Freethought & Rationalism Archive

VoxRat · 10-06-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

It was explained long ago ... I'm not going to cover old ground

Oh, but you said you would!
Remember?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave, September 26, 2007, 09:35 AM
...
If so, pardon me while I fall out my chair laughing. I'll explain this in my next response to Dean after I recover.

Why the change of heart?

Have you noticed that a great deal of skepticism has been expressed over the whole "I explained this somewhere else, that I can't be bothered to link to" tactic?

A lot of us think it's just plain dishonest.

Cege · 10-06-2007, 06:17 AM

afdave, was your explanation something about going from general (2 pairs) to specific (7 pairs)?

If so, it was pointed out to everyone by several posters that starting with 2 pairs and changing to 7 pairs is definitely not starting general, then going to specific.

I think you'd be better off to just claim God changed his mind, as there is much evidence of God changing his mind in the OT to draw upon.

Lucretius · 10-06-2007, 06:47 AM

Reading through this thread I have come up with a new theory which for the sake of brevity I will call the Page Theory

Here is a recently discovered* poem

Quote:

Come live with mee, and be my love,
And we will all the pleasures prove,
MY love will come in autumn-time
When leaves go spinning to the ground
My Love's a match in beauty
For every flower that blows
Her eyes are fond forget-me-nots,

That Vallies, groves, hills and fieldes,
Woods, or steepie mountaine yeeldes.
And wee will sit upon the Rocks,
Then, we shall walk through dusty lanes
And pause beneath low-hanging boughs,
And there, while soft-hued beauty reigns
We'll make our vows.

Her velvet cheek a rose;
Her locks are gilly gowans
Hang golden to her knee.
Let others seek in spring for sighs
When love flames forth from every seed;
But love that blooms when nature dies
Is love indeed!

And I will make thee beds of Roses
And a thousand fragrant posies,
A cap of flowers, and a kirtle,
Imbroydred all with leaves of Mirtle.
A gowne made of the finest wooll,
Which from our pretty Lambes we pull,
As crests her bodice green.

The thrushes when she's talking
Sit listening on the tree.
My Queen she'd surely be.
Fayre lined slippersfor the cold:
With buckles of the purest gold.
A belt of straw, and Ivie buds,
With Corall clasps and Amber studs,
And if these pleasures may thee move,

Now as I had to turn over the page in the book at one point I have come to the conclusion that it was in fact written by two different authors like so

Quote:

Come live with mee, and be my love,
And we will all the pleasures prove,
MY love will come in autumn-time
When leaves go spinning to the ground
My Love's a match in beauty
For every flower that blows
Her eyes are fond forget-me-nots,

That Vallies, groves, hills and fieldes,
Woods, or steepie mountaine yeeldes.
And wee will sit upon the Rocks,
Then, we shall walk through dusty lanes
And pause beneath low-hanging boughs,
And there, while soft-hued beauty reigns
We'll make our vows.

Her velvet cheek a rose;
Her locks are gilly gowans
Hang golden to her knee.
Let others seek in spring for sighs
AUTHOR ONE

And

Quote:

When love flames forth from every seed;
But love that blooms when nature dies
Is love indeed!

And I will make thee beds of Roses
And a thousand fragrant posies,
A cap of flowers, and a kirtle,
Imbroydred all with leaves of Mirtle.
A gowne made of the finest wooll,
Which from our pretty Lambes we pull,
As crests her bodice green.

The thrushes when she's talking
Sit listening on the tree.
My Queen she'd surely be.
Fayre lined slippersfor the cold:
With buckles of the purest gold.
A belt of straw, and Ivie buds,
With Corall clasps and Amber studs,
And if these pleasures may thee move

AUTHOR TWO

The evidence is quite plain that as it was written(printed )on two different pages we are in fact dealing with two distinct authors and not one as the traditionalists would have us think.

* This poem is in fact a compilation I made earlier (shades of Blue Peter for the British here ) from 3 different poems by 3 different poets written at different times that I can give individually if required

spin · 10-06-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

No problem ... I'll wait. One thing ... you mentioned that it would be way too much trouble to type in the whole Torah to show me where all the DH divisions are. Agreed. All I'm really looking for is a list something like this ...

Gen 1:1 - 2:4a P
Gen 2:4b - 4:26 J
Gen 5:1 - 5:28 P
...
etc. through the whole Torah.

Try the links here for the individual narratives as a starter.

spin

ericmurphy · 10-06-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

It was explained long ago ... I'm not going to cover old ground

Bull Fucking Shit, to quote the prophet, Dave. You have never explained how 2 = 14, and you most certainly have not explained how in one place God instructs Noah to gather 2 of cattle specifically, and then a few verses later instructed Noah to gather 14 of all "clean" beasts.

Not that there's anything surprising about your claiming to have "explained" this glaring inconsistency, but everyone here knows for a fact that you have done no such thing.

Coleslaw · 10-06-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

It was explained long ago ... I'm not going to cover old ground

Didn't someone predict that dave would respond in exactly this way? Do we owe someone a beer?

ericmurphy · 10-06-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleslaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

It was explained long ago ... I'm not going to cover old ground

Didn't someone predict that dave would respond in exactly this way? Do we owe someone a beer?

I think everyone owes everyone a beer. I can't imagine that anyone who's been following Dave's antics for more than a month would have failed to predict this.

shirley knott · 10-06-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I have already addressed the 2 vs. 7 item.

No, you did NOT.

After all this waiting, all this anticipation... you thought you could get away with a fictional claim to have "already addressed" it?

But at least you go on to say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I would like to know why it is so strange for an author to write in general terms (2 of every kind), then get more specific (7 of the clean animals)? What's the problem here? I'm quite sure we could find many examples of this in other literature.

So now you're saying that the 7 clean animals are a subset of the 2? So 7 < 2 in your Universe?

I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to see the "many examples of this in other literature".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave, Yesterday, 03:35 PM

Are you guys trying to say that this ...

and this ...

If so, pardon me while I fall out my chair laughing. I'll explain this in my next response to Dean after I recover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave, Today, 11:40 AM

I have already addressed the 2 vs. 7 item. I would like to know why it is so strange for an author to write in general terms (2 of every kind), then get more specific (7 of the clean animals)? What's the problem here? I'm quite sure we could find many examples of this in other literature.

Dave, you seemed to have skipped right over the part where you actually explain how 2 = 14.

Please provide a link to where you addressed this, or repost the explanation here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I AM out of town and I don't have all my books with me. To answer a few questions you had though doesn't require my books.

Yes, I own Wiseman's book and have even done a book review of it here ... http://afdave.wordpress.com/2006/09/...-dawn-of-time/ ... which is now linked from the Wikipedia Wiseman Hypothesis article.

As for the evidence you are asking for which compare the supposed Genesis colophons with recently discovered tablet colophons, this is one of the books I was referring to that would be difficult to get. I gave the citations in my Genesis debate but I think they are written in German. So there are some obstacles there for obtaining these. I would like to get ahold of an English translation but this will take time.

As for your comment about Genesis being a compilation, you are correct ... I hold the view that Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch and that the compiled portions are mainly (exclusively?) in Genesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleslaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

It was explained long ago ... I'm not going to cover old ground

Didn't someone predict that dave would respond in exactly this way? Do we owe someone a beer?

No, a search shows that rather than having been predicted, this happened almost immediately. And do note that dave's response subsequent to being challenged on these issues is what we might well predict his response to be this time -- he will ignore it.
dave has no explanation. dave does not even know what an explanation is.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

judge · 10-06-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

As for the evidence you are asking for which compare the supposed Genesis colophons with recently discovered tablet colophons, this is one of the books I was referring to that would be difficult to get. I gave the citations in my Genesis debate but I think they are written in German. So there are some obstacles there for obtaining these. I would like to get ahold of an English translation but this will take time.

.

Dave, is it correct then that you have not compared the two sets of "colophons" yourself. Seeing that you think the crucial evidence is in German?

If this is correct then how can you be so sure you are right?

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

As for the evidence you are asking for which compare the supposed Genesis colophons with recently discovered tablet colophons, this is one of the books I was referring to that would be difficult to get. I gave the citations in my Genesis debate but I think they are written in German. So there are some obstacles there for obtaining these. I would like to get ahold of an English translation but this will take time.

.

Dave, is it correct then that you have not compared the two sets of "colophons" yourself. Seeing that you think the crucial evidence is in German?

If this is correct then how can you be so sure you are right?

I have not examined the ones described in the German text. But there have been several examples of colophons given right here on this thread, and the toledoths in Genesis are similar in two respects ...

1) they name the author
2) they come at the end of sections which contain information which would have been accessible to the author named in the toledoth.

Colophons are now quite well known as evidenced by this Wikipedia article ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colophon_%28publishing%29

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

10-06-2007, 06:17 AM	#662
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	afdave, was your explanation something about going from general (2 pairs) to specific (7 pairs)? If so, it was pointed out to everyone by several posters that starting with 2 pairs and changing to 7 pairs is definitely not starting general, then going to specific. I think you'd be better off to just claim God changed his mind, as there is much evidence of God changing his mind in the OT to draw upon.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.