The Bible is a Human Artifice!!!

[Leumas]

►Leumas: It was written in Canaanite, the language of their enemy

Amazing... except... your whole argument is a strawman.... I did not say that.

I suggest you read the Op again and carefully.

Also I suggest you research a little about the REAL status of the Biblical Hebrew language from what real linguists and archaeologists say not what religious and other sources say.

But... nevertheless... a nice attempt... I enjoyed reading your post.... I suggest you read my OP ....as well as other posts of mine I think you have missed but need to read too.

 

[junkshop]

►Leumas: It was written in Canaanite, the language of their enemy

Amazing... except... your whole argument is a strawman.... I did not say that.

I suggest you read the Op again...

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...

It wasn't "the deity of the bible" that "tried to extirpate" the Canaanites, it was the Hebrews. That an imagined god told them to do it was the fiction they created to justify their actions.

Peoples that wage war on one another are generally considered to be enemies.

 

[Leumas]

It wasn't "the deity of the bible" that "tried to extirpate" the Canaanites, it was the Hebrews. That an imagined god told them to do it was the fiction they created to justify their actions.

Peoples that wage war on one another are generally considered to be enemies.

The Exodus and Joshua ... never happened... they are lies and myths... ponder over that tidbit of REALITY and how it impacts your statements above.


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.

 

[Steve]

The Exodus and Joshua ... never happened... they are lies and myths... ponder over that tidbit of REALITY and how it impacts your statements above.

Most of the bible/torah/any religious tome you would care to name never happened... they are lies and myths. Everyone here knows this, This is not a revelation to anyone here.

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.

Do you seriously think that posters here are doing this? Are you capable of quoting anyone in this thread defending and/or apologizing for the bible/torah?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Your false analogy fails in so many ways...

1. Where does it claim in the USA constitution that it is written by the hand of God???
2. Is it written in English syntax and semantics but using the Arabic Abjad???
3. Was James Madison an English speaker or not?
4. Were the people for whom the constitution was written able to speak English or not???
5. Were those people English themselves having run away from England personally or their parents??
6. Does it say in the constitution that God ordered the extirpation of the English and came down and helped conduct the war crimes but failed because the English donned red coats???

A better analogy is if James Madison wrote the Constitution in the Susquehannock dialect of the Iroquoian language using the Mayan hieroglyphs... and claimed it was all handed to him on parchment written by Unkulunkulu.

And my analogy is not perfect because the American Revolution is a real historical fact and James Madison really existed... while the Exodus is a myth and Moses is as real as Batman.

.

Your rebuttal to the analogy "fails in so many ways".

1. The point, obviously, was about people disputing the claimed authorship of an ancient text, and not about whether one claimed author was a magic sky fairy or not.

2, 3 and 4: My point here was that you imply the books were written in a foreign language, which raises the question of who wrote it and for which readers, but not the question of how magical the author(s) were.

In thousands of years people may well argue that it's inconceivable that these ancient people said all men were created equal since careful research has uncovered the fact that they kept human slaves. Myth busted!

 

[Craig4]

So out of curiosity, how does this shtick of yours go over with people who believe in gods? Do you say QED at the end of your rant and they collapse in a fit of self doubt?

 

[Leumas]

Your rebuttal to the analogy "fails in so many ways".

Your rebuttal to the rebuttal fails in one major way... you have not read the OP properly.

1. The point, obviously, was about people disputing the claimed authorship of an ancient text, and not about whether one claimed author was a magic sky fairy or not.

See the above statement proves it.

2, 3 and 4: My point here was that you imply the books were written in a foreign language, which raises the question of who wrote it and for which readers, but not the question of how magical the author(s) were.

Yet again.

In thousands of years people may well argue that it's inconceivable that these ancient people said all men were created equal since careful research has uncovered the fact that they kept human slaves. Myth busted!

I am curious ... why would you compare the buybull to a real event with real history... why not compare it to say people in thousands of years believing Harry Potter was real.... why compare the fictive fairy tales of the buybull to real historical facts instead of equally fictional stories... like say people in thousands of years believing Spiderman was real???

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You line of argument here is to claim my argument fails, then to quote me, then to triumphantly claim QED. Needs development to convince anyone other than yourself.

Your further complaint that I am comparing ancient myth with historical fact is entirely missing the point. I pretty clearly posited a far future in which the events around the founding of the US are not known to be accurate history.

I'm not impressed by the quality of the case you think you are making. Show us that your claims of relevant facts are factual and that your logical inferences are logical.

I can see the logic of the argument that "the bible wasn't written in Hebrew so it wasn't written by the Hebrews", but your argument is "the bible wasn't written in Hebrew so it can't have been written by the Hebrews' God". Where's the logic in that?

 

[Steve]

You line of argument here is to claim my argument fails, then to quote me, then to triumphantly claim QED. Needs development to convince anyone other than yourself.
Your further complaint that I am comparing ancient myth with historical fact is entirely missing the point. I pretty clearly posited a far future in which the events around the founding of the US are not known to be accurate history.

