A New Beginning

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

  1. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Re: A New Beginning Part 1 reply to MBS' reply

    Three warnings here: in this response I as speaking as a scientist (a rational, educated human being believing in the scientific methodology--an assumption that, if one does not know what the methodology is, one will look it up) who believes that if one makes an assertion about reality (that which actually is, actual occasions) one must (1) believe them to be true (correspond in some manner to that reality), (2) have sufficient reason to believe them (elsewise it is divination), and (3) that the assertions must, in reality, be true. Second, I am focusing on the assertion implicity made in the title of the MBS thread “Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus”. That thesis or hypothesis is there is little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus. In turn, my thesis is two-fold: first, MBS’ thesis is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded; second, that if MBS does not accept the scientific proof that his thesis is vacuous, the thesis is the product of ideology, wishful thinking, or what in German is called “Wolkenkuckucksheim”



    First, the error herein. Yea, the entire Dead Sea Scrolls Corpus 230 BCE to 68 CE (you got this wrong, MBS, see #24 above. What that same post points out (and I had a fourteen year old read it over the weekend to make sure I had not just blown what I meant, his reposes to my questions means that he read it as I intended) that from the source you provided (the wiki on Dead Sea Scrolls) that 25% of the total fragments (remember there are 972) or 246 fragments are (1) from the Hebrew Bible, and (2) dated to 230-150BCE.

    What that means is that from the only reference you have provided, if one is logical and assumes that radiocarbon dating is true (if not exact) there are at least 246 data points that disprove the thesis (there is little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus).

    The entire Hebrew Bible is not the point—only that there are (at least) 246 fragments of that Bible that predate Josephus. Nor is it the point “rely[ing] on this dating method alone”—do not go down that path, if you reject the validity of radiocarbon dating, so be it. But with equal aplomb I am then free to point out that the Behistun Inscription could be a seventeenth century forgery (so I will assume that radiocarbon dating is scientifically valid so as not to open this infinite regression).

    So one, you have the dates wrong; two, the issue is not whether the Hebrew Bible was existent even in the days of Josephus; three, science shows that there are at least 246 fragments of the Hebrew Bible which predate Josephus by 220 to 300 years; so, four, your thesis there is little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus is in error, refuted.

    Unless you care to say how much “evidence” is covered by little (warning: I just did a lit search over the weekend, if you count up all the classic Greek references and inscriptions referencing Zoroaster and Ahuramazda, what I think you are thinking as your proofs, they do not total even 100). So it stands that the thesis little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.



    See the last paragraph as a lead-in. Your “secondary sources” (which you have never bothered to source—prove, tell us where you got that information) are pretty dated 42 secondary sources are listed in wiki (I do not agree with this since many of the Septuagint fragments are not included and the Dead Sea Scrolls are cited as one see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology). Where do you get this count of four? How old is it?

    The Dead Sea Scroll and Septuagint fragments (the 246 cited above, the 9 previously referenced Rohlfs fragments and the Nash Papyrus) are primary evidence to my thesis (that you are incorrect in asserting extralinguistic or paleolinguistic methods), primary counterfactual evidence to your thesis (in that they disprove it, if one assumes 256 individual instances of evidence is not “little…evidence” and that radiocarbon dating is accurate), and secondary evidence to a third thesis, that the Hebrew Bible existed before Josephus (I am not defending that thesis herein). Let me repeat, I am arguing that “there is little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.

    Aside… from what I can find in the serious academic literature extralinguistic or paleolinguistic methods have their own short-comings. Really, really good (like at Qumran) when assessing masses of material from a limited number of scribes or schools. Flat ineffective (or high questionable) when dealing (like the Nash Paprus) with one scribe unrelated to a school.



    See, that just is vacuous. You have never given a source for what this extralinguistic or paleolinguistic evidence is (you merely stating there are “only four instances” is not evdidence, you showing some source—the more academic and published and less web-based the better). You are building a straw man and demolishing it. I never made an argument about the historical accuracy or dating of the Hebrew Bible. As I stated before, it is totally irrelevant to the problem at hand, that the thesis little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.
     
  2. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2


    A straw man once again. This has nothing to do with the calendar question which I deconstructed and refuted in post #23 above.



