| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Matt Giwer
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: JEWS NEED TO FIND CHRIST they are not the chosen people |
 |
|
jlk7e wrote:
| Quote: | I don't think that's quite right. The Book of Kings, for instance,
probably sets down a fairly accurate history of the Kingdoms of Israel
and Judah. Ezra and Nehemiah are generally also considered to be
relatively accurate as a description of the post-exilic Jewish
community. And so forth.
|
Do you not find it strange there is no mention of any of them any place else?
Anyone can create a mythology. Coroborative mention is required to move it beyond
the realm of mythology.
| Quote: | It's not a "literary work". It's a religious work, which explicitly
sets itself out to be the expression of God's will, as expressed
through his prophets, and the words and deeds of his only begotten
son, and so forth.
|
Can you produce one internal mention to that effect? If it does not claim that
then it is ex post facto imaginative blind faith to claim it is what it did not
know it was at the time.
| Quote: | Whether or not you believe that to be correct (I
do not), that's an entirely different matter from a work of fiction or
a literary work, which generally makes no serious pretense to truth,
and certainly rarely claims itself to be the work of God.
|
The general rule is that the earliest copy of a work or the earliest coroborative
reference is the earliest date of any document. The earliest mention of the OT is
to the Greek Septuagint. By the rules that means it is the original. The first
mention of it being a translation is by Josephus three centuries later.
There are on exceptions for self-proclaimed religious works.
I have had people tell me the Septuagint was the first time tribal stories were
written down but when I say that means Josephus lied they change myths. And when I
point out it is only true believers who cite "primitive" tribes as having accurate
tribal stories I point out there are only three examples which are less than 100
years old and all regarding Captain Cook and opposed to that are all the rest
which are crap.
In fact no one can find basis for anything in the OT outside the OT. Even when
there are "names" of kings only true believers can force the inscribed name or
mention into the biblical name.
--
Sharon, Sharon. What is the difference? Scheinerman picked
it because it was a girl's name.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2802 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Ron B.
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: JEWS NEED TO FIND CHRIST they are not the chosen people |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:35:44 +0000, Matt Giwer wrote:
| Quote: | The general rule is that the earliest copy of a work or the earliest
coroborative
reference is the earliest date of any document. The earliest mention of
the OT is to the Greek Septuagint. By the rules that means it is the
original. The first mention of it being a translation is by Josephus
three centuries later.
There are on exceptions for self-proclaimed religious works.
I have had people tell me the Septuagint was the first time tribal
stories were
written down but when I say that means Josephus lied they change myths.
And when I point out it is only true believers who cite "primitive"
tribes as having accurate tribal stories I point out there are only
three examples which are less than 100 years old and all regarding
Captain Cook and opposed to that are all the rest which are crap.
|
Whoa now. The Septuagint was a translation into Greek from Hebrew and
Aramaic. Are you saying that the Semitic texts were translations? It's
very name means "70"; the number of scholars that legend claims were
involved in the translation from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek. BTW the
Dead Sea Scrolls were _at the latest_ contempory with Josephus. They are
predominantly in Hebrew.
The "... first time tribal stories were written down..." ????? Ever heard
of Gilgamesh? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Josh
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:00 am Post subject: Re: JEWS NEED TO FIND CHRIST they are not the chosen people |
|
|
bunghole@cari.net.my (Cindy Duncan) wrote in message news:<87ddae62.0308271619.7f41af63@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | The many jews of the world are not considered the "chosen people"
anymore.
There was a time when jews were considered to be the chosen people of
God. Since then, Our Lord Jesus Christ has come to save the world.
Anyone who still considers themselves a jew in a mortal sinner and
will be condmened to hell for eternity unless they accept Jesus. The
same applies to muslims, and other non-believers.
What the hell is this garbage doing on this newsgroup? |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Matt Giwer
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 11:55 am Post subject: Re: JEWS NEED TO FIND CHRIST they are not the chosen people |
|
|
Ron B. wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:35:44 +0000, Matt Giwer wrote:
The general rule is that the earliest copy of a work or the earliest
coroborative
reference is the earliest date of any document. The earliest mention of
the OT is to the Greek Septuagint. By the rules that means it is the
original. The first mention of it being a translation is by Josephus
three centuries later.
