Dave Hawkins

Why don't you show me your superior Googling skills and Google it yourself then. And when you find something (good luck), share the link with us. You're a Christian who likes to share, right?

Constant Mews

So now you are trying to shame me into doing your work?

You are either inept, lazy, or dishonest. Take your pick, Dave.

Silent Dave

As I observed in another forum, these discussions with Dave are taking on a common pattern . . .

Dave, on IIDB: Talking point, part 1.

Us: Refutation of talking point, part 1.

Dave: Talking point, part 2.

Us: Refutation of talking point, part 2, repetition of refutation of part 1.

Dave: Talking point, part 3.

Us: Refutation of part 3, observation that the refutations of parts 1 and 2 were not even addressed, pre-emptive refutation of part 4.

Dave, on his blog: Report on deployment of talking points 1-3, declaration of victory.

Us: Protest of declaration, repeated demonstration that, deployed or not, talking point has been thoroughly demolished in its entirety.

Dave: Next talking point, part 1.

Us: :banghead:


Someone please remind me again why we bother with this guy?

Dave Hawkins

Thought question for Dean ...

Is it correct that you want me to disregard all the many traditions of Mosaic authorship, disregard the evidence that the pre-Flood patriarchs kept written records and delivered them to their posterity, disregard the recent tablet discoveries which show literary structures similar to the "toledoth" structure of Genesis, disregard the very obvious inference that the sections of Genesis ending with "these are the generations of ..." sound like they were written by that person, disregard the many scholars including the eminent Kenneth Kitchen who say the DH is bunk?

And instead, consider a theory which postulates 4 documents for which we have not the slightest physical or [external] literary evidence ... Only internal literary analysis?

I'll do it for you, but I just want you to know what you are asking.

Dave Hawkins

Put your ear up to your monitor and you will hear a faint sound of rapid fire keyboarding ...

It's Constant Mews frantically Googling ...

Constant Mews

In my case to show that he is an isolated case, and not all Christians are anti-intellectual, dishonest, or ignorant. I am trying counter Dave's presentation of garbage pseudo-science and trying to pass it off as something that requires the attention of anyone.

Why Dave wants to make more atheists and confirm atheists in their belief that all Christians are morons is difficult for me to understand - but as a Christian, I don't want to be tarred with the same brush.

Besides, he's amusing. It's like watching a five year old trying to explain quantum physics. :devil1:

Constant Mews

I know how to google, Dave. Do you need pointers? :devil1:

Constant Mews

The traditions are supported neither by archeology nor by textual analysis. On those grounds, the traditions are at best suspect, and at worst completely wrong.We have no evidence that the flood occurred, and in fact geology, history, and archeology tells us that it did not. We have no independent evidence that the patriarchs ever existed, and since we know that most of Genesis is wrong, we can also safely discount them as anything more than mythical figures. And we already know that written records existed prior to 3000 BC - no matter how many times you repeat this, the DH is not dependent on illiterate Israelites.No one is asking you to. This is a straw-man.This is irrelevant, since it is neither an evidence nor is it consistent. Mythical attribution of ancient texts is common.Very few scholars object to the DH. And you yourself are proposing something along the same lines - the difference is that your conjecture is unsupported by archeology, history, linguistics, or textual analysis.

You have already provided the literary evidence for the 4 documents - for which we thank you, Dave.

ericmurphy

Dave, you are not even addressing any of the claims made by the DH. The DH does not depend on the existence of any written records extrinsic to the Torah. Dean explain to you exactly what stylistic and textual differences in various parts of the Pentateuch are explained by the DH, how the DH explains those differences better than your "tablets" theory, but you have made no response to that explanation at all.

One more time, Dave: THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF ANY WRITTEN RECORDS EXTERNAL TO THE TORAH.

Will you please address what the DH actually talks about, and stop running swords through strawmen? You might start with a list of recognized biblical scholars who think the DH is "bunk," but even if you could do that, you still wouldn't be explaining why the DH does not explain the textual differences in various sections of the Torah.

Faid

This post was all the money. :notworthy: