Two Authors--Two Flood Stories

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Genesis tells two completely different stories about Noah and the great flood. The evidence I will present in this and subsequent posts will show that the editors who compiled the Bible took two quite different flood stories from two different traditions and wove them together to make one story. The editor took one passage from one tradition, followed it with a passage from the other tradition, then went back to the first tradition, then to the second, and so on and so forth, alternating about five or six times.

In the analysis below, I’ve lifted out of Genesis 6-9 all of the flood-story passages in which the deity is called GOD, and pasted them together to make one complete flood story; the remaining passages likewise tell a complete flood story, as I will demonstrate in the next post. This, by itself, is extremely strong evidence, if not proof, that the people who chose the sacred texts for the Bible took two different--and contradictory--stories about the flood from two different authors; one of the authors called the deity GOD, and the other called it LORD.

But, what really proves beyond any doubt that there were two authors—not one--is the wealth of unique correspondences found in disconnected passages. I will show these correspondences in a subsequent post. The first flood story will be presented first, then the second in a subsequent post.

As you read this story, keep in mind that the words GOD, SON, COVENANT, and references to the word TWO will be completely absent in the second flood story, to be presented in the next post.

The First Flood Story

The flood story below was constructed by lifting from Chapters 6-9 of Genesis only those passages which refer to GOD, and leaving behind the remaining passages; it tells a complete story of the flood, and, as you will see later, so do the passages left behind.

The passages below are not written in a continuous block because they were not continuous in the original; wherever there is a break between two passages, that means that a passage was removed and used for the other flood story. The highlighted words are present only in the GOD passages, not in the LORD ones.

Genesis 6:9-22

9 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with GOD. 10 Noah had three SONS: Shem, Ham and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in GOD's sight and was full of violence. 12 GOD saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So GOD said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people…But I will establish my COVENANT with you, and you will enter the ark--you and your SONS and your wife and your SONS ' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark TWO of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 TWO of every kind of bird…22 Noah did everything just as GOD commanded him.


Genesis 7:7-9

7 And Noah and his SONS and his wife and his SONS' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 PAIRS of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as GOD had commanded Noah.

Genesis 7:12-16b

12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On that very day Noah and his SONS, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three SONS, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 PAIRS of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16a The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as GOD had commanded Noah.

(Readers should not overlook the repetition in the two passages above: the GOD author has Noah and the animals entering the ark twice. This may have been caused by the editor’s wish to include the words on scrolls from two different GOD authors about Noah entering the ark.)

Genesis 8:1

8:1 But GOD remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded.

Genesis 8:14-19

14 By the twenty-SEVENth day of the second month the earth was completely dry. 15 Then GOD said to Noah, 16 "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your SONS and their wives. 17 Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you--the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground--so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it." 18 So Noah came out, together with his SONS and his wife and his SONS ' wives. 19 All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds--everything that moves on the earth--came out of the ark, one kind after another.

Genesis 9:1-17

1 Then GOD blessed Noah and his SONS, saying to them, "Be fruitful…. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of GOD has GOD made man. 7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." 8 Then GOD said to Noah and to his SONS with him: 9 "I now establish my COVENANT with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my COVENANT with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 And GOD said, "This is the sign of the COVENANT I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a COVENANT for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the COVENANT between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my COVENANT between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting COVENANT between GOD and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." 17 So GOD said to Noah, "This is the sign of the COVENANT I have established between me and all life on the earth.

[The Laughing Man]

The fact that you are still using this ignorant and weak "'God' vs. 'Lord' vs. 'Lord God' vs. whatever" argument shows that you learned nothing from the last thread involving the issue. Once make an exclusive point about something else (i.e. completely excluding the "different names means different authors" crap), then I'll start taking both you and your posts seriously.

[Joseph Alward]

JINX
....ignorant....crap


JOE ALWARD
Jinx, I will give you one more chance to show that you know how to correspond in a civil manner. On several other occasions you have treated me with condescension and contempt. If it happens again, I will simply stop reading your posts.

[The Laughing Man]

03-03-2003 @ 10:18 PM
Joseph Alward:JOE ALWARD
Jinx, I will give you one more chance to show that you know how to correspond in a civil manner.

