Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Matt Giwer · Guest

If you remember the last round of this you may remember it differently than I
present it here.

In this article I have summarized what I have been developing for years about
the Septuagint. http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/septuagint.html When the
discussion ended last time my detractors were claiming I said things I had not
been saying. In a perhaps vain hope of dealing with misquoting what I have
said, I have created this DRAFT article.

A sample follows.

=====

The Septuagint in Greek is the original Old Testament and the Hebrew version
is a translation of it.

You may have heard this idea before but likely not. The Old Testament itself
is a problem to both archaeology and history.
This suggestion is made in an attempt to reconcile the existence of the Old
Testament with these facts.

1. There was no bibleland civilization capable of creating or preserving the
Old Testament until the Greek period.

2. Every story in the Old Testament is fiction. It contains no history at all.

3. The first mention of the Old Testament in ancient literature is of the
Greek Septuagint.

4. The first mention of the Jews/Judeans is after the first mention of the Old
Testament, i.e. the Jews appear in history after the first mention of their
holy book. [url herodotus]

These facts can also describe the Koran and the Muslims, Book of Mormon and
the Latter Day Saints, as well as Scientology and the Scientologists.

These facts lead us to conclude Judaism falls into the category of a religion
invented in a short period of time. Judaism cannot be described in terms of
the religions of ancient Greece or Egypt.

For believers there is no problem with Judaism being an invented religion. The
Old Testament has stories of its invention and by who, Moses and/or Abraham
depending upon how you look at it. Whether one considers it human invention or
creation the Old Testament is clear on the main people and the rough dates.

Archaeology and history have both shown that Abraham and Moses are fictional
characters. All I am saying is Judaism is an invented religion, simply that it
was invented much later and by unknown people. And as its creation date is
after the Greeks come to rule the region it should not matter to believers in
which language the original was created. I say the original language was Greek
because there is no evidence of a Hebrew language prior to the 1st c. BC.

For example the style of Greek in the Septuagint can be compared to other
examples of Greek which are well dated. There is so much other Greek that one
can make a professional career of studying the Greek of that period. That is
not possible with Hebrew. There is no contemporary Hebrew for comparison.

With some handwaving and a little faith one can invent a way in which Hebrew
could have existed as a liturgical language but we are still faced with the
absence of physical evidence. Unfortunately for faith there is a greater
problem. That problem is the style of the writing.

For example one of the favorite beliefs is that the Old Testament contains
real history. We know that when it comes close to real history it gets its
facts all wrong such as the descriptions of the king of Egypt in Genesis and
Exodus. We know for a fact it contains no real history but it reads like history.

Then we look at the known fact about writing what we consider history. The
first historian was Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. What an odd conflict. The
creators of the Old Testament were either writing history before Herodotus or
they were writing after Herodotus invented writing about history. We know that
after Herodotus invented the style it spread quickly and eventually came to
the form we consider history. There is no indication of any other source of
this style of writing much less that dirt farmers and shepherds in Palestine
created it.

A Greek at the height of Greek culture invents it at a time when the Greeks
were inventing many other styles of writing or backwater dirt farmers and
shepherds with no culture of interest invented it. Those are our only choices.
These dirt farmers and shepherds never contributed a single thing to
civilization. How can we attribute to them the invention of recording history
when their other writings were so sparse that a credible case can be made that
it was nonexistent?

As they say on late night TV, But wait! There>s more!

The Greeks invented more than just history. They invented almost all literary
styles used for the next 2000 years until the 19th c. gave us creations like
Sherlock Holmes, H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. We find the styles invented by
the Greeks in the Old Testament.

We have the Greek hero with a direct pipeline to a god and we have Old
Testament prophets with the same direct connection to a god. Believers assume
these books are much older than the Greeks, even older than their older name
Acheans putting the creation of the oldest stories either with Abraham or with
Moses. Tradition but nothing else has the Torah written by Moses. But even as
a tradition, no one knows when that tradition began.

The problem is the date of the Old Testament creation by the methods of both
the science of archaeology and by the study of writings surviving from ancient
times appears to be the 2nd c. BC not the 17th and 13 c. BC respectively. One
may debate the "time of" Abraham and Moses by a few centuries but none of the
debates accepts anything as recent as the 2nd c. BC. Such a recent creation
negates the entire Old Testament. It puts the invention of the religion after
the region was conquered by Alexander, [url herodotus and alexander]

It is nearly impossible to get this through the heads of believers. Changing
their beliefs is not my objective. If it is your misfortune to be talking with
believers here are some pointers.

