FREE TAPATALK APP

jmcvann · 15th January 2010, 02:14 PM

Here's an interesting article from livescience.com.

Quote:

Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing — an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign.

The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)

Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

Your thoughts?

Darth Rotor · 15th January 2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by jmcvann

Bible older than we thought?

Your thoughts?

Plastic surgery.

TimCallahan · 15th January 2010, 03:37 PM

There are plenty of clues, particularly anachronisms in the texts, that indicate when various portions of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) were written. That there was writing in Israel before ca. 850 BCE, when the J Document is believed to have been written, doesn't mean that the Bible was being written then.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 15th January 2010, 03:47 PM

What will the Creationists do?

~~ Paul

WaterBreather · 15th January 2010, 03:52 PM

Well the Kebra Nagast - from Ethiopia -
writing believed to have been scripted about 1000 AD,
tells of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon in about 1000 BC.

Much of the pre-Solomon narrative is in the Kebra Nagast,
showing that those stories themselves are at least from 1000 BC.

Its interesting to compare the two. The Bible makes no mention
that the Arc of the Covenant was taken to Ethiopia at this time
- before the destruction of the temple.

There is a Temple in Ethiopia which seems to hold the Arc to this day;
and
the Bible also does not mention that the union of the visit by Sheba
was Solomon's firstborn Son : Menelek; who was rejected by Israel
for being black. In the centuries to follow Israel collapses.

Are the Ethiopians then the centre of Zionism?

Sledge · 15th January 2010, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What will the Creationists do?

~~ Paul

The same thing they do every night: try to take ove-

Sorry. The same thing they do when anything contradicts their lunacy: deny everything and say everyone else is being unscientific.

WaterBreather · 15th January 2010, 05:15 PM

to refer to the most powerful force in humanity (Theism)
as lunacy
is to ignore the evidence of thousands of years of history
its blatant denial

where did science come from?
who were the first scientists?
what was darwins, newtons, einsteins, copernicus, descartes, galileos, etc beliefs?

lunacy
according to mr nobody?

well then
lets have more lunacy
its clearly a GOOD thing

Marduk · 15th January 2010, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by jmcvann

Here's an interesting article from livescience.com.

Your thoughts?

its been misreported, its not a hebrew text, its a palaeo hebrew text. This is not new news and has been known about since 1902
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gezer_calendar
this new find has been sensationalised for obvious reasons

HansMustermann · 15th January 2010, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by jmcvann

Here's an interesting article from livescience.com.

Your thoughts?

We've had that discussion before.

The positive part: It's a piece of proto-Hebrew writing all right, likely one of the intermediate steps between early Akkadian and the final liturgical Hebrew.

The bunk part: well, just about all the rest. That shard does not actually mention King David, nor a united kingdom, and has nothing to do with the Bible.

HansMustermann · 15th January 2010, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

to refer to the most powerful force in humanity (Theism)
as lunacy
is to ignore the evidence of thousands of years of history
its blatant denial

where did science come from?
who were the first scientists?
what was darwins, newtons, einsteins, copernicus, descartes, galileos, etc beliefs?

lunacy
according to mr nobody?

well then
lets have more lunacy
its clearly a GOOD thing

Oh, please, could you possibly cram more non-sequitur and BS in one message?

Incidentally Einstein by all accounts was simply fascinated with the universe _itself_. He made it clear when he called it "Spinoza's God", which is just that: a deterministic universe which just does its thing and doesn't give a flying f-word about prayers or anything. He made it clear in repeated occasions that he does _not_ believe in a God personally involved in running everything, and generally which resembles the Christian one in any form or shape.

Not that it'll stop idiot apologists from using him as a prop for their imaginary sky daddy...

Galileo? Now that's a guy who'd have been surprised to hear that his science is based on Christianity. I think he made it pretty clear when he went head on against the church's claims repeatedly, and culminated in his mocking the Pope in his book. (Which was the real reason of his conflict with Urban.)

But as I was saying, it's a non-sequitur. What Einstein believed is fully irrelevant, and ditto for Galileo and all the rest. There is no evidence that _Theism_ was the motivation of any of them. Nor that people wouldn't try to figure out the universe without the Abrahamic sky daddy -- as the Chinese, Egyptians, Sumerians, ancient Greeks, etc, had already done.

TimCallahan · 15th January 2010, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

Well the Kebra Nagast - from Ethiopia -
writing believed to have been scripted about 1000 AD,
tells of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon in about 1000 BC.

Much of the pre-Solomon narrative is in the Kebra Nagast,
showing that those stories themselves are at least from 1000 BC.

Its interesting to compare the two. The Bible makes no mention
that the Arc of the Covenant was taken to Ethiopia at this time
- before the destruction of the temple.

