The Hebrew Bible (Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)

Great Debate challenge to IamJosephIn many threads IamJoseph has made a series of claims regarding the Hebrew Bible. The comments are never on topic for the thread he is on and when I call him on it, we derail the thread.I have challenged IamJoseph to start a thread of his own in order to put his claims up for debate, he has refused.I have tried to start threads related to his claims in open forums but have been denied.I have challenged IamJoseph in various threads but in the end get in trouble for derailing threads.It has got to the stage that if I challenge IamJoseph on his unsubstantiated claims when he brings them up in a random off topic thread, I will be suspended for a week.My only option it appears is to challenge IamJoseph to a great debate.I will do the best I can stating IamJosephs claims. I did not make the claims so there will propably be errors. I will quote as much as possible.What I request from IamJoseph is clarifications of the claims and evidence supporting his claims.I am not sure that I will be refuting all of the claims. I would like IamJoseph to support some of his claims with evidence so that I can use them if needed in future and be comfortable knowing that they are actually facts. At present, it is not possible to use his claims as they have not been verified or supported with any evidence. I am only too happy to be educated. I need evidence to be educated, not unsupported claims.I have included the claims and some conversation we have had already.The claims used in this thread come from Message 208The same claims have been made in many other threads also. From this quote, I will rephrase the individual statements and request that IamJoseph confirm them.1. We will need to establish an agreed upon time for the first Hebrew Bible. We began to discuss this. from Message 212You mentioned that you are accepting the dead sea scrolls. In some discussions regarding this matter you have been very specific about accepting BOOKS only. These are scrolls. The hint is in the title. This is fine though. The Dead sea scrolls are the first I am aware of also. You have given a number of different dates. The earliest date I have found for the Dead Sea Scrolls is an approximate 250BCE (source : Home - Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation) This is the earliest (partial) copy of this text ever found. You mention a date of 3500 ago according to Moses. If you can provide the document with a link so I can have a look, I will be happy to concede this. However, from the way you phrased it, you wont be able to do this. You have to provide the document. You have said the first recording. So you will have to actually provide the first recording. 250BCE to 65 AD is the age from my source. And it is not all of the Old Testement. The next oldest is fragments, 800-1000 ACE, the oldest complete copy is the Leningrad Codex from 1008AD (same source). Will you accept 250BCE as the oldest known copy of the Old Testement in existence? That will give me a confirmed date to work from.2. The Hebrew Bible is Unique in its claims. I am not sure what IamJoseph means by this. It could be that the Hebrew Bible is unique in making these claims. If the Hebrew Bible was first at something, then it would be unique at that time. It will stop being unique until someone else makes the same statements. I will need IamJoseph to clarify this statement.3. The Hebrew Bible is the first recording of the claim that the universe being finite. from Message 212Ok, Good reference, I can find the chapter and verse too. The key phrase is 'In the beginning'. So any religious document I can find that discusses a beginning is acceptable. There is the issue that we dont currently know that the universe is actually finite. The only way we could scientifically prove this, is to find its edge. Your interpretation that 'In the Beginning' means the universe is finite can also be challenged. It only means that it began. God, being all powerful and capable of anything is certainly capable of creating an infinite universe. But that does not matter. It is not the interpretation I am trying to argue. But you could think on these things to strengthen your arguement for future debates. To refute the claim, I need to find a text dated prior to 250BCE that mentions a beginning in its creation narrative.4. The Hebrew Bible is the first listing of life form groups [species]from Message 212Ok, so it does not actually mention species. And it does not match the definition of species. It is a grouping into kinds. This is fair enough. So, to refute this, I need to find a recording, prior to 250BCE, of animals being grouped in some manner. Any manner. The 'kinds' grouping system (airborne, waterborne etc) do not match current scientific groupings of animals so I need not provide an accurate grouping method.5. The Hebrew Bible was the first recording of the separation of time into days and weeks. from Message 212Ok, so to refute this claim, I need to provide any reference, dated prior to 250BCE, to evenings, mornings or single days (breaks in time), weeks of days.6. The Hebrew calendar is the oldest active calendar [5770]from Message 212I will need you to produce evidence of the calendar that began in 3759BCE. From what you have written, you are using the Bible as a source to prove itself. This is not good enough unfortunately. Any writer can write something and backdate it 2000 years. I could write a calendar right now and backdate it 250 000 years. This does not mean that my calendar is the first calendar in existence. You will need to actually provide non biblical evidence of your claim. This statement comes in two parts, the oldest active calendar and the most accurate calendar.In order to refute this claim, I need to find a calendar that is confirmed to date prior to 250BCE. I will see if I can find one that is also still in use somewhere and is as accurate. I will check the accuracy of the Jewish calendar also.We had a bit of a chat about the mentioning of the geological formations. It will probably be too difficult or irrelevant to discuss them further. I will move on to the next claim.7. The Hebrew Bible contains the first recorded census.I have asked for clarification of what you mean and received this reply. from Message 212Hmmmm. Thats not really how it works. If I dont know exactly what you are talking about, it is difficult for me to research your claim for you to verify or refute it dont you think?How about I try it this way -The definition of census - An official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals.So, to refute you claim, I need to find an official count or survey of people confirmed dated prior to 250BCE. Hows that?8. The Hebrew Bible is the first alphabetical book.In order to refute this, I will you to confirm what your definition of alphabetical book is and supply your date (with supporting evidence) of the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible.9. The Hebrew Bible is "the only source for the history of Abraham and Israel".I can refute this one straight away. Lots of books discuss the history of Abraham and Israel. Grab any encyclopedia. Or try googling "the history of abraham and Israel". You will be given many, many sources. Here is one source for the history of Abraham and Israel : The Story of Abraham. This proves that the Hebrew Bible is NOT the only source for the History of Abraham and the Bible.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Reminder that participants in the Great Debate are not to participate in the Peanut Gallery thread related to this debate should it arise. Forum Guidelines still apply in this forum. Participants are to maintain a civil debate.Thanks
AdminPD

