Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 09-21-2013, 06:24 PM

Google books also has a preview of On the Reliability of the Old Testament available here.

semiopen · 09-23-2013, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

I'm totally in agreement with the two source hypothesis - highly persuasive.

The underlying idea behind this thread is to see if we can beat Genesis literalists at their own game: assume that Genesis pertains to be a literal historical record written close to the events described then point out the anachronisms that undermine its credibility. So far it seems we've got four nail-on anachronisms (the three in the OP plus clean/unclean and Noah) and one likely anachronism (shekel in Genesis probably meaning coin). If we had a few more there might be scope for anachronismsingenesis.com and provoke answersingenesis to produce at least a page of weedling excuses.

We don't see many literalists on here at the moment. Apparently, Arnoldo shows up here only to promote his bromance with Kitchen, and Duvi specializes in criticizing Christianity.

A literalist is basically arguing that 2+2=5, personally, there is no great satisfaction in winning a debate and only the downside of somehow losing.

It might be pointed out that

Umberto_Cassuto(who I referred to above),

Quote:

proposed the Pentateuch was written down as a single, entirely coherent and unified text in the 10th century BC and not thereafter altered in any meaningful way

This guy is infinitely more intelligent that the people you propose to debate.

Quote:

Scholars such as Rolf Rendtorff and John Van Seters [who I mentioned above] have put also forward theories on Pentateuchal historical origins very like Cassuto's, at least insofar as their views on its mode of composition are concerned. Modern ideas about the dating of the Torah, however, have not endorsed Cassuto's specific early historical dating, and the trend today is for the final act of composition to be seen as lying in the period 500-400 BC, or even later.

Regarding the sources -

The Documentary Sources in Genesis

it seems to be a mistake to argue the documentary hypothesis with a literalist for the practical reason that an intelligent literalist can point out deficiencies in the hypothesis. The existence of anachronisms, different sources, etc. are hardly the major reasons that a literalist interpretation of the bible fails.

Tommy · 09-23-2013, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

It might be pointed out that

Umberto_Cassuto(who I referred to above),

proposed the Pentateuch was written down as a single, entirely coherent and unified text in the 10th century BC and not thereafter altered in any meaningful way

This guy is infinitely more intelligent that the people you propose to debate.

"Infinitely more intelligent"? - bold words! Even if Cassuto were right and the Torah was written by one hand it could only have been centuries after Enoch, Reuben and Aaron and thus unreliable regarding conversations in Eden, genealogies and the details of the tabernacle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

it seems to be a mistake to argue the documentary hypothesis with a literalist for the practical reason that an intelligent literalist can point out deficiencies in the hypothesis. The existence of anachronisms, different sources, etc. are hardly the major reasons that a literalist interpretation of the bible fails.

Oh, I agree totally, never mention any hypothesis or literalists will be wetting themselves and high-fiving each other. However, anachronisms are a tool for determining a source's credibility and cannot be ignored.

Cheerful Charlie · 09-26-2013, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Do you folks think the following details are anachronistic?

1) According to Gen 4:22 Tubalcain (who shared a father with Noah) was working iron a mere eight generations after creation. In older and more literal translations he is described as "an instructor in every artificer...in iron" and thus the source of all iron-working knowledge. However, archeological evidence indicates that the iron age didn't begin in the Near East until 1300 BCE. This seems to place the writing of Genesis to at least a millenium after the events it purports to record.

2) Genesis 2:5-6 tells us that it hadn't yet rained and a mist/stream from the earth watered the ground. A few verses later - with no mention of rain in the interim - we are told that a river flew out of Eden and split into four, one of which was the Euphrates. The modern Euphrates which flows from the Turkish highlands couldn't possibly follow the same course as a river fed from the ground. Even if it had rained by then surely the tectonic and topographic upheaval associated with the fountains of the deep breaking up would have meant that rivers pre- and post-deluge couldn't have followed the same courses and thus be known by the same name.

3) Genesis 3:24 tells us the Lord God placed Cherubims to bar the way to the Tree of Life. Cherubims guard doors in Babylonian and Assyrian mythology - mythologies that do not specify Adam, Eve or Eden. Either the Babylonians were privy to one detail of the creation of the world or the authors of Genesis borrowed the concept from the Babylonians.

Points 2 and 3 would make you think that the composition of Genesis occurred during the Babylonian captivity. Are there any other likely anachronisms in Genesis? Seem to recall something about camels.

Years ago in the usenet group biblical inerrancy, I posted about the Tubalcain myth. Yes its an anachronism. Iron working was invented 1200 CE, about the time the proto-Israelites were creating their hilltop settlements. Tubalcain was a myth set centuries before that by biblical pseudo-history. A clear annachronism.

