The Bible is a Human Artifice!!!

[Leumas]

You're the one making the claim. Prove your negative. If you're claiming that a god didn't write the bible, I don't need to come up with every possible supernatural explanation for the bible. You need to demonstrate a god didn't write the bible.

S0 you believe a trickster god wrote a hoax and foisted unto humanity to disseminate lies???

If not.... then QED!!!....

If yes... then QED!!!


In whichever way you turn it... QED!!!

Well done... you got it... by Jove you got it... or is that by Loki perhaps...

 

[Craig4]

S0 you believe a trickster god wrote a hoax and foisted unto humanity to disseminate lies???

If not.... then QED!!!....

If yes... then QED!!!


In whichever way you turn it... QED!!!

Well done... you got it... by Jove you got it... or is that by Loki perhaps...

Oh no, it's the knight who says QED.

Prove Loki didn't write the bible.

 

[Leumas]

<clip poppycock>

Prove Loki didn't write the bible.

Obviously that's irrational. Believing in a deities omnipotent or not is also irrational.....

QED!!!

 

[zooterkin]

S0 you believe a trickster god wrote a hoax and foisted unto humanity to disseminate lies???

 

[Leumas]

S0 you believe a trickster god wrote a hoax and foisted unto humanity to disseminate lies???
If not.... then QED!!!....

If yes... then QED!!!


In whichever way you turn it... QED!!!

Well done... you got it... by Jove you got it... or is that by Loki perhaps...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128262c7501a0ab94.jpg[/qimg]

I would suggest that you REREAD the post you quoted... and read again what a strawman fallacy is... and perhaps notice the ???? .... a question asked is not a strawman made...

 

[Steve]

This is not really a serious thread, is it? I mean, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could seriously keep posting with such passion, vehemence (and shouting) on such a rather inane topic that no one else here has a serious disagreement with. What is the real motivation here?

And what is with the constant refences to Quantum ElectroDynamics?

 

[sackett]

Cheap theatrics

Scene: The wine cellar of The Priory of Saint Randi, Patron of Awkward Silences, known to scholars as “the home of the Church’s worst Latin.”
[Enter stage left Brother Thermal and Postulant Sackett, treading softly on bare feet. They close the door as quietly as possible.]
Brother Thermal: Do you think he can hear us?
Postulant Sackett: Nah, he’s upstairs flagellating. I checked the roster and it’s his turn with the scourge.
BroTherm: ‘Kay, so what’re gonna do about this guy?
PostSack: Is he really so bad? Ask me, he’s all bark and no cenobite. [PostSack doubles up laughing at his own joke.]
BroTherm: But he just keeps going on, like a radio ya can’t unplug. I mean, jeeze, this place is already tedious enough.
PostSack: Well, we all took an oath of boredom, right?
BroTherm: Yeah, but still, we got a sweet deal going here, four meals a day, five on holidays, a red hot nunnery next door, the bingo racket – look, we can’t get careless. What if a bishop or a card’nal or somebody visits and gets a load of his act?
PostSack: Oh well, they eremite or they might not. [He begins a guffaw, delighted with his own wit.
BroTherm smacks him on the tonsure with the knot of his rope girdle.]
BroTherm: Get serious! He’s got the fellahs wrangling with each other now!
PostSack [rubbing his bruise}: Ah shaddup! Yell at them, not me! I just took a vow of deafness!
[They begin to tussle clumsily, encumbered by their habits. Suddenly, numerous other monks enter, right, left, and overhead, through various hidden portals. They carry empty jugs, pitchers, and jeroboams. There is much merriment at the sight of the two brothers scuffling. A rap on the pate for each with a bung-starter restores order. The Friars of Saint Randi begin filling their vessels with the Order’s choicest wines, in preparation for hosting the Sisters of the Ecstasy of Saint Theresa at this evening’s Compline Supper.]
Bother Leumas {overhead, bellowing]: I! Me! Mine! Myself! Yerz trooly! Ya ain’t listening, goddammit!
[Rhythmic flogging, as
Curtain]

 

[Leumas]

<snip attempts at derailing and wafting of red herrings>

OK... now that you got those mephitic red herrings smeared all over the place... let's see if you can go back to answering any of the questions related to the OP ....

Do you think it is rational to demand that the defense lawyer prove that the butler did not do it???

Or do you think there is a butler??

And is it irrational or not to say that regardless of if there is a butler one still has to prove that he did not do it???

Let me see if maybe you can reason this better if gods were not involved....

