Mike PSS

Dave,
Why don't you give us a REAL analogy. Like a medieval farmer, who owns cows and ducks, and is given an order from the taxman to deliver his animals to the authorities for taxation purposes, and the order is read in the same sequence as Genesis 6 and 7.

Maybe then you'll actually answer the questions given. This is NOT an answer Dave. It's mud.

So I'll ask again. While your picking yourself up off the floor from laughing so hard you fell out of your seat could you explain the inconsistency of the Genesis Text where it says take 2 of each kind of cow and 2 of each kind of fowl (contained in Genesis 6) while further on it says take sevens, male and female, of every fowl and every clean creature (of which cows are a subset of) and then the text says make sure to place 2 of these on the ark with no mention of the other 6 pairs mentioned prior (contained in Genesis 7)?

Will you answer this Dave? "I don't know." is a reasonable answer. What you posted above is NOT an answer.

ETA: Thank you Dean Anderson for all your hard editing work. It has not gone unnoticed. e-Beers for everyone, my treat.

VoxRat

I suspect we all, including Dave, know the answer to this:

The inconsistency is real, and arises from the fact that the Documentary Hypothesis is basically correct - that the Torah is a quiltwork of documents sutured together by a literary Dr. Frankenstein (or committee of Dr. Frankensteins) - AND - from the fact that, quite independent of the Documentary Hypothesis, the source accounts are entirely mythical, with little* or no grounding in actual fact that could be used to sort out these inconsistencies. And that, therefore, no "analogy", "explanation", "interpretation", tortured logic, desperate evasion, brave bluster, pathetic ("falling out of chair laughing") attempt at ridicule, or simply ignoring can make the problem go away.

*Note, I don't rule out the possibility - likelihood, even - that there was, for instance, some contact between the proto-Jews and the local superpower known as Egypt. I would be surprised, for instance, if Egyptians didn't have some proto-Jewish slaves, just as the Romans had Greek, Gallic, etc. slaves. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some local flood event that inspired the Noah story... etc.

ck1

Is it possible that this 2/14 discrepancy could be attributed in any way to translation-difficulties? My understanding is that, for example, the "seven" passages can and have been interpreted by different translators as seven animals vs seven pairs of animals.

Is it possible that the first passage could mean "at least" two of each? And that the last passage simply means that the animals entered the ark in pairs (not that each "kind" was restricted to one pair)?

How did the early church explain these passages (pre-DH)?

(And thanks to Dean Anderson for the JEPD Torah split - nice to have.)

deadman_932

Which makes perfect sense culturally -- Just as the Aztecs took on the legends and stylistics of the Teotihuacan culture that preceded them, and did so to give an air of legitimacy to the Aztec rule. The Nazis -- even in modern times -- appropriated a mythologized "Aryanism" to mystify and legitimize their claims. And there are MANY such examples available in history/anthropology. Mormons, anyone?

Hell, legitimization is WHY so many cultures claim to be descended from Gods or from other mystical antecedents -- it enables leaders to claim divine/mystical RIGHTS

Similarly, the Hebrew forefathers appropriated not just the creation mythos of the Babylonians/Sumerians, they used Babylonian words and Babylonian stylistics (colophon/toldedoth) and they merely placed themselves at the center of that mythos -- complete with characters that exalt...themselves.

Magdlyn

2 things:

One of the "Israelite"/Semitic names found in Egypt, used in afdave's "proof of Exodus," is Asher. Asher also happens to be the name of one of Jacob's sons, who was said to be the patriarch of one of the original tribes of the Hebrews.

Asher is obviously a male name which honors Asherah, the so-called "abomination" of Canaan. Gotta love it. But anyway, that's a non sequitor.

Back on topic: the tired "from general to specific" apology for the 2=14 animals business is also used by apologists to explain the discrepancies between the 2 creation stories in Genesis.


Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And Elohim made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after his kind: and Elohim saw that it was good. And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image.... So Elohim created man in his own image.

contradicts:

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And YHWH said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper for him. And out of the ground YHWH formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was their name.

and

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created them, male and female he created them.

contradicts

Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And YHWH said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper. And out of the ground YHWH formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.... And YHWH caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which YHWH had taken from man, he made into a woman.


In contrast with the elegant simplicity of the DH, here is the convoluted hot mess of the "general to specific" effort for your information and irritainment:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513

Magdlyn

The comical story of Esther/Ishtar and Mordecai/Marduk also being an obvious case in point. :Cheeky:

Agenda07

Dean,

I'm sure that Dave will find some other excuse for evading your arguments despite all your hard work, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the time you're putting into this debate. Before this thread, I'd barely even heard of the Documentary Hypothesis. I'm sure there are a lot of other lurkers like me who are learning huge amounts from your posts and I second Lucretius when he says that you're a bloody good bloke. :notworthy:

-Jay-

Esther. One of my favorite examples of Biblical Porn. Dave - did Esther take part in a "beauty contest" or a sex contest? You do know what the euphemism "go in unto" means, don't you?

regards,

NinJay
2=/=14

Cege

Thanks to Busy Bee Dean for all that work. I've bookmarked The JEPD Sources of the Documentary Hypothesis for further study and reference.

FatherMithras

I'm PMing dave about the cattle. I already noted, as have numerous others, that dave's potential explanation could be considered valid, if not for the glaring cattle bit. I suggest bringing this up in every question about the 2=14 issue.