![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#521 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 36078
Posts: 849
|
![]() Quote:
Similarity, in that proper names are contained in both toledoths and colophons, does not make the Genesis toledoths into colophons. The very description/definition of a colophon does not fit the toledoths. In short (one more time), the toledoths of Genesis do not meet the definition or examples of actual ancient colophons. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#522 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
|
![]() Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#523 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 960
|
![]()
Here are a few notes I made on the DH a couple of years ago when I did a short talk on it. Just for general information.
There are grounds for believing Moses wrote the Pentateuch, I mean it says so right there in the Bible.
Contrast that with things that are awkward to reconcile, and that the DH explains, for instance:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#524 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: French Pyrenees
Posts: 649
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#525 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
|
![]() Quote:
![]() Do you understand the concept of chronological order, Dave? Those myths are older. They're older than the Hebrew language. And the Sumerian civilization, in particular, is older than "Moses" and older than "the Flood". Furthermore, why are you STILL dragging the rotten corpse of Rohl's argument around? Rohl's revised dates, even if they were correct, are NOT sufficient to rescue the Flood myth from the dustbin of history. This has been pointed out to you MANY times before. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#526 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 656
|
![]()
Dave is treating this thread as a formal debate. And failing and flailing just as much.
He latches onto one statement by Dean Anderson just so he can dig into his bag of precast tricks and roll the stinking mass out again. This time it's David Rohl. Next time it will be Piazza Smyth. The next time it will be some 18th century author, or even Paley. Dave, Dean conceded the point about Moses existence yet you still spent two thirds of your post trying to defend a conceded point. Why? And you then go on to "Answer" objections? Here's a list of your "answers". EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE AUTHORS Dave says: "Could you please supply some examples?" LACK OF ANY AUTHORIAL CLAIM Dave says: "While we DO know of colophons being used on tablets, we (or at least I) do not know of them being used on papyrus or vellum." ANACHRONISMS Dave says: "Please give an example of this. I don't think you are correct." MOSES' DEATH Dave says: "Why? Please elaborate. Can you show that the Account of Moses' Death is very dissimilar in style compared to the style of the Book of Joshua?" COLOPHONS NOT SIMILAR Dave says: "I didn't say they were identical. I said they were similar. And they are." THE GREAT AGE OF GENESIS SOURCES Dave says: "Jack, I challenge you to present some evidence for your assertion about Genesis containing reworks of the Sumerian and Babylonian myths." Dave, at best you answered ONE statement; about the colophon of Moses. The items in red are you just asking for MORE evidence without responding to the specific statements. The items in blue are your personal increduality coming through, which doesn't an argument make. Stop pontificating and start discussing the facts Dave. CM is right. In my eyes you are the epitome of Christian Apologetics and your actions here and elsewhere have prejudiced my view of all Christians. |
![]() |
![]() |
#527 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
|
![]() Quote:
Dave has admitted that he doesn't really understand the conjectures that he espouses - for example, he has admitted that he's not even that familiar with Brown's hydroplate theory; he doesn't know the details. Self-admitted. I admit it's astounding to think that a grown human being (even an American ![]() Dave is presenting the words and thoughts of other people in the irrational, but quite firm belief that it will somehow 'open your mind to the truth of God.' That's what witnessing is all about. The witness rarely bothers to defend - and even more rarely understands well enough to defend - the work; the presentation is all. What I find increasingly baffling about the most recent crop of witnesses we have here - Bryers, spiritDad, etc. - is their blindness to the damage they do to the Christian faith by witnessing in such an inept fashion. Is it lack of cognitive ability? Unwillingness to actually examine what they themselves say? One thing I have noted: witnesses in general are unable to read the visual, audial, and stylistic clues presented by others - they are completely insensitive to their audience and rarely understand either intellectual or emotional responses. I am engaged in a discussion right now with a colleague about where this might fall on the Autism Spectrum. But it is a puzzlement. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#528 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
|
![]() Quote:
Sadly their behaviour makes a certain amount of sense when you look at it in that way . |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#529 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#530 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,768
|
![]()
I won't bother taking apart all the nonsense in Dave's latest dump. I'll just note that it does nothing to support the notion that any of the events described in Genesis or Exodus have any historical basis whatsoever, and I'll leave it to others to walk him through why.
But returning to this ridiculous "toledoths = colophons" crap: Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|