Taking the high road? Fine. Then tell me if you'd rather have me to speak blunt truth or sugar coat my words so you won't feel offended? I personally would prefer to speak bluntly because it saves on typing and more easily gets my point across.

On several other occasions you have treated me with condescension and contempt.

Contempt? Not really. Perhaps I've treated your arguments as such, but not you personally. I neither like nor dislike you as I don't know you.

I guess I can see how you might take some of the things I post as condescending, but that's just me putting some color into my posts. I like to have fun with things to keep them from getting mind-numbingly boring. Perhaps that makes me a bit jaded. I don't know. In any case, please take no personal offense as none in intended.

If it happens again, I will simply stop reading your posts.

Well, do what you feel you must. I personally would respond to what people say, not how they say it. (Usually, anyway. I've been on atheist forums where many users' posts contain little to no substance and are all about insults and attitude.)

[spl_cadet]

Congratulations, you've proven that I'm actually three different people. Because I call my paternal grandfather Poppa, my Poppa, or Dad's Dad (note: that's when I'm explaining who Poppa is) obviously I must not be the same person when saying these things.

And how is it two different stories? Looks like one story with a beginning, middle, and end to me.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
In my first post in this thread, I lifted out of Genesis 6-9 all of the flood-story passages in which the deity is called GOD, and pasted them together to make one complete flood story. The other passages--in which the creator was called LORD--were set aside with the promise that they, too, would be pasted together to create a complete flood story. This completeness could not exist if there were just one author telling one story, for the information left out would surely not permit the remainder to tell a complete story. We thus have two separate and complete flood stories mixed together by a Bible editor who took one passage from one tradition, followed it with a passage from the other tradition, then when back to the first tradition, then to the second, and so on and so forth about five or six times.

In this post, I show the second creation story. As you read it, note that none of the emphasized words appear in passages in which the deity is called "God" (see my first post), just as none of the emphasized words (son, covenant, two, pair) in the first story appear in the second story, below.

The passages below are not written in a continuous block because they were not continuous in the original; wherever there is a break between two passages, that means that a passage was removed and used for the other flood story.


The Second Flood Story

Genesis 6:5-8

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them. 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD

Genesis 7:1-6

7:1 The LORD then said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and your whole FAMILY, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you SEVEN of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also SEVEN of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 SEVEN days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made. 5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him. 6 Noah was SEVEN years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.

Genesis 7:10-11

10 And after the SEVEN days the floodwaters came on the earth. 11 In the SIX HUNDREDTHTH year of Noah's life, on the SEVENTEENTH day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Note the repetition here: we’re told twice that Noah was SIX HUNDRED years old when the floodwaters came. This may have been caused by the editor being in possession of two different LORD scrolls containing information about Noah’s age at the time of the coming of the waters.

Genesis 7:16b-24

16b Then the LORD shut him in. 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 22 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. 23 Only Noah was left, and THOSE WITH HIM in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:2-13

2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates f the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the SEVENTEENTH day of the SEVENTH month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible. 6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited SEVEN more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited SEVEN more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him. 13 By the first day of the first month of Noah's SIX HUNDRED and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry

Genesis 8:20-22

20 Then NOAH BUILT AN ALTAR to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. 22 As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.


Summary of Correspondences

Note that only the GOD author acknowledges that Noah has SONS(see my first post in this thread); he does so twelve times over five disconnected passages. However, the LORD author never once mentions SONS; he seems only to know that Noah has a "FAMILY" and that there are "OTHERS WITH HIM." When the altar is built (Genesis 8:20), the LORD authors says “NOAH BUILT AN ALTAR”; he doesn’t say his sons helped him because he evidently doesn’t know if there even were any sons.

The many references to SONS in the passages which refer to GOD, and only in the passages with GOD, is strong evidence that these passages were written by a different author than the one who wrote the others, and therefore were originally connected, not disconnected.


