evilbible.com

[Minimalist]

oh Minimalist you wanted to see a picture of the text itself? well the originals were lost and probably destroyed from constant war and pillage and such.

By George I think you've got it.....FINALLY.


Unfortunately that only is an admission that you do not have any documents that you claimed to have...which is what I knew all along.

So you assert, without a single page of evidence to sustain you that your bible was written in Hebrew. Would that be an acceptable restatement of the above?

By the way, we have a great deal of literature from other cultures in the area but your precious Hebrews do not seem to have been as literate as the Egyptians, Phoenicians and Assyrians? No monumental inscriptions. No tomb inscriptions. Frankly, they seem like an illiterate bunch of goatherders....which is exactly what archaeologists have portrayed them to be as a result of actual surveys and excavations and not wishful thinking over a pious novel which has no link to reality.

In short, your bible world is made up bullshit. The question now is "when was it made up?"

---

oh sorry http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...183037.htm

The very esteemed American epigrapher, Christopher Rollston has already demolished Garfinkle's claims about the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon.

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

6. Those stating that the Qeiyafa Ostracon is written in the Hebrew language are probably stating more than the data allow. Among the words that have been mentioned in various places (publications, blogs, etc.) as demonstrative of Hebrew are the following:

A. ‘bd (“do,” “make,” or as a nominal “servant”). However, this root is attested in the Ugaritic language (Late Bronze Age), Phoenician, Old Aramaic, and Egyptian Aramaic (i.e, various Iron Age dialects and languages). Therefore, any suggestion that the presence of the root is demonstrative of Hebrew does not have a secure basis for their arguments.

B. špṭ (i.e., shin, pe, tet). This root, however, is not attested just in Hebrew. Rather, it is, for example, attested in Ugaritic, Phoenician, and in Amorite (see Huffmon), and also in Akkadian. Therefore, it cannot be said that the presence of this word is some sort of an isogloss for Old Hebrew.

C. ‘śh (‘ayin, sin, he, “to do,” “to make”). Again, this word is not one that only occurs in Hebrew. Note, for example, that it also occurs in Ugaritic, Moabite, and even Old South Arabic (demonstrating its presence across much of the landscape of Semitic languages). Note that Benz (1972, 385) suggests that the root may occur in a Phoenician PN, but he also notes that this is not certain. Finally, it should be stated that although this verb(al) [with the negative] is more capable of functioning as an isogloss (for this inscription as written in Old Hebrew), I would suggest that it is not absolutely decisive.

D. The word ’lmnh (“widow”). This root is attested in multiple Northwest Semitic dialects. Most importantly, it has been (by Galil) partially restored. Note that Demsky doesn’t even read this word. Obviously, one should not put great emphasis on a word that is partially restored. Certainly it cannot be the basis for a linguistic classification.

E. mlk (“king,” or “rule”). This word is attested in numerous Northwest Semitic languages, certainly not just Hebrew; therefore, it cannot be used as some sort of isogloss.

The end result of this is that I am not at all certain that the dialect of this inscription can be determined with certitude. Obviously, some have argued that it is definitively Old Hebrew. However, an equally good case can probably be made that it is Phoenician (or at least a reasonable case can be made for that). Ultimately, we can conjecture, but the evidence that is present is fragmentary. Again, caution must be the modus operandi, not definitive statements.

I am sorry to say, chippy, that this stuff is way above your level. What you want are for fairy tales to be true and they simply are not.