Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pappy Jack · 10-07-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

OK. Imagine you are a Boy Scout. Your pack leader says, "We're going on a hike tomorrow through the snow. Pack 2 changes of clothes because your clothes will probably get wet and you will want dry clothes to wear for the evening activities. Pack at least 4 pairs of socks because your feet will get especially cold unless you wear 2 pairs at all times." So his initial instruction was general in nature - 2 changes of clothes. His later instruction got more specific. Contradictory? No. Ditto for God's instructions about the animals.

Sorry, Dave, Noah's pack-leader just out and out contradicts himself, as has been pointed out before:

Quote:

G.6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

G.7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

G.7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

G.7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

G.7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Four pairs of socks (specific items) may be construed as a qualified sub-set of two changes of clothes (generalized items), but no matter how convoluted your reasoning and desperate your need for biblical inerrancy it is unavailing to argue that 'fowls...of the air by sevens' is in some way a qualified subset of either 'Of fowls after their kind....two of every sort shall come unto thee' or of 'and of fowls....There went in two and two...'

Ditto cattle, assuming cattle to be 'clean beasts'.

Relevant persuasive textual support for the DH, I'm afraid.

Pappy Jack · 10-07-2007, 05:16 AM

:notworthy: :thumbs: :jump:

Lucretius · 10-07-2007, 05:34 AM

Just want to say to Dean thank you ,thank you, thank you.
You are a ..... no Saint is the wrong word here ..... a Prince among men...... no thats out as I am a Republican (and it's a bit sexist too ) ....... I know a Bloody good bloke (forget the sexism thing for a moment

)for doing all that work .
I look forward to reading it at length over the next week even if it does mean less work on my novel

VoxRat · 10-07-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barbarian

Ah, and I still don't get the 2=14 explanation. The way I read the KJV, the "2" part is definitely not general; it does not say that Noah was to take an as of yet unspecified number of pairs; it says he should take two of each kind. So, I think you should provide some more detailed explanation to this conundrum.

OK. Imagine you are a Boy Scout. Your pack leader says, "We're going on a hike tomorrow through the snow. Pack 2 changes of clothes because your clothes will probably get wet and you will want dry clothes to wear for the evening activities. Pack at least 4 pairs of socks because your feet will get especially cold unless you wear 2 pairs at all times." So his initial instruction was general in nature - 2 changes of clothes. His later instruction got more specific. Contradictory? No. Ditto for God's instructions about the animals.

Dave, that is just ridiculous. For the reasons that are perfectly well explained immediately above, even though they're perfectly obvious, by Barbarian, Keith&Co, and Dean Anderson.

Our not "seeing" your ridiculously tortured fix to this glaring problem is what caused you to "fall out of your chair laughing" at our foolishness!?? Come on! That looked like the bluster and bravado of a desperate man at the time. Now that impression has been confirmed and compounded by 10 days of

hoping the problem would go away if you just ignored it
trying to put us off with the old standby that's been so abused and discredited it's become a huge red flag in and of itself: "that's been thoroughly covered, somewhere else I can't be bothered to link to"
finally, realizing that we're not going to let you forget, you come up with this silly and transparently wrong analogy.

Really... is that the best you can do? And you don't think the DH, as an explanation for this internal contradiction even competes with your completely inadequate Boy Scout [non]explanation?

I just can't believe that. I think that, somewhere not too deep under the cortex of that brain that's been sealed and shrink-wrapped under decades of Fundementia, there's at least a pair of neurons sparking the message: "this does not compute".

Lucretius · 10-07-2007, 05:41 AM

Reading this again

Quote:

7:3 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

7:4 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

I am still a bit puzzled IF Noah was supposed to take 7 of each kind "male and female" does that actually mean 7 "pairs" or is it 7 of each kind with a mixture of males and females in the 7 if the latter how was he supposed to split the seven by two ?
I.e.1 male, 6 females or 2 males, 5 females , 3 males and 4 females or 4 males and 3 females etc etc or any other combination you can think of.
God appears to have been a little bit vague here .

VoxRat · 10-07-2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Just want to say to Dean thank you ,thank you, thank you.
You are a ..... no Saint is the wrong word here ..... a Prince among men...... no thats out as I am a Republican (and it's a bit sexist too ) ....... I know a Bloody good bloke (forget the sexism thing for a moment

)for doing all that work .
I look forward to reading it at length over the next week even if it does mean less work on my novel

I take it that "Republican" has a different meaning for you Brits than what it has for us Yanks.

