What does it mean to "deny" Jesus, according to the NT?

[Shermana]

but Jesus did Answer that HE is ONE with The FATHER; and the HOLY SPIRIT

And he says "Let them be one AS we are one",

"As" = 'in the same way that"

vs.36 acknowledges that GOD made Jesus both LORD and Christ. Meaning: 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord.

He made him "lord" and "Christ", lower case lord. The word for LORD is a name, it's not a title. Thus, it has to have been "Lord and Christ", as in the same kind of "Lord" that David was. You can't make someone the LORD just like you can't make someone Shermana. Now do you understand what "Christ" would entail in Jewish prophecy?

 

[F0uad]

Yes, it is your signature; You didn't acknowledge the Source. However, As I recall, a Hadith carries the same authority for the Muslims as the Quran--Right??

Nope you don't know anything about Islam do you?

Right! Jesus didn't say "the specific wordings" you are demanding, but Jesus did Answer that HE is ONE with The FATHER; and the HOLY SPIRIT. Nor did Jesus deny the Apostles their acknowledgment that HE was the SON of GOD.

Thanks for agreeing that was all what i was asking :clap.

All the writings of the Quran were supposedly given to Muhammad by Gabriel without the presence of anyone else. Why do/should you believe those??(in the first place?)
I have no reason the believe or disbelieve who the author of Hebrews is---The Book of Hebrews is consistent with the Scriptures/Writings of the Prophets and the Laws of GOD. Those writings contradict the writings found in the Quran.

I am not sure why you are throwing the Quran each time in our discussion you clearly didn't read it nor did i say that you should belief in it. So you agree that Hebrews is from a unknown Author/Source then how is it reliable in any-way, why cant i write something in the bible?

Huh/You are joking!!!!

??

The next two verses say Jesus was crucified and the Following verse acknowledges the Resurrection of Jesus. vs.36 acknowledges that GOD made Jesus both LORD and Christ. Meaning: 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord.

What has this to do with anything what i have said please clarify?

FOuad, Jesus had no earthly father. Jesus was conceived in the uterus of Mary by the HOLY SPIRIT. That verse above is speaking of a human father and mother.

Where is Father in that Chapter? I belief that Jesus(p) was conceived by Marry(p) without male intervention but the verse clearly says that God doesn't get conceived by a woman because its unclean.

Jesus began HIS 3 1/2 teaching ministry/training HIS Twelve Disciples at/after HIS Baptism in AD 27 and was crucified in AD 31 All the NT writings were completed )before the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Roman Army(AD 70) or
some of the writers would have acknowledged the fulfillment by Jesus of that fact/destruction.

How is this relevant?
Are you saying that we should count the years from eastern and not new-year?

Yes, NO eye-witnesses!!! He may have a lot of "companions", but none of them were in attendance when Mohammed received any of his material which was recorded as from Gabriel.

Where were the eye-witnesses when the Angel met Marry(p), or the other times when the Angel came down on earth. Please take some time to study what Islam teaches before making claims that are ridiculous.

John6:68-71, "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."

Is it just mere coincidence that there are exactly three verses in the entire Old Testament or Hebrew Bible that negates God being a man and on the other end of the spectrum there is the idea that God is three persons as Trinitarians hold?
I do not think it is a mere coincidence that we have it as such. I do not think that it is mere coincidence that one of the three verses expressly denies that God is both man and the son of man both of which are respectively associated with Jesus(p). It goes without saying that these verses strongly indicate that the Trinity and the idea that God incarnated into the man Jesus(p) are doctrines that ae antithesis to God's nature.
The New Testament describes Jesus(p) as both man and the son of man in many places.

Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus(p) was a man as i have quoted before:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

Notice that Peter is the one speaking here and he does not use the evangelist script that Jesus(p) is god-man or man-god. Peter merely affirmed our position that Jesus(p) was a man that God chose meaning a prophet/messenger.
The term "Son of Man" occurs exactly 82 times in the four gospels and four additional times elsewhere in the New Testament - 30 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 25 times in Luke, 13 times in John, 1 time in Acts, 1 time in Hebrews and 2 times in Revelations.


The frequency in which the term is used for Jesus(p) in the Gospels is one of the reasons that have led Biblical scholars to consider it as a specific appellation or title for him. Many Christian scholars have even extended this view into the Old Testament and interpreting verses containing the words "Son of Man" as references to Jesus(p). For this reason I am curious to know why should Jesus(p) be excluded from Numbers 23:19?
The verse reads:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19)

The key part in the verse is "lo ish el bikhazab uben adam beyit nekham". The negation occurs at the beginning of the sentence with the word "ìà" or lo which is similar with the Arabicnegation la. What this literally means is: "It is not true that God is a man and will lie and the son of man and He will change His mind". The negation is distributed to each phrase which then yields, "God is not a man and He does not lie, He is not the son of man and He does not repent."
As we have seen earlier Jesus(p) is both man and the son of man. Verse 19 of Numbers 23 says that God is neither man nor the son of man. When we bring these two together do we not arrive at the conclusion that Jesus(p) isn't God?

 

[sincerly]

However, As I recall, a Hadith carries the same authority for the Muslims as the Quran--Right??

Nope you don't know anything about Islam do you?[/quote

Right! the "Hadith"are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence.
They are the sayings of muhammad--with regard to approval or disapproval.

Right! Jesus didn't say "the specific wordings" you are demanding, but Jesus did Answer that HE is ONE with The FATHER; and the HOLY SPIRIT. Nor did Jesus deny the Apostles their acknowledgment that HE was the SON of GOD.

Thanks for agreeing that was all what i was asking :clap.

Thanks, but My above answer isn't that phraseology which you were demanding.

I am not sure why you are throwing the Quran each time in our discussion you clearly didn't read it nor did i say that you should belief in it. So you agree that Hebrews is from a unknown Author/Source then how is it reliable in any-way, why cant i write something in the bible?

I know from where your comments are coming. I have read a great deal of the Quran/Koran(English translation---by Islamist)

You can't dismiss the message of Hebrews by that conclusion of yours. I Believe that Paul was the writer, but that doesn't/wouldn't void the message it contains---even should Paul not be the author.

Have you been instructed by the Holy Spirit(One of the GOD-HEAD) to do so?? You realize, of course, that whatever you wrote would have to be in agreement with the LAW and the testimony???

Originally Posted by F0uad
What does the bible say: Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

The next two verses say Jesus was crucified and the Following verse acknowledges the Resurrection of Jesus. vs.36 acknowledges that GOD made Jesus both LORD and Christ. Meaning: 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord.

What has this to do with anything what i have said please clarify?

Where is Father in that Chapter? I belief that Jesus(p) was conceived by Marry(p) without male intervention but the verse clearly says that God doesn't get conceived by a woman because its unclean.

How is this relevant?

Don't you recall underlining "was a man" Doesn't the Quran deny that Jesus was crucified---Acts2:23-24 dispute the Quran. and vs.36,"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that GOD hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. GOD The Father is seen in that Making of Jesus Lord and Master. (John 13:13), "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am."

In Job 25:4-6, is Bildad's response to Job. The same thought is expressed in Rom. 3:9-10, 22-23.

[/quote]Jesus began HIS 3 1/2 teaching ministry/training HIS Twelve Disciples at/after HIS Baptism in AD 27 and was crucified in AD 31. All the NT writings were completed before the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Roman Army(AD 70) or
some of the writers would have acknowledged the fulfillment by Jesus of that fact/destruction. [/quote]

Are you saying that we should count the years from eastern and not new-year?

What I refuted was your claim of the eye-witness accounts as being concluded as long after their deaths.
No, that is your own false conclusion.

Where were the eye-witnesses when the Angel met Marry(p), or the other times when the Angel came down on earth. Please take some time to study what Islam teaches before making claims that are ridiculous.

Are you denying that there were No witnesses to the material received by muhammad ?? It isn't ridiculous. From Sinai, The Creator GOD of all things spoke to all the people of the congregation/Camp. Many witnesses.

In fact, Jesus, Himself, (matt.18:16) said, "But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

Is it just mere coincidence that there are exactly three verses in the entire Old Testament or Hebrew Bible that negates God being a man and on the other end of the spectrum there is the idea that God is three persons as Trinitarians hold?

