JonF

Me too.

Agenda07

I think you've just discovered where Dave learnt his "post silly argument, vanish, ignore rebuttals and repost same silly argument, claim victory" style of debate from. :Cheeky:

VoxRat

Me too, too.

I'm especially curious to find out how we all could have missed the explanation, when it's so obvious that Dave fell off his chair in uncontrollable paroxysms of laughter at the fact that we did, in fact, all miss it.
Dave? It's really very cruel of you to laugh at us like that, then let days and days go by without explaining. Doesn't seem very... I don't know... Christian. To say nothing of the broken promise.

judge

Hi Dave, do you have any comment here?
Can you give us an example of another colophon that looks anything like the material in genesis?

Thanks

Dave Hawkins

I never said it "must" be wrong. I just see no evidence to support the DH. It seems to be nothing more than an exercise in fertile imagination. I see the evidence favoring some form of Tablet Theory. As for CM's faith, he may well have faith ... it's good works (as in substantive, polite posts which contribute positively to the conversation) that I fail to see.

Constant Mews

This does not appear to accord with your earlier pronouncements on the same topic. For example: from the very first post in our debate. A gratuitous insult; a logical fallacy (the Scotsman); and a rude, non-substantive point that immediately poisoned the atmosphere of the debate.

Need I comment on the level of hypocrisy Dave displays here?

I thought not. :devil1:

Constant Mews

And I might note that the first part of your post is also inaccurate. Do you remember your very first post on this thread? Your entire point of this thread was to discredit and reject the DH. Should I find further quotes from you on this point? I note that you have still not addressed the bulk of Dean's points; and in fact you have ignored posts from him.

Remember the fundamental truth, Dave: you are an ape endowed with reason by God. Use that reason. Demonstrate that you are more than just an ape.

judge

Dean gave a good case earlier, and Spin went to the trouble of presenting the two flood stories, here

Now, many others see the evidence. Many believers see this evidence.

1.Countless scholars agree this is evidence.

2.No scholars, today, agree with Wiseman.

Is it possible you might be trying to defend something that is not even necessary to your own faith, and that does not really have great evidence?

ericmurphy

And, the truth of the matter is, Dave's blind adherence to the Tablet Hypothesis is vastly more dangerous to his beliefs than the documentary hypothesis is. The DH could still be true even if everything Dave believes about the Bible were true. It could be true that Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. were real people, that the world were created in six literal days, that the flood actually happened, and that Moses at least compiled all of the Torah (depending on when you think Moses lived). All of that could be true, and the DH could still be true.

But if the Tablet Theory is wrong, and Adam, Noah, etc. did not write the tablets, then there is no reason to believe the creation myth in Genesis, there's no reason to believe the flood happened, there's no reason to believe Moses ever existed, and there's no reason to believe the Bible is anything other than myth.

On the other hand, the Tablet Theory could be right in its generality (i.e., that the Torah is based on actual tablets that split where the TT says it should be split), and still be wrong in all its particulars (everything contained on those tablets could still be fictional).

It seems that arguing that the DH is wrong cannot help Dave's biblical literalism, but it could harm it.

I think it has more to do with Dave refusing to admit he could be wrong than it does with whether his biblical literalism is justifiable.

ericmurphy

Dave, that's so obviously untrue that I don't know how you can say it and claim to be telling the truth. Dean Anderson's first post was a big long list of evidence supporting the DH. How can you say you didn't see any evidence for it? What's with the two vs. the 14? That is not, in your view, evidence that there are at least two different accounts just in the Flood account?
What evidence, Dave? If there's a fertile imagination here, it's yours. You're trying to use evidence that some tablets exist to prove that certain specific tablets once existed. Can you explain to us how that's even logical?