Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BWE · 10-10-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ck1

If you think that massive cultural differences prevent us from understanding the 2/14 discrepancy, why don't these same cultural differences interfere with our understanding of the rest of the Flood story? And, given this cultural problem, why do you then accept that flood story as an accurate account of an historical event?

Were they fishermen? That would explain alot.

Damn it was 10 feet if it was an inch!

spin · 10-10-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

EXCERPTS FROM "THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH"
BY PROFESSOR GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, D. D., LL. D., OBERLIN COLLEGE, OBERLIN, OHIO

Are you serious, Dave? Are you seriously trying to foist off an apologetic document from 1917 as refutation of the 2007 state of the DH? You have got to be kidding. What did you do? Go to Wikipedia, follow the link from there, and start chopping? Do you honestly believe that something written 90 years ago makes a reasonable critique of a modern textual criticism? Hell, Wright was dead for a quarter century before the Dead Sea Scrolls started turning up.

Do you have any idea how desperate your position is?

Can you expect any better from poor afdave? He seems to have so much baggage to shed to be able to start to think about his own views. But this is a slight improvement. He has sought someone who has the semblance of being a scholar, despite being nearly a century out of touch. Give him a break. Everyone has so patiently held his hand so far, I think there might be a few signs of improvement.

Once he's got the idea of who scholars are, he might start picking up on good methodology and learn how to learn about the stuff he is involved in. It's a big task to move from a safe culture of dependence towards more intellectual responsibility.

Keep it up, afdave. It's a long road. :wave:

spin

Magdlyn · 10-10-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

7. As A. C. Robinson showed in Volume VII of this series it is incredible that there should have been no intimation in the Pentateuch of the existence of Jerusalem, or of the use of music in the liturgy, nor any use of the phrase, “Lord Of Hosts,” unless the compilation had been completed before the time of David.

What does this mean, dave?

Anyone?

Can anyone parse this for me? Does it mean there were or were not mentions made of Jerusalem, sacred music and the Lord of Hosts in Genesis?

Because all 3 were mentioned.

Why would mention of these items need to be pre-Davidic?

Sauron · 10-10-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

1. The Mosaic era was a literary epoch in the world’s history when such Codes were common. It would have been strange if such a leader had not produced a code of laws. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets and the Code of Hammurabi testify to the literary habits of the time.

1. Nonsense. There were dozens of empires at the time. They did not all produce "codes".

2. Invoking Hammurabi and Tel-el-Amarna only makes it look like the Mosaic material was copied.

Quote:

2. The Pentateuch so perfectly reflects the conditions in Egypt at the period assigned to it that it is difficult to believe that it was a literary product of a later age.

Except it does *not* reflect those conditions so perfectly. There are numerous mistakes and omissions in how Egypt is portrayed.

Quote:

3. Its representation of life in the wilderness is so perfect and so many of its laws are adapted only to that life that it is incredible that literary men a thousand years later should have imagined it.

1. This is just exaggeration, substituted as evidence. What about the representation of "wilderness life" is perfect?

2. Why is it 'incredible' that men a thousand years later wrote this? What imagination does your author think was necessary? Conditions of living in the wilderness hadn't changed much by 800-700 BC (one of several more realistic timeframes for the Torah).

Quote:

4. The laws themselves bear indubitable marks of adaptation to the stage of national development to which they are ascribed. It was the study of Maine’s works on ancient law that set Mr. Wiener out upon his re-investigation of the subject.

A vague claim - cite with specific examples.

Quote:

5. The little use that is made of the sanctions of a future life is, as Bishop Warburton ably argued, evidence of an early date and of a peculiar Divine effort to guard the Israelites against the contamination of Egyptian ideas upon the subject.

Another vague claim.

Quote:

6. The omission of the hen from the lists of clean and unclean birds is incredible if these lists were made late in the nation’s history after that domestic fowl had been introduced from India.

More exaggeration inserted where no evidence can be supplied. Why is the omission of "hen" notable? Especially when it can be subsumed under the word "fowl"? Along with ducks and geese, which were also domesticated?

Quote:

7. As A. C. Robinson showed in Volume VII of this series it is incredible that there should have been no intimation in the Pentateuch of the existence of Jerusalem, or of the use of music in the liturgy, nor any use of the phrase, “Lord Of Hosts,” unless the compilation had been completed before the time of David.

Why? Because Jerusalem didn't exist before the time of David? It did, you know.

