User Tools

Site Tools


jews_pollute_wikipedia

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

jews_pollute_wikipedia [2018/04/21 03:43] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== The Bible Is A Worthless Historical Document ======
  
 +**//Those so called "​ancient"​ gypsy Jews are simply liars. Their history is a fabrication,​ their religion and culture is a concoction. Their so called ancient language recently engineered. They poison minds with their propaganda and they pollute the historical method with lies about their place in it, they are false.//**
 +
 +Jews vandalize the encyclopaedia,​ a cults propaganda is neither true nor history. The Socratic method of our successful western society have again been compromised and forgone in an allegory for some groups political legitimacy and the search for fact, truth replaced with ego and psychological warfare. Wikipedia can not be used, not even informally. Attempts to bring the known issue to the attention of Wikipedia is not heard, its not my website to be edited any how, I have my own website and I write what I want.
 +
 +The bible is not a valid historical document, Wikipedia has a difficult time understanding such and labels those that point that out vandals to be warned and banned and as a result Wikipedia is a mess, gobbled up and destroyed by cult zealots. Judaism is a cult not a history.
 +
 +The story of the Jewish exodus out of Egypt is of pretty pivotal importance in the Bible. It's what established Moses as God's chosen leader of his chosen people, and that leadership became integral to the establishment of Old Testament law. Indeed the covenant of the Jews before Christ came was called the Mosaic Covenant.
 +
 +One problem though: there'​s not actually any evidence that it ever happened. There'​s zero evidence that the people of Israel were ever enslaved by the Egyptians at all, much less that they escaped in a brave insurrection. Some modern-day Christians are fond of incorporating a healthy dose of retroactive rationalization to explain the total lack of contemporaneous or extra-Biblical evidence. But it's a myth, a fable – and most historical scholars know this.
 +
 +This raises some interesting questions. The creation story of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah and the Whale, the story of Job – all myths, proved completely implausible by modern science. Even the notorious slaughter of the Canaanites most likely never happened. Far more likely, stories such as Exodus and war stories littered throughout the Old Testament are hagiography. Luke over at Common Sense Atheism expounds:
 +Obviously these stories are hagiography – a tribe of people telling fictional and exagerated [sic] tales about its glorious history and importance. Every ancient culture that wrote their own history did this. It would be rather shocking if the Israelites were the only ancient people to record a literal, accurate history of their own tribe.
 +
 +And, with the exception of fundamentalist/​literalist loons who frankly are not even worth the trouble engaging in rational discourse, most modern believers know that these stories are fictional. So, if they'​re not actually true, what's the point? Well, (so we're told) they'​re apocryphal! It's all metaphor, to teach us something or other. What exactly these stories are supposed to teach us is anyone'​s guess. But they'​re not historical. There'​s no independent criteria to tell us how to properly interpret the Bible. We can try to gather some kind of lesson from them if we choose, though we're likely just imposing our own biases on the narratives.
 +
 +==== The New Testament ====
 +
 +Here's a shocker: The gospels aren't historic either. This is kind of a big deal. Christians have varying opinions on the historicity of the Old Testament, but it's safe to say that the New Testament is generally regarded as being historically reliable.
 +
 +I discussed much of this in my three-part critique of Lee Strobel'​s The Case For Christ movie (which has since been removed from Hulu), so I'll just recap the major points:
 +
 +  * Christians claim the gospels are based on eye-witness testimony. This is dubious, because Jesus is often documented as going off to be alone, and yet somehow we are privy to the exact words he spoke (most famously, the temptation in the desert – where he was purportedly alone for 40 days – and the prayers in Gethsamane while the disciples were asleep). This means that, at best, the gospels are a combination of eye-witness testimony and hearsay.
 +  * Even if the gospels were based on eye-witness testimony, such testimony is notoriously unreliable, as a litany of modern research reveals. ​
 +  * Christian subsequently claim that these stories were passed on through meticulous oral traditions. However, such "​meticulous"​ oral traditions among the Jews had been reserved for Rabbis, and even then they were not obsessed with historical details [link]. There'​s no evidence that the illiterate peasants who supposedly witnessed these events had any kind of reliable oral tradition.
