Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 10-10-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Great catch. The evolution of polytheism to monotheism has occurred many times in human history. I see the evolution as inevitable. It's the old, "My god can beat up your god" argument taken to its logical extreme.

Archaeological evidence actually indicates just the opposite of this, that is MONO >>> POLY

Petrie and Langdon: Early Egyptians were monotheists
More on Early Egyptian Monotheism
H.H. Frankfort on Sumerian Monotheism

This is just silly. In the first place, your list of sources is just a list of IIDB threads where you got spanked on all these claims.

As for one source you used, Wallis Budge:

Quote:

Budge seems to have felt that he had something to prove to his contemporaries, for he published works at an alarming rate, often sacrificing attention to detail to quantity of publications, and though his books remain widely available, obviously a century later his work has become outdated. Yet, though Budge was not always careful about detail in his works, we should remember that he was unusual among scholars in the "lumpers and splitters" categories -- while most of his contemporaries were specialists (or "splitters") who established a small corner of their profession as their own and dug deeper and deeper into this specialty, Budge the "lumper" enthusiastically studied huge periods and enormous problems across periods, cultures and disciplines, producing vast and readable narratives which contributed much with their scope and synthesizing power, which could, however, be criticized in their details by the specialists, most of whom lacked his scholarly imagination.

Dave Hawkins · 10-10-2007, 10:09 AM

EXCERPTS FROM "THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH"
BY PROFESSOR GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, D. D., LL. D., OBERLIN COLLEGE, OBERLIN, OHIO
http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/fundamentals/02.htm

I would highly encourage you to read this piece in full, but I will excerpt some of the more interesting parts ...

STRONG MOSAIC TRADITION THROWS BURDEN OF PROOF ON CRITICS

Quote:

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has until very recent times been accepted without question by both Jews and Christians. Such acceptance, coming down to us in unbroken line from the earliest times of which we have any information, gives it the support of what is called general consent, which, while perhaps not absolutely conclusive, compels those who would discredit it to produce incontrovertible opposing evidence. But the evidence which the critics produce in this case is wholly circumstantial, consisting of inferences derived from a literary analysis of the documents and from the application of a discredited evolutionary theory concerning the development of human institutions.

**********************************************

THE PRO-DH ARGUMENT FAILS FROM LITERARY ANALYSIS

CRITICS FAILED TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL HEBREW TEXT

Quote:

It is an instructive commentary upon the scholarly pretensions of this whole school of critics that, without adequate examination of the facts, they have based their analysis of the Pentateuch upon the text which is found in our ordinary Hebrew Bibles. While the students of the New Testament have expended an immense amount of effort in the comparison of manuscripts, and versions, and quotations to determine the original text, these Old Testament critics have done scarcely anything in that direction. This is certainly a most unscholarly proceeding, yet it is admitted to be the fact by a higher critic of no less eminence than Principal J. Skinner of Cambridge, England, who has been compelled to write: “I do not happen to know of any work which deals exhaustively with the subject, the determination of the original Hebrew texts from the critical standpoints.”

THE CRITICS, NOT HAVING DONE THEIR HOMEWORK SAY THAT ...

Quote:

Now the original critical division into documents was made on the supposition that several hundred years later than Moses there arose two schools of writers, one of which, in Judah, used the word “Jehovah” when they spoke of the deity, and the other, in the Northern Kingdom, “Elohim.” And so the critics came to designate one set of passages as belonging to the J document and the other to the E document. These they supposed had been cut up and pieced together by a later editor so as to make the existing continuous narrative. But when, as frequently occurred, one of these words is found in passages where it is thought the other word should have been used, it is supposed, wholly on theoretical grounds, that a mistake had been made by the editor, or, as they call him, the “redactor,” and so with no further ceremony the objection is arbitrarily removed without consulting the direct textual evidence.

IF THE CRITICS HAD DONE THEIR HOMEWORK, THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND ...

