Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[A_Nony_Mouse]

If such things have been discredited and disproven, that is you are not lying about it, then you WHY do you find it impossible to recite all the discreditations and whatever the plural of disproven might since you have read them? Again you have mere assertion which is meaningless. If do in fact have personal knowledge those things occurred then you would have no problem reciting them. And if you understood them you could recite them in your own words. But you have nothing except two, idiot bible verses of disputed to unknown origin.

There's no IF about it. You're simply presenting tired old ideas. And that's it, that's all you've presented.

Last time you claimed they were both old and discredited and I challenged you to post the discreditations. You produced no discreditations but repeat your nonsense claim they are old. Again, you knowingly and willfully lie about what I post. You are clearly a dishonest person.

Time and time again I've requested from you evidence for your position - you have none. You simply claim that I, and others, can't substantiate the claim that the Hebrew was written first. Every time you are given evidence, you choose to ignore it.

I have addressed everything you have presented. I have given a reason for every rejection. You have not found fault with my reasons. You lie when you claim I have ignored anything you have posted. I have taken a lot of extra time just to be sure to cover everything.

I could have ignored you days ago when I discovered you are a deliberate liar. I admit I prefer to "get even" with your adolescent insults. In fact if I can, I will break your faith just to teach you pay back is a bitch. You might want to keep that in mind, focus on it even.

The fact that you can't produce a single *complete* LXX manuscript proves the point in itself.

As everyone who has looked into it knows and as I have explained there is no complete Septuagint to have prior to canonical OT collections. Why is it you are incapable of grasping the obvious unless you have looked into it? And as you have never looked into it what leads you to believe you have an opinion of interest to anyone but yourself?

Like the NT the OT as a collection appears out of no where for no known reason. There were plenty of lost or unused books/scrolls not found in either the NT or the OT. I have mentioned several by name and referred to dozens of others. Why is there no complete collection of gospels and epistles? Do you pretend they were originally written as a single collection? Then what fool would expect ALL the OT stories note just a centuries later collection by a Christian to have anything to do with all the original stories?

Almost every original Greek manuscript contains substitutions for the book of Daniel and usually other books too. This is true of Codex Vaticanus and all of the early codices. You have no response to this claim.

What claim is there? As I pointed out there is no record of why any particular selection of books was made nor why made nor even why the Sybelline prophecies were not included given their importance to the early Christians.

You seem to think there was a specific collection at some unspecified early time. Anyone familiar with ancient times knows all scrolls were separate and distinct and that there were no collections as they would be too big for scrolls. In fact this is the explanation for why there are two Isaiah scrolls, it is too big for just one. Only after real books, codices, are invented it is possible to put separate items into a "bound" collection.

What kind of response to you expect from me other than ending your ignorance of the subjects being discussed?

And let me be even more clear - the book of Daniel has just ONE - that's right ONE SINGLE mss of the LXX version and that is codex Chisianos. Furthermore to this, the Septuagint as we know it contains 46 books as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

You have at best pointed out Origen only used 46 of them. We know there were more scrolls on the theme. Origen has no particular authority. His material just happens to be among that which survived. You fail to notice the Hexapla has no odd scroll out documents. It only includes material which exists in all the languages. Things that do not exist in all the languages -- that he found/included/arbitrary not definitive -- are not included.

That is the simplest explanation as to why he did not include Enoch. He did not have it in all the languages. I have not found an original source but have read that he discovered the existence of a "hebrew" as he started his work. Odd observation that.

Yet not a single Hebrew source has all 46 books listed, not a single one.

Since the earliest is from the 11th c. AD long after the Christian collection was made canonical I do not see why that surprises you. Why would not the Christian and rabbinical sects of Judaism compete and copy each other? The rabbis copied the chapter and verse numbering of the other almost exactly. A bit off topic but in the late 19th c. the rabbinical invented the Bar Mitzvah to copy Christian confirmation based upon the young Jesus in the temple story.

But again you predicate this upon when the sect adopted book format which is 4th to 5th c. AD.

Now let's assume that the Apocrypha was considered scripture, which one would expect if the Septuagint was considered scripture.

I do not see why that would be an expectation. Please explain. There are a lot of apocrypha, please explain exactly what you might expect for each. I have noted there is no explanation for the inclusion or exclusion of any scroll. I can imagine a few reasons for some but I see no expectation. I would expect Mark excluded rather than a forged ending added.

Calling particular books apocrypha has no meaning to atheists beyond being an arbitrary designation of one of the successful Christian sects of the Yahweh cult.

That would mean that all 7 of those Apocryphal books were translated and then never seen again, and we don't know anything about the Hebrew versions!

Considering the conservative estimate is that 99.9% the "important" written material from ancient times has been lost missing seven is hardly worth special note. Enoch was lost for centuries as you know. Most of the gospels and epistles have been lost. Most of the material from the losing sects have been lost such as the material from Nag Hamadi lost for centuries. There is very little pure gnostic material that has survived save Nag Hamadi. I have not heard of any Manichean material that survived. Why are you hung up on just seven?

