ericmurphy

This seems to be yet another case of creationists and/or biblical literalists seizing on 19th- or early 20th-century thinking, and claiming that since the theories in question have been modified in the subsequent century or so, the theories must be "in crisis," or "refuted," or "dead."

Since they're all looking at a world view that hasn't altered much in 3,000 years, this perhaps is not surprising.

Faid

DAVE:

YOUR "SUMMARY" IS INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE.

I will not go into all the obfuscations and unsupported assertions in it- others have, with Dean himself first. But I will stay on a particular issue, where this inaccuracy and omission can only be INTENTIONAL.

The "Toledoth"/Colophon issue.

After you babble on for a while about "oriental style" (whatever that is, and who knows how it justifies all the inconsistencies the text has), you say that "archaeological evidence" supports your position...

And you clarify by saying that this "Evidence" is the existence of colophons.

And, as support, you provide a quote speaking of (surprise surprise) the existence of colophons.

And you present this as some kind of devastating argument.

This is the inaccuracy, dave. In fact, your whole "here, look at this, colophons" agrument is a complete strawman.

No one doubted that colophons exist, dave.

No one asked for evidence for the existence of colophons, dave.

What EVERYONE says, is that those "toledoths" of yours are NOT colophons.

They are in the wrong place, say the wrong things, and when you try to place them in the place a colophon should be, they scramble the whole thing up- with adam' s "generations" being the story of his kids, Noah's "generations" being the long list of his anscestors (guess what? ADAM'S generations) and half the flood story, and the "generations" of the sons of Noah being the whole flood stroy from the beginning, and the mention that they had "sons" (and again, gues what: the actual "generations" come right after that hypothetical "colophon", like it's actually a TITLE. Whaddaya know).
They make the whole text a mess, dave.

THAT's what we've being telling you. And, since we've told you so many times, ignoring it and presenting that strawman in your "SUMMARY" can only be intentional.

So, how do you reply to that, dave?

You don't.

You just ASSERT those "toledoths" have "every appearance" of a colophon. But there's more, and here comes the omission in your summary:

Dean has made a post where he SHOWS to you exactly HOW "toledoths" and colophons have nothing in common.

You IGNORED this post.

Dean and others (myself included) pointed you to it, and asked you to address it. Repeatedly.

You IGNORED our posts. Repeatedly.

And now, you leave this important part of the discussion out of your "SUMMARY". As if it never existed.

Again, you cannot be so blind as to completely miss all the times this was pointed out to you, so this can only be intentional.



In conclusion, dave:

Your "SUMMARY" is deliberately inaccurate and deliberately incomplete, and the only motive I can see behind this is to mislead the lurkers who have not read this whole thread.

Am I wrong? If so, WHY?

Is this a honest behavior, in your opinion? If so, WHY?

shirley knott

All involved should note that dave has claimed on another thread in another area of this forum that he is "out of town until after the weekend."
While one might legitimately doubt the accuracy of this excuse, one must keep it in mind -- it is not necessarily the case that dave's silence on the latest round of devastating rejoinders to his absurdist claptrap is more meaningful than, say, Paul Nelson's inability to address arguments on AtBC because he's going to be in (that notirously internet-free city) Rome, Italy.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Faid

Paul Nelson is posting at AtBC? Man, I gotta drop by -it's been awhile.

Constant Mews

And of course, what Dave is doing here is applying Occidental logic to Oriental texts.

We know how the Oriental texts used colphons - we have excellent archaeological finds which demonstrate the technique.

What Dave - or rather, Dave's sources, since Dave doesn't actually have an original argument - are doing is applying an Occidental concept by identifying something that Occidental scholars claim is a colophon. But archeology provides us with counter-evidence.

Again and again Dave does the same thing - shoots himself in the foot with his arguments. Why?

spin

[What me worry?]

Steviepinhead

Paul Nelson posted on AtBC about his latest comic tome only long enough to inform us that he would not actually be addressing the many specific objections and refutations at AtBC, because maybe he would get around to it later (when he got back from internet-free, heh heh, Rome) or maybe in some different forum, etc., et al.

So, while he was there transitorily, he was never there substantively.

This might all sound familiar to all but one on this thread, but I leave you to draw your own conclusions, for fear of being again tut-tutted.

Asha'man

I'm really curious about the archaeological evidence that afdave is going to present. He seems quite sure that it supports the idea that Adam existed and left a written record, that Noah existed and left a written record, and that Moses existed and left a written record.

However, the newest archaeological evidence I'm aware of shows that Moses didn't exist, Noah didn't exist, and Adam's existence is entirely unsupported.

If Moses didn't exist, how exactly could he be leaving so much of a written record behind? I'd really like to see this magical evidence.

Derec

About that: DH kind of implies that. That's why the redactor could combine all these disparate narratives without any of his listeners (most people listened to the scriptures, rather than reading them, being illiterate and all) complaining about Beersheeba being given its name twice, or Hagar carrying teenage Ishmael on her back like a baby etc.

FatherMithras

Due to the cattle example, I'd like to retract my comments about agreeing with Dave, and my seeming arrogance. I apologize in full and thank everyone else for delving more deeply and critically into the text.