A New Beginning

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by radarmark, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    "Confession is good for the soul," mate (radarmark), and may your soul be bettered. On the other hand, please do make your self-imposed exile brief because, as I see it, you do not "troll" and are usually a voice of both reason and compassion on this board.

    By the way, I may have stumbled into you in the Bay Area. I was there most of the '80's, rambling first through the Haight-Ashbury, which, by the time I arrived, past its hippie heyday, was "Little Calcutta," before I finally and more blessedly landed up the coast at Muir Beach.

    You may have a time-out, but it must be a short one.

    Best regards,

    Serv
     
  2. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    You do surprise me at times, because I know that isn't really you, and I definitely know how you feel, it's really hard to keep one's cool with some people. People who doesn't deserve it. Care to watch my back and spray some verbal water in my face when I lose my footing?

    I feel bad that you won't be as active, but it's good that you aim for quality and that you try to improve according to your standards.

    May the dive physics be with you, friend.
     
  3. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Genesis Could Only Have Been Written After the Julian Calendar
    I've been doing a little investigation into Bob X's theory that it was the Chaldaeans, the strict 7 day week, and Genesis.

    Dividing the week into 7 days was a common practice among the ancients, not just the Chaldaeans. I have no idea where BX came up with the idea that the Chaldeans observed a STRICT 7 day week. It looks to me that even during Cyrus's day they had three 7 day weeks and one alternating 8 or 9 day week to end it off.

    The ancients also observed the size and motion of the celestial orbs and numbered them as such 1. sun 2. moon 3. Saturn 4. Jupiter 5. Mars 6. Venus 7. Mercury (biggest sun and moon and slowest moving to fastest). The Zoroastrian calendar shows this. Ahuramazda the creator's day is 1st and his day is followed by the 6 Amesha Spentas or Archangels.

    Genesis, on the other hand numbers the celestial orbs as such:

    1. Sun 2. moon 5. Mars 7. Mercury 4. Jupiter 6 Venus 3. Saturn. It's ALL OUT OF WHACK. There is no logic to it that I can see. It does however align with the days of the Julian Calendar which was instituted in c50CE.

    1. Solis "sun" 2. Lunae "moon" 3. Martis (Mars) 4. Mercurii (Mercury) 5. Jovis (Jupiter) 6. Veneris (Venus) 7. Saturni (Saturn)

    One interesting fact about both the Zoroastrian and Hebrew cosmologies is that man was created 6th, on the day of Venus, which is intact in the Julian Calendar. Go figure....

    Posted by mojobadshah.

    Fine, this "numbering" is where? I just did a scan of B-Reshit in the Hebrew and can find no correlation between the planets and the numbers you allege are there.:rolleyes:

    Whatever your source is, it is incorrect.:D
     
  4. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm aware that radio-carbon dating is used for archeology. As you say yourself it can only be used to date ORGANIC material e.g. bones, plants. That means that archeologists can estimate when a pot, for example, was crafted by radio-carbon dating all the bones at the site where the pot was found. But they can't radio-carbon date the pot itself. So apparently ink has carbon in it. This site shows that the earliest scrolls could have been written as late as 203BCE (Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Another site shows all the scrolls could have been written as late as 68CE (Radiocarbon Dating of Dead Sea Scrolls Confirm Paleographic Dates). The first link shows Pslams was written as late as 126CE.... after Josephus. These in my opinion are the best examples scholars have of a near to complete Hebrew Bible other than Josephus's references to the material in the Hebrew Bible.

    Posted by mojobadshah.

    Fine, I give you academic references and you provide two web-sites.

    Now for the tactual inaccuracies. The first website (wiki) does not "site shows that the earliest scrolls could have been written as late as 203BCE ". Lines 2, 3 and 4 clearly show that the earliest date is 230 BCE. Oh, and all three are copies of Isiaiah. So his own evidence shows that the Bible, in Hebrew existed 250 years before Josephus.

    His second source is based on testing of 18 of the over 400 fragments, all 18 of which are Qumran community documents, not Biblical fragments.

    Not only does MBS show a poor ability to do research, it appears doubtful he read his own "proofs".

    Again, let the reader beware, there is a not-too-subtile agenda in MBS's posts:rolleyes:
     
  5. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    I will be calmly and dis-passionately dissecting and responding to MBS's (again, very poorly documented and clearly polemic) reponse #49 to Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus .;)

    This responding somewhere else and taking the time to do it correctly is working, I think.

    P.S. for those of you that haven't seen it there is a really good commented version of the Qur'an by Maulana Muhammad Ali. Note, he is a Lahore Ahmadiyya--considered a heretic by many Muslims (they are to Salafists what we Quakers are to Aryan Nation or Church of Jesus Christ-Christian).:D
     
  6. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    the quran is pretty hateful book no matter what the translation :(
     
  7. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Reply To MBS Part 1

    Re: Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus

    Originally Posted by A Cup Of Tea
    You should avoid using this, it is kind of like saying "God told me and only me, listen to me I know the truth".

    I gave you my analysis of the facts. The bigger linguistic picture aside, the closest thing to monotheism before Zarathushtra are the Acheamenid inscriptions. The Greco-Romans make several references to at least he Behistun. The Platonic school c400 BCE at least acknowledge Zarathushtra, the father of the Magians, and the son of Ahuramazda, and that THE PERSIANS WERE FOLLOWERS OF ZOROASTER, though their interpretation of the religion is garbled. They speak of "gods," but there's consistent references to Ahuramazda in the Old Persian inscriptions as the highest of the "gods," and only mention of Ahuramazda until later. And it's obvious that the Zarathushtrian compositions or scriptures preceded the Old Persian inscriptions. First there are Zoroastrian forms in Old Persian like Ahuramazda < Mazda Ahura, and secondly there is no mention of either Persian or the Medes in the Zarathushrian scriptures which also supports that they were attested before the Persians and Medes had come to power. When does anyone other than the Jews themselves make reference to Jewish anomalies other than 1. David 2. Ahab 3. Yahweh 4. Israel before Josephus? And actually describe who Yahweh was?

    Wait a minute; you are bating a switching here. There is no source other than the Gathas themselves that the Persians and Zoroastrians were monodolic, let alone monotheistic. You state that yourself “though their interpretation of the religion was garbled”. Fine. The point is, just as the case with the Hebrew Bible, there is no source outside of the text itself that the religion was monotheistic.

    Be consistent.

    The linguistics for both the Gathas and the Hebrew Bible both indicate (1) they probably date from pre 1000 BCE and (2) are layered (that is they are collections based on older non-existent texts). No big shock. The Gathas themselves state that Zoroaster did not write them (I may be wrong but that is what the academics say and what I remember reading in them, in translation). Moreover, the Hebrew Bible admits as much in recounting the discovery of the scrolls in the Second Temple Era.

    Originally Posted by I, Brian
    Quite a bizarre suggestion.

    So if Josephus claimed himself to be a Jew, and wrote about the Jews, then you are saying that Josephus was the founder of Judaism?

    I'm saying for all we know he could have been because we don't have any other references to any of the phenomenon mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (aside from the aforesaid names a brief details) until Josephus.

    Nice try. Yes, you are saying that. Nevertheless, it is factually incorrect. The point of my posts was that there are over 200 fragments of the Hebrew Bible which pre-date Josephus. You do not have to believe that, but “thems the facts”.

    Originally Posted by I, Brian
    More seriously, have a look at Redaction Theory (Redaction Theory (Documents Hypothesis): Torah Torah Torah : Interfaith) which makes quite a serious suggestion at how the OT texts developed over centuries.

    Basing the age of a faith on linguistic evidence of a translation is an obvious fallacy.

    I've corresponded with Bob X. He's a great linguist. But he has put way too much weight on the archaisms in language as a means to attribute an early date to language. For example he states:

    "More objectively, P is distinguished from J and E by serious changes in the language: where J and E differ linguistically in a way typical of regional dialectal differences, P reflects centuries of subsequent change."

    For all we know those were different dialects of Hebrew being spoken all at the same time.

