Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gregor · 06-22-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Josh McDowell Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vol. 2. Very scholarly work.

I know I should let it pass, but I had to snort when I read that.

Cheerful Charlie · 06-22-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nukular

For some unknown reason I was looking at the Documentary Hypothesis entry on Wikipedia and got to a section titled "Adherence" which stated that the DH in critical circles is "obsolete". Vaguely remembering a similar discussion some time back on this topic and curious, I decided to check out the reference for that section (at this link).

Although I am just a mere physicist and not a biblical scholar, after reading the article I was left thinking that all of the arguments against the DH listed at the site were quite weak. But the one that really left me pinching my nose was from the section titled "Anti-Supernaturalism". The upshot to that particular section was that the DH required a naturalistic explanation and that excluding a super-naturalistic possibility was not truly being objective. WTF? Do scholars currently working in this area really think that is a valid criticism?

My question is whether this poorly written website really represents the thinking in some modern criticism circles or whether this is just a fundy explanation/site which got inserted into the Wikipedia entry on the Documentary Hypothesis?

Fundy nonsense. As a physicist, you probably know there are armies of Kooks out their trying to prove "Einstein is WRONG!". Serious religious scholars have pretty much acceded that the documentary hypothesis is correct in the main. But the kooks object.

We even have a good idea when this edited version may have come into play, the Bible tells us the priests "found" the books of Moses in the temple during the reign of 18 year old King Josiah of Israel.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Josiah

CC

Doug Shaver · 06-23-2007, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Josh McDowell . . . . Very scholarly work.

I have not seen Volume 2, but I do have his first ETDV.

McDowell is about as scholarly as George Bush.

Riverwind · 06-23-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Fundy nonsense. .... Serious religious scholars have pretty much acceded that the documentary hypothesis is correct in the main. But the kooks object.

As Chris pointed out, the obselecense of the DH is not "Fundy nonesense".

One of many arguments against it is that it has become an argument ad infinitum. Just how many ways can one divide up the books anyways before it simply becomes utterly ridiculous and unbelievable?

Julian · 06-23-2007, 08:02 AM

For a good attack on McDowell's inane dribble see 'Evidence' That Demands a Refund.

Julian

Julian · 06-23-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

One of many arguments against it is that it has become an argument ad infinitum. Just how many ways can one divide up the books anyways before it simply becomes utterly ridiculous and unbelievable?

That would be a silly argument. The DH simply says that the text can be divided into various slices, it doesn't say anything about where to divide it. That decision is up to the individual researcher. Your example criticism completely misses the DH theory.

Julian

Solitary Man · 06-23-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Fundy nonsense. .... Serious religious scholars have pretty much acceded that the documentary hypothesis is correct in the main. But the kooks object.

As Chris pointed out, the obselecense of the DH is not "Fundy nonesense".

One of many arguments against it is that it has become an argument ad infinitum. Just how many ways can one divide up the books anyways before it simply becomes utterly ridiculous and unbelievable?

Where did Chris point this out?

Riverwind · 06-24-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

As Chris pointed out, the obselecense of the DH is not "Fundy nonesense".

One of many arguments against it is that it has become an argument ad infinitum. Just how many ways can one divide up the books anyways before it simply becomes utterly ridiculous and unbelievable?

Where did Chris point this out?

My bad. I read him incorrectly. I read his statement as 'wrong' instead of 'strong'. I am actually somewhat surprised, but I stand by what I said.

Lugubert · 06-24-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Just how many ways can one divide up the books anyways before it simply becomes utterly ridiculous and unbelievable?

If I'm no too mistaken, there are quite a few people here who already find it "utterly ridiculous and unbelievable".

gregor · 06-25-2007, 06:10 AM

I doubt any find it "utterly ridiculous." Some may not be pursuaded, but it has consistency and explanatory power. Almost all here concede to the multiple author / late conglomeration conclusion. Your pre-sups and inerrantists would disput it.

Some questions around here are whether some stories could be post-excilic, is the J / E distinction consistent, and etc.

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

06-23-2007, 08:02 AM	#15
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	For a good attack on McDowell's inane dribble see 'Evidence' That Demands a Refund. Julian

06-25-2007, 06:10 AM	#20
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	I doubt any find it "utterly ridiculous." Some may not be pursuaded, but it has consistency and explanatory power. Almost all here concede to the multiple author / late conglomeration conclusion. Your pre-sups and inerrantists would disput it. Some questions around here are whether some stories could be post-excilic, is the J / E distinction consistent, and etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.