The Bible is a Human Artifice!!!

[Leumas]

Sure, the 10 commandments were written in stone but your claim that the entire bible was written in stone is still unsupported.

You again have failed to read and understand Exodus 20-34... I suggest you read them and see if you can count how many commandments there are...

However... in what language and script were the 10 commandments written?

I suggest you read the OP and read the below CAREFULLY...

You have AGAIN failed to fathom the significance of ANY PART AT ALL of the Buybull (the alleged words of YHWH) being written in the language of the people YHWH personally tried to genocide and ethnically cleanse off of the face of earth and using a flawed and incomplete abjad of yet another people he loathed... it is proof that the Buybull is nothing but perfidy even before one takes into account anything else it says.

Do you concede that the buybull is perfidious when it claims that it is (any part at all) written by YHWH???

 

[theprestige]

You again have failed to read and understand Exodus 20-34... I suggest you read them and see if you can count how many commandments there are...

However... in what language and script were the 10 commandments written?

I suggest you read the OP and read the below CAREFULLY...

You have AGAIN failed to fathom the significance of ANY PART AT ALL of the Buybull (the alleged words of YHWH) being written in the language of the people YHWH personally tried to genocide and ethnically cleanse off of the face of earth and using a flawed and incomplete abjad of yet another people he loathed... it is proof that the Buybull is nothing but perfidy even before one takes into account anything else it says.

Do you concede that the buybull is perfidious when it claims that it is (any part at all) written by YHWH???

Why would the human authors use the language and alphabet of people groups they wished to eradicate? And if they were willing to do it, why wouldn't they impute the same to the God they invented?

Your argument makes no sense.

 

[Leumas]

Sure, the 10 commandments were written in stone but your claim that the entire bible was written in stone is still unsupported.

I can see that you are failing to appreciate my OP because you are not able to appreciate...

1. The bible... i.e. TANAKH ... is alleged to have been originally written in Aramaic letters of the Aramaic Abjad... forming words and semantics and syntax of the Canaanite language.
   
2. The verses I cited say that YHWH himself wrote "tables of stone, and a law, and commandments" HIMSELF ... in that script and language of the people YHWH loathed and personally tried to genocide and ethnically cleanse off of the face of earth.
   
3. This fact is proof that the buybull is perfidy... QED!!!

 

[junkshop]

I agree that the bible was written by mortal humans, not by a god (I am an atheist, after all).

Good... but BILLIONS of people do not agree with you and are not atheists...

And how many of those BILLIONS are here? Perhaps you should consider what audience would benefit from your message, and how best to reach them?

...And they think the Buybull...

This is not devastatingly great pun you would appear to think it is. It is (at best) schoolboy level. To continue in its' use undermines your arguments

... and adding one more proof to rive that mistake...

What?

...should not be fought against with risible fallacious posts by any atheists.

Please feel free to quote anything fallacious in my posts.

... I am still waiting for relevant stuff.

And I'm still waiting for you to respond sanely, or at least civilly, to the relevant stuff already posted. I fear we will both be disappointed.

 

[Leumas]

... Perhaps you should consider what audience would benefit from your message <snip repeated irrelevant claptrap>

Evidently... considering the risible poppycock that is the above post ... my OP is in the right place... thanks for letting me know it!!!

 

[junkshop]

Evidently... considering the risible poppycock that is the above post ... my OP is in the right place... thanks for letting me know it!!!

Your failure / refusal to adddress my points is noted.

 

[theprestige]

I am talking to them on a WORLD WIDE WEB Forum about religion and philosophy open to people WORLD WIDE to read... which is by the way not your personal club nor is your Tribal tent...

If a tree bellows invective in the middle of the forest with nobody to hear it, does it make any noise?

 

[xjx388]

Nobody believes the Bible was literally written by God -as in engraved on stone tablets by his very finger or whatever. The 10 Commandments are the only thing that was written to have come directly from God on stone tablets. But even that story was written by people.

They may believe it was inspired by God, but even then everyone acknowledges it was put down onto clay/stone/paper/papyrus/parchment/whatever by people and that it was written in the languages they knew at the time.

