Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 06:20 AM

More importantly, I note that Dave is shifting the goalposts and dishonestly claiming that he established something that he did not.

The very first line of his OP is

Quote:

have elsewhere claimed that the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP Theory/Oral Tradition) is receiving increasing skepticism by scholars and I have claimed that bthe assumptions which underpin the DH have all been refuted. (emphasis added)

And yet now Dave claims

Quote:

My claim was that all the presuppositions which gave rise to the DH have been refuted. They have, so my mission is accomplished.

So Dave - unable to refute Dean's points - simply changes his story and declares victory.

This is dishonest, I'm afraid.

Dave, you have done nothing to even establish that your 'presuppositions' underpin the DH. Nothing.

Should we expect this kind of nonsensical moving of goalposts, and irrational behavior for the remainder of this thread? That is, until you are faced with too many contradictions and you bail out.

Lucretius · 09-26-2007, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

A CRITIQUE OF DEAN'S DIVISION OF THE FLOOD STORY

APPLYING OCCIDENTAL THINKING TO ORIENTAL WRITING
Dean doesn't come out and say it (unaware of it?), but he unwittingly applies his Western thinking about literature to ancient, oriental text. Gleason Archer writes ... Gleason Archer is yet another leading scholar critical of the DH. He was a graduate of Harvard University, Suffolk Law School and Princeton Theological Seminary and chaired the Department of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. (See McDowell p. 55)

So in Dean's post yesterday, we find that his "Occidental concepts of consistency and style" have indeed been offended by the traditional understanding of the text. Dean says that "each of these stories stands alone with fluent narrative and with a distinct style" and of course this is true, but misses the point. DH advocates are correct in observing that there should be a division of some sort, but what kind of division is warranted is the real key. The important question is "What basis do you have for separating the text into two accounts?" It appears that your basis is nothing more than your "occidental concepts of consistency and style." And the obvious question is "Why should we apply those concepts to ancient Oriental literature?" and the answer is "We should not." The text can also be separated along the lines of the Tablet Theory and doing so also gives two fluent narratives with consistent styles. What warrant do we have for doing so? Archaeological discoveries. Many tablets which have now (after the rise of the DH) been discovered make use of the same type of "colophon" at the end of the account. Many inscriptions contain repetitive accounts with slightly different perspectives, similar to what we find in the Book of Genesis. (I could post examples upon request)

So the divisions under the Tablet Theory are warranted and supported by archaeology. The divisions of the DH are not. They are arbitrary and biased by the 19th century, occidental viewpoint of the DH promoters.

Dave are you actually saying that as we are mostly "Occidentals " here , there is no way we can accurately interpret the "Oriental " Bible as our minds don't work in the same way as the writers of the book ?
Whoops there goes centuries of "Occidental Christian Theology " down the toilet then !
How then can Wiseman (an "Occidental " by the way ) interpert using "Oriental" thought processes ?
Unless of course you are ASSUMING that Wiseman is a Jewish name and therefore he "thinks that way "

-Jay- · 09-26-2007, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

TABLET THEORY FLOOD STORY DIVISIONS
Let's observe the divisions according to the Tablet theory (I'll put in quotes to set it off, but I'm not actually quoting anyone) ...

Quote:

LAST PORTION OF "ADAM TABLET" (Begins at 2:4b)
...
[large chunk of Genesis deleted for space]
...
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
5:1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. (Toledoth - "signature" of the author - commonly found in ancient tablets)
END OF "ADAM" TABLET

BEGINNING OF "NOAH" TABLET
In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
...
[large chunk of Genesis deleted for space]
...

So as you can see, with these divisions, we also have a fluent narrative within each tablet with no apparent contradictions in style or any other problems within each tablet.

This is your basis for discarding the DH? Breaking verses in the middle to make them sort of almost resemble colphons if you squint at them in dim light? And you're surprised when people don't take you seriously?

And in a subsequent post, this gem, directed to Dean Anderson:

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

You picked the Flood Story and divided it up according to the DH. What basis do you have for doing so? What do you see wrong with the Tablet Theory divsion of the Flood story?

Obviously, he divided the Flood story in accordance with the criteria of the DH, which he clearly detailed back at the start of this thread. Nice duck and weave, there...

regards,

NinJay

Codec · 09-26-2007, 06:35 AM

But this division doesn't help any, other than just inserting bookmarks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

A CRITIQUE OF DEAN'S DIVISION OF THE FLOOD STORY
...

TABLET THEORY FLOOD STORY DIVISIONS
Let's observe the divisions according to the Tablet theory (I'll put in quotes to set it off, but I'm not actually quoting anyone) ...

Quote:

LAST PORTION OF "ADAM TABLET" (Begins at 2:4b)
...
4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
...

BEGINNING OF "SONS OF NOAH" TABLET
Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
...
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22 ¶ Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
7:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 ¶ And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 ¶ In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
17 ¶ And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
8:1 ¶ And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4 ¶ And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
...
END OF "SONS OF NOAH" TABLET

The problem with this splitting is that it doesn't make much more sense. We still have the problem with 2's and 7's, the time the flood was on the ground, the dove/raven issue and several others that could be indicated (shown in red). There are a whole load of stylistic and religious issues too.

The DH makes things much clearer in its interpretation, so it has more consistency and consilience. This is why it has support, you get a better version with the DH breakdown.

Dean Anderson · 09-26-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVERYTHING, BUT DEAN IS IGNORING THEM

Once again, Dave completely fails to acknowledge that the DH stands or fails on the evidence regardless of what the motives of its inventors may or may not have been.

And once again, Dave repeats his assertions that the DH depends on his list of presuppositions - despite the fact that it has repeatedly been pointed out to him that the evidence I have presented in support of the DH does not rely on them and is equally strong (or weak, if that is the case) regardless of whether they are true or not.

Quote:

APPLYING OCCIDENTAL THINKING TO ORIENTAL WRITING

Quote:

It appears that your basis is nothing more than your "occidental concepts of consistency and style." And the obvious question is "Why should we apply those concepts to ancient Oriental literature?" and the answer is "We should not."

The answer is because such division of the text is consilient with the age of the language used in the text, the interests of the text, the duplication of text, and so on...

You (and Archer - who is a YEC inerrantist apologist, but I suppose that is what passes for "scholar" in your neck of the woods) are missing the point.

Saying that we cannot apply our modern concepts of style to ancient writings because the authors would not have recognised them is like saying we can not apply our modern concept of germ theory to explain the Black Death because the victims would not have recognised them.

We - with our increased education and literacy - can easily recognise the idiolect of individual writers. We can recognise their individual styles. Teachers and lecturers do this every day when noticing plagarism in work that they have been handed. Even we here at IIDB do it when we notice that some posters are re-incarnations of previously banned users.

That the writers and their contemporaries may not have recognised the individual idiolects and styles of authors, and not even had the concept of ideolects, doesn't mean that we can't recognise them when looking at the same authors.

And I can't believe that - coming from an inerrantist - a statement that consistency was not important to the writers of the Bible is anything other than simple rhetoric.

Quote:

The text can also be separated along the lines of the Tablet Theory and doing so also gives two fluent narratives with consistent styles. What warrant do we have for doing so? Archaeological discoveries. Many tablets which have now (after the rise of the DH) been discovered make use of the same type of "colophon" at the end of the account.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the Toledoths are of the same type as colophons.

Quote:

TABLET THEORY FLOOD STORY DIVISIONS

Notice that "Noah's tablet" stops at a crucial point in the narrative, and doesn't even mention any of his life's work building the ark and sailing in it - hardly the place someone is likely to finish a record of their life that they are leaving for posterity.

Notice also that Dave is trying to have his cake an eat it here. He has just spent most of his post saying that consistency and style are "Occidental" concepts and not relevant to the Torah - yet he presents his version of the narratives as having "no apparent contradictions in style"; judging them by the very concepts that he is claiming it is not valid to judge them by.

He is, of course, wrong when claiming consistency in style and lack of contradictions, anyway.

His splitting of the flood account leaves the usual problems in the text (were there two of each clean animal, or fourteen? were the waters on the earth for 40 days or 150 days? and so on...) which the DH takes out because they end up in the separate accounts.

Dave also said in an earlier post that we should expect to see both Elohim and Yahweh from the same author, because there are both used in different situations according to strict rules. By the DH splitting, one author uses Yahweh exclusively and the other uses Elohim exclusively (within this story, that is - they both use both in other places). By Dave's splitting, though, a single author switches between the two on almost a verse by verse basis - using both in exactly the same context.

So what are these strict rules about usage of the two names, Dave? Tell us what they are, so we can see that the author is following them.

Dean Anderson · 09-26-2007, 06:40 AM

Damn, you guys! By the time I've posted, you've pre-empted many of my points...

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Damn, you guys! By the time I've posted, you've pre-empted many of my points...

My apologies. You are, by the way, doing a superb job. When Dave is reduced to subterfuge and has to change his original claims, then you have shown how clearly vacuous his points are to the uninitiated lurker. :notworthy:

Occam's Aftershave · 09-26-2007, 06:49 AM

AFDave has demonstrated many times that doesn't understand consilience in the scientific realm. Why do you expect him to understand it here?

Jack the Bodiless · 09-26-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Absolute nonsense. Reveals the "early Hebrews were ignorant of science" bias. But please start a new thread somewhere else to discuss this. This thread is about the Book of Genesis.

Dave, you don't have a very good track record of actually responding to other threads. How many posts do you have on afdave and prophecy? Oh, yes... none. Basically the same pattern we've seen on the many E/C threads relating to the evidence we should have found if there really had been a global Flood.

But if you really ARE prepared to discuss it... why don't you start a thread? Call me cynical, but I suspect that if I were to do it, I'd be just cluttering the boards with another ignored thread.

Here's a nice diagram for the OP:

(from the New American Bible, St. Joseph edition)
...And a link to kick things off...

Quote:

Biblical references to this cosmology (specifically, the notion of a solid Firmament with Heaven above it) include the creation of the Firmament in Genesis 1:6; God opening windows in the Firmament in Genesis 7:11 to let water rain down, and closing them again in Genesis 8:2; the construction of a tall tower to reach Heaven in Genesis 11:4; celestial warehouses for snow and hail in Job 38:22, the sky as a strong crystalline material in Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22; the sky as a tent in Isaiah 40:22; stars as small objects attached to the Firmament (which can fall off) in Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 8:10, Revelation 9:1 and Revelation 12:4 (apologists sometimes claim that these "falling stars" are meteors, but the swipe of a dragon's tail dislodges one-third of all the stars in the sky in Revelation 12:4).

The heavens are "rolled back like a scroll" in Revelation 6:14: however, as stars are apparently still being knocked off the Firmament in subsequent verses, it's unclear which layer is being removed at this point.

This can go straight into the OP of the new thread... if you're REALLY up for it, Dave.

Now, by all means, let's get back to your ongoing destruction of your own "Tablet Theory", Dave.

Dave Hawkins · 09-26-2007, 06:53 AM

Dean ...

Quote:

because such division of the text is consilient with the age of the language used in the text, the interests of the text, the duplication of text, and so on...

Really? Can you demonstrate this and explain this please?

Quote:

Saying that we cannot apply our modern concepts of style to ancient writings because the authors would not have recognised them is like saying we can not apply our modern concept of germ theory to explain the Black Death because the victims would not have recognised them.

No, it's not even close. What I am saying is that the DH advocates did not even bother to consider ancient Near East literary styles and practices. Why didn't they? Archaeology was in it's infancy and they didn't have many examples to compare to. But they did have some, and they ignored them.

Your comparison with the Black Death scenario is ridiculous. You are trying to somehow say that in the same way as our knowledge has increased about germs, the DH advocates knowledge had increased, thus enabling them to explain the Genesis text better than the Jews themselves??!! Gimme a break. Besides, their knowledge was actually very poor. They either weren't aware of or ignored the evidence or archaeology.

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

09-26-2007, 06:40 AM	#286
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Damn, you guys! By the time I've posted, you've pre-empted many of my points...

09-26-2007, 06:49 AM	#288
Occam's Aftershave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: California Posts: 2,215	AFDave has demonstrated many times that doesn't understand consilience in the scientific realm. Why do you expect him to understand it here?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.