Quote:

But upon comparing the early texts, versions, and quotations it appears that the words, “Jehovah” and “Elohim,” were so nearly synonymous that there was originally little uniformity in their use. Jehovah is the Jewish name of the deity, and Elohim the title. The use of the words is precisely like that of the English in referring to their king or the Americans to their president. In ordinary usage, “George V.”, “the king,” and “King George” are synonymous in their meaning. Similarly “Taft,” “the president,” and “President Taft” are used by Americans during his term of office to indicate an identical concept. So it was with the Hebrews. “Jehovah” was the name, “Elohim” the title, and “Jehovah Elohim” Lord God — signified nothing more. Now on consulting the evidence, it appears that while in Genesis and the first three chapters of Exodus (where this clue was supposed to be most decisive) Jehovah occurs in the Hebrew text 148 times, in 118 of these places other texts have either Elohim or Jehovah Elohim. In the same section, while Elohim alone occurs 179 times in the Hebrew, in 49 of the passages one or the other designation takes its place; and in the second and third chapters of Genesis where the Hebrew text has Jehovah Elohim (LORD God) 23 times, there is only one passage in which all the texts are unanimous on this point.

THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE CRITICS IS UTTERLY DESTROYED ...

Quote:

These facts, which are now amply verified, utterly destroy the value of the clue which the higher critics have all along ostentatiously put forward to justify their division of the Pentateuch into conflicting E and J documents, and this the critics themselves are now compelled to admit.

LEGITIMATE CRITICISM REMOVES THE "JETHRO" DIFFICULTY ENTIRELY ...

Quote:

On further examination, in the light of present knowledge (as Wiener and Dahse abundantly show), legitimate criticism removes a large number of the alleged difficulties which are put forward by higher critics and renders of no value many of the supposed clues to the various documents. We have space to notice but one or two of these. In the Massoretic text of Exodus 18:6 we read that Jethro says to Moses, “I thy father-in-law Jethro am come,” while in the seventh verse it is said that Moses goes out to meet his father-in-law and that they exchange greetings and then come into the tent. But how could Jethro speak to Moses before they had had a meeting? The critics say that this confusion arises from the bungling patchwork of an editor who put two discordant accounts together without attempting to cover up the discrepancy. But scientific textual criticism completely removes the difficulty. The Septuagint, the old Syriac version, and a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, instead of “I thy father-in-law Jethro am come”, read, “And one said unto Moses, behold thy father-in-law Jethro” comes. Here the corruption of a single letter in the Hebrew gives us “behold” in place of “I”. When this is observed the objection disappears entirely.

LEGITIMATE CRITICISM REMOVES THE "KEEPER OF THE PRISON" DIFFICULTY ENTIRELY ...

Quote:

Again, in Genesis 39:20-22 Joseph is said to have been put into the prison “where the king’s prisoners were bound. . . . And the keeper of the prison” promoted him. But in 40:2-4,7 it is said that he was “in ward of the house of the captain of the guard... and the captain of the guard” promoted Joseph. But this discrepancy disappears as soon as an effort is made to determine the original text. In Hebrew, “keeper of the prison” and “captain of the guard” both begin with the same word and in the passages where the “captain of the guard” causes trouble by its appearance, the Septuagint either omitted the phrase or read “keeper of the prison,” in one case being supported also by the Vulgate. In many other instances also, attention to the original text removes the difficulties which have been manufactured from apparent discrepancies in the narrative.

ANYONE CAN SLICE AND DICE TEXT AND MAKE IT DO WHATEVER THEY WISH ...

Quote:

The absurdity of the claims of the higher critics to having established the existence of different documents in the Pentateuch by a literary analysis has been shown by a variety of examples. The late Professor C. M. Mead, the most influential of the American revisers of the translation of the Old Testament, in order to exhibit the fallacy of their procedure, took the Book of Romans and arbitrarily divided it into three parts, according as the words “Christ Jesus,” “Jesus,” or “God” were used; and then by analysis showed that the lists of peculiar words characteristic of these three passages were even more remarkable than those drawn up by the destructive critics of the Pentateuch from the three leading fragments into which they had divided it. The argument from literary analysis after the methods of these critics would prove the composite character of the Epistle to the Romans as fully as that of the critics would prove the composite character of the Pentateuch. A distinguished scholar, Dr. Hayman, formerly head-master of Rugby, by a similar analysis demonstrated the composite character of Robert Burns’ little poem addressed to a mouse, half of which is in the purest English and the other half in the broadest Scotch dialect. By the same process it would be easy to prove three Macaulays and three Miltons by selecting lists of words from the documents prepared by them when holding high political offices and from their various prose and poetical writings.

