Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Whoever owns this website grants me the right to post. I assume that is not you.

Why don't you read the rules - specifically rule 3.

How is the observation of fact that you do not know much of anything about carbon dating a personal attack? It is not saying your post is wrong because your mother wears combat boots.

Are you seriously telling me you meant to say ink WAS scraped off and destroyed? Please confirm that is what you meant. And then confirm you meant ink was preserved for two centuries and then reconstituted for use on one scroll. Please confirm you are that desperate.

I'm not DESPERATE for anything.

Please confirm you meant the ink was scraped off and destroyed and that this ink was preserved for two centuries before being used for just this one scroll. Desperate or not, please confirm or deny. OR at least clarify what you were intending to post.

Does your "seniority" here incite you to post more believer nonsense? Or does it just piss you off I do not respect you in any way by virtue of your first posts to be being insulting, juvenile and designed to promote your pretend superiority.

Your attempts to discredit people on the basis of their beliefs is irritable.

I was very clear in several different ways to point out when statements and opinions on the OT are based upon nothing but religious traditions. That is not discrediting the person. It is discrediting the claims of the person because their claims have no physical evidence to support them.

For example, no one has discredited the Greek/Roman pantheon. It has only been observed there is no physical evidence for those gods or for any other god or gods. This obviously applies to writings about these gods.

I don't care what you believe - I've given you all the clear evidence that proves that the LXX is "a" (or rather a "collection of") translation/s of the 22 Hebrew scripture scrolls, you have wafer thin evidence for your argument that the Hebrew is translated from the LXX. It is nothing short of arrogant to assert that your position is correct in the face of all the hard available evidence.

If you have clear physical evidence that the books/scrolls of the OT existed prior to the Septuagint PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE present it. I beg you to present it. I have asked you to present it at least twice. But you have presented nothing. Why not?

You continue to claim there is evidence, your refer to "all the hard available evidence" yet you refuse to state what that is. Why do you refuse?

I have pointed out that the ONLY claim the Septuagint is a translation is a forgery and that there is no other basis for this claim. You simply ignore the FACT that the only reason for your belief is this forgery. And yet you present no evidence independent of this forgery in favor of your belief.

It is clearly not a personal attack to point out you have presented NO evidence whatsoever in favor of the existence of these OT books prior to the Septuagint.

Your position has no physical evidence to support it therefore no rational person would accept it. I do not have to post a single word beyond YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. I do not care how many people "believe" otherwise nor how many that the earth is flat nor in creationism either as there is no difference.

Just a few posts back you were claiming there were only 22 books. Did you multiply by a trinity?

You know exactly what I'm saying don't play dumb.

If I knew what you were saying I would not raise the issue. Therefore consider the question asked again.

I will see your 'totally incorrect' and raise you a 'totally correct.' Do you have a substantive response?

Here's your claim: "The bible was chained to the pulpit not so the people could not read it but because of its value in terms of cost of replacement."

WHEN do you suppose the "Bible" was "chained to the pulpit"?

If that is all, like Django consider the bible unchained. So do we agree on everything else?

But as to the claim of being chained the reason for being chained arose post Luther. As for chained itself it was done some places where the church could not be secured when unoccupied. It was likely the most valuable item in any church. Its ransom value certainly outweighed the cost of a chain or secure locks on the doors or whatever measures against theft. I do not see what your problem is with valuable items being protected from theft.

Do we agree on everything else? AND do you really expect me to assume your "totally incorrect" referred only to the passing remark on the chaining?

As you have presented no physical evidence I can only conclude you are incapable of grasping the concept of physical evidence.

You're a liar.

Physical evidence is this:

ALL of these are argumentation not physical evidence. As suspected you have no understanding of the concept of physical evidence.

1. Virtually identical Hebrew texts found at Qumrum compared with Masoretic Text. HAS NOT BEEN INTENTIONALLY ALTERED.

How does 1st c. BC (by all but those who do not understand carbon dating and then only on one book) impact the Septuagint which appears mid 2nd c. BC? The Septuagint is at least a century older than any comparable document found near Qumran.