2. You're right about the Euphrates. Other mysteries, post flood we still had the sandy plains of Mesopotamia and the Tigris and Euphrates. Yet creationists insist that tall mountains with their fossils were created in the flood. Why did not the flood wipe out these rivers while creating massive mountains elsewhere? Some creationists insist there were few tall mountains pre-flood, they were created post flood. Which still doesn't work with the Euphrates or fossils.

Other anachronisms, Abraham supposedly stays at the court of Philistine kings. Philistine cities only existed post Ramese III and did not escape Egyptian control until
the era of Rameses VI and collapse of Egyptian power.
Note also in Exodus, God leads the Israelites through the wilderness to avoid the fierce warlike Philistines, Dating the Exodus post Rameses III. Which does not fit the mythology timewise.

Geneology of Methuselah. The Bible has Methuselah living on beyond the flood several years. Not so much an anachronism but a careless screwup by the writers of this faux history.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie · 09-26-2013, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

2) Genesis 2:5-6 tells us that it hadn't yet rained and a mist/stream from the earth watered the ground. A few verses later - with no mention of rain in the interim - we are told that a river flew out of Eden and split into four, one of which was the Euphrates. The modern Euphrates which flows from the Turkish highlands couldn't possibly follow the same course as a river fed from the ground. Even if it had rained by then surely the tectonic and topographic upheaval associated with the fountains of the deep breaking up would have meant that rivers pre- and post-deluge couldn't have followed the same courses and thus be known by the same name.

Isn't the tectonic and topographic upheaval associated with The Flood something invented by creationists to explain fossils and strata?

To the authors of Genesis, the waters rose and the waters lowered and the world was pretty much unchanged except for all the dead sinners (and every other living thing).
As for the source of the antedeluvian river, 'magic.' Or, you know, physics were different in olden days, as demonstrated by the fact it didn't rain. So the water cycle would involve some magic or technobabble step anyway.

Yes. But some creationists argue mountain building came after the flood, to reduce the amount of water needed to "cover the tallest mountains". We only had a few hills, see? In the past, I have actually had a creationist pull this one on me.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie · 09-26-2013, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The 20 shekel rate (of course this is before coins were invented, and whether the bible authors are talking about weights here is highly questionable) might have been an acceptable price back in the good old days, but then again it might not.

Biblical chronology has Joseph at 1900 BC, no? When did coins first emerge in Egypt/the Levant?

Coins as such were a Greek invention circa 6th century BC. The first coins were fairly large silver denominations, smaller coins came later, the obol. Which was fairly rapidly spread to Egypt.

The shekel, originally a weight of metal long predating Israel later became a standardized coin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekel
The shekel of Tyre[edit source]

"Silver Tyrian shekels were the medium of payment for the Temple tax in Jerusalem, and have been suggested as a possible coin used as the "30 pieces of silver" in the New Testament.[4]
The Jerusalem shekel[edit source]

The shekel of Tyre was subsequently replaced as the Temple tax in 66 AD by the Jerusalem shekel of the First Jewish revolt against Rome."

Apparently fairly late. I suspect that during the Persian era and post Alexandrian eras, Persian and Greek coinage would have been common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_coinage
http://www.ptolemybronze.com/http://...emybronze.com/

Cheerful Charlie

andrewcriddle · 09-26-2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Geneology of Methuselah. The Bible has Methuselah living on beyond the flood several years. Not so much an anachronism but a careless screwup by the writers of this faux history.

Cheerful Charlie

Methuselah lived 969 years
his son Lamech born after 187 years
his grandson Noah born 182 years later
The flood came when Noah was 600 years old
total 969 years

Andrew Criddle

semiopen · 09-26-2013, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Geneology of Methuselah. The Bible has Methuselah living on beyond the flood several years. Not so much an anachronism but a careless screwup by the writers of this faux history.

Cheerful Charlie

Methuselah lived 969 years
his son Lamech born after 187 years
his grandson Noah born 182 years later
The flood came when Noah was 600 years old
total 969 years

Andrew Criddle

Methuselah

Quote:

The verses are available in three manuscript traditions, the Masoretic, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Torah. The three traditions do not agree with each other. The differences can be summarized as follows:[4]

Quote:

Methuselah dies in 2256 AM, fourteen years after the Flood (2242 AM)

in

Codex_Vaticanus_Graecus_1209

There is no question that the years of the old guys were fucked with, although probably not for the Hasmonean temple rededication.

There is an outrageous Jewish tradition that

Quote:

And on the seventh day the waters of the Flood came upon the earth.
(Gen 7:10 TNK)

was after Noah sat Shiva for Methuselah.

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

09-21-2013, 06:24 PM	#31
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	Google books also has a preview of On the Reliability of the Old Testament available here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.