Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith&Co. · 10-01-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

Ah. Perhaps they laughed themselves out of their seat when they read that you couldn't find it? Can we ALWAYS consider such behavior bluffing unless and until the seat-losing laugher has ponied up the actual explanation, link or math?

Constant Mews · 10-01-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself.

And this, curiously, appears to be a total fabrication. When did I claim that I found 'several such online sources'?

Put up or shut up, Dave. Claiming that other posters are doing and saying things that they are not isn't cricket. Hell, it's not even rugby!

Constant Mews · 10-01-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

I am curious, Dave: why does this matter in the slightest? You have shown no appetite for raw information, and you have not been able to deal with the consilience of the sections Dean has presented so far. This seems to be equivalent to asking for pictures of dendro sequenced when you are utterly incompetent to analyze them. Deal with what you already are failing at. Learn to crawl before you learn to fly.

Well ... it would be useful and it would be a lot easier than getting the info from a hard copy book.

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

I also note that this completely fails to address my question.

What relevance does this information have for you, Dave? You have no training in Biblical exegesis; no training in the analysis of ancient documents; no training in ancient history. You are incapable of analyzing the Bible to determine whether or not these divisions are more logical than the 'tablet' nonsense. Everything you have raised so far has been culled from books written by other people; and has been pointed out in the "What we'd expect to see Global Flood" thread - you don't even bother to read the theories you're espousing.

So what possible use could you make of this information, Dave?

shirley knott · 10-01-2007, 09:03 AM

Well, it has allowed him to move the relevent questions another page further behind the current...
That's as close to a win as dave has ever gotten.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Dave Hawkins · 10-01-2007, 09:04 AM

POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR A TABLET THEORY OF GENESIS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

From my admittedly brief research online it appears that Wiseman's book has been out of print since 1985 (hardly a "new theory " as Dave has claimed then ) and worse still is in fact an EDITED version of his book "New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis (1936). P.J.Wiseman."
It does appear that there are 2nd hand copies about in the U.S.A for about $10 but I cannot find a single online source for copies in the U.K.(This includes resources I have previously used to pick up copies of rare or unusual books)

Dave says on his blog that he picked up a second-hand copy for $86, so he does have the book.

That leaves us mystified as to why he has not yet presented any of the actual evidence or proof that he claims it contains...

REVIEW OF MY ORIGINAL CLAIM
Well here's the reason ... Remember what my original claim was? My original claim was

Quote:

all the assumptions which gave rise to the DH have now been refuted and scholars more and more are realizing that the DH is wrong.

The more likely situation is that Genesis is a compilation of written, eyewitness accounts.

My mission to defend this claim has now been accomplished. I showed the assumptions of several leading DH advocates and I showed why these assumptions would lead to the DH speculation. Then I showed how these assumptions have been shown to be wrong by archaeologists.

So that's done.

Now Dean wants me to provide evidence FOR the Tablet Theory and evidence AGAINST the DH.

OK. Fair enough. I'll do my best ...

OVERVIEW OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE
1) Genesis IS a compilation - both DH advocates and opponents agree on this
2) Genesis has indicators of source documents right in the text! ... the 11 "toledoths" discussed in the Wiseman Hypothesis ... the most parsimonious thing to do is to try to find out more about these written sources. The only reason for assuming they are NOT written sources is the false assumption that the Israelites did not have writing in Moses' day (as Wellhausen and others assumed).
3) Archaeologists have now (after the rise of the DH) found numerous tablets which have literary structures very similar to these "toledoths." Why would we not at least initially assume that the Genesis toledoths served the same purpose as other tablet toledoths, thus indicating that the patriarchs kept written records and passed them down to Moses?

Now Dean says I have not produced an example of a toledoth found recently on a tablet. True enough. These books are kind of tough to obtain and one of them is in German. I could try to obtain them and probably will in time, but is Dean really questioning the existence of these tablet toledoths? Is he really questioning the similarity between these and the Genesis toledoths? This seems to be an extremely closed minded POV.

MORE POSITIVE EVIDENCE: THE GREAT AGE OF THE BOOK ... GENESIS, THAT IS
I just expanded my book review of Wiseman's book at my blog ... http://afdave.wordpress.com/2006/09/...-dawn-of-time/ excerpted below ...

Quote:

Chapter 6 is entitled "The Great Age of the Book" and Wiseman lists evidence that Genesis was compiled in the present form (excluding chapter and verse divisions) by Moses and that the documents from which he compiled it were written much earlier. The various lines of evidence may be summarized as follows:

1) The presence of Babylonian words in the first 11 chapters. Wiseman notes that the early chapters of Genesis contain Babylonian words. He says that it is impossible to suggest that these words found their way into these particular chapters after the Hebrews' second contact with Babylon in the days of Daniel or Ezra. For even the most critical scholars admit that these accounts had been written before then.
2) The presence of Egyptian words in the last 14 chapters. Wiseman points out the detailed knowledge of the author with Egyptian life ... such as "because the Egyptians might not eat bread with Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians." He gives other examples also. Wiseman submits that such a statement would never have been written at a time later than Moses.
3) Reference to towns which had either ceased to exist, or whose original names were already so ancient in the time of Moses, that as compiler of the book, he had to insert the new names, so that they could be identified by the Hebrews living in his day. Wiseman gives examples from Genesis 14 ... Bela (which is Zoar) in verses 2 and 8, Vale of Siddim (which is the Salt Sea) verse 3, En-mishpat (which is Kadesh) verse 7, Hobah (which is Damascus) verse 15, and the Valley of Shaveh (which is the King's Dale) verse 17.
4) The narratives reveal such familiarity with the circumstances and details of the events recorded, as to indicate that they were written by persons concerned with those events. Wiseman gives an example of the action of Sarah with her maid Hagar in relation to the birth of Ishmael. The procedure followed both by Abraham and Sarah was precisely that laid down in the law then in existence by laws 144-46 of the Code of Hammurabi. In Mosaic times quite another law was ordained in Deuteronomy.
5) Evidences that the narratives were originally written on tablets and in an ancient script.

I have bookmarked Dean's posts on why the Torah supposedly was NOT compiled by Moses and will comment on that next. The evidence I have is quite powerful that Moses did exists, and that he was, in fact, the compiler of the Torah.

JEST2ASK · 10-01-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

I also note that this completely fails to address my question.

What relevance does this information have for you, Dave? You have no training in Biblical exegesis; no training in the analysis of ancient documents; no training in ancient history. You are incapable of analyzing the Bible to determine whether or not these divisions are more logical than the 'tablet' nonsense. Everything you have raised so far has been culled from books written by other people; and has been pointed out in the "What we'd expect to see Global Flood" thread - you don't even bother to read the theories you're espousing.

So what possible use could you make of this information, Dave?

Hello just me again .... Way over my head on this but why don't we actually look at thos markers / colophons (using the KJV http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksea...f&qs_version=9 ) working backwards

Genesis 11:27
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
Genesis 11:26-28 (in Context) Genesis 11 (Whole Chapter)

Plain and simple statement a person followed by their descendants

Genesis 11:10
These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
Genesis 11:9-11 (in Context) Genesis 11 (Whole Chapter)

Plain and simple statement a person followed by their descendants

Genesis 10:32
These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
Genesis 10:31-32 (in Context) Genesis 10 (Whole Chapter)

Three sons but still a somewhat plain and simple tracing of where / who / what followed.

Genesis 10:1
Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

Three sons but still a somewhat plain and simple tracing of where / who / what followed.

Genesis 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Genesis 6:8-10 (in Context) Genesis 6 (Whole Chapter)

The Begat does not come until verse 10 but I think it is pretty common knowledge that the division of the writtings (using chapters and verses was a later addition) but still Plain & Simple Naming a person followed by his descendants.

Genesis 5:1
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Genesis 5:1-3 (in Context) Genesis 5 (Whole Chapter)

Wow what do you know same pattern ..

What I found interesting was that before this (Genesis 4: 1 - 16) we find the story of Adam & Eve's first offspring (Cain & Abel) with the geneology of Cain (Genesis 4:17 - 24) this listing is interesting to me in that it talks about for example (20) And Adah bore Jabal, He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. (21) His brother's name was Jubal, He was the father of all those who play harp and flute. Indicating to poor uninformed individuals like me that these descendants were still around.

It is not till verse 25 that we read of Seth ... it seems to me almost like Chapter 4 and 5 had two different authors (primary sources) just judging by the styles and content (e.g. the female bore vs the male begating)

Oh but there is one more marker / colophon to deal with Genesis 2:4

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:3-5 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)

What do we find why the story of the Garden of Eden where we see the creation / birth of Humans Adam from the earth (dirt / dust) and Eve from his rib .

