Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Silent Dave · 09-24-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Hey Afdave ...

Since you're such an expert on Archaeology and you say it supports your Biblical view of the world, were I to challenge you to a formal debate about whether or not Archaeology supports the Bible, would you do it?

Please note, I'm just asking publicly so that everyone knows I've asked ...

Oi! There's a line, you know . . .

Steviepinhead · 09-24-2007, 01:42 PM

I'm just shocked that you skeptical folks would doubt afdave's unvarnished assertions about Biblical archaeology even for a second.

I mean, after all, they've uncovered Pharoah's city from the time of the building of the pyramids by the captive Israelites (for a favored people, they sure spent a lot of time getting whooped...).

Evidence, you say? Right here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...99/ai_20567173
And here:
http://www.lostcitydemille.com/

Of course, the Pharoah's city is in, um, Guadalupe, er, uh, California...

But Guadalupe is a name with Biblical connections, so I'm sure that won't phase Dave for a minute. So there!

Dean Anderson · 09-24-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

The DH is a purely textual theory, but one which makes no claim that textual analysis can trump (or even should be given higher priority than) archaeology.

I didn't say it claims this. I said that the Documentarians give priority to textual analysis and disregard archaeology.

Good. So you admit that giving priority of textual sources over archaeological ones is not a presupposition of the DH, but merely something that (you claim) individual scholars may do.

That's one "presupposition of the DH" that you've just given up defending.

Quote:

The DH makes no claims about whether or not there are supernatural elements in Israel's religion and history, only claims about when the texts describing the religion and history were written and compiled.

The Documentarians most certainly DO make such claims as I clearly showed.

Again, you reveal that what you claimed to be a presupposition of the DH is actually only something that some individual scholars may do.

That's two "presuppositions of the DH" that you've just given up defending.

You will also notice that a lack of supernatural elements played no part in my laying out of evidence for the DH.

So that's also one "presupposition of the DH" that is demonstrably not a presupposition (since if it were, my argument for the DH would have had to have been based on it).

Quote:

Whether or not there was writing in "Moses's time" (assuming he even existed) has no bearing on the DH.

How can you possibly believe this? Of course it has a bearing. It is central. What better motivation is there for hypothesizing a late redaction date than the assumption that these people didn't know how to write? Can you think of one?

I gave the motivations for hypothesizing a late redaction date at length in my description of the DH - and they were totally unrelated to whether or not there was writing in Moses's time.

That's two "presuppositions of the DH" that you've given up defending, and two "presuppositions of the DH" that are demonstrably not presuppositions (since if they were, my argument for the DH would have had to have been based on them).

Quote:

Whether or not the patriarchal narratives are legendary or truly historical accounts has no bearing on the DH. It is only concerned with when those narratives were written down and compiled.

Again ... of course it does. The central thesis of the DH is that it is a late redaction of oral traditions, many of them legendary or even mythical. If this is shown not to be the case, it calls into question the central thesis of the DH.

This is just plain wrong. The central thesis of the DH is that it is a late redaction of written records. It has nothing to do with oral traditions, and has nothing to do with whether the written records are true accounts of history or they are legendary.

Again, read my laying out of the evidence for the DH. At no point was the nature of the original written sources (whether legendary or historical) a factor in the evidence and argument for the DH.

Therefore, once again, it is demonstrably not a presupposition - since if it were then my argument would have depended on it.

That's two "presuppositions of the DH" that you've given up defending; and three "presuppositions of the DH" that are demonstrably not presuppositions (since if they were, my argument for the DH would have had to have been based on them).

Quote:

Whether or not the stories about supernatural elements in the Torah stories are accurate has no bearing on the DH, which is only concerned with when those stories were written down and compiled.

Again, the DH proponents bias against supernaturalism are one of the key factors that cause them to view the Pentateuch as legendary, oral tradition with many made up elements. How is it possible not to get this most basic concept?

Because it is just plain wrong. The DH does not involve oral traditions at all. It involves written records.

Once again, read my laying out of the evidence for the DH. At no point was the whether or not the supernatural events described in the individual stories actually happened a factor in the evidence and argument for the DH.

Therefore, once again, it is demonstrably not a presupposition - since if it were then my argument would have depended on it.

That's two "presuppositions of the DH" that you've given up defending; four "presuppositions of the DH" that are demonstrably not presuppositions (since if they were, my argument for the DH would have had to have been based on them).

So out of the five "presuppositions" that you claim are central to the DH, four out of the five are missing from my laying out of the evidence for it. Therefore - since the argument for the DH neither relies on nor even includes them - they are clearly NOT presuppositions. The fifth is something that you have retreated on, and now only assert to be something individual scholars have done rather than being an actual presupposition of the DH.

In short, don't you think it is about time you started trying to deal with the arguments and evidence for the DH that I have actually presented; rather than continuing to attack things that - by the very fact that they form no part of my argument and evidence and my argument and evidence is unchanged regardless of whether they are true or false - cannot possibly be necessary presuppositions of my argument.

Quote:

Dean, you have given an overview of the DH and that is well and good. But what I have done is given you a glimpse into the thinking of the DH proponents which gave rise to the new hypothesis in the first place.

The DH stands or falls on its own merits. It doesn't matter if the people who first thought of it did so because they thought that the Bible was written by Martians.

Even if all your claims about their motivations and attitudes were true - and I am sure that they are not - their attitudes are irrelevant.

If the DH is supported by the evidence, then it stands. If the DH runs contrary to the evidence, then it falls. You have done nothing to even attempt to show a weakness in the evidence for the DH that I have presented. All you have done is to attack the attitudes of the people who happened to first think of it.

Quote:

(Still waiting for some evidence of the existence of J E D and P. Not the actual original docs. Gimme a break. EVIDENCE that they existed. Like some mention of them as discreet documents in some ancient text.)

You first. You promised evidence for the Tablets containing your sections of the Torah. So far, we haven't seen even a whisper of it.

Calilasseia · 09-24-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Interesting that Dave cites the Wikipedia entry on the Wiseman hypothesis, which states in the first paragraph:

Quote:

It should be noted that the Wiseman hypothesis enjoys no support in the scholarly community and may be viewed as an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to salvage their beliefs about Bible authorship, especially Moses' authorship of the five books that traditionally bear his name, in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

Once again, Dave cites evidence that completely undermines his argument. I wonder—does he do it on purpose?

I'm late coming here. And, I'll be the first to admit that the Documentary Hypothesis is a long way distant from my usual intellectual remit. However, having looked at Dean's presentation, thus far it looks compelling.

However, the reason I'm posting here is this. Someone appears to have edited that paragraph you quoted out of the Wikipedia page on the Wiseman Hypothesis. Hmm. the mystery deepens ...

Dave Hawkins · 09-24-2007, 03:24 PM

I don't know anyone who was involved in the Wiseman article, but you can track the history and discussion. Nothing is hidden at Wikipedia. But whoever edited it seems correct in doing so at first glance because that paragraph appears to be based on POV, not on any verifiable evidence.

Toto · 09-24-2007, 03:27 PM

Go to the discussion page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiseman_hypothesis

Quote:

Reliability of the Wiseman hypothesis
Since there is no professional or reliable scholarship underlying the hypothesis, it is only fair to warn people who come to this page that, essentially, they are dealing with religious fantasy.RED DAVE 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's why I removed your additions. (a) The statement that "the Wiseman hypothesis enjoys no support in the scholarly community" is a factual assertion that requires a reliable source to make it verifiable. (b) If a reliable source has judged the hypothesis as "an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to salvage their beliefs about Bible authorship" then we can note that as the source's opinion, but cannot propose this interpretation of our own accord without violating WP:NOR. (c) I understood the section as a whole to be intended to imply the falsity of the hypothesis, which violates WP:NPOV. I gather from your desire to "warn people ... that ... they are dealing with religious fantasy" that this was indeed your intention. The correct way to show that the subject of an article is a fringe theory is to cite scholarly responses to it. EALacey 08:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiseman_hypothesis"

Dean Anderson · 09-24-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I don't know anyone who was involved in the Wiseman article, but you can track the history and discussion. Nothing is hidden at Wikipedia. But whoever edited it seems correct in doing so at first glance because that paragraph appears to be based on POV, not on any verifiable evidence.

Agreed.

It may be true - but if it is unreferenced then it breaks Wikipedia's rules, and removing it was the correct thing to do.

Minimalist · 09-24-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Hey Afdave ...

Since you're such an expert on Archaeology and you say it supports your Biblical view of the world, were I to challenge you to a formal debate about whether or not Archaeology supports the Bible, would you do it?

Please note, I'm just asking publicly so that everyone knows I've asked ...

Modern archaeology has shot the OT full of holes. We have come a long way from the 1920's when divinity students, masquerading as archaeologists, went out with a shovel in one hand and the bible in the other to "prove" their fairy tales true. Every rock they picked up was something that "Moses" had pissed on. This article gives a solid view of modern archaeological thought, backed up by C-14 dating, stratigraphy, and pottery analysis.

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Refe..._(Harpers).htm

Quote:

Jewish monotheism, the sole and exclusive worship of an ancient Semitic god known as Yahweh, did not fully coalesce until the period between the Assyrian conquest of the northern Jewish kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian conquest of the southern kingdom of Judah in 586.

Some twelve to fourteen centuries of "Abrahamic" religious development, the cultural wellspring that has given us not only Judaism but Islam and Christianity, have thus been erased. Judaism appears to have been the product not of some dark and nebulous period of early history but of a more modern age of big-power politics in which every nation aspired to the imperial greatness of a Babylon or an Egypt.

Dave Hawkins · 09-24-2007, 03:42 PM

Dean, I'm typing ... couldn't find my source in Google Books Full View ... too bad. It will be 7AM my time before my post is up.

Dean Anderson · 09-24-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dean, I'm typing ... couldn't find my source in Google Books Full View ... too bad. It will be 7AM my time before my post is up.

No worries. It's nearly midnight here - and I'm going to bed, since I have to be up in six hours time to go to work...

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

09-24-2007, 01:42 PM	#142
Steviepinhead Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,642	I'm just shocked that you skeptical folks would doubt afdave's unvarnished assertions about Biblical archaeology even for a second. I mean, after all, they've uncovered Pharoah's city from the time of the building of the pyramids by the captive Israelites (for a favored people, they sure spent a lot of time getting whooped...). Evidence, you say? Right here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...99/ai_20567173 And here: http://www.lostcitydemille.com/ Of course, the Pharoah's city is in, um, Guadalupe, er, uh, California... But Guadalupe is a name with Biblical connections, so I'm sure that won't phase Dave for a minute. So there!

09-24-2007, 03:24 PM	#145
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	I don't know anyone who was involved in the Wiseman article, but you can track the history and discussion. Nothing is hidden at Wikipedia. But whoever edited it seems correct in doing so at first glance because that paragraph appears to be based on POV, not on any verifiable evidence.

09-24-2007, 03:42 PM	#149
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Dean, I'm typing ... couldn't find my source in Google Books Full View ... too bad. It will be 7AM my time before my post is up.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.