| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Older Books than the Bible |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 07:01 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Older Books Than The Bible. Posted by: Guest Apr 29 2004, 02:09 PM Hi. I'm having an argument with this total moron who says the Bible is the oldest book in existence. But I'm having a blonde moment, and can't think of anything older. Could you guys help please? Posted by: Rameus Apr 29 2004, 02:34 PM (by Guest) QUOTE Hi. I'm having an argument with this total moron who says the Bible is the oldest book in existence. But I'm having a blonde moment, and can't think of anything older. Could you guys help please? A typical degenerate Christian twit. The Pyramid Texts (approx. 4,500 years old) The Coffin Texts (approx. 4,000 years old) The Book of Going Forth By Day (approx. 3,100 years old) The Rig Veda (approx. 3,100 years old) The Iliad (approx 2,800 years old) The Odyssey (approx 2,800 years old) Theogony; Works and Days; Shield [by Hesiod] (approx. 2,700 years old) The Epic of Gilgamesh (approx. 2,700 years old) Tao Te Ching (approx. 2,500 years old) The Mahabharata (approx 2,200 years old) The Ramayana (approx 2,200 years old) Bhagavad Gita (approx 2,000 years old) The oldest Old Testament books I am aware of date to 250 B.C.E. That’s what I’m coming up with off the top of my head. If you need more I can dig through my library. Rameus *Corrected the Old Testament date typo I made: 2250 B.C.E. instead of 250 B.C.E. Posted by: MadMac Apr 29 2004, 02:41 PM Thankyou very much. Idiot will probably blank it out, but I have to try. Thanks again. Posted by: JasonLong Apr 29 2004, 02:47 PM Rameus, I think it's concrete that parts of the Pentateuch were written by 600 BCE and that the five books were complete by 400 BCE. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 29 2004, 03:24 PM QUOTE (Guest @ Apr 29 2004, 04:09 PM) Hi. I'm having an argument with this total moron who says the Bible is the oldest book in existence. But I'm having a blonde moment, and can't think of anything older. Could you guys help please? Heh. That's plain silly. Head over to: http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm Its a good starting point. Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 03:39 PM Could it be that this "moron" is confused with actual age, rather than the age of content? In other words, is s/he saying that the Bible gives us a historical account of the beginning of the Earth and time as we know it, and is thus, oldest in content? Just a thought. =Veritas= Posted by: mandylibra1979 Apr 29 2004, 03:45 PM Welcome to the forum, MadMac! So what is with your religious preference in your bio info : Acting Atheist? I am just curious. Posted by: Madame M Apr 29 2004, 05:51 PM QUOTE The Pyramid Texts (approx. 4,500 years old) The Coffin Texts (approx. 4,000 years old) QUOTE *Corrected the Old Testament date typo I made: 2250 B.C.E. instead of 250 B.C.E. OK, correct me if I am wrong, because I am pretty tired. But doesn't that make ethe OT to be 4500 years old, as old as the oldest book, the Pyramid Texts, listed? If that is true, in it would be correct that thte Bible is the oldest or one of the oldest. I thought the OT was much younger than this. Posted by: chefranden Apr 29 2004, 06:02 PM QUOTE (=Veritas= @ Apr 29 2004, 05:39 PM) Could it be that this "moron" is confused with actual age, rather than the age of content? In other words, is s/he saying that the Bible gives us a historical account of the beginning of the Earth and time as we know it, and is thus, oldest in content? Just a thought. =Veritas= Well, s/he would be wrong now wouldn'g s/he. The account is hardly historical. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Apr 29 2004, 06:35 PM QUOTE (JasonLong @ Apr 29 2004, 06:47 PM) I think it's concrete that parts of the Pentateuch were written by 600 BCE and that the five books were complete by 400 BCE. I think it's concreate that the New testament is still being written and changed to fit a pastors current ideas of what is christian. Posted by: Rameus Apr 29 2004, 07:19 PM (by Madame) QUOTE OK, correct me if I am wrong, because I am pretty tired. But doesn't that make ethe OT to be 4500 years old, as old as the oldest book, the Pyramid Texts, listed? If that is true, in it would be correct that thte Bible is the oldest or one of the oldest. I thought the OT was much younger than this. No, what I was trying to say is that in my original post I had mistyped in 2250 B.C.E. instead of 250 B.C.E. Damn fingers getting old or something. So no, the bible is nowhere near as old as the Pyramid Texts. Unless you are an apologist, in which case yes of course the bible is older than the Pyramid Text (by the powerful “Law of Assumption”). (by JasonLong) QUOTE Rameus, I think it's concrete that parts of the Pentateuch were written by 600 BCE and that the five books were complete by 400 BCE. Yes I'm familiar with the timeline they have tried to construct. What I'm interested in is the dating of the actual extant texts. For example when I say the Pyramid Texts are 4,500 years old I am really saying that the extant texts on the walls in Saqqara are that old. Could the hieroglyphic walls be copies of earlier texts? Absolutely. Is there compelling evidence that they are? No. Do you know Jay if they have any extant biblical manuscripts that date back as far as 400 B.C.E.? I am familiar with a tiny piece of papyrus that has a psalm verse on it from 600 B.C.E., but that doesn't constitute a book in my opinion. For all I know the psalms might have been a bunch of fortune cookie phrases later put down into a collective work. (by Veritas) QUOTE Could it be that this "moron" is confused with actual age, rather than the age of content? In other words, is s/he saying that the Bible gives us a historical account of the beginning of the Earth and time as we know it, and is thus, oldest in content? Just a thought. *Shakes head* Why is it that so many Christians look through one microscope at their own religion, and through an entirely different microscope at all of the others? Your saying that since the bible gives a "historical" (read: hysterical) account of the beginning of the Earth, that would make its content the most ancient? Most religions have a creation myth that would put their own content back to the beginning of time. The Egyptians describe the creation of the Universe. So nearly all of the different religions describe creation, but Christianity's creation is obviously the oldest. How exactly does this pan out logically again? I’m not quite able to follow it; perhaps I should have a few drinks and read it over again. Rameus Posted by: JasonLong Apr 29 2004, 07:33 PM QUOTE (Rameus @ Apr 29 2004, 11:19 PM) Yes I'm familiar with the timeline they have tried to construct. What I'm interested in is the dating of the actual extant texts. For example when I say the Pyramid Texts are 4,500 years old I am really saying that the extant texts on the walls in Saqqara are that old. Could the hieroglyphic walls be copies of earlier texts? Absolutely. Is there compelling evidence that they are? No. Do you know Jay if they have any extant biblical manuscripts that date back as far as 400 B.C.E.? I am familiar with a tiny piece of papyrus that has a psalm verse on it from 600 B.C.E., but that doesn't constitute a book in my opinion. For all I know the psalms might have been a bunch of fortune cookie phrases later put down into a collective work. I recall reading somewhere about the oldest extant manuscripts, but the issue isn't of importance to me. If a book written in 1500 contains references to a book in question, but we don't have extant manuscripts of the referenced book until 1600, I don't think it's fair to say that the book is only 404 years old. The references are there, and we know the book must have logically existed for the writer to reference it. Thus, the book is at least 504 years old. That's how I look at it. Posted by: Rameus Apr 29 2004, 09:09 PM (by JasonLong) QUOTE I recall reading somewhere about the oldest extant manuscripts, but the issue isn't of importance to me. If a book written in 1500 contains references to a book in question, but we don't have extant manuscripts of the referenced book until 1600, I don't think it's fair to say that the book is only 404 years old. The references are there, and we know the book must have logically existed for the writer to reference it. Thus, the book is at least 504 years old. That's how I look at it. Oh I totally agree. But I don't think finding a couple of psalm verses on papyrus indicates the existence of entire books. I'm quite convinced that the Egyptian Pyramid Texts are older than the existing hieroglyphs; astronomy and theology that intricate and complex don't just spring up in a generation. But without conclusive evidence to lend credence to my theory, I can't responsibly assert that they are older than 4,500 years. Rameus Posted by: Tocis Apr 29 2004, 09:13 PM QUOTE (MadMac @ Apr 29 2004, 02:41 PM) Thankyou very much. Idiot will probably blank it out, but I have to try. Best of luck, and welcome to our forums. You're doing the right thing as I see it. On a related note, if we want to include religious views that were around for a long time before they were finally written down, you might add the Poetic Edda to the list. The holy songs and poems of the Asatruar of old are probably, in their oldest forms, at least 4000 years old... even if they got written down sometime in the 13th century (I think) by an Icelandic monk. Posted by: JasonLong Apr 29 2004, 10:11 PM QUOTE (Rameus @ Apr 30 2004, 01:09 AM) (by JasonLong) QUOTE I recall reading somewhere about the oldest extant manuscripts, but the issue isn't of importance to me. If a book written in 1500 contains references to a book in question, but we don't have extant manuscripts of the referenced book until 1600, I don't think it's fair to say that the book is only 404 years old. The references are there, and we know the book must have logically existed for the writer to reference it. Thus, the book is at least 504 years old. That's how I look at it. Oh I totally agree. But I don't think finding a couple of psalm verses on papyrus indicates the existence of entire books. I'm quite convinced that the Egyptian Pyramid Texts are older than the existing hieroglyphs; astronomy and theology that intricate and complex don't just spring up in a generation. But without conclusive evidence to lend credence to my theory, I can't responsibly assert that they are older than 4,500 years. Rameus I would agree with your analysis about the Psalms. However, there's much more to dating the Pentateuch. Every hint of a date points to 600 BCE, give or take 200 years. While we can't pin a date and/or locate any extant texts from that period, I don't think it's fair to give the book