I guess you can argue about whether or not such inspiration is real or not (it’s not) but then you are really arguing about faith, which is what the validity of the Bible is built upon.

 

[8enotto]

What solid artifacts do we have to prove any early versions of the stories that make up the bible?
That seems to be the biggest fail of this thread.

A lot of the earliest written stuff is too fragmented or proven to be fakes made for the holy roller collector.
Most of that isn't even close to be dated back to Moses and his deeds.

 

[Leumas]

Why would the human authors use the language and alphabet of people groups they wished to eradicate?

Exactly... why??? In what language is the Constitution of the USA written??? I am betting it is not in any of the languages of the Native Americans.... is it???

But... more pertinently.. why would YHWH the supposed maker of the universe and the one who wanted to and tried personally to ethnically cleanse and genocide the Canaanites, use their tongue as his language and write it down using the flawed and incomplete abjad of yet another people he loathed???

Moreover... more preposterously... he gave the script and words to an Egyptian courtier who could not read or understand it.... in order to transmit it to runaway slaves descended from 70 Sumerians (mostly men with their mothers and sister) after having been slaves in Egypt for 430 years.

Do you know what language African Americans speak... what language African Dominicans or African Hondurans speak??? How long ago have their ancestors been forcibly taken over to those places???

And if they were willing to do it, why wouldn't they impute the same to the God they invented?

Willing to do it is not the point... would they be ABLE to do it??? How???

How could Egyptian runaway slaves who have never spoken a word of Canaanite since they were descended from 70 Sumerians (mostly men and their mothers and sister) and slaves for the last 430 years in Egypt.

And they were allegedly made deliberately lost in a desert by YHWH and starving and parched and plagued and hacking each other at the behest of YHWH for worshiping a cow instead of YHWH???

When and how did they have time or the wherewithal or education to write down anything and allege it is the words of YHWH written down by YHWH himself... while they melt their stolen jewelry to make a cow and worship it in preference to this evidently not very impressive YHWH... in a language they never spoke or knew and still claim it is their YHWH's language while lamenting the food they had as slaves in Egypt??

And of course not to mention that the Aramaic Abjad with which YHWH is alleged to have written his Canaanite words down himself is that of yet another peoples who would not develop that script for yet another 700 years later???

If you subscribe to any of the RATIONALIZATIONS in your post then I can see who you might conclude

Your argument makes no sense.

Because it very evidently would not given the level of lack of logic in your posts.

Given the details above... any rational reasoning person can only conclude that the Buybull is risible blatant perfidy.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Leumas, do you understand and accept that other posters here are agreeing with you?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I can see that you are failing to appreciate my OP because you are not able to appreciate...

1. The bible... i.e. TANAKH ... is alleged to have been originally written in Aramaic letters of the Aramaic Abjad... forming words and semantics and syntax of the Canaanite language.
   
2. The verses I cited say that YHWH himself wrote "tables of stone, and a law, and commandments" HIMSELF ... in that script and language of the people YHWH loathed and personally tried to genocide and ethnically cleanse off of the face of earth.
   
3. This fact is proof that the buybull is perfidy... QED!!!

Wait. The Bible is the Tanakh? No it's not.

In addition, you're claiming that God wrote down history before it happened.

Edited by sarge: 

edited to remove uncivil content

You don't know your audience.

 

[Thermal]

Leumas. Brah. I was rereading your OP and for the sake of argument, I'd ask for a few clarifications. Please understand that this is not an argument. I am asking because your view of reality seems more than a bit... unique, so I want to make sure we are on the same page.

Your OP starts talking about the Bible, with no indication what you are actually referring to. To most of the world, the Bible refers to the Old and New Testaments, as presented in the King James version or similar. You actually bounce back and forth citing proofs from both Testaments, but in the OP you seem to be referring to something else, as the NT wasn't even formally brought together till around the fourth century.

So first off: what does Leamus mean by the Bible?

You claim it was written in the language of the Canaanites. It is an indisputable reality that the OT was written in old Hebrew, and the NT generally written in Greek. When the first 'official' bible (Vulgate) was composed, pretty sure that was in Latin.