There are on exceptions for self-proclaimed religious works.
I have had people tell me the Septuagint was the first time tribal
stories were
written down but when I say that means Josephus lied they change myths.
And when I point out it is only true believers who cite "primitive"
tribes as having accurate tribal stories I point out there are only
three examples which are less than 100 years old and all regarding
Captain Cook and opposed to that are all the rest which are crap.
Whoa now. The Septuagint was a translation into Greek from Hebrew and
Aramaic.
|
That is a story started by Josephus three centuries after the Septuagint is
mentioned by outside sources. How would he know? Why did not one else in three
centuries mention a translation or any other version in any other language? Why is
there no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language? Why does Alexander's
inventory of conquests not mention any people who can be even remotely the people
in the OT? Why is there no mention of a Hebrew language?
Abraham the Iraqi would speak whatever language was common at the time. After
four centuries in Egypt his descendents would speak Egyptian. When they first
appear in history they speak Aramaic. To have them ever speaking Hebrew they would
have had to adopt it for no reason and then stop speaking it. And there is not
even one borrowed Egyptian word in all of Hebrew.
It all appears to start with the Macabbees as conquerors imposing a foreign
religion on the locals. And note priests even today can be identified genetically,
the cohinim gene so they did not intermarry with the local population before
becoming priests.
| Quote: | Are you saying that the Semitic texts were translations? It's
very name means "70"; the number of scholars that legend claims were
involved in the translation from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek. BTW the
Dead Sea Scrolls were _at the latest_ contempory with Josephus. They are
predominantly in Hebrew.
|
They are also about the earliest examples of Hebrew. All the proto or paleo
hebrew is not particularly different from any other variant of phoenician. It is
nothing more than wishful thinking calling it other than a phoenician dialect. The
squared off script first appears about 50BC.
| Quote: | The "... first time tribal stories were written down..." ????? Ever heard
of Gilgamesh?
|
First time _THEIR_ (meaning Judean) tribal stories.
--
As surely as Moses lead the Hebrews out of bondage in Egypt
there was a holocaust.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2851 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robert J. Kolker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: JEWS NEED TO FIND CHRIST they are not the chosen people |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
| Quote: |
Abraham the Iraqi would speak whatever language was common at the
time.
|
That would be some variant of Aramaic. That is what was spoken in what
is now Syria and Iraq.
Biblical Hebrew is a mutated version of Aramaic. The two languages are
similar in the way that Spanish and Portuguse are similar.
Later Hebrew (from the Mishnaic period) assimilated some Arabic and
Persian. There were even a few Greek words borrowed (names of things).
The verbs are purely semitic and no Greek at all.
Modern Hebrew has borrowed many words for the European languages. Like
any other living language, it is a mutt.
English, as languages go, is one of the most successful mutts, having
grown out of German (mostly), French (by way of the Norman conquest),
Latin and Greek. English has even borrowed several Arabic words. For
example, alcohol, algebra and such like.
Living languages are never "pure".
Bob Kolker |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Matt Giwer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: JEWS NEED TO FIND CHRIST they are not the chosen people |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
| Quote: | Matt Giwer wrote:
Abraham the Iraqi would speak whatever language was common at the
time.
That would be some variant of Aramaic. That is what was spoken in what
is now Syria and Iraq.
|
So far as I am aware, there is no connection between the language in the begat
time of 1600 BC Iraq and Aramaic. There is plenty of translated material but no
Aramaic connection in sight.
Aramaic seems to have appeared with Persia rather than being anything prior to
that. Farsi is an Aryan language not semitic. (My personal guess completely
without evidence of course is that aramaic is a pidgeon of Persian and Greek as it
shows the simplifications of a pidgeon language. Most of its meanings come from
intended context.)
--
When adults do something, that which they accomplish is what they intend.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2830 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
