel were true. To this date, Finkelstein still holds up older evidence (like Shiloh) to support older traditions being behind some Biblical stories (Shiloh was destroyed in the 11th century and never was a significant settlement after that).

​

The issue isnt so much with David but whether there was a United Monarchy over all of Palestine (especially from Judah) and especially the issue of it being such a regional power.

​

The issue still isnt settled.

​

The textual and archaeological evidence can easily be used to cast doubt.Especially textual evidence (essentially nothing).

​

For a few hundred years after Davids time, the textual discoveries have been miniscule.

​

There is no egg on anybody's face.

​

(and this Tel Dan issue is the ONLY part of your post that wasnt 100% full of crap,and even it was 90% crap)

---

Before tel dan, both Moses and david, and Solomon were deemed as mythical figures by a host of archeologists. I cannot now name them, I would have to look for archives predating the tel Dan. Today, with the evidence at hand, there is a rejection of david's reign and its size. King david was the only king which conquered the Philistines, while all the nations, including Egypt, was unable to prevail over this force for a 1000 years, one which introduced iron armour into the M/E. the size of david's rule is also evidenced via King Solomon, and later what is the west bank and Israel today, upto Mount Nebo in today's Jordan. Israel was always a small nation and landmass, as declared in its own writings; debating its size is thus a moot factor and a deflection from the issue. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

So you are ignorant and racist.Palestine wasnt named such till after the 2nd temple period ended? Its just Arab propaganda huh?You claim that other peoples didnt have histories before the Hebrews put their stories into codex form.You claim the Greeks never had a historical text, especially around 500 BCE.The Canaanites didnt have a historical text?Neither did Mesopotamians?Lets see what William Albright had to say about the Canaanites and their historical texts. The leading conservative Christian scholar of all-time (perhaps the most brilliant scholar period) gives the Phoenician history credibility back to around 1500 B.C.E. and dates the document from around the 8th century BCE if not earlier (quite a transmission process).Joseph will surely say "I dont understand your point".My point is that the Bibles dialect is from around he 7th century BCE so this is perhaps older.The Phoenician "history" sure the heck dates before the Hebrew scriptures were made into "book" form. (about 1000 years before).I have a great book on my shelf called "Philo of Byblus" by Attridge and Oden (a difficult to find CBQ monograph which included all extant text) , and I am sorry to tell Joseph that it infact existed.This will lead me to another quick point which will shoot down two false claims of IamIgnorant I mean IamJoseph.One of the biggest critics of Biblical history was the great historian Gosta Ahlstrom.Here is what he said about the possibility of United Monarchy , David, Solomon , etc. Ahlstrom has been described among the minimalists and a member of the "rejectionist school" with regards to the Bible.The date of this work?1993!Before the Tel Dan inscription.BEFORE.IamJoseph is a liar of the worst kind.A genuinely dishonest slimeball.But Ahlstrom goes on... I thought the Canaanites had no historical records.I thought Joseph and others told us that scholars were super-critical of the Bible and not critical of other historical works.Sounds to me like the scholars are open-minded and in search of historical truth, critical yet fair TREATING ALL ANCIENT CLAIMS EQUALLY!Now that that crap is out of the way (Joseph is too dishonest to read and learn;he will surely be making the same false claims in the future as if he hadnt read my documentation, but I trust that people worth my time were reading and learning), lets move on.Mespotamians had religious texts similar to Genesis in a complete form back before 1500BCE.Ziusudra was very similar in lay-out to Genesis 1-6. Mesopotamians had detailed historical texts as well.But let me move on to this crap he swallowed uncritically about Palestine not being called such till after the 2nd Temple period.It will also shoot two IamJoseph turds with one stone. (the issue of Greeks not having historical texts before the Hebrew texts were made into books in addition to IamJosephs racist crap on Palestinians)First, the part of Philistines we all know about (being the name for the narrow strip of land on the southern coast) will be covered before I get to the actual issue of when the term was used for the entire land of Israel/Palestine. This is used in the sense that the Biblical term was used in Exodus chapter 15(the narrow strip of coastal land).Exodus chapter 15 dates BEFORE the Conquest though the grammar cant be older than around 900BCE (chapter 15 does have grammatical features that are among the oldest in the hebrew Bible including past-tense verbs and such which later Biblical Hebrew did not have exactly)NOW THE BIG ISSUEThis issue has a huge amount to do with the modern rights of the Palestinian people (who have ethnic ancestors from ALL native peoples of the land).This is the issue related to IamJospehs ignorant osession fueled by hatred and propaganda swallowing.Lets see when the word (related to) "Palestine" was first mentioned as refering to the entire land of Israel/Palestine. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

