Faid

Excellent!

Are you gonna explain to us why the DH separates the text into coherent and complete narratives, while yours makes it a scrambled, inconsistent and contradicting mess?

Will you explain just what is this "oriental way of thinking" that dictated that all written texts of the time should be resembling a scrambled, inconsistent and contradicting mess?

Maybe you will address Dean's post, about "toledoths" and colophons, where he shows that the phrase "these are the generations of..." has, in fact, no resemblance whatsoever with a colophon? Even if it was at the end of a story, and not its beginning (where it should be)?

Hmm?

Oh I'm sorry- did you mean something else that's productive? In another thread maybe?

OK then, how about "making some progress" in addressing the consilience in C14 curves, like you said you would?

Or maybe you meant like, something productive outside this forum?

In that case, how about "evaluating the data" and finally responding to BWE in the dendrochronology debate at RD.net? Like you said you would?

So many options, so little time, right dave? Come on man, be productive!

ericmurphy

Well, he'll definitely here from us regarding it again. Since it's sort of central to why the DH works better than his "tablet" hypothesis, he'll have to deal with it eventually or just admit his hypothesis fails.

BWE

Actually, I'm ok waiting for a bit on the dendro thing.

It took me about 6 hours to make that damn software work to do a skeleton plot and I had to do quite a bit of study along the way. I assume that it will twice as long.

I'm a lot more interested in his either support for his claims re. David Yamaguchi or his retraction of his claim. I'm a bit stirred over his dishonesty.

You'd think a human would hold morality as a bit more important than he apparently does.

shirley knott

Especially when said human is so inordinately proud of how his religion, his deity, is the source of all morality and we would all be in a moral sewer were it not for the inestimably high quality of the moral leadership provided by said religion and deity, and exemplified, insofar as humanly possible, by said human.
Pfeh.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Constant Mews

What have we established so far in this thread? A bit, I think, owing to the excellent work on the part of Dean Anderson and others.

First, we have established that the DH is not based on any of the following 'presuppositions':

1) Priority of source analysis over archeology
2) Natural view of Israel's religion and history
3) No writing in Israel at Moses' time
4) Legendary view of the patriarchal narratives

These are straw-man objections raised by Josh McDowell - a journalist without experience in Biblical research.

The DH is based on a clear textual analysis that solves a number of inconsistencies - such as the numbering of animals to be taken on the Ark, redundancies, and stylistic differences noted in the text.

We have demonstrated that the 'tablet' hypothesis does not solve any of these issues, by the simple example of the flood story.

We have seen that the supposed 'colophons' that Wiseman finds in the text are in fact, nothing like colophons found in other Mesopotamian records. They are not in colophon format and do not appear where colophons normally occur.

We have no corroborating evidence that any of the hypothetical authors of the tablets ever existed - indeed, since Noah is mentioned in conjunction with the Flood, and we have proved that the Flood did not occur, Noah's mythological status is a well-supported hypothesis.

In summary, then, the DH is consistent with all known archaeological evidence; resolves a number of textual issues; and conceptually well-supported by other research. It is based on straightforward concepts, and requires no abandonment of faith.

The Tablet Hypothesis is inconsistent with known archaeological evidence - i.e. the fact that the supposed colophons do not match known forms; leaves a large number of textual issues without clear resolution; and is empirically unsupportable, since some of the purported authors - e.g. Noah occur in conjunction with events that have been proved not to have occurred.

Is it possible to state definitively that the DH is true? Of course not. But it is a far better explanation for the peculiarities of the Biblical text than the Tablet Hypothesis, which has no general support among scholars.

Occam's Aftershave

<afdave_mode>

"But how do we know the numbers 2 and 14 really disagree? We need to examine each number separately, in detail. Someone please start a new thread for the number 2, and another for the number 14. Present everything you know about those numbers, including hi-res photographs. People here have been parroting back what they read on some Christian-bashing site about 'numbers', but so far no one has convinced me they know what 'numbers' really mean.

Aren't you evos interested in the TRUTH like an honest guy like me??"

</afdave_mode>

Constant Mews

The irony, of course, is that Dave is doing precisely what the 'Documentarians' are doing - or rather, Dave's sources are doing the same thing: they are trying to perform a textual analysis of the Torah to recover the original documents. The difference lies in the approach: the 'Documentarians' work is supported by archeology and sound textual analysis. The 'McDowellists' are working off of wishful thinking and massive presuppositions.

BWE

Done.

Faid

You know, using my intuition (that thing dave absolutely worships), I think I can imagine where that whole 2=14 issue came from...

(Scene: Inside a hut, on a serene Middle-Eastern night, a few thousand years ago)

Gramps: "And then, Noah gave thanks to the LORD, and made an offering of every clean animal and fowl, and the LORD was pleased with the smell and..."

Kid: "Um... Grandpa?"

Gramps: "Yes, my boy?"

Kid: "I don't get it- you say Noah, he made a sacrifice of one of every clean animal, right?"

Gramps: "Yes, and the LORD was..."

Kid: "Butbutbut if Noah killed one of every pair of clean animals, how can we have clean animals today, grandpa?"

Gramps: "Er..."

Kid: (Looks intensely in anticipation)

Gramps (to himself): "Oh crap, Ruth told me I shouldn't put so much stuff of my own into the story..." (to the kid): "Um... Uhhh... Oh did I forget to mention it? Silly me! Actually, the LORD had told Noah to put, not one, but... six... no, seven pairs of all clean animals into the Ark. Yup, that's about right".

Kid: But that's not the way grandma tells the tale, grandpa! Is she wrong?"

Gramps (to himself again): "Oh great, now Ruth is gonna carve me up until I turn kosher". (To the kid): "Nononono lad, both stories are equally true. Ahem."

Kid: "But grandpa, how can both be..."

Gramps: "Enough with all the questions, youngster! The LORD was pleased, made the rainbow, blessed Noah, everyone was happy and had lotsa kids, end of story. Off to bed now!"

(Kid runs off)

Gramps: "Bah! These kids nowarays, too smart for their own good. Like his father, that geek of a son, who wants to use a crooked blade in the plow. Is nothing sacred anymore?"

Steviepinhead

Note that I'm not naming any names here, and that I am talking about a pair of something...the sub-topic in controversy:

Shirley Knott:
Shirley, you know I love hugs as well as the next person, but do you have any actual evidence that there's as many as two?

'Cause I'd be surprised, is all, seein's how when you rub two together, you usually get a spark.