Hello IamJoseph,I am already starting to learn new things about history, religions and archeology that have muddied the waters a little.One element I will need you to clarify is which terms you would like me to use. I have read that some prefer the term Hebrew Bible over Old Testament. I am happy to do this if this is if you are of this group. Also, some use the word 'Torah' to describe only the first 5 books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) or the entire Jewish Bible or Tanakh. I will use whichever terminology you suggest in order for us both to be talking about the same thing.The other hiccup I have is with finding the first actual recordings of the claims. In the original post, I had accepted the Dead Sea Scrolls (250BCE) as the oldest recording of the claims made. However I have come to understand that many of the claims do not appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A fair bit of Genesis does appear, but not the Creation Narrative. I could be wrong and have just not found it though. In this case, let me know where I can find this information and I will be happy to accept the date. You will have to do this with each one of the claims. You will need to provide a source to the first recording of the claims.To provide an example of what I mean using an unrelated issue - Many of the laws that we have discussed in previous debates seem to be oral only up to the 2nd century ACE. The Talmud was completed in the 5th century ACE. The oldest full copy of this code of laws is the Leiden Jerusalem Talmud. This manuscript has been dated 1289ACE. If we were to be debating about the oldest recording of a set of laws, then using 250BCE from the Dead Sea Scrolls would be incorrect.I am all to happy to be corrected on any of the dates that I suggest. I will provide sources for any of the dating that I use also. The Hebrew Bible is your field so I dont mind being directed as long as you can back up the claims with a verifiable source.I will provide the source for any of my claims in two ways. If I use a dirct quote I will in-text reference and mark the quote using quotation marks (""). For example, I will be buying runner bean seeds because "runner beans are easy to grow" (http://www.organicgardeningpractices.com/runnerbeans.php). That way you will be able to go directly to the page I have sourced and find that quote. I will also provide a reference list at the bottom of my post to list other pages or books I have used but not quoted from.One last thing. How about we deal with one item at a time. It will be easier for both of us.Over to you...References
Jerusalem Talmud
Torah - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)
The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible
Old Testament - WikipediaEdited by Butterflytyrant, : adding one last thing

You have initiated this thread, in response to my understanding of the Hebrew bible, but not because I argue against any other religious writings. One can respect all religions while also defending against unfound and eronous interpretations or attacks on other belief systems.

quote:

---

You mentioned that you are accepting the dead sea scrolls. In some discussions regarding this matter you have been very specific about accepting BOOKS only. These are scrolls. The hint is in the title. This is fine though. The Dead sea scrolls are the first I am aware of also. You have given a number of different dates. The earliest date I have found for the Dead Sea Scrolls is an approximate 250BCE (source : Home - Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation) This is the earliest (partial) copy of this text ever found. You mention a date of 3500 ago according to Moses. If you can provide the document with a link so I can have a look, I will be happy to concede this. However, from the way you phrased it, you wont be able to do this. You have to provide the document. You have said the first recording. So you will have to actually provide the first recording. 250BCE to 65 AD is the age from my source. And it is not all of the Old Testement. The next oldest is fragments, 800-1000 ACE, the oldest complete copy is the Leningrad Codex from 1008AD (same source). Will you accept 250BCE as the oldest known copy of the Old Testement in existence? That will give me a confirmed date to work from.

---

Books can be in scroll or parchment form, but it must show a multi-page continueing narrative. Yes I accept the scrolls' 250 BCE dates. This does not mean the writings were composed on that date, obviously it is much older, with 100's of copies found in the parcel, and 1000's of bits of writings, obviously destroyed in the fires of Rome which burned down all of Jerusalem city cubit by cubit. It is amazing that anything of the scrolls survived. While we do not have a 3,500 original scroll, which is believed to be contained in an arc hidden away or destroyed, we have loads of evidence [as opposed hard proof] of these writings being much earlier.We have evidence the Greeks first translated this document in 300 BCE [The Septuagint], but more impacting are the dates, places, events and cross nation interactions mentioned in the Hebrew bible - almost all of these descriptions have been vindicated. The writings have also been evidenced by relics of the Temple, coins and post writings from the book of kings [evidenced in the Tel Dal find which confirmed King David], and numerous wars listed in the books between 1000 BCE to the scrolls datings. Conclusion: all things being relative, there is no writings anywhere more historically and factually evidenced than the Hebrew. In fact, I know of no earlier alphabetical books predating the Hebrew bible or any other alphabetical work for centuries after that. This may also be the reason why we do not have earlier writings - this was a long term, expensive project akin to building a great monolith - many people never knew how to write 3,500 years ago, while we find advanced alphabetical works dated 3000 years ago [Book of Joshua, the Psalms, etc].What is your point in questioning such formidable evidence?

quote:

---

2. The Hebrew Bible is Unique in its claims. I am not sure what IamJoseph means by this. It could be that the Hebrew Bible is unique in making these claims. If the Hebrew Bible was first at something, then it would be unique at that time. It will stop being unique until someone else makes the same statements. I will need IamJoseph to clarify this statement.

---

Yes, of course it is unique. It introduced many things, including creationism, monotheism, science, medicine, democrasy, what became known as evolution, judiciary laws, the first cencus in the millions, the first mention of the philistines, mount ararat, mount nebo, the first king, the first human name, the oldest active calendar. One can go on and on. That is unique.

quote:

---

3. The Hebrew Bible is the first recording of the claim that the universe being finite.

​

IamJoseph additional information - Genesis opening verse; first 3 words: IN THE BEGINNING. The entire verse is open to no other reading than the heavens and the earth [universe] had a beginning. This is my reference.

​

from Message 212

​

Ok, Good reference, I can find the chapter and verse too. The key phrase is 'In the beginning'. So any religious document I can find that discusses a beginning is acceptable. There is the issue that we dont currently know that the universe is actually finite. The only way we could scientifically prove this, is to find its edge. Your interpretation that 'In the Beginning' means the universe is finite can also be challenged. It only means that it began. God, being all powerful and capable of anything is certainly capable of creating an infinite universe. But that does not matter. It is not the interpretation I am trying to argue. But you could think on these things to strengthen your arguement for future debates. To refute the claim, I need to find a text dated prior to 250BCE that mentions a beginning in its creation narrative.

---

The point is you cannot show another earlier recording of the universe being finite. You don't need a text, but you do need evidence. I gave you that above and you cannot show such equivalence elsewhere. Nor does it matter if you use the 250 BCE date - it is still the oldest record of a finite universe.

quote:

---

4. The Hebrew Bible is the first listing of life form groups [species]IamJoseph additional info - Its only the most known writings on earth: Ch1/V9-31. The seperation is by terrain and habitat - the most fundamental ones.

​

from Message 212
Ok, so it does not actually mention species. And it does not match the definition of species. It is a grouping into kinds. This is fair enough. So, to refute this, I need to find a recording, prior to 250BCE, of animals being grouped in some manner. Any manner. The 'kinds' grouping system (airborne, waterborne etc) do not match current scientific groupings of animals so I need not provide an accurate grouping method.

---

If it mentioned species we can be sure it is a fake - the term was invented recently. Of curse, 'KINDS' is more authentic of its period, yet applicable today. Of course, seperation by terrain and habitat is more fundamental than skeletal and hidden genes. The first thing one sees of a zebra and a fish is terrain not their hidden organs. Does OK mean you agree Genesis first recorded life form groupings - you are not forthcoming here, which leads only to a circular arguement?

quote:

---

5. The Hebrew Bible was the first recording of the separation of time into days and weeks.

​

IamJoseph additional info - These are the first recording of day and week: And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Duet 16/9 Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn shalt thou begin to number seven weeks.

​

from Message 212
Ok, so to refute this claim, I need to provide any reference, dated prior to 250BCE, to evenings, mornings or single days (breaks in time), weeks of days.

---

You need to show DAY and WEEK. The seven week cycle was required to be stated before accounting harvest periods and rremembering anniversary laws which followed. This says Genesis is intelligent and it's writings are in the correct protocol.

quote:

---

6. The Hebrew calendar is the oldest active calendar [5770]

​

IamJoseph additional info - It begins after the 6 creation days. The first Saturday occured 5750 years ago, and all events since then are diarised, as seen in any Hebrew newspaper. This is the oldest active calendar and the most accurate one

​

from Message 212
I will need you to produce evidence of the calendar that began in 3759BCE. From what you have written, you are using the Bible as a source to prove itself. This is not good enough unfortunately. Any writer can write something and backdate it 2000 years. I could write a calendar right now and backdate it 250 000 years. This does not mean that my calendar is the first calendar in existence. You will need to actually provide non biblical evidence of your claim. This statement comes in two parts, the oldest active calendar and the most accurate calendar.

​

In order to refute this claim, I need to find a calendar that is confirmed to date prior to 250BCE. I will see if I can find one that is also still in use somewhere and is as accurate. I will check the accuracy of the Jewish calendar also.

​

We had a bit of a chat about the mentioning of the geological formations. It will probably be too difficult or irrelevant to discuss them further. I will move on to the next claim.

---

There is no history pre-Hebrew calendar: no names, nations, wars, kings, etc. In contrast, we have a calendar listing events of 5772 years, and substanially evidenced, to the extent of anything which can be evidenced. Show us an earlier reference of Mount Ararat - or a name older than Adam? So I am not using the Hebrew writings as its own self evidence; we have no alternate factors which can serve as a counter.

quote:

---

7. The Hebrew Bible contains the first recorded census.

​

I have asked for clarification of what you mean and received this reply.

​

Look for it!

---

Because you are expected to know what you are arguing against. The Hebrew bible contains the first scientific cencus, as well as the first graduation of a tribal group to a nation - the word NATION OF ISRAEL is used after the cencus following the Egyptian exodus, retained thereafter thoughout the remaining five books, with sub-totals of age and gender, accounting to 3 million Israelites and also a mixed multitide of other people. How can you not know this and argue the point? This passage also shows that math was concurrent with the Hebrew writings at that time, to the extent there is no errors when the sub-totals and grand total are tallied, with names of tribal leaders and in fractions of counts. If you know of an earlier cencus than please enlighten us?

quote:

---

from Message 212

​

Hmmmm. Thats not really how it works. If I dont know exactly what you are talking about, it is difficult for me to research your claim for you to verify or refute it dont you think?

​

How about I try it this way -

​

The definition of census - An official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals.

​

So, to refute you claim, I need to find an official count or survey of people confirmed dated prior to 250BCE. Hows that?

---

Refute it? There is a list of many pages from Ch 1 to Ch 2 which records a cencus:

quote:

---

Numbers Chapter 1
1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying: 2 'Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls; 3 from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: ye shall number them by their hosts
Numbers Ch. 2/- 32 These are they that were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers' houses; all that were numbered of the camps according to their hosts were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. 33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel;

---

quote:

---

8. The Hebrew Bible is the first alphabetical book.

​

In order to refute this, I will you to confirm what your definition of alphabetical book is and supply your date (with supporting evidence) of the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible.

---

I already did. Any multi-page continueing narrative [book, scroll, parchment, etc] in alphabetical mode older than the Hebrew will suffice.

quote:

---

9. The Hebrew Bible is "the only source for the history of Abraham and Israel".

​

I can refute this one straight away. Lots of books discuss the history of Abraham and Israel. Grab any encyclopedia. Or try googling "the history of abraham and Israel". You will be given many, many sources. Here is one source for the history of Abraham and Israel : The Story of Abraham. This proves that the Hebrew Bible is NOT the only source for the History of Abraham and the Bible.

---

The precedence factor rules. Otherwise I can be the author of all of Shakespeare's works.

quote:

---

One element I will need you to clarify is which terms you would like me to use. I have read that some prefer the term Hebrew Bible over Old Testament. I am happy to do this if this is if you are of this group. Also, some use the word 'Torah' to describe only the first 5 books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) or the entire Jewish Bible or Tanakh. I will use whichever terminology you suggest in order for us both to be talking about the same thing.

---

The term OT is a political stunt and I see it as derogatory. It is called the Hebrew bible in english. As can be seen by your own posts, it is not old but very active in contemporary discussions of science & history today in all forums, more so than any other theological writings. Old infers negated - yet its laws rule us today exclusively.

quote:

---

The other hiccup I have is with finding the first actual recordings of the claims. In the original post, I had accepted the Dead Sea Scrolls (250BCE) as the oldest recording of the claims made. However I have come to understand that many of the claims do not appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A fair bit of Genesis does appear, but not the Creation Narrative. I could be wrong and have just not found it though. In this case, let me know where I can find this information and I will be happy to accept the date. You will have to do this with each one of the claims. You will need to provide a source to the first recording of the claims.

---

All of the writings and books are in the scrolls parcel, excepting only the book of Esther, which was written in Babylon 2,700 years ago, after the Babylon invasion and exodus there. This book also mentions the Hebrew bible and a host of books which were obviously written earlier - which I account as proof of the Hebrew writings' datings.

quote:

---

To provide an example of what I mean using an unrelated issue - Many of the laws that we have discussed in previous debates seem to be oral only up to the 2nd century ACE. The Talmud was completed in the 5th century ACE. The oldest full copy of this code of laws is the Leiden Jerusalem Talmud. This manuscript has been dated 1289ACE. If we were to be debating about the oldest recording of a set of laws, then using 250BCE from the Dead Sea Scrolls would be incorrect.

---

You may be confusing laws with traditions. There are 613 laws [commandments] in the Hebrew Mosaic - the five books. These are all active today.

quote:

---

I am all to happy to be corrected on any of the dates that I suggest. I will provide sources for any of the dating that I use also. The Hebrew Bible is your field so I dont mind being directed as long as you can back up the claims with a verifiable source.

---

The Hebrew bible is also Christianity's field - it is its foundation.

IamJoseph,As far as I can tell you have not actually provided any of the information requested. Wrong. I have initiated this thread because you have made claims that I do not believe you can verify.I even state this in the OP. Here it is -

quote:

---

What I request from IamJoseph is clarifications of the claims and evidence supporting his claims.

---

A scroll is not a book. A piece of parchment is not a book. A book is a book. A scroll is not 'multi-page'. It is one continuous page. You use obvioulsy a few times in this post. And evidence as well. But you have provided nothing obvious and provided no evidence. You need to provide what you do have.This is how you can present it - The first recording of the words "In the Beginning" can be found in x y z. Here is a source to check - Source :xyz.I have provided you with an example of how to do this already.Here is an example of how you would provide a source for a particular claim. The phrase "hop on pop" first appears in a book by Theodor Geisel (Dr Suess) in 1963. Here is a source for you to check : Hop on Pop - Wikipedia.What you need to do is state you claim (The phrase "hop on pop" first appears in a book by Theodor Geisel (Dr Suess) in 1963) and back it up with a verifiable source (Here is a source for you to check : Hop on Pop - Wikipedia).That is what you need to do. How about we keep the introduction of new random unverified claims to a minimum (none at all would be good) and stick to the ones in the OP. Unique - Being the only one of its kindCreationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. This is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Another example: Hindu beliefsMonotheism is the belief in the existence of a single (one) god. This is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Other exampls: Christianity, IslamScience is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world. (Source: Science definition - What is science?). This is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. The Quran contains examples of science. Here is a link to a good science textbook : Amazon.com. Not unique to the Hebrew Bible.Medicine -
1.a. The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind.
b. The branch of this science encompassing treatment by drugs, diet, exercise, and other nonsurgical means.
2. The practice of medicine.
(Source: Medicine - definition of medicine by The Free Dictionary)
Medicine is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Here is a link to another book about anatomy and physiology : Amazon.com. Not unique to the Hebrew Bible.Democracy (Greek terms demos (meaning "people") and kratos (meaning "power"). Democracy was developed in ancient Greece around 500BCE. (Source: http://www.smjuhsd.k12.ca.us/.../cp/instruct/greek_demos.pdf) Not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Also, pre Dead Sea Scrolls.The Theory of Evolution did not come from the Hebrew Bible.Judiciary Laws are also not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Code of Hammurabi, circa 1700BCE (Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia). Pre Dead Sea Scrolls. Not unique to the Hebrew Bible.The other claims are either being dealt with individually or are not part of this thread. None of the items you have claimed to be unique are actually unique. Try to stay on topic.With regards to the phrase "in the beginning" being the first recording of the universe being finite you have said - You have yet to provide a verifiable source that shows that the words "In the Beginning" appear in the dead Sea Scrolls. I do need a text. This is what you have claimed to have. The first recording of these words. Provide a source to back up your claim. Without you providing the information that supports your claim, it is refuted. As I indicated in a later post, you will need to provide a verifiable source that shows the first recording of this claim. What you need to do is supply the information that has lead you to believe the claim that you are making. When you have supplied the required information, I can begin my search for a seperation of groups of animals in any other text. Your problems with the English language have lead you to this conclusion. I know that it is pointless to correct you though so I wont bother. What you have said here has no relevance to what I actually said. You need to provide a verifiable source that backs up your claim. You need to provide the information that has lead you to believe that this claim first appeared in the Hebrew Bible. You need to provide a link to a source so I can verify your claim. Until you do this, your claim is refuted. If/when you do provide the evidence, I need to provide any document that contains reference to days and weeks dated prior to your document. How about we leave out the random conjecture and opinions and stick to the facts. There are many unverifiable and incorrect statements in this quote. Pretty much all of it is wrong. But I dont care. I have a list of your claims that I am interested in discussing. Most of your comment is unrelated random blather. The key issue, the issue we are actually debating is your claim that the Hebrew Calendar is the first recorded calendar. What you need to do is provide a source showing this calendar. It needs to be a source that can be checked. The rest of your comment is again unrelated blather. Provide your evidence to support your claim. Until you do, your claim remains refuted. It is your fucking claim! How am I supposed to know exactly what YOUR CLAIM is? Provide your source. Provide a verifiable source that supports this claim. Until you do, your claim is refuted. You use the words earlier cencus. Earlier than when exactly. You have not provided a verifiable source that shows the earliest recording. You have provided this scripture - Great. You are halfway there. Now you need to provide a verifiable source that shows the earliest recording of these verses. Until you do, your claim is refuted.I asked you to provide your definition of an alphabetical book, your reply - Yes, you did. But you provided a definition that does not define the word book. I am sure you will not understand why this may be confusing. Basically, I need to provide anything with writting on it older than the Dead Sea Scrolls (250BCE). Precedence? Precedence does not change the fact that I have refuted your statement. You made a claim. It was wrong. I have provided evidence why it was wrong. Point refuted. Was all of this posturing required. I was polite enough to ask you what terms you preferred. You prefer Hebrew Bible. Fine, I will use this term. It is strange that you are argueming that the term 'old' should not refer to the book we are discussing in a debate where your position is that it is the oldest recording. Irony?I asked you to provide verifiable sources for your claims and you replied with this - Can you tell me where your verifiable source is in there? I know that "Fragments of every book of the Hebrew canon have been discovered except for the book of Esther". (Source: 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls @ Century One Bookstore). Fragments. Not entire books with all chapters and verses. What you need to do is actually verify your statements. Until you provide a verifiable source to support your claims, they remain refuted. No I am not and no they are not. But I am not going to discuss that in this thread. I was providing an example. I dont care if you disagree with the example. Did you get the point of the example? The point was that you will need to provide verifiable sources to support your claims. Until you do this, your claims remain refuted.We are still at square one really.How about we deal with one claim at a time.how about you start your next post with the first claim. We can ignore you claim for uniqueness because I believe that this claim comes from an incorrect definition of unique.This is the first actual claim to be dealt with -The Hebrew Bible is the first recording of the claim that the universe being finite.This is your claim. You need to support this claim with evidence. You need to provide a link to a Hebrew Bible that has the words "in the beginning" in relation to the creation narrative. You need to provide a date for this document. Until you do, your claim remains refuted.Deal with one claim at a time.Provide evidence to support your claim.

quote:

---

A scroll is not a book. A piece of parchment is not a book. A book is a book. A scroll is not 'multi-page'. It is one continuous page.

---

This one you have lost and I won't indulge with you further on it. The term 'multi-page continueing narrative' was qualified and embedded, prempting your runaway nonesense. Think 'BOOK OF DUETERONOMY & BOOK OF KINGS'.

quote:

---

Yes I accept the scrolls' 250 BCE dates. This does not mean the writings were composed on that date, obviously it is much older, with 100's of copies found in the parcel, and 1000's of bits of writings, obviously destroyed in the fires of Rome which burned down all of Jerusalem city cubit by cubit. It is amazing that anything of the scrolls survived. While we do not have a 3,500 original scroll, which is believed to be contained in an arc hidden away or destroyed, we have loads of evidence [as opposed hard proof] of these writings being much earlier.

​

You use obvioulsy a few times in this post. And evidence as well. But you have provided nothing obvious and provided no evidence. You need to provide what you do have.

​

This is how you can present it - The first recording of the words "In the Beginning" can be found in x y z. Here is a source to check - Source :xyz.

---

No I don't. Your notion the 100's of copies of scrolls and 1000's of excerpts found were all originated in 250 BCE is utter nonesense.

quote:

---

I have provided you with an example of how to do this already.

​

Here is an example of how you would provide a source for a particular claim. The phrase "hop on pop" first appears in a book by Theodor Geisel (Dr Suess) in 1963. Here is a source for you to check : Hop on Pop - Wikipedia.

​

What you need to do is state you claim (The phrase "hop on pop" first appears in a book by Theodor Geisel (Dr Suess) in 1963) and back it up with a verifiable source (Here is a source for you to check : Hop on Pop - Wikipedia).

​

That is what you need to do.

---

No I do not. If 100's of copies of a scroll was found and dated to 250 BCE it means it was originated many centuries before. If a book speaks of a temple existing and we have proof that temple stood and was destroyed in 586 BCE it is proof of my position and negates your nonesense. Bite the bullet.

quote:

---

but more impacting are the dates, places, events and cross nation interactions mentioned in the Hebrew bible - almost all of these descriptions have been vindicated. The writings have blah blah blahdy blah

​

How about we keep the introduction of new random unverified claims to a minimum (none at all would be good) and stick to the ones in the OP.

---

I agree your nonesense should be considered nonesense.

quote:

---

my queery - The Hebrew Bible is Unique in its claims. I am not sure what IamJoseph means by this. It could be that the Hebrew Bible is unique in making these claims. If the Hebrew Bible was first at something, then it would be unique at that time. It will stop being unique until someone else makes the same statements. I will need IamJoseph to clarify this statement.
your reply - Yes, of course it is unique. It introduced many things, including creationism, monotheism, science, medicine, democrasy, what became known as evolution, judiciary laws, the first cencus in the millions, the first mention of the philistines, mount ararat, mount nebo, the first king, the first human name, the oldest active calendar. One can go on and on. That is unique.

​

Unique - Being the only one of its kind

​

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. This is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Another example: Hindu beliefs

​

Monotheism is the belief in the existence of a single (one) god. This is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Other exampls: Christianity, Islam

---

The Hindu bible affirms Genesis is correct and credible. The Creation account of Genesis is unique, notwithstanding there are other accounts. The premise of Christianity and Islam comes from the Hebrew bible - they are not unique.

quote:

---

Science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world. (Source: Science definition - What is science?). This is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. The Quran contains examples of science. Here is a link to a good science textbook : Amazon.com. Not unique to the Hebrew Bible.

---

There is no disproof or alternative of the Genesis account from science. It is why this issue is still hotly debated.

quote:

---

Medicine -
1.a. The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind.
b. The branch of this science encompassing treatment by drugs, diet, exercise, and other nonsurgical means.
2. The practice of medicine.
(Source: Medicine - definition of medicine by The Free Dictionary)
Medicine is not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Here is a link to another book about anatomy and physiology : Amazon.com. Not unique to the Hebrew Bible.

---

The first seperation of medicine, a faculty of science, was first seperated from the occult here:

quote:

---

THE FIRST DISCRIPTION OF MALIGNANCY IDENTIFICATION:

​

Leviticus Chapter 13/2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests. 3 And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. 4 And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days. 5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague stay in its appearance, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more. 6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7 But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again. 8 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy. {P}

​

9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest. 10 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if there be a white rising in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising, 11 it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not shut him up; for he is unclean. 12 And if the leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his feet, as far as appeareth to the priest; 13 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague; it is all turned white: he is clean. 14 But whensoever raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean. 15 And the priest shall look on the raw flesh, and pronounce him unclean; the raw flesh is unclean: it is leprosy. 16 But if the raw flesh again be turned into white, then he shall come unto the priest; 17 and the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the plague be turned into white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean. {P}

​

18 And when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a boil, and it is healed, 19 and in the place of the boil there is a white rising, or a bright spot, reddish-white, then it shall be shown to the priest. 20 And the priest shall look; and, behold, if the appearance thereof be lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy, it hath broken out in the boil. 21 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs therein, and it be not lower than the skin, but be dim, then the priest shall shut him up seven days. 22 And if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague. 23 But if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread, it is the scar of the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean. {S} 24 Or when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a burning by fire, and the quick flesh of the burning become a bright spot, reddish-white, or white; 25 then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, it is leprosy, it hath broken out in the burning; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy. 26 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the skin, but be dim; then the priest shall shut him up seven days. 27 And the priest shall look upon him the seventh day; if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy. 28 And if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread in the skin, but be dim, it is the rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; for it is the scar of the burning. {P}

​

29 And when a man or woman hath a plague upon the head or upon the beard, 30 then the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it yellow thin hair, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a scall, it is leprosy of the head or of the beard. 31 And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall seven days. 32 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the scall be not spread, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the appearance of the scall be not deeper than the skin, 33 then he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more. 34 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall; and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 35 But if the scall spread abroad in the skin after his cleansing, 36 then the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for the yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall stay in its appearance, and black hair be grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean. {S} 38 And if a man or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots; 39 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be of a dull white, it is a tetter, it hath broken out in the skin: he is clean. {S} 40 And if a man's hair be fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. 41 And if his hair be fallen off from the front part of his head, he is forehead-bald; yet is he clean. 42 But if there be in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white plague, it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead. 43 Then the priest shall look upon him; and, behold, if the rising of the plague be reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, 44 he is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest shall surely pronounce him unclean: his plague is in his head. 45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: 'Unclean, unclean.' 46 All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his dwelling be. {S} 47 And when the plague of leprosy is in a garment, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment; 48 or in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a skin, or in any thing made of skin. 49 If the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be shown unto the priest. 50 And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up that which hath the plague seven days. 51 And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever service skin is used for, the plague is a malignant leprosy: it is unclean. 52 And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, whether it be of wool or of linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is; for it is a malignant leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire. 53 And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; 54 then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more. 55 And the priest shall look, after that the plague is washed; and, behold, if the plague have not changed its colour, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without. 56 And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after the washing thereof, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof. 57 And if it appear still in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is breaking out, thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire. 58 And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean. 59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean. {P}

​

QUARANTINE [INCLUDING THE EXSTENCE OF CONTAGIOUS AND INFECTICIOUS DESEASES]: Numbers Chapter 5

​

1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 2 'Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is unclean by the dead; 3 both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell.'