Keep in mind believers are not people who think rationally in matters of
religion even though they may be highly educated and are rational in other
areas. They have no idea of the elementary requirements of establishing
something for a fact. They are willing to grasp at the smallest straw as
confirmation of everything.

If they have any knowledge of archaeology in the region they get it from
fellow believers not from impartial sources. There are many people who claim
to be objective but who describe anything found in bible terms even though the
item does not have even an indirect connection to the Old Testament.

--
Of all the views of the afterlife including none at all, not a single one of
them suggests anyone dead gives a shit about being remembered.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4062
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <48e9a8ad$0$14903$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]In this article I have summarized what I have been developing for years about
the Septuagint.
[/quote]
Trying to resurrect your old lies, Matt the Pratt? Last time you were
so thoroughly debunked that even your acolyte Martin was obliged to
concede that you were wrong.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Martin Edwards · Guest

Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]If you remember the last round of this you may remember it
differently than I present it here.

Not bad, but go through it to remove howlers like "The /Greek/ has[/quote]
Virgo". Ththththththththththththththththth! Also Josephus was indeed in
the first revolt, which was in 66. Interestingly, the independent state
of 66-70 was called Israel, so it obviously had some meaning, if only a
flokloric one.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From â€œRollerballâ€

Martin Edwards · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <48e9a8ad$0$14903$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

In this article I have summarized what I have been developing for years about
the Septuagint.

Trying to resurrect your old lies, Matt the Pratt? Last time you were
so thoroughly debunked that even your acolyte Martin was obliged to
concede that you were wrong.

Ken Down

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM0NzQzOTcxOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMzc2MjU3._V1._SX485_SY327_.jpg[/quote]

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Oct 6, 3:28 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
If you remember the last round of this you may remember it
differently than I present it here.

Not bad, but go through it to remove howlers like "The /Greek/ has
Virgo". Ththththththththththththththththth! Also Josephus was indeed in
the first revolt, which was in 66. Interestingly, the independent state
of 66-70 was called Israel, so it obviously had some meaning, if only a
flokloric one.
[/quote]
There>s no reason to prosecute this thread in sci.lang.

Cormac · Guest

On Oct 6, 6:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote] If you remember the last round of this you may remember it differently than I
present it here.

In this article I have summarized what I have been developing for years about
the Septuagint.http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/septuagint.htmlWhen the
discussion ended last time my detractors were claiming I said things I had not
been saying. In a perhaps vain hope of dealing with misquoting what I have
said, I have created this DRAFT article.

A sample follows.

====
The Septuagint in Greek is the original Old Testament and the Hebrew version
is a translation of it.

You may have heard this idea before but likely not. The Old Testament itself
is a problem to both archaeology and history.
This suggestion is made in an attempt to reconcile the existence of the Old
Testament with these facts.

1. There was no bibleland civilization capable of creating or preserving the
Old Testament until the Greek period.

2. Every story in the Old Testament is fiction. It contains no history at all.

3. The first mention of the Old Testament in ancient literature is of the
Greek Septuagint.

4. The first mention of the Jews/Judeans is after the first mention of the Old
Testament, i.e. the Jews appear in history after the first mention of their
holy book. [url herodotus]

These facts can also describe the Koran and the Muslims, Book of Mormon and
the Latter Day Saints, as well as Scientology and the Scientologists.

These facts lead us to conclude Judaism falls into the category of a religion
invented in a short period of time. Judaism cannot be described in terms of
the religions of ancient Greece or Egypt.

For believers there is no problem with Judaism being an invented religion.. The
Old Testament has stories of its invention and by who, Moses and/or Abraham
depending upon how you look at it. Whether one considers it human invention or
creation the Old Testament is clear on the main people and the rough dates.

Archaeology and history have both shown that Abraham and Moses are fictional
characters. All I am saying is Judaism is an invented religion, simply that it
was invented much later and by unknown people. And as its creation date is
after the Greeks come to rule the region it should not matter to believers in
which language the original was created. I say the original language was Greek
because there is no evidence of a Hebrew language prior to the 1st c. BC.