No need for such hatred and support of genocide!Palestinains are genetic ancestors of Jews and Canaanites (among others).they have European and Arab blood too.Just like Jews.Josephus confused the old translation of Israel (the word that was a slight word-play on the participle "wrestler" which was a rough translation of "Israel") with the similar sounding Palestine.But the word's origin came from a simple translation attempt of "Israel".If Joseph ever read Philo of Alexandria , then he would know that Jews from BEFORE 70 AD used the term Palestine (in a slightly different form) for the ENTIRE landof Israel/Palestine.But whats this... you mean that IamJoseph was also ignorant of the fact that Greeks had "history" books literally 500 years before the Bible was put into book form?Infact its where we got the word for "history"!Long before the Dead Sea *Scrolls*.I finished talking to this ignorant punk.I feel like taking a bath.Peace all.

quote:

---

You claim that other peoples didnt have histories before the Hebrews put their stories into codex form.

---

No, I never made such statements. At best, my position is that the hebrew has no predating phoenecian books in advanced alphabetical mode, or some better explanation be available why we have no books from them, akin to the hebrew. Aside from shouting irrelevencies, you have not responded to this issue. Where do you derive I negated any nation's history, you do not even quote it.

quote:

---

You claim the Greeks never had a historical text, especially around 500 BCE.

---

No, i never said this. In fact, if the greeks conquered the M/E around that time, how can they not have a history? The Greek history dates back many centuries, and they had contact with the phoenecians, and had acquired a similar script. The greeks had a writing as well, but not an alphaebtical one - this was taken from the hebrew in 300 BCE - the source for this detail is in the Flavius Josephus Documents. This can be disproven if a pre-300 BCE Greek alphabetical writings is evidenced. My retraction will be prompt here.

quote:

---

The Canaanites didnt have a historical text? Neither did Mesopotamians?

---

They did surely have a history - first recorded in the OT. The canaanite script is generally regarded older than the hebrew, and as its prototype. While I accept this, it is done with legitimate reservation: we have no equivalent canaanite, mesopotamium or phoenecian writings in the alphabetical as with the hebrew. What is the reason for this - when we know those nations subsisted for a 1000 years - 'after' Israel emerged? All of these nations were equally associated with each other - yet none wrote alphabetical books - when they are called the introducers of the alphabets: is there an anomoly here or not?

quote:

---

Lets see what William Albright had to say about the Canaanites and their historical texts.

​

Canaanites and Phoenicians were one people, so far as language and cultural tradition went.

---

Its what I said - all three of these nations were associated. But none had books [multiple-page continueing narratives], ina lphabetical script form, when they are the inventors of the alphabets.

quote:

---

their ancestors had already lived in Phoenicia and Palestine long previously.

---

This is obviously stated retrospective to this current time. There was no palestine or palestinian people before 70CE, and these names were applied exclusively to jews till 1965. The quote above could thus not have been made prior to 1965, because then no arabs were called Palestinians. The writer did not say anything to indicate there was a palestinian prior to 70 CE.or to negate anything I stated.

quote:

---

Not far from 100 A.D. Philo of Byblus, a native Phoenician scholar of good family, collected extensive data for a work which is variously called "Phoenician Matters" (Phoinikika) and "Phoenician History" by later Greek scholars
According to Porphy and Eusebius, Philo tranlated the books of an earlier Phoenician named Sanchuniathon

---

Fine - I stated the greeks were closely associated with phoenecia, and this is well before 100 CE - even before they entered Babylon. With regard the document Philo translated, I would be interested to know the datings and status of this writing - which is not included here, and the only relevent factor.

quote:

---

The abstract of Phoenician mythology which Eusebius drew from Philo used to be regarded with suspician by many critical scholars ..... without any independent value as a source for our knowledge of Phoenician religion.This pessimistic attitude has dbeen disproved rather coompletely by the discovery and decipherment of Ugaritic mythological literature since 1930.
....

