Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[A_Nony_Mouse]

You are obviously totally and completely ignorant of radioactivity, how C14 dating is done, and how to present the results OR you are deliberately lying. Sorry. I have better things to do that attempt to either expose your lies or educate you.

Go away, dumb ass believer.

You are obviously totally and completely ignorant of radioactivity, how C14 dating is done, and how to present the results OR you are deliberately lying. Sorry. I have better things to do that attempt to either expose your lies or educate you.

Go away, dumb ass believer.

1. FUCK YOU. You have no right to speak to me that way, especially after you chose not to respond to my reply for TWO MONTHS. If I've made an error I'm always happy to hear it, you are so full of shit that all you can say is "I'm not debating you because you're too stupid". Sounds like what a fucking troll would say.

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

As for two months, recovering from two heart attacks in half an hour is a bitch -- although some pros consider that only one heart attack.

But let me point out that although retired my degree is in physics and my career was in R&D for the US Navy. It is also my position that if you make a positive declarative sentence without qualification that is not true that constitutes a lie. I grant that is common in everyday conversation. I hold it is unacceptable when debating matters of fact.

I'm IGNORANT about how C14 dating is done? I gave you an explicit explanation of how it is done - samples are taken of the ink (always, with any document to be carbon dated), and usually - but not always - they will cut some of the paper (I’m talking generally - in this instance I obviously mean parchment) from the edges of the document and use that as well. You think you know something about this process I don't - well why don't you fucking explain what you know instead of hurling insults at other forum members who have an established presence here and contribute to this online community which is more than I can say for you good sir.

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.

As to your date presentation it is ALWAYS as an age +/- years such as 2100 +/- 50 years old. You presented nothing like that nor was it possible to reconstruct anything like that from what you did present.

When there is mixed age material there is always only a single number strongly biased towards the younger date. Only one +/- date is the result for each sample.

That is enough for now. I can do more but I will give you the opportunity to respond to those points.

As to your assumption you should be believed even when wrong because you have been around a long time the less said about that the better else I would be clearly making personal attacks even though justly deserved. That no one called your bluff before does not give you any special standing.

---

In this regard the script/font of all "hebrew" is Aramaic. Why should an "ancient" language be written using Aramaic letters? And why are there NO examples of a precursor script for "hebrew" that differs from Aramaic? Again, I observe only the absence of evidence, the kind of evidence we would expect to find and do find in all other ancient cultures.

For the exact same reason that ENGLISH is written using LATIN letters; and conversely; LATIN is written using ENGLISH letters. Indeed we even say that English is written using Latin script. Yet English isn't Latin at all - it's a Germanic language - but it uses Latin script for the written form. I don't see why you find Hebrew and Aramaic being written using the same script to be a problem.

But no one is claiming written English or German is older than written Latin. Believers are claiming the Hebrew of either 1400 BC or 1000 BC or 600 BC all of which PREDATE Aramaic in bibleland just happened to use Aramaic script. Were they foretelling the future using a script that did not yet exist? Aramaic does not become common in the region until after Alexander, late 4th c., ends Phoenician influence in the eastern Med. It appears to be based upon phonetised version of Babylonian cuneiform. The origins of that date back to Ugarit circa 1100 BC.

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.

I did NOT start it, boy.

Yet if we look at bibleland there are ONLY religious texts produced by scribes. Bibleland is different from all the rest? That is not a permissible assertion.

Because religious texts were written on PARCHMENT which is expensive and durable. There would have been plenty of things written on papyrus that simply didn't survive through to today. Most likely the original autographs (ie the original 66 books) were written on papyrus originally before being copied and preserved onto parchment.

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

You can also go by analogy with the production of the bible before printing and its cost. 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. It was no cheaper in bibleland.

Totally incorrect.

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

It is called that for no known reason. The best guess if the FORGERY, the Letter of Aristeas, has 72 as the number and that it was abbreviated. The point it the ONLY basis for claiming the Septuagint is a translation is a forgery dating from the same time the Septuagint appears. It is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original because there is no evidence to the contrary. Forgeries are not evidence.

You have to contend with all the evidence against you. The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Great Isaiah Scroll, the use of the Tetragrammaton and its absence in the LXX, the Hebrew/Aramaic/Hebrew structure of the book of Daniel, etc. All point to the LXX being translated from Hebrew, not Hebrew being translated from Greek. There's also transliteration of names and places.

As you have presented no physical evidence I can only conclude you are incapable of grasping the concept of physical evidence. Is you can show me a single inscription in stone of bible verses found by real arkies in bibleland you will have my attention. The Code of Hammurabi is older and much more sophisticated than the Big Ten but not a single inscription, obelisk, tablet listing the Big Ten. But do not bother rationalizing that. I'll take anything.

As you are pretending to have missed ALL the Hebraicisms in the Septuagint which you are referring to are Koine Greek and have been known to be Koine Greek since around 1890. Believers have worked very hard to ignore that. But then they are not big on Darwin either.

As real arkies have observed the finds in bibleland would NEVER be interpreted as they are if the bible did not exist.

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.

---

I had read a bit on these subjects of ancient history and religion and I had assumed this idea too that the Jews might have been Greeks. Good to know at least that I'm not the only to have thought of it. It makes sense.

I would not say they were Greeks or Hellenes in any sense else they would have been literate as a minimum. There is nothing clear about the eastern Med but we know it was heavily influenced by Hellene, Assyrian and pre-Alexander Egyptian cultures with a minor admixture of Mesopotamian from Babylon and Persian.

One one hand there are so many influences one can pick and choose, mix and match to suit any theory. Knowing that I have tried hard to avoid it. Therefore I start simply from the only thing we would call history which is the books of Maccabe and Josephus. This gives me a rational start for a political history of the region.

---

And come to think of it, its possible the Greeks made up Judaism then the Romans follow with Christianity as they had done before with the Greek gods by replacing them with their own roman gods that were practically the same aside from their names. Then of course the Arabs jumped the bandwagon 600 years later with their own Islam.

Want to have some fun on Christianity? Look to its real early history. not bible stories. It arises first in today's Northern Syria and Western Turkey. It took centuries before it was connected to the Septuagint and then very poorly.