The LORD author seems especially enamored of the number seven; he is the only one who uses SEVEN / SEVENTH / SEVENTEEN, and does so nine times, spread over three disconnected passages. This is the author who says that SEVEN of each kind of animal is to be taken on board; the GOD author says in three disconnected passages that TWO, or a PAIR, of each kind are to be put on board. Not once does the GOD author use the numbers seven, seventh, seventeen. The many references to the “sevens” in the passages which refer to LORD, and only in the passages with LORD, is strong evidence that these passages were written by a different author than the one who wrote the ones in the other story, and were originally connected, and that there disconnection exists in Genesis only because some editor wove together two different flood stories.

The GOD author is the only author to use the word COVENANT; he does so eight times in one passage, and once in another disconnected one; the LORD author doesn’t mention it even once. The many references to COVENANT in the same passages which refer to GOD, and only in the passages with GOD, is strong evidence that these passages were written by a different author than the one who wrote the others, and were originally connected, not disconnected.

The GOD author in the flood story mentions that man was made in GOD’s image (Genesis 9:6), and it was only the GOD author in the creation story (Genesis 1:26-27) who mentioned the same thing; the LORD author in the creation story says nothing about it there, just as he says nothing about it here, in the flood story. This is strong evidence that two different authors are at work here: one who called the deity GOD and believed that man was made in GOD’s image, and said so in both the creation story and the flood stories, and one who called the deity LORD and said nothing about “image” in either story.

The LORD author refers to Noah’s SIX HUNDRED year age in three disconnected passages; the GOD author makes no reference to Noah’s age. This is further evidence that there were two different authors with two different beliefs about Noah and the flood.

[psychopath]

I think I'll give this one a shot.

What we have here are two competing views: yours, which holds that Genesis gives two separate flood accounts from two different human traditions, and the Christian's (well, most Christians'), which holds that the flood story was inspired by God. However, I don't think these viewpoints are contradictory, as you seem to be implying.

As you may well know, archaeology has shown that many ancient civilizations believed and told of a great and cataclysmic flood. The question is this: Is there good reason to believe that God, in inspiring the writer of Genesis, would have intertwined two of these flood traditions, each of which portrays the flood event correctly but incompletely, into a complete whole? I think the answer is yes. The Jewish people, for whom Genesis was primarily written at that time, were influenced by the traditions, customs, etc. of many other civilizations. I cannot definitively think of any specific examples off the top of my head, but, if I'm not mistaken, one such example was the Babylonians, who, strangely, also believed in the occurence of a great flood. (If you would like more examples, I suppose I can do a little research.) What better way for God to get across the message of this narrative to his intended audience than by intertwining the flood stories of two civilizations who influenced the Jews (and thus the Jews were probably aware of their flood accounts), which, as merely human tradition, probably correctly portrayed some of the flood occurence while omitting other important information, but as a combined whole told the story in all its completeness? Since the two separate accounts as you portray them don't contradict each other, the Jews would be familiar with the subject matter and ready to accept it. Furthermore, since the Biblical account would be a consistent meshing of two coherent yet incomplete accounts into one of coherence AND completeness, it would be quite believable.

I am not saying this surely happened. However, hypothetically, it would seem to make sense that God would utilize such a method. Therefore, your conclusion, which presumably is that the flood account comes from two different and uninspired human authors as opposed to a singular author directly inspired by God, does not follow unless you sufficiently show why the situation described above is not logical or likely to have occured.

If you can dodge this rebuttal, I will attempt another from a different angle. But for now, I think we should deal with this issue.

Oh yeah, I plan on responding to you on the King Josiah thread, though I don't know when I will have time to do so.

Peace.

[Talulah]

"I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ"

You know, I see this everytime you post, yet your posts are such a stark contrast to the statement that it has caught my eye several times.

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-04-2003 @ 02:08 PM] - spl_cadet:

