Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith&Co. · 10-10-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Is there a page that lists the starting and ending points of each section?

For example ...

Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 P
Genesis 2:4a R
Genesis 2:4b - 4:24 J

In light of afDavey's performance to date, you just have to wonder what his interest is in a specific listing in this format.

He keeps harping on that. Why?

I can't believe it's for him to read for himself. Not with the other references offered.

I think it has to be for him to google. He needs the format to find one reference that will say 'some scholars will put the division at Gen 3:3, where the J ends and the P starts. (or something like that) But it can be shown that this is a false assumption. The differences in the text can be explained as...'

I'm guessing his googles failed to find the phrases: 'the DH theory is wrong because...' or 'others agreeing that the DH theory is wrong are...' or 'i fell out of my chair laughing when an atheist brought up the DH theory...'

Then again, historically, his cites only have a tangential connection to his own theories, which is revealed by anyone actually reading the site...

ck1 · 10-10-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Both of us are arguing from a position of ignorance of the culture here, so our statements are largely conjecture.
Here's another analogy for you ...

MOM: "Hubby, please go buy some groceries for me. I need 5 bags of chips and 2 cans of dip and about 4 2-liter cokes."
HUBBY: "OK. What kind of cokes do you want?"
MOM: "Oh ... let's get 2 cream sodas and 2 diet cokes."

Sounds contradictory unless you understand the culture. This culture calls all carbonated beverages cokes.

I really don't think that you or I understand the culture of those who originally wrote the passage in question to make any definite statements.

Note that Dave frames his analogy with statements suggesting that he does in fact recognize there is a real difficulty with the 2/14 passages, and that he cannot in fact provide an explanation other than some assumed "cultural difference".

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 02:02 PM

Someone objected to using Wright as a source because his piece is so old ...

If I was trying to convince you of the latest findings in genetics, you would have a valid objection.

But I'm not.

When studying historical theories, what timeframe of sources are most desirable? Especially when those theories don't benefit at all from the latest findings of archaeology? Or in fact the latest findings of any field?

If I am studying the life of George Washington, which authors are better positioned to give an accurate account of his life? Those living in the late 1700's? Or those living in the late 1900's?

Think on that a bit would ya'?

Pappy Jack · 10-10-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Both of us are arguing from a position of ignorance of the culture here, so our statements are largely conjecture.

Here's another analogy for you ...

MOM: "Hubby, please go buy some groceries for me. I need 5 bags of chips and 2 cans of dip and about 4 2-liter cokes."
HUBBY: "OK. What kind of cokes do you want?"
MOM: "Oh ... let's get 2 cream sodas and 2 diet cokes."

Sounds contradictory unless you understand the culture. This culture calls all carbonated beverages cokes.

I really don't think that you or I understand the culture of those who originally wrote the passage in question to make any definite statements.

To quote one of my favourite journalists, P J O'Rourke: What the f*ck, huh?! I mean, what the f*cking f*ck?!

2+2 can quite clearly be a subset of 4. How by any stretch of the imagination can 7 or 14 be regarded as a subset of 2 in anyone's culture, unless you're suggesting that in some bizarre way bronze age arithmetic was somehow different from any other sort of arithmetic so that sort 7 or 14 actually = 2.

spin · 10-10-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It should be clear that the breast meaning is not in the picture. It doesn't fit the context. I pointed you to Ps 82 and its meeting of gods under El. That's the image at Deir Alla as well.

I understand that the gods were thought to live on a mountain. That was established earlier. A council of mountain dwelling gods is different from one god coming to earth to enhance fertility.

Genesis 49:25 indicates "the Shaddai" (no El) specifically brings the blessings of the womb and the breasts.

You still have no real connection with "breasts". You are working on appearance between $D and $DY and nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

The meaning is not powerful, it's destructive and violent, by your own admission. Who's fudging now?

Destructive force is indicative of power. You shouldn't rely on the etymology of the word to guarantee the maintenance of the source meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Destruction is the opposite of increasing. It still doesn't make sense to me in any place El Shaddai occurs. I could see if Shaddai was shown both creating and destroying like some gods can. But that never happens in the HB. It appears it was YHWH who destroyed Sodom. :huh:

When did YHWH El syncretism take place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Later stories of Avram (Gen 14, 15) have him worshiping YHWH (even tho supposedly, again, YHWH was not supposed to appear til Moses' time) and then Avram abruptly equating El Elyon, Melchizedek's god, with YHWH.

(Actually, El Elyon is part of the last strata of the construction of Genesis. El Elyon is popular at the beginning of the 2nd c. BCE as seen in Ben Sira and works found at Qumran such as Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. Don't you find it interesting that El Elon is only found in Gen 14 and a psalm?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

We see YHWH now being the one promising Avram a child ("YHWH appeared to Avram, and said to him, "I am El Shaddai"). There is all kinds of fudging going on. Who knows how the redactors might've messed around with a Yod or two to make Shaddai appear to be male?

You won't ever know, but then you're already working from your conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

It was several someone's idea before me. (It's one of the options listed in the footnotes in the Oxford Annotated Bible along with god of the mountains and god of the Shadday [dieties].) Gods in a mountain council and a god of destruction do not fit the context where we see El Shaddai.

I work on the idea that the Deir Alla $DYYN are earlier than the Hebrew texts, that Ps 82 is one of the earlier psalms, and that they are both dependent on the same culture as that which put El's council on Mt Saphon which is visible from Ugarit (the same name Tsafon mentioned in the bible). There is a continuity in which a council of gods existed before the scribes shaped these more ancient traditions over generations to more fit the needs of their times.

spin

Occam's Aftershave · 10-10-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Someone objected to using Wright as a source because his piece is so old ...

If I was trying to convince you of the latest findings in genetics, you would have a valid objection.

But I'm not.

When studying historical theories, what timeframe of sources are most desirable? Especially when those theories don't benefit at all from the latest findings of archaeology? Or in fact the latest findings of any field?

If I am studying the life of George Washington, which authors are better positioned to give an accurate account of his life? Those living in the late 1700's? Or those living in the late 1900's?

Think on that a bit would ya'?

Are you claiming that when the authors of Genesis said "cattle", they really meant "any animal"? YES or NO Dave

Pappy Jack · 10-10-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

If I am studying the life of George Washington, which authors are better positioned to give an accurate account of his life? Those living in the late 1700's? Or those living in the late 1900's?

Think on that a bit would ya'?

And Dave demonstrates his ignorance of the historical method yet again. In this case, Dave, our best source of reliable information on the Battle of Qadesh, for instance, would be Rameses II's state-sponsored accounts? After all, they are contemporaneous accounts so they must be accurate.

BWE · 10-10-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Someone objected to using Wright as a source because his piece is so old ...

If I was trying to convince you of the latest findings in genetics, you would have a valid objection.

But I'm not.

When studying historical theories, what timeframe of sources are most desirable? Especially when those theories don't benefit at all from the latest findings of archaeology? Or in fact the latest findings of any field?

If I am studying the life of George Washington, which authors are better positioned to give an accurate account of his life? Those living in the late 1700's? Or those living in the late 1900's?

Think on that a bit would ya'?

Right but if you are talking about Maya religion, do you trust the guy who wrote in 1910 or the one who wrote in 2007? (assuming that neither were creationists and that both were scholars with access to the most up to date archeology?

er,... never mind.

-Jay- · 10-10-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Someone objected to using Wright as a source because his piece is so old ...

If I was trying to convince you of the latest findings in genetics, you would have a valid objection.

But I'm not.

When studying historical theories, what timeframe of sources are most desirable? Especially when those theories don't benefit at all from the latest findings of archaeology? Or in fact the latest findings of any field?

If I am studying the life of George Washington, which authors are better positioned to give an accurate account of his life? Those living in the late 1700's? Or those living in the late 1900's?

Think on that a bit would ya'?

You're discussing a current and active area of inquiry (the DH), and comparing it to the life of a guy that's been dead for 200 years? Your analogy is specious. You also made a grevious mistake - while the DH isn't contingent upon archaeological findings (recent or otherwise), it is well supported (*cough* consilience)by them.

By the way, Dave, do you have any idea how modern linguistics analysis gets performed? (Hint: statistical analysis plays a role).

regards,

NinJay

ericmurphy · 10-10-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Someone objected to using Wright as a source because his piece is so old ...

If I was trying to convince you of the latest findings in genetics, you would have a valid objection.

But I'm not.

When studying historical theories, what timeframe of sources are most desirable? Especially when those theories don't benefit at all from the latest findings of archaeology? Or in fact the latest findings of any field?

If I am studying the life of George Washington, which authors are better positioned to give an accurate account of his life? Those living in the late 1700's? Or those living in the late 1900's?

Think on that a bit would ya'?

Yes, Dave, I have thought about it, and I realized immediately that you have made yet ANOTHER WRONG, MISLEADING ANALOGY.

Wright was not alive in the first millennium B.C., was he? He's not talking about things he's actually witnessed, is he? He's in no way analogous to someone writing about George Washington who actually knew George washington.

There has been an immense amount of archaeological research done since Wright was alive. None of that research supports Wright's claims, which were refuted by Dean's very first post of any length on this thread. You still have not addressed the points Dean made. And nothing in your quote from Wright addresses them, either.

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

10-10-2007, 02:02 PM	#843
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Someone objected to using Wright as a source because his piece is so old ... If I was trying to convince you of the latest findings in genetics, you would have a valid objection. But I'm not. When studying historical theories, what timeframe of sources are most desirable? Especially when those theories don't benefit at all from the latest findings of archaeology? Or in fact the latest findings of any field? If I am studying the life of George Washington, which authors are better positioned to give an accurate account of his life? Those living in the late 1700's? Or those living in the late 1900's? Think on that a bit would ya'?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.