    He also states however:

    "The Chaldeans introduced the seven-day week: prior to that time, a week was a quarter-phase of the moon, usually seven days but sometimes eight as required."

    I think this is an interesting point, but the calendrical system alluded to in Genesis points to a post-Acheamenid period. The calendrical system in Genesis was based developed by the Chaldaeans and so were the Calendars used by the Acheamenids. What is also interesting is that if you are going to use calendrical systems as a means to date a composition, well, the Zarathushtrian scriptures also allude to a calendrical system, but it was based on the quarter-phase week. That points to a pre-Acheamenid date. If the calendar in Zarathushtrian scriptures was post-Acheamenid it would have resembled the calendars that were in use among the Acheamenids.

    Again, nice try, see my previous post about this phony calendar issue. If you and BX both agree, fine. I just did a scan of B-Reshit and found no linkage (there may be in the numerological and gematric analysis, I do not claim to have knowledge of that. However, as far as the text itself goes (without a mystical numbering system which may or may not be true) there is no linkage between the numbers you posted in “Genesis Could Only Have Been Written After the Julian Calendar”. Nada, zip.

    If you have it, show it. Do not expect us to believe something because you assert it (no you do not have to believe I looked for the linkage, but that is a separate issue—you made the allegation, it is up to you to prove it).

    Originally Posted by radarmark

    It is a Greek source (the Septuagint). You are the one making this outrageous claim, what is your source?

    Outrageous? Show me one reference to the Septuagint in Greek or Roman before Josephus. Like I said I can only find a few names and scanty details of the Jews before Josephus.

    I did, please note the references to nine pre 50 BCE fragments, the Rohlfs fragments 801, 802, 803, 805, 819, 848, 942, 943, and 957. Three are 2nd century BCE. That predates Josephus by 250 years or so.

    Are you talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Those aren't references to the Septuagint. Those are fragments of the Hebrew Bible themselves.

    It is pretty clear (or was to those who read that same post) that the Rohlfs are fragments of the Septuagint that are dated to 250 years before Josephus. If you want to talk Biblical Archeology take a course or at least do some research.

    P.S. as noted later, I did not even include the Nash Papyrus. Again, a dated (perhaps the best dated) early Septuagint fragment. Again, 250 years before Josephus.

    Ipso facto, your entire thesisLittle or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    It is called science, radio-carbon dating or other archeological in-situ dating. If the papyrus and parchment and ink date from 100 years before Josephus (as they do in the case of the Qumran scrolls), that pretty much lets you know they weren't werittewn after that.

    They can't carbon-date ink. Where did you read about the dating the ink of the Qumran scrolls?

    Try “AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient Japanese documents of known age” in Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 255;2;375-379 (really, really concise reference). Radiocarbon dating is done with carbon… the black stuff in most ink (whether soot or octopus ink). For Biblical refs, try the beginner’s text “Bible and Radiocarbondating” (Levy and Higham; 2005). As for radio-carbon dating of ink in Qumran, try “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the science and new technologies” in Dead Sea Scrolls 11;2; 133-42 or “The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (pt 1 Radiocardon 43(1)127-32 and Pt 2 Radiocarbon 51(3)1005-22—warning these are hard texts) or any of their 60 or so references.

    Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was possible to radio-carbon date ink. It was my understanding that there is no chemical process to date a text. It's the first time I've heard of anything like it. But the link concerning the radio carbon dating of ink "THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SCIENCE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES," from what it only allows me to see places the scrolls much later than 300BCE earliest or 167BCE and 233CE latest. The late date is over 100 years after Josephus.

    See my last post on this. You are what is called “Cherry Picking”. That site (lines 2 to 4) clearly shows that three fragments of Isaiah are no later than 230 BCE. Since last time I checked Isaiah was part of the Hebrew Bible and this is 250 years before Josephus, again, you thesis is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.

