Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 09-26-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

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:

Seconded. Dean, you're explaining the DH very well.

And you're getting a lot of help from... Dave. Thanks to his presentation, the absurdity of the Tablet Theory is clear. Especially the "cliffhanger ending" of the "Noah tablet", which Dave has shown us.

Dave Hawkins · 09-26-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

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:

Really? What claims have I changed? And BTW ... how's the Googling? Found that complete online chart of J E D P divisions yet?

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

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

His inability to understand this concept is quite puzzling - just as his inability to understand what evidence actually consists of is peculiar. According to Dave, if a given datum does not contradict a hypothesis, then it is evidence for that hypothesis. I am baffled how a person with so little understanding of logic can make any attempt to argue anything at all. :huh:

VoxRat · 09-26-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

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

Actually, I see that as a good thing.

Because it helps to show Dave (well, who am I kidding? - it helps to show the hypothetical "lurker") that these points can be logically arrived at by an objective viewer; that we're not just all parrotting Dean, whose mastery of this subject is obviously well beyond that of any of the rest of us.

Having followed many of Dave's "scientific" discussions, I have often had the impression of someone being not only completely wrong, but not even speaking the same language as the people trying to set him straight.

Here we are, though, in what should be Dave's home turf - the Bible. Not oranges and apples; not Chinese and Navajo. Very interesting. From where I sit, it's looking a lot like a rout.

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

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:

Really? What claims have I changed?

Your inability to read posts is duly noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

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 the 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. (emphasis added)

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.

Quote:

And BTW ... how's the Googling? Found that complete online chart of J E D P divisions yet?

I don't do your work, Dave. If you wish to hold a discussion with adults, you need to behave like an adult. That includes doing your own research.

Occam's Aftershave · 09-26-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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?

Er Dave, he did that already, way back on post #31 of this thread. Were you just too lazy to read it, like always?

Lucretius · 09-26-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

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:

Really? What claims have I changed? And BTW ... how's the Googling? Found that complete online chart of J E D P divisions yet?

Well Dave I just found it (on a Christian site no less) in about 3 minutes so why can't you ?

And no I won't post the link here, do some work for yourself for a change

Constant Mews · 09-26-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

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

Actually, I see that as a good thing.

Because it helps to show Dave (well, who am I kidding? - it helps to show the hypothetical "lurker") that these points can be logically arrived at by an objective viewer; that we're not just all parrotting Dean, whose mastery of this subject is obviously well beyond that of any of the rest of us.

Having followed many of Dave's "scientific" discussions, I have often had the impression of someone being not only completely wrong, but not even speaking the same language as the people trying to set him straight.

Here we are, though, in what should be Dave's home turf - the Bible. Not oranges and apples; not Chinese and Navajo. Very interesting. From where I sit, it's looking a lot like a rout.

It is remarkable how many fundamentalists are ignorant of the very basics of Biblical exegesis. I once considered this a secondary effect of their overwhelming faith that blinds them to the very real problems, contradictions, and errors in the Bible - not to mention it's blatantly erroneous conception of history. Having spent more time observing them, I suspect it comes from an inability to actually comprehend their source information without the benefit of an authority figure. Fundamentalists function on the basis of very person relationships - abstract scholarship is almost unheard of in fundie circles. What matters is the pronouncements of a visible and comprehensible authority: their pastor, father, or church leader, and by extension, the authors that those authority figures recommend.

Dave is a case in point. It is quite clear that he has never actually done any research of his own on any of the topics he has brought up - including the Bible, where he should be most secure. Most fundamentalists need to be told what to do and think. I don't know that Dave is any exception.

/derail

Dave Hawkins · 09-26-2007, 07:12 AM

Dean ...

Quote:

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.

Who are you to judge where a father's account ends and his sons' begins? They were an integral part of building the ark and sailing in it as well. It could be argued that they may have been MORE of an integral part, Noah being more the preacher and overseer, them being more involved in the details. This is speculation, of course, but what is NOT speculation is the compelling case for "these are the generations of Noah" signifying the end of Noah's account, that is ... a colophon, similar to many found on ancient Near Eastern tablets.

Quote:

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.

I am not saying that "consistency and style are "Occidental" concepts and not relevant to the Torah" ... I'm saying that YOUR (occidental) ideas of consistency and style are DIFFERENT from oriental ideas of consistency and style. Why do you arbitrarily apply YOUR ideas to this text? Why not DISCOVER the principles of consistency and style found in other ancient Near Eastern literature and evaluate the Torah in this light?

Quote:

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

Oh? How so? Where are the inconsistencies in the Flood account? Where are the contradictions?

Quote:

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.

Please explain what problems you see and why they are problems? (Flood account for now only please)

Quote:

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.

Really? Maybe I'll turn on my interlinear Hebrew and look at this unless you beat me to it.

Quote:

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.

The Hebrew scholar Cassuto explains this clearly. Read him condensed in McDowell.

Dave Hawkins · 09-26-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Really? What claims have I changed? And BTW ... how's the Googling? Found that complete online chart of J E D P divisions yet?

Well Dave I just found it (on a Christian site no less) in about 3 minutes so why can't you ?

And no I won't post the link here, do some work for yourself for a change

Really? The whole thing? I found a small snippet on a Christian site, but not the whole thing.

This game playing of withholding links with the pretense that I am lazy is ridiculous. That would be like me saying "Go to the library and read Faber for yourself." No, I went to the effort to make scans and post them. I've gone to the effort of typing in lots of McDowell when I could have just said "You're lazy ... go read the book."

How much effort can it be to post a link?

Ridiculous!

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.