 +  * We don't have the original manuscripts,​ but copies of copies of copies, which are frequently littered with contradictions,​ omissions, additions, and errors.
 +  * This culminates in the four books we now have, which are themselves filled with internal contradictions. When presented with these contradictions,​ Christians claim that the disagreement is to be expected. Of course, they propose no independent criteria to establish an acceptable amount of contradiction. What is the correct amount? Why, the amount in the Bible, of course! This is retroactive rationalization.
 +  * The gospels make unsubstantiated historical claims, including the census and slaughter of the firstborns commanded by Herod.
 +  * The gospels make supernatural claims, which demands more evidence than mundane historical claims. Christians typically invoke special pleading to rationalize their dismissal of the historicity of other cultures'​ supernatural claims. ​
 +
 +The best argument that believers seem to be able to conjure up is the old canard that "​absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"​. It's a famously misunderstood take on a famous Carl Sagan quote – where evidence should be abundant, its absence certainly is evidence that the purported events did not take place. Believers will say, for example, that the Egyptians might have just destroyed any records of the Jews' enslavement to avoid embarrassment. This is highly implausible,​ since many thousands were purportedly enslaved and such events are unlikely to escape all contemporaneously documented and archaeological evidence. The same is true for Herod'​s slaughter of the firstborns which, while consistent with Herod'​s character, is unlikely to have entirely escaped contemporaneous documentation from all who might have witness and been involved the event. Most glaringly though, such arguments are merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof by suggesting that we cannot disprove such events.
 +
 +==== Putting the burden of proof where it belongs ====
 +
 +It's not a sceptic’s job to conclusively invalidate the historicity of the Bible, or to disprove every possible way in which this stuff might have actually happened. Here's the real question: why should I believe the Bible is true? Even Jewish and Christian scholars know that most of it is fiction. What about the Bible demands that any reasonable person must agree that it can be nothing less than the product of divine revelation gifted to us by the One True God?
 +
 +Think about it: the Bible is touted as the one book given to humanity by an all-knowing,​ all-powerful god – and yet it's filled with myths, historical inaccuracies and internal contradictions. That is precisely what we would expect if the Bible were simply a collection of loosely connected writings conjured up purely by the imaginative minds of men. Why should I believe otherwise?
 +
 +==== Older Versions Of Real Encyclopaedias ====
 +
 +{{ ::​screenshot_from_2015-05-13_09_53_07.png?​400&​direct|Jewish vandalism of wikipedia}}
 +
 +I have old versions of Britannica, New World and Encarta that are locked in history when information had some integrity. If you want to download a copy email me requesting a link. Email tony at ganino dot com if you want the link.
 +
 +  * [[http://​www.ganino.com/​files/​Microsoft Encarta 2009.tar.gz|Microsoft Encarta 2009]]
 +  * [[http://​www.ganino.com/​files/​Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Complete.tar.gz|Encyclopaedia Britannica Complete 1911 Edition]]
 +===== BCE & CE Is Incorrect & Should Never Be Used. =====
 +
 +Its BC & AD and we have never cancelled out any aspect of natural history encoded in norms and you shouldn'​t either. Is is therefore invalid and should never be used. If you are in scholarship and you write the extra letter for no reason then change it back and maintain it as BC & AD or use the addition and negation symbol. Writing extra letters is not OK. It's not new, its information warfare. Their is historical record encoded in our conventions,​ no sterile alternatives thank you.
 +
 +===== The Mystery of the Bible’s Phantom Camels =====
 +
 +Elizabeth Dias @elizabethjdias ​ Feb. 11, 2014
 +
 +Once upon a time, Abraham owned a camel. According to the Book of Genesis, he probably owned lots of camels. The Bible says that Abraham, along with other patriarchs of Judaism and Christianity,​ used domesticated camels — as well as donkeys, sheep, oxen and slaves — in his various travels and trade agreements. Or did he?
 +
 +Last week, archaeologists Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University released a new study that dates the arrival of the domesticated camel in the eastern Mediterranean region to the 10th century B.C. at the earliest, based on radioactive-carbon techniques. Abraham and the patriarchs, however, lived at least six centuries before then. The New York Times, in a story about the finding today, announced, “There are too many camels in the Bible, out of time and out of place … these anachronisms are telling evidence that the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history.” Behold, a mystery: the Case of the Bible’s Phantom Camels.
 +
 +The discovery is actually far from new. William Foxwell Albright, the leading American archeologist and biblical scholar who confirmed the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, argued in the mid-1900s that camels were an anachronism. Historian Richard Bulliet of Columbia University explored the topic in his 1975 book, The Camel and the Wheel, and concluded that “the occasional mention of camels in patriarchal narratives does not mean that the domestic camels were common in the Holy Land at that period.” Biblical History 101 teaches that the texts themselves were often written centuries after the events they depict.
 +
 +The new study again raises the age-old question of biblical accuracy. The phantom camel is just one of many historically jumbled references in the Bible. The Book of Genesis claims the Philistines,​ the traditional enemy of the Israelites, lived during Abraham’s time. But historians date the Philistines’ arrival to the eastern Mediterranean at about 1200 B.C., 400 years after Abraham was supposed to have lived, according to Carol Meyers, professor of religion at Duke University.
 +
 +Then there’s the case of the great earthquake in the prophetic Book of Zechariah. Geological evidence in archeological sites like Hazor and Gezer in Israel date it to the mid-8th century B.C. But the Book of Zechariah, written several hundred years later, uses the event to talk about what will happen at the end of time, notes Eric Meyers, director of Duke University’s Department of Religious Studies and Carol’s husband.
 +
 +These anachronisms and historical inaccuracies,​ however, do not trouble biblical scholars. People in biblical times understood and wrote about their past differently from people in the modern, post-Enlightenment world. “We expect history to provide an accurate narrative of real events,” Carol Meyers explains. “The biblical authors, composers, writers used their creative imaginations to shape their stories, and they were not interested in what actually happened, they were interested in what you could learn from telling about the past.”
 +
 +The Bible has also never been a history book or a scientific textbook, explains Choon-Leong Seow, professor of Old Testament language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. Interpreting the Bible is a little like studying Leonardo da Vinci’s painting The Last Supper, he says. Modern viewers do not consider the Christ figure in da Vinci’s painting an accurate portrait because we know it was painted centuries after the supper happened, but that does not take away from the artist’s spiritual message about Jesus’ last night with his disciples. “For us who believe that this is Scripture, Scripture is important as it has formative power, it forms the people, and it transforms,​” Seow says. “It is poetic truth rather than literary truth.”
 +
 +Understanding the Case of the Phantom Camel as a fight between archeological evidence and biblical narrative misses the entire spiritual point of the text, as far as scholars are concerned. Anachronisms and apocryphal elements do not mean the story is invalid, but instead give insight into the spiritual community in a given time and place. In this case, camels were a sign of wealth and developing trade routes, so it is likely that the biblical writer used the camel as a narrative device to point out power and status. “We needn’t understand these accounts as literally true, but they are very rich in meaning and interpretive power,” Eric Meyers says.
 +
 +The study is going to ruffle the feathers of people who believe in biblical inerrancy, a doctrine popular among evangelical and other right-orthodoxy movements that says every word in the Bible is literally true. Liberal Judaism and Christianity,​ says Carol Meyers, often contribute to the problem when they do not look at the complexity of how ancient narratives were formed. Instead of worrying about proving history, she offers this suggestion: “If the Biblical writers are not interested in the facts, but rather in getting a message across, then people of faith can concentrate,​ instead of trying to verify every last item in the Bible, on what the overall message of the story is, not whether it is historically true or not.”
 +
 +Case closed.
 +
 +//Fertility Goddess Asherah: Was ‘God’s Wife’ Edited Out of the Bible?//
jews_pollute_wikipedia.txt · Last modified: 2018/04/21 03:43 (external edit)