Cege

You are so right! Each word has EXACTLY the same number of letters! There is a similarity, after all.

Barbarian

Just out of curiosity, what is the DH-compatible explanation for the existence of those internal contradictions? I mean, surely the redactor would have noticed them.

Dean Anderson

It's funny you should say that...

Because I've been doing some digging, and it appears that Wiseman was not a Young Earth Creationist.

He believed - from what I can glean - that the world is as old as science says it is, and argues in his books that the Genesis 1 account - whilst written directly on a tablet by the Hand of God (or at least dictated directly by God to Adam) should not be properly interpreted as indicating that God created the world in 6 days.

I wonder if Dave agrees with Wiseman about the Earth being old?

Or - like he does with Rohl - does he only agree with the selected parts of Wiseman that fit his own pre-concieved notions?

Or does he not actually believe either of them, and simply uses selected portions of their claims and theories in order to try to put doubt about the mainstream view in people's minds?

Which is it, Dave?

Dean Anderson

I think (and we are into speculative territory here again) that the attitude of the redactor was a lot like the attitude of creationists as discussed on this thread - it doesn't matter if what you tell people contradicts what you have told them before, as long as you are authoritatively tell them something.

The redactor may personally know about the contradictions - but since the vast majority of the flock would have been illiterate and unable to compare sections, it did not matter.

There would be people who remembered the stories from each side of things. By putting them together, stories could be read out (some from one source, some from another, and some combined) and people from each side would recognise the stories they were familiar with.

They would no more see the contradictions than today's Christians (the majority who get all their knowledge of the Bible from their weekly sermons, and are simply unaware of what the bits that don't get read out say) do.

Hex

See, now, we need to stop right there. You've no proof that Afdave actually read it or, more importantly, comprehended it. As such, inferring that by the word 'see' equates with the concept of 'recognition' as opposed to the more literal 'to view' is an error on your part and the wording could lead to ambiguity (as Emo noted - "Ambiguity. The devil's volleyball.").

It is possible that Afdave 'saw' the image of the post on his screen, saw no pictures providing tablets of any variety, and thus 'saw' no proof.

Voxrat, I think what you wanted to say was more like:

We wouldn't want to be anything less than explicit in our questions for Afdave, right? He's go so many to deal with, we'd best be direct so as not to waste his time, right?

Codec

The redactor had to be careful. He was dealing with well known folklore. You can't just go binning a favourite story of the masses because it doesn't fit, one of the factions would have been up in arms.
The redaction was likely done at at time when they were returning from exile, and it was about bringing everyone together. There is some slightly odd stuff in Nehemiah(?) I think, which seems to indicate new material was added and spotted by the masses.

Lucretius

Both P.J & Donald Wiseman were however something to do with the Crusaders Union (now Urban Saints ) a Christian youth group organization ,that has this as its Statement of Faith (my emphasis )

http://www.urbansaints.org/pages/411...t_of_faith.htm

Proof that Donald Wiseman was involved here

http://www.oxleigh.freeserve.co.uk/pt16.htm

That link goes on to describe the whole Colophon /Toledoth idea

Barbarian

Thanks; this would have been my guess too. Preserve the letter of the individual texts, count on the audience not spotting the contradictions - perhaps not even spot the addition of the other variant. Pretend that the canon was always the JE one. "What do you mean by 'this part was shorter back in Babylon'?"

OK, OK. My 1984ish mentality took over there for a minute.I'd love to have that reference handy. Does anyone happen to know the chapter and verse? If not, I will try to spot it myself, assuming it is in the book of Nehemiah.

Dean Anderson

That doesn't surprise me - after all, the Flood and the existence of the patriarchs and so on are necessary presuppositions of the Tablet Theory. Such a theory could only come from someone who a priori assumes that the whole thing is an historically accurate document.

I find it interesting that he can hold an Old Earth position and an inerrantist position at the same time, though - by asserting that when "properly" interpreted the Genesis 1 account (although directly written/dictated by God) does not claim that the earth was created in 6 days (and he doesn't just use the "day-age" copout or the "gap-theory" copout, either - he comes up with his very own wacky interpretation).

Now that's real cognitive dissonance...

Codec

Its in Nehemiah 8 (after a quick google check), this is where Ezra (a possible candidate for the redactor) is reading out the law after they return from exile.
So they are slightly surprised they have to live in booths during this feast time it would seem.

Its a reference to Leviticus 23:43
The language is a little strained there from v41 to v43, showing possible signs of editing - even in translation. It seems to conclude with This is to be a lasting ordinance but then adds a bit.