Dembski on the Flood
TomS
I came across this article at the Florida Baptist Witness, which is
principally about the debate about the age of the earth - hat tip to
the Sensuous Curmudgeon
<http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/battling-baptists-young-or-old-earth/>
"HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars" by David Roach
<http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y>
What caught my eye was the statement that Dembski at one point claimed
that Noah's Flood was a local phenomenon, and then withdrew that claim.
I would like to see the text of that withdrawal. Does Dembski actually
say that there was a world-wide flood? Does he even say that Noah's
Flood was an actual event? Does he feel it necessary to bow so low?
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
TomS
<297594883.000...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS stated..."
>
>What is Dembski's position on a global flood?
>
>I came across this article at the Florida Baptist Witness, which is
>principally about the debate about the age of the earth - hat tip to
>the Sensuous Curmudgeon
><http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/battling-baptists-young-or-old-earth/>
>
>"HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars" by David Roach
>
><http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y>
>
>What caught my eye was the statement that Dembski at one point claimed
>that Noah's Flood was a local phenomenon, and then withdrew that claim.
>
>I would like to see the text of that withdrawal. Does Dembski actually
>say that there was a world-wide flood? Does he even say that Noah's
>Flood was an actual event? Does he feel it necessary to bow so low?
>
>
With a little more searching, I found this:
<http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/AReplytoTomNettlesReviewofDembskisTheEndofChristianity.pdf>
"A Reply to Tom Nettles' Review of William A Dembski's _The End
of Christianity .._"
Dr. David L. Allen
In this, there is quoted a "Clarification Regarding My Book
_The End of Christianity_".
In part, it says:
"If I were to write The End of Christianity now, I would do several
things differently. ... " He doesn't commit himself on the universality
of the Flood, but does say that he is a "biblical inerrantist", accepts
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and believes that Adam and Eve
were real people, the original two humans and "progenitors of the whole
human race."
John Harshman
�In a brief section on Genesis 4�11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising
questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection
on my part,� Dembski wrote. �Before I write on this topic again, I have
much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case,
not only Genesis 6�9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second
Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical
inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to
the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.�
So Dembski says clearly that he believes in a universal flood. I wonder
if his Disco 'Tute buddies know about that.
Grandbank
> TomS wrote:
> > "On 20 Oct 2010 10:14:44 -0700, in article
> >> What is Dembski's position on a global flood?
>
> >> I came across this article at the Florida Baptist Witness, which is
> >> principally about the debate about the age of the earth - hat tip to
> >> the Sensuous Curmudgeon
>
> >> "HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars" by David Roach
>
> >> <http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y>
>
> >> What caught my eye was the statement that Dembski at one point claimed
> >> that Noah's Flood was a local phenomenon, and then withdrew that claim.
>
> >> I would like to see the text of that withdrawal. Does Dembski actually
> >> say that there was a world-wide flood? Does he even say that Noah's
> >> Flood was an actual event? Does he feel it necessary to bow so low?
>
> > With a little more searching, I found this:
>
>
> > "A Reply to Tom Nettles' Review of William A Dembski's _The End
> > of Christianity .._"
> > Dr. David L. Allen
>
> > In this, there is quoted a "Clarification Regarding My Book
> > _The End of Christianity_".
>
> > In part, it says:
>
> > "If I were to write The End of Christianity now, I would do several
> > things differently. ... " He doesn't commit himself on the universality
> > of the Flood, but does say that he is a "biblical inerrantist", accepts
> > the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and believes that Adam and Eve
> > were real people, the original two humans and "progenitors of the whole
> > human race."
>
> This is in the piece you originally linked to:
>
> �In a brief section on Genesis 4�11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising
> questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection
> on my part,� Dembski wrote. �Before I write on this topic again, I have
(snip)
So a little geology would be too much to ask?
KP
John Harshman
Dembski tailors his message to his audience, and his audience in that
case don't got to show you no stinkin' geology.
Frank J
> "On 20 Oct 2010 10:14:44 -0700, in article
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >What is Dembski's position on a global flood?
>
> >I came across this article at the Florida Baptist Witness, which is
> >principally about the debate about the age of the earth - hat tip to
> >the Sensuous Curmudgeon
>
> >"HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars" by David Roach
>
> ><http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y>
>
> >What caught my eye was the statement that Dembski at one point claimed
> >that Noah's Flood was a local phenomenon, and then withdrew that claim.
>
> >I would like to see the text of that withdrawal. Does Dembski actually
> >say that there was a world-wide flood? Does he even say that Noah's
> >Flood was an actual event? Does he feel it necessary to bow so low?
>
> With a little more searching, I found this:
>
>
> "A Reply to Tom Nettles' Review of William A Dembski's _The End
> of Christianity .._"
> Dr. David L. Allen
>
> In this, there is quoted a "Clarification Regarding My Book
> _The End of Christianity_".
>
> In part, it says:
>
> "If I were to write The End of Christianity now, I would do several
> things differently. ... " He doesn't commit himself on the universality
> of the Flood, but does say that he is a "biblical inerrantist", accepts
> the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and believes that Adam and Eve
> were real people, the original two humans and "progenitors of the whole
> human race."
Copy of my reply to the Curmudgeon:
With the caveat that I have only read Dembski�s words as quoted by the
�kind� of people who never miss an opportunity to quote mine, it seems
quitle clear that Dembski�s �retraction� in conceding a global flood
is strictly of the �Omphalos� justification. IOW he still agrees that
there is no *evidence* of a global flood, and that it must be taken on
�faith.� Of couse that loophole can �justify� any alternate �theory�
including Last Thurdsayism.
Dembski is probably the shrewdest wordsmith of all the theocratic anti-
science activists. If anyone can unite the YECs, OECs (common descent-
accepting, denying and uncertain varieties) and �new agey�
pseudoskeptics, he can. So I warn fellow critics using Dembski�s own
phrase: �Don�t take the bait� and ass-u-me that he is a closet YEC. He
is almost certainly not, and if anything, he could be a closet
�Darwinist.�:
http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious
But he is well aware that heliocentric YEC sells best among the
�masses,� so he�ll say anything he can to keep them in the big tent,
knowing quite well that they, if not YEC leaders, are quite tolerant
of any sound bite that bad-mouths �Darwinism.�
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
> with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
> The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Harshman
> With the caveat that I have only read Dembski�s words as quoted by the
> �kind� of people who never miss an opportunity to quote mine, it seems
> quitle clear that Dembski�s �retraction� in conceding a global flood
> is strictly of the �Omphalos� justification. IOW he still agrees that
> there is no *evidence* of a global flood, and that it must be taken on
> �faith.� Of couse that loophole can �justify� any alternate �theory�
> including Last Thurdsayism.
Where did you get this impression? Can you quote?
Stephen
> What is Dembski's position on a global flood?
>
> I came across this article at the Florida Baptist Witness, which is
> principally about the debate about the age of the earth - hat tip to
> the Sensuous Curmudgeon
> <http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/battling-baptists-
> young-or-old-earth/>
>
> "HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars" by David Roach
>
> <http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y>
>
> What caught my eye was the statement that Dembski at one point
> claimed that Noah's Flood was a local phenomenon, and then withdrew
> that claim.
>
> I would like to see the text of that withdrawal. Does Dembski
> actually say that there was a world-wide flood? Does he even say that
> Noah's Flood was an actual event? Does he feel it necessary to bow so
> low?
Looking at the article from the _Florida Baptist Witness_ at:
http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/24thxdo
which is referenced in the Sensual Curmudgeon blog at
http://preview.tinyurl.com/268geud, referred to above ....
Creationists even quote-mine each other, and have to defend their
quote-mines to each other:
"[Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary School of Theology's dean,
David] Allen, himself a proponent of a young earth, saw many of
[Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor of historical theology
Tom] Nettles' critiques as invalid though. He said in an interview with
the Witness that Nettles quotes Dembski out of context.