Congratulations, you've proven that I'm actually three different people. Because I call my paternal grandfather Poppa, my Poppa, or Dad's Dad (note: that's when I'm explaining who Poppa is) obviously I must not be the same person when saying these things.Hi, spl_cadet. Actually, the issue goes beyond different names or, even, different writing styles. For example:Some clues that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch:
One passage describes a sequence of events; a later passage states that they happened in a different order. Presumably Moses would have remembered the proper sequence.
In the story of the Flood, one passage has Noah collecting two of each species while another passage states that he collected 14. One verse describes water coming from the heavens and from below the ground; another describes all of the water falling as rain. The duration of the rain differs between two verses.
Genesis 11:31 describes Abraham as living in the city Ur, and identifies that location with the Chaldeans. But the Chaldeans did not exist as a tribe at the time of Abraham; they rose to power much later, in the 1st millennium BCE
Deuteronomy 34 describes the death of Moses. It is difficult to attribute the description of a funeral to the deceased.
One passage in Genesis 33 has Jacob legally purchasing the location Shechem for the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. Genesis 34 has Jacob's sons killing all of the men of Shechem by a deceitful trick.
The first part of the story in Numbers 25 about the rebellion at Peor referred to Moabite women; the second part said that they were Midianites.
Moses is described as going to the Tabernacle in a passage where the Tabernacle had not yet been built.
A list of Edomite kings included some monarchs who were in power after Moses' death.
Some locations are identified by names that were invented long after the death of Moses. One example is seen in Genesis 14:14; it refers to the city of Dan. That name did not exist until a long time after Moses' death.
There are many verses in the Torah that state that something has lasted "to this day". That appears to have been written by a writer who composed the passages at a much later date.
Numbers 12:3 states "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth." (NKJ) If Moses were that humble, it is unlikely that he would have described himself in these terms.
Deuteronomy 34:10 states "There has never been another prophet like Moses..." (NLT) This sounds like a passage written long after Moses' death.- see ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm)Those interested might also find this Overview (http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/) useful.

[Sher]

I have decided to post my summary first, because it is by far the most concise reasoning of the whole issue I am addressing:

At the very least, even if you are willing and able to refute and demolish to my satisfaction every single one of my comments, you still fail to establish your (implied) point of errancy because a compilation of two authors -- Shem and Ham? Japeth and Gomer? -- still falls mighty short of your assertions that “the editors who compiled the Bible took two quite different flood stories from two different traditions and wove them together to make one story”. The BOP lies with you to prove your assertion, if you are trying to convince us that you are not just blowing hot air, that the stories are somehow different (which you haven’t proven), that they come from two different “traditions” (not simply the possibility of two different Hebrew authors), and that this somehow gives implication that they are somehow in error.

The main point is that if you are arguing from the presupposition that the events happened (and if you are not, it would be deception on your part because why bother presenting your semantics? Just call a spade a spade that you do not believe and we can move on.), what don’t you comprehend about the fact that to get Adam’s story, it would have to be related by someone he knew, and etc. down through the ages. The very understanding of that shows that it would be a compilation to begin with, but that still isn’t a proof of errancy.

[Sher]

(P.S. I am leaving the actual Bible text off in most instances to make this fit, and to make my comments clearer to read; I assume anyone can go to www.crosswalk.com, www.biblegateway.com, or pull out their own Bible)

Looking over this, we need to maintain two very important things in mind: whether the ancient text shows Yahweh or Elohiym, and how they are used in conjunction with other scripture. So let us get the full measure of : Noah’s Story (Genesis 6: 5 – 9:17) keeping this: “Yahweh? or Elohiym?” -- in mind.

v. 5 [Who passes judgment? “Yahweh? or Elohiym?”]

v. 6-7 [Who is speaking? “Yahweh? or Elohiym?” And who is He talking to here?]

v. 8 [Who’s eyes did Noah find grace in? “Yahweh? or Elohiym?" Who was judging in the first place (v.5)? {I think you get the drill}]

v. 9 –10 [Freebie: Noah walks with the Trinity of God … he is righteous.]

v. 11 – 22 [Who is communicating with Noah here?]

Genesis 7: 1 - 24

v. 1 - 6 [Who calls them into the ark, into salvation? Who provided salvation in the OT?]

v. 7 – 10 [See v. 6:11 – 22; who was communicating with Noah?]

v. 11 – 15 [not valid to my point]

v. 16 and they that are coming in, male and female of all flesh, have come in as [Elohiym] hath commanded him, and [Yahweh] doth close [it] for him. [Oops, Joseph Alward, you had to break v. 16 up, didn’t you? :rofl: Could it be because this verse serves to blast your points all to … out of the water … because it shows who did the commanding, and who closed the door? The Lord commanded … brought forth the message … and the Father sealed the deal {:lol: Busted! As my teen would say} Are you starting to see the similarity to another type of salvation? Where the Son brings the message and the Father seals the deal.]

v. 17 – 24 [not valid to my point]

Genesis 8: 1 - 22

v. 1 - 14 [Here we see that God is mindful of Noah and the residents of the ark … ]

v. 15 – 18 [… and here we see God express Himself in that context and command Noah]

v. 20 – 22 [Noah builds the altar. In whose name is worship and sacrifice to be given in the OT?]

