Constant Mews

It is not evidence for that assertion at all. Evidence would be mention of such tablets; copies of such tablets; physical pieces of such tablets.

Using a two-hundred year old book to show that the author believed that many folks in the Middle East wrote things down is not, I repeat not positive evidence for the tablets. More importantly, the fact that Adam (if he existed, which evidence proves clearly he did not) wrote things down is not evidence that he wrote down the story of Genesis on tablets.

Positive evidence, Dave. That's precisely what you promised. Do you plan on actually delivering? This is moving beyond merely funny into the realm of genuine cognitive dissonance.

And I note that you have completely failed to address any of Dean's points: that your claims about what the DH is based on are all false.

McDowell lied to you, Dave. And you, being gullible, believed him.

Dean Anderson

You mention this every post, as if it were some kind of advantage that the Tablet theory has over the DH - but there is no mention of Adam's Tablet in ancient literature, either.

Okay, so you admit that there is no actual evidence to support your theory, only evidence that ancient people kept records and passed them down.

I'm prepared to believe that ancient people kept records and passed them down. In fact, I'd be amazed if anyone were not prepared to believe such a mundane claim.

Such a situation is just as good evidence for the DH as with the Tablet theory - after all, the DH itself includes not only the "big four" J, E, P and D documents (all of which were written records) but other written records as well.



Summary of the current situation

Positive evidence shown for the Tablet theory: Stories from around the world refer to ancient people keeping records of various types.

Positive evidence shown for the DH: This long list of consiliant measures of textual variation, which has not been addressed in the slightest by Dave. Plus, stories from around the world refer to ancient people keeping records of various types.

Criticisms of the Tablet theory: Absolutely no argument or evidence that would make it more likely than any other theory has been forthcoming. Plus, the divisions used in the Tablet theory would mean that each individual author wrote in a variety of styles and in Hebrew of varying ages - yet when all the bits of a particular style (which are each from multiple authors who lived millenia apart, according to this theory) are put together they each coincidentally form a smooth narrative with recognisable phraseology and themes and written in Hebrew of a consistent age.

Criticisms of the DH: Various alleged "presuppositions" of the DH have been attacked - yet the DH does not in fact depend on any of these, and any of them could be hypothetically conceded without affecting the quality of any of the evidence given for the DH so far.





Dave, I suggest that you start addressing the actual evidence for the DH that I have given (so that I can give some more, there's plenty where that came from) and start giving actual arguments to show that the Tablet theory fits the evidence better than the DH does.

Pappy Jack

And Dave demonstrates yet again that he has absolutely no idea what the word 'evidence' means.

Pappy Jack

PS to my last post:

BTW, thanks for your illuminating posts on the DH, Dean. I've followed up a few internet links on the subject as a result and found the argument quite fascinating. It's the windows into new areas of knowledge and learning that posters like yourself help to open that make forums like IIDB and RDnet so valuable. :notworthy:

Pappy Jack

Yesterday, Dave, you promised this:
And today you delivered this:
Yet despite the nicley bolded and capitalized words, you still managed to miss the scanty part of the title and hit the nil part squarely on the head.
Faber's entire chapter is replete with conditional qualifications and conclusions based on opinions and assertions.

Godless Dave

Dave, you have only showed that one Documentarian had a Hegelian view and assumed that Israel's religion began in the way that they assumed all religion began. It does not follow that the hypothesis itself depends on this view.

Again, you cited one scholar potentially having this view. It does not follow that the hypothesis depends on this view.

Wrong on two counts: that the DH assumes this, and that archeaology somehow contradicts it. There is zero archaeological evidence for the existence of any of the Patriarchs. But that doesn't matter for this discussion, because the DH is perfectly compatible with the idea that the Patriarchs were real people.

You have shown that one Documentarian didn't. Again, this does not in any way show that the DH presupposes anti-supernaturalism.

I will say, Dave, that it's nice to see someone posting in this forum who knows even less about Biblical scholarship than I do. You've emboldened me to post more.

Godless Dave

That is in no way, shape, or form the central thesis of the DH.

The central thesis of the DH (as explained to you on page 1 of this thread!) is that the Torah is compiled from four different sources. Not oral sources - just sources. Nothing in the DH says those sources weren't written.

Dean Anderson

By the way, can we stop with this "documentarians" rubbish.

A "documentarian" is a person who makes documentary films.

Using the word as a label for people who agree with the DH appears to be just a cheap jibe and an attempt to imply that agreeing with the DH is some kind of religious or dogmatic stance (like the way the word "evolutionist" is used), and to imply that people who agree with the DH are some kind of unified group (so that criticism of the specific beliefs of one person can easily be generalised to become a way to try to discredit the whole "group").

Pappy Jack

Dave, if McDowell is your only source for information on the DH (plus Dean's posts, of course, although you seem somewhat dubious of those), you may find this link to Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance interesting. There you will find illuminating articles on the authorship of the Pentateuch, the DH itself (tracing its development back to the 11th Century) and a colour-coded analysis of the first ten chapters of Genesis according to the DH.

Dave Hawkins

Well ... I have to call them something. What about "DH advocates"?