Bibleland in history and archaeology

[semiopen2]

Yes it is it the oldest mention we have of it. From this we learn enough to connect it with the Exodus version with the unleavened tacos (unless it is implicitly referring to beer) and such but also to learn the original has nothing to do with the Exodus Passover.

Once again your ignorance is showing.

In fact, Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are discussed in Exodus.

You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your ranks out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day throughout the ages as an institution for all time. (Exo 12:17 TNK)

From the Papyrus

Now, you thus count four[teen days in Nisan and on the 14th at twilight ob]serve [the Passover] and from the 15th day until the 21st day of [Nisan observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

There is a theory that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were once two different holidays which merged at some point; it is clear that you have no idea about this.

Assuming there was a Hebrew source assumes your conclusion. The only historical evidence of a "hebrew" source is a known forgery. Archaeologically there is no "hebrew" found in bibleland outside of the DSS. You have a very long way to go before that sentence can be taken seriously.

Your reply is more or less incoherent - there is definitely a Hebrew source. Your contention is that the Hebrew source postdates LXX.

There is stuff that is earlier than the DSS.

Lachish_letters

The Lachish Letters (Hoshaiah Letters) are a series of letters written in carbon ink in Ancient Hebrew on clay ostraca. The letters were discovered at the excavations at Lachish (Tel ed-Duweir).

The letters were probably written shortly before Lachish fell to the Babylonian army in 588/6 BC during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (ref. Jeremiah 34:7).

Ketef_Hinnom

This is basically the Priestly Blessing from Numbers 6"24-26

The LORD bless you and protect you! 25 The LORD deal kindly and graciously with you! 26 The LORD bestow His favor upon you and grant you peace! (Num 6:24 TNK)

The other example is similar to Deuteronomy 7:9

Know, therefore, that only the LORD your God is God, the steadfast God who keeps His covenant faithfully to the thousandth generation of those who love Him and keep His commandments, (Deu 7:9 TNK)

A major re-examination of the scrolls was therefore undertaken by the University of Southern California's West Semitic Research Project, using advanced photographic and computer enhancement techniques which enabled the script to be read more easily and the paleography to be dated more confidently. The results confirmed a date immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE.[4] Dr. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University, a specialist in ancient Semitic scripts, has said the study should "settle any controversy over [the date of] these inscriptions".[5]

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Yes it is it the oldest mention we have of it. From this we learn enough to connect it with the Exodus version with the unleavened tacos (unless it is implicitly referring to beer) and such but also to learn the original has nothing to do with the Exodus Passover.

Once again your ignorance is showing.

In fact, Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are discussed in Exodus.

Then my question is how my many references to Passover being ORDAINED in Exodus indicate I am ignorant of that fact? Passover is the word of the translator not mine. Frankly I am a bit skeptical of the translation given how many words result from how few letters even throwing in a mess of vowels. If you are disagreeing with the translation lets start from there.

I am discussing the unprovenanced ordained in Exodus against the provenance decreed by King Darius. In all investigations of ancient civilization only provenanced sources are considered. Unprovenanced material is not given serious consideration.

You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your ranks out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day throughout the ages as an institution for all time. (Exo 12:17 TNK)

From the Papyrus

Now, you thus count four[teen days in Nisan and on the 14th at twilight ob]serve [the Passover] and from the 15th day until the 21st day of [Nisan observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

There is a theory that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were once two different holidays which merged at some point; it is clear that you have no idea about this.

How does my knowledge of that one of dozens of theories bear upon this discussion? Simply because it is the one you know of? Because I did not raise it first? Why would I care about theories created about why the fiction writer wrote that sort of thing?

Frankly something that does not rise above idle, baseless speculation does not qualify as a theory. Idle speculation based upon unprovenanced fiction is sort of up to you to make relevant to the discussion of the creation date of the LXX/OT. Please do so.

Assuming there was a Hebrew source assumes your conclusion. The only historical evidence of a "hebrew" source is a known forgery. Archaeologically there is no "hebrew" found in bibleland outside of the DSS. You have a very long way to go before that sentence can be taken seriously.

Your reply is more or less incoherent - there is definitely a Hebrew source. Your contention is that the Hebrew source postdates LXX.

There is stuff that is earlier than the DSS.

Lachish_letters

As a matter of policy I do not respond to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority much less to anonymous authority such as wikipedia. For me wikipedia is always a showstopper regardless of context for both its anonymous nature and its mainly high school level content. If it is your source I suggest you do some real research at least at the college level.

The Lachish Letters (Hoshaiah Letters) are a series of letters written in carbon ink in Ancient Hebrew on clay ostraca. The letters were discovered at the excavations at Lachish (Tel ed-Duweir).

