Freethought & Rationalism Archive

VoxRat · 09-24-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Shirley Knott ...

Quote:

But I would very much like to hear what dave thinks he is up to with this thread. What is his point?

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.

That doesn't follow at all.

Object is not A
Object must therefore be not-A
Object therefore demands higher status than A

Jo · 09-24-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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.

With, say, correlations to ancient Sumerian tales (tablets) what is preventing Genesis from being aetiological in comparison?

VoxRat · 09-24-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Eric ...

Quote:

Are you at some point going to present evidence that the Pentateuch has a single author? Because if you can't do that, you have nothing to show that the DH is wrong.

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.

Who's "we all" Dave?

Pretty damn presumptuous if you ask me.

Constant Mews · 09-24-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notta_skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I have elsewhere. But you apparently don't accept it. In fact, I wrote a blog article just the other day on how I asked Notta_Skeptic what she would do if she were God to convince people of His (Her?) existence. Her answer was very surprising.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/2007/09/...at-god-exists/

Pimping your blog again, Dave? Tsk, tsk! And why does this blog entry deal with the Documentary Hypothesis, I ask? Aren't you satisfied with misunderstanding my statement in another forum on this very site? Have to parade it around on another, less appropriate thread? But, then, logic is not your strong suit.

I have never seen Dave accurately represent someone else's position, comments, or opinion.

He isn't even representing McDowell correctly, I'm afraid - which should make this all the more hilarious. The only question is how long it will take to abandon this thread and begin lying about it on his blog.

Apparently, he already has.

Dean Anderson · 09-24-2007, 08:05 AM

Well, I've got to go now, unfortunately. I may or may not get chance to log on again before tomorrow...

Jo · 09-24-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notta_skeptic

I hope he had your permission to blog you and thus pimp out his website hahaha.

Jo · 09-24-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Well, I've got to go now, unfortunately. I may or may not get chance to log on again before tomorrow...

Dean,

It'll be on page 20 by the time you get back.

Adieu.

Constant Mews · 09-24-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Well, I've got to go now, unfortunately. I may or may not get chance to log on again before tomorrow...

Would you object to anyone continuing to eviscerate Dave in your absence?

shirley knott · 09-24-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Shirley Knott ...

Quote:

But I would very much like to hear what dave thinks he is up to with this thread. What is his point?

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.

Higher status than what, exactly?
What *is* your addiction to 'status', anyway?

The best possible, and only necessary, reason to dismiss Genesis as a historical source [in your sense of the term 'historical source'] is its failure to match up to the history we know. Where we know the facts, Genesis is, more often than not, entirely wrong. Where we do not yet know the facts, we are entitled to dismiss Genesis as valueless simply on its track record.

What more needs to be said?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

deadman_932 · 09-24-2007, 08:19 AM

In literature and anthropology, a common phenomenon is the co-option, or adoption of stylistic forms to "authenticate" (i.e. mystify and legitimize) claims.

Because it IS a well-known phenomenon -- for example, the Romans taking on Greek stylistics, the Aztecs claiming relation to earlier Teotihuacan culture via art and written works, even Nazi Germany harkening back to "Aryan" cultures -- it is both reasonable and prudent to assume that Babylonian captives MIGHT just decide to adopt the literary stylistics of their captors.

In compiling their oral traditions and transcribing them, the Hebrew forefathers gave the texts an air of grandeur and legitimacy by adopting an earlier stylistic form. Big fucking deal.

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

09-24-2007, 08:05 AM	#105
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Well, I've got to go now, unfortunately. I may or may not get chance to log on again before tomorrow...

09-24-2007, 08:19 AM	#110
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	In literature and anthropology, a common phenomenon is the co-option, or adoption of stylistic forms to "authenticate" (i.e. mystify and legitimize) claims. Because it IS a well-known phenomenon -- for example, the Romans taking on Greek stylistics, the Aztecs claiming relation to earlier Teotihuacan culture via art and written works, even Nazi Germany harkening back to "Aryan" cultures -- it is both reasonable and prudent to assume that Babylonian captives MIGHT just decide to adopt the literary stylistics of their captors. In compiling their oral traditions and transcribing them, the Hebrew forefathers gave the texts an air of grandeur and legitimacy by adopting an earlier stylistic form. Big fucking deal.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.