Here, a "Republican" is perfectly comfortable with "sexism", "princism" and "saintism". Not just comfortable, in fact, but positively enthusiastic.

[apologies to those of the American political party formerly known as "Republican", that used not to be so]

-Jay- · 10-07-2007, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

I hope you guys appreciate all the work I do for you...

Dean, you are, as they say, Da Man!

regards,

NinJay
2=/=14

Lucretius · 10-07-2007, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Just want to say to Dean thank you ,thank you, thank you.
You are a ..... no Saint is the wrong word here ..... a Prince among men...... no thats out as I am a Republican (and it's a bit sexist too ) ....... I know a Bloody good bloke (forget the sexism thing for a moment

)for doing all that work .
I look forward to reading it at length over the next week even if it does mean less work on my novel

I take it that "Republican" has a different meaning for you Brits than what it has for us Yanks.

Here, a "Republican" is perfectly comfortable with "sexism", "princism" and "saintism". Not just comfortable, in fact, but positively enthusiastic.

[apologies to those of the American political party formerly known as "Republican", that used not to be so]

Republican as in anti Monarchist i.e.someone who wants a proper grown up form of government.
I have been described (by myself) as an Atheist Republican Socialist Englishman and I really really hate the acronym

Dean Anderson · 10-07-2007, 07:10 AM

Here's a question for Dave about the Tablet Theory that I don't think anyone has asked yet...

According to the Tablet Theory, toledoths are evidence that the Torah was originally formed from separate tablets - and each toledoth is actually a colophon indicating that we have reached the end of the tablet written by the person named in it.

So why is the toledoth in Numbers 3:1, which explicitly names Moses and Aaron, not taken to mean that Moses and Aaron wrote everything from the previous toledoth (Jacob's in Genesis 37:2) until that point, whereupon they signed off with this "colophon" and the rest of Numbers and the whole of Deuteronomy were written by someone else after them (and who compiled the Tablet of Moses along with the other tablets)?

How does the Tablet Theory explain this inconsistency - that all the toledoths except Moses's are interpreted as colophons ending the text written by the person named in them, but Moses's is ignored and he is assumed to have written everything after it as well as much of what was before it?

Barbarian · 10-07-2007, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Reading this again

Quote:

7:3 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

7:4 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

I am still a bit puzzled IF Noah was supposed to take 7 of each kind "male and female" does that actually mean 7 "pairs" or is it 7 of each kind with a mixture of males and females in the 7 if the latter how was he supposed to split the seven by two ?
I.e.1 male, 6 females or 2 males, 5 females , 3 males and 4 females or 4 males and 3 females etc etc or any other combination you can think of.
God appears to have been a little bit vague here .

Vulgate says "Sed et de volatilibus cæli septena et septena, masculum et feminam". So, seven and seven, male and female. I take this to mean seven males and seven females.

ETA: of course, that means nothing. I just picked the translation which had some clarity in this point. Seven and seven might just have been the interpretation of St. Jerome.

ETA2: ... or maybe 7+7 refers only to beasts flying in the sky, if we take the text literally ...

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

10-07-2007, 05:16 AM	#682
Pappy Jack Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: French Pyrenees Posts: 649	:notworthy: :thumbs: :jump:

10-07-2007, 05:34 AM	#683
Lucretius Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: . Posts: 1,014	Just want to say to Dean thank you ,thank you, thank you. You are a ..... no Saint is the wrong word here ..... a Prince among men...... no thats out as I am a Republican (and it's a bit sexist too ) ....... I know a Bloody good bloke (forget the sexism thing for a moment )for doing all that work . I look forward to reading it at length over the next week even if it does mean less work on my novel

10-07-2007, 07:10 AM	#689
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Here's a question for Dave about the Tablet Theory that I don't think anyone has asked yet... According to the Tablet Theory, toledoths are evidence that the Torah was originally formed from separate tablets - and each toledoth is actually a colophon indicating that we have reached the end of the tablet written by the person named in it. So why is the toledoth in Numbers 3:1, which explicitly names Moses and Aaron, not taken to mean that Moses and Aaron wrote everything from the previous toledoth (Jacob's in Genesis 37:2) until that point, whereupon they signed off with this "colophon" and the rest of Numbers and the whole of Deuteronomy were written by someone else after them (and who compiled the Tablet of Moses along with the other tablets)? How does the Tablet Theory explain this inconsistency - that all the toledoths except Moses's are interpreted as colophons ending the text written by the person named in them, but Moses's is ignored and he is assumed to have written everything after it as well as much of what was before it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.