Genesis 9: 1 - 29

v. 1 –29 [Who speaks to Noah and establishes a covenant?]

So now onto: Joseph Alward, Bible Skeptic’s “Summary of Correspondences“

… oh but first in reply to a comment placed in the middle: (Readers should not overlook the repetition in the two passages above: the GOD author has Noah and the animals entering the ark twice. This may have been caused by the editor’s wish to include the words on scrolls from two different GOD authors about Noah entering the ark.)Joseph Alward should not overlook that God commanded Noah to come into the ark when in 7 days the flood waters will start … “6:4 “for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth”… “And it cometh to pass, after the seventh of the days” … then Noah and his family entered the ark and the Father sealed the door on their salvation.

(and BTW, to tick off the anti-OSAS ... :fight:
... note that the door is sealed by the Father) <----:spam: :lol:

{{Hey YX? How about a little troll guy?}}

… Now back to the “Summary of Correspondences” (bum-bum-bum … ominous background music): Note that only the GOD author acknowledges that Noah has SONS(see my first post in this thread); he does so twelve times over five disconnected passages. However, the LORD author never once mentions SONS; he seems only to know that Noah has a "FAMILY" and that there are "OTHERS WITH HIM." When the altar is built (Genesis 8:20), the LORD authors says “NOAH BUILT AN ALTAR”; he doesn’t say his sons helped him because he evidently doesn’t know if there even were any sons. The many references to SONS in the passages which refer to GOD, and only in the passages with GOD, is strong evidence that these passages were written by a different author than the one who wrote the others, and therefore were originally connected, not disconnected.I can’t even begin to comment on how silly this is for argument. Gen 6:18 says "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark-- you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.” This is family/others with him, including the aforementioned sons. :dufus: By the way, just like chronology resolves why Noah built the ark without the help of his sons for x# of years (they weren’t born yet/too young), further inquiry into Hebrew traditions, as to who was responsible in a family for building an altar, may resolve your conflict. The LORD author seems especially enamored of the number seven; he is the only one who uses SEVEN / SEVENTH / SEVENTEEN, and does so nine times, spread over three disconnected passages.So what? This isn’t proof of anything.This is the author who says that SEVEN of each kind of animal is to be taken on board; the GOD author says in three disconnected [by Joseph Alward, Bible Skeptic ~S] passages that TWO, or a PAIR, of each kind are to be put on board. Not once does the GOD author use the numbers seven, seventh, seventeen. The many references to the “sevens” in the passages which refer to LORD, and only in the passages with LORD, is strong evidence that these passages were written by a different author than the one who wrote the ones in the other story, and were originally connected, and that there disconnection exists in Genesis only because some editor wove together two different flood stories.It is only strong evidence to someone who is surface reading the scripture and misses: “male and female” which indicates “pairs”. Again, you arbitrarily disconnected the information that tells you how many pairs. No conflict is present that isn’t of your making.The GOD author is the only author to use the word COVENANT; he does so eight times in one passage, and once in another disconnected one; the LORD author doesn’t mention it even once. The many references to COVENANT in the same passages which refer to GOD, and only in the passages with GOD, is strong evidence that these passages were written by a different author than the one who wrote the others, and were originally connected, not disconnected.If this is true, ask yourself who makes a covenants, specifically with Noah in this case? More specifically, who issues the convenant (who speaks it)? And then answer with whom the covenant is made? {The Trinity: 101}The GOD author in the flood story mentions that man was made in GOD’s image (Genesis 9:6), and it was only the GOD author in the creation story (Genesis 1:26-27) who mentioned the same thing; the LORD author in the creation story says nothing about it there, just as he says nothing about it here, in the flood story. This is strong evidence that two different authors are at work here: one who called the deity GOD and believed that man was made in GOD’s image, and said so in both the creation story and the flood stories, and one who called the deity LORD and said nothing about “image” in either story.:duh: The Lord didn’t create man alone … it was the whole Trinity.The LORD author refers to Noah’s SIX HUNDRED year age in three disconnected passages; the GOD author makes no reference to Noah’s age. This is further evidence that there were two different authors with two different beliefs about Noah and the flood.Once again… disconnected by you.