Defense Lawyer: Your honor... there is no butler... there never was a butler

Prosecution: Your honor... we all agree that there is no butler... but your honor... my learned colleague has not proven that the butler has not done it... your honor there is a difference in knowing that there is no butler and saying that the butler did not do it... the defense still needs to prove that the butler did not do it... but indeed... we all agree that there was no butler.... but that is not the same as proving that the butler did not do the crime.

Jury and Judge:

Do you agree that it is irrational to say that a work of fiction that you agree is a work of fiction needs to be proven as not having been written by an omnipotent deity that you agree does not exist and that it is irrational to think there is one??

And do you agree that not believing in a god has a profound bearing on the question of whether or not a work of fiction was written by any gods... right???

And so... do you think it is irrational to claim that belief or not in a god has no bearing on whether a god wrote a work of fiction or not... right???

Do you think that YHWH ... is an omnipotent deity??? ... who chose to write a work of fiction in the language of the people whom in that fictive work he loathed and wanted to genocide and he wrote himself into that work of fiction as having tried and failed to do so because they had iron chariots???

And to boot... he wrote down his fictive fabrications in the flawed and incomplete script of yet another people he depicted himself in the fairy tales as hating as the enemies of his WIFE and said script would not yet be invented for another 600 years from the time the tall tales he devised are said to be taking place.

Or do you believe like the below that YHWH was a pseudonym for Loki??

That would appear to be a case for the bible being a work of fiction, as I think almost everyone here would agree, but can you explain which part shows that the fiction could not have been authored by an omnipotent deity?

And have you watched any of these guys riving to smithereens all the claptrap claims made against the OP and other posts of mine??

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

 

[Leumas]

This is not really a serious thread, is it? I mean, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could seriously keep posting with such passion, vehemence (and shouting) on such a rather inane topic that no one else here has a serious disagreement with. What is the real motivation here?

You stating that it is not serious is because all you have done so far is to try to derail the thread.... so perhaps now you can go back and try to respond to this post

No it does not! Because you again are liberally mixing your own version of the fiction to fit with your version of wished upon reality.

Let me see if I can explain...

If you take reality:

• The Exodus never happened.
• There was no Moses or 2.5M+ Hebrews in Egypt or anywhere else
• Joshu never happened.
• Abraham never happened.
• So the fictional Hebrews never thought they fictionally descended from a fictional Sumerian pimp.
• The Buybull is obviously not the product of anyone other than humans flimflamming fairy tales and tall tales and putting it all in the Canaanite tongue they revered as an ancient liturgical language... much like the Catholic Church does for Latin... using the script they knew how to write in their epoch c.a. 5th or 6th century BCE... (maybe Ezra et al).

If you go with the fictive narrative:

• Abraham was a Sumerian pimp who pimped his Sumerian half-sister-wife.
• His grandson Jacob had a Sumerian mother and he married 2 Sumerian sisters along with their slaves and lived a good portion of his life in Sumer and Egypt and some years in Canaan.
• All his children save one were born in Sumer.
• After a brief sojourn in Canaan Jacob and his tribe of 70 individuals mostly his 12 sons and their wives and one sister and their mothers and grandsons migrated to Egypt.
• Joseph's wife was Egyptian and his children born in Egypt.
• Those 70 individuals ONE FAMILY mostly men allegedly became 2.5M+ people while being held as slaves in Egypt.... do you see a problem with that?
• Those 2.5M+ Egyptian slaves after 430 years and having never spoken any Canaanite Dialect whatsoever somehow managed to be Hebrew speakers.... do you see no problem here?
• Moses grew up in the Egyptian court speaking Egyptian... and by his own admission he could not speak the tongue of his birth mother properly.
• YHWH wants to give Moses a set of laws and commandments and tablets of stone which say stuff and are written down using a script.... that he wrote himself.
• Yet this script is borrowed from the Arameans who invented it in the 8th century BCE while all this happens in the 13th or 14th BCE century... do you not see a problem at all with this?
• And the syntax and semantics of the content is in a dialect of Canaanite... a tongue that Moses cannot speak or read or understand.... do you not see any problem there?
• But moreover... none of the 2.5M+ people to whom all those laws and commandments were meant to be given could read it or speak it or understand it since they never heard the language or seen the script that will be invented 5 or 6 centuries later.
• Furthermore... YHWH the alleged creator of the universe... had to borrow the language of the Canaanites and the script of the Arameans... and this script is an Abjad ... a flawed and incomplete script that does not represent the range of phonetics of the semantics and thus had to be IMPROVED UPON 2000 years later by some Rabbis who invented the Nequdot in order to DISAMBIGUATE the words left ambiguous by the flaws and incompleteness of the Abjad, the maker of the universe borrowed and never improved upon himself like the Greeks did.
• No wonder they were not impressed at all and preferred to worship a molded golden calf in preference to this deity they could clearly not fathom and who took them away from all those succulent vegetables of Egypt to a desert to starve and get parched and get lost.
• The alleged descendants of these people (and Christians and Muslims) believe all this is true and real history and the YHWH is a real god who wrote real scriptures using his finger on real tablets and gave them to the real Moses and they are now what is known as the Bible ... or Hebrew Bible if you want or the T.N.K. (Tanakh)... or if you want to be more specific The Torah.