[Hoping this will not derail the exchange, i.e. hoping in vain, i.e. against all hope, I point out the Masoretic is an abbreviation of the Qumran. And I point out the Qumran is an abbreviation of the Septuagint. And working from the other direction there is nothing in the Qumran that is not in the Septuagint and nothing in the Masoretic that is not in the Qumran.]

2. SEVEN mss of the book of Daniel recovered, all are completely consistent with the Hebrew/Aramaic/Hebrew structure of the books - some containing the relevant sections of text that transfer from one language to the other.

How does that provide a DATE which is older than the Septuagint?

You say "consistent with" by which I presume you mean the books other than Daniel. So? Please produce evidence of the other books existing before the Septuagint. That you are saying Daniel is consistent with books no older than Daniel is hardly surprising and changes nothing.

3. Samaritan Pentateuch - need I say more.

Yes. AND you also need to produce physical evidence.

4. The NAME OF GOD - written as the Tetragrammaton - which is only in Hebrew manuscripts of the OT and NOT IN ANY GREEK VERSIONS!

So the translators invented the "tetra." So what? The translators would have had the SAME name as a god in the pantheon of the eastern Med. It is first mentioned in one of the Ugarit tablets. If you are assuming other than invention, what is the physical evidence for the assumption?

5. Transliteration of Hebrew names into greek or other languages - and there are plenty of examples of this.

Or the transliteration from Koine Greek into Hebrew. You have exactly two letters from Qumran to suggest Hebrew might have been a real spoken language at any time prior to modern Israel. Otherwise it is exclusively liturgical. Yehuda Bauer's "Hebrew is Greek" is worth a read but very few are interested as it more or less requires a working knowledge of both languages. He does point out that in addition to being written in different directions Greek and Hebrew prefixes and suffixes are simply reversed and many of the words are nearly identical but spelled backwards.

I have not done more than scan it. Based upon the introduction by a prominent linguist who recommends it and what I have gleaned it is the sort of thing that results from a pidgin language. In this case it would be Aramaic speakers inventing a pidgin Greek and believers claiming it is Hebrew.

Consider you know there is no physical evidence, e.g. graffiti, the Hebrew was ever a spoken language.

Is you can show me a single inscription in stone of bible verses found by real arkies in bibleland you will have my attention.

That's not the scientific method. You don't demand to see something specific - you observe - take note of what you observe - and then interperate what your observations mean. You don't claim "I didn't find what I was specifically looking for"!

It is difficult to imagine what is obviously an extremely minimalist "for instance" example is a demand for something specific. In context it is an open ended PLEA for believers to present anything such as a single datable inscription mentioning the Great and Powerful King David or Solomon OR as so many have observed ANY external mention of either king or their kingdom by anyone else.

However in this case if you claim there was something TO BE translated into Greek then you must produce physical evidence of its existence.

And now that you have publicly declared you can judge the scientific method it is not a personal attack to point out you have no idea what that means. Above you presented argumentation and called it physical evidence. Obviously you have no idea of either the scientific method or physical evidence.

But do not let me stop you from juvenile insults and supercilious posts regarding your own opinion of yourself. They are likely the only good things anyone says about you. If you want a compliment you have to do it yourself.

FUCK YOU.

I will simply continue to point out you have no idea how carbon dating is done, that you have no idea what physical evidence means and now add you have no concept of the scientific method.

If you really think these are personal attacks, flag the moderators and let them decide. Other than my hiatus this has been going on more than a month an through as many as a dozen exchanges. I find it difficult to believe they have missed so many on their own.

In any event I did not lie about or exaggerate my credentials. I can only suggest you do not pretend to what you do not understand. That is not a personal attack. That is a fact.

If I were to take your "FUCK YOU" to heart and observe you are not very bright that could be construed as a personal attack, whether or not true.

What I find amusing is that a person griping about personal attacks thinks "FUCK YOU" is a legitimate response in a polite and civil exchange.