Recall that the language of Mesopotamia was cuneiform, based on wedge-like characters. Can you imagine such primitive writing conveying the concept of "Holy Spirit" or "sin" or "redemption" or "faith"? It was an inadequate language, far too primitive for the needs of the powerful concepts of Christianity.
87 comments
Writing systems are not languages.
Astronomy
And that is just a small cross-section of the various things conveyed in Cuneiform writing. Because, you know, such things are completely useless in the modern world. Obviously Cuneiform accomplished nothing... /sarcasm
WARNING! DON'T READ THE "LECTURES"!
Sorry about the CAPS but, A. Schlafly's drivel will cause brain damage.
Perhaps you never noticed that language is uniquely human. It distiguishes us as much as walking upright. The first humans who used sounds to express themselves made a huge leap. Whoever thought, many years on, "Hey, we could make pictures of these sounds, or words," was an absolute genius in advancing communication. BTW, one can express oneself equally well in any of the world's languages, whether English or Basque. The difference is you can find a lot more people will understand you in English than Basque.
Huh. Seems like one of the first societies to start writing down their language was probably pretty advanced. Plus, your Bible plagiarized from, among dozens of other things, Hammurabi's Code, which was written in a type of cuneiform.
And the English language consists of 26 letters, using only straight lines and either portions of or complete circles. It's not the complexity of the characters, but what you can do with them that matters.
the whole fucking part of that site is the stupidest bunch of bullshit ever.
fuck christianity, the window-licker that wrote this shit couldn't get past the brainwashing part of his conversion. much less get to the point where he can pick and choose who has the awesomeest language to understand christianity.
primitive my ass, it did convey "sin" who the fuck did the hebrews copy? the egyptians? please.
Ya know, the Skeptic's Annotated is written in binary.
Like, 1s and 0s. Just magnetic fields. How primitive.
And your couputer uses a language that only has two symbols, "0" and "1" ! It is obviously faaaaar too primitive to convey words, concepts, or images!
Or, you know, not.
"Recall that the language of England was Latin, based on stick-like characters. Can you imagine such primitive writing conveying the concept of "Holy Spirit" or "sin" or "redemption" or "faith"? "
26 letters, each of 4 lines or fewer able to convey well over 600,000 words? Who could imagine that?
wow. If cuniform can't communicate complicated concepts, then the blind are truly readin fucked... I mean - Braille. All it is is little round bumps - surely that can't communicate ANYTHING AT ALL!
wait... but YOU are using binary code - on this KOM-PUTE-AR (as we call them). Everything on a computer...
... actually, I just give up. Anyway, you lose.
The WRITING was cuneiform not the language and yes it was capable of conveying complex concepts, as we can tell by actually reading it .
Binary code for computers is just 0 & 1 ,so how can computers possibly be programmed to do complex tasks ?
Cuneiform is not a language!
The Greek or Roman alphabets are not languages.
Can you get that clear in your skull, please.
Cuneiform, which you actually describe, is a system of writing. It is not a language: but as with alphabets (which cuneiforn is not - don't expect me to explain. Check for yourself.) it is a system that enables languages to be read and understood.
I'm afraid, in line with your initial misunderstanding, the rest of your argument is equally shit.
Oh BTW, the languages that cuneiform was used to write were, in the main sister/cousin languages of Hebrew, God's language - well, he wrote the Bible, nu? What a moroon! (With apologies to Bugs!)
A Japanese friend of mine doesn't understand how we do with only 26 letters, but she sees that you can write interesting things in English.
Andy only flaunts his ignorance, once again.
The language would more properly be called Sumerian or Akkadian. Cuneiform is a writing system. English is written in "the Roman alphabet" but it is not "Roman."
Also, they had some sophisticated judicial, economic and political concepts for the time, not to mention their own religion, so I'm sure religious concepts wouldn't have been impossible to convey.
If "little wedges" are insufficient to convey such concepts, how could they possibly be described using just '1's and '0's, hmm? Or do you think the CPUs on your Conservapedia servers work in English?
Come to think of it, you probably do.
Powerful concepts of Christianity?
Like:
Seriously, read some Greek, ancient Egyptian, Mayan et al literature and see some REAL powerful concepts. Atomic theory, pi = 3.14....., insects have 6 legs. I promise you won't burst into flames for reading a book other than the babble.
You know, here's the thing that gets me about this statement. Schlafly is teaching history. I can understand Schlafly intentionally slanting facts, but not distinguishing between the writing system and the multiple languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Old Persian, and others) using cuneiform writing? Or even noting that cuneiform wasn't even one unified system, but several systems (ideographic and syllabic) unified mainly by a common design language?
Or, for that matter, that ancient Hebrew was a fairly simple language with a limited vocabulary, and that the Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations were a fair bit more advanced than the Hebrews?
Setting aside your ignorant confusion of language with script, this excerpt from the Epic of Gilgamesh seems sufficiently expressive to me:
"So come on now, you heroic bearer of a sceptre of wide-ranging power! Noble glory of the gods, angry bull standing ready for a fight! Your mother knew well how to bear sons, and your nurse knew well how to nourish children on the breast! Don't be afraid, rest your hand on the ground!"
Having spent a day earlier this week in the British Museum viewing their current Babylon exhibition, I can also comment that scribes must have had exceptional eyesight and motor control to be able to read and write cuneiform script as small as that on the sample cylinders and tablets. The clarity of even the few surviving examples on show is truly exceptional.
Schlafly, what a maroon. I wonder, when I read these idiotic entries of his, if he ever ponders why he's such a miserable failure at life.
The language of Andy Schlafly is bullshit, based on, well, bullshit. It's far too dumb for normal people.
The Roman/Latin alphabet is a series of straight or curved lines. Not that much more advanced than the wedgelike characters of the cuneiform alphabet (not language).
The Runic alphabet my forefathers used managed to convey the Aesir faith, with many different kinds of gods and giants and all the myths surrounding them.
The Bible was first written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and nowadays it's probably translated to most languages around the world. Seems you can use any kind of alphabet to convey the "powerful concepts of Christianity".
The Swedish alphabet* has three more letters than English. Are we more advanced then?
* The Norwegian, Finnish and Danish alphabets too.
"Recall that the language of Mesopotamia was cuneiform, based on wedge-like characters. Can you imagine such primitive writing conveying the concept of "Holy Spirit" or "sin" or "redemption" or "faith"? It was an inadequate language, far too primitive for the needs of the powerful concepts of Christianity."
Recognise this, Andy Schaftafly?:
image
No? Well, you should. It'a a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The earliest surviving example of Hebrew Biblical Scripture (i.e. the Torah, a.k.a. the Old Testament). And not just that, but the same text is also translated thereon in Greek and Aramaic.
Without this, you would never have credible translations of the Old (& thus New) Testament, via scholars and theology professors.
...ah, but then even you would consider these ancient texts as 'Liberal'. Because they don't have your unique form of 'translation', nor is the text in English script, amirite? They even contain extra-Biblical writings that potentially contradict already existing & codified Scripture. And extra-Biblical = extra-lethal to 'faith'
You can say what's on your mind equally well in any language, from English or Spanish to Navajo. The difference is you can say it to hundreds of millions of people in Mandarin, but only a few hundred in Louisiana Cajun.
I tried to learn to speak Cuneiform once. I wanted to be a Cuneilinguist when I grew up, but the little pointy parts of the letters hurt my tongue.
So I'm a Master Debater, instead.
@Philbert McAdamia
LOL! Very good.
BELIEVE THE JESUS MAN DIED FOR YOUR SINS AND LOVES YOU, OR GET TORTURED AND BURNED FOR ALL ETERNITY!! AND IGNORE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE!! AND HATE PAGANS & MUSLIMS!! AND EVERYTHING NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!!
Yeah, them is some "powerful concepts", all right... for controlling the ignorant, xenophobic masses, that is...
Rather than attempting to explain, from the beginning, all the myriad things wrong with your statement, I'll settle for pointing at you and laughing. Because, once again, you're not even wrong.
Cuneiform is a script, not a language, and the shape of a script doesn't have anything to do with how sophisticated it is.
You are clearly a bigoted fuck who doesn't know shit about linguistics.
Erm, cuneiform is a kind of writing style , not a language. We are using the Latin letters now, but we aren't speaking (or writing in) Latin. Cuneiform was used for the Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hittite, Luwian, Hattic, Hurrian, and Urartian languages. It was in use longer than the Latin letters have yet been around.
It wasn't primitive, it was highly advanced for its time; the oldest known form of writing. Can you even read cuneiform, stupid? How else would you know what kinds of concepts it can entail? You're the primitive one, for sticking with an old and soon-to-be outdated desert goat-herder tribe myth.
Oooh yes, because one shudders to think that there were languages before your precious English , eh Andy? (oh, and BTW, that's English. Not American . So presumably you're speaking only the original languages of the Aboriginal ('Native') Americans, amirite? ).
And as for 'powerful concepts of Christianity'...
image
...whilst she can never so much as touch the shadow of Alicorn Twilight Sparkle, even Trixie is Great and Powerful enough to know that the concept of Christianity existed way after Hebrew and Aramaic; also Greek. And aren't they the languages - and therefore ancient writings - that are the basis of what your precious 'Christianity's concepts come from?
The language of English is based on simple sequences of parallel and perpendicular lines scratched into paper with ink. Can you imagine such a primitive writing conveying the concept of "Holy Spirit" or "sin" or "redemption" or "faith?" It was an inadequate language, far too primitive for the needs of the powerful concepts of Christianity.
...
The scary part is, Andy Schlafly actually isn't the dumbest person on Earth. As stupid as he is, there's still thousands of fathoms between him and rock-bottom.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