So now can you understand what the OP is saying???



.

 

[Leumas]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128262c7501a0ab94.jpg[/qimg]

And I still would like a response from Delvo... but apparently he does not know the answers... maybe you would like to hazard some answers to the questions in this post

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.

Script is meant to represent the spoken words (phonetics) on a medium for the purpose of reproduction at a later time/place....

If a script does not have the representations of all the phonemes and phonetics of the language then it is flawed and incomplete in its representation of that language.

And if the later time or place cannot be sure how the original sound was made and cannot produce it close enough or even induce the wrong word altogether due to the lack of graphemes... then the script is flawed and incomplete and can lead to wrong pronunciations of the words it is meant to help preserve or even to confusing words with other words changing the meaning of the written content.

What do you think this sentence is saying

ths batfl atry sppls mat ps​

This often occurs when the script is borrowed by one language from another since the script was invented for the purpose of the other language not the language borrowing it... like in the case of some European languages borrowing the Latin and having had to adapt the Latin alphabet in all sorts of additive ways.

Since an abjad is missing vowels... vowel indicators had to be INVENTED by humans to DISAMBIGUIATE words that could have ambiguous meaning depending on which vowel sounds they have which is not indicated if you do not have vowel graphemes.

Look up and read on the history of the Nequdot system and why it had to be invented.... also look at how many attempts at improving YHWH handwriting have been done in Tiberias and Babylon and Palestine and Samaria.

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.

How does the meaning of this sentence change in a major theological and legal significance (לא-תבשל גדי, בחלב אמו) if this word (חֵלֶב) is used instead of (חֲלֵב) ???

Notice the only difference is the nequdot which YHWH neglected to invent or think about adding to his handwriting... or even better do what the Greeks did by adding full out graphemes that represent the range of phonetics of their language.

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.

No it does not... all abjads by definition are flawed and incomplete... see above....

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?

So you know that the Aramaic block script was invented in the 700s BCE and that evolved out of the Phoenician (Canaanite) script which biblical thumpers call proto-hebrew.... now do you see the point?

It wasn't, and Phoenician...

So you are saying the Aramaic block text was not invented... but you admit it evolved out of the Phoenician script.... do you not see a problem here?? Anyway see above.

what does this have to do with God?

See above.

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).

Again...
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.

I suggest you also read this post ... I hope you do...
....

 

[Thermal]

Why do you keep disingenuously calling me that... you are no brother of mine... unless you mean it in the priestly way... but I am not a priest or even a christian and I think Jesus was a pathetic simpleton or a turpitudinous charlatan cult leader if he ever existed.

So no... there is not a gluon of brotherhood between us.... so stop calling me that.

Sweet Leumas, we are brethren in Zealotry. My soul burns with the passion of calling out ridiculous argumentation as purely as yours burns with making it.

Great... so YHWH is a devil... thanks for admitting it.... QED!!!!

Yes, exactly like that! You present the most confused and tortured rewriting of what was posted, then **** all over the chessboard declaring yourself the winner. Thank you for summing this thread up so succinctly, brother.

 

[Leumas]

<snip piffle>

Or maybe you would like to hazard some answers to the questions in this post... now that it has become clear Delvo does not know the answers.

<for later>

For now... can you 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???


And... How does the meaning of this sentence change in a major theological and legal significance (לא-תבשל גדי, בחלב אמו) if this word (חֵלֶב) is used instead of (חֲלֵב) ???

Now can you see what is wrong with an abjad?

Both Modern Hebrew and Modern Arabic actually do have diacritics that can be used to specify the vowels... but those diacritics more often than not go unused.

How does the meaning of this sentence change in a major way (علم ٱلإِنسـن ما لم يعلم) if this word (عَلَمْ) is used instead of (عَلَّمَ) ???

 

[Leumas]

<snip more ad hominems and derailing>

Seeing that Delvo is not going to do it ... maybe you can "zealously" as you claim... read the answer to this question

►Did the Bible ever really even state what language or writing system it was in, or is that a later inference?

And see if you can find it in one of my posts...