---

quote:

---

Democracy (Greek terms demos (meaning "people") and kratos (meaning "power"). Democracy was developed in ancient Greece around 500BCE. (Source: http://www.smjuhsd.k12.ca.us/.../cp/instruct/greek_demos.pdf) Not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Also, pre Dead Sea Scrolls.

---

'LET THE MAJORITY DECIDE' is not democrasy and leaves the population open to great corruption - else Hitler and Sadaam Hussein were the most democratically elected humans. Democrasy according to the Hebrew bible, which predates the Greeks is only as follows:Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice; (Ex. 23:2) (negative).To give the decision according to the majority, when there is a difference of opinion among the members. (Ex. 23:2) (affirmative).Not to hear one of the parties to a suit in the absence of the other party (Ex. 23:1) (CCN65).To examine witnesses thoroughly (Deut. 13:15) (affirmative).

quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution did not come from the Hebrew Bible.

​

Judiciary Laws are also not unique to the Hebrew Bible. Code of Hammurabi, circa 1700BCE (Code of Hammurabi - Wikipedia). Pre Dead Sea Scrolls. Not unique to the Hebrew Bible.

---

All of the factors in Darwin's evolution cmes from Genesis, including:The first seperartion of life forms in their correct protocol, and by the most fundamental factors of terrain and habitat. Natural Seection occurs via a seed output from the host parents, with a directive program which ensures continuety of the same species. There is no evolution without these factors. Darwin is totally wrong in subscribing to external factors impacting and leaving out internal ones - there is no evolution without Genesis' seed factor!Hamurabi is post Abraham and Moses.

quote:

---

The other claims are either being dealt with individually or are not part of this thread. None of the items you have claimed to be unique are actually unique. Try to stay on topic.

---

I am countering your claims with proof. You are not putting up any counters: please show us another document older than Genesis which lists life form groupings or that repro is based on the seed of the host parents?

quote:

---

With regards to the phrase "in the beginning" being the first recording of the universe being finite you have said -

​

The point is you cannot show another earlier recording of the universe being finite. You don't need a text, but you do need evidence. I gave you that above and you cannot show such equivalence elsewhere. Nor does it matter if you use the 250 BCE date - it is still the oldest record of a finite universe.

​

You have yet to provide a verifiable source that shows that the words "In the Beginning" appear in the dead Sea Scrolls. I do need a text. This is what you have claimed to have. The first recording of these words. Provide a source to back up your claim. Without you providing the information that supports your claim, it is refuted.

---

There are 100s of copies of Genesis in the dead sea scroll and these are now freely available on the net. The case is proven, whether you admit this or not.

quote:

---

my comment - Ok, so it does not actually mention species. And it does not match the definition of species. It is a grouping into kinds. This is fair enough. So, to refute this, I need to find a recording, prior to 250BCE, of animals being grouped in some manner. Any manner. The 'kinds' grouping system (airborne, waterborne etc) do not match current scientific groupings of animals so I need not provide an accurate grouping method.
your reply - If it mentioned species we can be sure it is a fake - the term was invented recently. Of curse, 'KINDS' is more authentic of its period, yet applicable today. Of course, seperation by terrain and habitat is more fundamental than skeletal and hidden genes. The first thing one sees of a zebra and a fish is terrain not their hidden organs.

​

As I indicated in a later post, you will need to provide a verifiable source that shows the first recording of this claim. What you need to do is supply the information that has lead you to believe the claim that you are making. When you have supplied the required information, I can begin my search for a seperation of groups of animals in any other text.

---

Nonesense. The first grouping of life forms is in Genesis. The term 'KINDS' is the only and best one for what later became species. There is no other reading of the verses in Genesis.

quote:

---

Does OK mean you agree Genesis first recorded life form groupings - you are not forthcoming here, which leads only to a circular arguement?

​

Your problems with the English language have lead you to this conclusion. I know that it is pointless to correct you though so I wont bother. What you have said here has no relevance to what I actually said.

---

What does OK mean?

quote:

---

You need to show DAY and WEEK. The seven week cycle was required to be stated before accounting harvest periods and rremembering anniversary laws which followed.

​

You need to provide a verifiable source that backs up your claim. You need to provide the information that has lead you to believe that this claim first appeared in the Hebrew Bible. You need to provide a link to a source so I can verify your claim. Until you do this, your claim is refuted. If/when you do provide the evidence, I need to provide any document that contains reference to days and weeks dated prior to your document.

---

No, I don't.

quote:

---

This says Genesis is intelligent and it's writings are in the correct protocol.

​

How about we leave out the random conjecture and opinions and stick to the facts.

---

DAY & WEEK, first appearing in Genesis is hardly conjecture. Its hard copy.

quote:

---

There is no history pre-Hebrew calendar: no names, nations, wars, kings, etc. In contrast, we have a calendar listing events of 5772 years, and substanially evidenced, to the extent of anything which can be evidenced. Show us an earlier reference of Mount Ararat - or a name older than Adam? So I am not using the Hebrew writings as its own self evidence; we have no alternate factors which can serve as a counter.

​

There are many unverifiable and incorrect statements in this quote. Pretty much all of it is wrong. But I dont care. I have a list of your claims that I am interested in discussing. Most of your comment is unrelated random blather. The key issue, the issue we are actually debating is your claim that the Hebrew Calendar is the first recorded calendar. What you need to do is provide a source showing this calendar. It needs to be a source that can be checked. The rest of your comment is again unrelated blather. Provide your evidence to support your claim. Until you do, your claim remains refuted.

---

You have to show an older active calendar - you have not. Which part is blather?

quote:

---

my comment - IamJosephs claim = The Hebrew Bible contains the first recorded census.
I have asked for clarification of what you mean and received this reply.

​

- Look for it!

​

your further clarification of your claim. - Because you are expected to know what you are arguing against.

​

It is your fucking claim! How am I supposed to know exactly what YOUR CLAIM is?

​

The Hebrew bible contains the first scientific cencus

​

Provide your source. Provide a verifiable source that supports this claim. Until you do, your claim is refuted.

​

as well as the first graduation of a tribal group to a nation - the word NATION OF ISRAEL is used after the cencus following the Egyptian exodus, retained thereafter thoughout the remaining five books, with sub-tota.... blah blah blah.... and grand total are tallied, with names of tribal leaders and in fractions of counts. If you know of an earlier cencus than please enlighten us?

​

You use the words earlier cencus. Earlier than when exactly. You have not provided a verifiable source that shows the earliest recording. You have provided this scripture -

​

Numbers Chapter 1
1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying: 2 'Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls; 3 from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: ye shall number them by their hosts
Numbers Ch. 2/- 32 These are they that were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers' houses; all that were numbered of the camps according to their hosts were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. 33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel;

​

Great. You are halfway there. Now you need to provide a verifiable source that shows the earliest recording of these verses. Until you do, your claim is refuted.