    If you wish to engage seriously in Biblical Archeology and discussions, you need a good course on radiocarbon dating. Any organic material (what the texts are written on, paper or leather and the ink are examples) takes up atmospheric Carbon 14 and quits talking it up after the organism dies. By sampling how much of the Carbon 14 (a radionuclide) is left, one can calculate about how old it is. Far from perfect. However, there is so much interest in Biblical Archeology the radiocarbon dating of fragments of the Bible or the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Gnostic Gospels or Manichean texts is pretty conclusive. That is there is lots of data, lots of references, shucks, people win PhDs every year by just refining the method or retesting previously tested material. That is why it is usually best to go with current academic references—Google can be a decade or more out of date.
     
  8. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Reply to MBS Part 2

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    Still awaiting for you to come up with a pre 1000 C.E. copy of the Gatha.

    The Gathas were passed down in the oral tradition like a human tape recorder. Your not going to be able to prove that any text was recorded before 1000 C.E. through chemical means.

    Fine, why not extend the same courtesy to the Old Testament? If the Gathas (in some form) were really set down pre-1000 BCE by followers of Zarathustra, why is it not possible the sons of Abraham set down their texts in same period. Notice I do believe both were extensively re-written. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If one logically can make the claim you assert (Gathas passed down) then it must be logically true that the same can be said for the Old Testament.

    No the same can't be said of the Old Testament. We only know of 4 references (above) to Old Testament material before Josephus. And nothing to show a monotheistic belief system. The rest of the details might have well been made up during or after Josephus. UNLESS we take the earlier date for radio carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls into account.

    BOOOOOOGUS! Again, look at my post; I gave you 210 separate fragments of the Hebrew Bible that date to before Josephus.

    Aside. Now in fairness you must realize that those four stone references to words from the Bible are about the same number of stone references there are to Zoroaster. If one claims “four isn’t enough to prove the Bible existed before Josephus” then it is equally valid to say “four isn’t enough to prove that the Gathas existed before 1000 CE” (the earliest dated copy).

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    Originally Posted by radarmark
    Per your preevious point, if the dating cannot be made, what makes you state that Abraham was not mentioned before Josephus?

    Because he's not and nor is the Septuagint. Albeit the language of the Septuagint may show an archaic form of Koine, but Koine was used up until 300AD.

    See my first point—there are nine clear examples of pre-50 BCE Septuagint.

    What the Dead Sea scrolls which may have been attested as late as 233CE or the Septuagint itself that no one makes reference to until Josephus 75CE?

    See the Rohlfs fragments and the Nash Papyrus—all are clearly 250 years before Josephus.

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    If your grandeous "Aryan Bible" theory is really only founded upon a few faint scribbings of some ancient empire that has returned to the sands, or the writings of the Greeks (who never ever, as I have pointed out, and you have yet to refute, considered Zarathustra any kind of monotheist) and my "Old Testament" theoiry upon the vast corpus of the Qumran find, which should I choose? Why not both?

    No, but they mentioned Zarathushtra and show that the Persians were followers of Zarathushtra. Plutarch 100-200 mentions both Ahuramazda and his rival Ahriman. Still a bit garbled, but you're not going to understand how the religion of Zarathushtra was monotheistic unless you read it in it's pure or native form.

    BOOOOOOGUS! First, what you are reading can only be dated to 1000 CE. Second, even if (as I believe) some form of the Gathas is the oldest religious text (Karen Armstrong makes a good case for the Vedas being a little later), that does not mean that when those inscriptions were made or when your precious Plutarch wrote that the text was as we have them now. Third, it is preposterous for someone to claim (in my opinion) that a text cannot be translated well enough to communicate its meaning. Dead Gyd that would mean that the Salafist crazies or the Hindu nutcases (like those that killed Gandhiji) or the Kach Nazis (like those who gunned down Rabin) are right. You can choose to believe that. I cannot and will not accept a Gyd so narrow-minded.

    See, you are making the same irrational claim as those who believe in an inerrant Bible. “Gyd made it that way”. This assumption underlies both your implied claim that the Gathas existed as we read them now existed in Darius’ time and that it must be read “in it’s pure or native form”. Both of those claims are just not scientific, rational. They are pure poppycock, belief, ideology. I will defend to the death your right to believe it (I will defend to the death the right a schizophrenic has not to be medicated, too).

