Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Thread: Will the real date of the Exodus please stand out.

  1. #91
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The exageration of numbers is only an example. It is not as simple as that.
    O ... K .... but Caesar still wrote seven books and ordered writing of eighth book of Bellum Gallicum.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    NO!
    Your shouting no won't change that this is my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No, historians rely on corraborating evidence and archaeological evidence outside the Bellum Gallicum.
    For his being the real author?

    Give me a break, I am a Latinist, I know how authorship assignment works in relation to Latin / Roman antiquities!

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    There is no archaeological evidence.
    I said it was another matter, I did not say I would agree there was none.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The fact that some events in Egyptian history are found in Exodus does not lend any credibility to the Exodus being an accurate account of the time. Historical events are found in ancient legends in many different cultures of the world and there is no reason assume that they are accurate first person accounts.

    The bottom line remains there is no evidence for the account of Exodus in the Pentateuch being a first person account by anyone including Moses.
    Moses actually, like Caesar after him, wrote Exodus in third person.

    "Historical events are found in ancient legends in many different cultures of the world and there is no reason assume that they are accurate first person accounts."

    In this case there is, as there is an ancient authorship assignment.

    Accepting these does not depend on archaeological confirmation, it is rather that discarding an ancient and in ancient times undisputed authorship assignment needs a special reason.

    We accept Bellum Gallicum as genuinely Caesar's, because we have no special reason to discard it, and it is in general probable that actual author of a text is reflected with an attribution of it.

    So, what are your positive special reason's for discarding Moses' authorship? A negative reason like mere lack of archaeological evidence is not how authorships are discarded in academia related to Rome and Greece.
    Last edited by hansgeorg; 01-04-2017 at 12:21 PM.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  2. #92
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,555
    Amen (Given)
    231
    Amen (Received)
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    It couldn't by any chance go back as far as Moses, a half millennium before the place you give it?
    Moses probably would've written in proto-Canaanite.

    Assuming an Exodus between roughly 1250 and 1100 BC, it's possible, but it would likely be a translation into Hebrew from proto-Canaanite.

  3. #93
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Moses probably would've written in proto-Canaanite.

    Assuming an Exodus between roughly 1250 and 1100 BC, it's possible, but it would likely be a translation into Hebrew from proto-Canaanite.
    How many of the changes would have been affecting only vowels?
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  4. #94
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Moses probably would've written in proto-Canaanite.
    More seriously, I don't believe in glottochronology. It is impossible to determine accurately how many centuries earlier than observed divergence x the languages xa and xb were a pre-x proto-language.

    When it comes to accumulated changes, it is a very fair guess it took some 500 - 800 years between French and Spanish on the popular level of pronunciation.

    But Hebrew and Phoenician need not have developed at same pace. Just because a tablet of Ugarit has a divergent language, I don't know by how much, one need not presume both Biblical Hebrew and Phoenician developed from the language of Ugarit. Instead, Hebrew can have been same, and Phoenician can have converged toward Hebrew from Ugarit parameters to known Punic ones.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  5. #95
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    And back to "How many of the changes would have been affecting only vowels?"

    When a written language already exists with normative old texts, these shape the spelling, and this despite changes in pronunciation. Most words are very similar between Chaucer's English and today's in spelling. Pour cause ... there has been no respelling between the times. There have been attempts to normalise spelling variants (cloaths, cloathes, clothes, victory for last spelling, as with stoan vs stone), but there has been no change of basic system as there was back just before Chaucer, when [ü] (now extant) changed spelling from Anglo-Saxon y to English u, and when [u] changed spelling at least when long from u to ou, after French.

    Similarily, Fredegar of Tours is basically using same spelling as Cicero (with less unity) despite pronouncing a language which would be more phonetically spelled in Spanish / French / some mix than in Latin.

    When pronunciation changes, a written language need not be lost, nor changed, but the pronunciation rules may change to accomodate the new pronunciations.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  6. #96
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,537
    Amen (Given)
    1216
    Amen (Received)
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    And back to "How many of the changes would have been affecting only vowels?"

    When a written language already exists with normative old texts, these shape the spelling, and this despite changes in pronunciation. Most words are very similar between Chaucer's English and today's in spelling. Pour cause ... there has been no respelling between the times. There have been attempts to normalise spelling variants (cloaths, cloathes, clothes, victory for last spelling, as with stoan vs stone), but there has been no change of basic system as there was back just before Chaucer, when [ü] (now extant) changed spelling from Anglo-Saxon y to English u, and when [u] changed spelling at least when long from u to ou, after French.

    Similarily, Fredegar of Tours is basically using same spelling as Cicero (with less unity) despite pronouncing a language which would be more phonetically spelled in Spanish / French / some mix than in Latin.

    When pronunciation changes, a written language need not be lost, nor changed, but the pronunciation rules may change to accomodate the new pronunciations.
    Not really the subject of the thread.

    I am not certain how this is relevant to the topic, since there are not any ancient writings of Exodus subject to interpretation problems because vowels were not used nor pronunciation issues.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •