Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 10-22-2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Well I see that once again having had his arguments completely destroyed (this time regarding the DH versus the Tablet Theory) Dave has disappeared from view .
Doubtless to return in the near future claiming to have "won" this one to add to his long list of "victories".

Just in case this thread does disappear into the mists of time I would like to thank Dean and everyone else who has done so much good work on the DH
I was aware of it previously but in nowhere near the detail that has been shown to us here,I have learned a lot myself and think any lurkers here will have done so as well
So thanks guys

I've saved the major posts from Dean in this thread. With his consent, I'd be happy to edit them together into a single post that could be stickied. I think a digest of this thread would be excellent introductory reading for folks.

regards,

NinJay

No issues from me (other than slight embarrassment at the attention...)

-Jay- · 10-22-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

I've saved the major posts from Dean in this thread. With his consent, I'd be happy to edit them together into a single post that could be stickied. I think a digest of this thread would be excellent introductory reading for folks.

regards,

NinJay

No issues from me (other than slight embarrassment at the attention...)

Excellent, and thanks.

regards,

NinJay

Coleslaw · 10-22-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

NinJay
That's a capital idea.

And Silent Dave needs to add to his web-site an entry about AFDave with the Friedman/Meyers false quote that Dave will not address. In case anyone wants to visit, it's

http://www.dastardlydave.info/?p=3

He dealt with it sorta in this post:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...39#post4885539
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=125
Cege responded with this post

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...82#post4887182
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=56

I don't think Dave responded to Cege's post, but to be fair, he wouldn't have been able to because that thread was locked. I don't think it's entirely fair to say he never responded to the question, though.

Magdlyn · 10-22-2007, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

For example, you have said here that there is no Priestly version of the "No more floods" promise - but it seems to me that Genesis 9:8-19 is this very promise (but without the "sacrifice" bit because the P author was very touchy about sacrifice issues).

If it's not too off topic, can you tell me how you know this and what it says about P? Just curious, b/c the priests were in charge of the sacrifices.

spin · 10-22-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

I think that to a large extent it depends on exactly how you define each chiastic "element" and what text is or is not considered to fit it.

For example, you have said here that there is no Priestly version of the "No more floods" promise - but it seems to me that Genesis 9:8-19 is this very promise (but without the "sacrifice" bit because the P author was very touchy about sacrifice issues).

Yes, that's fine. I've gone back and fixed the omission in the table I made. And I agree that the notion of chiastic element is somewhat fluid.

spin

-Jay- · 10-22-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

For example, you have said here that there is no Priestly version of the "No more floods" promise - but it seems to me that Genesis 9:8-19 is this very promise (but without the "sacrifice" bit because the P author was very touchy about sacrifice issues).

If it's not too off topic, can you tell me how you know this and what it says about P? Just curious, b/c the priests were in charge of the sacrifices.

IIRC, it's precisely because the priests were in charge of sacrifices that sacrifices don't appear in the Priestly version of the flood story. It wouldn't do to show someone that wasn't a priest performing sacrifice. (It suggests to me that the priests knew they had a good deal going what with the free food and all, and didn't want to let anyone else into the game.)

I'll verify when I can get to my books this evening, unless someone else hits this with a source first.

regards,

NinJay

Keith&Co. · 10-22-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

(It suggests to me that the priests knew they had a good deal going what with the free food and all, and didn't want to let anyone else into the game.)

Or, just as possibly, they truly felt that the sacrifices were necessary to keep a rather easily angered God placated, and that they were the best choice to perform them properly, so as not to piss off the guy that would send bears to 'tare up' kids for a taunting.
But either way, conspiracy or sincerity, you get the same results.

spin · 10-22-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Wouldn't one want to look at all of the sources in order to understand the construction? I mean, which version most closely resembles the EoG version?...

They're both distant relatives to the EoG version and as both have similar content, how does one decide which is more like the EoG? If you would like to do a comparison with the EoG...

spin

-Jay- · 10-22-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

(It suggests to me that the priests knew they had a good deal going what with the free food and all, and didn't want to let anyone else into the game.)

Or, just as possibly, they truly felt that the sacrifices were necessary to keep a rather easily angered God placated, and that they were the best choice to perform them properly, so as not to piss off the guy that would send bears to 'tare up' kids for a taunting.
But either way, conspiracy or sincerity, you get the same results.

Absolutely. I just tend to take the cynical view of things.

(Wondering if the bear story turns up in any "Kid's Bible Stories" books - it's not in any I've seen...)

regards,

NinJay

Keith&Co. · 10-22-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Absolutely. I just tend to take the cynical view of things.

Well, IIRC, 'a skeptic is not convinced anyone else is right, a cynic is convinced everyone ese is wrong.'

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.