Uncanny Accuracy of the Bible!

[konradv]

"The Exodus was apparently concocted to "prove" the Israelites have a God-given right to Canaan/Palestine."

You are a foolish fellow.

1. The timing of the Old Testament can be placed at the fourth century BCE.

2. An autonomous Palestinian political identity did not begin to assert itself until the mid-1960s. In the 1950s, no political organization existed around which a specifically Palestinian identity could be articulated. Pan-Arabism was a dominant mode of political expression, and the Hashimite regime strongly promoted Jordanian sovereignty over Palestinian affairs and identity.
Jordan - Palestinians

Could you please stick to the specifics of my contention that the Exodus was concocted? It supposedly happened long before the 4th century BCE, so your comment only serves to bolster my case.

On your second point, until the 20th century there never were any countries called Belarus, Slovenia or Slovakia. Are you saying they're illegitimate?

1. "Exodus was concocted"

'Next, Lawrence and Woolley set out to locate the Bible’s Kadesh-Barnea, somewhere near the desert of Sinai, and south of the Dead Sea, called ‘the Wilderness of Zin’ in the Bible. The wanderings of the ancient Israelites is a focal point of Exodus, and Kadesh-Barnea was their headquarters for 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Data in support of the desert wanderings would be gold to biblical archaeology."

So...you're busted.
Strike one.

2. "It supposedly happened long before the 4th century BCE, so your comment only serves to bolster my case."

Try a course in logic....it may help. But I have my doubts.
You tried to foist off some bogus idea that Exodus was written to provide Israel with a reason for being...and a claim to Palestine.

Since there is no confluence between the writing of Exodus and the need for proof of said claim...your bogus statement is.....bogus.

Strike two.

3. "On your second point, until the 20th century there never were any countries called Belarus, Slovenia or Slovakia. Are you saying they're illegitimate?"

I never claimed any country was illegitimate.

Your obfuscation: strike three!

Some people see you as half empty, I see you as being half full of it.

How am I busted by #1? They set out to look for it, but you provide no cite to check what they found. What about the fact that Israelite communities are known to have used the same kind of pottery as Canaanite communities? Strange for a people that supposedly came from Egypt. Also, there's no evidence of warfare at the time(s) in question. Why, if there was an invasion and the destruction of Canaanite towns?

As for number 2, you may contest my thesis, but provide no bust worthy evidence. The Israelites had been taken to Babylon and needed a national genesis story to keep them together. That's what happened. Once again, there's no archaeological evidence the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan ever happened. So what are we to surmise?

As for #3, if you weren't talking about legitimacy, why bring up the Palestinians at all? You fell into a trap just because I mentioned the word 'Palestine'.

As far as I'm concerned that was ball three and you better be careful with your next pitch.

 

[Jroc]

Could you please stick to the specifics of my contention that the Exodus was concocted? It supposedly happened long before the 4th century BCE, so your comment only serves to bolster my case.

On your second point, until the 20th century there never were any countries called Belarus, Slovenia or Slovakia. Are you saying they're illegitimate?

1. "Exodus was concocted"

'Next, Lawrence and Woolley set out to locate the Bible’s Kadesh-Barnea, somewhere near the desert of Sinai, and south of the Dead Sea, called ‘the Wilderness of Zin’ in the Bible. The wanderings of the ancient Israelites is a focal point of Exodus, and Kadesh-Barnea was their headquarters for 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Data in support of the desert wanderings would be gold to biblical archaeology."

So...you're busted.
Strike one.

2. "It supposedly happened long before the 4th century BCE, so your comment only serves to bolster my case."

Try a course in logic....it may help. But I have my doubts.
You tried to foist off some bogus idea that Exodus was written to provide Israel with a reason for being...and a claim to Palestine.

Since there is no confluence between the writing of Exodus and the need for proof of said claim...your bogus statement is.....bogus.

Strike two.

3. "On your second point, until the 20th century there never were any countries called Belarus, Slovenia or Slovakia. Are you saying they're illegitimate?"

I never claimed any country was illegitimate.

Your obfuscation: strike three!

Some people see you as half empty, I see you as being half full of it.

How am I busted by #1? They set out to look for it, but you provide no cite to check what they found. What about the fact that Israelite communities are known to have used the same kind of pottery as Canaanite communities? Strange for a people that supposedly came from Egypt. Also, there's no evidence of warfare at the time(s) in question. Why, if there was an invasion and the destruction of Canaanite towns?

As for number 2, you may contest my thesis, but provide no bust worthy evidence. The Israelites had been taken to Babylon and needed a national genesis story to keep them together. That's what happened. Once again, there's no archaeological evidence the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan ever happened. So what are we to surmise?

As for #3, if you weren't talking about legitimacy, why bring up the Palestinians at all? You fell into a trap just because I mentioned the word 'Palestine'.

As far as I'm concerned that was ball three and you better be careful with your next pitch.

Those Jews are some pretty smart people the way they conspired throughout thousands of years and all completely agreed through all that time on what happened at Mt Sinai, the exodus, the giving of the law to Moses, what a conspiracy, although I do think the Jews would've made themselves look a little better throughout all this… I guess it's just another part of the conspiracy

 

[konradv]

1. "Exodus was concocted"

'Next, Lawrence and Woolley set out to locate the Bible’s Kadesh-Barnea, somewhere near the desert of Sinai, and south of the Dead Sea, called ‘the Wilderness of Zin’ in the Bible. The wanderings of the ancient Israelites is a focal point of Exodus, and Kadesh-Barnea was their headquarters for 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Data in support of the desert wanderings would be gold to biblical archaeology."

So...you're busted.
Strike one.

2. "It supposedly happened long before the 4th century BCE, so your comment only serves to bolster my case."

Try a course in logic....it may help. But I have my doubts.
You tried to foist off some bogus idea that Exodus was written to provide Israel with a reason for being...and a claim to Palestine.

Since there is no confluence between the writing of Exodus and the need for proof of said claim...your bogus statement is.....bogus.

Strike two.

3. "On your second point, until the 20th century there never were any countries called Belarus, Slovenia or Slovakia. Are you saying they're illegitimate?"

I never claimed any country was illegitimate.

Your obfuscation: strike three!

Some people see you as half empty, I see you as being half full of it.

How am I busted by #1? They set out to look for it, but you provide no cite to check what they found. What about the fact that Israelite communities are known to have used the same kind of pottery as Canaanite communities? Strange for a people that supposedly came from Egypt. Also, there's no evidence of warfare at the time(s) in question. Why, if there was an invasion and the destruction of Canaanite towns?

As for number 2, you may contest my thesis, but provide no bust worthy evidence. The Israelites had been taken to Babylon and needed a national genesis story to keep them together. That's what happened. Once again, there's no archaeological evidence the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan ever happened. So what are we to surmise?

As for #3, if you weren't talking about legitimacy, why bring up the Palestinians at all? You fell into a trap just because I mentioned the word 'Palestine'.

As far as I'm concerned that was ball three and you better be careful with your next pitch.

Those Jews are some pretty smart people the way they conspired throughout thousands of years and all completely agreed through all that time on what happened at Mt Sinai, the exodus, the giving of the law to Moses, what a conspiracy, although I do think the Jews would've made themselves look a little better throughout all this… I guess it's just another part of the conspiracy

Who said the something didn't happen in Sinai? There could have been a small group that came in from Egypt. The archaeology just doesn't support a large migration or a war of destruction.

 

[Jroc]

How am I busted by #1? They set out to look for it, but you provide no cite to check what they found. What about the fact that Israelite communities are known to have used the same kind of pottery as Canaanite communities? Strange for a people that supposedly came from Egypt. Also, there's no evidence of warfare at the time(s) in question. Why, if there was an invasion and the destruction of Canaanite towns?

As for number 2, you may contest my thesis, but provide no bust worthy evidence. The Israelites had been taken to Babylon and needed a national genesis story to keep them together. That's what happened. Once again, there's no archaeological evidence the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan ever happened. So what are we to surmise?

As for #3, if you weren't talking about legitimacy, why bring up the Palestinians at all? You fell into a trap just because I mentioned the word 'Palestine'.

