Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts [Gmirkin]

[neilgodfrey]

And if you really have identified clear evidence of biblical books prior to 270 BCE (I only noticed earlier that you said Paleo-Hebrew script was known earlier, a fact no-one disputes) then Gmirkin has made complete idiots of his reviewers and scholarship-specialist publisher.

With all due respect, I read years ago that the oldest texts which are found within the Bible are from inscribed silver bearing blessings also found in Numbers. The inscriptions have been dated to the 7th or 6th century BCE.

. . . .

Of course, blessing formulas are easy to insert into texts from any time period, so this in no way proves that the Hebrew Bible as a whole predates such inscribed silver.

You answered the question raised in the last sentence of yours that I quoted.

There are many archaeological finds from long before 270 that have their references in the Bible. The interpretation of such evidence needs to conform to the standards of interpretation applied in other historical-archaeological disciplines. Squeezing everything through a text for which we have no evidence prior to 270 is backwards reasoning. It's the circularity of method that has been increasingly identified and rejected especially since the 1990s.

A Pilate inscription does not prove the gospel Passion Narratives a historical -- the silver amulet interpretation of apologists is the same logical error.

[John T]

And if you really have identified clear evidence of biblical books prior to 270 BCE (I only noticed earlier that you said Paleo-Hebrew script was known earlier, a fact no-one disputes) then Gmirkin has made complete idiots of his reviewers and scholarship-specialist publisher.

With all due respect, I read years ago that the oldest texts which are found within the Bible are from inscribed silver bearing blessings also found in Numbers. The inscriptions have been dated to the 7th or 6th century BCE.

. . . .

Of course, blessing formulas are easy to insert into texts from any time period, so this in no way proves that the Hebrew Bible as a whole predates such inscribed silver.

You answered the question raised in the last sentence of yours that I quoted.

There are many archaeological finds from long before 270 that have their references in the Bible. The interpretation of such evidence needs to conform to the standards of interpretation applied in other historical-archaeological disciplines. Squeezing everything through a text for which we have no evidence prior to 270 is backwards reasoning. It's the circularity of method that has been increasingly identified and rejected especially since the 1990s.

A Pilate inscription does not prove the gospel Passion Narratives a historical -- the silver amulet interpretation of apologists is the same logical error.

And Neil would know all about backward reasoning being the expert he is.

Never mind that some of the Dead Sea scrolls were dated back to 300 BCE. Yes, Neil that would be around the time that Alexandra the Great invaded Israel back in 332 BCE.

"During the course of their research, the scholars discovered that some of the manuscripts they had already considered were more ancient than previously thought. The development might have major implications for the field."...jpost

https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/how-o ... ers-666302

But of course science is backward thinking in the world of Neil.

[ABuddhist]

And if you really have identified clear evidence of biblical books prior to 270 BCE (I only noticed earlier that you said Paleo-Hebrew script was known earlier, a fact no-one disputes) then Gmirkin has made complete idiots of his reviewers and scholarship-specialist publisher.

With all due respect, I read years ago that the oldest texts which are found within the Bible are from inscribed silver bearing blessings also found in Numbers. The inscriptions have been dated to the 7th or 6th century BCE.

. . . .

Of course, blessing formulas are easy to insert into texts from any time period, so this in no way proves that the Hebrew Bible as a whole predates such inscribed silver.

You answered the question raised in the last sentence of yours that I quoted.

There are many archaeological finds from long before 270 that have their references in the Bible. The interpretation of such evidence needs to conform to the standards of interpretation applied in other historical-archaeological disciplines. Squeezing everything through a text for which we have no evidence prior to 270 is backwards reasoning. It's the circularity of method that has been increasingly identified and rejected especially since the 1990s.

A Pilate inscription does not prove the gospel Passion Narratives a historical -- the silver amulet interpretation of apologists is the same logical error.

And Neil would know all about backward reasoning being the expert he is.

Never mind that some of the Dead Sea scrolls were dated back to 300 BCE. Yes, Neil that would be around the time that Alexandra the Great invaded Israel back in 332 BCE.

"During the course of their research, the scholars discovered that some of the manuscripts they had already considered were more ancient than previously thought. The development might have major implications for the field."...jpost

https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/how-o ... ers-666302

But of course science is backward thinking in the world of Neil.

With all due respect, though, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not the entire Hebrew Bible, not all portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls are dating back to 300 BCE, and the existence of independent, even genuinely ancient, shorter texts which were, c. 270 BCE, incorporated into the text which we call the Hebrew Bible is consistent with Gmnirkin's thesis.

