Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 10-10-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

It's now Wednesday morning, and Dave is online.

I wait with bated breath...

I'm reading your blog right now. (I see you copied my Wordpress theme ... nice, isn't it?

It is definitely the most professional looking. It's just coincidence that it is the same theme as your blog, though. My wife chose it, and she's never seen your blog.

Quote:

... where is the "About Me" page? ... I'd like to read your story)

I don't have one. I'm a very boring person who has lead a rather mundane and ordinary life - who'd want to read about that?

Dean Anderson · 10-10-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Is there a page that lists the starting and ending points of each section?

For example ...

Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 P
Genesis 2:4a R
Genesis 2:4b - 4:24 J

etc. ??

I'm afraid not. I marked up the text based on an existing marked up text, rather than based on a list.

It would be a lot of work to produce such a list, and it would have little benefit - since you would not be able to actually see the text that was being split.

Dean Anderson · 10-10-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dean ...

Quote:

Here's a question for Dave about the Tablet Theory that I don't think anyone has asked yet...

According to the Tablet Theory, toledoths are evidence that the Torah was originally formed from separate tablets - and each toledoth is actually a colophon indicating that we have reached the end of the tablet written by the person named in it.

So why is the toledoth in Numbers 3:1, which explicitly names Moses and Aaron, not taken to mean that Moses and Aaron wrote everything from the previous toledoth (Jacob's in Genesis 37:2) until that point, whereupon they signed off with this "colophon" and the rest of Numbers and the whole of Deuteronomy were written by someone else after them (and who compiled the Tablet of Moses along with the other tablets)?

How does the Tablet Theory explain this inconsistency - that all the toledoths except Moses's are interpreted as colophons ending the text written by the person named in them, but Moses's is ignored and he is assumed to have written everything after it as well as much of what was before it?

I have primarily read Wiseman's Tablet Theory which only covers Genesis.

Why does Wiseman say that his theory only covers Genesis? What is so special about Genesis that means that Wiseman's "evidence" for Tablets applies to only it and does not apply to the rest of the Torah?

Dean Anderson · 10-10-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Here's a good fundy answer to the 2/7 thing

Feh.
That's not a good answer. They just twist and turn to make the story seem coherent, so they can claim inerrancy. Followed by an admission that there is certainly an error in SOME translations of the Scripture (leading to the 7 or 14 argument), but as usual, 'inerrancy' seems to mean 'no more than an acceptable number of errors.'

Although, their saying the instructions for clean animals 'supplements' the instructions for EACH AND EVERY ANIMAL is a bit better, grammatically, than saying 7 in specific is a subset of 2 in general.

It's still a contradiction that different rules for clean animals are not covered by the previous instruction to take by two each and every animal.

It's worse than that. The previous instructions specifically pick out cattle and fowl - two types of clean animal - as animals that there are to be two of.

The apologetic Dave linked to deals with this contradiction by simply pretending it doesn't exist, and cutting off the first quote before the specifics are mentioned.

In other words, they are prepared to quote-mine their own Bible in order to make it appear inerrant.

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Great catch. The evolution of polytheism to monotheism has occurred many times in human history. I see the evolution as inevitable. It's the old, "My god can beat up your god" argument taken to its logical extreme.

Archaeological evidence actually indicates just the opposite of this, that is MONO >>> POLY

Petrie and Langdon: Early Egyptians were monotheists
More on Early Egyptian Monotheism
H.H. Frankfort on Sumerian Monotheism

Lucretius · 10-10-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Here's a good fundy answer to the 2/7 thing which also discusses the 7/14 thing ... http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/525

That site mentions shibb’ah shibb’ah and says that this means seven AND seven i.e 7 pairs ,14 animals, but could it also mean seven TIMES seven i.e 49 ?
Possibly showing my ignorance of Hebrew I know

Still not convinced by that site by the way Dave, logic so twisted it makes a pretzel look postively like a ruler in comparison

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

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.

Not true. There's R.K. Harrison, Henry Morris, Curt Sewell, David DeWitt, Duane Garrett and Victor Hamilton, just to name a few off the top of my head ...

I'm sure I can find more and I intend to as I have time.

Lucretius · 10-10-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Great catch. The evolution of polytheism to monotheism has occurred many times in human history. I see the evolution as inevitable. It's the old, "My god can beat up your god" argument taken to its logical extreme.

Archaeological evidence actually indicates just the opposite of this, that is MONO >>> POLY

Petrie and Langdon: Early Egyptians were monotheists
More on Early Egyptian Monotheism
H.H. Frankfort on Sumerian Monotheism

Dave I tried both those links but unforunately they just link to other threads here,so who exactly is Dr. H.H. Frankfort ?
The only person I can find with even a similar name was Dr Henri Frankfort who appears to have written in 1931 ,however I can find no relevant online sources,that actually contain any of his work that can be checked

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I'm reading your blog right now. (I see you copied my Wordpress theme ... nice, isn't it?

It is definitely the most professional looking. It's just coincidence that it is the same theme as your blog, though. My wife chose it, and she's never seen your blog.

Quote:

... where is the "About Me" page? ... I'd like to read your story)

I don't have one. I'm a very boring person who has lead a rather mundane and ordinary life - who'd want to read about that?

Well ... you seem to be well read ... I am curious if your Biblical research was the result of formal training? Or just hobby? What is your educational background and current occupation?

Lucretius · 10-10-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

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.

Not true. There's R.K. Harrison, Henry Morris, Curt Sewell, David DeWitt, Duane Garrett and Victor Hamilton, just to name a few off the top of my head ...

I'm sure I can find more and I intend to as I have time.

Yet you still regret that fact that no-one has expanded on Wiseman's work ?
You yourself have complained in this thread that there are NO SUCH scholars but you can now name them ?
I am a little puzzled by this to be honest

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.