NO, GOD is not a human Being in neither of your assumptions.

The New Testament describes Jesus(p) as both man and the son of man in many places.

The term "Son of Man" occurs exactly 82 times in the four gospels and four additional times elsewhere in the New Testament - 30 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 25 times in Luke, 13 times in John, 1 time in Acts, 1 time in Hebrews and 2 times in Revelations.


When we bring these two together do we not arrive at the conclusion that Jesus(p) isn't God?

FOuad, when on searches for "SON of GOD", it is found 44 times. Jesus was in context referred to as Both. Jesus' appearance to humans was that of a human being. However, the powers HE possessed were not of mankind, but those of GOD.
As a human, Jesus could give his Blood(die in the place of all repentant death destined human sinners.)

 

[Oryonder]

The Gospels were written between AD 50-60 just 20-30 years after the Crucifixion of Jesus. Of course, those writers were still alive and most of the "eye-witnesses" as well. Your assumptions are of the same distortions as is seem in the Quran.(which, btw, had NO EYE-WITNESSES.)

I do not know where you got 50-60 AD because none of the Gospels are throught to be that early. References to the destruction of the Temple in both Mark and John mean that they could not have possibly been written that early.

Mark at the earliest is around 70 AD ..

Gospel of Mark

and Matt and Luke are thought to have used Mark and Q as source documents.

John is thought to have been written much later.

 

[Oryonder]

[/b][/i]


FOuad, when on searches for "SON of GOD", it is found 44 times. Jesus was in context referred to as Both. Jesus' appearance to humans was that of a human being. However, the powers HE possessed were not of mankind, but those of GOD.
As a human, Jesus could give his Blood(die in the place of all repentant death destined human sinners.)

That Jesus had the powers of "God"/was God the Father is a most confusing thing.

Think about it. If God (aka Jesus) decided to allow himself to be crucified .. should we feel sorry for God ? After all it was God who wanted to do this.

I feel sorry for a masochist only in that I think his mind is not right, not because of what he does to himself. Do you think God a masochist ?

When God is hanging on the cross .. why on earth would he call out to himself .. "God, why have you forsaken me" ?

Has God gone mad while on the cross such that he forget's who he is ?

It makes no sence to claim that Jesus was God based on the above. Further, Jesus refer's to "The Father" as someone other than himself countless times.

Sure you can find at most one or two vauge references where, with the aid of some bad interpretation if not interpolation, one could say "perhaps this was what Jesus meant" .. but this stands against a backdrop of numerous direct and unambiguous references from Jesus to God as someone other than himself.

That Jesus was God's messenger, makes way more sense in relation to the stories about Jesus but also, this is what Jesus himself claims.

 

[Shermana]

Think about it. If God (aka Jesus) decided to allow himself to be crucified .. should we feel sorry for God ? After all it was God who wanted to do this.

Well said, a Trinitarian getting teary eyed about the idea of God willfully sacrificing Himself and trying to get all pushy and preachy with their "He died for YOU" is in my view, not just strange but actually psychotic, like some extremely forced and conditioned emotions. I also wonder where they get this commonly held view that only God's blood that redeem His own creation, scripture says nothing like it yet its such a widespread excuse for the concept.

Not to mention that they casually ignore almost every time the fact that he says "Let YOUR will be done not mine" and "Take this cup from me if YOU will", that equates to that Yashua did NOT want to go to the cross. He did not go completely willingly, he did so out of duty and heavenly requirement.

I can totally understand the idea of sympathizing for someone who was going against his will but had to take orders since he was the guilt offering of Isaiah 53 and had to play into prophecy, but the idea of feeling weepy for God sacrificing himself sounds like ...well, forced emotions.

 

[F0uad]

Don't you recall underlining "was a man" Doesn't the Quran deny that Jesus was crucified---Acts2:23-24 dispute the Quran. and vs.36,"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that GOD hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. GOD The Father is seen in that Making of Jesus Lord and Master. (John 13:13), "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am."

What has the Quran to do anything with what you are speaking about? You keep throwing the Quran in our discussion can you please stop doing that. Again i repeat my message and please in your next message respond on it, Acts 2:22 clearly says that Jesus(p) was a man and a son of a man hence the New-Testament refers Jesus(p) 82times as a son of man. Yet later in Numbers 23:19 it says that God is not man or son of man.

In Job 25:4-6, is Bildad's response to Job. The same thought is expressed in Rom. 3:9-10, 22-23.

So? The problem remains there god doesn't get conceived by a woman according who ever wrote it because its unclean yet Jesus(p) was.

What I refuted was your claim of the eye-witness accounts as being concluded as long after their deaths.
No, that is your own false conclusion.

Huh Please show me where Historians tell us that John comes from 30AD you defiantly do not know the time-line of your own scriptures. Where did you actually ''refute'' me? Most of the Historians do not belief that the writers are eye-witnesses simply because the scriptures are dated back from 50 to 150years after Jesus(p), what logical sums up they weren't eye-witnesses.

Are you denying that there were No witnesses to the material received by muhammad ?? It isn't ridiculous. From Sinai, The Creator GOD of all things spoke to all the people of the congregation/Camp. Many witnesses.

Like i said learn what Islam teaches there is a DIR on the Abraham section where you can ask questions. Again you didn't address anything of what i have said.

In fact, Jesus, Himself, (matt.18:16) said, "But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

:clap Great relevant how? Again not addressed what i have said.

NO, GOD is not a human Being in neither of your assumptions.

I agree god is not a human-being as i stated before, so you agree that Jesus(p) is not god since he was a human-being? But again not addressed what i have said.

Right! the "Hadith"are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence.
They are the sayings of muhammad--with regard to approval or disapproval.

Yes they are important tools for understanding the Quran however they are not as important as the Quran itself, the Quran is the revelation of god the Hadith are Oral-tradition of companions, Mohammed(saws) and hes relatives what explain verses or tells us history about certain times.

Thanks, but My above answer isn't that phraseology which you were demanding.

You agreed that Jesus(p) did not utter those specific words and that was all i was asking.

I know from where your comments are coming. I have read a great deal of the Quran/Koran(English translation---by Islamist)

Sure that's why you almost know nothing about Islam? Also i never used the Quran in our little discussion your the one who keeps putting the Quran in our discussion i am not sure why though and again not addressed what i have said.

You can't dismiss the message of Hebrews by that conclusion of yours. I Believe that Paul was the writer, but that doesn't/wouldn't void the message it contains---even should Paul not be the author.

There is no respected Historian in the world that says that Hebrews is written by Paul so you should really research the subject before making comments like these. So if the Author is unknown how is it reliable in anyway, like i said why cant i write something in the Bible? If a ''unknown'' person can why cant i, at-least i would have a name and a biography.

Have you been instructed by the Holy Spirit(One of the GOD-HEAD) to do so?? You realize, of course, that whatever you wrote would have to be in agreement with the LAW and the testimony???

Did you know that the word ''God-Head'' is removed from the Translations since the Greek Bible does not have that word? Did you also know that the whole Human-God, Atonement for sin and human-sacrifice ideas directly contradicts the law? And Again not addressed what i have said.

FOuad, when on searches for "SON of GOD", it is found 44 times. Jesus was in context referred to as Both. Jesus' appearance to humans was that of a human being. However, the powers HE possessed were not of mankind, but those of GOD.
As a human, Jesus could give his Blood(die in the place of all repentant death destined human sinners.)

My friend please re-read my previous message and see if you addressed something or came up with something interesting you clearly didn't. You clearly don't know that Human-sacrifices are forbidden in the Laws that Jesus(p) was upholding in Matthew 5:17-20? And Again not addressed what i have said.

Please this time try to stay on the subjects we are talking about, stop talking about the Quran and finally addresses the verses i quoted. You have dodged 6times my questions and arguments then went speaking about things that are not relevant on the subject.

 

[Shermana]

A note on the word "GOdhead", it means "Divinity" as in a quality, not a being itself, like "The Angel had divinity", or rather "godhood" as it means in olde English. The idea that there's something called "The Godhead" which incorporates the 3 persons of the Trinity, I think is a much later invention, even among Trinitarians. The word "Godhead" as far as "Divinity". Strong's doesn't help break this misconception because it probably wants to cater to its Trinitarian audience that has become accustomed to this fabrication and misuse of a Greek word that is otherwise a qualitative noun.

Now one may say that only God has divinity, but then that brings up the question of what "godhood" and "Divinity" means, clearly the angels are called "gods" and "Divine beings".

You have dodged 6times my questions and arguments then went speaking about things that are not relevant on the subject.

Trinitarians dodging questions? What a concept!

 

[F0uad]

A note on the word "GOdhead", it means "Divinity" as in a quality, not a being itself, like "The Angel had divinity", or rather "godhood" as it means in olde English. The idea that there's something called "The Godhead" which incorporates the 3 persons of the Trinity, I think is a much later invention, even among Trinitarians. The word "Godhead" as far as "Divinity". Strong's doesn't help break this misconception because it probably wants to cater to its Trinitarian audience that has become accustomed to this fabrication and misuse of a Greek word that is otherwise a qualitative noun.

Now one may say that only God has divinity, but then that brings up the question of what "godhood" and "Divinity" means, clearly the angels are called "gods" and "Divine beings".

I wonder why the word God-Head is removed from the newer translations got any thoughts on it?

Trinitarians dodging questions? What a concept!

Hehe

 

[sincerly]

I do not know where you got 50-60 AD because none of the Gospels are throught to be that early. References to the destruction of the Temple in both Mark and John mean that they could not have possibly been written that early.

Mark at the earliest is around 70 AD ..

Oryonder, In Matthew and Mark Jesus speaks of the future destruction of the Temple(which did happen in AD 70). Had the Gospel writers written those Gospels after AD 70 and the destruction they would not have ignored the fact of Jesus predicting it.

The Gospel of Mark site by Peter kirby admits that some dates are debatable.

and Matt and Luke are thought to have used Mark and Q as source documents.

John is thought to have been written much later.

Right!, "are/is thought"----that equates to some truth and a hardy mixture of assumptions and out-right falseness. A deadly mixture. Right out of the Garden of Eden's serpent's "play-book".

 

[Shermana]

The arguments about the late dating of Mark are written from a bias that prophecy can't possibly happen. Which would kinda clash with the general idea that Isaiah was dated before the Babylonian captivity and other examples. It's an example of where scholar's atheist/anti-supernatural bias has more to do with the statement than actual textual or manuscript or historical reasons. It's basically "Prophecy can't happen, therefore it was written after the matter of fact", not a very scholarly reason. I believe Mark is a redacted, final version of an original, same with Matthew, if not John, but I don't believe the Temple part was necessarily added later.

I generally appreciate Biblical scholarship but there are quite a few stupidities among them, like how they date Enoch to the time of the DSS, so why not date every other writing to the time of the DSS?

 

[F0uad]

The arguments about the late dating of Mark are written from a bias that prophecy can't possibly happen. Which would kinda clash with the general idea that Isaiah was dated before the Babylonian captivity and other examples. It's an example of where scholar's atheist/anti-supernatural bias has more to do with the statement than actual textual or manuscript or historical reasons. It's basically "Prophecy can't happen, therefore it was written after the matter of fact", not a very scholarly reason. I believe Mark is a redacted, final version of an original, same with Matthew, if not John, but I don't believe the Temple part was necessarily added later.

I generally appreciate Biblical scholarship but there are quite a few stupidities among them, like how they date Enoch to the time of the DSS, so why not date every other writing to the time of the DSS?

Just a question what has nothing to do with the original subject, do you personally belief that Enoch is not a mythical figure after reading the Book of Enoch or the Genesis verse about it?

I would also want to ask how do you see the Jubilee bible?

 

[Shermana]

Just a question what has nothing to do with the original subject, do you personally belief that Enoch is not a mythical figure after reading the Book of Enoch or the Genesis verse about it?

I believe Enoch was 100% real and that he wrote the Book of Enoch and it was transmitted for thousands of years. I have no way of backing this up however. But neither do those who say otherwise.

I would also want to ask how do you see the Jubilee bible?

I haven't made up my mind yet about Jubilees, I think it saw redaction and edits just like anything else but so far, I have yet to make a final decision, it does seem to go by a Solar calendar instead of a Lunar, which might be a give away.

 

[F0uad]

I believe Enoch was 100% real and that he wrote the Book of Enoch and it was transmitted for thousands of years. I have no way of backing this up however. But neither do those who say otherwise.

How could he write it if its passed down orally for 1000's or 10,000's of years (without even mentioning the changes)? Anyway my real question was do you literally belief everything inside the book just a question..

I haven't made up my mind yet about Jubilees, I think it saw redaction and edits just like anything else but so far, I have yet to make a final decision, it does seem to go by a Solar calendar instead of a Lunar, which might be a give away.

Ok.

 

[Shermana]

How could he write it if its passed down orally for 1000's or 10,000's of years (without even mentioning the changes)?

I don't think it was necessarily passed orally, but actually had a written source. It mentions that Enoch wrote, as well in 2 Enoch. Yes, I believe pretty much all of it as far as its translated right, but I do leave room for the idea that the last parts are totally interpolated, but I don't know where to begin with discussing the manuscript evidence, the Ethiopian differs from the others for a start.

 

[F0uad]

I don't think it was necessarily passed orally, but actually had a written source. It mentions that Enoch wrote, as well in 2 Enoch. Yes, I believe pretty much all of it as far as its translated right, but I do leave room for the idea that the last parts are totally interpolated, but I don't know where to begin with discussing the manuscript evidence, the Ethiopian differs from the others for a start.

Huh? I am confused are you saying that the book of Enoch is 10,000 of years old or that it was written around 300BC coming from a other source? Please clarify..

I am just asking that's all.

 

[Shermana]

Huh? I am confused are you saying that the book of Enoch is 10,000 of years old or that it was written around 300BC coming from a other source? Please clarify..

My apologies if I wasn't clear. I believe that Enoch was originally written about 6,000 years ago or so and was copied and transmitted in the written languages as time went on. Many of those who don't want Enoch to be considered as anything prophetic or otherwise cast doubt it say that it dates only as early as the DSS manuscripts, which I think is one of Bible scholarship's most biased and embarassing stupidities. Why not apply the same criteria to every other text?

 

[F0uad]

My apologies if I wasn't clear. I believe that Enoch was originally written about 6,000 years ago or so and was copied and transmitted in the written languages as time went on. Many of those who don't want Enoch to be considered as anything prophetic or otherwise cast doubt it say that it dates only as early as the DSS manuscripts, which I think is one of Bible scholarship's most biased and embarassing stupidities. Why not apply the same criteria to every other text?

I get it now but do you belief that 6,000 year ago people knew how to Wright as we now have the book of Enoch? Hasn't the book of Enoch themselves been dated to 300BC and the latest part (Book of Parables) to 1st century BC? Is there also a study been done to proof or assume that its 6,000 years old?

Sorry for the many questions i found it a interesting book myself (not as truth but more as a fiction book).

 

[Shermana]

I get it now but do you belief that 6,000 year ago people knew how to Wright as we now have the book of Enoch? Hasn't the book of Enoch themselves been dated to 300BC and the latest part (Book of Parables) to 1st century BC? Is there also a study been done to proof or assume that its 6,000 years old?

Sorry for the many questions i found it a interesting book myself (not as truth but more as a fiction book).

Yes, I do believe they had writing around 5000-4000 B.C. The reason why its dated to 300 B.C. is because of what I was saying was a very shoddy reason, it's because that's the date that the earliest manuscripts are said to be. It's an absolutely idiotic scholarly position, as you'd have to say every text found in the DSS is only as old as the DSS texts.

 

[F0uad]

Yes, I do believe they had writing around 5000-4000 B.C. The reason why its dated to 300 B.C. is because of what I was saying was a very shoddy reason, it's because that's the date that the earliest manuscripts are said to be. It's an absolutely idiotic scholarly position, as you'd have to say every text found in the DSS is only as old as the DSS texts.

Ok but do you got any argument why its 5000-4000 B.C? I have alot of more questions but i don't want to attack your beliefs or ideas.