Designated Hittah for the DH
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
Quote:So... Basically an argument from authority.

No. An argument that 100% of scholarly research into and assent for DH is conjectural in nature. It is tempting to then appropriate BB's "proof" to demonstrate that Evolutionary theory where it touches macro-changes is likewise conjectural in nature and/or the blind insistence that there is no God as utterly conjectural and requiring titanic amounts of special knowledge--not that I want to change the subject. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 08:41 AM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
(25-06-2013 08:15 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  An excellent try.
Dodgy Thank you for your opinion.

Quote:We can look at cosmology and the creation of the universe or evolution, and then we can argue over thousands, and thousands, and thousands of individual data points.
One supernatural event described in the Bible, which has non-textual evidence. Pony up. Come on. And if you say things like universe creation you must provide the evidence that they are supernatural. You *said*, my fine friend, that textual evidence was not sufficient by itself. Either retract your assertion, and explicitly claim that the Bible is all the evidence you need, or... supply evidence...

Or just stick around and look dumb. I guess there's always that option too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
25-06-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
well this is a step up for PJ in that he has actually supplied a quote and the source instead of omitting the quotes and the source. Bravo, PJ, bravo (queue the polite golf clap)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2013 09:11 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
(25-06-2013 08:17 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:So... Basically an argument from authority.

No. An argument that 100% of scholarly research into and assent for DH is conjectural in nature. It is tempting to then appropriate BB's "proof" to demonstrate that Evolutionary theory where it touches macro-changes is likewise conjectural in nature and/or the blind insistence that there is no God as utterly conjectural and requiring titanic amounts of special knowledge--not that I want to change the subject. Smile

Except you did just attempt change the subject. A typical strategy of the weak to deflect from the fact they are utterly failing in the topic at hand.
You're looking really quite desperate today.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
(25-06-2013 08:15 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There remains, however, no evidence that there were earlier versions of any Old Testament scriptures or books that were later edited and redacted before they appeared in the form in which we know them today.

This is flatly false. From the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint we can show numerous examples of earlier versions of texts that are much, much different from the forms in which they exist today. For example, the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint is about 1/8 shorter, missing most of the optimistic prophesying. People long thought that the Septuagint translators just left a bunch of stuff out, but we discovered fragments of Jeremiah among the Dead Sea Scrolls that omit those very same segments, showing the text was not made shorter by the Septuagint translators, but made longer after the Septuagint was translated. Around the turn of the era, Jeremiah was lengthened by about 14%. We have the same expansion taking place in the books of Kings. Those are just a couple examples of numerous that could be given.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like maklelan's post
25-06-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
(14-06-2013 02:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  In 1966 Professor Kenneth Kitchen wrote,
' . . . Even the most ardent advocate of the documentary theory must admit that we have as yet no single scrap of external, objective evidence for either the existence or the history of J, E, or any other alleged source-document..' (p. 23, Kitchen, K.A. (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale).

Don't be a hater of the hittah!
The source documents concept attempts to make sense out of some of the nonsense in the bible. Without them, the bible makes even less sense. You're not helping yourself PJ. Drinking Beverage

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
I have no idea what the point of this thread was intended to honestly be. But here, let me disprove evolution by showing something that was also at the time nearly 100% agreed upon.

Paley, W. 1809. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. 12th edition London: Printed for J. Faulder.

This guy argues for what is essentially Creationism/Intelligent Design. This book even influenced Darwin! Clearly since it was published and men of science endorsed it, it undermines all of evolution?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
25-06-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
(25-06-2013 01:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have no idea what the point of this thread was intended to honestly be. But here, let me disprove evolution by showing something that was also at the time nearly 100% agreed upon.

Paley, W. 1809. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. 12th edition London: Printed for J. Faulder.

This guy argues for what is essentially Creationism/Intelligent Design. This book even influenced Darwin! Clearly since it was published and men of science endorsed it, it undermines all of evolution?

God damn it man. Stop giving away secrets. Now who will we torture with our fallacious theory, since you've revealed the truth to PJ ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-06-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
Quote:One supernatural event described in the Bible, which has non-textual evidence. Pony up. Come on. And if you say things like universe creation you must provide the evidence that they are supernatural. You *said*, my fine friend, that textual evidence was not sufficient by itself. Either retract your assertion, and explicitly claim that the Bible is all the evidence you need, or... supply evidence...

Or just stick around and look dumb. I guess there's always that option too.

Your syllogism started with a false premise:

You asked for evidence of a supernatural event in the same post as you defended JDEP since I pointed out there's no empirical evidence for it, and it's only assertions made about textual content.

Therefore, you are asserting either that 1) JDEP construction of the text must be taken without evidence, and must be a supernatural event and/or 2) Biblical, supernatural events are allowable without empirical evidence, just like JDEP is allowed without empirical evidence or 3) You give unequal credence to supernatural events, for which there is documentary evidence (the Bible) then you do JDEP, for which there is no evidence or 4) You tend to accept naturalist explanations for items without evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: Designated Hittah for the DH
Quote:This is flatly false. From the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint we can show numerous examples of earlier versions of texts that are much, much different from the forms in which they exist today. For example, the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint is about 1/8 shorter, missing most of the optimistic prophesying. People long thought that the Septuagint translators just left a bunch of stuff out, but we discovered fragments of Jeremiah among the Dead Sea Scrolls that omit those very same segments, showing the text was not made shorter by the Septuagint translators, but made longer after the Septuagint was translated. Around the turn of the era, Jeremiah was lengthened by about 14%. We have the same expansion taking place in the books of Kings. Those are just a couple examples of numerous that could be given.

Sorry. The Septuagint is not scriptures but a translation of scriptures. You might as well show us a Jehovah's Witness Bible from the Watchtower Society with its deliberate mistranslations and say "The Bible has changed" when it hasn't.

As for fragments of scrolls found in Qumran or near the Dead Sea, you have an equal issue since they're FRAGMENTS. You're conveniently ignoring the eight complete copies of Isaiah that were found, and in this Bible book of 55,000 Hebrew words, ONE WORD HAD CHANGED OVER THE NEXT 1,000 YEARS to the next available copy, one word being an indefinite article (the) which did not change the meaning of the text.

Every schoolboy knows that the Masora OCD-counted words, passages, sentences, etc. and BURNED each Hebrew scroll copy if a single mistake was found. There has never been in the history of man more accurate copies made of texts with the exception of modern data switched between computers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: