Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:28 AM

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 ot have written in 1931 ,however I can find no relevant online sources,that actually contain any of his work that can be checked

He's quoted by Wiseman. See my blog article. I have not checked his original. German I think. Probably hard to get.

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Not true. There's R.K. Harrison, Henry Morris, Curt Sewell, David DeWitt, Duane Garrett and Victor Hamilton, just to name a few off the top of my head ...

I'm sure I can find more and I intend to as I have time.

Yet you still regret that fact that no-one has expanded on Wiseman's work ?
You yourself have complained in this thread that there are NO SUCH scholars but you can now name them ?
I am a little puzzled by this to be honest

Actually, I shouldn't say that no one has expanded on Wiseman's work. They have. I misspoke.

VoxRat · 10-10-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I hope other scholars follow Wiseman's lead and correct/expand/clarify his theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

These "other scholars" have had 71 years Dave to do this and other than his son's 1985 edited version no-one has "taken up the baton", I would suggest this is because any respectable scholar, whether Biblical or Secular ,has seen the inherent faults in Wiseman's hypothesis.

Not true. There's R.K. Harrison, Henry Morris, Curt Sewell, David DeWitt, Duane Garrett and Victor Hamilton, just to name a few off the top of my head ...

I'm sure I can find more and I intend to as I have time.

so you're contending that all these guys have "corrected/expanded/clarified" Wiseman's "theory"?

Or did they just buy/assume/reference it?

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Feh.
That's not a good answer. They just twist and turn to make the story seem coherent, so they can claim inerrancy. Followed by an admission that there is certainly an error in SOME translations of the Scripture (leading to the 7 or 14 argument), but as usual, 'inerrancy' seems to mean 'no more than an acceptable number of errors.'

Although, their saying the instructions for clean animals 'supplements' the instructions for EACH AND EVERY ANIMAL is a bit better, grammatically, than saying 7 in specific is a subset of 2 in general.

It's still a contradiction that different rules for clean animals are not covered by the previous instruction to take by two each and every animal.

It's worse than that. The previous instructions specifically pick out cattle and fowl - two types of clean animal - as animals that there are to be two of.

The apologetic Dave linked to deals with this contradiction by simply pretending it doesn't exist, and cutting off the first quote before the specifics are mentioned.

In other words, they are prepared to quote-mine their own Bible in order to make it appear inerrant.

Both of us are arguing from a position of ignorance of the culture here, so our statements are largely conjecture.

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.

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I hope other scholars follow Wiseman's lead and correct/expand/clarify his theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Not true. There's R.K. Harrison, Henry Morris, Curt Sewell, David DeWitt, Duane Garrett and Victor Hamilton, just to name a few off the top of my head ...

I'm sure I can find more and I intend to as I have time.

so you're contending that all these guys have "corrected/expanded/clarified" Wiseman's "theory"?

Or did they just buy/assume/reference it?

Yes, at least in the case of Sewell, DeWitt, Garrett and Hamilton. I'm not sure what Harrison has written about it and Morris just adopts it in his Bible commentary.

Silent Dave · 10-10-2007, 09:44 AM

Dave, isn't it possible that you don't want to admit that you're? I mean, you've had such a massive amount of proof of your being wrong that there's simply no reasonable way to believe otherwise, and if you look back over your posting history with an objective eye, you'll see those evasion tactics we've been complaining about. Don't focus on OUR behavior, focus on YOURS for a while. Can't you see that you're wrong, man? Can't you see what absurd lengths you go to to try to salvage your theory? Can't you simply reconcile your faith with what science tells us? People do it all the time -- eighty percent of evolutionists in the United States are Christians! They don't have a problem with it, their faith is strong enough for reconciliation -- isn't yours?

Please, man, I'm begging you. Take some time, think about it, just accept that we're right and look for a way to bring people to God without insulting their reason, because that's what you're doing. There are ways.

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:44 AM

Here's another guy, Paul A. Hughes, that has examined the Wiseman Hypothesis ...

