Constant Mews

This was not your original claim. Don't you remember your original claim, Dave? The one you made in the very first sentence of this thread? Apparently not. Let me refresh your memory: You have completely failed to do this. None of the assumptions which underpin the DH have been refuted by you, I am afraid. But feel free to try again.

Nope. It is guaranteed that Genesis is not a compilation of written eyewitness accounts, since most of Genesis is demonstrably false. I have already proved this, Dave. Cast your mind back to the debate that you so embarrassingly lost.
No, actually you didn't do this. You started with a strawman; failed to present any evidence; and then moved on to irrelevancies. Do you really think people don't read what you've written, Dave?
Again, an utter fabriation.

The DH is completely compatible with all known archaeological data. The tablet hypothesis is not.

That's the bottom line, and no amount of blathering on your part is likely to change that unless you start presenting actual evidence and arguments.

Is this how you compensate for an inability to google?

Constant Mews

Dave, I pointed out that you are incompetent at online research, such as googling. This remains true: you couldn't even find Herodotus when given the Book and Chapter. And Lucretius specifically says that he found the chart, which is what you asked for.

Our facts are perfectly straight: you are unable to use the internet to support your argument, and are affronted that others won't do your work for you.

That makes you lazy. Sorry.

Constant Mews

Also, Dave, you were going to give positive evidence for the existence of the tablets - not the tablet hypothesis. Don't you remember? Or, to be even more specific, you promised: Unfortunately, you've never provided this. Ever.

Constant Mews

My goodness, but Dave's posts are easy to pick apart this morning. The trip seems to have confused him.

Right. So it's irrelevant to keep bringing it up.
False. As has been pointed out, these 'markers' do not match the colophons known to archeology. In fact, on this point the TH contradicts known archaeological evidence.
As just indicated, archaeologists have not found records which have similar toledoths. The toledoth colophons are completley different from the markers you claim exist in the Bible.Why would we assume that something which in no way resembles a colophon should be treated as a colophon?

Constant Mews

Another easily dispensed with snippet. And, as has already been pointed out in this thread, what about the reference to cities that did not exist in Moses' day?

Dave, please learn to use logic in your posts and evidence in your arguments. It will make this entire process a better one for you. You might even learn to google....

BWE

Dave, are those the links you meant to post? Because if so, you need a new PR firm.

BTW, I demand, on your honor, either a retraction or a refutation of now two of your dishonest statements:

here

And Here

ericmurphy

Except that these "toledoths" do not even resemble "colophons," which is in essence what you're claiming they are. Worse, for your/Wiseman's hypothesis, when the text is split this way, it splits in a way that does not remove any of the obvious inconsistencies in the text, and often splits the text in mid-narrative. This is not a "parsimonious" way of splitting the text.
Whether Wellhausen and others assumed Moses was illiterate has nothing whatsoever to do with the DH, and you continue to imply that it does. The DH remains the same whether its source documents were written or oral. This has only been explained to you easily a dozen times by now.

No they are not. They don't even resemble the toledoths, which has also been demonstrated to you.

Because they bear no resemblance to each other. Furthermore, splitting the text this way does not remove the textual and stylistic inconsistencies that the DH does away with entirely.

You're getting nowhere with this, Dave.

No. He's questioning why you think your "tablet" theory is an improvement over the DH, when it accomplishes none of the aims that the DH does accomplish.

But in any event, finding other tablets with colophons on them is in no way, shape, or form "positive evidence" that the tablets you (and Wiseman) ascribe to Adam, Noah, etc. ever actually existed. They're evidence for their own existence, not for the existence of other tablets.

VoxRat

Only in DaveWorld^TM is questioning* a sign of "closed-mindedness".

*especially something as questionable as this "toledoth = colophon" nonsense.

ericmurphy

And what is really risible about Dave's argument is this:

• The "toledoths" in Genesis resemble colophons found in tablets discovered by archaeologists
• Therefore, since tablets have been found whose text resembles in some extremely tenuous fashion the text of Genesis, tablets written by biblical patriarchs such as Adam, Noah, etc. must have existed.

That, in Dave's world, counts as an "positive evidence."

BWE

<edit>