An interesting turn of phrase

[tosca1]

I would dispute that. Surely a Christian can take the Bible as a book of fables and moral lessons to live by, yet not believe it was actually provided word for word by some supernatural being.

That wouldn't make you a Christian.
That argument makes you as someone who doesn't know what he's on about.


You would be denying CHRIST as The WORD OF GOD!

CHRIST Himself, has been quoting from and using the Bible (OLD Testament) in His teachings.
He has stated claims in the OT for facts! Among other things.
What do you think the New Testament is all about?



Furthermore -

You wouldn't believe in the NEW COVENANT if you think the Bible is just a story book of fables and moral lessons...................right?
You wouldn't believe where the Bible says you are (as a Christian), in the grand plan.
What happens in the afterlife, right?

 

[tosca1]

The exact date is irrelevant, though. The question remains as to why the Hebrew God didn't give the knowledge of writing to the Hebrews first.

Hebrews have their own writings. Consonantal?
Your article said so:



A final difficulty is that we are often dealing with partially preserved languages. Most of the texts produced in antiquity simply did not survive the ravages of time. There is much about these ancient languages that remains unknown—and will likely never be known.

Dextrograde writing and dramatic variations in stance are attested in Early Alphabetic writing but not in Phoenician or Old Hebrew.7 The conclusion is inescapable: The Qeiyafa Ostracon is written in Early Alphabetic script, not in the Phoenician or Old Hebrew script. On this, the original editors agree.8

Based on the identification of the script as Early Alphabetic, I would date the inscription as most likely coming from the 11th century B.C.E.

Even though the script might not be Hebrew, the text could be. As noted earlier, we know of Biblical (Hebrew) texts from the 12th or 11th centuries B.C.E. Is the language of the Qeiyafa Ostracon Hebrew?

Let me give you up front the conclusions of the principal scholars who have weighed in on the matter. Yosef Garfinkel, his excavation codirector Saar Ganor and his epigrapher Haggai Misgav in their editio princeps conclude—with some caution, however—that the language is Hebrew.

Émile Puech says the language could be Canaanite or Hebrew.
Gershon Galil has asserted in a fairly dogmatic fashion that it is Hebrew, and he is quite critical of the caution of the original editors.9
British scholar Alan Millard recently stated that he believes “the language may be Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician or Moabite.”10
My own view is that it is not possible to say with certainty that the language of this inscription is Hebrew.11

What’s the Oldest Hebrew Inscription? - The BAS Library

Four contenders vie for the honor of the oldest Hebrew inscription. To decide we must determine (1) whether they are in Hebrew script and/or language and (2) when they date. Not easy! The first contender, the already famous Qeiyafa Ostracon, was discovered only in 2008 at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a site...

library.biblicalarchaeology.org

There is no definite consensus that it is not Hebrew.

Furthermore - languages do evolve.





The Paleo-Hebrew script evolved by developing numerous cursive features, the lapidary features of the Phoenician alphabet being ever less pronounced with the passage of time.

Paleo-Hebrew alphabet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tosca1]

So, if writing is so essential that it is considered sacred, why would the Hebrew god not impart knowledge of writing first to the Hebrews?

Who sez............................"writing is so essential that it is considered sacred?"

Are you referring to the instructions to write?
God did indeed instruct prophets to write....................however..............

The WORD of GOD, isn't confined only to writings.

 

[Michael Cole]

Who sez............................"writing is so essential that it is considered sacred?"

Christians say.

Are you referring to the instructions to write?

No.

The WORD of GOD, isn't confined to writings.

The Logos has nothing to do with the written word, correct.

The idea that gods "speak" reality into existence was more ancient to Jesus than Jesus is to us.

 

[tosca1]

The idea that gods "speak" reality into existence was more ancient to Jesus than Jesus is to us.

Jesus is The Word of GOD.

Jesus is the personification - The WORD became flesh - of what came out of God's mouth (WORD) when He spoke creation into existence.
Thus everything was created through Him, and for Him.

Like, if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, Jesus is the personification of the Word of God.

Jesus is as "ancient" (if we can even apply that term to Someone who has no beginning and no end) as GOD Himself.
He is GOD!

 

[Michael Cole]

Jesus is The Word of GOD.

Jesus is the personification - He became flesh - of what came out of God's mouth (WORD) when He spoke creation into existence.

Like, if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, Jesus is the personification of the Word of God.

Why are you repeating what I just wrote?

My argument is the timeline. Judaism and Christianity were the new kids on the block. The Hebrews were probably more literate than the surrounding cultures, but this is estimated at only about 15%. The common Hebrew could not read nor write. Why would an omnipotent god use a tool that only a tiny number of people can operate? As well, if word of mouth was the standard, why the need for writing at all?

This makes sense only in a historical sense. When we try to view it through the Bible's lens, it falls apart.

 

[tosca1]

Why are you repeating what I just wrote?

Lol - I didn't quite get what you wrote about Jesus being ancient.

My argument is the timeline. Judaism and Christianity were the new kids on the block. The Hebrews were probably more literate than the surrounding cultures, but this is estimated at only about 15%. The common Hebrew could not read nor write. Why would an omnipotent god use a tool that only a tiny number of people can operate? As well, if word of mouth was the standard, why the need for writing at all?

This makes sense only in a historical sense. When we try to view it through the Bible's lens, it falls apart.

And yet.....................look how far a long way Judaism and Christianity had come.
They didn't.........................fall apart.

Christianity is GLOBAL!

Where are the Sumerians?
Where are the Romans? Their gods and goddeses?



Christianity - why would Jesus have chosen a handful of disciples - who had a hard time understanding what He said?
Lol - how many times have they frustrated Him?

God - in His omnipotence - must've know how many times Peter would deny Him, and how fearful they would be, would go in hiding when Jesus is crucified to the cross.
Why didn't God cut to the chase and chosen educated men instead, powerful men in politics?
You know, speed things up?
Why come as a poor?
Why start with a small motley crew?



Who can understand the Mind of God? His Ways?

 

[Michael Cole]

Lol - I didn't quite get what you wrote about Jesus being ancient.

Timeline.

The pyramids of Giza were more ancient to Cleopatra than Cleopatra is to us. Clear?

Same thing with a cosmology based on gods speaking things into existence. And perhaps ironically, the points are nearly the same with regard to Christianity, the time of Jesus and the tradition of the Egyptian religion.

 

[tosca1]

Timeline.

The pyramids of Giza were more ancient to Cleopatra than Cleopatra is to us. Clear?

Same thing with a cosmology based on gods speaking things into existence. And perhaps ironically, the points are nearly the same with regard to Christianity, the time of Jesus and the tradition of the Egyptian religion.

So I was right to correct you, when it came to Jesus.
Read again.

 

[DCCougar]

You wouldn't believe in the NEW COVENANT if you think the Bible is just a story book of fables and moral lessons....

Oh, so there's a litmus test for who you allow as being a Christian. Got it.

 

[tosca1]

Oh, so there's a litmus test for who you allow as being a Christian. Got it.

I don't understand what you mean.
Kindly explain.

Are you sure you understood what you've read?

 

[BirdinHand]

I gave you Jesus' words so yes...

Yes, it is because word of mouth preceded the written word...

Jesus didn’t write the Bible. The Bible and gospels were written by other people - and have been curated and translated countless times.

Ever play a game of “telephone” as a kid? Where you sit in a circle and a “secret” is passed around the circle?

When it gets back the the first person - it is NEVER the same as when it started.

Why should that known apply differently to any holy text?

 

[it's just me]

Jesus didn’t write the Bible. The Bible and gospels were written by other people - and have been curated and translated countless times.

Ever play a game of “telephone” as a kid? Where you sit in a circle and a “secret” is passed around the circle?

When it gets back the the first person - it is NEVER the same as when it started.

Why should that known apply differently to any holy text?

Why do people keep saying this shit?

Prove that scripture has been translated "countless times" in the English language.

 

[Overitall]

Jesus didn’t write the Bible. The Bible and gospels were written by other people - and have been curated and translated countless times.

Ever play a game of “telephone” as a kid? Where you sit in a circle and a “secret” is passed around the circle?

When it gets back the the first person - it is NEVER the same as when it started.

Why should that known apply differently to any holy text?

Ever heard of the word “gist”? Subtle changes don’t make much of a difference when it comes to the “telephone game”. You can extract God’s words from that which man has added to or subtracted from the Bible.