Lucretius

Mainly because I think even Wiseman realised that his tablet "theory " was completley unable to address anything other than Genesis and could only address Genesis itself if you conveniently ignored certain facts ,such as the fact that colophons and toledoths are not the same thing or even all that similiar,when you look at them properly, as well as ignoring the question raised here about the Moses/Aaron "colophon/toledoth" completely as it does not fit even Wiseman's hypothesis

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.

It is far from perfect due to the fact it does not explain anything and the ONLY "line of evidence " that can be said to support it is Wiseman's completly unsupported claim that colophon = toledoth when they are plainly not the same as has been shown to you here Dave repeatedly .

Which is far far more than the Tablet "Theory" does as has been repeatedly pointed out here in this thread and on Dean's site.
In fact the Tablet "Theory" does just the opposite and really does chop up Genesis into a whole mess with different styles,different languages and all sorts of textual inconsistences and contradictions , again as has been shown here Dave,over and over again.

-Jay-

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

regards,

NinJay

James Brown

Yes, that's the Christian explanation, an explanation not subscribed to by the ancient Hebrews, a group that barely had the concept of an after-life, let alone a spirit that survives the body's death. In the political world, this is what is called "spin."

Essentially the problem is simple.
1. God says, Don't eat that fruit or that very day you will die.
2. Adam and eve eat that fruit.
3. God says, Get out of this garden or else you won't ever die.

See the problem?

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.

Explaining why Noah had to take seven pair doesn't make the inconsistency go away, Dave (nor does it explain why God wanted Noah to "save" those six pairs, only to murder them as soon as he got off the ark).

ericmurphy

Evidence that demolishes your tablet theory, which also has zero evidence from extra-textual sources, as has been pointed out innumerable times. You still have no evidence that these "tablets" ever existed, or even if they did, who wrote them.

-Jay-

But Dave, the issue is that there were two trees - one for wisdom, one for life. God clearly tells Adam that if he eats of the first, he will die. Not die spiritually, not be separated from God, but die. Shuffle of this mortal coil. Run down the curtain and join the choir invisible.

The purpose of the second tree (of life) was to confer and perhaps maintain immortality. If immortality was the desired state of man, there would have been no reason to have forbidden the second tree. You've gone outside the text to conclude that man was immortal prior to eating from the first tree. You had to, because nothing intrinsic to the text supports that.

If man was created immortal, as you assert, then what purpose was served by forbidding him from eating of the second tree?

regards,

NinJay

Magdlyn

Ummm... God knew he'd be very hungry after no sacrifices for 40 or was it 150 days, and he was planning ahead? Poor God, needs his food, y'know. How HAS he survived since 70 CE? :huh:

-Jay-

That's not just mental gymnastics - it's a quintuple backflip and sticking the dismount.

If any error can be explained away by some apologetic handwaving, then the term "inerrant" has become operationally useless, as has the concept of any specificity of language. 2 is 2 and 14 is 14.

Dave - please give us your definition of the word "inerrant" as it applies to Biblical interpretation. If your answer involves any variation on the terms "original autograph" or "original manuscript", please explain how a notional inerrant original that we don't have in any way implies that any one of the versions of the Bible we have today is inerrant.

regards,

NinJay

Lucretius

I have been thinking about this and I wonder if it could not be an early attempt by the compiler(s) of the two stories to try and get rid of the inconsistency (and failing).
In other words they realised that 2 are mentioned then 7 pairs then 2 again and tried to gloss over this by saying that of course the "extra" 5 pairs were killed shortly after the Flood had abated.

Barbarian

That's a loaded question, if you know what I (and Herr Nietzsche) mean ...

OTOH, this is just great. Now we also have to deal with a zombie God, as if his son wasn't enough.