a 250 BCE date. It's not really an issue, however, because there are indeed many books older. When someone starts spewing 1500 BCE Moses authorship nonsense, on the other hand, I have a problem. Posted by: extremeone Apr 29 2004, 10:22 PM CODE The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria, and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script. It is about the adventures of the historical King of Uruk (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE). toss that at his ass -EX1 btw.. go register so i can welcome you... Posted by: ratbag Apr 29 2004, 10:44 PM The Epic of Gilgamesh - the story that noah's ark is supposed to have stolen from? I like the irony Posted by: Rameus Apr 30 2004, 06:39 AM (by JasonLong) QUOTE I would agree with your analysis about the Psalms. However, there's much more to dating the Pentateuch. Every hint of a date points to 600 BCE, give or take 200 years. While we can't pin a date and/or locate any extant texts from that period, I don't think it's fair to give the book a 250 BCE date. It's not really an issue, however, because there are indeed many books older. When someone starts spewing 1500 BCE Moses authorship nonsense, on the other hand, I have a problem. I just like to compare apples to apples rather than speculation to apples. For example, in my book I am making the assertion that the 10 commandments are not of Hebrew origin at all, but rather directly of Egyptian descent. There is hard textual evidence that the Egyptians wrote their own equivalent to the 10 commandments circa 1500 B.C.E. We have multiple copies of these manuscripts that carbon date to this period; and they line up dynastically with the period as well. So we can honestly, responsibly, and scientifically state as fact that the Egyptians wrote the equivalent to the 10 commandments no later than 3,500 years ago. The earliest Hebrew textual evidence of the relevant portion of the book of Exodus that I have been able to find are multiple fragments found at Qumran that date to 100 B.C.E. So when we compare the hard data, it is clear that from the artifacts that are extant the Egyptians wrote the 10 commandments 1,400 years before the Hebrews appropriated them. Of course biblical tradition would place Moses and the Exodus between 1440-1290 B.C.E. But there is no hard evidence to indicate the Hebrews wrote the Ten Commandments at this time (not that I'm aware of anyway). So even if you were to give the benefit of the doubt to the biblical writers, Moses still would have "received the 10 Commandments from God" 60 years after the earliest known Egyptian version of the commandments. Of course on the flip side of this coin we could certainly argue that the Egyptian commandments are older than the extant texts that exist (as they most certainly are), but that's another matter. I'm sure religious apologists would love to assert that the Egyptians copied them from the Hebrews, or that they were inspired by the devil, but that's all mindless speculation. So anyway, that's one of the reasons why I was trying to make that point. I don't really care when religionists and scholars hope ancient texts were written, I care about what period the extant texts date to. Not that 600 B.C.E. isn't a reasonable date for the construction of the Pentateuch, because I think it is. I just want to see the textual evidence to prove it. I'm not a big fan of the Law of Assumption when applied to theology. Rameus Posted by: Lokmer Apr 30 2004, 06:52 AM To throw one more bit of criteria into play, Rameus, it's worth pointing out that Paleoliguistics plays at least some part in the construction of Biblical dates - charting the archaic strands of the language can help one approximate a likely date. This isn't an exact science, and is relied on far too heavily, but the idea that some parts of the Bible go back to 1500BCE (The Book of Job is often advanced as a likely candidate here) is not at all unreasonable on linguistic grounds. Of course, that redaction occurred in the intervening years is certain - and even at 1500BCE you're looking at a document that Gilgamesh, The Pyramid Texts, The Egyptian Decalogue, and the Code of Hamurabi easily predate. -Lokmer Posted by: Rameus Apr 30 2004, 06:59 AM (by ratbag) QUOTE The Epic of Gilgamesh - the story that noah's ark is supposed to have stolen from? I like the irony Don't you mean Utnapishtim's Ark? I love Mad Gerbil's concept that the Sumerian tale is clearly some kind of memory of the literal biblical event. Obviously the Sumerians got 90% of the story wrong, and the biblical writers corrected the errors many centuries later. Isn't that some strange reverse form of the "Telephone Game"? Sit children in a circle, tell a message to one and have it passed around until the final child announces the message. I've played that game with children many times and I've never once witnessed the recitation of the last child being the most accurate form of the message. In fact it's almost always the case that the children closer to the beginning of the circle have the more accurate versions of the message. This principle of course does not apply to biblical theology. Somehow, by some divine miracle it's exactly the opposite in the case of the biblical Genesis account right Gerbil? God intervened to clean up the ancient tale back to its original form...yes that must be it. It's a good thing Christian fundamentalist’s look at everything objectively. Rameus Posted