mung bean

It's a holdover from earlier religions, VoxRat. Snakes were a symbol of rebirth (from the skin shedding) and therefore a symbol of the cycle of life. The example in the picture is Minoan, but the basic belief was fairly widespread.
Yahwehism is of course patriarchal, so priestesses and snakes got a bad name. If you want villains to blame things on what better choices than a woman and a snake? That's it in a nutshell.

Dave Hawkins

Of course I do. Your question seems to indicate that you have not yet understood my argument relating to Nicholson. Please review it so you will understand.

shirley knott

Here's an idea --
you first.

You have both a demonstrated ability and a consistent track record of:
discussing notions you do not understand and on which you have not read the relevent literature
misrepresenting the conclusions of scientists as well as pseudo-scientific creationist frauds such as the Browns, Snelling, et al
presenting arguments that decisively refute rather than support your point.

So again dave,
you first.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Lucretius

As far as I can see your "argument" is that Nicholson says that the DH "remains the securest basis for understanding the Pentateuch." and that means that the Tablet "Theory" is correct and the DH is wrong.
I hope that if you have more time, having had your Walt Brown Hydroplate Theory "argument" torn to shreds on another forum here,that you could correct this impression that you give here , if you think it is wrong in any way.

deadman_932

IS DAVEY CORRECT? DID NO ONE ADDRESS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THIS THREAD?

You mean like this, Dave? -----

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...09#post4822609

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...21#post4829821 Colophons on tablets

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...40#post4829940 Colophons on tablets

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...77#post4832277 Colophons on tablets

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...35#post4832435
Spin challenges archaeological claims of Rohl

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...26#post4834826
Dean says he once naively accepted Rohl's "New Chronology," now rejects it.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...09#post4841509
Dean addressed the relevancy of archaeology to the OP

That's just from up to page 26 of this thread, Dave, I got bored after that, and I'm very sure there are more that address and challenge your claims about archaeology. That's an even dozen examples <edit> -- you could have addressed those challenges at any time and did NOT

Dave Hawkins

Context, Deadman, context ... In this case the context was ... Then you said ... So ... as you can see ... I didn't say "no one ever offered to debate me on that" ... I said that "I shouldn't be surprised at all that they [those who are trying to defend the DH like Dean] don't want to talk about archaeology, the history of the J E D & P docs, and other such external evidence [in this thread in the context of the DH]." No false claims there, Deadman. You just misunderstood, apparently.

Dave Hawkins

No. If you read the thread carefully, you would see that my argument is "Nicholson and others point out the sharp attacks upon the DH in recent years, therefore Dean should take notice of this and re-examine the basis for his adherence to the DH."

deadman_932

I didn't "misunderstand" a damn thing, Davey. I gave you specific examples of people wanting to talk about archaeology, Dave -- including in specified context of the DH. That's why they posted on archaeology. A dozen examples, all about archaeological evidence, that you never bothered to take up the challenge on.

Another false claim from Davey. Piled on other false claims. There's a word for people that do that, Dave.

deadman_932

By the way, Dave, you'll note I predicted your response, when I posted this in another thread: And did you try to do that? Yes.

Your duplicity and willingness to use typical low creationist propaganda tactics are noted, Dave...and predictable.

-Jay-

Dave, if you want to talk about the archaeology as it applies to the DH, talk about the archaeology as it applies to the DH. That would involve recovered texts, evidence that anachronistic references to places in the Pentateuch aren't anachronistic, and things like that.

If you want to talk about the history of the J, E, D & P documents, do so. You might bring up things such as how the known social conditions at the times proposed for the compilations of these documents do or don't support the datings. You might discuss things like whether known cultural contacts between the ancient Israelites and their neighboring cultures support the notion that stories like the creation stories and the flood narratives were borrowed from those other cultures.

If you have external evidence that disconfirms the DH, present it.

Those are the kinds of things you do when arguing against a framework such as the DH. You look for a framework that explains the evidence better. You've been told this. Repeatedly. Why doesn't it stick?

Up to this point, you've done things like present specious assertions from apologists like Josh McDowell and his ilk. These sank into the swamp.

You've presented Wiseman's Tablet Theory. This too sank into the swamp.

You've presented a number of mined quotes that you propose suggest that the DH is reeling and up against the ropes. These quotes have been investigated and your claims consistently found to be specious, so this approach burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.

For some reason I do not expect your next line of attack to be the one that stays up and becomes the strongest castle in all of England.

It's very clear to all but the most inattentive reader that your grasp of the DH is tenuous at best, and that your approach to discussion overwhelmingly favors attempted deconstructive arguments against the DH rather than positive arguments in favor of any realistic alternative.

The fact that almost every post you make gets jumped on by half a dozen people pointing out where you've gone wrong should suggest something, Dave.

regards,

NinJay