Dave Hawkins

Shirley Knott ...If Genesis is just a late redaction of various Hebrew tall tales, then we have reason to dismiss it as a historical source. If it is not, then it demands a much higher status in scholarly circles.

Constant Mews

No, Dave has not provided answers to any of these questions. Since the DH is extremely well supported, and Josh McDowell a demonstrated non-scholar, this should be very amusing.

Of course, Dave has to actually acknowledge Dean's posts, first.

Constant Mews

We already have excellent reasons to reject it as a historical source: it it contradicted by the geological, archaeological, linguistic, and historical data.

Dean Anderson

Actually, doing that would demonstrate his own theory to be wrong as much as it would demonstrate the DH to be wrong.

Dave does believe that there are multiple authors, just like the DH. He agrees that the Torah can be split up into the sections written by different authors, just like the DH.

However, he disagrees where these splits should be.

The Wiseman theory that Dave promotes places the splits each time there is a "Toledoth" ("These are the generations of...") and claims that each section was written by the person mentioned in the Toledoth.

So the first part of Genesis was written by Adam, the next part by Noah, and so on.

So Dave is not arguing against the concept of the Torah having multiple authors. He is merely arguing that those authors were the Biblical characters themselves, with the unstated inference that therefore Adam and Noah and so on must have really existed, and therefore YEC is true.

What he has singularly failed to do so far is to explain why splitting the Torah the way the DH does is consilient with the changes of style and of writing age and of theme; whereas the splitting of the Torah the way Wiseman does it is not consilient with any of these...

Jo

Archaeology IS analysis. It takes its evidence FROM the sources. What source analysis has McDowell done?

Yes, and I quoted two archaeologists (who I might say are theists) Siberlman and Finkelstein - The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology Today.

Let me point you (or McDowell) to the Colossi of Memnon (18th Dynasty of Egypt), Moses was reputed to be after the 23rd Dynasty. The inscriptions/writings on the Ruler of Rulers remains - pre-Moses.

Presupposition.

McDowell is to Archaeology what Mickey Mouse is to Physics. Give a counter source.

Constant Mews

He has also claimed that he can provide positive evidence of the existence of the physical documents Moses combined into the Torah.

Does Dave understand what positive evidence means?

Jack the Bodiless

Actually, Genesis is a redaction of various "tall tales" that weren't even Hebrew originally.

We still have the earlier "tall tales", Dave. You seem to be entirely unaware of the existence of Sumerian, Babylonian, Ugaritic and Caananite mythology. Why is that, dave?

Jo

Which can't be done without the DH unless he lays the OT (Pentateuch) down as fabrication.

notta_skeptic

<not worth my time to reply>

Dave Hawkins

Eric ... No. See Dean's response to you. He's correct. Eric, don't even try to get involved with this one. Just lurk and we'll all thank you.