There is a Temple in Ethiopia which seems to hold the Arc to this day;
and
the Bible also does not mention that the union of the visit by Sheba
was Solomon's firstborn Son : Menelek; who was rejected by Israel
for being black. In the centuries to follow Israel collapses.

Are the Ethiopians then the centre of Zionism?

As far as I've been able to find any information on the Kebra Nagast, it actually seems to have been written rather late, ca. 1,000 CE. If you have reliable information pointing to it being written ca. 1,000 BCE, I would be interested in hearing it.

WaterBreather · 15th January 2010, 06:07 PM

Tim:
I see no reason to change the dating system from the convention of AD/BC.
That serves only to distract.
As you well know.

...

Herr Mustermann.
Your vitriol makes your passage virtually unreadable.

My point was to show that believing in God
does not make one a lunatic,
regardless of what YOU mean by the word.

Yes, Einstein was a determinist.
Even when the EPR experiment proved otherwise.
So he was probably the worst example I chose.

Keep denying that Theism is the most powerful force in humanity.
Thats right.
Keep denying the cognitive dissonance in your own mind which
resulted in your ad hominem diatribe.

Keep pretending that your mind is an atom.

lightfire22000 · 15th January 2010, 06:21 PM

I would be interested in seeing the actual inscription. Does the inscription in any way corroborate the Bible?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible had been edited numerous times either.

sadhatter · 15th January 2010, 06:44 PM

WAterbreather your a funny, well mannered, mature person, now that you have gotten some attention could you please get the f out of the pool and let the big kids play?

Marduk · 15th January 2010, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Nor that people wouldn't try to figure out the universe without the Abrahamic sky daddy -- as the Chinese, Egyptians, Sumerians, ancient Greeks, etc, had already done.

Case in point, the Abrahamic sky daddy didn't help the Hebrews figure anything out as they simply copied the beliefs of the civilisations around them. The modern world owes more to the Babylonians and the Greeks than it ever did to the Bible which just acted as a method of transmission but was never original in its own right.

shadron · 15th January 2010, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

Tim:
I see no reason to change the dating system from the convention of AD/BC.

Of course you do. Is this going to be another War over Xmas?

To paraphrase Tsiolkovski's quote:

"Theism is the cradle of civilization. But one should not want to live in a cradle forever.

I recommend a soothing video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Ladewig · 15th January 2010, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

to refer to the most powerful force in humanity (Theism)
as lunacy
is to ignore the evidence of thousands of years of history
its blatant denial

Sledge appears to be talking not about theists or Christians in general but specifically about Creationists. If someone in a western democracy in the 21st century chooses to believe that the earth 6000 years old, then that person is, at best, willfully ignorant. The evidence that the earth is billions of years old is overwhelming. A denial of this evidence falls somewhere between blinding oneself to the facts and lunacy.

kuroyume0161 · 15th January 2010, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What will the Creationists do?

~~ Paul

la, la, la, la, la, la, la

LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA!

I'm a creationist. What were we taking about again? Hold on, I have to get ready for more louder 'la, la's.

Lord Emsworth · 15th January 2010, 09:42 PM

The Bible? *giggles*

I think the youngest bits are not older that the turn of 1st to 2nd century, and maybe a bit younger.

Just sayin'.

Wowbagger · 15th January 2010, 09:58 PM

I would not surprise me if many of the stories in the Bible are many times older than what was even discovered, so far. The stories that have "stuck" appeal the best to human instincts and interests, and human minds could only conjure up a limited number of appealing stories, (until science and technology inspire narrative innovations).

Stories of Jesus-like entities existed loooong before anyone decided to write about Jesus.

World-engulfing flood stories have existed since... well... the existence of floods, actually.

Dats · 15th January 2010, 10:03 PM

If the Bible is older than we think does this mean we'll be seeing Victoria Principle flog a range of Bible beauty secrets on late night television?

TimCallahan · 15th January 2010, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

Tim:
I see no reason to change the dating system from the convention of AD/BC.
That serves only to distract.
As you well know. . . .

Actually, I know nothing of the kind. But have it your way. From what I've been able to find, the Kebra Nagast is only about 1,000 years old. Do you have evidence that it was actually written ca. 1,000 BC?

By the way, I'm leaving on a geology tour to Death Valley and will not be back until Monday evening. So, if you don't hear from me for a few days, that's the reason.

kuroyume0161 · 15th January 2010, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I would not surprise me if many of the stories in the Bible are many times older than what was even discovered, so far. The stories that have "stuck" appeal the best to human instincts and interests, and human minds could only conjure up a limited number of appealing stories, (until science and technology inspire narrative innovations).

Stories of Jesus-like entities existed loooong before anyone decided to write about Jesus.

World-engulfing flood stories have existed since... well... the existence of floods, actually.

You don't have to be surprised. This is very much how it works. Many of these stories were probably passed generation to generation by word of mouth, expanding and evolving like a good fish story. By the time many of these things were actually written down, so many sources were available that it appears that contamination and specialization were introduced at least once to many of them.

For instance, Jesus, to me, is the Itinerant Greek Jew wandering around pretending to be a god-man with one disciple representing each Hebrew tribe who needed to be sacrificed so that our soul shards could be 'saved' while also promoting a cleansing ritual (baptism) and a ritual meal commonly associated with mystery cults. It is just so simple.

Brian-M · 15th January 2010, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

Yes, Einstein was a determinist.
Even when the EPR experiment proved otherwise.
So he was probably the worst example I chose.

The EPR experiment disproved determinism?

Please explain how... and then explain how this is in any way relevant.

As for The Bible, why does long-established fact that writing existed before The Bible is thought to have been written suggest that The Bible is older than it is thought to be?

And even if parts of the Old Testament were written down a couple of centuries earlier than previously thought, so what? That doesn't make them "more true".

If you're going to believe in a religion based on the antiquity of it's earliest texts, become a Hindu... some of the text in the Vedas date back to around 1500 BC. (There are Sumerian texts that date back to before 2500 BC, but nobody worships those religions any more.)

elbe · 15th January 2010, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by WaterBreather

where did science come from?
who were the first scientists?

Ancient Greeks?

kuroyume0161 · 15th January 2010, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by elbe

Ancient Greeks?

Natural Philosophers maybe. But then again there is a good case for Eratosthenes, Heron, Archimedes, Epicurus, and Lucretius (Roman). So, okay, yes, Ancient Greeks.

Brian-M · 16th January 2010, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by elbe

Ancient Greeks?

Ancient Geeks.

HansMustermann · 16th January 2010, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by elbe

Ancient Greeks?

Actually, I'd vote for the Sumerians, who had a civilization and an early science back when even the Achaean Greeks were a bunch of barbarians. The Greeks of Pericles were the later Dorian invaders.

The Egyptians too had quite a bit of level-headed approach to figuring out the world before the Greeks. E.g., Imhotep lived in the 27'th century BC and left us, among other things, a medicine manual completely lacking any magical thinking or woowoo rituals. As well as figuring out how to build the first pyramid, an irigation system, and stuff like that. (He really didn't deserve being made the villain of The Mummy

)

Sure, he _was_ a High Priest of Ra, so I guess someone would take him as example of all the good that religion did. But in fact, there is no indication that religion played that much of a role at all in his approach to science. When he writes about washing and bandaging a wound, however, he conspicuously lacks any kind of prayers or spells to be said over said wound.

And generally, for someone to be the first recorded genius in medicine, engineering, architecture _and_ administration -- every bit as worthy of awe as, say, Leonardo Da Vinci -- I doubt that superstition was that high on his list of priorities. You can bet that his day included a lot more reading and study than what the sacred religious scrolls say.

He probably went and became a priest just because that was effectively the ruling class and the best you can get as a literate young man.

Hux · 16th January 2010, 04:14 AM

It just makes the earlier Hebrews prone to more rubbish and belief. Its not as if they were as savvy as 8th century Hebrews is it?

Marduk · 16th January 2010, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

And generally, for someone to be the first recorded genius in medicine, engineering, architecture _and_ administration -- every bit as worthy of awe as, say, Leonardo Da Vinci

He might have been a Genius at some things but he was imho the very worst host in history, who really wants to hear "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall die.", when you've just sat down to dinner

Originally Posted by Hux

It just makes the earlier Hebrews prone to more rubbish and belief. Its not as if they were as savvy as 8th century Hebrews is it?

you might have said that in humour, but its factually correct. In the 10th C they were Shepherds, but in the 8th they were librarians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal
later they wrote a book based on what they had learned there

Slayhamlet · 16th January 2010, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

We've had that discussion before.

The positive part: It's a piece of proto-Hebrew writing all right, likely one of the intermediate steps between early Akkadian and the final liturgical Hebrew.

The bunk part: well, just about all the rest. That shard does not actually mention King David, nor a united kingdom, and has nothing to do with the Bible.

Where'd you get the idea that Hebrew is a descendant of Akkadian? It's not. They're not even in the same branch of the Semitic subfamily. That would be like saying English is a descendant of Old Norse.

lightfire22000 · 16th January 2010, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Case in point, the Abrahamic sky daddy didn't help the Hebrews figure anything out as they simply copied the beliefs of the civilisations around them. The modern world owes more to the Babylonians and the Greeks than it ever did to the Bible which just acted as a method of transmission but was never original in its own right.

You forgot Egypt.