Quote:

8. The subordination of the miraculous elements in the Pentateuch to the critical junctures in the nation’s development is such as could be obtained only in genuine history.

This isn't a proof; it's a re-wording of the conclusion. Maybe Dave or his source would like to try again.

Quote:

9. The whole representation conforms to the true law of historical development. Nations do not rise by virtue of inherent resident forces, but through the struggles of great leaders enlightened directly from on high or by contact with others who have already been enlightened.

This is utter nonsense. Nations *do* rise by virtue of 'inherent resident forces'. The idea that nations only rise as a result of being enlightened -- or in contact with other 'enlightened' ones -- is obvious crap.

This is a sadly outdated bit of dust-covered cheerleading that Dave has uncovered. It belongs in a Sunday school tract, not in archaeology.

BWE · 10-10-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

There is one other Presupposition of the Documentarians which needs to be pointed out ...

Anti-supernaturalism

McDowell actually does a whole chapter on this one.

More Monday.

Isn't today wednesday? PS: Just because you are afraid to open the pm doesn't mean you don't know you have it.

Toodles

ericmurphy · 10-10-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Archaeological evidence actually indicates just the opposite of this, that is MONO >>> POLY

Petrie and Langdon: Early Egyptians were monotheists
More on Early Egyptian Monotheism
H.H. Frankfort on Sumerian Monotheism

Dave I tried both those links but unforunately they just link to other threads here,so who exactly is Dr. H.H. Frankfort ?
The only person I can find with even a similar name was Dr Henri Frankfort who appears to have written in 1931 ,however I can find no relevant online sources,that actually contain any of his work that can be checked

Dave's the only person I've ever met online who actually cites himself as authority for his own assertions.

ericmurphy · 10-10-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

I don't have one. I'm a very boring person who has lead a rather mundane and ordinary life - who'd want to read about that?

Well ... you seem to be well read ... I am curious if your Biblical research was the result of formal training? Or just hobby? What is your educational background and current occupation?

These are exactly the sorts of questions one would expect from someone who simply cannot be made to understand the fallacy of arguments from authority.

Sauron · 10-10-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Dave I tried both those links but unforunately they just link to other threads here,so who exactly is Dr. H.H. Frankfort ?
The only person I can find with even a similar name was Dr Henri Frankfort who appears to have written in 1931 ,however I can find no relevant online sources,that actually contain any of his work that can be checked

Dave's the only person I've ever met online who actually cites himself as authority for his own assertions.

It's worse than that: Dave is citing his own ass-kickings as authority for his positions. :Cheeky:

ericmurphy · 10-10-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Here's another analogy for you ...

MOM: "Hubby, please go buy some groceries for me. I need 5 bags of chips and 2 cans of dip and about 4 2-liter cokes."
HUBBY: "OK. What kind of cokes do you want?"
MOM: "Oh ... let's get 2 cream sodas and 2 diet cokes."

Sounds contradictory unless you understand the culture. This culture calls all carbonated beverages cokes.

I really don't think that you or I understand the culture of those who originally wrote the passage in question to make any definite statements.

Another totally wrong analogy. Here, I'll fix it for you.

Quote:

Mom: Hubby, please go buy some groceries for me. I need five bags of chips and two cans of dips and about two two-liter bottles of coca cola.

Hubby: Okay. What kind of cokes do you want?

Mom: Oh...let's get seven two-liter bottles of coca cola classic, and two two-liter bottles of diet coke.

Diet coke is still coke, Dave, just as cattle are clean animals. God specifically said two cattle. He didn't say seven cattle until later.

No matter how you slice it, you simply cannot get away from this obvious inconsistency, Dave. In fact, the very article you cited specifically states that cattle would have been known to be clean animals in Noah's time, even though it wasn't written down until Moses' time.

Screwed by your own cites, once more. Yet another own-goal for TeamDave.

SpaghettiSawUs · 10-10-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFdave

MOM: "Hubby, please go buy some groceries for me. I need 5 bags of chips and 2 cans of dip and about 4 2-liter cokes."
HUBBY: "OK. What kind of cokes do you want?"
MOM: "Oh ... let's get 2 cream sodas and 2 diet cokes."

Am I the only person to find this convention (MOM/HUBBY rather than MOM/DAD or WIFE/HUBBY) to be rather insightful.
The best insights into the workings of Dave's mind always come when he puts all his "research" aside and tries to think for himself. The results are always intriguing and this is no exception.
Sorry for the OT, but as this thread is mainly about textual criticism it is tangentially relevant, no?
Regards
Spags

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.