My silly little question is just why should I or anyone believe that you or any of your sources are correct in that these markers are indeed providing information regarding the Author of the Text (preceding or following)

Regardless of the DH the Tablet Theory IMO is the worst type of speculation.

(This is not an attempt to pile on ... it is an actual request for information)

Dave Hawkins · 10-01-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Dave says on his blog that he picked up a second-hand copy for $86, so he does have the book.

That leaves us mystified as to why he has not yet presented any of the actual evidence or proof that he claims it contains...

I think that the $86 book that Dave was so proud of owning was in fact the one by Faber in 3 voumes that he copied pages of and posted them earlier in this thread.
But somehow I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had paid $86 for something you can get from Amazon for $10

Lucretius doesn't read carefully and insults me wantonly on false bases.

Dave Hawkins · 10-01-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Well ... it would be useful and it would be a lot easier than getting the info from a hard copy book.

I note that you and Lucretius said you were such good Googlers that you found several such online sources and you ridiculed me for being such a lousy, lazy Googler that I couldn't find it myself. I knew you were bluffing and now this has been proven.

Dave you previously asked for a "chart" that showed the proposed dates of the JEDP documents,which I found.
You now appear to be asking for something far more detailed ,which I have not found (as yet) and are being unnecessarily insulting when I haven't found something for you , that you have never previously asked for .

Mind reading is not unfortunately one of my many skills

No need for mind reading. Just post reading.

Read this post ... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...35#post4812535

And this one ...
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...01#post4815301

So Lucretius ... YOU are the one insulting ME ... and you cannot even get your facts straight. Please try harder.

JEST2ASK · 10-01-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR A TABLET THEORY OF GENESIS
Now Dean wants me to provide evidence FOR the Tablet Theory and evidence AGAINST the DH.

OK. Fair enough. I'll do my best ...

OVERVIEW OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE
1) Genesis IS a compilation - both DH advocates and opponents agree on this
2) Genesis has indicators of source documents right in the text! ... the 11 "toledoths" discussed in the Wiseman Hypothesis ... the most parsimonious thing to do is to try to find out more about these written sources. The only reason for assuming they are NOT written sources is the false assumption that the Israelites did not have writing in Moses' day (as Wellhausen and others assumed).
3) Archaeologists have now (after the rise of the DH) found numerous tablets which have literary structures very similar to these "toledoths." Why would we not at least initially assume that the Genesis toledoths served the same purpose as other tablet toledoths, thus indicating that the patriarchs kept written records and passed them down to Moses?

Now Dean says I have not produced an example of a toledoth found recently on a tablet. True enough. These books are kind of tough to obtain and one of them is in German. I could try to obtain them and probably will in time, but is Dean really questioning the existence of these tablet toledoths? Is he really questioning the similarity between these and the Genesis toledoths? This seems to be an extremely closed minded POV.

5) Evidences that the narratives were originally written on tablets and in an ancient script.

I have bookmarked Dean's posts on why the Torah supposedly was NOT compiled by Moses and will comment on that next. The evidence I have is quite powerful that Moses did exists, and that he was, in fact, the compiler of the Torah.

See my previos post ... I still do not see any of this as evidence 1 - The toledoths (markers) in Genesis were in fact intended to indicate the authors ... 2 - That any tablets were passed down between generations.

ericmurphy · 10-01-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

REVIEW OF MY ORIGINAL CLAIM
Well here's the reason ... Remember what my original claim was? My original claim was My mission to defend this claim has now been accomplished. I showed the assumptions of several leading DH advocates and I showed why these assumptions would lead to the DH speculation. Then I showed how these assumptions have been shown to be wrong by archaeologists.

Dave, this is hilariously stupid. Before you show these "assumptions" to be wrong, you first have to show that they're actually assumptions of the documentary hypothesis. Not only have you failed to do that, but Dean showed in excruciating detail that they are not in any way, shape, or form even assumptions of the DH, and the DH continues to work just fine even if every single last one of them is wrong.

We've already been through this with you at least twice. You might be fooling yourself, but you're certainly not fooling anyone else.

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

10-01-2007, 09:03 AM	#464
shirley knott Regular Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 416	Well, it has allowed him to move the relevent questions another page further behind the current... That's as close to a win as dave has *ever* gotten. no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.