evilbible.com

[chi pan]

Try to get this through your thick skull. It is not really clear when "Hebrew" separated itself from all the other dialects of Canaan. The commons in Judah spoke Aramaic and were still speaking it when you think your hero, jesus the godboy, was walking around. There is not a shred of tangible evidence that any form of Judaism existed prior to the beginning of the Persian period.

first greek now aramaic? get your story strait man. i'm not going to further this discussion is you keep changing your views.

[Minimalist]

Get your head out of your ass and maybe I won't have to explain things over and over.

The commons spoke Aramaic. Your godboy, had he actually existed, would have been as "common" as they get. Your fucking stupid bible was written in Greek. Eventually some priests with a power complex wrote it out in Hebrew and some of those documents ended up in a cave at Qumran which is the only reason we know about them.

Before the Dead Sea Scrolls the only known versions of a "Hebrew" bible dated to the 9th century AD.

Do try to pay attention. I know its hard when you are blinded by stupidity.

[Phil]

blinded by stupidity.

Can you hum a few bars please. I'm familiar with the song by Thomas Dolby "She Blinded Me With Science" but not Blinded By Stupidity. Was that written by Duane Gish?

[chi pan]

Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/11/

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-englis...e-history/

and you think the bible is inaccurate on all levels but it has many historical events that we now find to be true. examples:

In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh. In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and then using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose. In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good, chopped straw. The middle courses have less straw including stubble. The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever. It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the Bible.

Forty-eight times in the Scriptures, a people called the Hittites are mentioned. We find them blocking Israel's path as it sought to enter the promised land. We read of Uriah, the Hittite, whom David sent to his untimely death. However, in all the records of antiquity, not a reference to those people was to be found, and therefore, the skeptics attributed them to the imagination and fiction. In 1876, George Smith, began a study of monuments at a place called Djerabis in Asia Minor. This city proved out to be old Carchemish, a capital of the ancient Hatti. We now know that the Hatti were the Hittites of the Bible, who, according to Prof. A.H. Sayce, "contended on equal terms with both Egypt and Assyria." The Hittites not only proved to be a real people, but their empire was shown to be one of the great ones of ancient times.

In Isaiah 20:1, we read, "In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him)..." This is the only mention of King Sargon in the Bible, and the only one in ancient literature. His place in history was severely questioned on this account. But in the years, 1842-1845, P.E. Botta, uncovered the tremendous royal palace of Sargon. Among the other things discovered was an account of the siege of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah. Once more the Bible was right, the critics wrong.

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVartic...eBible.htm

if the bible was not written until much later it would be far less accurate.

[Phil]

if the bible was not written until much later it would be far less accurate.

What kind of illogic leads you to that conclusion?

[chi pan]

What kind of illogic leads you to that conclusion?

idk what logic you go by but in the world i know made up things are just that. made up. they don't have any fact to them. if i made up a civilization that existed 2000 years ago evidence of this civilization wouldn't just appear.

[The Grand Nudger]

London exists ergo Dracula, may as well bow to him while you're at it. This is a fruitless line of reasoning...even if one is willing to accept every nebulous claim to historical accuracy at face value.

(never discount the power of desire when you're talking about biblical archaeology btw. When you want to find something, more often than not...and even if it isn't there...you'll find it)

[Phil]

What kind of illogic leads you to that conclusion?

idk what logic you go by but in the world i know made up things are just that. made up. they don't have any fact to them. if i made up a civilization that existed 2000 years ago evidence of this civilization wouldn't just appear.

Let me give you a proper example using what you wrote to show how idiotic your conclusion of an early bible is. I'll use what you wrote about the bricks of Pithom and Raamses. If what you cite is accurate (and for arguments sake let's assume it is), it would give you an earliest possible date that that story was written in Exodus. it by no means indicates like you seem to want that it could not have been written at a later time. Do yourself a favor and take a course in logic otherwise anything you say will be dispatched with the utmost ease. If I may paraphrase from a GEICO commercial, refuting anything you say is so easy a caveman could do it.

[chi pan]

i think you missed a detail. have you heard of the telephone effect? the more information is passed the less accurate it is. so if the bible was written thousands of years after an event then it wouldn't be very accurate would it? in fact most all of it's accuracy would be gone but the oppisite seams to be true. there is no historical information that contradicts the history listed in the bible.

[The Grand Nudger]

"There is almost no history to contradict in the bible"

Fixed that for you.