Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 121 of 233 (399762)
05-07-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by graft2vine
05-07-2007 6:05 PM


Make sense?
Not that I can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by graft2vine, posted 05-07-2007 6:05 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 122 of 233 (400245)
05-11-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
04-27-2007 6:30 PM


Re: An irrelevant technique
It's actually not irrelevant. The fact that authors would present topics in non-chronological order to emphasize a particular subject or context relates to the "dual" genesis accounts completely. Your minor point about the synoptic gospel accounts not being by the same author is valid, but shows more my lack of time to jump through hoops to present the precise example that would please you rather than any lack of relevence of the original point.
The fact is, some accounts in the gospels in particular are given out of order and often skipping details in between. An example would be when dealing with the miracles that Jesus performed on earth. When reaching that point, the main ordering of the text ends and is supplanted by a "list" so to speak of non-chronological events. This happens because the main timeline story arrived at a point where Jesus' miracles became the focal point and required further clarification. Likewise, the 2nd telling of the Genesis account delves deeper into the special relationship between God and man as opposed to other animals because the subject matter logically needed to follow.
What is irrelevant is your statement as fact that the Genesis myths didn't have only one author. I'm sure the thousands of Doctorate level researchers would be happy to hear that you've finally conclusively proved who penned one of the most controversial accounts of all time. Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech....possibly using original source documents or stories passed down from Adam, etc....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 04-27-2007 6:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2007 4:13 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2007 5:19 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 125 by jar, posted 05-11-2007 5:22 PM Garrett has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 123 of 233 (400248)
05-11-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Garrett
05-11-2007 3:13 PM


Re: An irrelevant technique
Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech....
That might be the thought among fundamentalist Christians. It certainly isn't among "the thousands of Doctorate level researchers" that have studied the Bible at the major divinity schools around Christendom for the last century or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Garrett, posted 05-11-2007 3:13 PM Garrett has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 233 (400252)
05-11-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Garrett
05-11-2007 3:13 PM


Re: An irrelevant technique
Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech....
Well, you must have heard this in the 18th century or so. From the Wikipedia article:
quote:
For a number of reasons [authorship by Moses] is no longer accepted by the majority of modern biblical scholars, and contemporary academic debate centres instead on the proposal known as the documentary hypothesis. This postulates that Genesis, together with the other four books, is a composite work assembled from various sources.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Garrett, posted 05-11-2007 3:13 PM Garrett has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 233 (400253)
05-11-2007 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Garrett
05-11-2007 3:13 PM


Re: An irrelevant technique
What is irrelevant is your statement as fact that the Genesis myths didn't have only one author. I'm sure the thousands of Doctorate level researchers would be happy to hear that you've finally conclusively proved who penned one of the most controversial accounts of all time. Last I heard, the common consensus was the Moses wrote the Pentatuech....possibly using original source documents or stories passed down from Adam, etc....
It is unlikely any Doctorate level researchers think Moses even existed much less wrote anything, unless of course they bought those Doctorates from a diploma mill like so many Biblical Christian Scholars. Even then though, if they bought the Class A doctorate package instead of the bargain package they would question the very existence of Moshe.
Even then your method fails since the Orders, the methods and even the Gods depicted in the multiple Genesis accounts are still mutually exclusive.
I'm sorry but your explanation like almost all of this thread simply belongs in the "Theology by making shit up" branch of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Garrett, posted 05-11-2007 3:13 PM Garrett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 1:23 AM jar has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 126 of 233 (400388)
05-13-2007 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
05-11-2007 5:22 PM


Re: An irrelevant technique
jar writes:
It is unlikely any Doctorate level researchers think Moses even existed much less wrote anything, unless of course they bought those Doctorates from a diploma mill like so many Biblical Christian Scholars. Even then though, if they bought the Class A doctorate package instead of the bargain package they would question the very existence of Moshe.
If you are serious, you clearly have no clue about how academia works! The top institutions in the world do not try to squeeze people into a rigid mold, but teach them to THINK and thus allow them to take any position that they can defend in a scholarly way. And Mosaic authorship, though at present a minority view, is certainly defensible. It is the second-class "wanna be" institutions which tend to indoctrinate and squeeze into a mold.
I personally know a number of PhD biblical scholars who believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; they graduated from places like Berkeley and Cambridge. And of course there are a number of world-class biblical scholars who believe this, like Gordon Wenham (PhD Cambridge), Bruce Waltke (PhD Harvard), Gleason Archer (PhD Harvard), R. Laird Harris (PhD Dropsie), and Eugene Merrill (PhD Columbia). And though he has no PhD, Kenneth Kitchen is a serious scholar. Some leading biblical scholars of previous generations who defended Mosaic authorship are Edward J. Young (PhD Dropsie), Robert Dick Wilson (PhD Princeton) and Merrill F. Unger (PhD Johns Hopkins).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 05-11-2007 5:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 05-13-2007 8:58 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 05-13-2007 10:11 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 05-13-2007 10:15 AM kbertsche has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 127 of 233 (400396)
05-13-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by kbertsche
05-13-2007 1:23 AM


Re: An irrelevant technique
The top institutions in the world do not try to squeeze people into a rigid mold, but teach them to THINK and thus allow them to take any position that they can defend in a scholarly way. And Mosaic authorship, though at present a minority view, is certainly defensible.
I am not at all sure how a position of Mosaic authorship could be defended, although I don't doubt that there are those who try. My point is that belief in a Mosaic authorship is certainly in the minority and any defense of such a position is unlikely to sway anyone who does not hold that position for reasons other than the actual facts.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 1:23 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 128 of 233 (400403)
05-13-2007 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by kbertsche
05-13-2007 1:23 AM


Re: An irrelevant technique
kbertsche
I personally know a number of PhD biblical scholars who believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch
It does not matter that they are Phd's ,since what is important is the evidence that they can present to support their arguements.
Now perhaps, since you know them personally, you could provide us with the cases that they make for their positions and we can see for ourselves whether they are valid or lacking in evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 1:23 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 233 (400404)
05-13-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by kbertsche
05-13-2007 1:23 AM


consensus opinion vs. merely "defensible"
And Mosaic authorship, though at present a minority view, is certainly defensible.
It would be interesting to see a defense of this. I did a quick Google search, but I'm not very good at using Google so all I came up with are apologetics websites. But this really isn't the main point here.
(1) So far, from my quick search, the main arguments against the consensus' documentary hypothesis sound a lot like creationist arguments against the standard scientific theories. Of course, I'm not as up on Biblical criticism as I probably should be, and so it is possible that in this case these arguments might have some merit.
(2) The arguments mainly claim that those in favor of the documentary hypothesis haven't proven (uh oh, there's that word again) their case. That may be so, but I haven't seen much in the way of positive evidence for Mosaic authorship, just criticisms of aspects of the documentary hypothesis (as if Mosaic authorship should win by default).
(3) It strikes me that most of the people who are advocating Mosaic authorship have religious backgrounds that may have predisposed them to favor the traditional views. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. Are them many people who initially favored multiple authors but, by the weight of the evidence, came to accept single authorship? Of course, there may be a few people who have an emotional need to find proof that God does not exist, but by and large I can't see why many anyone would be emotionally predisposed toward the documentary hypothesis whereas I can see why people would a priori be more inclined to favor traditional Mosaic authorship. Certainly I could care less whether one person or several wrote the Pentateuch.
(4) Garrett's claim was that the consensus opinion is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. You even admit that Mosaic authorship is a minority view.
(5) Even if there was a single author for the Pentateuch, this really isn't what people like Garrett are saying. Garrett believes that the Pentateuch was written by an ancient Hebrew slave who was adopted by Pharoah's daughter, spoke to burning bush, did a few magic tricks, then led the entire Hebrew nation out of slavery in Egypt, through the parted red sea, wandered around the Sinai peninsula for 40 years, whacking the occasional rock to get water, and then dropped them all off on the edge of Canaan.
I suppose that any collection of myths may be "defensible", but what would be more impressive is whether there is any positive evidence to support these myths.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed the subtitle.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 1:23 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 7:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 130 of 233 (400434)
05-13-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Chiroptera
05-13-2007 10:15 AM


Re: consensus opinion vs. merely "defensible"
jar writes:
I am not at all sure how a position of Mosaic authorship could be defended, although I don't doubt that there are those who try. My point is that belief in a Mosaic authorship is certainly in the minority and any defense of such a position is unlikely to sway anyone who does not hold that position for reasons other than the actual facts
I agree with your main point; it would be difficult to convince a skeptic of Mosaic authorship. And it's probably not essential to the biblical message.
Chiroptera writes:
It would be interesting to see a defense of this. I did a quick Google search, but I'm not very good at using Google so all I came up with are apologetics websites. But this really isn't the main point here.
It's probably off-topic, but I'll give just a couple of points that I remember. You can doubtless find more by looking at a good scholarly conservative biblical commentary (e.g. Word or Zondervan biblical commentary series).
1) Deuteronomy is written in the format of a Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty, which was long dead by the time that the documentary hypothesis dates the Pentateuch. If not written in the time of Moses, this was highly anachronistic. How would they even know the style of this ancient form?
2) Analysis of the literary arguments of books and sections of the Pentateuch shows highly detailed patterns which cross the accepted "JEDP" boundaries. Often these contain literary constructs such as chiasms which go across different supposed sources. This would not be possible if a redactor merely pieced sources together. Any supposed "redactor" would be more like a modern author, placing his own structure on the whole account.
Here's one reference that I found quickly, but I'm sure you can find more: Mackey

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 05-13-2007 10:15 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 05-13-2007 7:21 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 133 by Chiroptera, posted 05-13-2007 9:27 PM kbertsche has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 233 (400435)
05-13-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by kbertsche
05-13-2007 7:14 PM


Re: consensus opinion vs. merely "defensible"
But even Mackey does not try to support Mosaic authorship.
From you own source:
That the Book of Genesis shows evidence of having been derived from various sources, at least in part, none but the very obstinate, or excessively pious, would deny.
and
Three lines of evidence will be used in this article in support of the traditional view that Moses was substantially the editor, or compiler (though not the actual author), of the Book of Genesis.
AbE: If you ever drop into chat, maybe we can exchange stories about developing church websites.
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 7:14 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Chiroptera, posted 05-13-2007 8:06 PM jar has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 233 (400439)
05-13-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
05-13-2007 7:21 PM


Boy, this does put things into proper perspective.
But even Mackey does not try to support Mosaic authorship.
No, it seems to be even better! I haven't read it carefully, but it appears that Mackey is repeating a "theory" that I've seen on various crackpot sites. Namely, that Genesis represents an actual transcription of recorded history written by the actual Biblical Patriarchs at the time of their occurrence. The Hebrews (and their Patriarch ancestors) were lugging around these clay tablets written by Adam, Noah, Abraham, and so forth until Moses (not a name attributed to a hypothetical single author, but the guy who actually parted the Red Sea!) finally re-edited it all together.
But I only skimmed this quickly, so maybe this isn't what Mackey is saying.
Added by edit:
But let others see for themselves. This is where it starts to get good.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed another potentially inflammatory remark. Also edited the last edit.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 05-13-2007 7:21 PM jar has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 233 (400442)
05-13-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by kbertsche
05-13-2007 7:14 PM


Re: consensus opinion vs. merely "defensible"
Here's one reference that I found quickly....
Maybe too quickly? Mackey comes off as a crank, and the site that is hosting that essay, The California Institute for Ancient Studies, seems like a crackpot site.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 7:14 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 10:45 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 134 of 233 (400446)
05-13-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Chiroptera
05-13-2007 9:27 PM


Re: consensus opinion vs. merely "defensible"
Chiroptera writes:
Maybe too quickly? Mackey comes off as a crank, and the site that is hosting that essay, The California Institute for Ancient Studies, seems like a crackpot site.
Maybe; I was in a hurry. If any of you guys REALLY want to research this, I've given you plenty to start with. I have suggested some commentaries, and you can look at the wiki entries on the scholars that I listed; this lists their most important writings, many of which are scholarly works on the Pentateuch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Chiroptera, posted 05-13-2007 9:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Chiroptera, posted 05-14-2007 12:45 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 233 (400453)
05-14-2007 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by kbertsche
05-13-2007 10:45 PM


We now have plenty to start with!
If any of you guys REALLY want to research this, I've given you plenty to start with.
You sure did! The Mackey material was a real hoot.
Moving onto the first name on your list, I found some of Gordon Wenham's books on Amazon. Here is a quote from a blurb of one of his books:
quote:
The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.
Um, okay. Maybe this particular book (Word Biblical Commentary) isn't meant to be a scholarly work, but it does seem that Dr. Gordon has, er, theological reasons to prefer a traditional approach to Biblical criticism.
One of the works by Dr. Wenham listed on your wiki page is Exploring the Old Testament: The Pentateuch published by SPCK Publishing, who's stated mission is:
quote:
SPCK was founded in 1698 and works to help people to understand and to grow in the Christian faith.
I dunno, maybe in pursuing this mission these folks decided to publish an important scholarly work, but I'm beginning to suspect that Dr. Gordon's main audience is composed of traditional Christians rather than other scholars.
Maybe I'm a bit too suspicious, but I am having a lot of trouble finding any information that would help a layman in Biblical criticism like myself in determining whether Dr. Gordon is a serious scholar who is holding a minority viewpoint or an anti-scholarship crackpot like the folks at Answers in Genesis.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed subtitle.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by kbertsche, posted 05-13-2007 10:45 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by kbertsche, posted 05-14-2007 2:15 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024