For example the style of Greek in the Septuagint can be compared to other
examples of Greek which are well dated. There is so much other Greek that one
can make a professional career of studying the Greek of that period. That is
not possible with Hebrew. There is no contemporary Hebrew for comparison.

With some handwaving and a little faith one can invent a way in which Hebrew
could have existed as a liturgical language but we are still faced with the
absence of physical evidence. Unfortunately for faith there is a greater
problem. That problem is the style of the writing.

For example one of the favorite beliefs is that the Old Testament contains
real history. We know that when it comes close to real history it gets its
facts all wrong such as the descriptions of the king of Egypt in Genesis and
Exodus. We know for a fact it contains no real history but it reads like history.

Then we look at the known fact about writing what we consider history. The
first historian was Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. What an odd conflict. The
creators of the Old Testament were either writing history before Herodotus or
they were writing after Herodotus invented writing about history. We know that
after Herodotus invented the style it spread quickly and eventually came to
the form we consider history. There is no indication of any other source of
this style of writing much less that dirt farmers and shepherds in Palestine
created it.

A Greek at the height of Greek culture invents it at a time when the Greeks
were inventing many other styles of writing or backwater dirt farmers and
shepherds with no culture of interest invented it. Those are our only choices.
These dirt farmers and shepherds never contributed a single thing to
civilization. How can we attribute to them the invention of recording history
when their other writings were so sparse that a credible case can be made that
it was nonexistent?

As they say on late night TV, But wait! There>s more!

The Greeks invented more than just history. They invented almost all literary
styles used for the next 2000 years until the 19th c. gave us creations like
Sherlock Holmes, H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. We find the styles invented by
the Greeks in the Old Testament.

[/quote]

"The Greeks invented history???" What about the Hittites, Egyptians,
'Indians' and Chinese?

Cormac.

Martin Edwards · Guest

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 3:28 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
If you remember the last round of this you may remember it
differently than I present it here.
Not bad, but go through it to remove howlers like "The /Greek/ has
Virgo". Ththththththththththththththththth! Also Josephus was indeed in
the first revolt, which was in 66. Interestingly, the independent state
of 66-70 was called Israel, so it obviously had some meaning, if only a
flokloric one.

There>s no reason to prosecute this thread in sci.lang.
[/quote]
Deleted

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Matt Giwer · Guest

Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
If you remember the last round of this you may remember it
differently than I present it here.

Not bad, but go through it to remove howlers like "The /Greek/ has
Virgo".
[/quote]
A draft is a draft. Agreed though. Outline statements and reminders have to
be fleshed out or at least put in []s to show they do not belong.

[quote]Ththththththththththththththththth! Also Josephus was indeed in
the first revolt, which was in 66.
[/quote]
I regularly come across mention of a revolt early in the first century but
when I search for it the most famous two are the only ones mentioned. I will
nail this one down next time I come across mention of it.

[quote]Interestingly, the independent state
of 66-70 was called Israel, so it obviously had some meaning, if only a
flokloric one.
[/quote]
No more meaning than the current Israel. I did not go into speculation as to
who created the Septuagint and why. Claiming descent from an ancient race of
conquerors was the likely point of inventing so much "history." That would
show it worked to create a national narrative for the locals. Whether or not
the people who picked the name believed it was real is immaterial to it
rallying the peasants as spear fodder in service of the rich.

--
Bush has spent nearly eight years eliminating waste in government. What is
left for McCain and Palin to do?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4054
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Oct 7, 1:40 am, Cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]"The Greeks invented history???" What about the Hittites, Egyptians,
'Indians' and Chinese?
[/quote]
This thread has nothing to do with sci.lang. Followups set.

Matt Giwer · Guest

Cormac wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 6:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
If you remember the last round of this you may remember it differently than I
present it here.
In this article I have summarized what I have been developing for years about
the Septuagint.http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/septuagint.htmlWhen the
discussion ended last time my detractors were claiming I said things I had not
been saying. In a perhaps vain hope of dealing with misquoting what I have
said, I have created this DRAFT article.
A sample follows.
=====
The Septuagint in Greek is the original Old Testament and the Hebrew version
is a translation of it.
You may have heard this idea before but likely not. The Old Testament itself
is a problem to both archaeology and history.
This suggestion is made in an attempt to reconcile the existence of the Old
Testament with these facts.
1. There was no bibleland civilization capable of creating or preserving the
Old Testament until the Greek period.
2. Every story in the Old Testament is fiction. It contains no history at all.
3. The first mention of the Old Testament in ancient literature is of the
Greek Septuagint.
4. The first mention of the Jews/Judeans is after the first mention of the Old
Testament, i.e. the Jews appear in history after the first mention of their
holy book. [url herodotus]
These facts can also describe the Koran and the Muslims, Book of Mormon and
the Latter Day Saints, as well as Scientology and the Scientologists.
These facts lead us to conclude Judaism falls into the category of a religion
invented in a short period of time. Judaism cannot be described in terms of
the religions of ancient Greece or Egypt.
For believers there is no problem with Judaism being an invented religion.. The
Old Testament has stories of its invention and by who, Moses and/or Abraham
depending upon how you look at it. Whether one considers it human invention or
creation the Old Testament is clear on the main people and the rough dates.
Archaeology and history have both shown that Abraham and Moses are fictional
characters. All I am saying is Judaism is an invented religion, simply that it
was invented much later and by unknown people. And as its creation date is
after the Greeks come to rule the region it should not matter to believers in
which language the original was created. I say the original language was Greek
because there is no evidence of a Hebrew language prior to the 1st c. BC.
For example the style of Greek in the Septuagint can be compared to other
examples of Greek which are well dated. There is so much other Greek that one
can make a professional career of studying the Greek of that period. That is
not possible with Hebrew. There is no contemporary Hebrew for comparison.
With some handwaving and a little faith one can invent a way in which Hebrew
could have existed as a liturgical language but we are still faced with the
absence of physical evidence. Unfortunately for faith there is a greater
problem. That problem is the style of the writing.
For example one of the favorite beliefs is that the Old Testament contains
real history. We know that when it comes close to real history it gets its
facts all wrong such as the descriptions of the king of Egypt in Genesis and
Exodus. We know for a fact it contains no real history but it reads like history.
Then we look at the known fact about writing what we consider history. The
first historian was Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. What an odd conflict. The
creators of the Old Testament were either writing history before Herodotus or
they were writing after Herodotus invented writing about history. We know that
after Herodotus invented the style it spread quickly and eventually came to
the form we consider history. There is no indication of any other source of
this style of writing much less that dirt farmers and shepherds in Palestine
created it.
A Greek at the height of Greek culture invents it at a time when the Greeks
were inventing many other styles of writing or backwater dirt farmers and
shepherds with no culture of interest invented it. Those are our only choices.
These dirt farmers and shepherds never contributed a single thing to
civilization. How can we attribute to them the invention of recording history
when their other writings were so sparse that a credible case can be made that
it was nonexistent?
As they say on late night TV, But wait! There>s more!
The Greeks invented more than just history. They invented almost all literary
styles used for the next 2000 years until the 19th c. gave us creations like
Sherlock Holmes, H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. We find the styles invented by
the Greeks in the Old Testament.

"The Greeks invented history???" What about the Hittites, Egyptians,
'Indians' and Chinese?
[/quote]
Herodotus, the father of history was a Greek. Therefore Greeks get the credit
in our way of looking at things.

There is a difference between telling a story of some important event, a war
usually, and telling that story in context of time. Take away the king lists
from Egypt and the stories could have occurred at any time and in any order.
Granted some order can be found by teasing out details of the battle such as
the use of chariots but there is no way to get a history of Egypt from the
stories.

Herodotus was the first to write with consideration of how and why things got
to be the way they were. His is the first surviving example of what evolved to
become what we consider a book on history.

My point in bringing this up is, IF we were to take the Old Testament the way
tradition would have it, then it was the first work of history. And if it is
the first work of history then we have the obvious problem of the "hebrews"
surpassing the Greeks.

Our culture is schizophrenic when it comes to religion. We compartmentalize
religion from the real world. People who will recognize the Greek invention of
history and who can trace its development over the centuries will go to
church/mosque/synagogue and read the history in the Old Testament and never
suffer the cognitive dissonance of the two "histories" in conflict.

--
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when
his strategy is divide and conquer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4067
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

Matt Giwer · Guest

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 3:28 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
If you remember the last round of this you may remember it
differently than I present it here.
Not bad, but go through it to remove howlers like "The /Greek/ has
Virgo". Ththththththththththththththththth! Also Josephus was indeed in
the first revolt, which was in 66. Interestingly, the independent state
of 66-70 was called Israel, so it obviously had some meaning, if only a
flokloric one.

There>s no reason to prosecute this thread in sci.lang.
[/quote]
As certain denizens of sci.lang claimed there was evidence from "hebrew"
itself which was as good as archaeological artifacts, you for one, then is
this not an opportunity for believers such as yourself to present that evidence?

In the process of the last exchange there were at least two people from
sci.lang who said the discussion was of interest and one said at age 70+ had
never heard of the Septuagint. Those two did not appear to acknowledge you as
the official moderator of sci.lang. Certainly they can post again and correct
that if I misunderstood.

Then there is the matter of yourself who used two primary means of
refutation. One was the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. The other
was to deliberately misrepresent what I said, i.e. lie, and refute the lie.
That latter is also the strawman fallacy.

Given the ease with which anyone can ignore a thread and that includes you I
see no reason to consider you the moderator of sci.lang although you have been
very eager to claim that role. It is not as though there is any issue of
bandwidth these days.

--
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when
his strategy is divide and conquer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4067
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

Matt Giwer · Guest

Tom McDonald wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:28 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
If you remember the last round of this you may remember it
differently than I present it here.
Not bad, but go through it to remove howlers like "The
/Greek/ has Virgo". Ththththththththththththththththth!
Also Josephus was indeed in the first revolt, which was in
66. Interestingly, the independent state of 66-70 was
called Israel, so it obviously had some meaning, if only a flokloric
one.

There>s no reason to prosecute this thread in sci.lang.

Nor in sci.archaeology.

But, this being Giwer>s thread, he>ll spam it to sci.land and
sci.archaeology just because he can.
[/quote]
It is the total absence of archaeological evidence of a culture which could
have created and preserved the OT prior to the arrival of the Greeks that puts
it into the field of archaeology. Of course if you can produce archaeological
evidence of such a culture prior to the Greeks this is in fact the appropriate
thread to discuss such evidence.

IF Jerusalem existed in the time of Alexander, Alexander did not consider it
worth conquering. The records are very clear. After Tyre he moved directly to
Egypt. And that takes us back to Herodotus who refers to Palestine as part of
Syria and conquering Damascus was sufficient. This negates the bible myth of a
Judah/Judea having existed in either the time of Herodotus or Alexander.

One of the reasons for posting a thread to a conference is to be refuted. So
again, if anyone here can recite archaeological evidence of such a
civilization in bibleland then sci.archaeology is a place to expect to find
those people.

If you know of such evidence please feel free to recite it.

--
There is no archaeological evidence of any Jews or
Judeans prior to the late 2nd c. BC.
The Iron Webmaster, 4050
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2

Matt Giwer · Guest

Speculation as to origins follows

OK, Smartass, who created it and why? 

That is the usual form of the question I get from believers. In this case a
believer is not just that it is the revealed word of god. Many will settle
for just some tribal legends. The only thing they appear to have in common
is that the Old Testament story is something special.



So lets start from the top. If you are in the divine revelation category, go
thy way, nothing can save you. Divine revelation or not there is still no
evidence supporting this revelation and more than sufficient to say the
stories are no, at best, divine bullshit.



If you are not in the divine revelation category you don>t have jack. The
most you have is a different creator(s) at a different time. No matter who
you want to have created it or when it is still in the category of an
invented religion. Whomever it was and whenever they did it they are no
different from Mohamed, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.



The bottom line is no matter who or what I suggest as to the creation of the
Old Testament there is no essential difference between what I suggest and
all the other non-divine sources. It makes no difference when this pile of
fiction was created. At bottom it remains both created and fiction.



I frankly admit I can only guess. My guess in time is after the Greeks ruled
the region as it was only after the Greek rule that an indigenous
civilization existed to created and preserve these fictions. In addition the
use of Greek literary forms requires the Greek influence.



This region was the Anus Mundi of the Greak empire as it was of the Roman
Empire. It was populated with primitive genital mutilating people who
practiced animal sacrifice and used capital punishment to enforce their
ritual/taboo society. See stoning for details. There is no nice way to say
it.



That may explain the fact that nothing of the events in the region before
Rome took over was important enough to record. Because so little survived in
general we can>t say that nothing was recorded at the time. We can say that
nothing was important enough for any wide spread mention or interest.



