Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 09-25-2007, 09:15 AM

Please don't let Dave derail this thread into a discussion of Adam and Supernaturalism/Creationism. Neither of those topics have anything to do with the DH.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-25-2007, 09:20 AM

I think it says a lot about Dave that he's spent so much time in Evolution/Creation dodging discussion of the relevant issues, then feigns innocence here with his "what do you mean, no Adam?" routine.

Pappy Jack · 09-25-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dean (or anyone) ... do you have a link to a site which shows ALL the divisions of the DH? The divisions you gave for the Flood story segment are very helpful.

But did you learn anything from them? The link I gave you previously will at least start you on your way with the first ten chapters of Genesis; this link here takes you straight to this examination....

Lucretius · 09-25-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dean (or anyone) ... do you have a link to a site which shows ALL the divisions of the DH? The divisions you gave for the Flood story segment are very helpful.

Why do I get this terrible feeling that at some time in the near future Dave will come back and say that as according to the DH ,there are now TWO accounts of the Flood ,that means that there is now TWICE as much evidence that it occured ?

VoxRat · 09-25-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Please don't let Dave derail this thread into a discussion of Adam and Supernaturalism/Creationism. Neither of those topics have anything to do with the DH.

good point
(says VoxRat, scurrying around looking for that lost ritalin prescription)

Let's review how we got off on this side-alley (solely for the purpose of retracing our steps and getting back to the main road)

Dave claimed as part of his "POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR SOME FORM OF TABLET THEORY OF GENESIS"

Quote:

it is highly significant that ...

a) it is beyond doubt that written records were in use all the way back to Adam,

b) that "signatures" at the end of family history tablets were in common use in the Ancient Near East and many such tablets have now been discovered (these were not known to Wellhausen and other DH advocates), and

c) Points 1 & 2 above practically seal the case that at least the earlier sections of Genesis must have been written originally by the person(s) named at the end of the section.

So, while this discussion of "Adam" is irrelevant to the DH, Dave seems to think that his alternative "theory" depends on the non-fictionality of "Adam". (Though, as has been pointed out, that is far from the only problem with that bit I just quoted being in any way, shape or form "positive evidence for a 'tablet' theory").

Constant Mews · 09-25-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dean (or anyone) ... do you have a link to a site which shows ALL the divisions of the DH? The divisions you gave for the Flood story segment are very helpful.

Dave, you are either being lazy or you are incompetent. What part of 'google it' do you find hard to understand?

This seems to be a constant refrain for you - you demand that we do the work to show you that you are wrong.

/derail

Dean Anderson · 09-25-2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

So, while this discussion of "Adam" is irrelevant to the DH, Dave seems to think that his alternative "theory" depends on the non-fictionality of "Adam".

Then we can hypothetically grant that Adam was real for the sake of argument - and he is still left with the task of trying to explain why we should think the Tablet theory is a better explanation than the DH, when the the DH explains the consilience between different ways of differentiating the text of the Torah and the Tablet theory doesn't, and the DH fits Dave's own expectations of what a combined Torah would look like better than the Tablet theory does...

ericmurphy · 09-25-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

So, while this discussion of "Adam" is irrelevant to the DH, Dave seems to think that his alternative "theory" depends on the non-fictionality of "Adam". (Though, as has been pointed out, that is far from the only problem with that bit I just quoted being in any way, shape or form "positive evidence for a 'tablet' theory").

This is an important point. Dave is going to demand evidence that the written records referred to as J, E, D, and P ever existed. What I have been trying to explain to Dave is that the Documentary Hypothesis does not depend in any way on whether such written (or oral) accounts ever existed independent of the Torah. The DH is exclusively an analysis of the accounts as contained in the Bible, in an attempt to determine what sort of authors wrote it, and approximately at what time they were written. The DH is not dependent on any extrinsic evidence of any kind.

By contrast, Dave's/Wiseman's "hypothesis" depends critically on the actual existence of not just any written records, but records written by specific people who must therefore have actually existed. For Dave's/Wiseman's "hypothesis" to be viable, Dave and Wiseman both need compelling and affirmative evidence that these people actually existed. If no such evidence can be adduced, then the Hawkins/Wiseman hypothesis fails completely. It fails whether it can find some other way of arranging the passages in the Pentateuch which would preserve the consiliences which the DH explains, and it fails even if it arrives at the same consiliences through some other, or even the same, arrangement.

Dave's, and Wiseman's, "hypothesis" absolutely depends on not only the existence of prior written records, but on those written records having been written by specific people.

VoxRat · 09-25-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

he is still left with the task of trying to explain why we should think the Tablet theory is a better explanation than the DH, when the the DH explains the consilience between different ways of differentiating the text of the Torah and the Tablet theory doesn't

Of course a big part of this whole analysis that is, unfortunately, going to be lost on me is the linguistic analysis. I don't know if there's any way to convey to a non-Hebrew speaker (let alone a non-expert in the history of the language) the kinds of style differences we're talking about here, but if anyone's tried, I'd be interested in reading about it.

Hex · 09-25-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Quote:

afdave: c) Points 1 & 2 above practically seal the case that at least the earlier sections of Genesis must have been written originally by the person(s) named at the end of the section.

I think you'll find that although we have good evidence that Bilbo wrote most of The Red Book, the final sections were finished by Frodo, with a small bit finished by Samwise Gamgee.

We now have essentially complete manuscripts of these, and in fact millions of copies are known to exist.

And so we know that although it is incontrovertible that Bilbo wrote most of this history, he was compiling written traditions that went back to the First Age and indeed to the FirstBorn of the Nordor.

How can one deny the historicity of the very person who compiled these histories? It just doesn't make sense.

Bilbo wrote it, I believe it, and that settles it!

Ray

And we have hobbit skeletons to prove it! :Cheeky:

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

09-25-2007, 09:15 AM	#221
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Please don't let Dave derail this thread into a discussion of Adam and Supernaturalism/Creationism. Neither of those topics have anything to do with the DH.

09-25-2007, 09:20 AM	#222
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I think it says a lot about Dave that he's spent so much time in Evolution/Creation dodging discussion of the relevant issues, then feigns innocence here with his "what do you mean, no Adam?" routine.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.