<quote>
"On page 82 of Nettles' review, he [Nettles] quotes Dembski and he
misquotes him," Allen told the Witness. "He quotes Dembski and is
totally missing the context of what Dembski is saying. Where he
interprets Dembski as saying that old-earth evidence trumps the most
natural reading of Genesis and the overwhelming consensus of
theologians and so forth, the context of that in Dembski's book is the
current mental environment thinks that, not that Dembski thinks that
way."
Nettles responded to Allen's written critique in an open letter
published on the blog of Founders Ministries, an organization of
Southern Baptist Calvinists.
</quote>
Re the supposed recanting by Dembski of his supposed statement that the
flood was a local event rather than global, this article also says:
<quote>
[Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige] Patterson
said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he
convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators
at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he
was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.
"Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the
absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course,
ended his relationship with the school," he said.
</quote>
--
Ron O
> TomS wrote:
> > "On 20 Oct 2010 10:14:44 -0700, in article
> >> What is Dembski's position on a global flood?
>
> >> I came across this article at the Florida Baptist Witness, which is
> >> principally about the debate about the age of the earth - hat tip to
> >> the Sensuous Curmudgeon
>
> >> "HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars" by David Roach
>
> >> <http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y>
>
> >> What caught my eye was the statement that Dembski at one point claimed
> >> that Noah's Flood was a local phenomenon, and then withdrew that claim.
>
> >> I would like to see the text of that withdrawal. Does Dembski actually
> >> say that there was a world-wide flood? Does he even say that Noah's
> >> Flood was an actual event? Does he feel it necessary to bow so low?
>
> > With a little more searching, I found this:
>
>
> > "A Reply to Tom Nettles' Review of William A Dembski's _The End
> > of Christianity .._"
> > Dr. David L. Allen
>
> > In this, there is quoted a "Clarification Regarding My Book
> > _The End of Christianity_".
>
> > In part, it says:
>
> > "If I were to write The End of Christianity now, I would do several
> > things differently. ... " He doesn't commit himself on the universality
> > of the Flood, but does say that he is a "biblical inerrantist", accepts
> > the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and believes that Adam and Eve
> > were real people, the original two humans and "progenitors of the whole
> > human race."
>
> This is in the piece you originally linked to:
>
> �In a brief section on Genesis 4�11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising
> questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection
> on my part,� Dembski wrote. �Before I write on this topic again, I have
> much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case,
> not only Genesis 6�9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second
> Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical
> inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to
> the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.�
>
> So Dembski says clearly that he believes in a universal flood. I wonder
Sounds like the reasoning of a true scientist searching for what the
answers are instead of claiming to know what they are.... What a
crock. Everyone should recall that it was Dembski, of all people, who
admonished Wells and Meyer for lying to the Ohio rubes about
intelligent design being science. He told them that the ID perps
should not over state their case. Denbski telling someone else not to
tell whoppers. Sad but true.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> TomS wrote:
> > What is Dembski's position on a global flood?
>
> > I came across this article at the Florida Baptist Witness, which is
> > principally about the debate about the age of the earth - hat tip to
> > the Sensuous Curmudgeon
> > <http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/battling-baptists-
> > young-or-old-earth/>
>
> > "HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars" by David Roach
>
> > <http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y>
>
> > What caught my eye was the statement that Dembski at one point
> > claimed that Noah's Flood was a local phenomenon, and then withdrew
> > that claim.
>
> > I would like to see the text of that withdrawal. Does Dembski
> > actually say that there was a world-wide flood? Does he even say that
> > Noah's Flood was an actual event? Does he feel it necessary to bow so
> > low?
>
> Looking at the article from the _Florida Baptist Witness_ at:
>
>
> which is referenced in the Sensual Curmudgeon blog athttp://preview.tinyurl.com/268geud, referred to above ....
Ambiguity shouldn't surprise anyone. The ID perps make a living
talking out of both sides of their mouths at once. They might even
believe what one side is saying some of the time.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> > questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection
> > much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do...."
>
> (snip)
>
> So a little geology would be too much to ask?
He doesn't need to look through a telescope, he already knows what's
there.
Wait, that wasn't geology. (Or exactly true, I hear.) But, same
principle.
Frank J
> > kind of people who never miss an opportunity to quote mine, it seems
> > quitle clear that Dembski s retraction in conceding a global flood
> > is strictly of the Omphalos justification. IOW he still agrees that
> > there is no *evidence* of a global flood, and that it must be taken on
> > including Last Thurdsayism.
>
> Where did you get this impression? Can you quote?
What I had in mind was from this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
"The [Omphalos]position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the
universe was created last week with only an appearance of older
history."
John Harshman
get the impression that Dembski says that he's using an Omphalos
justification, that a flood must be taken on faith, and that there is no
evidence for a flood. I read the same things you did (or so I believe)
and I can't find any such thing being made quite clear.
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
I doubt that he'd ever *say* that he's using an Omphalos justication,
but he did say "..I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and
bow to the text", so it sure seems like he's additting that the
evidence is irrelevant. Unless of course it can be taken out of from
context to make evolution look "weak."
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
This presumably is different, however. The story seems to believe
that a global flood occurred during historic times (does he cleave to
a YEC timetable that sets it somewhere during Egyptian recorded
civilisation, which overlooks it? "Nile was a bit high up during this
year's annual high spate. We hope it isn't a trend.") which
presumably would leave lots of evidence, which has somehow disappeared.
John Harshman
> On Oct 21, 5:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Frank J wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 4:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Frank J wrote:
>>>>> With the caveat that I have only read Dembski s words as quoted by the
>>>>> kind of people who never miss an opportunity to quote mine, it seems
>>>>> quitle clear that Dembski s retraction in conceding a global flood
>>>>> is strictly of the Omphalos justification. IOW he still agrees that
>>>>> there is no *evidence* of a global flood, and that it must be taken on
>>>>> faith. Of couse that loophole can justify any alternate theory
>>>>> including Last Thurdsayism.
>>>> Where did you get this impression? Can you quote?
>>> What I had in mind was from this:
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
>>> "The [Omphalos]position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the
>>> universe was created last week with only an appearance of older
>>> history."
>> Yes, I understand what the Omphalos position is. I was asking where you
>> get the impression that Dembski says that he's using an Omphalos
>> justification, that a flood must be taken on faith, and that there is no
>> evidence for a flood. I read the same things you did (or so I believe)
>> and I can't find any such thing being made quite clear.
> I doubt that he'd ever *say* that he's using an Omphalos justication,
> but he did say "..I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and
> bow to the text", so it sure seems like he's additting that the
> evidence is irrelevant. Unless of course it can be taken out of from
> context to make evolution look "weak."
It's quite a distance from "the evidence is irrelevant" to "the evidence
is misleading". He may imagine, or may claim, that the physical evidence
fits the Bible just fine. So you haven't shown that he's making any sort
of Omphalos argument, explicit or implicit. Is that all you were basing
it on?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Perhaps we should regard "weak ophalism" and "strong omphalism" as
cousins: the former, that A is true (the bible), although mere limited
human understanding of material evidence points to B (e.g. no flood);
the latter, that A is true /and/ God or Satan or whoever /
deliberately/ went around creating misleading evidence that points to
B.
Oh, and generalise it from "the world did not / did exist 6,014 years
ago" and "Adam did / did not have a navel", to "The holy book trumps /
doesn't trump all of the independent, non-holy evidence".
But perhaps there's a different word for that.
A literal Omphalist Flood would, I suppose, involve the creation of
Noah's Ark and its crew and cargo out of nothing.
In my opinion, Christian theology leans rather heavily on the Garden
of Eden. If that never happened, due to Diluvian Ophalism - if the
first human was Noah - Christian theology would have a problem. Oh,
and it's not going to satisfy interpret-the-bible-literally-ists. For
these reasons, it is a stupid idea, and I seem to have invented it,
but only in order to dismiss it.
TomS
<d5b1fec9-c625-4125...@n26g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Robert
Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org stated..."
I know that most of you aren't interested in the question of who wrote
the Pentateuch, but apparently Dembski has committed himself to the
belief that Moses wrote it. Following your lead on terminology, I call
that "Mosaic Omphalism".
For if we look at the Pentateuch, it has all of the appearances of
having been written by several people after the establishment of the
kingdom of Israel. It is possible to maintain a Mosaic Omphalism and
ascribe to Moses the ability to write a document with those appearances.
(With the help of an omnipotent God, of course.) Why he would want to
write a document with such a deceptive appearance, who knows?
Ron O
> "On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:16:46 -0700 (PDT), in article
> Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org stated..."
> >first human was Noah - Christian theology would have a problem. 锟絆h,
> >and it's not going to satisfy interpret-the-bible-literally-ists. 锟紽or
> >these reasons, it is a stupid idea, and I seem to have invented it,
> >but only in order to dismiss it.
>
> I know that most of you aren't interested in the question of who wrote
> the Pentateuch, but apparently Dembski has committed himself to the
> belief that Moses wrote it. Following your lead on terminology, I call
> that "Mosaic Omphalism".
>
> For if we look at the Pentateuch, it has all of the appearances of
> having been written by several people after the establishment of the
> kingdom of Israel. It is possible to maintain a Mosaic Omphalism and
> ascribe to Moses the ability to write a document with those appearances.
> (With the help of an omnipotent God, of course.) Why he would want to
> write a document with such a deceptive appearance, who knows?
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
> with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
When I took Christian history in college one of the reasons given for
claiming that the two creation stories had been kept in the Bible to
convey different messages was the fact that the second creation story
about Adam and Eve was written in a more archaic form than the first
creation story. They obviously had two different authors from two
time periods.
Ron Okimoto
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I would like to stop short of simply making "omphalism" a synonym for
"forgery".
The five volumes mostly make Moses look very good, finishing by saying
there wasn't ever anybody else as marvellous as him, and of course
indicating that getting stranded in the wilderness for forty years
wasn't his fault. As for writing, and therefore faking, his own death
scene, - did he have life insurance?
Wikipedia says:
"Jewish religious tradition ascribes authorship of the Torah to Moses
through a process of divine inspiration. This view of Mosaic
authorship is first found explicitly expressed in the Talmud, dating
from the 1st to the 6th centuries CE, and is based on textual analysis
of passages in the Torah and the subsequent books of the Hebrew Bible.
Contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the
Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, to no earlier
than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).[7] According to dating of
the text by Orthodox rabbis, some place it during the revelation of
the Torah to Moses, which occurred in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai;[8]
another date given for this event is 1280 BCE.[9] However, the Zohar,
the most significant text in Jewish mysticism, states that the Torah
was created prior to the creation of the world, and that it was used
as the blueprint for Creation.[10] Scholarly discussion for much of
the 20th century was principally couched in terms of the documentary
hypothesis, according to which the Torah is a synthesis of documents
from a small number of originally independent sources.[11]"
I repeat... HE DIES.
(According to some later additions, he comes back.)
Also, a lot of adverse events appear to be preventable if Moses - or
God - was in possession of a previously written description of them.
I read it: It doesn't even /sound/ like Moses wrote it.
John S. Wilkins
...
I prefer his earlier short stories. Especially that one about Gilgamesh.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Mike Painter
His little known Egyptian works are good. Apparently they are also big
insome sothern states where they enjoy the porn and point out that brother
sister marriages are a sign of royal blood.
Of courser my favorite was teh book on magic he wrote after his work with
Pharoh.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Of course my favorite was the book on magic
> he wrote after his work with Pharaoh.
The one about staff management?
(and something about highly selected people)
TomS
<28f936f0-d533-44aa...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Robert
The Pentateuch also says that Moses was the most modest (or humblest)
of all men. I suppose that if the Lord dictated that to him, he would,
in all modesty, go ahead and write it.
>
>Wikipedia says:
>"Jewish religious tradition ascribes authorship of the Torah to Moses
>through a process of divine inspiration. This view of Mosaic
>authorship is first found explicitly expressed in the Talmud, dating
>from the 1st to the 6th centuries CE, and is based on textual analysis
>of passages in the Torah and the subsequent books of the Hebrew Bible.
>Contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the
"secular biblical scholars" - such as Christians and Orthodox Jews. Not,
to be sure, "Fundamentalists" and "Ultra-Orthodox". There aren't, I
don't think, a lot of secular biblical scholars. Yes, I know of some.
>Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, to no earlier
>than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).[7] According to dating of
>the text by Orthodox rabbis, some place it during the revelation of
>the Torah to Moses, which occurred in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai;[8]
>another date given for this event is 1280 BCE.[9] However, the Zohar,
>the most significant text in Jewish mysticism, states that the Torah
>was created prior to the creation of the world, and that it was used
>as the blueprint for Creation.[10] Scholarly discussion for much of
>the 20th century was principally couched in terms of the documentary
>hypothesis, according to which the Torah is a synthesis of documents
>from a small number of originally independent sources.[11]"
>
>I repeat... HE DIES.
>
>(According to some later additions, he comes back.)
>
>Also, a lot of adverse events appear to be preventable if Moses - or
>God - was in possession of a previously written description of them.
And there are the references to the kings of Israel. They are not
"predictions" of the sort, "there will be kings of Israel", but are
rather written as if the audience already knows that there have been
kings of Israel - such-and-such happened before there were kings in
Israel. Moreover, the description in 1 Samuel of the beginnings of
the institution of kings of Israel reads as if nobody knew about
Moses having written that there will be kings.
>
>I read it: It doesn't even /sound/ like Moses wrote it.
>
Moses, as I said, could have written it to sound as if it were
written much later. I don't know how one can avoid the impression
that doing that would be deliberate deception.
Nowhere does it say, neither in the Pentateuch nor elsewhere in the
Bible, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Yes, it does say that Moses
wrote some things. But the final chapter of Joshua says that Joshua
wrote some of the Law.
There are some people who allow that the description of the death
and subsequent status of Moses was not written by Moses. That, it
seems to me, is an admission that evidence can override belief.
Ron O
> "On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:13:44 -0700 (PDT), in article
> Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org stated..."
>
>
>
>
SNIP:
>
> >The five volumes mostly make Moses look very good, finishing by saying
> >there wasn't ever anybody else as marvellous as him, and of course
> >indicating that getting stranded in the wilderness for forty years
> >wasn't his fault. �As for writing, and therefore faking, his own death
> >scene, - did he have life insurance?
>
> The Pentateuch also says that Moses was the most modest (or humblest)
> of all men. I suppose that if the Lord dictated that to him, he would,
> in all modesty, go ahead and write it.
>
From what some Bible scholars think about Moses that may be one of the
few passages that he actually wrote himself.
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
But watch for my soon to be published volume titled "The Lost
Books of Moses". It contains the story of the 20 Commandments
and the five additional curses on Pharoh, the most significant
of which (and the one that convinced him to let the Jews go)
was erectile dysfunction.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
<snip>
> But watch for my soon to be published volume titled "The Lost
> Books of Moses". It contains the story of the 20 Commandments
> and the five additional curses on Pharoh, the most significant
> of which (and the one that convinced him to let the Jews go)
> was erectile dysfunction.
One of the wurst plagues was reptile dysfunction.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Mike Painter
> In article <ia1l3u$s5q$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> But watch for my soon to be published volume titled "The Lost
>> Books of Moses". It contains the story of the 20 Commandments
>> and the five additional curses on Pharoh, the most significant
>> of which (and the one that convinced him to let the Jews go)
>> was erectile dysfunction.
>
> One of the wurst plagues was reptile dysfunction.
I'm very interezted in the book.
Does it have lots of pictures and use words us common folk can understand?
Why do you limit it to just 20 commands, the list starting with the Big Ten
goes on and on.