The Bible is a Human Artifice!!!

[Leumas]

I didn't go back and read anything.

I just reworded to remove as many irrelevant details as possible, hoping to avoid providing opportunities to nitpick stuff that really wasn't the point.

So were you deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting and then you finally decided to stop doing that???

I'm not interested in hints. If you can't state your case clearly, I'm far from convinced any further effort on my part will be worth the reward. Up to you.

Well... if you are not going to read stuff but are going to misrepresent what it says... then you are right ... do not waste any more of your time doing that.

 

[zooterkin]

So you were deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting and then you finally decided to stop doing that???

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So were you deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting and then you finally decided to stop doing that???

Nope. I was paraphrasing. You were then nitpicking.

I finally decided to go with a minimalist "language A language B" version but even then, added the bit about amalgams of languages as I feared you would jump on "language B" as being something you could further nitpick.

 

[sackett]

Once again, the poster becomes the subject of the thread instead of its ostensible topic.

Good. This topic and its thesis are Mark Twain's "chloroform in print" as sure as God liveth.

But Leumas old gorilla, take care. Eccentrics are only amusing for short periods. They must refresh their material frequently. Once they lapse into obsessive mutterers, people quit buying them drinks.

Remember Gene Ray, the Time Cube guy? No? Well why should you? He has a wikipedia page, but round the decay of his abandoned trailer the lone and level sands stretch far away.

 

[Leumas]

Good. This topic and its thesis are Mark Twain's "chloroform in print" as sure as God liveth.

Maybe watching youtube videos might be your cup of tea... here watch these... I even advanced the video to the important part where pertinent so you won't have to waste time listening to all of it.

• Watch this guy...
  
• And this guy...
  
• And this guy...
  
• And this guy...
  
• And this guy...

 

[Norman Alexander]

Apparently Leumas is here for the ten pound argument.

 

[Steve]

Apparently Leumas is here for the ten pound argument.

That will be Room 12A.

 

[Norman Alexander]

That will be Room 12A.

No, it isn't!

 

[junkshop]

Better ... see what happens when you read stuff correctly.
But... not yet completely right....
Hint:
Again... see the hint above.... and read it again... I said no such thing.
I think you will find that you are wrong once you managed to read more carefully the hint above... and have given it a bit more rational thought.

If you want us dumb rubes to understand your argument, then maybe lay off with the cryptic 'hints' and onanistic thesaurus fetish, and just say what you mean.

HINT 1: Do you know what is wrong with an Abjad and why I say it is flawed and incomplete??

1) it's not 'wrong', it's just different from what you're used to.

2) You didn't call it 'flawed', you called it 'flowed' (yes, this is a cheap shot at a typo, but if you're going to keep telling everyone that they didn't read your OP properly then errors in your OP are, IMHO, fair game).

HINT 2: Do you know when the Aramaic block script was invented??? And what script it evolved out of???

Yes. What point are you trying to make?

HINT 3: Ponder over how these facts might impact the divinity of the alleged giver of this tome of Canaanite words in Aramaic script.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, no-one here is arguing that any part of the bible was written by a god. That the earliest written versions of some parts of it may have been written in a dialect commonly used in that time and place, and a script commonly used in that time and place (as you claim with no evidence) is proof of nothing, other than that they were were written in a dialect and a script commonly used in that time and place (assuming that your unevidenced claim is correct).

 

[Delvo]

Hint: You either go with reality or with the narrative of the fiction... you cannot defend and do apologetics for the fiction by appealing to reality... well... not in a rational reality that is.

Does this mean that your point on the subject of languages & alphabets is some hidden difference between linguistic reality and linguistic Biblical fiction?... such as that the Hebrews didn't think that the (other) Canaanites were their cousins?... or that they thought of themselves as Sumerians/Egyptians?... or that their idea of God was supposed to have been one that wouldn't have pitted cousins against cousins?... or that they thought God, not people, had invented writing as they knew it?... or that they thought they had done it themselves?

HINT 1: Do you know what is wrong with an Abjad and why I say it is flawed and incomplete??

Your issue with abjads appears to be the lack of dedicated vowel letters, despite the fact that that's just fine for Semitic languages (and modern writers of the two main Semitic languages even have options for adding vowels to their abjads but seldom bother with them). But you've also called this one particular abjad "a flawed and incomplete abjad", which makes it seem as if there are other abjads out there which you wouldn't apply those adjectives to, and you haven't said anything about what would make the difference. Nor have you made the connection between any of this and God.

HINT 2: Do you know when the Aramaic block script was invented??? And what script it evolved out of???

It wasn't, and Phoenician if you want to make a distinction between that and Aramaic, or a simplification of Egyptian writing before that if you don't make said distinction. But, either way, what does this have to do with God?

HINT 3: Ponder over how these facts might impact the divinity of the alleged giver of this tome of Canaanite words in Aramaic script.

They don't.

 

[sackett]

Maybe watching youtube videos might be your cup of tea... here watch these... I even advanced the video to the important part where pertinent so you won't have to waste time listening to all of it. <snip>

Jeeze, you're about a coy joker, ain'tcha?

 

[Delvo]

I actually clicked all five links and started watching all five videos at the given starting points.

Not only are they not on the subject of this thread, but they aren't even on the same subjects as each other. This is even farther from making any sense than it was before.

 

[theprestige]

I actually clicked all five links and started watching all five videos at the given starting points.

Not only are they not on the subject of this thread, but they aren't even on the same subjects as each other. This is even farther from making any sense than it was before.

Yeah, but were any of them in the language of your hated enemy? Because that would be kind of sus.

 

[Leumas]

I actually clicked all five links and started watching all five videos at the given starting points.

Not only are they not on the subject of this thread, but they aren't even on the same subjects as each other. This is even farther from making any sense than it was before.

Have you read any posts at all in this thread???

Seriously... the very second response to the OP is this

Has anyone actually proposed that the Bible was not a collection of works writren by men? Seems pointless to "gotcha" a claim that no one makes.

Now... do you not see any of those videos as belying irrefragably the claims of that post???

How about the post below... do you think any of those videos also belie the claims made below

....
Regardless of all that, I can’t think of one denomination or even small splinter cult that believes the Bible was literally written by God.
....
The OP argument is about as good an illustration of “tilting at windmills,” I have ever seen.

And had you read anything at all in this thread you may have noticed the slander and calumny that the posts below were making... do you not see any of those videos as belying the posts below???

What Christians believe is immaterial... the Jews believe it ... they even say the Torah was in heaven even before there were humans.

Oh bull ****. That 20th century citation of yours also says that the Torah was a she, and she could speak and offer god her opinions.

This is getting ridiculous. If a Christian wanted to pose as an atheist to post the worst possible atheist arguments to discredit atheism, this thread would be a gold mine.

Just going to point out your latest bald-faced lie, using your own cited source, from the About This Text sidebar menu and linked below:

Legends of the Jews is an original synthesis of a vast amount of midrashim from rabbinic literature and other ancient sources compiled by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg in the early 20th century. Originally written in German, the book begins with creation of the world and contains stories through the period of Esther. Ginzberg did not quote midrashim, but rather paraphrased and rewrote them into one continuous narrative

https://www.sefaria.org/Legends_of_the_Jews.1.1.1-2?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en

That, Leamus, is called a "proof". You'll note it shows clearly that you have been posting lies. It is no longer a question of you simply not understanding what you hastily google, cut, paste, and repost.

QEMFD!!!

Do you now see how the videos rive to smithereens all the claims made in all those fallacious attempts to rebut the OP?

And even after pointing out those videos showing the errors of the posts and pointing out the reading miscomprehension of the quoted sidebar... the calumny persists and not a even an iota of admission that the slander was in error.

Legends of the Jews is an original synthesis of a vast amount of midrashim from rabbinic literature and other ancient sources compiled by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg in the early 20th century. Originally written in German, the book begins with creation of the world and contains stories through the period of Esther. Ginzberg did not quote midrashim, but rather paraphrased and rewrote them into one continuous narrative

I suggest you read carefully the quoted part... it is not saying what you think it is saying.... read it carefully ...

Hint 1: You may want to look up the words "ancient" and "synthesis" and "midrashim".

