Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pilate · 09-19-2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Fine.

And Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says El Elyon was the most high god who divided the nations among the sons of El, and gave the nation of Jacob to Yahweh.

In some circles that would make El Elyon the highest god of the Israelite pantheon too. ...

Lomis,
here is somehting else to ponder about:
Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote, “But he who first built it (Jerusalem) was a potent man among the Canaanites, and is in our own tongue called {Melchizedek} the righteous King, for such he really was; on which account he was the first priest of God, and first built a temple {Gr. hieron}, and called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem.�? Josephus’ statement is remarkable, because according to the Old Testament, Solomon was the first to build a temple for God. But, according to Josephus, before Abraham, there was a temple of God in Jerusalem and Melchizedek was the first priest of God: that is, El: El Elyon. Before God called Abraham, before Judaism, he had a temple, a priest, and worshippers in Jerusalem: the Canaanites.

Pilate · 09-19-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You can believe what you want.
You aren't explaining anything. You are opining.
This is just plain lacking. ....
You wouldn't know.
Forget the ABD. ....
Uh-huh. Look at what gets in. A few miserable expressions of no value whatsoever. ...
Stop guessing. ...
That trite arguments don't deal with the data....
You wouldn't know, couldn't know and show no indication of how you could start to know.
Stop spouting rubbish.....
You've got all the space you need, if you have something to say....
There is no evidence that anything was written before the exile.
Whose doing that, old son?
When you read literature, do you assume that it{s} central figures are historical? When you can demonstrate that the gospel literature is more than literature I might listen to you.
spin

Spin,
Look at your refutations! Here they are! How am I to answer them? Do you expect me to spend one whole day defending myself to you? Or do you think I am going to write here all the books I read on this subject?
Or do you think that we can accomplish anything by not having the willingness to agree?
I presented a whole buch of historical quotations. It is time for you to furnish some evidence. Show everyone, right here, with quotations how there were three dialects of Aramaic in Palestine and how the Judeans spoke to the Galileeans and did not understand each other. Come on! Show us!
... I rest my case ...

spin · 09-19-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

Spin,
Look at your refutations! Here they are! How am I to answer them? Do you expect me to spend one whole day defending myself to you? Or do you think I am going to write here all the books I read on this subject?
Or do you think that we can accomplish anything by not having the willingness to agree?
I presented a whole buch of historical quotations. It is time for you to furnish some evidence. Show everyone, right here, with quotations how there were three dialects of Aramaic in Palestine and how the Judeans spoke to the Galileeans and did not understand each other. Come on! Show us!
... I rest my case ...

You have no case.

spin.

gregor · 09-19-2005, 06:32 PM

Pilate
I know you are kind of new to the forum, and welcome. However, you've taken a position and must defend it. And spin has a few skins here.

judge · 09-19-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

I presented a whole buch of historical quotations. It is time for you to furnish some evidence. Show everyone, right here, with quotations how there were three dialects of Aramaic in Palestine and how the Judeans spoke to the Galileeans and did not understand each other. Come on! Show us!
... I rest my case ...

Pilate thanks for your replies here and making an effort to provide some references.

Pilate · 09-19-2005, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Pilate
I know you are kind of new to the forum, and welcome. However, you've taken a position and must defend it. And spin has a few skins here.

I suggest the following rules of engagement

:
1.To challenge someone's position: pose specific questions(limit the scope of the question).
2.If you think something is incorrect, provide the correct evidence (not opinions): either an authoritative source, or a direct quotation from an ancient writer which sheds some light on issue.
3. If you want to state your opininion, pose it as a suggestion not as a statement of fact, or a truism.
4. We do not want to lower the level of respect :notworthy for each other. Showing low respect

degrades :banghead: the civility of the forum.
5.We want to have a meanignful dialogue. :thumbs:
6. We are not here to prove each other wrong

, but to learn

from each other.
7. We are not enemies. :wave:
8 We are all mistaken

once in a while.
If spin wants to rephrase his "critique" of my writing and formulate some clear and specific questions I will be glad to engage. I welcome constructive criticism. Show me the better way and I will be grateful to you.

spin · 09-19-2005, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

If spin wants to rephrase his "critique" of my writing and formulate some clear and specific questions I will be glad to engage.

It's all been said before.

And you ignored the critique provided on this occasion because you are more interested in packaging.

You haven't looked through the archives.

spin

andrewcriddle · 09-20-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is just plain lacking. You are not looking at the DSS when you talk about them. You don't notice that there are three dialects of Hebrew -- one of which is biblical, then, Mishnaic-type Hebrew and finally the language that much of the Hebrew scrolls were written in. They were being written fresh in Hebrew, not just one dialect, but two, and not in biblical Hebrew. The whole sacred language logic is a dismal failure. Nothing new was written in the biblical Hebrew dialect. Where did the two dialects evinced in the DSS come from and how did they get into the DSS if they were not productive and from communities which used them???

One possible explanation would be that the different dialects represent works with different original dates of composition.

Say biblical Hebrew works originally composed up to 150 BCE, most of the scrolls originally composed from 150 BCE to 50 CE, some scrolls eg the 'Copper Scroll' composed in proto-Mishnaic Hebrew after 50 CE.

Is ther any evidence clearly ruling out this explanation ?

Andrew Criddle

spin · 09-20-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One possible explanation would be that the different dialects represent works with different original dates of composition.

Say biblical Hebrew works originally composed up to 150 BCE, most of the scrolls originally composed from 150 BCE to 50 CE, some scrolls eg the 'Copper Scroll' composed in proto-Mishnaic Hebrew after 50 CE.

Is ther any evidence clearly ruling out this explanation ?

DSS Hebrew has been related to the Hebrew of the Bar-Kochba letters. They are not the same Hebrew, but closer to each other than to Mishnaic-type Hebrew. This I think indicates that they were contemporary for a while.

spin

judge · 09-20-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

Here is an explanation:
From 586 BCE to 331 BCE the Jews were occupied by the Babylonians and the Persians. During that time, most Jews of Palestine and Mesopotamia adopted the Aramaic language (the official language of Babylon) because of their dealings with their captors. Aramaic gradually displaced Hebrew.

Never seen anyone post any evidence contradicting this on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

Hebrew remained the sacred language of the Scriptures and it was used only by scribes, priests, or the highly educated Jews.

Never seen anyone post any evidence contradicting this on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

During the Hellenistic era (beginning ca. 331 BCE), Hebrew was the language of the common and uneducated Jews of Palestine. Therefore, it became necessary to translate in the synagogues and at the Temple the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic for the common people who could not understand it. This is how the Aramaic Tragums came into existence.

Never seen anyone post any evidence contradicting this on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate

Notice, that most of the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Bible were written in the "Sacred language": Hebrew. But anything that was not considered (at that time) sacred ("the word of God") was written in Aramaic.

I've seen people claim this is not true, that for example legal documents were in Hebrew. No actual evidence has ever been provided to my knowledge on this forum though

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-19-2005, 06:32 PM	#64
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Pilate I know you are kind of new to the forum, and welcome. However, you've taken a position and must defend it. And spin has a few skins here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.