---

No sir, its not negatable and I am not half way there. I gave you hard copy proof of the world's first scientific cencus. Bite the bullet like a mench.

quote:

---

I asked you to provide your definition of an alphabetical book, your reply -

​

I already did. Any multi-page continueing narrative [book, scroll, parchment, etc] in alphabetical mode older than the Hebrew will suffice

​

Yes, you did. But you provided a definition that does not define the word book. I am sure you will not understand why this may be confusing. Basically, I need to provide anything with writting on it older than the Dead Sea Scrolls (250BCE).

---

You have lost this one as well. Bite the bullet.

quote:

---

This is your claim - 9. The Hebrew Bible is "the only source for the history of Abraham and Israel".
This is me refuting your claim - I can refute this one straight away. Lots of books discuss the history of Abraham and Israel. Grab any encyclopedia. Or try googling "the history of abraham and Israel". You will be given many, many sources. Here is one source for the history of Abraham and Israel : The Story of Abraham. This proves that the Hebrew Bible is NOT the only source for the History of Abraham and the Bible.

​

This is your reply - The precedence factor rules. Otherwise I can be the author of all of Shakespeare's works.

​

Precedence? Precedence does not change the fact that I have refuted your statement. You made a claim. It was wrong. I have provided evidence why it was wrong. Point refuted.

---

OK, let's play looney tunes. I am now the first one to say the sun will rise tomorrow. The precedence factor is hereby negated. Happy?

quote:

---

I asked you to provide verifiable sources for your claims and you replied with this -

​

All of the writings and books are in the scrolls parcel, excepting only the book of Esther, which was written in Babylon 2,700 years ago, after the Babylon invasion and exodus there. This book also mentions the Hebrew bible and a host of books which were obviously written earlier - which I account as proof of the Hebrew writings' datings.

​

Can you tell me where your verifiable source is in there? I know that "Fragments of every book of the Hebrew canon have been discovered except for the book of Esther". (Source: 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls @ Century One Bookstore). Fragments. Not entire books with all chapters and verses. What you need to do is actually verify your statements. Until you provide a verifiable source to support your claims, they remain refuted.

---

Duh! Tell me smart/a. If we have a book which mentions a temple in 250 BCE, and proof a temple was destroyed in 586 BCE in the same location - what do you think that means!?

quote:

---

This is the first actual claim to be dealt with -

​

The Hebrew Bible is the first recording of the claim that the universe being finite.

​

This is your claim. You need to support this claim with evidence. You need to provide a link to a Hebrew Bible that has the words "in the beginning" in relation to the creation narrative. You need to provide a date for this document. Until you do, your claim remains refuted.

​

Deal with one claim at a time.

---

I did deal with this with no possibility of confusion. It is not refutable by any means.

IamJoseph,That entire post was pointless.Your understanding if the definition of the word unique is wrong. This is where your confusion over you claims of unique exists. I wont be your English teacher. You have been corrected. You can feel free to continue to make the same error over and over again but you will continue to be wrong. This is your error. Your confusion. You have been advised where the problem exists. Each time you make the same error you just look stupid. Your position is refuted by nothing other than your own error in the definition of the word unique. Wrong. A scroll is not a book. It is a scroll. I am happy to accept the Dead Sea Scrolls as a first recording of a particular item. This however does not make the scrolls a book. Just because they have a title (Book of Kings) does not change the fact that they are scrolls. For example. The area between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers was called the Cradle of Civilisation. This does not mean there was an enourmous cradle there. It is just a title. I am happy to accept the Dead Sea Scrolls as a recording of informtion. The terms you originally used was recording other than book for most of your claims so this is fine.Lets deal with the claims one at a time and see if we can get anywhere.This is the first claim -The Hebrew Bible is the first recording of the claim that the universe being finite.You are using the words "In the Beginning" as the basis of this claim.You have said that these words are contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.You have not provided a source to verify this claim. You have just said that it appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls.From my research, I do not believe that those words do appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls.You need to prove that they do appear in the dead Sea Scrolls or your claim is refuted.

quote:

---

Your understanding if the definition of the word unique is wrong. This is where your confusion over you claims of unique exists. I wont be your English teacher.

---

The creation story in Genesis is unique, containing a host of premises not seen elsewhere, including geo-historical locations and premises which are now embedded in science.

quote:

---

my comment - A scroll is not a book. A piece of parchment is not a book. A book is a book. A scroll is not 'multi-page'. It is one continuous page.
your reply - This one you have lost and I won't indulge with you further on it. The term 'multi-page continueing narrative' was qualified and embedded, prempting your runaway nonesense. Think 'BOOK OF DUETERONOMY & BOOK OF KINGS'.

---

Think, 'BOOK OF DUETERONOMY & BOOK OF KINGS'. And you cannot produce a scroll or a book with a multi-page narrative in the alphabetical mode. Why is that?

quote:

---

Lets deal with the claims one at a time and see if we can get anywhere.

​

This is the first claim -

​

The Hebrew Bible is the first recording of the claim that the universe being finite.

​

You are using the words "In the Beginning" as the basis of this claim.

---

Its not my claim - its in the text and not open to any other reading in its context or wording.

quote:

---

You have said that these words are contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

​

You have not provided a source to verify this claim. You have just said that it appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

---

Will it make any difference to your desperate and continuing nonsense?

quote:

---

Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia

​

Dead Sea Scrolls (books found)Books Ranked According to Number of Manuscripts found (top 16)[35]

​

Books No. found
Psalms 39
Deuteronomy 33
1 Enoch 25
Genesis 24
Isaiah 22
Jubilees 21
Exodus 18
Leviticus 17
Numbers 11
Minor Prophets 10
Daniel 8
Jeremiah 6
Ezekiel 6
Job 6
1 & 2 Samuel 4

---

quote:

---

From my research, I do not believe that those words do appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

​

You need to prove that they do appear in the dead Sea Scrolls or your claim is refuted.

---

Research - what research!? 24 copies of The Book of Genesis have been found in the scrolls parcel. Hello?

IamJoseph,I am just going to ignore all of the irrelavent crap in your posts and concentrate on the parts that make sense and are related to this topic.I have done your work for you with regards to finding an actual verified date for the first claim.The claim is the that Hebrew Bible was the first document to suggest that the universe was finite. It did this by using the words "In the beginning". Your conclusion is that if the universe had a beginning then it is finite.You are correct that most of the Hebrew Bible can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. What you dont seem to understand is that most of it is in fragments. Over 100 000 fragments. The words "In the Beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth" do not appear on any one scroll. There are actually two scrolls (4QGenb and 4QGenk) that have been combined in order to construct the sentence.

quote:

---

In one scroll (4QGenb) we have only the following words preserved for Genesis 1:1, In the beginning Go made [ ]. Fortunately, another scroll contains this part of Genesis 1:1, In the begin[ ] God [ ] the heavens and the earth.

