Dean Anderson

That there were writings before the time at which the Bible says there was a flood is not under dispute. It is compatible with both theories, and is therefore evidence of neither.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Of course, we still don't actually have any evidence to show that the Torah was originally a set of tablets each of which began and ended at these points... but at least we have an assertion from Dave that Wiseman "demonstrates" this to be the case.

How does he do this, Dave? What evidence does he bring to the table?

Utter rubbish.

The Jews, when they first split the Torah into books, called the book Bereshit - "Beginning" - because that is the word that starts the book.

The Greek equivalent of Bereshit is Γ�*νεσις, or "Genesis".

The etymology of the English name of the book is completely irrelevant, and does not indicate that the book is one of "family histories".

Yes, we know that that is your claim.

How about some evidence to support it?

Whoa! Whoa!

In what way? What is the evidence to support the assertion that these Toledoths are "Moses clearly indicating the source of the information available to him and the names of the persons who originally possessed the tablets..."

That's just a big fat assertion.

Yes... and this proof is..?

Yet more assertions that Wiseman has proof - but no more actual proof (or even evidence) forthcoming.

We haven't yet established that there is evidence for these sections of text even being separate "records" yet. Speculation as to whether the Toledoth marks the beginning or the end of a "record" is irrelevant at this point.

Really?

Adam had absolutely reliable information about Cain's private conversation with God and the details of his banishment?

Besides, all this shows was that it would not have been impossible for the named person to write the preceeding text. It is not evidence that they actually did.

What "dates on which it is stated that the tablets were written"? None of the Toledoth phrases state that they are closing off a written tablet and giving a date.

As for them being near the end of the life of the person. This is to be expected from the text. Usually, the text gives the story of a significant person, then there is a Toledoth - "These are the generations of XXX..." - and then a list of the person's descendants.

Again, whilst this means that it is not impossible for the text preceeding a Toledoth to have been written by the person named in it, it is not evidence that it was written by that person.

I think we can see where you are getting your misinformation from, now. The misconceptions and errors about the DH that you have written in this thread are pretty much all exactly the ones laid out in that article. Unless, of course, you and they both got them from McDowell...

You have provided no evidence to support this assertion. You have only provided evidence that there was writing before the date that the Bible gives for the flood.

No-one is disputing this.

Now, what is your evidence that the structure of Toledoths matches the structure of these "signatures" in such a way that we should believe that the Toledoths are the Hebrew equivalent of them?

On the contrary, far from sealing the case that this is so, they merely rule out particular cases in which it would have been impossible for it to be so.

Another assertion that there is evidence but no actual showing of any evidence...

Summary

Here, we have claims from Dave that Wiseman has proof and evidence for his theory - but we do not get to see any of this proof or evidence.

All we get to see are some statements that are compatible with the Tablet theory, but are not actually evidence for the Tablet theory.

These statements are, by the way, also 100% compatible with the DH.

Consequently, nothing that Dave has posted here gives any indication that the Tablet theory should be preferred to the DH.

Dean Anderson

Since the existence of these people in no way invalidates the DH, and neither does any hypothetical family history they might have written (unless you can produce a copy of it and it matches what the Tablet theory says, of course), I can think of no reason for this question other than to act as a diversion away from the matter at hand. Therefore I will defer answering it until a later date (or until you can demonstrate in what way these people existing and/or writing family histories would invalidate the DH).

I have provided textual evidence that there were originally written J, E, P and D documents.

You have provided no evidence at all that there were any source documents resembling Wiseman's tablets.

(That would be a 'no').

The motivation of the people who originated the DH is totally unconnected to whether it best fits the evidence. To suggest that the DH is somehow discredited because you dislike the motives of the people who originated it is a classic ad-hominem fallacy.

If you wish to argue that the DH is false, you need to show that it is incompatible with the evidence. You have made no attempt to do that.

If you wish to argue that the Tablet theory is more likely than the DH, you must show that it better explains the evidence. You have made no attempt to show that it better explains the consilience of different textual distinctions, and you have even made claims about what you would expect to see from a combined document - claims that fit the DH but do not fit Tablet theory.

Faid

Nuclear decay.

EDIT: Nevermind, others pwned dave already.

Worldtraveller

I don't want to sidetrack this conversation, but I have a question, and bibilical history is completely outside my realm of study, so links with answers would be fine.

When dave says "Is it correct that you want me to disregard all the many traditions of Mosaic authorship,<snip>", does this mean he is appealing to the Judaic tradition of assuming who wrote the OT (or parts of it)? Or is something else meant by tradition in this sense?

Thanks.

Dean Anderson

If the "Book of Enoch" was written by Enoch before the Flood, then it must have survived the flood by being in the Ark with Noah, yes?

So why - if your theory is true - didn't Moses put it in the Bible with the other Tablets from the antediluvian patriarchs?

As you say, we have the complete text - and it doesn't match any part of Genesis.

And the Genesis account doesn't have a big gap at the time of Enoch indicating that one of the tablets was missing.

Yet it is obviously important enough for the book of Jude (inspired by God, remember) to quote from it.

So did Moses forget that one, or what?

Why does the one book that (if it were genuinely written by Enoch) would have the potential prove your theory by matching a Toledoth-to-Toledoth section of Genesis fail to match Genesis so spectacularly?

notta_skeptic

Don't feel like you wouldn't be able to tell stylistic differences in writing patterns. As a college instructor, didn't you ever suspect one of your students of plagiarism? When the flow of narrative suddenly seems like it has a different vocabulary, a different sentence structure, and a different tone, it's usually plagiarized. Even I could spot linguistic differences between grads and the stuff they claimed they wrote. But, most of all, when talking about the P document in the DH, you can clearly see how it differs from the rest of the structure and how stilted and repetitive the prose becomes. Breaking down the story of Noah into the two forms suddenly makes two similar stories with no confusing contradictions. Much of the rest of the books of the DH show similar results.

Faid

I predict that, soon, dave will be all "I need some time to evaluate all this data", and "I'm making good progress in refuting all these claims, it will just take a while", and finally "don't expect any more posts on this for a couple of weeks".

And then, a new thread on something irrelevant- maybe the Fundy Chrisitan Forefathers of the US? It's been a while since we last heard that.

Dave, I wish I could say you're getting predictable, but that was ages ago.

Faid

Oh I almost forgot:

Dave,

Are you actually claiming that Γενεσις in Greek means something like "generations", or "Genealogy"?

Wow.

Just...

Wow.


Dave, if that was your idea, then you are completely ignorant. And if you copied this from your sources, then your sources are total ignoramuses, who cannot and should not be taken seriously.

That is all.

Constant Mews

Exactly.

Nice work, Dean. Very clear.

notta_skeptic

What does it mean, oh man of Greece?