    What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If your only proof for asserting Zoroaster wrote anything is the fact it is in first person within the Gathas, then the only proof I should need to prove, say Moses existed and wrote the Torah, is that fact that it says so in Torah. Don’t go there, it is an infinite regress, an unscientific and illogical waste of time within the context of your thesis and my rebuttal of it.

    I could admit that he did, accept the word of your Aryan Bible and it would in no way change the fact that your thesis “little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.



    It would be really, really neat if you gave one iota of evidence. I do not know this; and, quite frankly due to you constant misreading of what the fourteen-year-old proved as standard English, I think I am well in my rights to doubt you have it right). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta says that they were written down in the fourth century AD. So the Avesta (meaning the written version—I reject the notion of a perfectly transmitted oral version, the Vedas are proof of that) is at least 1700 years old. We have copies (again, fragments) of it which can be dated to 1288.

    Yet you assert it dates from 1500 BCE? What is the source? Let us not chase “just read them in the original language” or “they were preserved perfectly” rabbit holes again. Just give me one article published in some refereed journal. This is not unfair, I have given you six (including the two from Magness).

    Just provide one shred of evidence that the Avesta dates from 1500 BCE and what we have today is a perfect replication of it. Don’t bother see De Vaan (Indo-Iranian Journal, 46, 1, 43-52) or any of the other 101 articles written since 2003 referencing him).

    But again, this is not germane. I could admit that the Gatha dates from 60000 BCE in inerrant form and the admission would in no way change the fact that your thesis “little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.



    Once more, not germane. It in no way change the fact that your thesis “little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.



    There you go again intowolkenkuckucksheim. I have provided 298 independent and independently verifiable “secondary sources” in this context. To wit: 246 Qumran fragments of the Hebrew Bible that predate Josephus by at least 220 years; 42 artifacts from the one source you provided (wiki article on Biblical Archeology); the nine Rofls fragments of the Setuagint; and the Nash Papyrus of the Septuagint.

    Your thesis “little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded. As it stands in direct and irrefutable contradiction to these 298 separate data points, any one of which proves that the Hebrew Bible existed before Josephus.



    Again, booooooogus. There are 25,400 or so references in the Biblical Archeology Review Corpus. Those four data points (which you have alleged, incorrectly, to be “all there are”) are referenced individually or as a list in only 1,708. So there are at least 23,792 “honest to Gyd” “real academic” references only in the BAR which use something besides these to date archeology in the Middle East.

    Again, wolkenkuckucksheim. What does the fact that your (unsourced) claim “Abraham and Moses were based on Hindu traditions” have to do with any of this? I could, again agree 100% and it would not make any difference. It in no way change the fact that your thesis “little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.



    Again, balberdash. Even if it (again, unsourced, and given your history with poor research, excuse me if I don’t even look this up) in no way changes the fact that your thesis “little or no evidence to support Hebrew Bible before Josephus” is demonstrably incorrect and entirely unfounded.

    I really suggest you give up, MBS. Try mastering some rhetoric, logic, science, and Biblical archeology before you try again.
     
  3. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thinking over the weekend (usually what I do). Did a ministry in my Friends' meeting quoting the new Paul Simon album "If every human on the planet and all the buildings on it should disappear would a zebra grazing in the African Savannah care enough to shed one zebra tear?" Moreover, stating us as human beings had to do more for that of Gyd in everything up to and including Gaia.

    And I realized two terms need to be added to my three terms: "daats'i" -- Navajo for "maybe", "yes", "no", "perhaps", "possibly" and all situations in-between, the Hopi word "pahanatewa" (for "white man's sun" or "clocktime", and the made up Heinleinianism "grok". These two phrases are both Pali: "neti-neti" (not this not that) and "tat tvan asi" (that is you).

    A discussion of truth. Not a definition or a lecture. I see we use "truth" in five general ways to mean a proposition or verbal construct or idea in the mind corresponds in some way to reality, an actual occasion or event. First is "naive truth". Second is "emotive truth". Third is "formal operational truth". Fourth is "spiritual truth". Fifth (and in my opinion least important) is "absolute truth".

    Naive truth is sense and internal truth. We say it is true our stomach is upset if it is the case it is upset. We say (internally) duck if we see a weapon trained on us by some adversary or jump if we see a car swerving off the road towards us or turn if we are in a car and see a trucker veer off his side of a two-lane road. Naive truth works as a level-of-engagement with reality above instinct and below formal operational truth.
    However, it is not always "true". Why? We may see a ghost or phantasm that no one else can see or confirm or we may perceive an event that does not happen. For instance, if you look at the court cases involving DNA evidence (formal operational truth) and eyewitness accounts (naive truth), as strange as it seems there is about a 50% error rate. That is eyewitness testimony contradicts DNA (or equally valid scientific evidence). The figure is beside the point (28 out of 32 in the Attorney General's "A Guide for Law Enforcement", 75% from the innocence project, to 1/2 of 1 percent overall--still 5,000 each year--from C Brigham, AW Wasserman… - The Selected Works …, 1999 - digitalcommons.utep.edu (Court Review 1999, a pivotal article). Our naive truth is erroneous in a some meaningful large frequency.

    Emotive truth is what some call ideological, magical, or authoritative truth. Truths based on one’s gut feelings. So no one misunderstands me, I believe all emotive truths to be un-truths. We all may suffer from ideologies, but human progress depends upon us rising above them. Magic (in the Piagetian sense or Harry Potter sense, not Crowley or Wiccan) just does not exist. What you believe (even with all you heart and soul and mind) is not true because you believe it (if it is true), but because it is true in one of the other senses. My tears, wishes, and spells did not bring back my Father. All the emotional soothing truth that strict determinism gives us just ain’t so (look up “No, Albert, Gyd really does play dice”).

    Formal operational truth is the truth of science and math and philosophy and logic and theology. We believe the statement to be true, we can prove it is very likely true, and we have sufficient reason for believing it to be true (me exactly guessing the stock market close tomorrow, even if I believed what I said and it came to pass, is merely a lucky chance, something that could have been different, something contingent, something I had no good reason, per the laws of logic and probability and science, to believe in). I believe formal operational truth to be the highest kind of truth that we can publically and objectively conceptualize. Formal operational true is empirically true (testable, disprovable, capable of being experimented with) and rationally true (it does not violate the laws of deductive logic, mathematics and inductive logic as formalized in Principia Mathematica in the early XXth century or those laws discovered since). Since it is contingent (it could be otherwise) it is by definition rarely (see fifth category) if ever eternally and omni-presently true.

    Spiritual truth is an experiential, existential truth not solely based on rationality or empiricism (both reason and evidence can verify spiritual truths and could, conceivably, invalidate them). It is the moment of at-one-ness between the “ich and du”, Gyd and creation. Not talking about it, not thinking about it, not remembering it, not wishing for it. No it is a “raw actual occasion” that can be described and written about and indicated, but cannot be communicated (see “the Flower Sutra”, “the Lotus Sutra”, or daodeching). Putting it into (I believe) even thought makes it neti-neti. Do not get me wrong, spiritual truth exists (because the divine exists and because of the Kosmos). One can (as I have here) discuss it, prod it, indicate it, compare it… but it is not the discussion the indication, the prodding, the comparison. It is, grok?

    Now for the biggie absolute truth. As the Greek philosophers and the Western Mind has constructed it the absolute is eternal (time does not apply) and omni-present (space and location do not apply). It is a passive thing beyond the Kosmos (everything that is in space and time). The truths of arithmetic are true in this sense, but not the truth of any mathematics beyond arithmetic (see Kurt Gödel’s theorems). The truths of deductive logic are true in this sense, but not all the laws of logic (see Hume on Induction). It may be that the truths of some “meta-syntax” or “meta-semantics” or “enumerative definitions” are true in this sense (this area of philosophy is Greek to me). Regardless, the truths are not contingent… they say nothing about the world. They are tautologies, linguistic and philosophical tricks that nonetheless seem to structure thought. Fine. I prefer to consider “absolute truths” special cases of formal operational truths that have no referent (they do not point to any event or thing in the world) and only become “real” (or “important”) when a context is given, when examples are provided. Moreover, they cease being absolute the minute that happens (this is just my opinion; I do not claim to know and may make an interesting topic for discussion).

    SUMMARY: The five categories of truth, when examined closely, are mutations of three basic categories: naïve truth, formal operational truth, and spiritual truth. Emotive truth is not a real category because it can be so incorrect (my ideology could include believing “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” to be true, but if I were presented the fact that they are a rip-off of Joly’s “dialogue in Hell” I would hope I would abandon that false belief). Absolute truth is trivially true (it says nothing about the Kosmos, about actual events or occasions) so is (IMHO) best considered a limiting case (where once the proper references are provided they turn into 100% accurate statements by definition) of the probabilistic nature (contingent nature) of formal operational truth).
     
  4. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    You misunderstand.
    Equinox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    There is an exact number of days between the equinoxes and the solstices.
    Most of us believe the earth circles the sun, and the number of days it takes for this is 365.
    Lets say this, if we moved new year 54 days forward, we would have it in the February 23rd, next year March 17th and the year after that May 10th (if I counted correctly), would you say there is a temperature difference between those dates?
     
  5. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    The universe is changing. The 13th constellation didnt enter our system until this year which is why they added it to the zodiac.
     
  6. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Phew! I have enough trouble with 12!

    It depends on what one means by a "year" and a "day". Commonly (scientifically and according to almost all calendars) a year is the time it takes for the earth to make one trip around the sun (365.25 days). A day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once around its axis, say from noon to noon (86,400 seconds). Now a second is really precise and really scientific--9,192,631,770 times the period of time it takes for a Cesium-133 nucleus to transition from its first hyperfine excited state to its ground state.

    So, if a year is the time it takes for the earth to go once around the sun and a day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to revilve one on its axis, a year must be 365 days, by definition.
     
  7. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    A note on Jerk 3:16. This week we saw the grand poo-poo of the republican't goshdarn offensive party crash and burn over his use of words. The public did good. Hopefully a few more (if not all) sponsors will climb out of the sewage that is the Rush Limbaugh Show. Jerk 3:16 is obviously cut of the same sow's ear.

    If what one calls Gyd leads to or endorses hateful, bigoted speach against anyone and anything, I believe that cannot be Gyd.

    You do have to agree nor do you have to think calling a bigot a bigot is the moraqlly correct thing to do under any and all circumstances. But this is the XX!st century not that of Luther or Calvin or any of the other anti-papist bigots.
     
  8. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Note on Princely. Everytime this 'bot posts here, I do a cut and paste into my plagarism packages (I do some journal reviews). I have yet to find a single original posting. It seems avatars like "Prince" or "Princely" or "oak" have said the exact same phrase somewhere else.

    What does this mean? Well, it could the entity "Princely" is actually a software creation. Or it could be that it is some kind of naive person who just does not know that it is immoral (IMHO) to steal (in this case the words, verbatim, of another). Or it could be it is a prankster just stirring up the pot. Or (for the more conspiratorially minded among us) it could be some super anti-Christian or super Christian who is knowingly stealing. I do not know which.

    Care to guess?
     
  9. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Really? I would have guessed that it's just someone preaching "the word", believing that just hearing "the word" will "bless the faithful and repel the sinner". Or something like that. What's the original source?
     
  10. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Also:
    I don't understand what that means.
     
  11. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Quite a few hard-right Christian blogs. Today's was from

    debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=437162&lofi=1
    able2know.org/topic/182715 (twice)
    www.religiousforums.com/.../128568-how-do-you-interpret-scriptur...
    www.christianforums.com › ... › Christian ApologeticsCached
    www.religionforums.org/archive/index.php/thread-6263.html
    www.city-data.com › ... › Religion and PhilosophyChristianityCached (3 times)

    Just copy his post, put quote around it and google (if you do not have any plagarism packages, or you can download a free plagarism checker).

    Zodiac Note: I copuld not find a reference to this "13th sign" on worldcat.org (library search, seriously good engine).
     
  12. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    I don't need no engine or package, I got you!
     
  13. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
  14. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,291
    Likes Received:
    22
    This is the downside of the web; a voice for all, the tyranny of the inane, including software.
     
  15. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yep, I have learned that, My Friend!
     
  16. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Tomorrow I think I will begin discussing some Quaker sources and other "non-traditional" modern mystics. You think it is worth the effort? Anyone interested?
     
  17. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,291
    Likes Received:
    22
    Just depends on putting in the right words for the bots to pick up on :p

    Show us what ya got.
     
  18. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    PFFFFFFFFFT! <sound of very wet raspberry>

    Will do
     

Share This Page