Jack the Bodiless

This is the same issue that I raised: the "cliffhanger ending".

Your response is more of your trademark hypocrisy, Dave. Anyone can see that there's a major problem here... so you invoke the possibility of some alien alternative storytelling tradition, where previously you were trying to argue that Tablet Theory led to a "consistent narrative". Which is it, Dave? Hey, maybe other narratives which DO seem consistent would actually fall apart if your alien alternative storytelling tradition was applied to THEM... but of course you won't do that, so we'll never know...
Quite often on these fora, we see an "expletive deleted" comment in a post: generally when an apologist makes a remark that is so mind-blowingly stupid that another poster really can't think of anything better to say. But, here, expletives just wither and die: a sort of numbness takes over.

I'll just repost this bit:
I'll try to clarify by using bold:
...Hmmm. Perhaps this would help:
Are you beginning to grasp this yet, Dave?

Constant Mews

Yes. Why not actually read the posts, Dave? They already answer your questions.

ericmurphy

Once more, Dave ignores explanations that have already been given.

This is a bullshit objection, Dave. We have already seen—and you have too—that, by splitting the flood narrative in the way the DH advocates, all the internal contradictions and inconsistencies in that account vanish, because they are in separate narratives. Until you can somehow show that some other split in that narrative reduces those contradictions and inconsistencies even further (your own proposed split increases them, you lose.

Constant Mews

Try not to get sidetracked, Dave. The issue here is that the DH explains the Flood story far better than your 'tablet' version; the colophons you claim exist don't look anything like colophons found elsewhere in Mesopotamian tablets; you have shifted the goalposts dishonestly to claim a victory that you did not achieve; and you are ignoring posts that contain the very information you're asking questions about.

Focus, Dave. Try to focus.

Faid

Oooooh boy.
Which I'm sure you will demonstrate... Then again, maybe not. I wonder what you call YOUR "mutilation" of the text, dave... But more on that later.
That is an intentional UNTRUTH, dave. Dean ignored NOTHING: He EXPLAINED to you WHY these "assumptions" of yours have absolutely nothing to do with the basis for the DH.
We all have eyes, dave, and we all can read.
The only honest thing to do is to RETRACT this claim. NOW.
Aaaah yes, another attempt to pass your unsupported assertions of the past as established and unrefuted, while, in fact, they have been thoroughly demolished every time you tried to bring them up (EACH AND EVERY TIME), and you have RUN AWAY from the relevant discussions EVERY time.
Mike PSS is still waiting for that "mixing" debate, dave. For over a year now.
But all this is off-topic, and an attempt to turn this into another trainwreck to save face. Won't work, dave: Go visit those old threads where you got schooled and bailed out, and we'll have the pleasure of schooling you yet again.
In the meantime:
BALONEY, as your friend Jan Pezckis would say. Your claims that these were the deep motives of the DH "advocates" are entirely without support, and a statement worthy of nothing but scorn, unless you provide a SHRED of evidence for it.
So, SUPPORT or RETRACT.
The "presuppositions" you proposed have been shown to be entirely irrelevant to the DH by Dean, and you have utterly failed to refute this. Insisting on the veracity of this claim is dishonest. Again, SUPPORT or RETRACT. They have NOT. SHOW us WHERE you supported these claims, and refuted Dean. SUPPORT or RETRACT, honest Dave Hawkins. Oh goody. Aaah yes, my predictions are once again fulfilled.
"Don't expect any meaningful posts refuting you anytime soon, Dean, since it's sooooo much work... But in the meantime, let's pretend I already refuted your claims, 'kay?"
Pathetic.
Dave Hawkins, SUPPORT your baseless assertions or RETRACT them. Do the right thing.
Once again, in your favorite boldcaps this time (just in case it works): You have SHOWN NO SUCH THING. If you say you have, show us WHERE. QUOTE please.
Otherwise, RETRACT this untruthful claim.
And will you explain why? Hmm.
And this ba-a-a-a-ad thinking is ba-a-a-a-ad becauuuuuse? Excellent. "I think Dean's thinking is bad, and to prove it, here's a quote by some guy who says Dean's thinking is bad. Arguments? Whassat?"
Dave, if there ever was a class in Logical Fallacies, your posts would be compulsory reading material.
The point being? Isn't the one that Dean EXPLAINED to you good enough? If not, WHY NOT? Another blatant untruth. Dean showed how, the division the DH proposes, gives coherence and clears out all the duplications and repetitions in the text. It makes the text look complete and without inconsistencies, in style AND in CONTEXT. Did you miss that part?
What am I saying- you obviously "missed" the whole thing. I see. We should instead believe that the text was written by many people, and each and every one of them had a schizoid personality disorder, along with Wernicke's aphasia and memory lapses?
Oooookay. Um- NO it DOES NOT, as Dean showed you. the way you propose the division of the text fills the narrative with changes in style, vocabulary and syntax, and infests it with continuous repetitions and inconsistencies (not to mention changing its form in the same way every single time it "divides" it, as we shall see). Again, SUPPORT or RETRACT. Whaaaaa? Formal request here, dave. Let's see if those "Toledoths" in the bible have the same character as the ones found, shall we? Because, until now, we have seen NO such thing. You have just ASSERTED it.
Whoa. Can you say "projection"?
Dave.
Support or Retract.
Simple as that.
OH REALLY?
Let's check this out, shall we?
First thing that pops up is this: You have split a verse in the middle, each and every time you make the tablet split!
You split 5:1 in two, to assign the "generations of Adam" in the previous "tablet", when it clearly begins the story in Genesis 5 (guess what it talks about? The descendants of Adam).
You split 6:9 in two, to do the same with Noah, although the rest of the verse clearly continues with the story of Noah.
And you are the one who claimed the DH "mutilates" the text.
Niiiice, dave.