---

And the reason for this disatisfaction is - back to my issue concerning the absence of historical books here! Consider how varied this situation is with the hebrew books, which contain specifics of dates names, nations, kings, wars and such historical details.

quote:

---

The leading conservative Christian scholar of all-time (perhaps the most brilliant scholar period) gives the Phoenician history credibility back to around 1500 B.C.E. and dates the document from around the 8th century BCE if not earlier (quite a transmission process).

​

Joseph will surely say "I dont understand your point".

---

First, understand your own point: that above quote says 'phoenecian history' dates back 3,500 years - not any alphabetical books! And who here disputed the fact of the 3500 year date? In fact, my understanding is it was much older than this date - which makes the absence of any books a bigger problem. I must say you were right: what is your point?

quote:

---

My point is that the Bibles dialect is from around he 7th century BCE so this is perhaps older.

​

The Phoenician "history" sure the heck dates before the Hebrew scriptures were made into "book" form. (about 1000 years before).

​

I have a great book on my shelf called "Philo of Byblus" by Attridge and Oden (a difficult to find CBQ monograph which included all extant text) , and I am sorry to tell Joseph that it infact existed.

---

Yes, phoenecia was older. Yes, the world sees their writings as older. I still see an anomoly here, and your responses does not even address the issue. The above quotes do not evidence an older phoenecien alphabetical book than the hebrew. We aught to have 1000s of such books - dated every 80 to 150 years apart at the very least. Why do we need quotes from writers who translate something 2000 years ago - for a people who write books 3500 years ago? We need hard copy proof, equivalent to the Dead Sea Scrolls or some other historical manuscripts, scrolls or monuments. Which museum?

quote:

---

This will lead me to another quick point which will shoot down two false claims of IamIgnorant I mean IamJoseph.

​

One of the biggest critics of Biblical history was the great historian Gosta Ahlstrom.

​

Here is what he said about the possibility of United Monarchy , David, Solomon , etc.

​

Ancient Palestine
A Historical Introduction
A period completely unknown in Near Eastern texts except from the Hebrew Bible is that of the so-called unitd monarchy.No kingdom called Israel or Judah, much less an Israelite empire, is anywhere attested in the records of the non-Palestinian countries.57This may be due to the fact that the Egyptian and Assyrian powers were at a low ebb in this period; thus they had no intereaction with any kingdom in Palestine.A presentation of the history of this period, as o any other period in the histry of Palestine that lacks external evidence, will therefor be tentative.This is not to deny that there is any reliable informtion in the biblical texts, but, without the corroboration of external source material, the picture that can be presented ... will be no more than a presentation of what could have been possible.However, when this is supplemented with archeological remains, the plausibility of a kingdom in the hills has to be acknowledged.

​

Ahlstrom has been described among the minimalists and a member of the "rejectionist school" with regards to the Bible.

​

The date of this work?

​

1993!

​

Before the Tel Dan inscription.BEFORE.

​

IamJoseph is a liar of the worst kind.A genuinely dishonest slimeball.

​

But Ahlstrom goes on...

---

Well, needless to elaborate, you are openly making a fool of yourself. There was no palestine in that time, and there are loads of cross-nation writings about Israel - including Persian writings of Esther and Mordecai of 2700 years ago; Greek and Roman writings; even an ancient Egptian stele more than 3000 years old which mentions israel. Not palestine - guess why!?As an interesting aside, I read a schilarly report why Jesus could never have been a palestinian. This name first emerged in 70 CE, when Rome conquered Judea and destroyed Jerusalem. As a mark of insult to injury, Judea was re-named as Palestine [philistia], as a reference to the original philistines, conquered by david a 1000 years before. Since jesus is said to have died in 31 CE - the name Palestinian was not used by anyone - making it impossible he could have been a Palestinian, being 40 years before the re-naming occured.

quote:

---

I thought the Canaanites had no historical records.

