| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2006 04:31:10 PM |
| Object: |
reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
Synopsis:
How then do we reconcile the Torah's twice repeated 600 thousand figure
with the contradictions with history this causes? Recall our flawed
Flintstone proof. The problem was with the dictionary we were
consulting. In this case, the problem occurs with the translation of
the Hebrew 'eleph'. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one.
The Hebrew word 'eleph' can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also
rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.'" [15] Consider
the following Torah quotes. Where the Hebrew word 'ELEPH' is used, I
will CAPITALIZE the translation.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=106529
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=98052
.
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 01:27:21 PM |
|
|
<martin.winer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136845870.331981.52450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Synopsis:
How then do we reconcile the Torah's twice repeated 600 thousand figure
with the contradictions with history this causes? Recall our flawed
Flintstone proof. The problem was with the dictionary we were
consulting. In this case, the problem occurs with the translation of
the Hebrew 'eleph'. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one.
The Hebrew word 'eleph' can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also
rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.'" [15] Consider
the following Torah quotes. Where the Hebrew word 'ELEPH' is used, I
will CAPITALIZE the translation.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=106529
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=98052
It is impressive to see how god speaks so clearly and unambiguously to his
flock!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
09 Jan 2006 07:17:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Synopsis:
How then do we reconcile the Torah's twice repeated 600 thousand
figure
with the contradictions with history this causes? Recall our flawed
Flintstone proof. The problem was with the dictionary we were
consulting. In this case, the problem occurs with the translation of
the Hebrew 'eleph'. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one.
The Hebrew word 'eleph' can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also
rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.'" [15] Consider
the following Torah quotes. Where the Hebrew word 'ELEPH' is used, I
will CAPITALIZE the translation.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=106529
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=98052
Won't work. It's been tried before. Using your paradigm we have the
translation some like 600 clans men of military age, or 600 military
units men of military age.
It is obvious you do not read Hebrew and have cut and pasted from
another site or book. For instance the words you have translated as
CHIEFS, is a different word in each of those verses. And your most
egregious error is that you forget that the alef is a not exactly the
same as our vowels as it is written.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 12:07:02 AM |
|
|
"The Gezer calendar [10th century 'proto-hebrew'] is written without
any vowels, and it does not use consonants to imply vowels even in the
places where more modern spelling requires it (see below)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Early_history
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 03:34:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"The Gezer calendar [10th century 'proto-hebrew'] is written without
any vowels, and it does not use consonants to imply vowels even in the
places where more modern spelling requires it (see below)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Early_history
So what? That has nothing to do with your earlier allegation. (And it
would help if you quote the material to which you are replying). The
PROTO-Hebrew, and not Hebrew, of the 10th century BCE had nothing to do
with the fables that were fabricated in the 6th Century BCE. And
furthermore, even those have nothing to do with the Hebrew of the
earliest texts that we do have, which date no earlier than the second
century BCE, or perhaps the late third century. Those texts still
contain the alef, and the words in the passages you quoted are still
spelled differently for the word "chief", as well as the other words
you imply might be mistakes.
You are trying to rationalize texts that were exaggerated fables,
invented to give the returning captives an honorable past, and the
right to kill those who had remained and were not exiled, if they
didn't accept the Persian endorsed priests and leaders.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 06:00:01 PM |
|
|
I don't think these 'fables' were spun out of thin air. I think they
were edited from existing texts. Hence my issues with the phoenecian
alphabet and language are valid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 09:23:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I don't think these 'fables' were spun out of thin air. I think they
were edited from existing texts. Hence my issues with the phoenecian
alphabet and language are valid.
First, there has to be some evidence of earlier texts. There is none
except for some fables in Genesis such as the creation stories or Flood
stories which were borrowed from other neighboring cultures. You can
believe in pixies, fairies and leprechauns but that still doesn't make
it reality.
You realize that if someone reading this has not received prior posts
(an all to often occurrance on the Internet), they have no idea what
you are talking about. It is Usenet protocol to quote that to which
you are replying. Your failure to do so after being reminded indicates
you are either a troll or an idiot. In either case, further
communication with you would be nonsentical.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 10:43:06 PM |
|
|
Your failure to do so after being reminded indicates
you are either a troll or an idiot. In either case, further
communication with you would be nonsentical.
I thought google groups auto-threaded things. Seems to be working for
me, consider a new news reader.
You can
believe in pixies, fairies and leprechauns but that still doesn't make
it reality.
You seem to proceed from the assumption that I have an opinion opposite
to your own. Allow me to state clearly, I think the stories of exodus
and numbers are largely mythical. My efforts to reconcile the Bible
with archaeology are an attempt to determine how much history there is
in it.
You SEEM to be saying none. William Dever, who is an archaeologist I
respect, takes a more moderate view. He suggests there is some history
and some exaggeration (fable). He uses archaeology to guide his
interpretation as do I.
The value of this approach is to help unify the two fields of study.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
09 Jan 2006 06:47:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Synopsis:
How then do we reconcile the Torah's twice repeated 600 thousand figure
with the contradictions with history this causes? Recall our flawed
Flintstone proof. The problem was with the dictionary we were
consulting. In this case, the problem occurs with the translation of
the Hebrew 'eleph'. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one.
The Hebrew word 'eleph' can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also
rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.'" [15] Consider
the following Torah quotes. Where the Hebrew word 'ELEPH' is used, I
will CAPITALIZE the translation.
Numbers 1
28 Of the children of Issachar, by their generations, after their
families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the
names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth
to war;
29 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Issachar, were
fifty and four thousand and four hundred.
30 Of the children of Zebulun, by their generations, after their
families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the
names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth
to war;
31 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Zebulun, were
fifty and seven thousand and four hundred.
32 Of the children of Joseph, namely , of the children of Ephraim, by
their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers,
according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward,
all that were able to go forth to war;
33 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Ephraim, were
forty thousand and five hundred.
The 600 thousands number fits with the enumeration
of those capable of going to war of individual tribes.
These nyumbers are highly exaggerrated, made up from whole
clothe by lying billy goat herder priests.
--
"A dead religion is like a dead cat -- the stiffer and
more rotten it is, the better it is as a missile weapon."
- H.G. Wells
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 09:05:11 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2006 14:31:10 -0800, wrote in
alt.atheism
Poor poor deluded fuckwit. Run along child and leave the adults be.
[snip drooling demented idiocy]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: reconciling archaeology with the Torah |
10 Jan 2006 10:45:02 PM |
|
|
Fundies and trolls are cordially ...
if you assume I'm a fundamentalist, you should read the article more
carefully. I actually dismantle the Kuzari argument, a fundamental
argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