The letters were probably written shortly before Lachish fell to the Babylonian army in 588/6 BC during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (ref. Jeremiah 34:7).

Probably? Pardon if I do not consider probably the basis for further discussion nor any of the related invention of the name of a king found in the LXX thrown in for believers. I can say probably or probably not with equal validity without evidence.

Ketef_Hinnom

This is basically the Priestly Blessing from Numbers 6"24-26

And there were no priestly blessings at all in the 2nd c. BC which could have been incorporated into the fantasy work called Numbers?

The LORD bless you and protect you! 25 The LORD deal kindly and graciously with you! 26 The LORD bestow His favor upon you and grant you peace! (Num 6:24 TNK)

The other example is similar to Deuteronomy 7:9

Which like is a work of fantasy created at an unknown time by unknown persons for unknown reasons. I am at least identifying time, persons and reasons. I note you are not assigning any dates to these known works of fantasy. Were you to do so I would ask you to produce the basis for you time, persons and reasons.

But as it is you are only raising objections, rather lame objections in my opinion, while holding no position of your own on the issues I though we were discussing. Why is that?

Know, therefore, that only the LORD your God is God, the steadfast God who keeps His covenant faithfully to the thousandth generation of those who love Him and keep His commandments, (Deu 7:9 TNK)

A major re-examination of the scrolls was therefore undertaken by the University of Southern California's West Semitic Research Project, using advanced photographic and computer enhancement techniques which enabled the script to be read more easily and the paleography to be dated more confidently. The results confirmed a date immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE.[4] Dr. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University, a specialist in ancient Semitic scripts, has said the study should "settle any controversy over [the date of] these inscriptions".[5]

Paleography, aka font, aka script NOT language. The same as Phoenician from that time frame. However I am very much interested in reading the professional paper on the findings. I am not interested in the story some journalism major created about the paper. I am not interested because every time I have dug out the actual paper I have found the journalist's version is BS. I no longer the give them the benefit of the doubt. Similarly I do not bother with the ravings of biblical and political archaeologists.

And if I do not have access to the paper I change nothing until I do. No benefit of doubt.

[Peter Kirby]

There is stuff that is earlier than the DSS.

Lachish_letters

The Lachish Letters (Hoshaiah Letters) are a series of letters written in carbon ink in Ancient Hebrew on clay ostraca. The letters were discovered at the excavations at Lachish (Tel ed-Duweir).

The letters were probably written shortly before Lachish fell to the Babylonian army in 588/6 BC during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (ref. Jeremiah 34:7).

As a matter of policy I do not respond to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority much less to anonymous authority such as wikipedia. For me wikipedia is always a showstopper regardless of context for both its anonymous nature and its mainly high school level content. If it is your source I suggest you do some real research at least at the college level.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[A_Nony_Mouse]

There is stuff that is earlier than the DSS.

Lachish_letters

The Lachish Letters (Hoshaiah Letters) are a series of letters written in carbon ink in Ancient Hebrew on clay ostraca. The letters were discovered at the excavations at Lachish (Tel ed-Duweir).

The letters were probably written shortly before Lachish fell to the Babylonian army in 588/6 BC during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (ref. Jeremiah 34:7).

As a matter of policy I do not respond to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority much less to anonymous authority such as wikipedia. For me wikipedia is always a showstopper regardless of context for both its anonymous nature and its mainly high school level content. If it is your source I suggest you do some real research at least at the college level.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

If you wish to go with the fraudulent material from the Nizkook website run by Ken McVay, a man who once called my parents to threaten their lives, you are on your own. If you choose to side with that piece of shit I will happily have my parting shots on this forum posting to you the same as used to post to that animal. Your call.

If you specific issues with what I have posted I would much appreciate those issues addressed as they were posted.

[semiopen2]

If you wish to go with the fraudulent material from the Nizkook website run by Ken McVay, a man who once called my parents to threaten their lives, you are on your own.

This recalls the Simpsons episode where Sideshow Bob is on trial for trying to kill Selma

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F22.html

Selma's up next, and she explains, "Sideshow Bob tried to kill me on our
honeymoon." The crowd whispers among themselves, shocked at the
revelation. But Bob's lawyer asks craftily, "How many people in this
court are thinking of killing her right now?" A few spectators glumly
put their hands up. "Be honest," he admonishes, and many more hands go
up, even a priest's. Even Patty raises her hand: "Aw, she's always
leaving the toilet seat up."

True, it would be funnier if he had threatened the life of professor mouse.

[MrMacSon]

If you wish to go with the fraudulent material from the Nizkook website run by Ken McVay, a man who once called my parents to threaten their lives, you are on your own. If you choose to side with that piece of shit I will happily have my parting shots on this forum posting to you the same as used to post to that animal. Your call.

Now that is spectacular ad hominem