₦airaland Forum

PresterrJohnn:
....

Amujale:
The truth is that its a con job invented by first century Roman aristocrats and highly educated ancient Arabian scholars trying to get us to believe in ficticious characters from inside their chosen and personal bibliographies.

All those Abrahamic religious text are not what they claims to be, instead they are bibliographies, a compilation of various stories and typologies from accross the globe, the contents which have been re-packaged, sex-ed up or outrightly fabricated.

PresterrJohnn:
......

Empiree:
there is only one version of Qur'an which is arabic Qur'an. Those different translated Qur'an are not versions but translations of the meaning of Qur'an. Those translated copies are not Qur'an.

Op is only being a clown and jealous.

Amujale:
Yoruba is an ethnic group not a tribe, Africa has ethnicity not tribes. Yoruba are indigenous to Nigeria.

Brazilian Yorubas can be found all across their country.


1(a)

Nationality: Brazil
Ethnicity: Hispanic

1(b)

Nationality: Brazil
Ethnicity: Portuguese

1(c)

Nationality: Brazil
Ethnicity: Yoruba

Bluebrain101:
....

Bluebrain101:
.....

musicwriter:
I think you should stop wasting your time with that guy cause I discovered he's unstable. He argues illogically.

Example; I asked him ''You really believe someone called Noah saved all the animals and plants in the world in a wooden boat? If you really believe this, you need to be a slave in a white man's plantation. Because even without evidence; can't common sense tell you that's not possible?.''

And he replied ''No, I don't believe that; because it is absurd to even conceive of the idea that an obviously finite-capacity wooden boat would carry all the living creatures in the world.''

Yet, he've spent the last two days defending that an event which he admitted did not happen happened!. Isn't such a person supposed to be mad? If I could I'll block him.

TAO11:
As a reminder, I am discussing with you on just one episode among all the episodes featured in the "Old Testament", namely:

The story of the Flood of Noah.

TAO11:
"1st century Roman aristocrats authored the Bible" you insist, although without a single shred of evidence.

Have you heard about the archaeological materials called the Dead Sea Scrolls ??  Read-up on that if you haven't.

They are some of the presently surviving manuscripts of the "Old Testament" a significant chunk of which have been dated scientifically to the 4th century BCE.

TAO11:
How did your guys (the 1st century Roman aristocrats) manage to produce those "Old Testament" manuscripts which lived before them in the 4th century BCE ??

TAO11:
Wait a minute, do you not realize that what I am discussing with you on is not a "New Testament" story, but a specific story from Judaism which the Jews had centuries before Christianity also came along,  welcomed it, and incorporated it into the "Old Testament"??

TAO11:
..repeating your unsubstantiated claim about Roman aristocrats

You seem so restrained from bringing forward your so-called undeniable evidence which exists somewhere. Bring it forward, that's the point of this discussion.

Amujale:
It seems you arent getting my point here, there is undeniable evidence that proves that first century Roman aristocrats are the real authors of the Christian bible.

Who you think wrote the bible?




1st century CE Roman aristocrats authored the bible. They made it seem to the reader that they was writing from an earlier time.

For example, The gospel of Mark is said to be written by an anonymous author, yet, there is proof of who is the actual author.

Once thing that is absolutely clear, John Mark was not the author of "The gospel of Mark".

Infact, similar to "John Mark", much of the New Testaments are authored by the Romans impersonating their own invented authors aswell as other aspects that they plagerized from various older text from accross the globe.

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Now can you see what i meant by it being fake?


Lets assume a writer that is living in 2019, publishes a book and dates it 1005.

Now since the book was advertised as been published 1005 then, all the authors are supposed to have been living in 1005. That is what the Roman aristocrats did.

(a) The Romans authored the bible in the first century and made it seem to the reader that they are authors of an earlier period in time.

(b) The Romans fabricated all of their events.

(c) The Romans impersonated their own authors. They created a character as an author in their own book.

(c) They plagerised from various earlier philosophies from all accross the globe.

(d) The Romans attempt to bastardise real history .i e twisting past events

(e) The Romans impersonated their own characters.

(f) The Romans lied about almost everything.

(g) The Romans acquired all their contexual ideas and typologies from various philosophies from all accross the globe by nefarious means and as spoils of their warmongering

TAO11:
Having clarified that, did you really just say that [b]the year 2100 BCE is situated in the 22nd century .

Amujale:
Lets assume a writer that is living in 2019, publishes a book and dates it 1005.

Now since the book was advertised as been published 1005 then, all the authors are supposed to have been living in 1005. That is what the Roman aristocrats did.

(a) The Romans authored the bible in the first century and made it seem to the reader that they are authors of an earlier period in time.

(b) The Romans fabricated all of their events.

(c) The Romans impersonated their own authors. They created a character as an author in their own book.

(c) They plagerised from various earlier philosophies from all accross the globe.

(d) The Romans attempt to bastardise real history .i e twisting past events

(e) The Romans impersonated their own characters.

(f) The Romans lied about almost everything.

(g) The Romans acquired all their contexual ideas and typologies from various philosophies from all accross the globe by nefarious means and as spoils of their warmongering.

Amujale:
According to my source Stephen Mitchell the poet, and anthologist, the oldest version is dated 2100 BC

Amujale:
I think both your sources might be making reference to the same text.

Could The Sacerdotal source document your first source was talking about actually be the Epic of the Gilgamesh?

Given the close proximity in numeric value of their dates, its highly probable.


Cheers!

TAO11:
Dear Amujale:


I have shown that your Roman Aristocrats claim is not only historically erroneous, but actually absurd.

Roman aristocracy, as I have demostrated earlier, is a social class which is unknown in Roman History until during the the Roman Republic (509 BCE -- 27 BCE).

TAO11:
And the Yahvist text has been dated, by experts in Biblical criticism, to the 9th century BCE --- that is, sometimes between 900 BCE and 801 BCE.

How on earth can some Roman aristocrats, living sometimes between 509 BCE and 27 BCE, possibly be responsible for the authorship of a Biblical story which already existed sometimes between 900 BCE and 801 BCE ?? 

Amujale:
Lets assume a writer that is living in 2019, publishes a book and dates it 1005.

Now since the book was advertised as been published 1005 then, all the authors are supposed to have been living in 1005. That is what the Roman aristocrats did.

(a) The Romans authored the bible in the first century and made it seem to the reader that they are authors of an earlier period in time.

(b) The Romans fabricated all of their events.

(c) The Romans impersonated their own authors. They created a character as an author in their own book.

(c) They plagerised from various earlier philosophies from all accross the globe.

(d) The Romans attempt to bastardise real history .i e twisting past events

(e) The Romans impersonated their own characters.

(f) The Romans lied about almost everything.

(g) The Romans acquired all their contexual ideas and typologies from various philosophies from all accross the globe by nefarious means and as spoils of their warmongering.

TAO11:
Another interesting remark, in your comment, which I feel obliged to address is your suggestion to the effect that I am wrong about the date of 21st century BCE for the earliest extant documentation of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

You noted that "according to my source Stephen Mitchell ... the oldest version is dated 2100 BC"; hence you became quite skeptical about the veracity of my 21st century BCE date.

Amujale:
I think both your sources might be making reference to the same text.

Could The Sacerdotal source document your first source was talking about actually be the Epic of the Gilgamesh?

Given the close proximity in numeric value of their dates, its highly probable.

Cheers!