Keith&Co.

Generaly, they aren't read to directly from the Books.
There are plenty of children's books with pictures of pairs of animals, and rain, and a great big old ark. Usually with stupid people taunting from the side.

You can read it with assurance and the kid nods and accepts it. And complains because you used a different voice for the taunting atheist than you used last time.

FatherMithras

Still waiting for the explanation, especially why cattle are mentioned in two different groups by god.

I suggest we start PMing dave with this particular example (since cattle are specifically mentioned in both the two and seven group due to their categorization on the clean/unclean scale). This is the most clear cut Bible contradiction I've seen in some time, and i'd love to see how he answers!

James Brown

Just saw something interesting:

Genesis 8:22
Um, rather redundant, isn't it?

*AHEM!* As long as the earth continues to rotate on its axis, there will always be day and night! Thus saith the Lord!

Proving once more that despite what Hugh Ross thinks, ancient Hebrews had little understanding of our solar system.

Keith&Co.

Just remind him each and every time he posts.
refuse to deal with any of his posts until he clears his backlist of claims, especially anything so horribly obvious it leads to seat-slippage.

Keith&Co.

Oh, no, the Lord never says the earth rotates.
And Day and Night aren't a function of the sun. The sun just rolls around inside the firmament during the day.

angelo

After the earth was created. The ''lord'' said ''Let there be light'' and there was light, and the lord saw that it was good. Earth came first, then the sun.:rolling: :rolling:

Keith&Co.

Yep. And the Sun was just crafted to rise and rule the sky during the day, it's not the cause of it.

The text also says the moon i s supposed to rule the night, but i guess man's sin screwed up that schedule, too.

JEST2ASK

Genesis 1:16
(KJV) And God made two great lights; The greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars also.

(New International) God made two great lights; The greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

(Living Bible) For God had made two huge lights, the sun and moon to shine down upon the earth. The larger one the sun to preside over the day and the smaller one the moon to preside through the nght; he had also made the stars.

Hmmm they are both lights not one a light (source) and the other a reflective surface.

JEST2ASK

(KJV) Genesis 1:11 And God said let the earth bring forth grass, and herb yeilding seed, and the fruit trees yeilding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth and it was so ...

Interesting to note that plants were also on the earth before the sun.

Of course all we are doing now is posting to keep the thread alive awaiting Dave's triumphant return .... (cue the crickets and tumbleweeds)

Dave Hawkins

Here are links to the posts I consider to be important. Dean can add some if he likes ...

DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS DISCUSSION
Book of Genesis: Written Record? Or Oral Tradition?
Dean's Evidence for the DH
Presuppositions of the Documetarians
Respecting the Sacred Books
Criticism of Dean's first post
Summary of Positive Evidence for a Tablet Theory
Dean Analyzes the Flood Story
AFDave Analyzes the Flood Story
Debate Summary
Dean Posts Evidence Against Mosaic Authorship
Dean's History of the DH
AFDave on the Great Age of Genesis
Dean's Rebuttal of Great Age of Book
Cege Gives Colophon Examples
Dean on Assumptions and Presuppositions
Champollion's Big Mistake

Let me make sure I understand Dean's position ...

DEAN'S POSITION
1) Dean believes the DH to be true because of textual analysis only
2) Dean is not interested in the presuppositions of the DH advocates (such as their belief that there was no writing in Israel in Moses' day, their belief that Israel's religion evolved from polytheism to monotheism, their belief that the patriarchal narratives are mere legends, etc.) which, IMO caused them to question the traditional Mosaic authorship view in the first place
3) Dean is not aware of any mention of the putative source documents J E D and P in any ancient literature
4) Dean believes that the best evidence against Mosaic authorship is his belief that there is no archaeological evidence for the events of the Exodus, but when I presented such evidence, he says this does not matter
5) Dean feels that there is no need to investigate the circumstances and general literary practices of the Israelites throughout their history in order to analyze the DH.

DAVE'S POSITION
1) The Pentateuch is a compilation. A small portion of Genesis plus the remaining 4 books were mostly written by Moses, and the largest portion of Genesis was in general written by the patriarchs named in the toledoths
2) The toledoths in Genesis are similar to colophons found in excavated tablets. Therefore they may be an indication of tablet sources which Moses used when compiling the Pentateuch
3) There are many indicators in Genesis that the source material is very ancient. There are Babylonian words in the first 11 chapters, there are Egyptian words int he last 14 chapters, there are references to towns which required Moses to add the new names, and much familiarity with detail

Hopefully this is a fair representation of Dean's position.

************************************************** ******

It seems we have covered most of the arguments pro and con at least in a general way. How about we continue by focusing on one specific item at a time?

I'll post my most burning question to Dean and he can do likewise to me ...

MY BURNING QUESTION #1
We are considering here an ancient text traditionally attributed to Moses. Your theory, the DH, asserts that there was no such person as Moses and that the Pentateuch was redacted during the kingdom years from four written sources - J E D & P - which in turn came from various oral traditions. My question is "Do you believe that the Table of Nations found in Genesis 10 was originally an oral tradition? If so, when do you believe it was committed to writing? If your theory is correct, how is it that it is so accurate? Note the statement of William F. Albright ...