Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2013, 01:30 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 02:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(21-06-2013 01:13 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:PJ obviously doesn't know what the documentary hypothesis is. Why is he talking about the book of Revelation? Why is he talking about Jesus? These topics have nothing to do with the documentary hypothesis. I'm glad he's too gutless to debate me. It would be like arguing with a 2 year old.

I addressed this on another thread, Mark. I mentioned Revelation and the NT as a spoof at how silly DH is. Further, I explained in detail that I was schooled in DH and its refutation over 20 years ago.

I'll give you ANOTHER example to chew on. BB says the Kings and Chronicles are competing narratives, one demonstrating the superiority of the Northern tribes and the other, the excellency of the Judean line through Solomon and David. Then WHY do the books refer to one another in citations as specific as, for example, 1 Kings 14:19: "And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel..."?

DH is nonsense for which there is no empirical evidence, only textual conjecture, for which BB keeps making ad populums and appeals to authority.

And what resolution are you considering for a debate at this time?

1. I never said anything of the sort about the either of two texts you site. You are simply making that up, (lying), and I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE that exact same thing. You are simply being obtuse, and you continue to prove you really havn't a clue what the DH really even is. "Using the NT to disprove it", indeed. LMAO.
2. You continue to call it names and say shit about it, BUT NEVER ONCE HAVE YOU YET used the texts themselves to refute It. I repeat, ....if this is your sorry-ass example of your sort of scholarship. (lying and throwing soft-balls from the peanut gallery), you simply continue to make a fool of yourself, and prove you cannot, as you have no training on the subject.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2013, 08:13 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(21-06-2013 01:13 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:PJ obviously doesn't know what the documentary hypothesis is. Why is he talking about the book of Revelation? Why is he talking about Jesus? These topics have nothing to do with the documentary hypothesis. I'm glad he's too gutless to debate me. It would be like arguing with a 2 year old.

I addressed this on another thread, Mark. I mentioned Revelation and the NT as a spoof at how silly DH is. Further, I explained in detail that I was schooled in DH and its refutation over 20 years ago.

I'll give you ANOTHER example to chew on. BB says the Kings and Chronicles are competing narratives, one demonstrating the superiority of the Northern tribes and the other, the excellency of the Judean line through Solomon and David. Then WHY do the books refer to one another in citations as specific as, for example, 1 Kings 14:19: "And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel..."?

DH is nonsense for which there is no empirical evidence, only textual conjecture, for which BB keeps making ad populums and appeals to authority.

And what resolution are you considering for a debate at this time?

Re
" I mentioned Revelation and the NT as a spoof at how silly DH is."
Well...I, for one, fail to make out any sense in your discussion.

Re
"WHY do the books refer to one another in citations as specific"
Well wouldn't that be because some fucked up priest interpolated it?

Re
"DH is nonsense"
No...the theory isn't nonsense. The whole OT is. And if you weren't so brainwashed you would admit it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Quote:1. I never said anything of the sort about the either of two texts you site. You are simply making that up, (lying), and I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE that exact same thing. You are simply being obtuse, and you continue to prove you really havn't a clue what the DH really even is. "Using the NT to disprove it", indeed. LMAO.
2. You continue to call it names and say shit about it, BUT NEVER ONCE HAVE YOU YET used the texts themselves to refute It. I repeat, ....if this is your sorry-ass example of your sort of scholarship. (lying and throwing soft-balls from the peanut gallery), you simply continue to make a fool of yourself, and prove you cannot, as you have no training on the subject.

I'm not lying, and of course I can have us look at the texts. But since your textual criticism is always subjective, and since you can say the text says anything BETWEEN the lines you like, we have issues.

For example, I could cite the principle of chiasmus or symmetry in the scriptures, like:

"Whoever SHEDS the BLOOD of MAN, by MAN shall his BLOOD be SHED."

Or indeed the whole story of Noah, which has a chiastic structure:

A Noah (6:10a)

B Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10b)

C Ark to be built (14-16)

D Flood announced (17)

E Covenant with Noah (18-20)

F Food in the ark (21)

G Command to enter the ark (7:1-3)

H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)

I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)

J Entry to ark (11-15)

K YHWH shuts Noah in (16)

L 40 days flood (17a)

M Waters increase (17b-18)

N Mountains covered (19-20)

O 150 days water prevail (21-24)

P God remembers Noah (8:1)

O’ 150 days waters abate (3)

N’ Mountain tops visible (4-5)

M’ Waters abate (5)

L’ 40 days (end of) (6a)

K’ Noah opens window of ark (6b)

J’ Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)

I’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (10-11)

H’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)

G’ Command to leave ark (15-17 [22])

F’ Food outside ark (9:1-4)

E’ Covenant with all flesh (8-10)

D’ No flood in the future (11-17)

C’ Ark (18a)

B’ Shem, Ham and Japheth (18b)

A’ Noah (19)

...And you'll STILL insist that this is four different traditions or five redacted together to LOOK like the work of one author.

OR etc.

Why waste my time and yours? Scholars BELIEVE there were multiple authors where Christians and Jews believe in one, because the alternative is too uncomfortable for those scholars to contemplate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2013 05:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(24-06-2013 02:02 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:1. I never said anything of the sort about the either of two texts you site. You are simply making that up, (lying), and I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE that exact same thing. You are simply being obtuse, and you continue to prove you really havn't a clue what the DH really even is. "Using the NT to disprove it", indeed. LMAO.
2. You continue to call it names and say shit about it, BUT NEVER ONCE HAVE YOU YET used the texts themselves to refute It. I repeat, ....if this is your sorry-ass example of your sort of scholarship. (lying and throwing soft-balls from the peanut gallery), you simply continue to make a fool of yourself, and prove you cannot, as you have no training on the subject.

I'm not lying, and of course I can have us look at the texts. But since your textual criticism is always subjective, and since you can say the text says anything BETWEEN the lines you like, we have issues.

For example, I could cite the principle of chiasmus or symmetry in the scriptures, like:

"Whoever SHEDS the BLOOD of MAN, by MAN shall his BLOOD be SHED."

Or indeed the whole story of Noah, which has a chiastic structure:

A Noah (6:10a)

B Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10b)

C Ark to be built (14-16)

D Flood announced (17)

E Covenant with Noah (18-20)

F Food in the ark (21)

G Command to enter the ark (7:1-3)

H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)

I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)

J Entry to ark (11-15)

K YHWH shuts Noah in (16)

L 40 days flood (17a)

M Waters increase (17b-18)

N Mountains covered (19-20)

O 150 days water prevail (21-24)

P God remembers Noah (8:1)

O’ 150 days waters abate (3)

N’ Mountain tops visible (4-5)

M’ Waters abate (5)

L’ 40 days (end of) (6a)

K’ Noah opens window of ark (6b)

J’ Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)

I’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (10-11)

H’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)

G’ Command to leave ark (15-17 [22])

F’ Food outside ark (9:1-4)

E’ Covenant with all flesh (8-10)

D’ No flood in the future (11-17)

C’ Ark (18a)

B’ Shem, Ham and Japheth (18b)

A’ Noah (19)

...And you'll STILL insist that this is four different traditions or five redacted together to LOOK like the work of one author.

OR etc.

Why waste my time and yours? Scholars BELIEVE there were multiple authors where Christians and Jews believe in one, because the alternative is too uncomfortable for those scholars to contemplate.

Wrong. SOME FUNDIE Christians assert some things. Some Jews maybe. Most scholars .... no. You are 100 % WRONG.
A perfect example of your sorry nonsense. You didn't even cite the text you were listing, or even attempt to make a coherent argument about even one text. You made a list. A list is no argument. You are not really THAT stupid. You simply were never trained either how to make an argument or anything serious about any text. Just stop making a fool of yourself. You ARE wasting your time, as you have every moment you have wasted here, embarrassing yourself and your cult.
You lame attempt to marginalize it is totally obvious, and disingenuous. You are lying. I never cited those texts. You made it up.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2013, 08:42 AM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
So, you are denying the chiastic structure of numerous Bible stories, and individual verses? The texts listed from Noah's story are accompanied by Genesis references, what are you talking about? And if you don't know the prohibition given to Noah about shedding blood is in Genesis 9, you don't know much about on the Bible's basic precepts. Are you that utterly unaware of the Chasidic movement and the promotion all across the Western World of the "Noahic laws", founded on the bedrock of the verse I cited? Really? And you say you are a scholar (or a student in training)...

Here's another argument for you to deny. The nature of the early HB covenants is as Suzerain treaties between a king (God) and subjects. Yet we KNOW this style of treaty or covenant had passed out of history centuries before the late dates JEDP scholars give to the HB. You thus have the HB "editors" both skilled in modern archaeology centuries before Christ and perpetrating one of the biggest lying hoaxes of all time...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2013, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2013 05:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(25-06-2013 08:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  So, you are denying the chiastic structure of numerous Bible stories, and individual verses? The texts listed from Noah's story are accompanied by Genesis references, what are you talking about? And if you don't know the prohibition given to Noah about shedding blood is in Genesis 9, you don't know much about on the Bible's basic precepts. Are you that utterly unaware of the Chasidic movement and the promotion all across the Western World of the "Noahic laws", founded on the bedrock of the verse I cited? Really? And you say you are a scholar (or a student in training)...