​

I thought Joseph and others told us that scholars were super-critical of the Bible and not critical of other historical works.

​

Sounds to me like the scholars are open-minded and in search of historical truth, critical yet fair TREATING ALL ANCIENT CLAIMS EQUALLY!

​

Now that that crap is out of the way (Joseph is too dishonest to read and learn;he will surely be making the same false claims in the future as if he hadnt read my documentation, but I trust that people worth my time were reading and learning), lets move on.

---

It is common knowledge that both david and solomon were regarded as myth till a few decades ago. Today, scholars class Moses as a myth - because no evidencing hard copy relic is found. Yet.

quote:

---

Mespotamians had religious texts similar to Genesis in a complete form back before 1500BCE.Ziusudra was very similar in lay-out to Genesis 1-6. Mesopotamians had detailed historical texts as well.

---

I'm fully aware of this and the Hamurabi documents, and these do not effect anything in hebrew writings: in fact, there was no historical contact between these peoples till late in Israel's ancient history. In any case, the differences are more significant than the commonalities here, and this relates to the lack of head-bashing dieties competing for supremecy. Also, these documents are not in the advanced hebrew alphabetical: and we do not know why.

quote:

---

But let me move on to this crap he swallowed uncritically about Palestine not being called such till after the 2nd Temple period.

​

It will also shoot two IamJoseph turds with one stone. (the issue of Greeks not having historical texts before the Hebrew texts were made into books in addition to IamJosephs racist crap on Palestinians)

​

First, the part of Philistines we all know about (being the name for the narrow strip of land on the southern coast) will be covered before I get to the actual issue of when the term was used for the entire land of Israel/Palestine.

​

Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land
Avraham Negev
Shimon Gibson

​

p391

​

PHILISTINES(SEA PEOPLES)

​

....

​

The Peleset of ancient Egyptian texts (recorded on the Medinet Habu temple, dating to year eight of the reign of Rameses III, c. 1185 BC) are perhaps the best known confederation of Sea Peoples.This population group has been readily identified with the Philistines known from later 7th century BC biblical sources, said to have come from Caphtor (Crete).

​

Changes in the archaeological record of the coastal southern Levant at the end of the Late Bronze Age (c 1200 BC) have been attributed to the arrival of a new population group, which is identified with the Philistines.This group settled on the extreme southern limits of the Levant forming an urban culture centered in five major cities,the Philistine Pentapolis.These are Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron... and Gath...

​

....

​

There is likewise evidence of changes in diet.Most important is the appearance of pig bones among the faunal remains of Philistine sites.Other novel dietary elements include beer drinking, using side-sprouted strainer jugs."

​

This is used in the sense that the Biblical term was used in Exodus chapter 15(the narrow strip of coastal land).Exodus chapter 15 dates BEFORE the Conquest though the grammar cant be older than around 900BCE (chapter 15 does have grammatical features that are among the oldest in the hebrew Bible including past-tense verbs and such which later Biblical Hebrew did not have exactly)

---

What r u - nuts! The first record about the original philistine is in the OT. But who is talking about the original philistines: we were discussing the palestinians - the name which re-emerged in 70 CE. You cannot provide this forum with a document between 3300 years ago [the date K. David conqeured the philistines] and 70 CE; you also cannot provide any usage by aram muslims of the term palestinians: they hated this name then exactly as they do zionists. These are non-negotiable facts. i had not referred to such issues, when stating we dont have phoneceian and canaanite alphabetical books. This is the issue you fail to address and deflect it with unrelated issues, but which you also propose dis-historically.

quote:

---

NOW THE BIG ISSUE

​

This issue has a huge amount to do with the modern rights of the Palestinian people (who have ethnic ancestors from ALL native peoples of the land).