Quote:

Conclusions
Even in this brief examination of Wiseman's hypothesis, one can see both details which recommend it and unresolved difficulties, even apparent inconsistencies, which threaten to undermine the theory before it has received due consideration. Certainly, the problem of Genesis' composition is much more complex than Wiseman envisioned in his scenario.

If Wiseman's hypothesis is to be advanced further, it must remain flexible enough to allow for exceptions and aberrations. Genesis purports itself to be a series of histories which together span a thousand years or more. Differences in writing style and practice, then, must be allowed for, and the possibility of later redaction taken into account. Within the general assumptions of the overall hypothesis, sub-theories must be developed to work out the fine details. The theory should neither be rejected nor finalized prematurely.

The hypothesis has major strengths. Unlike JEDP, it is based upon a knowledge of ancient methods of composition. In this way the theory is objective, while JEDP is based upon a subjective evaluation of the text in isolation. The hypothesis takes Genesis virtually as is, without extensive modifications to fit its presuppositions. Yet it does not make the broad, specious, and for that matter unscriptural assumption -- following tradition alone -- that the book was dictated to Moses by God. The theory not only takes into account, but often explains, the repetitions and duplications found in the text, such as the dual genealogies of Esau in Genesis 36. The absence of genealogies following the "generations" formula, at least in some cases, is also explained.

Wiseman's hypothesis remains in seminal form. But it is worthy of more serious consideration than it has thus far received. Since truth is not subject to majority opinion, nor have the books been closed in its quest, there is certainly room for one more theory on the composition of Genesis.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cret...os/wiseman.htm

Seems like a reasonable guy, not given to wild claims.

SpaghettiSawUs · 10-10-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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.

And yet you manage to do just that without missing a beat time and again Dave.
Translation: if its contradictory then it isn't really, it just seems it because we don't understand what they actually meant. However we still know its true because its in God's word.

Wow. Teh doublethink, it hurts.

Sauron · 10-10-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Both of us are arguing from a position of ignorance of the culture here,

Maybe *you* are ignorant of the culture. Don't assume that everyone else is.

There are a couple of dozen people posting here - several in this thread - who are quite familiar with the culture. Appeals to 'culture' are not going to rescue your inerrantism.

-Jay- · 10-10-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

No, Dave, it's a typical fundy answer. First, it denies that there's an inconsistency between two and seven (instead of what it should be, two and fourteen). Second, it completely fails to note that the first passage specifically references cattle, a "clean" organism, blowing the claim that there's no inconsistency out of the water. God clearly tells Noah to take a pair of all creatures, including clean ones, and then later changes his mind and tells Noah to bring seven (or fourteen) clean creatures.

The answer also requires the contrivance that the anachronistic references to "clean" and "unclean" animals imply a law that was somehow understood prior to it actually being handed down. Certainly people could have had some sense of what "clean" and "unclean" animals might be, but if one claims that the Bible is the set of rules, and that the Bible is consistent in its internal chronology, particularly with respect to the codification of those rules, then one must recognize that the use of "clean" and "unclean" distinctions in the Flood narrative is blatantly out of place.
Saying "oh, they probably knew about the rules anyway" smacks of straw-grasping.

regards,

NinJay

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

10-10-2007, 09:44 AM	#816
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Dave, isn't it possible that you don't want to admit that you're? I mean, you've had such a massive amount of proof of your being wrong that there's simply no reasonable way to believe otherwise, and if you look back over your posting history with an objective eye, you'll see those evasion tactics we've been complaining about. Don't focus on OUR behavior, focus on YOURS for a while. Can't you see that you're wrong, man? Can't you see what absurd lengths you go to to try to salvage your theory? Can't you simply reconcile your faith with what science tells us? People do it all the time -- eighty percent of evolutionists in the United States are Christians! They don't have a problem with it, their faith is strong enough for reconciliation -- isn't yours? Please, man, I'm begging you. Take some time, think about it, just accept that we're right and look for a way to bring people to God without insulting their reason, because that's what you're doing. There are ways.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.