Hint: it was in fact also given to you as a response to one of your posts... one in which you thought I said Moses was an Egyptian COURIER because you did not read properly the word Courtier.

Go find it....

On second thought given your other further demonstrated faulty reading given in this post.... I am going to make it easier for you.... here read it ...

How do you know the stone inscriptions were written in that language? Or even in that alphabet?

A Very good point... especially given that the oldest extant anything to do with the bible is the Septuagint which is written in Greek using the much better and full alphabet of the Euclidean Greek alphabet

The Greek alphabet has been used to write the Greek language since the late 9th or early 8th century BCE. It is derived from the earlier Phoenician alphabet,[5] and was the earliest known alphabetic script to have distinct letters for vowels as well as consonants. In Archaic and early Classical times, the Greek alphabet existed in many local variants, but, by the end of the 4th century BCE, the Euclidean alphabet, with 24 letters, ordered from alpha to omega, had become standard and it is this version that is still used for Greek writing today

The Phoenician alphabet is an alphabet (more specifically, an abjad) known in modern times from the Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions found across the Mediterranean region. The name comes from the Phoenician civilization.

Of course many older little shards and minute fragments here and there have been found that are PURPORTED to be from the bible... but most of those are in the Phoenician abjad the ones that have the Aramaic abjad have an early form of that too.


However... when you ask

How do you know ...

It is of course a very fallacious question... since I was born in the 20th century CE and I do not know what happened in the PURPORTED time that is ALLEGED in the BUYBULL around 1400 BCE... since I was not there.

Nevertheless... many fundamentalist (and even not so fundamentalist) Jews believe (and christians believe them too also see Mark 7:13 and ohn 10:34-35 and Matthew 22:31) that the ancestors were there and the information has been passed down father to son WITHOUT INTERRUPTION and thus Rabbis today attest to the fact that it is all true as witnessed by over 2.5 Million ancestors.... who despite all that went ahead and melted their stolen jewelry and made a cow statue and started worshiping it in preference to this Canaanite Speaking Aramaic writing YHWH.... not to mention the interminable frequent reverting to preferring the worship of the Queen of Heaven (Asherah) despite the equally incessant and frequent clobbering YHWH kept abusing his wife with.

Pirkei Avot begins with a statement of the chain of transmission of the Torah from the original revelation at Sinai through the early rabbis: “Moses received Torah from God at Sinai. He transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to the members of the Great Assembly (1:1).” From here, the first two chapters of Pirkei Avot trace the uninterrupted transmission of the Torah from the first rabbis, who formed the Great Assembly, to the disciples of these original rabbis and through the generations of rabbis who followed. By placing themselves in a line of transmission that begins with Sinai, the rabbis of the Mishnah define themselves as the possessors of the authentic tradition. As such, these two chapters establish the authority of the entire Mishnah: If the rabbis of the Mishnah received the Torah directly from God, through an uninterrupted line of transmission, then these rabbis have the authority to interpret this tradition and to issue binding legal rulings.

In any case the Septuagint is said to be a translation from Canaanite (a.k.a. Hebrew)

And maybe you would finally like to admit your errors and baseless calumny in this post



.

 

[Thermal]

Seeing that Delvo is not going to do it ... maybe you can "zealously" as you claim... read the answer to this question

Sweet, luscious Brother Leumas, you still don't seem to grokify my ordinaltional profession of faith. I am an Ordained Priest of the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic.

Watch, check this out: Hint:"if you PROPERLY READ the bolded word, you would already know that I don't care.

And see if you can find it in one of my posts...

Hint: it was in fact also given to you as a response to one of your posts... one in which you thought I said Moses was an Egyptian COURIER because you did not read properly the word Courtier.

Go find it....

On second thought given your other further demonstrated faulty reading given in this post.... I am going to make it easier for you.... here read it ...

Sweet, luscious, creamy Brother Leumas, have you not figured out yet that no one...not a single poster...either reads or clicks on your reposting of yourself? We know. We read it the first time, and found it lame-o.


What my own Reverend self and virtually every other poster in these threads is asking of you is to defend your postings, not keep repeating them. We read them the first time. While you think they are brilliant, pretty much everyone else thinks they are nonsensical.

Can you, pretty please, in your own actual words, respond to a single question put to you? No reposting yourself...no telling others to reread the OP...just respond with actual words to someone here without changing the subject or reposting?

And maybe you would finally like to admit your errors and calumny in this post

Sweet, luscious, creamy, yet surprisingly low-fat Brother Leumas, there are no errors there, except in your woeful reading comprehension. You quoted a 20th century work (who pulled unquoted folklore and legends and stuff to create a new story time reading) to try to prove "what the Jews believe". You were, and are, painfully and comically wrong.