Then you go on about it being assembled and carried by an individual Egyptian courier or something. This is historically not true of either Testaments origins, unless again you have some unique version of history.

You include no citations, and I unfortunately can't read your mind and don't want to make assumptions. Would it be possible for you to clear these matters up?

 

[Apathia]

Another proof that the Bible is a human artifice is that right in the middle of it in Psalm 46 you find the words "shake" and "spear."
Yes! That's Shakespeare!
William Shakespeare was 46 years old in 1610 when the King James Bible was compiled.

QED!

[The Bible is a human artifice, though the "proof" offered above is dubious at best. If you're on a quest to mega-debunk the Bible, you might as well put it on the list.]

 

[Leumas]

Leumas. Brah. I was rereading your OP and for the sake of argument, I'd ask for a few clarifications. Please understand that this is not an argument. I am asking because your view of reality seems more than a bit... unique, so I want to make sure we are on the same page.

Your OP starts talking about the Bible, with no indication what you are actually referring to. To most of the world, the Bible refers to the Old and New Testaments, as presented in the King James version or similar. You actually bounce back and forth citing proofs from both Testaments, but in the OP you seem to be referring to something else, as the NT wasn't even formally brought together till around the fourth century.

So first off: what does Leamus mean by the Bible?

What the English word means....
Bi·ble

1. the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
   • the Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings.
   • a copy of the Christian or Jewish scriptures.
2. a book regarded as authoritative in a particular sphere.
   • the scriptures of any religion.

From here

At times, however, the word Torah can also be used as a synonym for the whole of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh

You claim it was written in the language of the Canaanites. It is an indisputable reality that the OT was written in old Hebrew

"Old Hebrew" i.e. biblical hebrew IS a Canaanite dialect... it is like Yorkie is an English dialect.

Canaanite languages, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (c. 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries

And from here

Hebrew language, Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group; it is closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup. Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was supplanted by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning about the 3rd century BCE; the language continued to be used as a liturgical and literary language, however. It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries and is the official language of Israel.

, and the NT generally written in Greek. When the first 'official' bible (Vulgate) was composed, pretty sure that was in Latin.

No it is not... read this post I made earlier... look at the diagram there (see below) and see where the Vulgate comes temporally and in ranking.

​

,Then you go on about it being assembled and carried by an individual Egyptian courier or something. This is historically not true of either Testaments origins, unless again you have some unique version of history.

.... I suggest you read carefully the words you read...

...
And it was allegedly given to an Egyptian courtier descended from Sumerians to give to runaway slaves descended from 70 Sumerian men with their mothers and sister after having been slaves in Egypt for 430 years.

What was Moses???

You include no citations, and I unfortunately can't read your mind and don't want to make assumptions. Would it be possible for you to clear these matters up?

Thanks for asking... I hope the above helps!!

 

[Leumas]

[The Bible is a human artifice, though the "proof" offered above is dubious at best. If you're on a quest to mega-debunk the Bible, you might as well put it on the list.]

OK... can you please explain why???

If you're on a quest to mega-debunk the Bible, you might as well put it on the list.]

OK... that is why I said ...

Another proof of the bible being an artifice of human making is the fact that it was written in the language of the Canaanites, a people the deity of the bible execrated and tried to extirpate but failed because they had iron chariots...

 

[Thermal]

What the English word means....
Bi·ble

1. the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
   • the Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings.
   • a copy of the Christian or Jewish scriptures.
2. a book regarded as authoritative in a particular sphere.
   • the scriptures of any religion.

From here

Ok. So when you say "Bible", you either mean the Old Testament, or the scriptures of any religion? Since you are not tipping off the reader what you mean in context, and you could literally mean almost anything based on that second hilite, can we respond with citations from any religious scripture we happen to think of? Or should you maybe pick one and stick with it unless you clarify otherwise?

"Old Hebrew" i.e. biblical hebrew IS a Canaanite dialect... it is like Yorkie is an English dialect.

And from here

Yes, but when you say 'Canaanite' in that context, it sounds like you are saying something other than Hebrew, which makes no sense. The Jews wrote in Hebrew, because that was their written language. It makes no sense to characterize it as the language of their enemies.