Also:

Notice the first "tablet". It speaks about the "generations" of Adam, right? Now, adam does not speak about his ancestors, supposedly (how could he? ). He speaks of his children. And their grandchildren. And that is all.
Then we have the "generations of Noah". What does Noah speak of? His ancestors. ALL of them. You know, the generations of Adam. ON and ON and ON. And he starts telling the Flood story, and suddenly stops short. And his children? Oh yeah, he mentions them ONCE.
"Generations of Noah". Suuure.
On to the third "tablet". The sons of Noah wrote that, right?
Do they speak of their ancestors (like Noah did)? Nope, except of Noah.
Do they speak of their descendants (like Adam)? Nope, they just say they had "sons" in the end.
They just tell the flood story from the beginning, and finish the tale of Noah.
Where are those "generations of the sons of Noah", then?
Oh, there they are- in the text AFTER the verse 10:1, that you assigned to the previous tablet as a toledoth- and the generations go ON and ON through the ENTIRE chapter 10.
As if 10:1 was the START of chapter 10 (just like it appears to be).
Funny, eh dave?
"Fluent narrative", was it? Well, maybe by your standards.
Once again: BALONEY. Like I showed to you, all you have is a subjective bias based on fundie apologetic fantasies, that doesn't even make sense.

But that hasn't stopped you before, has it?

ericmurphy

Dave, once again you ignore assertions that have already been made and backed up with evidence.

And why does CM need to find a complete chart of J, E, D, and P? The parts we've already seen utterly defeat your argument, Dave. If you think you can somehow undo that damage by looking at a complete chart of those divisions, then perhaps it is you who needs to be doing the Googling.

Lucretius

Well just to prove you wrong here it is .....

You don't really think I would fall for that do you ?
Dave if this is so important for you ,why don't you look it up yourself ?
IF anyone here were to provide such a link you would probably say that it wasn't what you wanted in any case.
ONLY you know exactly what you want the "chart " to look like, so go and find one that provides the information you think you need.

ericmurphy

Dave, since your defeat has not depended on whether anyone else actually has such a link, no one really cares whether you think anyone does or not. If you think the DH does a worse job of reconciling the obvious and patent contradictions and inconsistencies in the Pentateuch than your tablet theory does, then it's incumbent upon you to show that. Your division of the flood account according to your theory does not do nearly as good a job as the DH does. That means that you have lost.

Not that anyone expects you to realize that.

And you still haven't read Theobald, a link I gave you over sixteen months ago.

Dave Hawkins

Jack ... I'll assume Dean's momentary silence is because he is busy or he is typing ... so I'll take Jack's post and assume for the moment that it reflects Dean's view (Dean ... punch Jack if I'm wrong, not me, OK?) ...

What's the problem with 40 vs. 150 days? The 40 days refers to the "Inundation Phase" of the Flood (you know ... rain, fountains of the deep breaking up, super volcanoes, tsunamis, etc.) (See 7:12) The 150 days refers to how long the waters covered the earth. Can you see that when all the cataclysmic events stopped, the water didn't just vanish ... presto? It took quite a while for everything to settle out again.

As for the 2 vs. 14 animals, could you be more specific? What's the problem?

Constant Mews

Dave asked for this information and I simply want to make sure that he is aware of it.