[John T]

With all due respect, though, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not the entire Hebrew Bible, not all portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls are dating back to 300 BCE, and the existence of independent, even genuinely ancient, shorter texts which were, c. 270 BCE, incorporated into the text which we call the Hebrew Bible is consistent with Gmnirkin's thesis.

Since when have you shown due respect?
Certainly you care not about respecting the subject at hand but only to imply those (John T and others) not of your religion are all liars. Got it! You are no different than the mythicists.

However, and sadly, you know less about the origins of your purported religion than I.

In the slight chance you really are showing due respect and simply ignorant on the subject here is a link that will give you the basics regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In your simple search you will learn that all the books of the Tanakh were found except perhaps for Esther and Nehemiah.

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/

In all due respect.

[ABuddhist]

With all due respect, though, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not the entire Hebrew Bible, not all portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls are dating back to 300 BCE, and the existence of independent, even genuinely ancient, shorter texts which were, c. 270 BCE, incorporated into the text which we call the Hebrew Bible is consistent with Gmnirkin's thesis.

Since when have you shown due respect?
Certainly you care not about respecting the subject at hand but only to imply those (John T and others) not of your religion are all liars. Got it! You are no different than the mythicists.

However, and sadly, you know less about the origins of your purported religion than I.

In the slight chance you really are showing due respect and simply ignorant on the subject here is a link that will give you the basics regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In your simple search you will learn that all the books of the Tanakh were found except perhaps for Esther and Nehemiah.

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/

In all due respect.

1. I have shown due respect by being polite except when insulted, by being restrained in my anger, and by generally assuming that the persons whom I interact with are writing in good faith, are being honest, and are willing to cite sources for their claims. I do not accuse people of being trolls, attention-seekers, or liars.

2. Why do you think that I know less about the origins of Buddhism than you do? Have you read, for example, Sujato, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Brahmali. 2015. The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts. S.l.: lulu.com. https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... ticity.pdf ? Have you read any material about the formation of Mahayana Buddhist texts? Are you familiar with the Mahavamsa and how it has been interpreted over the millennia? I can answer yes to all of those questions.

3. I was fully aware that fragments of most books from the Hebrew Scriptures (excepting Esther) had been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I thank you for your cited claim that Nehemiah also was not found among them. However, this situation, as I pointed out, does not undermine Gmirkin's thesis for the following reasons. Firstly, not all texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls date to 300 BCE - most, as far as I am aware, are dated hundreds of years later. Secondly, as I said earlier, the existence of independent, even genuinely ancient, shorter texts (copies of which were at Qumran) which were, c. 270 BCE, incorporated into the text which we call the Hebrew Bible is consistent with Gmnirkin's thesis.

[John T]

I was fully aware that fragments of most books from the Hebrew Scriptures (excepting Esther) had been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I thank you for your cited claim that Nehemiah also was not found among them. However, this situation, as I pointed out, does not undermine Gmirkin's thesis for the following reasons. Firstly, not all texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls date to 300 BCE - most, as far as I am aware, are dated hundreds of years later. Secondly, as I said earlier, the existence of independent, even genuinely ancient, shorter texts (copies of which were at Qumran) which were, c. 270 BCE, incorporated into the text which we call the Hebrew Bible is consistent with Gmnirkin's thesis.

Thank you for admitting you are now aware of your false charges. Also, thank you for proving you are not in good keeping with the 4 noble truths of Buddha, which I previously pointed out in a different thread. Now, the only thing left is for you to admit is whether you are an atheist troll or a Carrier mythicist troll. A difference without much distinction.

Back to the time-out chair you go.

In all due respect.

[neilgodfrey]

Re circularity of method, and following up what I wrote in response to Stephen and ABuddhist --

It is easy to spot circularity in the following scenario:

There is an expression in Plato that is also found in Genesis. If someone said that that demonstrated that Plato used Genesis we would immediately identify the logical slip-up.

There are many plaques, tokens etc with the Lord's Prayer, and no doubt many in Greek. When we pick up one of these, do we think: So this must have come from the time of Matthew since it is clearly the source of Matthew's Gospel?

Again, the logical slip-up is easily identifiable.

So much reconstruction of "biblical history" has been based on the same type of fundamental errors of logic. Archaeological finds are routinely interpreted with the assumption that they somehow prove the great antiquity of the Bible. The great antiquity of the biblical books is taken as a given. Josiah's reforms and discovery of the book of Deuteronomy are assumed to be foundational evidence for Deuteronomy existing as a work in the seventh century. Again, we start with an assumption of the date of a book and everything is interpreted through that assumption. There is no independent evidence available to make the logical error immediately transparent.

The story within the Bible has been assumed to have some "historical core" (e.g. Josiah's reforms) and all other evidence is by default interpreted through that assumption. And the conclusion is drawn (erroneously) that we therefore have evidence for the antiquity of the Biblical books like the Pentateuch. That is where the circularity has been lurking all this time.

[ABuddhist]

I was fully aware that fragments of most books from the Hebrew Scriptures (excepting Esther) had been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I thank you for your cited claim that Nehemiah also was not found among them. However, this situation, as I pointed out, does not undermine Gmirkin's thesis for the following reasons. Firstly, not all texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls date to 300 BCE - most, as far as I am aware, are dated hundreds of years later. Secondly, as I said earlier, the existence of independent, even genuinely ancient, shorter texts (copies of which were at Qumran) which were, c. 270 BCE, incorporated into the text which we call the Hebrew Bible is consistent with Gmnirkin's thesis.

Thank you for admitting you are now aware of your false charges. Also, thank you for proving you are not in good keeping with the 4 noble truths of Buddha, which I previously pointed out in a different thread. Now, the only thing left is for you to admit is whether you are an atheist troll or a Carrier mythicist troll. A difference without much distinction.

Back to the time-out chair you go.

In all due respect.

1. The words which you quote from me do not involve my admitting that I was now aware of my false charges. Rather, I was saying that we agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain every single book from the Hebrew Bible (even though we obviously disagree about what the full significance of this fact is in using the Dead Sea Scrolls in assessing Gmirkin's thesis).

2. In what way, according to you, are the words from me which you quote proof that I am not good at keeping with Buddhism's 4 Noble Truths? Buddhism's 4 Noble Truths are a statement about reality, not a guide to how to behave. Buddhism's guides to behaviour are the 8-fold path, the five precepts, the 8 precepts, the 10 precepts, or the full Vinaya.

3. You claimed in a previous thread that I was ignorant about how the 4 noble truths relate to morality, but you cited a single website from a single sect as proof and ignored my words in response.

However, it is the under the ten non-virtues of the 2nd noble truth that killing and stealing is wrong.

I would recommend that you review and reapply the Ten Virtues of Buddhism especially when it comes to speech.

Do that and we can get along just fine.

https://www.namchak.org/community/blog/ ... n-virtues/

I say in return the following.

1. Your words do not refute my analysis of how it is from the fourth noble truth that various actions are bad, nor do they reveal that the interpretative framework which you advance is an essential component of being a Buddhist. Of course, because being Buddhist is defined by faith in the three jewels (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha), different frameworks for defining the same actions as wrong do not mean that one who uses 1 framework rather than another is not a Buddhist. After all, Buddhist canons and assessments of canonical teachings differ so much that a divergence in frameworks for defining the same actions as wrong is insignificant

2. The Buddhist website which you linked to me is for Tibetan Buddhism, which is as foreign to me (even as I respect it as Buddhism) as the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is to you as a Christian. After all, Tibetan Buddhism and the Orthodox Tewahedo Church both have larger canons than our respective traditions (Theravada Buddhism for me, American Protestant Christianity for you). Tibetan Buddhism and the Orthodox Tewahedo Church both teach doctrines which to our respective traditions seems strange and heretical (condemning teachings leading to arhatship for me, Miaphysitism for you).

4. I am not a supporter of Carrier, and as a real Buddhist (despite your paranoid assertions otherwise), my atheism is based upon a different paradigm than that favoured by typical atheists in the Anglophone world. For example, I accept that YHWH is real, but I regard him as mistaken, insane, and leading his followers to false beliefs and impermanent salvation (at best!).

[ABuddhist]

Josiah's reforms and discovery of the book of Deuteronomy are assumed to be foundational evidence for Deuteronomy existing as a work in the seventh century. Again, we start with an assumption of the date of a book and everything is interpreted through that assumption.

With all due respect, though, such an interpretation is at least willing to look beyond Deuteronomy's traditionally claimed status to be the fifth part of a five-part work hundreds of years older than Josiah. So it is a step in the right direction.

Do you have any thoughts about the argument between me and John T about what bearing the dead sea scrolls have upon Gmirkin's thesis?

[John T]

I am not a supporter of Carrier, and as a real Buddhist (despite your paranoid assertions otherwise), my atheism is based upon a different paradigm than that favoured by typical atheists in the Anglophone world.

I'll take that wishy-washy baby step confession that you are indeed a so-called atheist. But if you are a real atheist Buddhist (oxymoron) why didn't you know about Buddha being the incarnation of the god Vishnu, that is until I told you?

Wait, I got it. You will now google Vishnu and come back and say, yeah, I knew that all along.

Wet, lather, rinse and repeat.

Of course Neil probably enjoys this exchange, you being his useful tool that distracts from his refusal to cite his sources or state if he even read Timaeus.

With all due respect.