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    Nonsense, the classic Greek references (including Plutarch) clearly state that the religion of Zarathustra was polytheistic, not even monodolatric. In “their pure form” (if you accept that, I do not, the text itself, like the OT, indicates layer upon layer of rework) the text can only be dated to sometime after 1000 CE. That is a long, long, long time later.

    Saying that “you’re not going to understand Zarathustra was monotheistic unless you read it in it’s pure form” is like saying “you cannot understand gravity until you master Einsteinian relativity”. Balderdash. Then the Salafists are right saying you can only comprehend the Quran in the original or Kach are right saying you cannot understand the OT unless you read Hebrew.

    For example, I read Russian (a cold war leftover) and can pretty much tell you that the “Gulag Archipelago” in English is quite true to the original, ditto for the latest translation of “Joseph and His Brothers”. Some word-play and mythic elements may be missing, but they are missing from it when I read the original because I am me and not a German reader from the WWII era.

    What I'm saying is that the Avesta shows clear signs of monotheism. The Greeks do make the Zarathushtrian religion out to be polytheistic. But that is clearly not the case. The Acheamenid inscriptions alone make a way better case for monotheism than every version of the Hebrew Bible. It's not until the Jews begin mentioning the Persians that their mythology does start appearing monotheistic.

    Again, see the discussion above. You do not know and cannot know (in a scientific, provable sense) that the dualistic nature of what is described by sources outside of the Gathas is right or wrong. Unless you illogically stipulate the text is inerrant. In which case you are back with the Salafists.

    In addition, it depends on your sources, doesn’t it? The Qur’an states pretty definitively that Abraham was monotheistic.

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    And speaking of pure forms: It's hard to find loans in the Gathas, not to mention the Gathas don't mention either the Persians or the Medes, nor do they mention the Jews. Whereas the Hebrew Bible shows Zoroastrian influence.

    So? The point I am making is not that there is not a Babylonian influence on the OT (I can read it for myself). The point is that it is not half-bad history (read the entire corpus of Finkelstein and the Iron Age excavations in Israel), which indicates that a pre-50 BCE dating (the minimum given per the science of the Septuagint fragments) is highly likely. You need not believe it, but do not think your belief has anything to do with reality.

    And my point is that I think it's a joke that you're even calling it a history. The way I see it Judeo-Christians, and scholars have used 5 historical references (1. the name David and nothing more 2. Ahab and a battle waged, nothing more 3. the name Yahweh, and nothing more 4. the name Isreal, and battle waged) to prop up a mythology and coheres people into thinking there is some authenticity to it. It's so delusional.

    BOGUS again! The whole point of my post (if you read it) is that there are more than 200 fragments that prove the existence of the Hebrew Bible to at least 250 years before Josephus. Now, all things being fair and not assuming that somebody like Josephus made the whole thing up, the actual Hebrew Bible is probably much older. We can get into the Biblical Archeology if you like things that verify the existence of both kingdoms and both Temples (hence that verify the text itself).

    But that is not the issue. The issue is you thesis “Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.

    P.S. it only took me 20 minutes to find the 200 fragments and look up their academic legitimacy. Therefore, I really see no excuse for your continued obstinacy—unless it is ideologically driven.
     
  9. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Reply to MBS Part 3

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    The point is, be fair in your analysis (this is what science and all beneficial communications should be all about). If you claim that the "Aryan Bible" was completely as it exists today when the petrographies were incused, that is fine with me. The hard right of the Kach then is equally correct in stating that the inerrant word of Gyd (in Hebrew) was existant by 1200 BCE. You cannot claim one without allowing the other.

    I am being fair. I'm using the historical method for both the Aryan Bible and the Hebrew Bible. And no one is stopping you from making your points either.

    No, as I stated above you are Cherry Picking and not applying the same logic in each case.

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    Seems we have our answer.

    What was the question, you ask?

    "I am horribly afraid what mojobadshah posted is (1) just very poor research or (2) another anti-Semitic rant.".

    I don't appreciate that comment. I'm not anti-Semitic. I'm just not a kiss-ass. As a matter of fact I battle anti-Semitism indirectly everytime I try to get it through to the people in this part of the world that the Irano-Afghans are the "most just" Aryans, not for example, the KKK or Aryan Nation, or any other neo-nazi and fascist organization and hate group.

    You may. Nevertheless, if your thesis Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded. Moreover, you do not admit that your research for that claim is sub-par so I see no alternative.

    Okay, maybe “anti-Semitic” is over the top and for that I apologize. Nevertheless, if you insist on making this erroneous claim, at least admit it is ideologically driven. It cannot be driven by the facts. They just are not on your side.

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    And did not even bring the Nash Papyrus into play. It is a fragment with the ten commandments and the beginning of the Shema prayer dated (with very high confidence because it has been studied for over 100 years) to 200 BCE.

    I told you that a fragment in itself is not secondary source. That could have been written anytime or did they use radio-carbon dating here too. And lastly its just a fragment. That's hardly proof that everything in the Hebrew Bible had been composed when it was composed.
    See, you did not read what I posted. It is the single most tested, most vetted fragment of the Septuagint. Because it is (1) the oldest and (2) the one we have had the longest.
    I am not claiming the Hebrew Bible was written when it says. Those are your words. That is what you claim about the Gathas. I believe, scientifically it is a preposterous notion.

    What I am claiming is that your thesis Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.

    I gave you 210 examples that predate Josephus by 250 years.

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    So add it to the 9 pre-Josephus Septuagint fragments and the about 200 pre-Josephus Qumran biblical fragments and you get 210 verifiable data points that refute mojobadshah's thesis. Since each of these items is reference in Google Scholar about 2,000 times, let us safely say there are 250,000 references (academic or published, using far less than the 2,000 hits-per-item).

    I don't understand how you're dating these fragments? Radio carbon dating ink I can believe, but is that what they did? That's nice that they were written, but nobody ever mentions them. They could have been written at anytime.

    BOGUS! Look at the references. It is not my job to educate you. Look up the Rohlfs and Nash fragments; look at when they were dated to (this means using a library or Google Scholar). I can easily provide a list of all 210 fragments, the testing they had, and the 2,000 or so “hits” (references) I got in on-line library searches. But I make about $50 an hour and would have to bill you.

    They could NOT “have been written anytime”. The Nash Papyrus was discovered in Egypt before 1900 the details are in Jewish Quarterly Review 15. The current testing (again, look up “radiocarbon dating” and “Nash Papyrus”) done within the last 20 years puts it at about 230 BCE.

    Just look up the Rohlfs fragments the same way. Then do some serious research on the Qumran Scrolls and fragments. There are 972 fragments about 50% are Bible References and of those about 25% are pre-Josephus (J Magness’ Debating Qumran and The Archeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, both from the early 2000s is the source for most of the wiki pages that give these numbers).

    We have 972 fragments, 50% is 486, 50% of them is 243. I rounded down to 200. Point is these are between 210 and 253 biblical fragments (of the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint) that pre-date Josephus by (I say) 250 years… okay, make it 200… or 100… it does not change the point.

    The fragments themselves (they are either leather, parchment, or paper, papyrus) have been definitively dated. You do not have to believe that. However, you must prove they have not been for your thesis to be valid. Like my challenge (which still is unmet) to find a single copy of the Gathas older than 1000 CE, find me a single reference that says all of these 243 fragments are dated incorrectly (since Magness is from 2004, it must be since then, since that is the radiocarbon data I am citing). You will not find it (I rigged that and already did Google Scholar and Inter-Library Loan searches).

    Originally Posted by radarmark
    THere we have it. There are 210 actual instances of written OT scriptures which pre-date Josephus and 250,000 references to that fact. MBS can believe as he will, but the fact is he is just incorrect, scientifically.

    Lacking a response acknowledging his sub-par research on the topic one can infer that case (2) above is applicable.

    WHAT 250,000 REFERENCES? Like in Greco-Roman literature? After Josephus? What are you talking about? Judeo-Christianity didn't even thrive in the west until 300CE when Constantine made the religion official.