Your claim is inconsistent, incoherent, and ignores evidence.

Noting you are no longer trying to defend your carbon dating nonsense you have nothing older than the Septuagint therefore you have no evidence. Or are you going to go back to posting nonsense about carbon dating? If you calling ignoring your nonsense ignorance evidence, that is all I would expect from a lying believer.

Okay, we have the Isaiah scroll and other DSS mss which go a way to proving that the LXX wasn't in use in Qumran at that time,

While I know the DSS brings the Kooks out of the woodwork, I do not see what their discovery or non-discovery in the region around Qumran has to do with what was used there. Who knows what was once there or what has yet to be found? But you want to imply WITHOUT explaining that it means something.

We do know what has been found is an abbreviation of the Septuagint and gives no indication of an alternate or earlier source. I never claimed the Septuagint was in use. I simply pointed out everything in the bible story line was based upon it if we apply the same rules as to any other ancient material.

You jump far beyond the evidence and mainly appear to rely upon lack of evidence to insert your religious beliefs.

It is not even clear what your religious beliefs might be. Even if there were something to be translated into Greek it is worthless gibberish. Usually I get Jews hassling me trying to preserve their zionist mythology/theology.

and in fact many of the DSS discoveries go a way to proving, consistently, which books were considered scripture.

Writing is writing. So what? The rabbinical sect of the Yahweh has never even today considered the books and stories authoritative. They have always considered the Mishna and the Talmud superior written sources and include their own oral tradition superior to all.

I have no idea where you are going with this but only the Christian sect of the cult considers it the second highest authority after the NT as far as written material goes. Of course Christians put all kinds of CYA what it really means writings as superior to the plain meaning.

They're akin to the claims made by Abelard Reuchlin and those before him, and more recently Bart D. Ehrman (the view of the NT as a Greek forgery). The only difference between them and you is that you've chosen to focus on the OT not the NT - oh and the fact that you have no real qualifications to make the claims which you do.

So after all of this you are stating I am not claiming what others are claiming and that you are lying when you claim I do. That is what we call stupid as in stupid liar.

As to the people you name, they speak for themselves and I speak for myself. I do not collaborate.

You keep claiming that the earliest biblical mss discovered at Qumran is 1st century BC.

I said no such thing. Again you are a liar. And to tell such an obvious lie, you confirm you are a stupid liar.

This is not true, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you it is second century BC, and possibly even earlier. This doesn't sit well with you.

I pointed out you are ignorant of carbon dating and lie about it. Again a stupid liar you are.

So the evidence is clear, and the problem you have - that you cannot overcome - is that the LXX as we know it today doesn't appear until the Hexapla (mid 3rd century). I'm not interested in what may or may not have been around prior to the Hexapla - that's conjecture. You don't have any proof that the LXX was ever a complete work until the mid 3rd century AD! All the quotes that supposedly agree with the LXX can be explained by the fact that 1. We know that Origen modified the text substantially, 2. Origen also had a complete copy of the New Testament to work with.

For all the reasons I have repeated several times now, you are a liar and a very stupid person. I thought you promised to stop reading my posts?

Even if those two illiterate people are who believers want them to have been, immaculate classical Greek and all, who can vouch for their honesty and integrity? They are minor characters in the four canonical gospels and in some of the other gospels. And even those descriptions show them weak-willed to the point of spineless -- skip down to the Passover denying him part. Neither of them wrote a letter anyone thought worth preserving showing what the contemporaries thought of their word.

You forget that both passages are quoting Jesus who was not illiterate, read the temple scrolls and knew every jot and tittle.

You Jesus was a fucking, illiterate peasant too. Why would you think otherwise? Why you would LIE about, MAKE UP reading temple scrolls is just you faith controlling your reality. Perhaps you are schizophrenic.

BTW: The DSS have neither jots nor tittles. They first appear in the Masoretic.

Do you think you can sneak in a person who, IF he existed, was at best an itinerant con artist working the same miracle scams as on the god channel today? If he existed he was a crook doing all the easy to fake miracles. Or, as even you should have noted, he refused to cure amputees. I know your god hates amputees.

The only sign of his "literacy" is the "teachings" attributed to him are not original with him. In fact he says nothing new at all and very little that is interesting. And IF he read them he was not very bright as he only chose to repeat the simplest and silliest.

You are a very silly person.

Beyond that, how do mid 1st c. AD (for believers) and mid 2nd c. AD (for honest people) gibberish scribblings reflect upon the existence of things to be translated into Greek two centuries earlier in the mid 2nd c. BC?

There were NO complete Greek translations at the time of Jesus of the Hebrew scriptures. Prove otherwise.

The definition of complete can only exist after codices are invented as all educated people know.

A very silly person you are as well as a liar.