***********************************************

THE POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP

Quote:

Before proceeding to give in conclusion a brief summary of the circumstantial evidence supporting the ordinary belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch it is important to define the term. By it we do not mean that Moses wrote all the Pentateuch with his own hand, or that there were no editorial additions made after his death. Moses was the author of the Pentateuchal Code, as Napoleon was of the code which goes under his name. Apparently the Book of Genesis is largely made up from existing documents, of which the history of the expedition of Amraphel in chapter 14 is a noted specimen; while the account of Moses’ death, and a few other passages are evidently later editorial additions. But these are not enough to affect the general proposition. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is supported by the following, among other weighty considerations:

1. The Mosaic era was a literary epoch in the world’s history when such Codes were common. It would have been strange if such a leader had not produced a code of laws. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets and the Code of Hammurabi testify to the literary habits of the time.

2. The Pentateuch so perfectly reflects the conditions in Egypt at the period assigned to it that it is difficult to believe that it was a literary product of a later age.

3. Its representation of life in the wilderness is so perfect and so many of its laws are adapted only to that life that it is incredible that literary men a thousand years later should have imagined it.

4. The laws themselves bear indubitable marks of adaptation to the stage of national development to which they are ascribed. It was the study of Maine’s works on ancient law that set Mr. Wiener out upon his re-investigation of the subject.

5. The little use that is made of the sanctions of a future life is, as Bishop Warburton ably argued, evidence of an early date and of a peculiar Divine effort to guard the Israelites against the contamination of Egyptian ideas upon the subject.

6. The omission of the hen from the lists of clean and unclean birds is incredible if these lists were made late in the nation’s history after that domestic fowl had been introduced from India.

7. As A. C. Robinson showed in Volume VII of this series it is incredible that there should have been no intimation in the Pentateuch of the existence of Jerusalem, or of the use of music in the liturgy, nor any use of the phrase, “Lord Of Hosts,” unless the compilation had been completed before the time of David.

8. The subordination of the miraculous elements in the Pentateuch to the critical junctures in the nation’s development is such as could be obtained only in genuine history.

9. The whole representation conforms to the true law of historical development. Nations do not rise by virtue of inherent resident forces, but through the struggles of great leaders enlightened directly from on high or by contact with others who have already been enlightened.

The defender of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has no occasion to quail in presence of the critics who deny that authorship and discredit its history. He may boldly challenge their scholarship, deny their conclusions, resent their arrogance, and hold on to his confidence in the well authenticated historical evidence which sufficed for those who first accepted it. Those who now at second hand are popularizing in periodicals, Sunday School lessons, and volumes of greater or less pretensions the errors of these critics must answer to their consciences as best they can, but they should be made to feel that they assume a heavy responsibility in putting themselves forward as leaders of the blind when they themselves are not able to see.

Again ... here's the link. Please read the whole thing and comment.
http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/fundamentals/02.htm

Occam's Aftershave · 10-10-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

It's worse than that. The previous instructions specifically pick out cattle and fowl - two types of clean animal - as animals that there are to be two of.

The apologetic Dave linked to deals with this contradiction by simply pretending it doesn't exist, and cutting off the first quote before the specifics are mentioned.

In other words, they are prepared to quote-mine their own Bible in order to make it appear inerrant.

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.

So think that early culture called all animals "cattle" and "fowl"??? Is that your claim??

Does your back ever hurt from all the contortions you try to do Dave?

No Robots · 10-10-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Please read the whole thing and comment.

