Dean Anderson

Dave - one thing that I have noticed...

You have repeatedly quoted from Josh McDowell, and you have given us second-hand quotes of other authors that McDowell himself quotes.

But on this thread, you have never actually quoted from Wiseman - the person whose theory you are advocating, and you have never actually reproduced any of the "proof" that you claim he has for his theory.

Have you actually read Wiseman's book? Do you own a copy?

Or have you just read websites that mention Wiseman's theory, and decided that you like it because it fits your theology?

shirley knott

And dave, we note that you are free with the accusations of "hidden assumptions" on the part of those with whom you disagree, even if disingenuously hidden behind a facade of 'everybody has assumptions'.
Since you insist prior assumptions are so very important,
WHAT ARE YOURS?
If theories, and notions in general, are to be judged, in part, on the prior assumptions of those who propound them, it seems quite unfair to task others for failing to unmask the assumptions of their "authorities" when you do not do so yourself.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

VoxRat

Dean Anderson is requesting from Dave Doesn't Dave contend that the first part was written down by "Adam"?
(Though I'm not sure what the operative definition of "patriarch" is, or whether "Adam" qualifies)

JEST2ASK

Way over my head on this but why don't we actuall 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):huh:

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)

Dean Anderson

Yes, but he has not actually said that we have evidence of an independent "Book of Adam" that we can compare to Genesis to see whether it matches a Toledoth-to-Toledoth section.

He did, however, bring up up the Book of Enoch in this thread as an example of "evidence" that we have preserved writings from pre-flood Biblical characters.

The facts that...

a) The Book of Enoch is a Maccabean (3rd-2nd century BCE) work and was not written by the person whose name it bears.

b) If it were genuine, then it would mean that for some unexplained reason Noah decided to shun Enoch and not include his work whilst including all the rest of his ancestors' work.

c) The Book of Enoch is written in a completely different style to Genesis, and does not look even remotely like the style of the Toledoth-to-Toledoth sections.

...do not seem to have stopped him from using it as "evidence".

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...

Lucretius

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

ericmurphy

Dean explained exactly why those "presuppositions" have exactly nothing to do with the DH, in detail. Your response? You "disagree." Great, Dave, but you've given no reason or support for your disagreement. Hence, your "disagreement" is irrelevant.

Except you don't, Dave. You haven't shown how the flood story makes more sense, or is more consistent, when split where you and Wiseman think it should be split. Your splits do not fix any of the obvious and evident inconsistencies or contradictions in the story.

This is irrelevant garbage, Dave, and you know it. No one is applying "Occidental preconceptions" to anything. They're looking at the text of the bible, noting stylistic and textual inconsistencies, and splitting the text in a way that resolves those differences. This is as plain as day to everyone else here. You've come up with nothing that makes where you want to split the text do this remotely as well as the DH, let alone better.

It's been ignored because it's irrelevant. 2 is a different number from 14 in the East as well as in the West. 40 is a different number from 150 in the East as well as in the West.

No they do not, Dave. Dean's example of what a real colophon looks like bears no resemblance to what you are calling a "colophon."

For easily the tenth time, the DH does not depend on the independent existence of the J, E, D, or P documents. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY EXIST ANYWHERE OTHER THAN IN THE TORAH.

And you have no more evidence for the existence of your "tablets" then there is for the existence of these documents, as has also been pointed out numerous times. All you have evidence for is the existence of written records prior to 4,500 years ago, which was never in dispute anyway.

Dave, repeating things over and over does not make them any less false. The reason biblical scholars felt it was necessary to propose multiple authorship of the Torah was to explain the obvious textual and stylistic differences in the Torah, and has nothing to do with literacy in Israel, or monotheism, or the legendary nature of the patriarchal accounts. Dean disposed of this stupidity in his first post, which you have never addressed. Your concept of "argument" is "endless repetition coupled with ignoring others' arguments."

Dave, you never fucking addressed the 2 vs. 14 (not seven) item. You said you were going to address it. That's very different from actually having addressed it. There's something very strange about an author stressing "two of every sort"—saying it twice—and then a few verses later, without any explanation, changing it to two of unclean and fourteen of clean. Even you know it's ridiculous to claim there's no difference.

Dean is speculating as to why the difference. He's not speculating that there's an inconsistency between the two accounts that can be resolved by assuming different authors. Dean proffers an explanation for why there is a difference in the two accounts, which goes far beyond your attempts, which don't even seem to notice that there is a difference between the two accounts.

Moreover, you already concede that the Torah is a compilation of multiple accounts, but for some reason are unwilling to split that compilation in a way that actually makes sense. Why is that, Dave? You just can't admit you might be wrong about something? You were sure the DH was wrong before you even knew what it was or what it claimed. How surprising is it that you were wrong about it?

Where's the speculation, Dave? He's reading the fucking text! How much "speculation" does it take to note that the God as portrayed in some accounts is more remote than in others? Do you even know what the word "speculation" means? What possible findings in archaeology could possibly change the observation that descriptions of God are of a more remote deity in some parts of the Bible than in others. WTF, Dave? You're babbling.

Comments like this, Dave—where you claim that observations that descriptions of God differ in different biblical passages are "speculative" and are contradicted by findings from archaeology, can only make me wonder what the hell is going through your head when you type up this dreck.

Occam's Aftershave

Dave, you seemed to have skipped right over the part where you actually explain how 2 = 14.

Please provide a link to where you addressed this, or repost the explanation here.