I'm not impressed by the quality of the case you think you are making. Show us that your claims of relevant facts are factual and that your logical inferences are logical.

Based on the "arguments" offered by our protagonist this is very unlikely to ever occur.

 

[Leumas]

You line of argument here is to claim my argument fails, then to quote me, then to triumphantly claim QED. Needs development to convince anyone other than yourself.

I quote you because your statements prove the failure of the argument... no need for anything further.

Your further complaint that I am comparing ancient myth with historical fact is entirely missing the point. I pretty clearly posited a far future in which the events around the founding of the US are not known to be accurate history.

And I clearly explained why your positing is a failure in logic.

I'm not impressed by the quality of the case you think you are making. Show us that your claims of relevant facts are factual and that your logical inferences are logical.

If only you read my numerous posts you would have already had what you are asking for.

I can see the logic of the argument that "the bible wasn't written in Hebrew so it wasn't written by the Hebrews",

Nope... that is NOT what I am saying... I suggest you read the OP and the rest of my postings AGAIN... you clearly have not understood what they are saying.

but your argument is "the bible wasn't written in Hebrew so it can't have been written by the Hebrews' God". Where's the logic in that?

Again... that is not what I am saying.... I think you need to reread the OP and all the rest of my posts.... you are not getting the argument properly.

Hint:

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 years.

QED!!!

....

"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.

....

 

[sackett]

Leumas@ Pardon the intrusion, but rereading all your contributions to this thread would be a triumph over boredom comparable to getting through, say, the first 5% of the Book of Mormon.

Can't you paraphrase your argument, whatever it is, in fewer words? Apparently you will never agree with anyone else's summary of what you believe you are saying.

 

[Steve]

Leumas@ Pardon the intrusion, but rereading all your contributions to this thread would be a triumph over boredom comparable to getting through, say, the first 5% of the Book of Mormon.

Can't you paraphrase your argument, whatever it is, in fewer words? Apparently you will never agree with anyone else's summary of what you believe you are saying.

Perhaps I can help.

I understand Leumas' argument/premise to be that the bible, and other religious texts, were written by humans.

I understand Leumas' ongoing issue in this thread to be that all other posters agree with Leumas' argument/premise. This agreement is apparently unacceptable to Leumas.

 

[theprestige]

Leumas. the Hebrews were Canaanites. They wrote the Bible in their own Hebrew language. Their enemies, also Canaanites, had their own languages as well. I don't see the problem, neither for the ancient Hebrews nor for modern audiences.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas. the Hebrews were Canaanites. They wrote the Bible in their own Hebrew language. Their enemies, also Canaanites, had their own languages as well. I don't see the problem, neither for the ancient Hebrews nor for modern audiences.

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.

 

[Thermal]

Leumas. the Hebrews were Canaanites. They wrote the Bible in their own Hebrew language. Their enemies, also Canaanites, had their own languages as well. I don't see the problem, neither for the ancient Hebrews nor for modern audiences.

My understanding is that Canaan was the broad geopolitical area, and Israel and the Philistines and all were some of those who lived within that area. I can't imagine why our intrepid OP would find this problematic. The ancient Hebrews were writing in their own ancient language. That doesn't seem dubious.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Again... that is not what I am saying.... I think you need to reread the OP and all the rest of my posts.... you are not getting the argument properly.

Let me try again: you are saying the bible was not written in the language appropriate to the people it is claimed to have been written for. Is that better?

It wasn't significant to my point which particular language (or amalgam of languages) that is. The significant point is that you claim (assuming the language anomaly to be true) this constitutes proof the author was not a particular omnipotent deity.

My objection is that while its being written in language A would be good evidence the authors and intended readers were not the users of language B instead, it's not proof that the writing could not be the magical dictation of an omnipotent divine being.

I could add that the very unusual prevalence in your posts of entreaties to others to read your posts over again to try to glean your intended meaning may also be evidence of something.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Anyone got a spare mulberry bush? Looks like we might need it soon...

 

[Leumas]

Let me try again: you are saying the bible was not written in the language appropriate to the people it is claimed to have been written for. Is that better?

Better ... see what happens when you read stuff correctly.

But... not yet completely right....


Hint:

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 years. QED!!!

It wasn't significant to my point which particular language (or amalgam of languages) that is. The significant point is that you claim (assuming the language anomaly to be true) this constitutes proof the author was not a particular omnipotent deity.

Again... see the hint above.... and read it again... I said no such thing.

My objection is that while its being written in language A would be good evidence the authors and intended readers were not the users of language B instead, it's not proof that the writing could not be the magical dictation of an omnipotent divine being.

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.


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

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

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

I could add that the very unusual prevalence in your posts of entreaties to others to read your posts over again to try to glean your intended meaning may also be evidence of something.

Yes... that you did not read what was written... as evinced by your previous erroneous misrepresentation of what was said and as evinced by your first part above of your post where you finally get your erroneous assumption about what was said corrected... although... not fully corrected because of yet again not reading more carefully the rest of the post.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Better ... see what happens when you read stuff correctly...

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.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hint:

...

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.