 

[Steve]

You stating that it is not serious is because all you have done so far is to try to derail the thread.... so perhaps now you can go back and try to respond to this post

No need. There are no gods. All religious writings were written by humans. Many of those humans were serious in their beliefs. Some were no doubt engaging in artifice. The rest is just pointless window dressing.

And there are no posters here disputing those few facts so your verbosity is wasted.

 

[Leumas]

<clip an error>

Do you remember this

That would appear to be a case for the bible being a work of fiction, as I think almost everyone here would agree, but can you explain which part shows that the fiction could not have been authored by an omnipotent deity?

Did you understand the question?

Yes I did... because I can read English prose properly and I can comprehend what I read properly... and my English vocabulary is adequate and the words I do not know, I know how to look them up.

And I know how to reason rationally.... and the question is irrational.... maybe you'd care to show me how it is rational???
Ah... and by the way... if you show me and you are right ... I will admit I am wrong as all rational honest intellectuals do.

I am still waiting.... and I would love for you to show me how it is rational.

But you may want to read this... it will have some bearing on what I hope is forthcoming response...

Do you think it is rational to demand that the defense lawyer prove that the butler did not do it???

Or do you think there is a butler??

Let me see if maybe you can reason this better if gods were not involved....

Defense Lawyer: Your honor... there is no butler... there never was a butler

Prosecution: Your honor... we all agree that there is no butler... but your honor... my learned colleague has not proven that the butler has not done it... your honor there is a difference in knowing that there is no butler and saying that the butler did not do it... the defense still needs to prove that the butler did not do it... but indeed... we all agree that there was no butler.... but that is not the same as proving that the butler did not do the crime.

Jury and Judge:

And is it irrational or not to say that regardless of if there is a butler one still has to prove that he did not do it???

Do you agree that it is irrational to say that a work of fiction that you agree is a work of fiction needs to be proven as not having been written by an omnipotent deity that you agree does not exist and that it is irrational to think there is one??

And do you agree that not believing in a god has a profound bearing on the question of whether or not a work of fiction was written by any gods... right???

And so... do you think it is irrational to claim that belief or not in a god has no bearing on whether a god wrote a work of fiction or not... right???

Do you think that YHWH ... is an omnipotent deity??? ... who chose to write a work of fiction in the language of the people whom in that fictive work he loathed and wanted to genocide and he wrote himself into that work of fiction as having tried and failed to do so because they had iron chariots???

And to boot... he wrote down his fictive fabrications in the flawed and incomplete script of yet another people he depicted himself in the fairy tales as hating as the enemies of his WIFE and said script would not yet be invented for another 600 years from the time the tall tales he devised are said to be taking place.

Or do you believe like the below that YHWH was a pseudonym for Loki??

 

[wollery]

You stating that it is not serious is because all you have done so far is to try to derail the thread.... so perhaps now you can go back and try to respond to this post

No, he's stating it's not serious because, as far as I can tell, you are the only one really taking it seriously. Almost everyone else is having a laugh at your expense.

Jokes made at your expense keep flying over your head. Thermal's continued insistence on calling you brother is done to take the piss out of you, and you seem to be completely oblivious.

I'm reminded of the gathering at my aunt's house many years ago where a couple of her MENSA friends made an appearance. Any conversation on any topic, they were "experts". They totally failed to notice that nobody was taking anything they had to say seriously, and half of us were doing everything we could to make them look like fools. Not that it required much effort on our behalf, because they were doing a pretty good job of that all by themselves.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you know what Burden Of Proof is???

Yes.

It's like when you start a thread about your claim to have proven that the bible was authored by humans and then bluster to cover your continuing failure to make a logical case.

 

[Craig4]

QED!!!

I don't believe anyone has made a convincing case for the supernatural of any sort. That doesn't make your argument for having proven Loki didn't write the bible sound.

 

[Leumas]

No, he's stating it's not serious because, as far as I can tell, you are the only one really taking it seriously. Almost everyone else is having a laugh at your expense.

Jokes made at your expense keep flying over your head. Thermal's continued insistence on calling you brother is done to take the piss out of you, and you seem to be completely oblivious.

I'm reminded of the gathering at my aunt's house many years ago where a couple of her MENSA friends made an appearance. Any conversation on any topic, they were "experts". They totally failed to notice that nobody was taking anything they had to say seriously, and half of us were doing everything we could to make them look like fools. Not that it required much effort on our behalf, because they were doing a pretty good job of that all by themselves.

Thanks for admitting it... all that you said shows only one thing... QED!!!