---

(Source: http://hebrewheritage.squarespace.com/...ntic-biblical-books)I tracked down two sources that dated these scrolls. This is the job you were supposed to do. These scrolls have been dated to 1 - 100CE (one source has 1-30CE, the other has 30-100CE)
(Sources:
PAGE 76 : Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Volume XII. Qumran Cave 4: VII: Genesis ... - Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, James R. Davila, Emanuel Tov - Google Books
and
PAGE 434 : The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the ... - Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Martin G. Abegg, J L Magnes Professor of Bible Emanuel Tov, Eugene Charles Ulrich, Stephen J. Pfann, Armin Lange - Google Books)The wiki article you supplied to verify your date of 250BCE actually states the following -

quote:

---

These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE.

---

So for the first claim, the oldest known date for a recording of "In the Beginning" is between 1CE and 100CE. Yes. Providing a verifiable source that backs up your claim will in fact make a difference. The source you supplied actually refuted the 250BCE date. This does not mean 24 complete copies of the book of Genesis were found. No complete copies of the book of Genesis were found. That figure includes every fragment attributed to the book of Genesis.Some of it is in reasonable condition. Most of it is not.This is as much research as I can do for a while.I have been called away for work. I will be out of town for about 10 days.I dont really want to have to do your work for you and provide the dates for your claims.It is your job to provide and accurate verifiable source for your claim.This attempt was at least a good try for you. It was not accurate, only off by 250 to 350 years.Maybe you could use the 10 days I am away to provide sources for your dates?They are after all your claims that you are saying are true.Sources :
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A College Textbook and a Study Guide - Menahem MANṠŪR - Google BooksThe Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the ... - Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Martin G. Abegg, J L Magnes Professor of Bible Emanuel Tov, Eugene Charles Ulrich, Stephen J. Pfann, Armin Lange - Google BooksThe Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the ... - Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Martin G. Abegg, J L Magnes Professor of Bible Emanuel Tov, Eugene Charles Ulrich, Stephen J. Pfann, Armin Lange - Google BooksDiscoveries in the Judaean Desert: Volume XII. Qumran Cave 4: VII: Genesis ... - Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, James R. Davila, Emanuel Tov - Google Books

quote:

---

You are correct that most of the Hebrew Bible can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. What you dont seem to understand is that most of it is in fragments. Over 100 000 fragments. The words "In the Beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth" do not appear on any one scroll.

---

You are getting more desperate as you post! Your assumption the first verse of Genesis is open to questioning is ridiculous. Do you even realize taking your wild assumption of an inferred later addition of the opening verse still renders the verse as first no matter which dating you want to use - are you even aware till a few centuries ago, the Hebrew bible is the only theology which did NOT say the earth is flat!?Be good to yourself and accept defeat!

IamJoseph, What was the point of any of that? I have posted no assumptions or inferences. I have provided facts backed up with sources. Check the sources. They are direct translations of the scrolls. The quote can be checked. Just click on the link. The dates can be checked, just click on the link.Here are my reasons for supplying the date 1CE to 100CE again -

quote:

---

You are correct that most of the Hebrew Bible can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. What you dont seem to understand is that most of it is in fragments. Over 100 000 fragments. The words "In the Beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth" do not appear on any one scroll. There are actually two scrolls (4QGenb and 4QGenk) that have been combined in order to construct the sentence.

​

quote:

---

In one scroll (4QGenb) we have only the following words preserved for Genesis 1:1, In the beginning Go made [ ]. Fortunately, another scroll contains this part of Genesis 1:1, In the begin[ ] God [ ] the heavens and the earth.

---

(Source: http://hebrewheritage.squarespace.com/...ntic-biblical-books)

​

I tracked down two sources that dated these scrolls. This is the job you were supposed to do. These scrolls have been dated to 1 - 100CE (one source has 1-30CE, the other has 30-100CE)
(Sources:
PAGE 76 : Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Volume XII. Qumran Cave 4: VII: Genesis ... - Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, James R. Davila, Emanuel Tov - Google Books
and
PAGE 434 : The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the ... - Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Martin G. Abegg, J L Magnes Professor of Bible Emanuel Tov, Eugene Charles Ulrich, Stephen J. Pfann, Armin Lange - Google Books)

​

The wiki article you supplied to verify your date of 250BCE actually states the following -

​

quote:

---

These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE.

---

​

So for the first claim, the oldest known date for a recording of "In the Beginning" is between 1CE and 100CE.

---

I wont be doing your work for you and finding the dates for any of your other claims. That is your job. If you cannot or will not supply verifiable dates (as I have done) then your claims are refuted by default.Get the dates. This is your job. Or concede the other claims.Without verifiable sources you are just clapping your cymbals.

quote:

---

What was the point of any of that? I have posted no assumptions or inferences. I have provided facts backed up with sources. Check the sources. They are direct translations of the scrolls. The quote can be checked. Just click on the link. The dates can be checked, just click on the link.

​

Here are my reasons for supplying the date 1CE to 100CE again -

---

I already posted a list of the scrolls found. Of note this list includes the 'BOOK' of Genesis:

quote:

---

Dead Sea Scrolls (books found)Books Ranked According to Number of Manuscripts found (top 16)[35]

​

Books No. found
Psalms 39
Deuteronomy 33
1 Enoch 25
Genesis 24
Isaiah 22
Jubilees 21
Exodus 18
Leviticus 17
Numbers 11
Minor Prophets 10
Daniel 8
Jeremiah 6
Ezekiel 6
Job 6
1 & 2 Samuel 4

---

I already defended the premise of your accusation the first verse is missing is bogus and even if this was the case, the runaway assumption that verse was never existent remains bogus. I also responded that whatever date you wish to use - be it even 1000 or 2000 years later, the first verse in Genesis remains the first and only writings which states the universe is finite: the premise of a finite universe was only established recently after the Hubble plank discovery!

quote:

---

I wont be doing your work for you and finding the dates for any of your other claims. That is your job. If you cannot or will not supply verifiable dates (as I have done) then your claims are refuted by default.

​

Get the dates. This is your job. Or concede the other claims.

---

No sir, its not my job to cater to your nonsense. Any sane, half honest debater would acknowledge there is absolutely no reason to question the first verse of Genesis belonging to the verse verse in that book. There are loads of other evidencing reasons to confirm this but not required. Eg. the seperate translations in Hebrew, the Greek [Septuagint] and the Latin versions. The inference this verse was not in the scrolls or that it does not belong there is nothing other than shameless.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.