As far as I'm concerned that was ball three and you better be careful with your next pitch.

Those Jews are some pretty smart people the way they conspired throughout thousands of years and all completely agreed through all that time on what happened at Mt Sinai, the exodus, the giving of the law to Moses, what a conspiracy, although I do think the Jews would've made themselves look a little better throughout all this… I guess it's just another part of the conspiracy

Who said the something didn't happen in Sinai? There could have been a small group that came in from Egypt. The archaeology just doesn't support a large migration or a war of destruction.

No need for proof, the chain has been unbroken for well over three thousand years, there is no doubt what happen, as it has been passed down through the generations without any argument or disagreement on what actually happened "We were slaves in Egypt" every Passover we commemorate our deliverance out of Egypt by the hand of G-d through his servant Moses

 

[konradv]

Those Jews are some pretty smart people the way they conspired throughout thousands of years and all completely agreed through all that time on what happened at Mt Sinai, the exodus, the giving of the law to Moses, what a conspiracy, although I do think the Jews would've made themselves look a little better throughout all this… I guess it's just another part of the conspiracy

Who said the something didn't happen in Sinai? There could have been a small group that came in from Egypt. The archaeology just doesn't support a large migration or a war of destruction.

No need for proof, the chain has been unbroken for well over three thousand years, there is no doubt what happen, as it has been passed down through the generations without any argument or disagreement on what actually happened "We were slaves in Egypt" every Passover we commemorate our deliverance out of Egypt by the hand of G-d through his servant Moses

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

Maybe, suggests historian Baruch Halpern at Pennsylvania State University, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. "That's basically what the story is about," Halpern says. "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, he says, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.

New find reignites Exodus debate - US News and World Report

 

[Jroc]

Who said the something didn't happen in Sinai? There could have been a small group that came in from Egypt. The archaeology just doesn't support a large migration or a war of destruction.

No need for proof, the chain has been unbroken for well over three thousand years, there is no doubt what happen, as it has been passed down through the generations without any argument or disagreement on what actually happened "We were slaves in Egypt" every Passover we commemorate our deliverance out of Egypt by the hand of G-d through his servant Moses

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

Maybe, suggests historian Baruch Halpern at Pennsylvania State University, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. "That's basically what the story is about," Halpern says. "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, he says, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.

New find reignites Exodus debate - US News and World Report

Good thing all those people who came back and those men who wrote the story all agreed on exactly what happened with no deviation what so ever from the narative but hey like i said those Jews are some smart people

 

[konradv]

No need for proof, the chain has been unbroken for well over three thousand years, there is no doubt what happen, as it has been passed down through the generations without any argument or disagreement on what actually happened "We were slaves in Egypt" every Passover we commemorate our deliverance out of Egypt by the hand of G-d through his servant Moses

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

Maybe, suggests historian Baruch Halpern at Pennsylvania State University, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. "That's basically what the story is about," Halpern says. "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, he says, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.

New find reignites Exodus debate - US News and World Report

Good thing all those people who came back and those men who wrote the story all agreed on exactly what happened with no deviation what so ever from the narative but hey like i said those Jews are some smart people

How do you know there was no deviation? Hundreds of years passed between the telling of the stories and when they were written down. If it all happened as told, where's the archaeological evidence?

 

[Jroc]

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

Maybe, suggests historian Baruch Halpern at Pennsylvania State University, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. "That's basically what the story is about," Halpern says. "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, he says, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.

New find reignites Exodus debate - US News and World Report

Good thing all those people who came back and those men who wrote the story all agreed on exactly what happened with no deviation what so ever from the narative but hey like i said those Jews are some smart people

How do you know there was no deviation? Hundreds of years passed between the telling of the stories and when they were written down. If it all happened as told, where's the archaeological evidence?

Evidence? there’s no way to convince the nay Sayers, you can believe what you what, but to think that some guys would simply write down a story and it would be universally accepted with no one arguing it's accuracy is highly unlikely.

 

[konradv]

Good thing all those people who came back and those men who wrote the story all agreed on exactly what happened with no deviation what so ever from the narative but hey like i said those Jews are some smart people

How do you know there was no deviation? Hundreds of years passed between the telling of the stories and when they were written down. If it all happened as told, where's the archaeological evidence?

Evidence? there’s no way to convince the nay Sayers, you can believe what you what, but to think that some guys would simply write down a story and it would be universally accepted with no one arguing it's accuracy is highly unlikely.

Sure, there's a way to convince me. Show me some evidence. Are the archaeologists at Tel Aviv University "naysayers"? Just saying "it had to have happened that way because people have been saying so for thousands of years" isn't evidence.

 

[Jroc]

How do you know there was no deviation? Hundreds of years passed between the telling of the stories and when they were written down. If it all happened as told, where's the archaeological evidence?

Evidence? there’s no way to convince the nay Sayers, you can believe what you what, but to think that some guys would simply write down a story and it would be universally accepted with no one arguing it's accuracy is highly unlikely.

Sure, there's a way to convince me. Show me some evidence. Are the archaeologists at Tel Aviv University "naysayers"? Just saying "it had to have happened that way because people have been saying so for thousands of years" isn't evidence.

of course they are, they're scientists

 

[konradv]

Evidence? there’s no way to convince the nay Sayers, you can believe what you what, but to think that some guys would simply write down a story and it would be universally accepted with no one arguing it's accuracy is highly unlikely.

Sure, there's a way to convince me. Show me some evidence. Are the archaeologists at Tel Aviv University "naysayers"? Just saying "it had to have happened that way because people have been saying so for thousands of years" isn't evidence.

of course they are, they're scientists

Doesn't that make you the "naysayer"? Apparently you're going to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what experts may say. If you're going to go by what people have said for thousands of years, doesn't that open up Greek myths to being declared TRUE? After all, Troy was discovered to be a real city.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Building a history. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University also points out that there's no physical evidence that thousands of people wandered for decades in the desert. Besides, Jericho and other Canaanite cities described in the Bible didn't exist when the Israelites were supposed to be conquering them. Finkelstein says the Bible isn't just fantasy, though. He thinks the first books of the Bible were written in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., long after the Exodus might have happened. The writers drew on a pool of folk tales, of myths, of shreds of evidence to build a history for Israel, he says.

Maybe, suggests historian Baruch Halpern at Pennsylvania State University, the Exodus actually happened over and over. Everyone knew someone who'd gone to Egypt and come back complaining. "That's basically what the story is about," Halpern says. "God, you know how much taxes they make us pay in Egypt?" Maybe through years of retelling, he says, their grousing became an epic of enslavement and escape.

New find reignites Exodus debate - US News and World Report

Good thing all those people who came back and those men who wrote the story all agreed on exactly what happened with no deviation what so ever from the narative but hey like i said those Jews are some smart people

How do you know there was no deviation? Hundreds of years passed between the telling of the stories and when they were written down. If it all happened as told, where's the archaeological evidence?

1. The oldest form of writing, cuneiform, first appeared in the Middle East in 3200 BCE, and continued ‘til the second century, CE. This is why writing was in place in ancient Israel, at the time of the prophets of the Old Testament, roughly the first and early second millennia BCE.

a. The importance of the above is that it disputes some fiction of an oral history that distorted the prophet’s messages. Writing was clearly recognized and appreciated.

b. Exodus 17:14 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book”



Strike four?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

How am I busted by #1? They set out to look for it, but you provide no cite to check what they found. What about the fact that Israelite communities are known to have used the same kind of pottery as Canaanite communities? Strange for a people that supposedly came from Egypt. Also, there's no evidence of warfare at the time(s) in question. Why, if there was an invasion and the destruction of Canaanite towns?

As for number 2, you may contest my thesis, but provide no bust worthy evidence. The Israelites had been taken to Babylon and needed a national genesis story to keep them together. That's what happened. Once again, there's no archaeological evidence the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan ever happened. So what are we to surmise?

As for #3, if you weren't talking about legitimacy, why bring up the Palestinians at all? You fell into a trap just because I mentioned the word 'Palestine'.

As far as I'm concerned that was ball three and you better be careful with your next pitch.

Those Jews are some pretty smart people the way they conspired throughout thousands of years and all completely agreed through all that time on what happened at Mt Sinai, the exodus, the giving of the law to Moses, what a conspiracy, although I do think the Jews would've made themselves look a little better throughout all this… I guess it's just another part of the conspiracy

Who said the something didn't happen in Sinai? There could have been a small group that came in from Egypt. The archaeology just doesn't support a large migration or a war of destruction.

1. “It identified the northern Sinai site Ain el-Qudeirat, rather than nearby Ain Kadeis (which had previously been proposed), as the site of Biblical Kadesh-Barnea, where the Hebrews in the Exodus settled and from whence Moses sent men to spy out the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 1:2, 19, 2:1; Numbers 13:3–21)…. they reasoned that only in the Kossaima district, which includes the sites of Ain el-Qudeirat, Kossaima, Muweilleh and Ain Kadeis, was there enough water and greenery to support a large tribal group. Moreover, Moses, in writing to the King of Edom, described Kadesh as “a city in the uttermost of thy border” (Numbers 20:16), and Lawrence and Woolley thought that the fortifications at Ain el-Qudeirat—assuming, on the basis of pottery, that they dated from the time of Moses—more nearly fit that description than any other site in the Kossaima area.” Lawrence of Arabia as Archaeologist, Stephen E. Tabachnick, BAR 23:05, Sep/Oct 1997 - CojsWiki.


2. Radiocarbon dating of organic remains collected by Bruins and van der Plicht prove Lawrence and Woolley correct.

a. “This identification, which was based on the biblical text, has been universally accepted.” The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea, Moshe Dothan, Ein el-Qudeirat, 1965 AD

 

[konradv]

Good thing all those people who came back and those men who wrote the story all agreed on exactly what happened with no deviation what so ever from the narative but hey like i said those Jews are some smart people

How do you know there was no deviation? Hundreds of years passed between the telling of the stories and when they were written down. If it all happened as told, where's the archaeological evidence?

1. The oldest form of writing, cuneiform, first appeared in the Middle East in 3200 BCE, and continued ‘til the second century, CE. This is why writing was in place in ancient Israel, at the time of the prophets of the Old Testament, roughly the first and early second millennia BCE.

a. The importance of the above is that it disputes some fiction of an oral history that distorted the prophet’s messages. Writing was clearly recognized and appreciated.

b. Exodus 17:14 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book”

Strike four?????

You yourself said they weren't written down until about the 4th century BCE. Now you're backdating what you previously said? BALK! All the runners move up!

 

[konradv]

Those Jews are some pretty smart people the way they conspired throughout thousands of years and all completely agreed through all that time on what happened at Mt Sinai, the exodus, the giving of the law to Moses, what a conspiracy, although I do think the Jews would've made themselves look a little better throughout all this… I guess it's just another part of the conspiracy

Who said the something didn't happen in Sinai? There could have been a small group that came in from Egypt. The archaeology just doesn't support a large migration or a war of destruction.

1. “It identified the northern Sinai site Ain el-Qudeirat, rather than nearby Ain Kadeis (which had previously been proposed), as the site of Biblical Kadesh-Barnea, where the Hebrews in the Exodus settled and from whence Moses sent men to spy out the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 1:2, 19, 2:1; Numbers 13:3–21)…. they reasoned that only in the Kossaima district, which includes the sites of Ain el-Qudeirat, Kossaima, Muweilleh and Ain Kadeis, was there enough water and greenery to support a large tribal group. Moreover, Moses, in writing to the King of Edom, described Kadesh as “a city in the uttermost of thy border” (Numbers 20:16), and Lawrence and Woolley thought that the fortifications at Ain el-Qudeirat—assuming, on the basis of pottery, that they dated from the time of Moses—more nearly fit that description than any other site in the Kossaima area.” Lawrence of Arabia as Archaeologist, Stephen E. Tabachnick, BAR 23:05, Sep/Oct 1997 - CojsWiki.


2. Radiocarbon dating of organic remains collected by Bruins and van der Plicht prove Lawrence and Woolley correct.

a. “This identification, which was based on the biblical text, has been universally accepted.” The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea, Moshe Dothan, Ein el-Qudeirat, 1965 AD

They proved people stayed there over the ages. Fine! How did they prove it was the Israelites? Did they find artifacts? Merely saying it's possible, isn't proof. You have to realize that I'm not saying some Israelites didn't travel from Egypt and were possibly badly treated while there. I'm saying that there's no evidence that a large host managed to survive in the desert for 40 years and then carried out an invasion in which they destroyed Canaanite cities. That's never been proven by archaeology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do you know there was no deviation? Hundreds of years passed between the telling of the stories and when they were written down. If it all happened as told, where's the archaeological evidence?

1. The oldest form of writing, cuneiform, first appeared in the Middle East in 3200 BCE, and continued ‘til the second century, CE. This is why writing was in place in ancient Israel, at the time of the prophets of the Old Testament, roughly the first and early second millennia BCE.

a. The importance of the above is that it disputes some fiction of an oral history that distorted the prophet’s messages. Writing was clearly recognized and appreciated.

b. Exodus 17:14 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book”

Strike four?????

You yourself said they weren't written down until about the 4th century BCE. Now you're backdating what you previously said? BALK! All the runners move up!

Cuneiform tablets were first used from 3200 BCE, and the tablets were reverently cared for.
By early second millennium BCE they were ubiquitous.

Book form can be placed in the fourth century BCE.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWWsadXzq8]Best Baseball Umpiring Calls of ALL TIME - YouTube[/ame]

 

[konradv]

1. The oldest form of writing, cuneiform, first appeared in the Middle East in 3200 BCE, and continued ‘til the second century, CE. This is why writing was in place in ancient Israel, at the time of the prophets of the Old Testament, roughly the first and early second millennia BCE.

a. The importance of the above is that it disputes some fiction of an oral history that distorted the prophet’s messages. Writing was clearly recognized and appreciated.

b. Exodus 17:14 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book”

Strike four?????

You yourself said they weren't written down until about the 4th century BCE. Now you're backdating what you previously said? BALK! All the runners move up!

Cuneiform tablets were first used from 3200 BCE, and the tablets were reverently cared for.
By early second millennium BCE they were ubiquitous.

Book form can be placed in the fourth century BCE.

Cuneiform tablets of the Bible? Are you talking about the Legend of Gilgamesh from which the Noah story was derived? I agree that much later the legends were accumulated into scrolls, not books, but that doesn't constitute proof that the stories happened as written. Once again we get back to the old "no archaeological evidence" bugaboo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You yourself said they weren't written down until about the 4th century BCE. Now you're backdating what you previously said? BALK! All the runners move up!

Cuneiform tablets were first used from 3200 BCE, and the tablets were reverently cared for.
By early second millennium BCE they were ubiquitous.

Book form can be placed in the fourth century BCE.

Cuneiform tablets of the Bible? Are you talking about the Legend of Gilgamesh from which the Noah story was derived? I agree that much later the legends were accumulated into scrolls, not books, but that doesn't constitute proof that the stories happened as written. Once again we get back to the old "no archaeological evidence" bugaboo.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[konradv]

Cuneiform tablets were first used from 3200 BCE, and the tablets were reverently cared for.
By early second millennium BCE they were ubiquitous.

Book form can be placed in the fourth century BCE.

Cuneiform tablets of the Bible? Are you talking about the Legend of Gilgamesh from which the Noah story was derived? I agree that much later the legends were accumulated into scrolls, not books, but that doesn't constitute proof that the stories happened as written. Once again we get back to the old "no archaeological evidence" bugaboo.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

I don't see any evidence. What do they say about people who see things that aren't there?

 

[Spoonman]

Take a look at Genesis. It tells us the earth was created in a firey turbulence and it gradually cooled. as it cooled the clouds formed, then the seas. from the seas, came the first life, fish. Followed by the birds, Then came man. The bible tells us exactly what sciience tells us today about how the earth was created. even the order is right. only the bible told us this thousands of years before science even validated their theories.