Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 10-17-2007, 06:48 AM

Quote:

[AFD]The descendants of Abraham (the people who became the Israelite nation) lived in another highly advanced culture -- that of Egypt. So not only was the father of the nation well acquainted with written records, but his descendants lived in a nation well acquainted with written records. It is utterly non-sensical to think that such a people would rely on oral traditions to record their history ...

[Dean] It's a good job that the DH makes no such claim, then.

Then please tell me what claim the DH DOES make about the flow of information, whether written or oral. It has to take SOME position on every detail ... or else what good is it? You can't just constantly say "No comment ... no comment" ... What good is theory of anything if it doesn't try to explain the details?

deadman_932 · 10-17-2007, 06:54 AM

You're not that good at diversion, division, and the Gallop, Dave.

Deal with a modern version of the DH and quit river-dancing around it.

Quote:

What good is theory of anything if it doesn't try to explain the details?

Heh, irony. Misplaced irony, but ironic nonetheless.

FatherMithras · 10-17-2007, 06:55 AM

Why the hell does the fact people have asserted Moses was an author (whether they did or not isn't important, I'll assume they did) meaningful in any way? Because it's a tradition? Something doesn't magically become valid simply because it's been continually asserted for thousands of years.

FatherMithras · 10-17-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

[AFD]The descendants of Abraham (the people who became the Israelite nation) lived in another highly advanced culture -- that of Egypt. So not only was the father of the nation well acquainted with written records, but his descendants lived in a nation well acquainted with written records. It is utterly non-sensical to think that such a people would rely on oral traditions to record their history ...

[Dean] It's a good job that the DH makes no such claim, then.

Then please tell me what claim the DH DOES make about the flow of information, whether written or oral. It has to take SOME position on every detail ... or else what good is it? You can't just constantly say "No comment ... no comment" ... What good is theory of anything if it doesn't try to explain the details?

Those details are irrelevant to the DH's veracity. Even if they were right, it would still stand.

Dave Hawkins · 10-17-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

You are confusing "assert" with "show" again. I have already demonstrated in detail - a demonstration that you have singularly ignored - why none of your asserted "presuppositions" are actually presuppostions.

Look ... if I show you a quote by Wellhausen where he specifically says that the Israelites history was not fixed in writing (I did), then I point out to you that archaeology has shown that writing long predates the Israelites in Egypt, how is this not me "showing" that Wellhausen was wrong? Maybe mine and your understandings of the word "show" are different. It seems like you are looking for something far more definite than is possible in historical studies.

Dave Hawkins · 10-17-2007, 06:59 AM

Quote:

But the larger chiasm is not destroyed by splitting the text - the same chiasm is contained in both the J and P sources - that's my whole point.

Yes, it is. True, the smaller ones still exist, but larger one is gone. Chopped up and pureed.

FatherMithras · 10-17-2007, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

No we do not. We know that the Sumerians and Babylonians were had a rich and well educated culture. We do not "know thanks to the findings of archaeology" that Abraham even existed - never mind living in that culture.

So what do I have to produce to convince you that Abraham was a real person? A video interview? His signature on some documents? Or what? Do you think Josephus was a real person? How about Plato? Confucius? If so why? And why not use some of the same criteria for Abraham? Really Dean ... have you really thought through your position here?

You haven't supplied anything. We have documents, specifically from those authors, with references to them in other works, a clear history, etc. And all of these are supported by archaeology, history and examination. The existence of Abraham has literally none of these. He's only mentioned in a book that has clear errors everywhere, is wrong about history, refuted by archaeology, geology and all of science, etc.

Jeez, to make a comparison like that would be funny if it weren't so sad. I'm going to laugh forever when dave uses circular reasoning and just says "The bible says Abraham was real." I never get tired of him trying to justify the Bible with the things written in the Bible.

Dave Hawkins · 10-17-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

They are both examples of exactly the same circular reasoning - that you find an example of this reasoning preposterous should be an indication of its invalidity.

Circular reasoning does not magically become valid when it applies to something you agree with. It is invalid regardless of whether the subject of the circular reasoning is "obvious" or "preposterous".

you TOTALLY ignored my HUGE point that ...

Quote:

No scholar HAS EVER claimed that Bilbo is a real person. No one. Or that his story is supposed to be real history.

Horrendous numbers of scholars both Jewish and Christian have claimed that Moses was real and that the Pentateuch is real history.

How could generations of scholars over the last 2 milennia possibly have been so stupid as to put their scholarly reputations in jeopardy by taking a known fictional account and trying to pass it off as real history? Do you think that modern historians could take Bilbo's account and pass it off to the public as real history today? Of course not. This is absolutely preposterous.

VoxRat · 10-17-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

You are confusing "assert" with "show" again. I have already demonstrated in detail - a demonstration that you have singularly ignored - why none of your asserted "presuppositions" are actually presuppostions.

Look ... if I show you a quote by Wellhausen where he specifically says that the Israelites history was not fixed in writing (I did), then I point out to you that archaeology has shown that writing long predates the Israelites in Egypt, how is this not me "showing" that Wellhausen was wrong? Maybe mine and your understandings of the word "show" are different. It seems like you are looking for something far more definite than is possible in historical studies.

First of all, just because writing (in some cultures, somewhere) predates "the Israelites in Egypt" (for which there is no archeological evidence, incidentally), doesn't mean that the "Israelites' history was fixed in writing". You haven't shown anything with this.

FatherMithras · 10-17-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

I don't recall this happening, could you give me an example?

And this was answered. Unlike the claims you've made, for example.

1) That Moses doesn't write in different linguistic styles from different time periods (you never supported it)
2) 2=14, cattle example beat you, and your soda analogy was awful
3) You failed to show the presuppositions you claim existed at all at the time, and regardless, it was clear that the evidence trumped any possible presuppositions anyway
4) you claimed any work can be cut up and show consilience in linguistic styles and a complete narrative, showing you still know nothing about what consilience is. You were asked to do this with one single book, and utterly failed to even pretend to do it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2007, 06:55 AM	#933
FatherMithras Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 3,890	Why the hell does the fact people have asserted Moses was an author (whether they did or not isn't important, I'll assume they did) meaningful in any way? Because it's a tradition? Something doesn't magically become valid simply because it's been continually asserted for thousands of years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.