The absence of mention leads to two important books, 1 and 2 Maccabe. This
recounts a civil war between a civilized Greek faction and an Ayatollah
fundamentalist faction. The Ayatollahs won lead by Judah Maccabe. The
winners preserved two versions of the victory, one with a religious and the
other with a civil view of the war.

<blockquote>

Before going to far with this consider there is exactly one piece of
evidence separating these books from the canonical Old Testament. One coin
has been found with an image of a person>s head and an inscription saying he
is the grandson of Judah Maccabe. That is all there is. To put this in
context, there is not even that for the Old Testament.

</blockquote>

Assuming the books of Maccabe recount a real event the winners of this civil
war would want to create a historical right to rule. The right to rule
throughout all human history has been based upon conquest. The only change
to this was in 1945 when UN members abjured that right on paper.



So I nominate the Maccabes as the creators of the Old Testament. First off
there is a major fault with this identification. They are the only people we
know about involved in the only event we know about between the start of the
Greek and Roman involvement in the region. So there is really no one else to
suggest created it.



But here we have people who did in fact create books documenting their
victory so they were not all that primitive. So creating more books is not
a problem. They were also around prior to the appearance of the Old
Testament, prior to any mention of any of the stories in the Old Testament
and prior to any mention of the people of the Old Testament. There was no
one before them.



At the other end of the time frame the Romans in the immediately post Caesar
period involve themselves in the kingdoms in the aftermath of Maccabes. This
is hard to say but if the Herods' kingdom had existed at the time of the
civil war it is not clear why they did not become involved in it. They
should have simply eaten the weaken victors to enlarge the kingdom.



How did they create it? 

This was after the Greeks took over the region and created three loosely
associated empires. If they wanted to create a history for themselves they
had the entire Alexandrian Library to draw upon for inspiration. Alexander>s
contemporaries considered his collection of official records of the
conquered peoples to be looting. There is no evidence Alexander had the
"copy and return" policy of the later library.



In any event the library would certainly have the history of bibleland from
Damascus as well as surrounding regions going back at least 1000 years
[upheaval reference] and of Egypt and its rule of bibleland another 500 or
more years. Inspirational material was certainly plentiful. Additionally
what is known of the real history of bibleland shows their pantheon was the
same as that from Persia to Greece to Egypt. So stories of the gods were
readily available. Consider no greater fraction of religious literature
survived than of secular literature.

--
If we have a real Depression everything done will become things never to
repeat even if they had nothing to do with it or were even good on balance.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4055
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7

Elijahovah · Guest

If the Hebrew is from the Septuagint then it would mean
the year 6000 is 800 AD instead of 1975 AD.
And that would mean God has done nothing for 1200 years.
The chronologers who used the Septuagint to claim 500 AD
was year 6000 is like believing the Septuagint came from
true beleivers in India. Are we to accredit the Jews as being
not keepers of the truth and the faith but rather the deviant
deserters of it ?

Elijahovah · Guest

Darwin>s human evolution is a maximum final deviant
from the truth and reality. But this doesnt take guilt away from
all the previous deviants who claimed Adam was 5200 BC
and 5500 BC and 6000 BC and even now an absurd
20,000 BC. How do these men envision they have fallen upon truth
by thinking they found the real Adam as some ancient date
thousands to millions of years ago without fulfilled promise of
God in any of it. Such chronologies are to glorify the one
chronologist who constructs it as if he has found the words
that the whole world has been looking for. And yet the world
has made its choice with Darwin. And they have reconstructed
all time in the same way the ancients twisted it all in Egypt
and India and China to disagree with the Shemites.
Of what greater glory would it be to add to this trash and
in like fashion claim you found Adam back in those
Jurassic years etc. Fools awaiting death in a global disaster
is what you have become. And you may not feel you await this,
but the reality is what rushes in on you.

Moses wrote Genesis in 1512 BC and his exodus being sothic
is not July 1313 BC but rather 720 years after Ur being
180 leap days, and that date likewise being sothic in the
360-day calendar. 137 Julian = 139x 360 days
plus 720 years 180 leap days is the 857 years (137+720).
720x 365 days = 730x 360 days
all dates are reversed from 2233-1513 BC and this is why
China and Rome think the Flood is 2953 BC and
Era 753 BC.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 1 of 9