    Lets go with the numbers above. I have 246 fragments. Doing a simple Google Scholar Search on the Nash Papyrus, one Rohlfs fragment, and the Q1 Isaiah fragment and averaging, I get an average of 2,435 average academic references on dating the fragments. Round that down to 1,000 (to compensate for using the same reference more than once—a typical graduate school rule of thumb). Multiply by 246 fragments and you get 246,000 (round up to 250,000) academic references that stipulate that there is a fragment of the Septuagint or the Hebrew Bible that pre-date Josephus.

    REVISED CLAIM: there are between 200,000 and 599,010 (246 fragments times 2,435 hits per fragment) academic references (like real scientists writing based on real facts and real data and real testing) that refute your thesis “Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus”.

    Howcome I've never hear about how they've been radio-carbon dated then? All I ever see is that they've been dated through extralinguistic or paleolinguistic methods. That is the standard. The earliest New Testament dates back to 250CE. The earliest reference to the New Testament is 1st or 2nd Clement. These are sources that can be corroborated. No one ever speaks of the Jews as completely as Josephus does until Josephus.

    Because you do not read the Biblical Archeological Review (BAR) or any other academic periodical dealing with these issues and did not bother to do some research on your own, instead relying on browsing web-sites and what you hear or read. Understand that each day humanity produces more new information than was available to the world (had ever existed in the world) when Gutenberg printed the first Latin Bible.

    No, the standard in 1946 (a few years ago) was extralinguistic or paleolinguistic because radiocarbon dating was not invented. Libbey won the 1960 (or thereabouts) Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the 1950 (or thereabouts) discovery. Your approach is just dated. Just found 152,238 hits on ILL site searching just on “Dead Sea Scrolls” and “Radiocarbon” (this does not contradict my claim of 200-600 thousand, different search terms). Like I said, a lot of information you missed.

    Nope, Papyri 90, 98, 104, and Rylands P52 all are pre-200 (even wiki has that). See, one needs, when one is making claims that one wants to say are true, to look up facts or just say “I think”, “I believe” or “IMHO”.

    Of course no one wrote extensively about Judea but the Judeans before the first Roman War (but you will find many snide anti-Semitic remarks in the few fragments we have of the classics, oh and some praise as well—this is off-topic and we can discuss this later… remember the Library of Alexandria and most other places were destroyed and what precious few Greek and Latin texts we have we owe to the Caliphates, who preserved them).
    Why should they? You ever been there? It is hilly, rocky desert. Finkelstein (dean of Israeli Archeology) admits that Jerusalem was probably never more than 10 acres until the Romans came (don’t hold me to that, but it was real, real small).

    Again, I am not arguing that the Hebrew Bible in inerrant, or even infallible history. I am arguing that there is plenty of scientific proof that it existed well before Josephus.
     
  10. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Fine, many Muslims feel the same way about Our New Testiment.

    "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- gandhiji
     
  11. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    He cuts huge chunks out of Christian Websites and posts (never giving credit or sources).

    Powerful "Inherit the Wind" kinda personality.

    P.S. welcome aboard!
     
  12. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    really i have tried to read the quran and its just ghastly so much fear and hell fire threats of eternal damnation, thats how it seems to me anyhow ?

    and who is gandhiji ?
     
  13. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Fine, like I said. I read my Bible with Isaac Azimov nearby. I wanted a Qur'an that had lots of notes for the unbeliever.

    MK Gandhi... like in the film "Gandhi". The "ji" is a title of honor (like "sir" or "madam").
     
  14. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok so what did you like about the quran ?

    and how does Isaac Azimov fit in ?

    i have the Yusuf Ali translation with commentaries, extensive commentaries !

    ok that Gandhi.
     
  15. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Azimov's "Guide to the Bible". I like MM Ali's better because it has more extensive notes. And, it is the product of the liberal wing. That is why I like the Schonfiled or Jesus Seminar Bibles (they speak better to me, plus the errors and additions and stuff like that is highlighted).
     
