nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 99:
Line 99: + + + + +
→needless revert: The Israelites had writing
:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Why do you try to exclude some scholars on the basis of religious affiliation? That is unfair discrimination and biased.
::Accepting a late date of compilation would require accepting that the record is not eyewitness testimony for a large part of it, and would make other parts of the Bible incorrect. For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.
::I strongly suspect that your claims about the origin of Hebrew are wrong. Even if you are correct with that, it doesn't follow that the Israelites didn't use ''another'' language (and translate later). Remember Moses was raised in Pharaoh's house in Egypt, and Egypt had writing, so Moses would have been able to write. Do you think that no other Israelite of his time could write? That's would be nonsense. Ergo, the Israelites had a written language (whether or not it was Hebrew) from the time of Moses at the latest.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== Question on text ==
== Question on text ==