One thing that I found that I never noticed before is that the only time the Father speaks directly to Noah is to call him to salvation. What a fantastic kinship to the other offer of salvation and testimony to the harmonious scripture. Where the Lord is the intercessor for the Father ... even in the OT.

Thank you, Joseph Alward, for prompting me to revisit and review Noah's story. It has been a wonderful affirmation of my faith in salvation.

And again my summary:

At the very least, even if you are willing and able to refute and demolish to my satisfaction every single one of my comments, you still fail to establish your (implied) point of errancy because a compilation of two authors (Shem and Ham? Japeth and Gomer?) still falls mighty short of your assertions that “the editors who compiled the Bible took two quite different flood stories from two different traditions and wove them together to make one story”. The BOP lies with you to prove your assertion, if you are trying to convince us that you are not just blowing hot air, that the stories are somehow different (which you haven’t proven), that they come from two different “traditions” (not simply the possibility of two different Hebrew authors), and that this somehow gives implication that they are somehow in error.

The main point is that if you are arguing from the presupposition that the events happened (and if you are not, it would be deception on your part because why bother presenting your semantics? Just call a spade a spade that you do not believe and we can move on.), what don’t you comprehend about the fact that to get Adam’s story, it would have to be related by someone he knew, and etc. down through the ages. The very understanding of that shows that it would be a compilation to begin with, but that still isn’t a proof of errancy.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Thanks for the analysis, SherBear. You observed that even if I could demolish all of your claims, I still will have been unable to prove to your satisfaction that there were two contradicting flood stories.

I do not think I will be able to refute to your satisfaction every single one of your comments, so I will not respond further.

Interested readers who may wish to see a fuller presentation of my argument that there were at least two flood stories written by different authors, and that they were woven together to create the story in Genesis, may consult the article, "Two Flood Stories, " at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Two_Flood_Stories.htm

[WinAce]

We can probably test this hypothesis. Do we have similar stories we know for a fact to be written by different authors? If so, does the set of criteria Joseph Alward uses consistently distinguish between the two authors? Conversely, would it return a false positive if applied to a work we know for a fact was written by one person?

If the criteria pass both these tests, I'd say Mr. Alward has a bulletproof case.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44977#post44977)
Joseph Alward:

Thanks for the analysis, SherBear. You observed that even if I could demolish all of your claims, I still will have been unable to prove to your satisfaction that there were two contradicting flood stories. I do not think I will be able to refute to your satisfaction every single one of your comments, so I will not respond further.Okay, I will dismiss for the moment "to my satisfaction." Now, why don't you now attempt to refute my points, instead of a hit and run attempt at trolling the board? You have not met the burden of proof that your implied claim of compilation equals errancy is anything more than an argument from assertion on your part.Interested readers who may wish to see a fuller presentation of my argument that there were at least two flood stories written by different authors, and that they were woven together to create the story in Genesis, may consult the article ...I think interested readers would rather see you actually support your implied claim of errancy, instead of seeing you cop out on semantics of my post.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 08:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44983#post44983)
WinAce:

We can probably test this hypothesis. Do we have similar stories we know for a fact to be written by different authors?Non sequitur: Affirming the Consequent (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/affirm.htm) ... proving one, or even several, instances of falsehood does not prove falsehood here.If so, does the set of criteria Joseph Alward uses consistently distinguish between the two authors?Again, Non sequitur: Affirming the Consequent ... ability to prove there is a compilation by two authors does not meet the burden of proof for proving the scripture is false.Conversely, would it return a false positive if applied to a work we know for a fact was written by one person?Irrelevant ... Non sequitur: Denying the antecedent (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/deny.htm) is a fallacy that will not meet the burden of proof.If the criteria pass both these tests, I'd say Mr. Alward has a bulletproof case. You would be wrong because your criteria is laden with, in fact totally comprised of, fallacious argumentation.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

SHER BEAR
I think interested readers would rather see you actually support your implied claim of errancy

Maybe so. If someone else wants to discuss this with me, I might want to re-enter this debate. For now, I would prefer to rest my case on the material I've presented, and let you have the last word.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45191#post45191)
Joseph Alward:

Maybe so. If someone else wants to discuss this with me, I might want to re-enter this debate. For now, I would prefer to rest my case on the material I've presented, and let you have the last word. Official Propaganda Decipherer (TM) readout: Assertions cannot be supported with actual evidence. Original poster decides to duck and run. /end of readout

:yipee: And here is the last word so graciously allowed: Amen

[WinAce]

SherBear:

Non sequitur: Affirming the Consequent ... proving one, or even several, instances of falsehood does not prove falsehood here.

I'm grateful for the tutorial in logic, but I think you misread my point. If hypothesis A predicts result B,

Again, Non sequitur: Affirming the Consequent ... ability to prove there is a compilation by two authors does not meet the burden of proof for proving the scripture is false.

The Noah tale can't be false, anymore than the Iliad. Myths and fiction aren't generally classified as 'true' or 'false' unless you think they actually happened. Since we have plenty of non-scriptural evidence that it didn't, we can debate whether the story was written by one or more authors.

Irrelevant ... Non sequitur: Denying the antecedent is a fallacy that will not meet the burden of proof

My original post implied:

If Mr. Alward's criteria return a false positive on single-authored works, saying it was multiauthored then Mr. Alward's criteria can be considered inaccurate indicators of authorship.

Mr. Alward's criteria don't return a false positive, therefore, they can't currently be considered inaccurate indicators of authorships.

This valid form of argument is called modus tollens, a.k.a. denying the consequent, and is the underlying basis for the Popperian falsification criterion. It takes the form "If p then q. Not q. Therefore not p." You have your fallacies confused, I'm afraid.

You would be wrong because your criteria is laden with, in fact totally comprised of, fallacious argumentation.

Well, gosh darn. All of scientific testing is wrong. Trying to falsify a hypothesis and failing in all attempts doesn't really mean it's probably right. Those physicists, geologists, cosmologists, biologists and others are all wrong.

Do you have any specific objections to Popperian falsification?

[AtheistArchon]

Do you have any specific objections to Popperian falsification?

- The dragon in my garage does.

:teeth:

[Sher]

WinAce: I'm grateful for the tutorial in logic, but I think you misread my point. If hypothesis A predicts result B, The Noah tale can't be false, anymore than the Iliad. Myths and fiction aren't generally classified as 'true' or 'false' unless you think they actually happened. Since we have plenty of non-scriptural evidence that it didn't, we can debate whether the story was written by one or more authors.

SherBear: Then you are working off the presupposed notion that the history of Noah is myth or fiction. I am convinced that it actually happened as written and deny that there is any “evidence” beyond the interpretations of God-haters/deniers.

But we were actually discussing two separate points here,which your presuppostions have no bearing on:[1] the question whether Noah's history was written by one or more authors
[2]the question of whether a compilation means that there is conflict/errancy Point two is what as Joseph Alward is trying to imply -- see his website for proof of this assertion, coupled with his lack of denial in subsequent posts (which while not evidence itself, is a strong indicator and supports the evidences on his website, his participation on this and the other forum, and his "title" under his name of Bible Skeptic).

While I have illustrated how it could be possible, with history starting with Adam, that the history was drawn from the forefather’s documentation and/or oral history, this by no means supports that it is errant. The BOP is on him to prove contradiction, something he refused to do ... he only linked to his site and ran away.

But back to point one, the point your questions actually addressed in your post:

WinAce: My original post implied: If Mr. Alward's criteria return a false positive on single-authored works, saying it was multiauthored then Mr. Alward's criteria can be considered inaccurate indicators of authorship. Mr. Alward's criteria don't return a false positive, therefore, they can't currently be considered inaccurate indicators of authorships. This valid form of argument is called modus tollens, a.k.a. denying the consequent, and is the underlying basis for the Popperian falsification criterion. It takes the form "If p then q. Not q. Therefore not p." You have your fallacies confused, I'm afraid. Well, gosh darn. All of scientific testing is wrong. Trying to falsify a hypothesis and failing in all attempts doesn't really mean it's probably right. Those physicists, geologists, cosmologists, biologists and others are all wrong. Do you have any specific objections to Popperian falsification?