It doesn't even mention Spinoza:

We must also remark that the history relates not only the manner of Moses' death and burial, and the thirty days' mourning of the Hebrews, but further compares him with all the prophets who came after him, and states that he surpassed them all. "There was never a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." Such testimony cannot have been given of Moses by himself, nor by any who immediately succeeded him, but it must come from someone who lived centuries afterwards, especially, as the historian speaks of past times. "There was never a prophet," &c. And of the place of burial, "No one knows it to this day."

-Jay- · 10-10-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

EXCERPTS FROM "THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH"
BY PROFESSOR GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, D. D., LL. D., OBERLIN COLLEGE, OBERLIN, OHIO
http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/fundamentals/02.htm

<...major snippage...>

Are you serious, Dave? Are you seriously trying to foist off an apologetic document from 1917 as refutation of the 2007 state of the DH? You have got to be kidding. What did you do? Go to Wikipedia, follow the link from there, and start chopping? Do you honestly believe that something written 90 years ago makes a reasonable critique of a modern textual criticism? Hell, Wright was dead for a quarter century before the Dead Sea Scrolls started turning up.

Do you have any idea how desperate your position is?

regards,

NinJay

Stephen T-B · 10-10-2007, 10:41 AM

I had thought that if afdave read through the texts posted by Dean, one or two things about the story told in them would have jumped out at him.
Like:
Ch 7 vs4 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...

Ch 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

So god's drowning of every living substance on earth hadn't worked. An olive tree had survived it (plus that catastrophic, cataclismic, earth-moving thing that afdave says re-shaped the globe)!

And:
8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto Yahweh; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
So much for preserving two (or was it 7, or 14?) of all those clean animals. Noah gets off the Ark and promptly sacrifices the lot of them.

ck1 · 10-10-2007, 10:46 AM

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.

If you think that massive cultural differences prevent us from understanding the 2/14 discrepancy, why don't these same cultural differences interfere with our understanding of the rest of the Flood story? And, given this cultural problem, why do you then accept that flood story as an accurate account of an historical event?

Magdlyn · 10-10-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

7. As A. C. Robinson showed in Volume VII of this series it is incredible that there should have been no intimation in the Pentateuch of the existence of Jerusalem, or of the use of music in the liturgy, nor any use of the phrase, “Lord Of Hosts,” unless the compilation had been completed before the time of David.

What does this mean, dave?

Anyone?

Keith&Co. · 10-10-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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.

Completely off point, dave. 2 and 2 could be a subset of 'get four sodas.'

But seven isn't a subset of 2.

It's more that they're having a party and she sends him to the store. She asks for him to pick up a variety of sodas, 2 of each type (root beer, cola, diet, and so on).

When he gets to the store, he knows (in contradiction to what she's reported as saying) that she told him to get 7 Coca-Colas, because it's the most popular drink of those attending the party.

When he gets back, he reports that he was successful, and was able to get 2 of each type of soda on her list.

Keith&Co. · 10-10-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

So god's drowning of every living substance on earth hadn't worked. An olive tree had survived it (plus that catastrophic, cataclismic, earth-moving thing that afdave says re-shaped the globe)!

But plants aren't life forms in the OT.
The authors didn't consider them alive, because they weren't observed to breathe.
Same as the insects, spiders, shellfish. No-breathey, No livey.

But you're right, the idea that all fossil layers were set down by the Flood is kinda hard to justify with plants still being in place when the waters receded.

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

10-10-2007, 10:41 AM	#826
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	I had thought that if afdave read through the texts posted by Dean, one or two things about the story told in them would have jumped out at him. Like: Ch 7 vs4 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... Ch 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. So god's drowning of every living substance on earth hadn't worked. An olive tree had survived it (plus that catastrophic, cataclismic, earth-moving thing that afdave says re-shaped the globe)! And: 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto Yahweh; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. So much for preserving two (or was it 7, or 14?) of all those clean animals. Noah gets off the Ark and promptly sacrifices the lot of them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.