Oh, I think their religion did help for some reason. I don't know why it helped, but it might have had to do with the simplicity of their faith and its emphasis on discipline. Also, the Hebrew's religion appealed to nomads as opposed to Mesopotamian city gods. Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian polytheism changed a lot over the centuries and it's possible that the Hebrew religion influenced other religions.

Amateurs, like myself, make the big mistake of assuming that the mythologies we were taught in school were believed during the civilization's entire existence, and they didn't change philosophically. This is false. The pantheons of Greece and Egypt evolved into monotheistic religions at some point.

In Egypt, Akhenaton made Aton-Ra the one god. In Greece, there was Cleanthes, the Stoic who prayed to Zeus as the essential god. Interestingly enough, one of Zeus' sons, Heracles, dies ostracized only to rise again. Also, note the similarity between the words theos and Zeus.

The Fallen Serpent · 16th January 2010, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

...even the Achaean Greeks were a bunch of barbarians.

The Achaean Greeks were not native speakers of Greek? I tease

Good points on the Sumerians and Egyptians. The point is all cutlures influence and are influenced by other cultures. It is a slow build up through out time and some of our greatest achievements are rooted back quiet a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Marduk

He might have been a Genius at some things but he was imho the very worst host in history, who really wants to hear "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall die.", when you've just sat down to dinner

That actually sounds like a great way to kick off an epic party to me.

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Where'd you get the idea that Hebrew is a descendant of Akkadian? It's not. They're not even in the same branch of the Semitic subfamily. That would be like saying English is a descendant of Old Norse.

Good point. They are more cousin languages. Hebrew is a Caananite language of the Northwest Semitic group. One of the difficulties in translating the shard was determining which Caananite language it most closely represented.

Originally Posted by lightfire22000

Amateurs, like myself, make the big mistake of assuming that the mythologies we were taught in school were believed during the civilization's entire existence, and they didn't change philosophically. This is false. The pantheons of Greece and Egypt evolved into monotheistic religions at some point.

This is a great point. In discussions it is easy to fall to presenting the situation based on the image of a single period, and really the dominate philosophies of the day. Modern cultures are not unique in having divisiveness and splintering philosophies. We tend to represent civilizations passed as monolithic in form. This may have been desired by many, yet not something that is easily if ever achieved.

ETA: What I found most interesting is that the translated text bears resemblance to Deuteronomy 10:18-10:19. To my uneducated eye this implies evidence for the fragmentary theory of the Torah. I definitely do not see this as evidence as proof of the United Monarchy having existed as described in the Bible, nor of it being written in its full or even similar form centuries earlier.

Marduk · 16th January 2010, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by lightfire22000

You forgot Egypt.

I am hard pushed to think of anything in the modern world that was inherited from the Egyptians

anyone help ?

The Fallen Serpent · 16th January 2010, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

I am hard pushed to think of anything in the modern world that was inherited from the Egyptians

anyone help ?

I thought we got makeup from them?

lightfire22000 · 16th January 2010, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

I am hard pushed to think of anything in the modern world that was inherited from the Egyptians

anyone help ?

A 365 day year
Early calculations of pi
Simple machines such as the inclined plane/screw, level, and elaborate tools
Paper making
Glass
Numerous medical innovations such as the stitch, prosthetics, laxatives, and health insurance
Astronomy(crucial for weather prediction)

Marduk · 16th January 2010, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by lightfire22000

A 365 day year
Early calculations of pi
Simple machines such as the inclined plane/screw, level, and elaborate tools
Paper making
Glass
Numerous medical innovations such as the stitch, prosthetics, laxatives, and health insurance
Astronomy(crucial for weather prediction)

All of those were invented in Mesopotamia with the exception of paper making which was invented in China around the 2nd century AD, Paper takes its name from Egyptian papyrus, but it wasn't invented by them.
True the egyptians did invent the 365 day year but as the mesopotamian timed their year on the vernal rising of the Pleaides they had a year which was 365.256 363 051 days long. Or to simplify, one actual year exactly. They actually orientated their temples to face the rising position and split their year into 360 days plus some change. The change was when they considered the Gods had abandoned them and everyone got drunk and didn't do any work until the priests said it was safe to do so as the gods had returned. This had the advantage of their years always being accurate and served as a chronological mooring point to time their lunar and ritual calendars on. Other cultures messed around by having to add an extra day every few years to make up the loss, including the egyptians

no prize this time
sorry

Marduk · 16th January 2010, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

I thought we got makeup from them?

Neanderthals invented make up
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...466430&ps=cprs
they preceeded the egyptians by a few years

TSR · 16th January 2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dats

If the Bible is older than we think does this mean we'll be seeing Victoria Principle flog a range of Bible beauty secrets on late night television?

.
Victoria Principal ... flogger...

I'm sorry, what were we discussing? I kinda got distracted...
.

Marduk · 16th January 2010, 12:51 PM

Ok I have answered my own questions by reading this article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...tance_01.shtml
apparently they invented the pyramid form and may possibly be helpful to medicine in the future from the study of mummified bilharzia worms

Colour me not impressed. Nature surely invented the pyramid form earlier as the shape of the Egyptian pyramids was based on......

15th January 2010, 02:14 PM	#1
jmcvann Navel Gazer Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 665	Bible older than we thought? Here's an interesting article from livescience.com. Quote: Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing — an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign. The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.) Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month. Your thoughts?
	__________________ I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. -- Richard Feynman

15th January 2010, 03:05 PM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	Originally Posted by jmcvann Bible older than we thought? Your thoughts? Plastic surgery.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

15th January 2010, 03:37 PM	#3
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213	There are plenty of clues, particularly anachronisms in the texts, that indicate when various portions of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) were written. That there was writing in Israel before ca. 850 BCE, when the J Document is believed to have been written, doesn't mean that the Bible was being written then.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213

15th January 2010, 03:47 PM	#4
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,632	What will the Creationists do? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

15th January 2010, 03:52 PM	#5
WaterBreather Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Africa Posts: 80	Well the Kebra Nagast - from Ethiopia - writing believed to have been scripted about 1000 AD, tells of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon in about 1000 BC. Much of the pre-Solomon narrative is in the Kebra Nagast, showing that those stories themselves are at least from 1000 BC. Its interesting to compare the two. The Bible makes no mention that the Arc of the Covenant was taken to Ethiopia at this time - before the destruction of the temple. There is a Temple in Ethiopia which seems to hold the Arc to this day; and the Bible also does not mention that the union of the visit by Sheba was Solomon's firstborn Son : Menelek; who was rejected by Israel for being black. In the centuries to follow Israel collapses. Are the Ethiopians then the centre of Zionism?
	Last edited by WaterBreather; 15th January 2010 at 03:54 PM.

15th January 2010, 04:40 PM	#6
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos What will the Creationists do? ~~ Paul The same thing they do every night: try to take ove- Sorry. The same thing they do when anything contradicts their lunacy: deny everything and say everyone else is being unscientific.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

15th January 2010, 05:15 PM	#7
WaterBreather Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Africa Posts: 80	to refer to the most powerful force in humanity (Theism) as lunacy is to ignore the evidence of thousands of years of history its blatant denial where did science come from? who were the first scientists? what was darwins, newtons, einsteins, copernicus, descartes, galileos, etc beliefs? lunacy according to mr nobody? well then lets have more lunacy its clearly a GOOD thing

15th January 2010, 05:29 PM	#8
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by jmcvann Here's an interesting article from livescience.com. Your thoughts? its been misreported, its not a hebrew text, its a palaeo hebrew text. This is not new news and has been known about since 1902 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gezer_calendar this new find has been sensationalised for obvious reasons

15th January 2010, 05:32 PM	#9
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by jmcvann Here's an interesting article from livescience.com. Your thoughts? We've had that discussion before. The positive part: It's a piece of proto-Hebrew writing all right, likely one of the intermediate steps between early Akkadian and the final liturgical Hebrew. The bunk part: well, just about all the rest. That shard does not actually mention King David, nor a united kingdom, and has nothing to do with the Bible.

15th January 2010, 05:42 PM	#10
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by WaterBreather to refer to the most powerful force in humanity (Theism) as lunacy is to ignore the evidence of thousands of years of history its blatant denial where did science come from? who were the first scientists? what was darwins, newtons, einsteins, copernicus, descartes, galileos, etc beliefs? lunacy according to mr nobody? well then lets have more lunacy its clearly a GOOD thing Oh, please, could you possibly cram more non-sequitur and BS in one message? Incidentally Einstein by all accounts was simply fascinated with the universe _itself_. He made it clear when he called it "Spinoza's God", which is just that: a deterministic universe which just does its thing and doesn't give a flying f-word about prayers or anything. He made it clear in repeated occasions that he does _not_ believe in a God personally involved in running everything, and generally which resembles the Christian one in any form or shape. Not that it'll stop idiot apologists from using him as a prop for their imaginary sky daddy... Galileo? Now that's a guy who'd have been surprised to hear that his science is based on Christianity. I think he made it pretty clear when he went head on against the church's claims repeatedly, and culminated in his mocking the Pope in his book. (Which was the real reason of his conflict with Urban.) But as I was saying, it's a non-sequitur. What Einstein believed is fully irrelevant, and ditto for Galileo and all the rest. There is no evidence that _Theism_ was the motivation of any of them. Nor that people wouldn't try to figure out the universe without the Abrahamic sky daddy -- as the Chinese, Egyptians, Sumerians, ancient Greeks, etc, had already done.
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 15th January 2010 at 05:43 PM.

15th January 2010, 05:52 PM	#11
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213	Originally Posted by WaterBreather Well the Kebra Nagast - from Ethiopia - writing believed to have been scripted about 1000 AD, tells of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon in about 1000 BC. Much of the pre-Solomon narrative is in the Kebra Nagast, showing that those stories themselves are at least from 1000 BC. Its interesting to compare the two. The Bible makes no mention that the Arc of the Covenant was taken to Ethiopia at this time - before the destruction of the temple. There is a Temple in Ethiopia which seems to hold the Arc to this day; and the Bible also does not mention that the union of the visit by Sheba was Solomon's firstborn Son : Menelek; who was rejected by Israel for being black. In the centuries to follow Israel collapses. Are the Ethiopians then the centre of Zionism? As far as I've been able to find any information on the Kebra Nagast, it actually seems to have been written rather late, ca. 1,000 CE. If you have reliable information pointing to it being written ca. 1,000 BCE, I would be interested in hearing it.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213

15th January 2010, 06:07 PM	#12
WaterBreather Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Africa Posts: 80	Tim: I see no reason to change the dating system from the convention of AD/BC. That serves only to distract. As you well know. ... Herr Mustermann. Your vitriol makes your passage virtually unreadable. My point was to show that believing in God does not make one a lunatic, regardless of what YOU mean by the word. Yes, Einstein was a determinist. Even when the EPR experiment proved otherwise. So he was probably the worst example I chose. Keep denying that Theism is the most powerful force in humanity. Thats right. Keep denying the cognitive dissonance in your own mind which resulted in your ad hominem diatribe. Keep pretending that your mind is an atom.

15th January 2010, 06:21 PM	#13
lightfire22000 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 699	I would be interested in seeing the actual inscription. Does the inscription in any way corroborate the Bible? I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible had been edited numerous times either.

15th January 2010, 06:44 PM	#14
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	WAterbreather your a funny, well mannered, mature person, now that you have gotten some attention could you please get the f out of the pool and let the big kids play?
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

15th January 2010, 07:03 PM	#15
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Nor that people wouldn't try to figure out the universe without the Abrahamic sky daddy -- as the Chinese, Egyptians, Sumerians, ancient Greeks, etc, had already done. Case in point, the Abrahamic sky daddy didn't help the Hebrews figure anything out as they simply copied the beliefs of the civilisations around them. The modern world owes more to the Babylonians and the Greeks than it ever did to the Bible which just acted as a method of transmission but was never original in its own right.
	Last edited by Marduk; 15th January 2010 at 07:07 PM.

15th January 2010, 08:34 PM	#17
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,940	Originally Posted by WaterBreather to refer to the most powerful force in humanity (Theism) as lunacy is to ignore the evidence of thousands of years of history its blatant denial Sledge appears to be talking not about theists or Christians in general but specifically about Creationists. If someone in a western democracy in the 21st century chooses to believe that the earth 6000 years old, then that person is, at best, willfully ignorant. The evidence that the earth is billions of years old is overwhelming. A denial of this evidence falls somewhere between blinding oneself to the facts and lunacy.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board. Last edited by Ladewig; 15th January 2010 at 08:35 PM.

15th January 2010, 09:22 PM	#18
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos What will the Creationists do? ~~ Paul la, la, la, la, la, la, la LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA! I'm a creationist. What were we taking about again? Hold on, I have to get ready for more louder 'la, la's.

15th January 2010, 09:42 PM	#19
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,831	The Bible? giggles I think the youngest bits are not older that the turn of 1st to 2nd century, and maybe a bit younger. Just sayin'.
	Last edited by Lord Emsworth; 15th January 2010 at 09:43 PM.

15th January 2010, 09:58 PM	#20
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,676	I would not surprise me if many of the stories in the Bible are many times older than what was even discovered, so far. The stories that have "stuck" appeal the best to human instincts and interests, and human minds could only conjure up a limited number of appealing stories, (until science and technology inspire narrative innovations). Stories of Jesus-like entities existed loooong before anyone decided to write about Jesus. World-engulfing flood stories have existed since... well... the existence of floods, actually.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

15th January 2010, 10:03 PM	#21
Dats Scholar Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 100	If the Bible is older than we think does this mean we'll be seeing Victoria Principle flog a range of Bible beauty secrets on late night television?
Dats Scholar Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 100

15th January 2010, 10:36 PM	#22
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213	Originally Posted by WaterBreather Tim: I see no reason to change the dating system from the convention of AD/BC. That serves only to distract. As you well know. . . . Actually, I know nothing of the kind. But have it your way. From what I've been able to find, the Kebra Nagast is only about 1,000 years old. Do you have evidence that it was actually written ca. 1,000 BC? By the way, I'm leaving on a geology tour to Death Valley and will not be back until Monday evening. So, if you don't hear from me for a few days, that's the reason.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,213	Last edited by TimCallahan; 15th January 2010 at 10:38 PM.

15th January 2010, 10:51 PM	#23
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Originally Posted by Wowbagger I would not surprise me if many of the stories in the Bible are many times older than what was even discovered, so far. The stories that have "stuck" appeal the best to human instincts and interests, and human minds could only conjure up a limited number of appealing stories, (until science and technology inspire narrative innovations). Stories of Jesus-like entities existed loooong before anyone decided to write about Jesus. World-engulfing flood stories have existed since... well... the existence of floods, actually. You don't have to be surprised. This is very much how it works. Many of these stories were probably passed generation to generation by word of mouth, expanding and evolving like a good fish story. By the time many of these things were actually written down, so many sources were available that it appears that contamination and specialization were introduced at least once to many of them. For instance, Jesus, to me, is the Itinerant Greek Jew wandering around pretending to be a god-man with one disciple representing each Hebrew tribe who needed to be sacrificed so that our soul shards could be 'saved' while also promoting a cleansing ritual (baptism) and a ritual meal commonly associated with mystery cults. It is just so simple.

15th January 2010, 11:09 PM	#24
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,388	Originally Posted by WaterBreather Yes, Einstein was a determinist. Even when the EPR experiment proved otherwise. So he was probably the worst example I chose. The EPR experiment disproved determinism? Please explain how... and then explain how this is in any way relevant. As for The Bible, why does long-established fact that writing existed before The Bible is thought to have been written suggest that The Bible is older than it is thought to be? And even if parts of the Old Testament were written down a couple of centuries earlier than previously thought, so what? That doesn't make them "more true". If you're going to believe in a religion based on the antiquity of it's earliest texts, become a Hindu... some of the text in the Vedas date back to around 1500 BC. (There are Sumerian texts that date back to before 2500 BC, but nobody worships those religions any more.)
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

15th January 2010, 11:15 PM	#25
elbe Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 3,744	Originally Posted by WaterBreather where did science come from? who were the first scientists? Ancient Greeks?
	__________________ "If ever I stray from the path I follow take me down to the english channel, throw me in where the water is shallow, and then drag me on back to shore." realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

15th January 2010, 11:21 PM	#26
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Originally Posted by elbe Ancient Greeks? Natural Philosophers maybe. But then again there is a good case for Eratosthenes, Heron, Archimedes, Epicurus, and Lucretius (Roman). So, okay, yes, Ancient Greeks.

16th January 2010, 12:18 AM	#27
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,388	Originally Posted by elbe Ancient Greeks? Ancient Geeks.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

16th January 2010, 03:36 AM	#28
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by elbe Ancient Greeks? Actually, I'd vote for the Sumerians, who had a civilization and an early science back when even the Achaean Greeks were a bunch of barbarians. The Greeks of Pericles were the later Dorian invaders. The Egyptians too had quite a bit of level-headed approach to figuring out the world before the Greeks. E.g., Imhotep lived in the 27'th century BC and left us, among other things, a medicine manual completely lacking any magical thinking or woowoo rituals. As well as figuring out how to build the first pyramid, an irigation system, and stuff like that. (He really didn't deserve being made the villain of The Mummy) Sure, he _was_ a High Priest of Ra, so I guess someone would take him as example of all the good that religion did. But in fact, there is no indication that religion played that much of a role at all in his approach to science. When he writes about washing and bandaging a wound, however, he conspicuously lacks any kind of prayers or spells to be said over said wound. And generally, for someone to be the first recorded genius in medicine, engineering, architecture _and_ administration -- every bit as worthy of awe as, say, Leonardo Da Vinci -- I doubt that superstition was that high on his list of priorities. You can bet that his day included a lot more reading and study than what the sacred religious scrolls say. He probably went and became a priest just because that was effectively the ruling class and the best you can get as a literate young man.

16th January 2010, 04:14 AM	#29
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,080	It just makes the earlier Hebrews prone to more rubbish and belief. Its not as if they were as savvy as 8th century Hebrews is it?
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,080	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

16th January 2010, 04:44 AM	#30
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by HansMustermann And generally, for someone to be the first recorded genius in medicine, engineering, architecture _and_ administration -- every bit as worthy of awe as, say, Leonardo Da Vinci He might have been a Genius at some things but he was imho the very worst host in history, who really wants to hear "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall die.", when you've just sat down to dinner Originally Posted by Hux It just makes the earlier Hebrews prone to more rubbish and belief. Its not as if they were as savvy as 8th century Hebrews is it? you might have said that in humour, but its factually correct. In the 10th C they were Shepherds, but in the 8th they were librarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal later they wrote a book based on what they had learned there
	Last edited by Marduk; 16th January 2010 at 04:46 AM.

16th January 2010, 09:12 AM	#31
Slayhamlet Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,427	Originally Posted by HansMustermann We've had that discussion before. The positive part: It's a piece of proto-Hebrew writing all right, likely one of the intermediate steps between early Akkadian and the final liturgical Hebrew. The bunk part: well, just about all the rest. That shard does not actually mention King David, nor a united kingdom, and has nothing to do with the Bible. Where'd you get the idea that Hebrew is a descendant of Akkadian? It's not. They're not even in the same branch of the Semitic subfamily. That would be like saying English is a descendant of Old Norse.

16th January 2010, 10:14 AM	#32
lightfire22000 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 699	Originally Posted by Marduk Case in point, the Abrahamic sky daddy didn't help the Hebrews figure anything out as they simply copied the beliefs of the civilisations around them. The modern world owes more to the Babylonians and the Greeks than it ever did to the Bible which just acted as a method of transmission but was never original in its own right. You forgot Egypt. Oh, I think their religion did help for some reason. I don't know why it helped, but it might have had to do with the simplicity of their faith and its emphasis on discipline. Also, the Hebrew's religion appealed to nomads as opposed to Mesopotamian city gods. Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian polytheism changed a lot over the centuries and it's possible that the Hebrew religion influenced other religions. Amateurs, like myself, make the big mistake of assuming that the mythologies we were taught in school were believed during the civilization's entire existence, and they didn't change philosophically. This is false. The pantheons of Greece and Egypt evolved into monotheistic religions at some point. In Egypt, Akhenaton made Aton-Ra the one god. In Greece, there was Cleanthes, the Stoic who prayed to Zeus as the essential god. Interestingly enough, one of Zeus' sons, Heracles, dies ostracized only to rise again. Also, note the similarity between the words theos and Zeus.

16th January 2010, 10:39 AM	#33
The Fallen Serpent Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Not Oregon, Texas Posts: 1,964	Originally Posted by HansMustermann ...even the Achaean Greeks were a bunch of barbarians. The Achaean Greeks were not native speakers of Greek? I tease Good points on the Sumerians and Egyptians. The point is all cutlures influence and are influenced by other cultures. It is a slow build up through out time and some of our greatest achievements are rooted back quiet a long time ago. Originally Posted by Marduk He might have been a Genius at some things but he was imho the very worst host in history, who really wants to hear "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall die.", when you've just sat down to dinner That actually sounds like a great way to kick off an epic party to me. Originally Posted by Slayhamlet Where'd you get the idea that Hebrew is a descendant of Akkadian? It's not. They're not even in the same branch of the Semitic subfamily. That would be like saying English is a descendant of Old Norse. Good point. They are more cousin languages. Hebrew is a Caananite language of the Northwest Semitic group. One of the difficulties in translating the shard was determining which Caananite language it most closely represented. Originally Posted by lightfire22000 Amateurs, like myself, make the big mistake of assuming that the mythologies we were taught in school were believed during the civilization's entire existence, and they didn't change philosophically. This is false. The pantheons of Greece and Egypt evolved into monotheistic religions at some point. This is a great point. In discussions it is easy to fall to presenting the situation based on the image of a single period, and really the dominate philosophies of the day. Modern cultures are not unique in having divisiveness and splintering philosophies. We tend to represent civilizations passed as monolithic in form. This may have been desired by many, yet not something that is easily if ever achieved. ETA: What I found most interesting is that the translated text bears resemblance to Deuteronomy 10:18-10:19. To my uneducated eye this implies evidence for the fragmentary theory of the Torah. I definitely do not see this as evidence as proof of the United Monarchy having existed as described in the Bible, nor of it being written in its full or even similar form centuries earlier.
	Last edited by The Fallen Serpent; 16th January 2010 at 10:46 AM.

16th January 2010, 11:35 AM	#34
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by lightfire22000 You forgot Egypt. I am hard pushed to think of anything in the modern world that was inherited from the Egyptians anyone help ?

16th January 2010, 11:44 AM	#35
The Fallen Serpent Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Not Oregon, Texas Posts: 1,964	Originally Posted by Marduk I am hard pushed to think of anything in the modern world that was inherited from the Egyptians anyone help ? I thought we got makeup from them?

16th January 2010, 12:05 PM	#36
lightfire22000 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 699	Originally Posted by Marduk I am hard pushed to think of anything in the modern world that was inherited from the Egyptians anyone help ? A 365 day year Early calculations of pi Simple machines such as the inclined plane/screw, level, and elaborate tools Paper making Glass Numerous medical innovations such as the stitch, prosthetics, laxatives, and health insurance Astronomy(crucial for weather prediction)