by: Rameus Apr 30 2004, 07:18 AM (by Lokmer) QUOTE To throw one more bit of criteria into play, Rameus, it's worth pointing out that Paleoliguistics plays at least some part in the construction of Biblical dates - charting the archaic strands of the language can help one approximate a likely date. This isn't an exact science, and is relied on far too heavily, but the idea that some parts of the Bible go back to 1500BCE (The Book of Job is often advanced as a likely candidate here) is not at all unreasonable on linguistic grounds. I think if it is used judiciously, in concert with other more concrete methods then it can be a valuable tool. It’s always good to verify “facts” by using multiple methodologies. But a lot of biblical scholars use linguistics to validate their blind speculations, based upon the "fact" that of course Moses existed, and of course many of these books were written when he lived. They are making a massive assumption based on faith, and applying a very imprecise technique to add validity to their claims. Bible scholars call carbon dating unreliable when it doesn’t line up with their speculations. If carbon dating is unreliable then what does that imply about the reliability of linguistics as a sole method of determining age? Pretty damn fuzzy as B_Brain_In_Jar would say. Linguistics may be a valuable form of educated speculation, but speculation it shall always remain in my eyes. Like I said, I think it's far more pertinent to compare texts to texts rather than texts to "well tradition says..." Rameus Posted by: Lokmer Apr 30 2004, 07:23 AM Good point ;) Knowing many linguists and being a fan of the field I'm inclined to give it a little more weight, but I agree that it is far to heavily relied on ans generally because it is such an inexact science. Good to have that ball in play in any case. -Lokmer Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 30 2004, 07:26 AM QUOTE (Rameus) Why is it that so many Christians look through one microscope at their own religion, and through an entirely different microscope at all of the others? Your saying that since the bible gives a "historical" (read: hysterical) account of the beginning of the Earth, that would make its content the most ancient? Most religions have a creation myth that would put their own content back to the beginning of time. The Egyptians describe the creation of the Universe. So nearly all of the different religions describe creation, but Christianity's creation is obviously the oldest. How exactly does this pan out logically again? I’m not quite able to follow it; perhaps I should have a few drinks and read it over again. Rameus, I hope you weren't directly referring to me - as if this is MY belief! I was simply pointing out that maybe this is what the "moron" was trying to say. I was offering an additional conclusion on his part. I already know that many (if not all?) other religious texts include some sort of creation/beginning account. =Veritas= Posted by: Rameus Apr 30 2004, 07:42 AM (by Lokmer) QUOTE Good point ;) Knowing many linguists and being a fan of the field I'm inclined to give it a little more weight, but I agree that it is far to heavily relied on ans generally because it is such an inexact science. Good to have that ball in play in any case. -Lokmer If the field wasn't grossly misused by so many ideologists I would be more inclined to give it further credence. As it stands now, so many biblical scholars use it to turn mounds of speculation into mountains of "proof". Rubbish. Rameus Posted by: Rameus Apr 30 2004, 07:47 AM (by Veritas) QUOTE Rameus, I hope you weren't directly referring to me - as if this is MY belief! I was simply pointing out that maybe this is what the "moron" was trying to say. I was offering an additional conclusion on his part. I already know that many (if not all?) other religious texts include some sort of creation/beginning account. =Veritas= No I was just pointing out that far too many Christian executioners apply the sharp side of the falchion to the necks of other faiths, while applying the flat side of the falchion to their own. Rameus Posted by: MadMac Apr 30 2004, 03:11 PM The moron carefully sidestepped the issue by saying that none of the books Rameus listed had loads of people following them anway and the JESUS WAS FANTASTIC. Idiot. I think he's been banned from the board I was on anyway. Apparently he went to every topic I had posted on saying Jesus loved me. The pagan moderator took a rather dim view of this. I don't really consider myself an Acting Atheist now, but at the time when I wrote my profile I was following the philosophy of "Believe God exists, act like he doesn't". I would have written a tesimony, but compared to your generally angst-ridden explorations of fundamentalist faith, my tale of gradually deciding the Bible was bullshit didn't seem worth writing. So I didn't. Posted by: Rameus Apr 30 2004, 03:59 PM (by MadMac) QUOTE The moron carefully sidestepped the issue by saying that none of the books Rameus listed had loads of people following them anway and the JESUS WAS FANTASTIC. Ha! You should have told him that when the bible is as old as the Pyramid Texts are, there won't be anyone following it either. LOL. Probably true too. I would hope that God awful faith is dead in 2,500 years...assuming they haven't pressed the red button that makes the world go boom before then. Rameus Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |