Chat with a creationist

[Justtristo]

May I ask are there any scholars who would argue for the Old Testament originally being written in Greek, rather than Hebrew and Aramaic in some sections (such as the book of Daniel).

It probably was not written at all until the Greeks came along. Many religions begin as oral tales in the hands of priests. The fact that we have no texts...or even inscriptions in tombs argues against any great literary tradition. Perhaps Philip R Davies would be the best place to start.

I have read Philip R Davies about the relatively late date of the writing of the Old Testament (Persian going into Hellenistic times). However Davies did not remember did not arguing anything about the Old Testament books being written in Greek first then later translated into Hebrew (and Aramaic in the Book of Daniel).

I could argue that the original documents of the books of the Old Testament (written in Hebrew) have been lost. Much the same situation is true of the original copies of a lot of ancient texts. The earliest surviving copies of ancient texts we have were written down centuries after the originals.

---

Why do you make such baseless assumptions? Are you aware that it was the Greeks who ordered the Greek translation of the bible from Hebrew as a "scholarly writing"? So obviously the scriptures had to have been around for quite some time.

Actually it was Jews living in Alexandria who probably started the translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Because they could not understand the Hebrew written in it.

---

Here is a link to the Khirbet Qeiyafa home page

http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/

People who do not want the Bible shown to be true love to sit in their chairs and just deny. They refuse to present any evidence to the contrary as it is easier to deny than do their own work.

Here is a link to the ostracon page

http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon.asp

I have heard about this discovery but have not had the time to investigate more fully but I have no problem with it being an example of 10th century BC work. Seems that I. finkelstein has written on the topic as well and his position is of no surprise because he needs to protect his low chronology. If the discovery stands it destroys Finkelstein's theory.

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/...l-qeiyafa/

However the rest of the archeological record which is very extensive in that part of the world, don't show really much difference between the "Hebrews" and their "Canaanite" or "Phoenician" neighbors. For example you get in supposedly "Hebrew" sites dating from the 8th and 7th centuries statues of Baal or Yahweh as a bull and those of Astarte (The wife of either El or Yahweh).

[Godscreated]

However the rest of the archeological record which is very extensive in that part of the world, don't show really much difference between the "Hebrews" and their "Canaanite" or "Phoenician" neighbors. For example you get in supposedly "Hebrew" sites dating from the 8th and 7th centuries statues of Baal or Yahweh as a bull and those of Astarte (The wife of either El or Yahweh).

This seems to be a good time to explain why God commanded the Israelites to destroy everything in the land He was giving them. First they never come close to taking all the land God said was their's. Second they were told do not deal with any of the inhabitants of the land, yet they did right off the bat. God did not want any of the people or their idols left to influence the Israelites. He did not want people to associate Him with these false gods, this would put God in a bad light on through history. Yet His chosen people did not listen, and down through the ages found themselves in worse positions than the ones they took the land from. If they had done as God asked, then we might not be having this particular debate now.

[KichigaiNeko]

For example you get in supposedly "Hebrew" sites dating from the 8th and 7th centuries statues of Baal or Yahweh as a bull and those of Astarte (The wife of either El or Yahweh).

Oh, Oh, Oh, *puts hand up!!

Was just riffling through Mesopotamia Mythology today!!

Great place to start!!.

[Abishalom]

Actually it was Jews living in Alexandria who probably started the translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Because they could not understand the Hebrew written in it.

I never said the Greeks translated. I'm not aware if any Greeks actually spoke Hebrew or not. I said that the Greeks ordered it to be translated for scholarly use.

However the rest of the archeological record which is very extensive in that part of the world, don't show really much difference between the "Hebrews" and their "Canaanite" or "Phoenician" neighbors. For example you get in supposedly "Hebrew" sites dating from the 8th and 7th centuries statues of Baal or Yahweh as a bull and those of Astarte (The wife of either El or Yahweh).

Are you being willfully ignorant or intellectually lazy? First of all the "Phoenicians" are "Canaanites". Secondly, the Hebrew "whored" after neighboring nations false gods mixing the false religions to pervert the truth (which Yahweh told them not to do) and Yahweh allowed them to be conquered by the "heathens". This stuff is in the bible (but I'm sure you'd rather not get the facts straight since it makes your argument look better). So we should find said artifacts in those "Hebrew" sites.

[FallentoReason]

Tell him to look into the sky like 'Abraham' did. Every single star up there could potentially be a solar system like ours. By default we represent the low probability of life because we are here.

You're using appeal to probability. There are billions of solar systems in the universe therefore there must a at least 1 with life. That's not a reasonable conclusion.

Appeal to probability...? Your house is standing right now because civil engineers used probabilities to calculate its members so that it won't ever collapse. Probability also explains why you can even see at all; because the bombardment of millions of photons at an atom (i.e. object) will give a high probability of the electrons jumping to an excited state and coming back down therefore releasing a photon i.e. light. Probability is sometimes the only way to analyze or understand something.

I could say that your hope in winning the lotto is appeal to probability. That's silly, because it can be calculated how many times you would have to play to win. Habitable planets wouldn't be any different. Keep discovering more and eventually you'll find one with life.

Also, the earth is only a 'perfect ecosystem' because it's adapted to the environment. It doesn't work backwards in the sense that one can say the ecosystem is perfect because the earth was placed just right. Instead, our planet was in an optimal position therefore life could commence.

I'm that's not a reasonable rebuttal of the fact the earth (out of billions of planets) is the only documented one with diverse life.

When did we discover the conditions of these other billion planets? Cite your source please.

We've only just scratched the surface. There is still so much to be seen, if we'll ever be able to see that much in detail to be able to observe life. The technology is most likely lacking for that sort of capability right now.

Again, out of the billions upon billions of planets out there, the earth by default represents the chance that a planet could have the features like ours. It's basic probability.

In what way does a guy BUILDING a model that resembles eye function of various organism prove that they "evolved" naturally. There no logic or evidence in this video to support that claim.

Yes there is. He is showing that along every step there is a benefit, which in turn would favour the species for survival. That's natural selection for you.

Spiderman isn't in the bible (). But those peoples mentioned are and in correct order that agrees with history.

The Da Vinci Code is literally history within a fiction framework. Are those characters real? No. There's no reason to think that because it contains aspects of reality it therefore must be real.

Well then Spiderman doesn't actually live in New York (since he's not real).

Within the comics he does live in New York. That is a fact

Post link to thread please.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12692.html

There you are =)

[Minimalist]

Nobody is saying that there must have been a "Hebrew bible" prior. I am saying there must have been scriptures in circulation.

That is precisely what these jackasses are saying. The fact( perhaps I should emphasize that) FACT remains that we do not have a single example of any of these writings which you are insisting were in "circulation." We have no examples of tomb inscriptions or artwork nor do we have references to any of it from surrounding cultures. The only place this shit exists is within the pages of the book itself..... sort of like Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind.

Ignore the idiot above...he is another fool desperate for his fairy tales to be true.

Khirbet Qeiyafa is a ruin of what is believed to be a fort near the Elah Valley.



As you can see from the map it is more or less on the border between the coastal plain, which from 1155 to about 705 was dominated by the Philistines. The cities of Ashdod and Ashquelon are clearly marked. What is also clear is the change in the topography from the flat coastal plain to the rough hills and valleys of Juda.

Gershon found a pottery sherd with some lettering on it. He said it was "Hebrew" but even that is not his whole point. His "reasoning" goes something like this.

Because the ostrakon was written in Hebrew ( assumption #1) that means that Israelites built the fort ( assumption #2) to protect their kingdom from the Philistines ( assumption #3) and this means that there was a highly developed city of Jerusalem (assumption #4) ruled by King David (assumption #5) covering a vast area just like the bible says (assumption #6.)

Now, assumption #1: This is from another thread in the forum.

On 7 January 2010 Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa issued a press release in which he claimed to have deciphered the inscription as a legal document:

1 you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2 Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3 [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4 the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5 Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.[4]

Prof Galil's translation is in contrast with that given by Prof. Hagai Misgav, supported, with variations, by professors Yardeni, Ahituv, and Schniedewind, at a conference on the inscription held at Hebrew University in October 2009:

1 Do not do [anything bad?], and serve [personal name?]
2 ruler of [geographical name?] . . . ruler . . .
3 [geographical names?] . . .
4 [unclear] and wreak judgment on YSD king of Gath . . .
5 seren of G[aza? . . .] [unclear] . . .[8]


It is almost as if they are reading different languages which raises an interesting question. How certain can we be of any translation of an ancient text?

American paleographer, Christopher Rollston, has a lot more to say about this inscription.

http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=56

Now, when you read the translations above you have to be careful to remember that anything between brackets [ ] is not actually there. It represents a guess of the translator and the wild-assed differences of the way the words come out probably relate more to pre-concieved notions of the translators.

As Rollston states in his web site: "3. The script of this ostracon is definitively NOT Old Hebrew. For a discussion of the Old Hebrew script, please see my BASOR article. Rather the script of this inscription must be classified as Early Alphabetic (or Proto-Phoenician). "

The bald-faced assertion of Gershon that this language is "Hebrew" is unsustainable. (Of course, that never even slows down the nut jobs.)


Assumption #2: Flows from the idea that the initial premise is correct which Rollston says it is not. Even if it were, so what? Archaeology has demonstrated that Judah in the 10th century was a poverty-stricken shithole incapable of asserting any power on the world stage. As Israel Finkelstein noted the site of Kh. Qeiyafa was probably built by the Philistines. The Philistines were an agricultural entity by this time and we have evidence of their cities and towns. We have nothing for the so-called Judahites. History has shown us that settled, urbanized, civiliations build defenses against nomadic raiders. The Romans built extensive defenses along the German border but the Germans built nothing to defend themselves against the Romans. That's the way it works. Gershon is trying to construct an entire culture out of a single worn and (basically) illegible ostrakon. And xtian shitheads are delighted with the idea because they are desperate to have their fairy tales vindicated.

Assumption #3 is ass backwards. The Philistines were the ones who had economic assets to protect, not the Israelites.

Assumption #4 is the heart of the matter. Why would the Judahites build a fort to protect Jerusalem if it WERE a shitty little hilltop village? Its a good question but the answer is again 180 degrees off. Archaeology has found nothing for 10th century ( or 9th century for that matter!) Jerusalem which indicates that there was anything of significance there at all. But a fort sitting on a road works in both directions. The Philistines had the manpower and economic resources to build it AND they had things that were worth protecting from marauders. Once the Philistines were disposed of by the Assyrians there is no reason why the Judahites could not have moved in but that does not mean the Judahites built it. American rebels took Fort Ticonderoga from the British but it was still a British-built fort!

Assumption #5: The initial readings of the Tel Dan stele caused bible-thumpers everywhere to cum in their pants that there was a shattered hearsay reference to "David." Subsequent scholarship on the Stele has dealt that idea a serious blow. Remember what I said about the brackets [ ] above. Tel Dan is full of them. A scholar named George Athas has done extensive work on the stele and his conclusion is that bytdwd is not "House of David" but more a toponym. "City of David" but in the sense that "Rome" was named for Romulus and Athens was named for "Athena." The enshrinement of a mythical figure not a person. But that is a subject for a whole new thread.

Assumption #6 is merely an outgrowth of all the others. It still ignores the fact that there is not the slightest shred of evidence for any sort of Davidic-Solomonic empire in the 10th century. The people were supposedly ruled by them do not seem to know anything about it!

Gershon is trying to stretch a poorly preserved ostrakon to make all of the above true. I won't call him an idiot but I will say he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point.

[Abishalom]

Appeal to probability...? Your house is standing right now because civil engineers used probabilities to calculate its members so that it won't ever collapse. Probability also explains why you can even see at all; because the bombardment of millions of photons at an atom (i.e. object) will give a high probability of the electrons jumping to an excited state and coming back down therefore releasing a photon i.e. light. Probability is sometimes the only way to analyze or understand something.

I thought engineers used formulas, so maybe I'm wrong. Probability does not explain any of those other things you've. You just reject God so that's best you can do at this time/ Of course I'm pretty sure they understand the anatomy of the eye, so therefore we can explain why we can see without using probability. Probability only addresses possibility and that's it.

I could say that your hope in winning the lotto is appeal to probability. That's silly, because it can be calculated how many times you would have to play to win. Habitable planets wouldn't be any different. Keep discovering more and eventually you'll find one with life.

I don't play the lottery. Nor am I trying to make a point by appealing to the "possibility" of me winning it.

When did we discover the conditions of these other billion planets? Cite your source please.

We've only just scratched the surface. There is still so much to be seen, if we'll ever be able to see that much in detail to be able to observe life. The technology is most likely lacking for that sort of capability right now.

Again, out of the billions upon billions of planets out there, the earth by default represents the chance that a planet could have the features like ours. It's basic probability.

Notice how I said earth was the only "documented" (since I figured I'd get a typical response such as yours). Billions upon billions of possibilities and we've only documented 1 life sustaining planet. You cannot keep using the "we haven't discovered them yet" card every time. That putting faith that we will actually discover other life sustaining planet by using your appeal to probability approach (Billions of planets therefore a few more should sustain life).

In what way does a guy BUILDING a model that resembles eye function of various organism prove that they "evolved" naturally. There no logic or evidence in this video to support that claim.

Yes there is. He is showing that along every step there is a benefit, which in turn would favour the species for survival. That's natural selection for you.

Yeah but he is "guiding the process" and you know evolution can't do that...

Spiderman isn't in the bible (). But those peoples mentioned are and in correct order that agrees with history.