  16. mojobadshah

    mojobadshah Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright, you've said a lot Radarmark. I will give you this much: through radio-carbon dating, if we are to rely on this dating method alone, we can place the Dead Sea Scrolls as early as c203 BCE, but as late as 68CE. Mind you this is not even the entire Hebrew Bible. Just fragments. Before then, through secondary sources, we have 1. the name David 2. the name Ahab and his battle 3. the name Israel, and 4. the name Yahweh, without any details as to who or what Yahweh was. I'm not really sure what other fragments you are referring to, but I'm pretty sure that whatever they are they are not secondary sources, and that they have been dated through extralinguistic or paleolinguistic methods. Not radio-carbon dating. Given this, as I have explained, the extralingusitic evidence is scanty (a few names and battles, and nothing to imply monotheism), and the paleolinguistic evidence is easily refutable. So what if the language in a portion of Genesis shows archaisms. Lithuanian is a living language and shows archaisms too, and though is not identical to Sanskrit or Avestan resembles Sanskrit or Avestan.

    If we are to use astronomy to date Genesis. Well, as I have explained, the creation of the 7 days is aligned with the Julian Calendar, which does not resemble the calendar's that the ancient's used, and implies that Genesis, "the oldest portion of the Hebrew Bible" may well have been written after the Julian Calendar was introduced c.46BCE, which more or less coincides with the later date of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    As for the Zarthushtrian scriptures. At least a portion of them were composed by Zarathushtra, himself, because they were written in FIRST PERSON. The earliest and fairest date I can find for these scriptures, if you find the Greco-Roman dating 6000BC to be absurd, is 1500BCE because the culture described in the Gathas agrees with Yaz Culture Complex. But, whether Zarathushtra himself existed is not the point. The point is that the Gathas, Avesta, Aryan Bible, what have you were the product of the collective psyche of the Aryan people. In other words the Aryan Bible existed, and it had a huge impact on the way the Jews, Christians, and Muslims think. I see Zarathushtra as a sort of Homer or Shakespear. The difference between these figures and Moses, for example, is that people really think Moses existed. Which I think is the most psychotic thing in the world.

    Now, the pesamist or uninformed scholar, places Zarathushtra immediately before Darius, or during Darius's reign. Because they mistake Vishtaspa "the Constantine of the good faith" with Hystapes, Darius's father. But they were obviously not identical figures. But the Acheamenids like Darius were Mazdayasnas "Mazda Worshippers," and this much is clear from their inscriptions. The Acheamenids worshipped Mazda exclusively. Xerxes's inscriptions may be the clearest example of this. The Greeks c. 400 BC didn't fully understand the Zarathushtra ideology, but they were aware that Zarathushtra was the father of the magi, the son of Mazda Ahura, and that the Persians or Acheamenids were his followers.

    The Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, there are no secondary references to until Josephus. The Dead Sea Scrolls c203BCE-68CE, can only be authenticated through secondary references e.g. the Tel Dan or Tele Mesha Stele OR the Cyrus Cylinder. This is the only way scholars have been able to authenticate the events described in the Hebrew Bible actually happened. And they don't have anything like that for Abraham, or Moses. As a matter of fact, scholars have even proposed that figures like Abraham and Moses were based on Hindu traditions e.g. a-brahmin "non-brahmin" and the Laws of Manu.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves show influence the Zarathushtrian religion. One of the scrolls is called quote and quote "Zostrianos." It describes a metaphysical comparable to a resurrection that resembles Zarathushtra's conference with Ahuramazda and the 7 Amesha Spenta's or Archangels.
     
  17. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    I believe that the calendar is wrong. I think that there are really 13 months and 8 days and thats why all the prophecy time tables are off. They have been counting a year as 12 months and 365 days when it should be 13 months and approximately 419 days in year. Thats why I believe when interpreting scrolls they are miscalculating.
     
  18. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oh and 8 days in a week. Jesus number is 888.
     
  19. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Wouldn't that move every holiday 54 days forward every year?
     
  20. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    It would move the holidays as well.
     

Share This Page