Hint 2: you may want to pause for a second right after the highlighted part... you might then see where you misunderstood what is being said.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Someone is not listening. I'm out.

 

[Leumas]

Your issue with abjads appears to be the lack of dedicated vowel letters

I am gng t rspnd t yr bv pst n dtls ltr...

I am going to respond to your above post in details later...But for now... what is this word.... דלב ..... how is it pronounced ... choose say the Latin alphabet or the Cyrillic alphabet or the Greek to transliterate it in writing... or perhaps the ancient one of the Sanskrit (a.k.a. Hindi... a.k.a. Devanagari).


Is it Dolab or Delov or Dalov or Delve or Dilaba or Dulevo or what???

 

[junkshop]

I am gng t rspnd t yr bv pst n dtls ltr...

I am going to respond to your above post in details later...But for now... what is this word.... דלב ..... how is it pronounced ... choose say the Latin alphabet or the Cyrillic alphabet or the Greek to transliterate it in writing... or perhaps the ancient one of the Sanskrit (a.k.a. Hindi... a.k.a. Devanagari).


Is it Dolab or Delov or Dalov or Delve or Dilab or Dulev or what???

You struggle with dislike written languages that don't include the vowels, we get that.

It should be noted, however, the these written forms were created by, and for people that knew and spoke the spoken forms of these languages. They knew which vowel sounds to put where.

This is why your your line "I am gng t rspnd t yr bv pst n dtls ltr..." is understandable to most Engish speakers. The only word that I was unsure of was 'above', but context helped me to work it out pretty sharpish.

As an aside, if you're going to get all pissy about language, yoou'd best get it right. The correct form is 'I am going to respond in detail', not 'in details'. Oh, and surely it should've been 'm', not 'I am', if you're cutting out all the vowels?

All that being said, what has any of this got to do with the divinity (or lack of) of the author/authors of the bible?

 

[Leumas]

You struggle with dislike written languages that don't include the vowels, we get that.

Yet another strawman...

​

It should be noted, however, the these written forms were created by, and for people that knew and spoke the spoken forms of these languages. They knew which vowel sounds to put where.

Hint: You either go with reality or with the narrative of the fiction... you cannot defend and do apologetics for the fiction by appealing to reality... well... not in a rational reality that is.

This is why your your line "I am gng t rspnd t yr bv pst n dtls ltr..." is understandable to most Engish speakers. The only word that I was unsure of was 'above', but context helped me to work it out pretty sharpish.

As an aside, if you're going to get all pissy about language, yoou'd best get it right. The correct form is 'I am going to respond in detail', not 'in details'. Oh, and surely it should've been 'm', not 'I am', if you're cutting out all the vowels?

All that being said, what has any of this got to do with the divinity (or lack of) of the author/authors of the bible?

Hint: read the OP and this

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.

and this

• Exodus 24:12 And YHWH said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
• Exodus 34:1 And YHWH said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
• ....

And watch this video

​

start @minute 8:30

 

[Leumas]

...
This is why your your line "I am gng t rspnd t yr bv pst n dtls ltr..." is understandable to most Engish speakers. The only word that I was unsure of was 'above', but context helped me to work it out pretty sharpish.

Ok then maybe you can tell me what is this word.... דלב ..... how is it pronounced ... choose say the Latin alphabet or the Cyrillic alphabet or the Greek to transliterate it in writing... or perhaps the ancient one of the Sanskrit (a.k.a. Hindi... a.k.a. Devanagari).


Is it Dolab or Delov or Dalov or Delve or Dilaba or Dulevo or what???

 

[junkshop]

This is why your your line "I am gng t rspnd t yr bv pst n dtls ltr..." is understandable to most Engish speakers. The only word that I was unsure of was 'above', but context helped me to work it out pretty sharpish.

As an aside, if you're going to get all pissy about language, yoou'd best get it right. The correct form is 'I am going to respond in detail', not 'in details'. Oh, and surely it should've been 'm', not 'I am', if you're cutting out all the vowels?

Oops, I done made a typo! Mea culpa. Embarrasing, but no great surprise, I'm really rather drunk. What's your excuse?