The Da Vinci Code is literally history within a fiction framework. Are those characters real? No. There's no reason to think that because it contains aspects of reality it therefore must be real.

I did not realize The Da Vinci Code claimed to be an autobiography.

Well then Spiderman doesn't actually live in New York (since he's not real).

Within the comics he does live in New York. That is a fact

Indeed he is...

Post link to thread please.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12692.html

There you are =)

[/quote]Thank you...

[Gooders1002]

---

Nobody is saying that there must have been a "Hebrew bible" prior. I am saying there must have been scriptures in circulation.

That is precisely what these jackasses are saying. The fact( perhaps I should emphasize that) FACT remains that we do not have a single example of any of these writings which you are insisting were in "circulation." We have no examples of tomb inscriptions or artwork nor do we have references to any of it from surrounding cultures. The only place this shit exists is within the pages of the book itself..... sort of like Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind.

Ignore the idiot above...he is another fool desperate for his fairy tales to be true.

Khirbet Qeiyafa is a ruin of what is believed to be a fort near the Elah Valley.



As you can see from the map it is more or less on the border between the coastal plain, which from 1155 to about 705 was dominated by the Philistines. The cities of Ashdod and Ashquelon are clearly marked. What is also clear is the change in the topography from the flat coastal plain to the rough hills and valleys of Juda.

Gershon found a pottery sherd with some lettering on it. He said it was "Hebrew" but even that is not his whole point. His "reasoning" goes something like this.

Because the ostrakon was written in Hebrew ( assumption #1) that means that Israelites built the fort ( assumption #2) to protect their kingdom from the Philistines ( assumption #3) and this means that there was a highly developed city of Jerusalem (assumption #4) ruled by King David (assumption #5) covering a vast area just like the bible says (assumption #6.)

Now, assumption #1: This is from another thread in the forum.

On 7 January 2010 Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa issued a press release in which he claimed to have deciphered the inscription as a legal document:

1 you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2 Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3 [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4 the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5 Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.[4]

Prof Galil's translation is in contrast with that given by Prof. Hagai Misgav, supported, with variations, by professors Yardeni, Ahituv, and Schniedewind, at a conference on the inscription held at Hebrew University in October 2009:

1 Do not do [anything bad?], and serve [personal name?]
2 ruler of [geographical name?] . . . ruler . . .
3 [geographical names?] . . .
4 [unclear] and wreak judgment on YSD king of Gath . . .
5 seren of G[aza? . . .] [unclear] . . .[8]


It is almost as if they are reading different languages which raises an interesting question. How certain can we be of any translation of an ancient text?

American paleographer, Christopher Rollston, has a lot more to say about this inscription.

http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=56

Now, when you read the translations above you have to be careful to remember that anything between brackets [ ] is not actually there. It represents a guess of the translator and the wild-assed differences of the way the words come out probably relate more to pre-concieved notions of the translators.

As Rollston states in his web site: "3. The script of this ostracon is definitively NOT Old Hebrew. For a discussion of the Old Hebrew script, please see my BASOR article. Rather the script of this inscription must be classified as Early Alphabetic (or Proto-Phoenician). "

The bald-faced assertion of Gershon that this language is "Hebrew" is unsustainable. (Of course, that never even slows down the nut jobs.)


Assumption #2: Flows from the idea that the initial premise is correct which Rollston says it is not. Even if it were, so what? Archaeology has demonstrated that Judah in the 10th century was a poverty-stricken shithole incapable of asserting any power on the world stage. As Israel Finkelstein noted the site of Kh. Qeiyafa was probably built by the Philistines. The Philistines were an agricultural entity by this time and we have evidence of their cities and towns. We have nothing for the so-called Judahites. History has shown us that settled, urbanized, civiliations build defenses against nomadic raiders. The Romans built extensive defenses along the German border but the Germans built nothing to defend themselves against the Romans. That's the way it works. Gershon is trying to construct an entire culture out of a single worn and (basically) illegible ostrakon. And xtian shitheads are delighted with the idea because they are desperate to have their fairy tales vindicated.

Assumption #3 is ass backwards. The Philistines were the ones who had economic assets to protect, not the Israelites.

Assumption #4 is the heart of the matter. Why would the Judahites build a fort to protect Jerusalem if it WERE a shitty little hilltop village? Its a good question but the answer is again 180 degrees off. Archaeology has found nothing for 10th century ( or 9th century for that matter!) Jerusalem which indicates that there was anything of significance there at all. But a fort sitting on a road works in both directions. The Philistines had the manpower and economic resources to build it AND they had things that were worth protecting from marauders. Once the Philistines were disposed of by the Assyrians there is no reason why the Judahites could not have moved in but that does not mean the Judahites built it. American rebels took Fort Ticonderoga from the British but it was still a British-built fort!

Assumption #5: The initial readings of the Tel Dan stele caused bible-thumpers everywhere to cum in their pants that there was a shattered hearsay reference to "David." Subsequent scholarship on the Stele has dealt that idea a serious blow. Remember what I said about the brackets [ ] above. Tel Dan is full of them. A scholar named George Athas has done extensive work on the stele and his conclusion is that bytdwd is not "House of David" but more a toponym. "City of David" but in the sense that "Rome" was named for Romulus and Athens was named for "Athena." The enshrinement of a mythical figure not a person. But that is a subject for a whole new thread.

Assumption #6 is merely an outgrowth of all the others. It still ignores the fact that there is not the slightest shred of evidence for any sort of Davidic-Solomonic empire in the 10th century. The people were supposedly ruled by them do not seem to know anything about it!

Gershon is trying to stretch a poorly preserved ostrakon to make all of the above true. I won't call him an idiot but I will say he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point.

---

Minimalist's Hitchslap

[FallentoReason]

Probability only addresses possibility and that's it.

Yeah that's exactly right. So considering there are billions upon billions of planets out there, it's more than sensible to suggest that there's a possibility that some of these planets might have some sort of life on them. The more planets, the higher the probability.

I thought engineers used formulas, so maybe I'm wrong.

The formulas are based around the probabilities of a member buckling or a cable snapping. All a civil engineer can do is 'over calculate' all the members so that it most likely will be able to resist the forces they will be experiencing, because the actual strength of all the members can never be known with 100% certainty.

I don't play the lottery. Nor am I trying to make a point by appealing to the "possibility" of me winning it.

Apply my example to planets. The more 'tickets' i.e. planets, the higher the probability of 'winning' i.e. finding life on one of them.

Notice how I said earth was the only "documented" (since I figured I'd get a typical response such as yours). Billions upon billions of possibilities and we've only documented 1 life sustaining planet. You cannot keep using the "we haven't discovered them yet" card every time. That putting faith that we will actually discover other life sustaining planet by using your appeal to probability approach (Billions of planets therefore a few more should sustain life).

Ok, I see what you're saying about the 'documented' bit. I don't see how this adds to the conversation though? We're limited in how many planets we can document when it comes to other solar systems, so to say that only 1 has been documented therefore the other billion don't have life is being obtuse and misleading.

I'm not putting faith on anything. Probability says there will be other planets with life. Faith comes into in when you suggest that out of billions of planets we're the only ones with life. That's like saying 'I will flip a coin 100 times and it will land on heads 100 times'. It's highly unlikey right? Just like it's highly unlikely that these billions of planets will all be too far or too close to the sun and whatever other properties they need. It's silly to think we're the only ones out there with the right conditions.

Yeah but he is "guiding the process" and you know evolution can't do that...

The species gets guided by its own survival. Those traits that help it survive will remain in the gene pool. Seeing is definitely an advantage, whether it's a piece of tissue sensitive to light or a fully developed eye.

I did not realize The Da Vinci Code claimed to be an autobiography.

The Da Vinci Code speaks of real people from history. Clearly the main characters are fictional though. Does that make the Da Vinci Code non-fiction according to the standards you're trying to push on the Bible?

[DeeTee]

I never said the Greeks translated. I'm not aware if any Greeks actually spoke Hebrew or not. I said that the Greeks ordered it to be translated for scholarly use

.

Just so you know:

http://septuagint.net/

Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars

I bolded the important words.

---

The fact( perhaps I should emphasize that) FACT remains that we do not have a single example of any of these writings which you are insisting were in "circulation." We have no examples of tomb inscriptions or artwork nor do we have references to any of it from surrounding cultures. The only place this shit exists is within the pages of the book itself..... sort of like Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind.

The question is: what was the original hebrew Bible written on? We can rule out stone for now because we haven't found any inscribed works of stone.

We do have the siklver scrolls which gives us the evidence that the Hebrew scriptures existed long before the 6th century BC.

Again, just because we haven't found the hebrew Bible written on 10th century BC papyrus doesn't mean it did not exist prior to the septuagint. keep in mind that many classical works andmany ancient histories are accepted without question even though their original mss. and subsequent copies went out of existence 500 to 1000 or more years prior to the oldest copies we now possess.

See FF Bruce "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" and Lee Strobel "A Case For Christ" Both works record the huge gaps between supposed writing of these ancient works and the current copies still in existence.