​

This is the issue related to IamJospehs ignorant osession fueled by hatred and propaganda swallowing.

​

Lets see when the word (related to) "Palestine" was first mentioned as refering to the entire land of Israel/Palestine.

​

"Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land
Avraham Negev
Shimon Gibson
p380

​

PALESTINE
The earliest occurence of the name Palestine is in the Histories of Herodotus, written in Greek in the mid-5th century BC,

---

This refers to the philistines, a non-semtic peoples from the agean sea islands. They are not arab or arabian. They introduced iron in the M/E and wore iron armour, whereby none could defeat them till king david did 3300 years ago in gaza. Previously, Samson destroyed their temple, and statue of dagon, but was unable to eradicate them. This has nothing to do with the issue.

quote:

---

Josephus, the Jewish historian of the 1st century AD, is the first writer to explicity link this name to the land of the Philistines and he consistntly refers to the Philistines as the Palaistinoi in his jewish Antiquities.

---

Not true at all - I have read Josephus. In his time, the land was called Judea and Samaria, and Jerusalem was in Judea, the city destroyed by Rome, and Josephus being the appointed Roman scribe. The name palestine was named after the city was destroyed in 70 CE, stated as such by Josephus. This is also the first time this land was called Palestinian, and there were no non-jewish Palestinians from then to 1965.

quote:

---

Doubtless, he believed that the name Palestine was a transliteration of the ancient Semitic name for the Philistines,Peleshet, and the consensus of modern opinion agrees with him on this point.However, the earliest references to Palestine in the classical literature shows that this term was generally applied to the land of Israel in the wider sense.

---

Not so, and it has not much to do with today's concencus says. Its evidenced by all classical writings as well, and you have not put a shred of evidence which contradicts this. Roman archives also do not use the name palestinian, but Judea and samaria. Today's west bank is a recent namesake, being called samaria till only a few decades ago. Perhaps you can evidence the name palestinian applying to anyone but jews prior to '65? Like a flag, national anthem, coin, king, president or PM - anything which equates with a peoples' homeland?

quote:

---

Curiously, in the Bible we are told that Jacob recieved the name Israel (Yisrael) because he wrestled (sarita) with the Lord (Gen 32:24-25).In the Greek Septuagint translation of this passage and also in the narrative account of this episode by the Hellenistic Jewish writer Demetritus, both probably dating from the 3rd century BC, the Greek verb used to describe this wrestling encounter is palaio.The corresponding noun for wrestler is palaistes.David Jacobson has argued that in its Greek form Palaistinae was a transliteration of a word used to describe the land of the Philistines and, at the same time, a literal translation of the name Israel.This dual interpretation would reconcile apparent contradictions in early definitions of the name Palaistin...Moreover it would help to explain the designation of the land of Israel by this name in the philosophical writings of Philo of Alexandria and other works in Greek by Jewish authors of the Second Temple period.

---

I'll be glad to debate this on a thread other than this - but just to advise you, the correct term is not wrestle but 'strive'. This is the meaning of Israel in the hebrew, namely 'Yisra' [to strive] El [with God]. The name is given by Gd, according to the texts in the OT. Why quote other languages of a hebrew text? You are quoting texts which have undergone numerous layers of translations from the original. Check the dead sea scrolls, if in doubt - this has been translated and put on the net.

quote:

---

After the Bar Kokhba rebellion(132-135 AD) , the Roman renamed the province of Judea as Syria Palestina.This act may be seen not simply as a part of the Emperor Hadrian's aim to erase the Jewish homeland, but more specifically to retionalize the name of the new province, which was much larger than historic Judea.In their turn, the Arabs transliterated this name to Filastin, and used it for the area of the Holy Land"

---

The name did not relate to a larger area, but focused on jerusalem - the only city destroyed, and the choosing of this particular name related only that this was the ancient enemies of Israel. It was in the form of an insult. the term 'holy land' did not eventuate till after the advent of christianity, and is not related to Rome.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.