evilbible.com

[chi pan]

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

[KichigaiNeko]

I think you will find that that has been debunked. It is not hebrew. Or any where near modern hebrew.

---

The book you are looking for aka the "books of Moses" and the new testament (Gospels) were re-written in Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaea and were first formed in 325AD at the first council of Nicaea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea . Your 'holy texts' are not very old...sorry.

[Phil]

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

The quote you use is there but if you read the rest of the article you would see that there is no justification for that statement. So either you are being a dishonest Christian and practicing Paul's "I caught you with guile" bullshit or you just haven't read the article (more probable). You really are gonna have to up your game by a few thousand percent to even hold a candle to any of the atheist (or a few deist) posters here.

---

I think you will find that that has been debunked. It is not hebrew. Or any where near modern hebrew.

---

Even if it were Hebrew, the quote he is using has no justification anyway.

[KichigaiNeko]

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

The quote you use is there but if you read the rest of the article you would see that there is no justification for that statement. So either you are being a dishonest Christian and practicing Paul's "I caught you with guile" bullshit or you just haven't read the article (more probable). You really are gonna have to up your game by a few thousand percent to even hold a candle to any of the atheist (or a few deist) posters here.

Was very excited with the archaeological find Phil but I think the text has been de-bunked as "Hebrew"

I could be wrong there though

[chi pan]

The book you are looking for aka the "books of Moses" and the new testament (Gospels) were re-written in Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaea and were first formed in 325AD at the first council of Nicaea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea . Your 'holy texts are not very old...sorry.

i know the new testament was written in greek i said old testament books were written in hebrew. and i know they were written in proto-Canaanite characters rather than hebrew as we know today.

[Phil]

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

The quote you use is there but if you read the rest of the article you would see that there is no justification for that statement. So either you are being a dishonest Christian and practicing Paul's "I caught you with guile" bullshit or you just haven't read the article (more probable). You really are gonna have to up your game by a few thousand percent to even hold a candle to any of the atheist (or a few deist) posters here.

Was very excited with the archaeological find Phil but I think the text has been de-bunked as "Hebrew"

I could be wrong there though

Judging by the picture, it isn't Hebrew. Still the quote chiapet is citing is not justified by anything in that article or any paper that I am aware of.

[KichigaiNeko]

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

The quote you use is there but if you read the rest of the article you would see that there is no justification for that statement. So either you are being a dishonest Christian and practicing Paul's "I caught you with guile" bullshit or you just haven't read the article (more probable). You really are gonna have to up your game by a few thousand percent to even hold a candle to any of the atheist (or a few deist) posters here.

Was very excited with the archaeological find Phil but I think the text has been de-bunked as "Hebrew"

I could be wrong there though

Judging by the picture, it isn't Hebrew. Still the quote chiapet is citing is not justified by anything in that article or any paper that I am aware of.

Which is my original point...chippy has NO understanding because he does not READ/ COMPREHEND!

[Epimethean]

I'm beginning to want to call Chipan "Bullwinkle."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mmrF-4rUE

[Rokcet Scientist]

Hey Chip, in case you didn't get the message yet, the bottom line is: your bible is bullshit. From cover to cover. Written and compiled by regular people with an agenda. The earliest of its fabrications date back to around 200 AD. The earliest Hebrew texts – containing snippets of what we now call the Torah – date back to around 200 BC (DSS), but that dating is very controversial (read: wishful thinking). There is no scientific evidence otherwise.

The Jews as a nation seem to have clumped together/'arisen' in the 6th century BC. And like any nation they wanted/needed a history. So they concocted one by throwing a ton of fireside stories together with large swathes of surrounding cultures and stories and confiscating it as Jewish. Inserting trivial stuff like someone's grandfather's stories, and calling them the 'Patriarchs' (who lived around 700 BC; oddly 5 whole centuries after Exodus' presumed pharao Ramses II [13th century BC]), instead of the other way around as the OT suggests (a.k.a. lies).

Around 1,500 BC – when you claim the OT was written in Hebrew (but never offered any evidence for) – a Jewish people/nation did not exist, at all, nor did any language that can be considered Hebrew or a progenitor of it.

[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.