No it is not... read this post I made earlier... look at the diagram there (see below) and see where the Vulgate comes temporally and in ranking.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_51282635ade408bc16.jpg[/qimg]​

Yes. Lovely diagram. Means nothing at all in this discussion. The Vulgate was the first 'official' NT canon as we recognize it today, and was the standard for centuries. It doesn't matter that there were earlier collections diddy-bopping around, as they were of no consequence.

However, the only reason it was mentioned was because of your confusing use of the word 'Bible'. You have clarified that you do not mean the primary definition, but that you like the lesser used 'oh, any old religious scriptures' one. Great.

.... I suggest you read carefully the words you read...

I'll explain flippancy to you on another thread.

What was Moses???

That whole Egyptian/70 Sumarians thing just meant Moses? Moses was only around for the Torah, not the whole Old Testament. Do you see why changing what 'Bible' you are referring to without telling anyone becomes confusing? Now you have 'the Bible' restricted to the first few OT books, but later you cite NT proofs, also to disprove 'the Bible'. You have to tell readers when you are significantly changing the meaning of your terms.

Thanks for asking... I hope the above helps!!

Just to reiterate, because you quoted a definition but didn't give a clear answer: when you say 'Bible", you might mean the Old Testament, the New Testament, both, neither, some Sutras, or pretty much any religious scripture? I was hoping for something a little less wishy-washy.

 

[Leumas]

Ok. So when you say "Bible", you either mean the Old Testament, or the scriptures of any religion? Since you are not tipping off the reader what you mean in context, and you could literally mean almost anything based on that second hilite, can we respond with citations from any religious scripture we happen to think of? Or should you maybe pick one and stick with it unless you clarify otherwise?

I suggest you look here to explain what you I am sure already know jolly well, given that you are

...But as an ordained priest, your soul and its precarious conundrum is my larger concern. Have you been baptized?

<snip feigned ignorance>

I'll explain flippancy to you on another thread.

<snip further feigning>

Thanks... no need... I have all your posts as examples..

 

[Thermal]

I suggest you look here to explain what you I am sure already know jolly well

Ok, holup: that's exactly what I mean. Context. You're not giving any.

Seriously, man, you switch definitions in your head but don't tip the reader off. I'm sure it sounds perfectly clear to you, but on this end it's a bit frazzled. You see how there are more and more and more posters saying exactly the same thing? I'm not busting your chops, man. I'm looking for clarity in the discussion.

Just pretty please, when you mentally change your definition of 'bible', let the reader know. Half the arguments would disappear, just like that.

 

[Leumas]

Ok, holup: that's exactly what I mean. Context. You're not giving any.

<snip more very transparent feigning of ignorance>

It might be my mistake that I assume that people know which bible one is talking about when this bible has

• a deity who genocides and hates Canaanites...
• and who talked to an Egyptian courtier
• and gave his words to runaway slaves who were there in Egypt for 430 years
• and who were descended from 70 Sumerian individuals
• and this deity's name is YHWH
• and the Egyptian courtier's name is Moses
• and the ones who believe this bible are fundamentalist Jews and Christians
• and even Jesus is mentioned as having believed in it according to the NT

I am guessing maybe I should have provided more context for one who claims to be an ordained priests but yet does not know which bible has all the above context to it.

...
But as an ordained priest, your soul and its precarious conundrum is my larger concern. Have you been baptized?

The Bible itself claims it is written by the finger of YHWH on tablets and handed over to Moses... and fundamentalist Jews believe it and aver and avow it... and so do most of the 2.5 Billion Christians... and Jesus says so in the New Tall tales.

Another proof of the bible being an artifice of human making is the fact that it was written in the language of the Canaanites, a people the deity of the bible execrated and tried to extirpate but failed because they had iron chariots.

And it was scripted using the flowed and incomplete Abjad of the Arameans, yet another peoples the deity of the bible execrated.

And it was allegedly given to an Egyptian courtier descended from Sumerians to give to runaway slaves descended from 70 Sumerian men with their mothers and sister after having been slaves in Egypt for 430 yearss.

QED!!!