From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:53:21 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct8.133240@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> It is because of THIS that I posted my original objection for using
>> Wellhausen's JEPD theory to refute Genesis:1-3. My objection still stands.
> 
>   1) Wellhausen's theory has nothing to do with the objections presented to
> refute Gen 1-3. 

I maintain that logically it MUST if, as the the post which initiated this
thread states that the reason why he did not accept the creation account(s) in
Genesis is because of the JEPD documentary theory.

>                 The point raised would have been valid if NOBODY had EVER made
> ANY claims.
Huh? 
>  There are, without doubt, two different voices in these passages. 
> Even a cursory view of the language would make that clear.  Even in English it
> is obvious that there are two creation stories.  Read the passages.

We are back to the heart of the problem! If you operate from the positon that
the accounts in Genesis reflect the fact that there were two sources, P(or
E-depending on which system you follow) and J(or J+E as before), when you read
the accounts you will see two different accounts. If you operate from the
position that Genesis has one author (as some Christians maintain in Moses) you
will see two perspectives of the same event. WE HAVE HERE TWO DIFFERENT
PARADIGMS. (This conflict of viewpoint has been seen on t.o. recently.) You are
arguing from one paradigm without recognising the EXISTANCE of the other. The
purpose of debate is not to "win" but to exchange information and to grow in
knowledge and understanding. For that you need to understand from where the
other person is coming, ie. you need to recognise his (or her :-) ) apriori
(note I say recognise, not accept!) Otherwise the "debate" degenerates into a
pointless and childish "I'm right, you'r wrong". Your last two sentences has us
rapidly heading down that road.
> 
>   2) It does not matter what the original claims were based on, enough evidence
> exists for the separate manuscripts without need for the original reasons behind
> the hypothesis.  You cannot disprove something by explaining the original
> problems, you have to explain ALL evidence.  This has not been done.

Again I ask, WHAT ojective evidence exists for the seperate MANUSCRIPTS (please
note the Documentary theory has moved from dates of hypothetical documents to
the question of the validity or otherwise of Oral Tradition). Where is "ALL
this evidence"? Please note I'm asking for objective evidence, not subjective.
 
>>Apart from subjective interpretations relating to style of authorship, there
> is
>>NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE (eg archaeological finds of seperate manuscripts) for
>>separating the two creation accounts in Gen:1-2, nor for considering Gen 2 to
>>be a composite of a J and an E source. There has been alot of dicussion in
> t.o.
>>on whether Gen1+2 have two seperate sources and thus are two different
> creation
>>accounts or have one source and thus represent two different perspectives of
>>the same account. This discussion will never be resolved until the debators
>>recognise that they are operating from different paradigms - REFLECTING THE
>>PARADIGM-SHIFT involved in Wellhausen's JEPD theory. As a scientist I tend to
>>ask for objective evidence, and I must conclude that AS FAR AS Gen:1-3 GOES,
>>the evidence is stronger for considering them as one source. How one
>>interperates this in terms of the evolutionary theory is an entirely different
>>matter! :-)
> 
>   What paradigm-shift is it that caused the word for "God" to change?  Give any
> evidence that these should be considered one source.  Note that lack of counter
> evidence is NOT evidence.  (Nobody has presented evidence that pickle people do
> not inhabit the moon by examining the reflected spectra, so there is evidence
> for pickle people on the moon)

You misunderstand, the paradigm-shift does not CAUSE the word for "God" to
change,but rather CAUSES THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT WORDS
ARE USED IN THE NAME(S) OF GOD, TO CHANGE. One position maintains that only one
name can be applied to a deity, hense many sources. The other maintains the use
of many names to describe a deity. The reasoning in both cases is subjective.
As far as evidence that these should be considered as one source, the documents
state they have one author, they have traditionally generally been accepted
as having one author, re. Gen:1-3, oldest archaeological evidence shows the
integrity of the manuscripts. You have attempted (unsucessfully) to turn
tables around, for it is up to those who maintain a multi-authorship of the
pentateuch to provide the evidence (after all they are questioning claimed
authorship :-) ).
>  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   
Gary