SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

[Mountain Man]

Actual Research is what Starlight seems to be allergic to.

What do you expect? He's an obvious product of the Google Generation.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah, I frequently use Wiki just for a basic synopsis, and USUALLY it can point you in the right direction for actual research.

For me, Wiki usually a last resort. If I can't find anything else, I hope it can at least point me in the right direction.

[Starlight]

It was generally regarded that JEDP has not a single scrap of supporting evidence as far back as 1966 (almost 50 years ago.) Not only that, JEDP is a hypothesis based on several 19th century theoretical and foundational assumptions that have long since been refuted by discoveries in archaeology.

I guess I should really be aware by now of the thickness of the bubble that people in this forum live in... yet the number of people who've amen'd your post still astonishes me.

I'll settle for saying your post is 100% wrong, that the basic JEPD paradigm rests on absolutely compelling evidence and is universally taken for granted among Old Testament scholars and has been for decades. The idea of archaeology being used to refute it doesn't make sense.

[Cow Poke]

I guess I should really be aware by now of the thickness of the bubble that people in this forum live in...

Perhaps you're on the inside looking out?

[Rational Gaze]

I'll settle for saying your post is 100% wrong, that the basic JEPD paradigm rests on absolutely compelling evidence and is universally taken for granted among Old Testament scholars and has been for decades.

I'll settle for saying that I have a BA (Hons) and MA in History and have spent many years researching Biblical history.

"Even the most ardent advocate of the documentary theory must admit that we have as yet no single scrap of external, objective evidence for either the existence or the history of J, E, or any other alleged source-document.." - K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Tyndale, (1966), p23.

The idea of archaeology being used to refute it doesn't make sense.

"The documentary hypothesis was originally based on the supposition that the events in the Torah preceded the invention of writing, or at least its use among the Hebrews. This is because Julius Wellhausen lived in the nineteenth-century, but nineteenth-century notions about ancient literacy have been completely refuted by archaeological evidence. The documentarians have not updated the documentary hypothesis to take this into account, so we still find them assigning very late dates to their hypothetical sources of the Torah.... Archaeology has shown that writing was common during the time in which the events of the Torah were to have taken place." - Kenneth Collins, 'The Torah In Modern Scholarship,' http://www.kencollins.com/bible/bible-p2.htm

[Starlight]

I'll settle for saying that I have a BA (Hons) and MA in History and have spent many years researching Biblical history.

~sigh~ And you still write the dumb and false stuff that you do?

You realize that your link advocates Mosaic authorship of the Torah? Moses' death is recorded in Deuteronomy. The idea of Mosaic authorship has not been taken very seriously since the 19th century.

[JonathanL]

~sigh~ And you still write the dumb and false stuff that you do?

You realize that your link advocates Mosaic authorship of the Torah? Moses' death is recorded in Deuteronomy. The idea of Mosaic authorship has not been taken very seriously since the 19th century.

Whether or not Mosaic authorship of the Torah should be taken seriously or not is a complete non sequitur when it comes to the legitimacy of the JEDP theory, or the specific point about nineteenth-century notions about ancient literary.

I find it kind of ironic that you lambast RG for writing dumb and false stuff and then you actually use the retarded argument that the fact that Moses' death is recorded in Deuteronomy is actually good evidence against the theory of Mosaic authorship, as if people couldn't possibly have edited the text afterwards to incorporate the events of Moses death.

[Rational Gaze]

You realize that your link advocates Mosaic authorship of the Torah?

Yes, because all the available evidence that a Moses like individual was the principal author of the Torah.

Moses' death is recorded in Deuteronomy.

And? Mosaic authorship is not incompatible with the fact that the Torah was edited. Your simple-minded black and white thinking is laughable. You are also retrojecting modern concepts of authorship onto ancient culture... but then you would know better if you actually knew what you were talking about.

The idea of Mosaic authorship has not been taken very seriously since the 19th century.

Your ability to repeatedly state patent falsehoods is noted and dismissed as such.

[Cerealman]

I'm going to voice a unpopular opinion here. I feel gay marriage should be legalized, however, there must be a major concession to religious Churches and organizations allowing them not to be forced to perform ceremonies that are against their will.

I actually said the same for a Gov project I had to do.

[Starlight]

Yes, because all the available evidence that a Moses like individual was the principal author of the Torah.

You are also retrojecting modern concepts of authorship onto ancient culture... but then you would know better if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Ah right. So if I properly understood that the true concept of "authorship", and realized that the person who authored something was always "Moses" regardless of who actually authored it, then I'd know the Torah was authored by "Moses". Makes perfect sense I guess.

[Starlight]

I find it kind of ironic that you lambast RG for writing dumb and false stuff and then you actually use the retarded argument that the fact that Moses' death is recorded in Deuteronomy is actually good evidence against the theory of Mosaic authorship, as if people couldn't possibly have edited the text afterwards to incorporate the events of Moses death.

The entire book of Deuteronomy is written in a distinctive style that is noticeably different to the rest of the Torah, and it is a style shared by the various historical books of Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, (for this reason, these are called the Deuteronomaic history) and the book of Jeremiah. This group of books tells the history of Israel from the time of Moses through to the time of Jeremiah, and was clearly the work of a single person or a small group of people living around the time of Jeremiah. This is the source scholars call "D" and it's the easiest to clearly distinguish from the other sources - the style and theology within it are consistent and it reads smoothly as a continuous historical account over the centuries, and none of the other JEP sources appear within these books, nor does D ever appear within theirs. (By contrast, separating JEP from each other is more difficult because those sources have been mixed together in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and it is not always self-evident which source a given sentence originates from)

[Mountain Man]

This is like watching a peewee football team get run over by a professional club. Rational Gaze cites credentialed scholars, and Dimbulb goes, "Dah-uh..." and pulls something out of the most convenient bodily orifice.

Dimbulb here is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Rational Gaze]

Ah right. So if I properly understood that the true concept of "authorship", and realized that the person who authored something was always "Moses" regardless of who actually authored it, then I'd know the Torah was authored by "Moses". Makes perfect sense I guess.

No, if you understood how ancient people viewed authorship, then you would know that even if a work is edited, then the principal author was still considered THE author. Even if they didn't write a single word and merely dictated it to a scribe, they were still the author.

[Adrift]

This is like watching a peewee football team get run over by a professional club. Rational Gaze cites credentialed scholars, and Dimbulb goes, "Dah-uh..." and pulls something out of the most convenient bodily orifice.

To be fair, Starlight isn't pulling this bit from his behind. It (or something like it) is a relatively common view among scholars. There are myriad variations of it, as well as plenty of refutations to it, but in post #221 he's practically quoting "Who Wrote the Bible?" word for word.

[Mountain Man]

To be fair, Starlight isn't pulling this bit from his behind. It (or something like it) is a relatively common view among scholars. There are myriad variations of it, as well as plenty of refutations to it, but in post #221 he's practically quoting "Who Wrote the Bible?" word for word.

Allow me to correct something: It's a relatively common view among fringe scholars and has about as much credence these days as the Jesus Myth. That Dimbulb continues to act like it's a noncontroversial majority opinion shows just how ignorant he really is.