ericmurphy

Nevertheless, Dave, you cited the Wikipedia article while it contained that section. One wonders what you were thinking at the time.

And, more importantly: are you ever going to get around to actually addressing the evidence Dean marshalls in support of the DH? So far, you haven't even stated what part of the DH you think is wrong. Meanwhile, Mr. Anderson has disposed of every single one of your objections, even though none of your objections has anything to do with the DH itself.

ericmurphy

And here we are: 150 posts into this thread, and Dave has not even explained what part of the documentary hypothesis he even disagrees with.

Even by Dave's standards, this is a poor showing.

FatherMithras

He managed to go a full thousand post thread without ever talking about

"WHY THE CURVES AGREE"!

It seems that dave doesn't like to address the factual content, merely likes to play up the idea of "presuppositions" and make a postmodernist "Both are interpretations" angle.

But honestly, when all the evidence is against you, what else can you do?

Dave Hawkins

SCANTY IS BETTER THAN NIL WHEN DEALING WITH EVIDENCE FOR ANCIENT DOCUMENTS
Evidence is scanty for ALL ancient documents, but the Wiseman Hypothesis has some evidence, scanty though it is, while the Documentary Hypothesis has none that I am aware of. To my knowledge there is NO mention of any J E D or P documents in any ancient literature.

Following is a scan from Volume 2 of a fascinating 3 volume set I have by George Stanley Faber, entitled The Origin of Pagan Idolatry (London, 1816). I have referenced him before and his Volume 1 is available in a Google Full View Book here ... http://books.google.com/books?id=mJS...Bp2MoQLQvPHXBQ

I hope the admins don't get mad at me for posting so many scans but that was too much typing. It doesn't violate copyright because it's a miniscule portion of the whole volume and I made the scans as small as possible (~36k each page). Anyway here's the chapter entitled "Respecting the Sacred Books" ...

All of it is interesting, but note especially Point 8 at the top of page 151.





















So no, I can't produce Adam's tablets, but I think this is good evidence that Adam and his descendants probably did keep written records and pass them down.

Faid

WOW.

Dave, that was trippy, evem for you.

Can you explain, in your own words, just what kind of evidence for the existence of "Adam's written records" we find in all these scans?

The fact that people of ALL cultures have LEGENDS of ALL KINDS of old books?


Give me a break.

And, at the same time, you refuse to accept the evident, literary indications for the existence of J, D, E, and P? Evidence that you can SEE?

Dave, if the fact that people all around the Middle East, at some point, had legends about ancient books, could somehow be regarded as evidence for "Adam's Clay Tablets", then it's EVEN GREATER evidence for the existence of J,D,E and P!

To use your favorite phrase, "how can you not see this?"

And at the same time, there are present, evident characteristics, in syntax, vocabulary and context, that CLEARLY separate and distinguish these parts- THAT is DA's argument, and THAT is what you have UTTERLY FAILED to address so far.

What's with all the scans, dave? Are you trying to intellectually intimidate us with biiiiiiig blocks of text, to drive our attention away from the fact that you have NOTHING so far?

It won't work. We're not kids.

VoxRat

So, if that's your idea of "good evidence" - what would be your idea of "poor evidence"? Because - speaking for myself here - I don't think it can get any poorer.

gregor

Yikes - What an extraordinarily lame argument: That a number of allegedly ancient yarns supports not four to six separate narrative families from 800 to 600 BCE , but instead supports carried around clay tablets from 4,000 BCE.

Well, I'm convinced.

ericmurphy

Dave, you still don't get what the DH even claims. The DH makes no assumptions, or claims, about any J, E, D, or P "documents." The DH is entirely about a textual analysis of the Pentateuch to try to determine how many authors there were, and approximately when they wrote the various portions of the Pentateuch. It makes no claims as to the nature or existence of any pre-existing records, and would not be affected one way or another whether those records existed or not, or when those records were written, or by whom. This isn't even a straw-man argument.

And you still have not explained what you think is wrong with the DH. Do you think it was more than or less than the number of authors the DH claims? Do you think the various writers were writing at a different time or under different circumstances than the DH claims? Do you have any argument—any argument at all—in opposition to where the DH makes splits in the Pentateuch, or where it assigns changes of authorship?

And you have no more evidence for the existence of any Wiseman-esque "tablets" than any proponent of the DH has for the existence of pre-existing written records compiled by the various putative authors. Nor, it bears repeating, does the DH stand or fall on the existence of those prior written records, as Wiseman's hypothesis stands or falls on the existence of these "tablets."

You've got to be fucking kidding me. So you believe that because a lot of myths discuss the existence of written records which later became lost, that's evidence for the existence of stone tablets authored by Adam, Noah, and various other antediluvian worthies? Are you fucking joking?

And none of this dreck has anything whatsoever to do with the documentary hypothesis. Again, over 150 posts into this thread, it's becoming increasingly clear that Dave has not the slightest idea what the documentary hypothesis, an hypothesis he quite clearly believes is mistaken, even says.

This is the same guy who not only refuses to admit to the hundreds of thousands of data points that demonstrate beyond all possibility of doubt that radiometric dating techniques are accurate, but states in all seriousness that radiocarbon calibration curves don't even exist in "creation science." But he's willing to accept as evidence legends about written records that were somehow misplaced? WTF, Dave? I have never seen a double-standard when it comes to evidence as breathtakingly brain-damaged as this.

Times like these, nothing works quite like Python:

Sauron

afdave doesn't even understand what he's reading here - and it's doubtful that his 200-year-old source understood it, either. Since this encroaches on one area where I dabble a lot (Islam), let me try to explain:

According to Islam, Allah has sent prophets to mankind over the course of history. The first prophet was Adam. Following Adam, we have Enoch, Job, David, Jesus, etc. -- all prophets in a long line of 25 prophets. The last prophet, number 25, was Muhammad, which is why he is called the "seal of the prophets" (khaatim al-nabiyyiim). When you close a book, never to open it again, you place a seal on the book to mark it as being closed forever. So Muhammad is the last prophet sent to mankind by Allah; after him, there will be no others sent.

Anyhow, each of these prophets was given the true word of Allah, the true monotheism, the true Islam. This true Islam was passed to these prophets in the forms of tablets or writings, just like the Torah, New Testament, etc. were passed down. But as is the case with human nature, the text was continually corrupted by the evil hearts of men. Which is what necessitated the continual re-sending of prophets.

So afdave's quotation above -- and his claim about "Adam's tablets" -- is a misunderstood and recycled version of Islamic apologetics, being quoted by a 200 year old author who apparently had no idea what was being told to him, or the religious motivations behind the information. In order for afdave to accept this text as evidence in favor of his argument, afdave would have to be accepting the Islamic version of how Allah (God) has interacted with humans over recorded history.

Dave, do you accept the Muslim view of God's interaction with humankind?
Somehow I think not.

Sheesh. This is what happens when bible literalists and creationists tread into areas they know nothing about.

Occam's Aftershave

HOLY FUCK Dave, have you lost your entire fucking mind? It was bad enough that you cited Piazzi Smythe's book on Egyptology written in 1859 as a definitive source for your pyramid claims. Now you're citing a book written in 1816 as backup for your latest asinine brain farts. 1816 Dave, that's 191 years ago. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

We know YECs never made it to the 20th century intellectually or scientifically, let alone the 21st, but this is ridiculous. You are just barely clinging to the 19th century Dave, with the 1700s coming up in the mirror rapidly.

Words fail me....