SherBear: Your addition of “currently" and "considered” were not in, nor implied by, your original statement. First of all, NOT is not wavering (currently considered) but a firm denial. Secondly, you said “I'd say Mr. Alward has a bulletproof case”. Bulletproof means that it is so strong that one could not shoot holes through it. Well, the most glaring hole is that lack of a false positive does not mean that a counterexample doesn’t exist. You cannot possibly decide it is a bulletproof case (i.e., truth) on one … or even one thousand … tests on “a work we know for a fact was written by one person” because you would simply be proving a falsity of those examples, not of every example that does and could possibly exist. Not only that but the criteria he proposed doesn't prove anything at all. Often two or more people author a book, does that have any bearing on it's veracity? Remember that this is his whole point in his criteria ... not establishing two authors, but somehow indicting that there is errancy. Hense, the counter examples prove that the criteria is faulty.

BTW, I apologize that in my haste I missed bundling the first and second sentences to one instance of “affirming the consequent” ... I should not have separated them as two examples when they were connected.

Let me explain why I think you were both affirming the consequent.

Affirming the consequent is “If A then B. B. Therefore A.” Correct? Okay, then …

If A is the assertion: "two authors wrote a conflicting version of Noah’s history"
Then B is the comparison: “Do we have similar stories we know for a fact to be written by different authors?”
B (“the set of criteria Joseph Alward uses consistently distinguish between the two authors”, i.e. shows that B is true … two authors did write a story)
Therefore A (Therefore fallaciously shows that two authors wrote a conflicting version of Noah’s history)

By this fallacy we can also say:
If you have a dog
Then you have a pet
You have a pet
Therefore, you have a dogWell, no ... you might have a cat, or a rabbit, or a hampster ... I'm sure you get the drift.

As for Denying the Antecedent , I looked at your questions as indicators of something different than you say they inferred:
If A -- the multiple author theory is true
Then B -- it will prove that Noah's history was written by more than one person
Not A (“Conversely, would it return a false positive ..." -- when the multiple author theory is NOT true, it shows it is)
Therefore not B (it proves that Noah's history was NOT written by more than one person) It does not prove anything either way. As I've shown, proof of one example isn't proof of another. Therefore, even though I misunderstood your implied point, the logic in it was still faulty ... non sequitur.

… And yes, actually, I do have a specific objection to Popperian falsification, as it asserts that no statement can ever be true. This relativistic philosophy contradicts itself by being its own counterexample.

[ollie]

03-25-2003 @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD

Thanks for the analysis, SherBear. You observed that even if I could demolish all of your claims, I still will have been unable to prove to your satisfaction that there were two contradicting flood stories.

I do not think I will be able to refute to your satisfaction every single one of your comments, so I will not respond further.

Interested readers who may wish to see a fuller presentation of my argument that there were at least two flood stories written by different authors, and that they were woven together to create the story in Genesis, may consult the article, "Two Flood Stories, " at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Two_Flood_Stories.htm
What a cop out!

[WinAce]

I am convinced that it actually happened as written and deny that there is any “evidence” beyond the interpretations of God-haters/deniers.

May I ask, do you have certain... issues with non-believers that I'm not aware of? Aside from that, how could one hate or deny that which doesn't exist? ;)

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
WinAce:

Aside from that, how could one hate or deny that which doesn't exist? If you are unable to deny something because you don't believe it exists, how can you logically debate against it? You can/should only debate what you affirm or deny. Otherwise, you solicit serious doubts as to your sanity.

[adam.naranjo]

joe ducks and runs all the time

[ollie]

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
WinAce:

May I ask, do you have certain... issues with non-believers that I'm not aware of? Aside from that, how could one hate or deny that which doesn't exist? ;)
Good question.
Then why is there so much denial and hatred? The wasting of energy to prove error in God's word, to tempt God's people with thoughts of His non existence. What is the point when God doesn't exist to one in the first place?