Here's another argument for you to deny. The nature of the early HB covenants is as Suzerain treaties between a king (God) and subjects. Yet we KNOW this style of treaty or covenant had passed out of history centuries before the late dates JEDP scholars give to the HB. You thus have the HB "editors" both skilled in modern archaeology centuries before Christ and perpetrating one of the biggest lying hoaxes of all time...

Are you suffering from ADD ? You really have no clue how to stick to an argument do you. Your point are actually completely irrelevant to the DH, AND I know you're compensating with your fundie nonsense, trying to show that you actuall do know something about it all, which you don't.
You still are unable to, and have not once, made a TEXT BASED argument. You clearly have no real education on your "HB". Just continual tossing of soft ball, irrelevant attempts at evasion, by someone who wishes he knew enough to actually discuss the subject.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(25-06-2013 08:42 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Here's another argument for you to deny. The nature of the early HB covenants is as Suzerain treaties between a king (God) and subjects. Yet we KNOW this style of treaty or covenant had passed out of history centuries before the late dates JEDP scholars give to the HB. You thus have the HB "editors" both skilled in modern archaeology centuries before Christ and perpetrating one of the biggest lying hoaxes of all time...

This is completely and totally false and betrays a staggering ignorance of ancient Near Eastern history. In fact, Deuteronomy is patterned very, very closely after the seventh century BCE vassal treaties of Esarhaddon, the Neo-Babylonian king. Much later biblical authors frequently patterned a lot of their treaty-based rhetoric on Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code, thereby reflecting earlier ANE treaty formulae.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
26-06-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Quote:This is completely and totally false and betrays a staggering ignorance of ancient Near Eastern history. In fact, Deuteronomy is patterned very, very closely after the seventh century BCE vassal treaties of Esarhaddon, the Neo-Babylonian king. Much later biblical authors frequently patterned a lot of their treaty-based rhetoric on Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code, thereby reflecting earlier ANE treaty formulae.

Um, we all agree Deuteronomy is a later writing.

I'm referring to the Abrahamic and Noahic covenants (and, if you like Adam and Eve and Jesus), which are far older covenants, and Genesis/Exodus, which are older texts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
Quote:Are you suffering from ADD ? You really have no clue how to stick to an argument do you. Your point are actually completely irrelevant to the DH, AND I know you;re compensating with your fundie nonsense, trying to show that you actuall do know something about it all, which you don't.
You still are unable to, and have not once, made a TEXT BASED argument. You clearly have no real education on your "HB". Just continual tossing of soft ball, irrelevant attempts at evasion, by someone who wishes he knew enough to actually discuss the subject.

Are you sure you and I agree on what a text-based argument is?

You might say, "Look, here's a passage that's all El and Elohim, and a second that's all YHWH, so one is Elohist and the author is from a Yahwist source," and I'd respond, "No, it isn't, you have no proof that there were edited scrolls for that book, since only one version exists between the earliest extant and more modern versions." We've already had that argument several times now.

But if you want to say there are stylistic arguments, than you've presented some snippets of JDEP, and I've presented Chiastic structure in some of the passages you're citing multiple authors for, and neither of us have really responded to the other. Let's stop this argument, it's silly:

I never said Moses wrote Deuteronomy's ending after he passed.

You've never demonstrated how having one author of a scroll or five teams of editors makes a scroll non-divine in origin via ammaneunses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Is The Documentary Hypothesis Still Valid?
(26-06-2013 02:35 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Um, we all agree Deuteronomy is a later writing.

Deuteronomy is the earliest text reflecting Near Eastern suzerain treaty motifs.

(26-06-2013 02:35 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm referring to the Abrahamic and Noahic covenants (and, if you like Adam and Eve and Jesus), which are far older covenants, and Genesis/Exodus, which are older texts.

No, actually Deuteronomy is older than those texts, and the covenant notions of the other texts are drawn primarily from what is in Deuteronomy. There were some patriarchal traditions predating Deuteronomy, but they involved Jacob, not Abraham or Adam and Eve. The only reference in all of Deuteronomy to the patriarchs is an oblique and derisive allusion to Jacob as a perishing Aramean, which agrees with Hosea 12's similarly derisive contrast of the prophetic and righteous Moses with the pathetic Jacob, who had to tend sheep just to be given a wife. Jacob was the central patriarch prior to the exile, and his tradition wasn't narratively connected with the Exodus. It was criticized and marginalized by proponents of the exodus charter myth. Adam and Eve are post-exilic in origin. See the following publications for more information:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Priestly-Visio...080066373X

http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Yahwist-C...1589831632

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/9004163808

http://www.amazon.com/Pentateuch-Interna...3161506138

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like maklelan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: