Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ericmurphy · 10-27-2007, 05:05 PM

I've ignored this thread for the past couple of weeks, and I come back to note that Dave has made exactly zero headway in showing that any particular claim of the DH is in any way false or not supported by evidence. And he seems to still be trying to defend the claim that the DH depends on Moses being illiterate.

Try to imagine my complete and utter lack of surprise.

Dave Hawkins · 10-27-2007, 08:05 PM

Ninjay ...

Quote:

The fact that almost every post you make gets jumped on by half a dozen people pointing out where you've gone wrong should suggest something, Dave.

Ninjay, do get real. The fact that almost every post I make gets jumped on by half a dozen people pointing out where they think I've gone wrong indicates to me that I'm at the Internet Infidels Forum. See you folks Monday!

ericmurphy · 10-27-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Ninjay ...

Quote:

The fact that almost every post you make gets jumped on by half a dozen people pointing out where you've gone wrong should suggest something, Dave.

Ninjay, do get real. The fact that almost every post I make gets jumped on by half a dozen people pointing out where they think I've gone wrong indicates to me that I'm at the Internet Infidels Forum. See you folks Monday!

But since you've never been able to show where they're wrong in thinking you're wrong, I think the reasonable inference is that you are, in fact, wrong.

angelo · 10-28-2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

But what's up with wisdom and serpents? I guess I haven't spent a whole lot of time with serpents, and maybe if I had I would get it, but I haven't, and I don't.

It's a holdover from earlier religions, VoxRat. Snakes were a symbol of rebirth (from the skin shedding) and therefore a symbol of the cycle of life. The example in the picture is Minoan, but the basic belief was fairly widespread.
Yahwehism is of course patriarchal, so priestesses and snakes got a bad name. If you want villains to blame things on what better choices than a woman and a snake? That's it in a nutshell.

Hey, nice tits on that icon.

Faid · 10-28-2007, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

So, you threw that particular dead cat on the table, and Dean cleared it off. What's the point in bringing it back out?

The cat is not dead by virtue of Dean proclaiming that it is. Dean has to actually kill the cat, but he chose not to even try. What's the point? It would be interesting to hear Dean try to explain the origin of the individual documents and defend his view. I don't think he can, so I don't think he will.

Dean SHOWED you that the origin of the individual documents is IRRELEVANT to the DH, which IS his view.

YOU attacked the DH, dave. YOU. Deal with the consequences, and admit you cannot support your attack- don't turn about now, and claim it was just about "oral origins" all along.

Like I said, it doesn't make you look good.

Faid · 10-28-2007, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

It is also possible that the DH theory remains an error, despite afDave's failure to show that here. Maybe there are good arguments against it, they're just not showing up high on a Google.

Is it possible Dave can understand that admitting to the failure of his argument is NOT automatically admitting to the correctness of the theory?

I freely admit that I am not the world champion of debate. There are doubtless many better than me. But I came into this thread with certain expectations which I have detailed already. And I have found out that Dean has no interest in those things ... and that is unfortunate because he should.

I am glad for this thread though, because it has given me a glimpse into the mindset of the folks trying to defend a dying theory. I shouldn't be surprised at all that they don't want to talk about archaeology, the history of the J E D & P docs, and other such external evidence. It is embarrassing to talk about and seriously undermines the very basis for the DH.

I do have one more question, Dean ...

Do you have any precedent in any other literature for your view of the Pentateuch? Or is the Pentateuch unique in literature for having been subjected to such slicing and dicing?

For example, have scholars sliced and diced the Koran in a similar fashion to the Pentateuch? How about the Doctrine & Covenants? The Iliad? Any others? (These may be bad examples, but hopefully you get the idea.)

Oh, can I talk about the Iliad? Can I? Pretty please?

Faid · 10-28-2007, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Context, Deadman, context ... In this case the context was ...

Quote:

I am glad for this thread though, because it has given me a glimpse into the mindset of the folks trying to defend a dying theory. I shouldn't be surprised at all that they don't want to talk about archaeology, the history of the J E D & P docs, and other such external evidence. It is embarrassing to talk about and seriously undermines the very basis for the DH.

Then you said ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932 View Post
Ah, yes, no one ever offered to debate you on that, eh? You really can't help yourself, can you? The false claims just spill out of you like cheap candy from the battered pinata you've become.

So ... as you can see ... I didn't say "no one ever offered to debate me on that" ... I said that "I shouldn't be surprised at all that they [those who are trying to defend the DH like Dean] don't want to talk about archaeology, the history of the J E D & P docs, and other such external evidence [in this thread in the context of the DH]." No false claims there, Deadman. You just misunderstood, apparently.

Whaaaa?

So they did want to debate you on it, but they did not want to talk about it?

Dude. When will you ever realize that, when you try to cover up one of your mess-ups, you make it ten times worse?

Faid · 10-28-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

As far as I can see your "argument" is that Nicholson says that the DH "remains the securest basis for understanding the Pentateuch." and that means that the Tablet "Theory" is correct and the DH is wrong.
I hope that if you have more time, having had your Walt Brown Hydroplate Theory "argument" torn to shreds on another forum here,that you could correct this impression that you give here , if you think it is wrong in any way.

No. If you read the thread carefully, you would see that my argument is "Nicholson and others point out the sharp attacks upon the DH in recent years, therefore Dean should take notice of this and re-examine the basis for his adherence to the DH."

Except that the quote says no such thing.

ANd don't you DARE isolate the "Almost dead" sentence, dave. We have established that Nicholson talks about the ORIGINAL DH. And he supports the MODERN one.

So, making it look like Nicholson says the DH in general is "under severe attack" will make you a quote-miner.

And you don't want us to say that, do you?

-Jay- · 10-28-2007, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Ninjay ...

Quote:

The fact that almost every post you make gets jumped on by half a dozen people pointing out where you've gone wrong should suggest something, Dave.

Ninjay, do get real. The fact that almost every post I make gets jumped on by half a dozen people pointing out where they think I've gone wrong indicates to me that I'm at the Internet Infidels Forum. See you folks Monday!

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Good lord, Dave! That's priceless! Way to jump on the throwaway comment...

You do realize that not everyone pointing out your gaffes is an atheist, right?

Nice ad-hom of the entire forum population, by the way.

regards,

NinJay

chieftain · 10-28-2007, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Those are the kinds of things you do when arguing against a framework such as the DH. You look for a framework that explains the evidence better. You've been told this. Repeatedly. Why doesn't it stick?

Up to this point, you've done things like present specious assertions from apologists like Josh McDowell and his ilk. These sank into the swamp.

You've presented Wiseman's Tablet Theory. This too sank into the swamp.

You've presented a number of mined quotes that you propose suggest that the DH is reeling and up against the ropes. These quotes have been investigated and your claims consistently found to be specious, so this approach burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.

For some reason I do not expect your next line of attack to be the one that stays up and becomes the strongest castle in all of England.

"But Father, I don't care about any of that. I just want to .... sing..."

Actually I quite like the idea of Dave being the wimpy son, and you being the gruff father trying to marry him off to the girl with the biggest... tracts of land.

That would make Dean Lancelot, probably. Careful with the sword.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2007, 05:05 PM	#1101
ericmurphy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,027	I've ignored this thread for the past couple of weeks, and I come back to note that Dave has made exactly zero headway in showing that any particular claim of the DH is in any way false or not supported by evidence. And he seems to still be trying to defend the claim that the DH depends on Moses being illiterate. Try to imagine my complete and utter lack of surprise.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.