From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:05:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.105323.203062@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
writes:
>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.

  No, the reasons they didn't was the differing accounts.  It does not matter
WHY those accounts are different, just that they are.
 
>>        The point raised would have been valid if NOBODY had EVER made
>> ANY claims.
>Huh? 

  I meant about the JEPD theory.

>> 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.

  If you operate from the belief that the passages have a single author you then
have to account for the discrepancies in the passages.  The paradigm you suggest
(single author) lacks supporting evidence.  I agree the passages are not
self-contradictory (there is an explenation) but the passages do disagree.  To
gloss over that fact by saying "But I assume the passages have a single author"
without looking any further is clearly ludicrous.

  Secondly, keep in mind that I too once believed (about 4 years ago) that the
JEPD division was wrong, and that the books of Moses had a single author.  But
when I looked at the evidence, and read the arguments, I realized there was no
evidence at all that they should be considered a single author (other, of
course, that the tradition Moses wrote them) and theat the evidence for JEPD is
overwhelming.  Note that I did not believe in JEPD before I did the research, a
mear lack of evidence for single author would not have convinced me.

>> 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.

  There is simple word usage.  And the fact that when the books are split into
groups according to the word usage (most predominantly the changeing of the word
"God") the penteauch splits nicely into self contained documents, with no
references to one another or internal conflicts.

  This doesn't happen by chance.  If the single author claim is true, for some
reason Moses wanted it to do that, and it is unclear why he would.

>> 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.

  No, you misunderstand.  In one paradigm the words for God should be
distributyed about the documents, in the other they should be grouped in clumps.
Now you say that ones paradigm determines effect the interpretations.  Well, the
paradigm I face matches what the documents look like, so how did the words for
"God" suddenly clump when my paradigm shifted?

> 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.

  i would have no problem with that.  However, why do the names clump?  Why do,
when the stories are separated by names, the different books form whole pieces?

> 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.

  Tradition is hooey.  I trust tradition only as far as when it agrees with the
evidence.  Where does the penteauch state it has a single author (as opposed to
a single compiler)?  I know there is a passage which says "Moses wrote these
books", but why don't "these books" refer to the J or P documents instead of the
entire penteauch?

  I don't understand what the problem is with multiple sources?  The basic theme
of the books remains consistent, and I take this as a good sign: over time and
places, the message remains consistant.  I have a textbook written by three
people, does that mean it is untrustworthy?  No!  Why then can't the penteauch
be valid with multiple authors?  The rest of the Bible is not presumed to be a
single author.

> 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 :-) ).

  Enough evidence has been provided to make the JEPD explenation standard.  You
are the one trying to overturn the standard.  Rather that ask me to do the
research, why don't you look it up?  It would be hard to find a textual
criticism of Genesis which doesn't bring this up, and the book will contain alot
more data than I would be able to type in.

  Look, I will make a deal with you: read a book on that argues for JEPD and
tell me of a book that agrgues against it that I will gladly read.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins