Gretzky

With the JEDP, as I stated already..it's a hypothesis..not a theory....my main reason of disputing the hypotheis is I have some reservation of the E source (we know v. little about E). I don't have a whole bunch of evidence to put off the whole hypothesis, but i would not jump right into the JEDP bandwagon. Remember, this is only a hypothesis, not a theory.....so far the findings on the E source are insufficient to support the hypothesis to a theory.

Contrary to most believers, doubts on the accuracy of the bible began at the patristic period (where the early church fathers lived)...the church fathers actually constantly have debates on issues (including accuracy of the bible scripture) and their letters on those debates are made public. So doubt did exist back then. On post-hoc reasoning...I totall agree with you on the analysis of the modern day fundamentalist position (100% accuracy and literal). I can understand your frustrations of the prove-text reasoning when some headless Christian give this kind of response. But I do want to state the different genres of the bible are not there to defend doubters as a trump card.  We can go on and on with that...I personally detest this 馬後泡  approach. If there is something the bible does not say explicitly (like how old the earth  is, dinosaurs in book of Job, coning, etc.), who am i to impose a position on it?

One more thought I always entertain:  Do religion and science always need to be at war with one another? Are they intrinistically, and in their core principles, against the existence of each other?

With the figurative speech...you've  said 幾時用幾時唔用你又唔知. Let me give you an offer here...if you have a passage that you have doubts on the literally form...kindly quote the refrence and i will give you an answer to the best of my ability. You don't even have to tell me the rationale of yours behind the interpretation....once I give you an reply you can then judge me on whether I 'twist' the scripture to fit into my reasoning or else. :-)

Thanks for the reply and dialouge...let's continue with this level-headed communication.

mememe

Gretzky兄,

my main reason of disputing the hypotheis is I have some reservation of the E source (we know v. little about E). I don't have a whole bunch of evidence to put off the whole hypothesis, but i would not jump right into the JEDP bandwagon. Remember, this is only a hypothesis, not a theory.....so far the findings on the E source are insufficient to support the hypothesis to a theory

你睇過同接觸過既E source 既證據有幾多?

Do religion and science always need to be at war with one another? Are they intrinistically, and in their core principles, against the existence of each other?

一日聖經被認為係神既話語, 一日科學都會"need to be at war with"聖經。理由就係因為"God is infallible"(神唔會錯)﹐而科學既論說係可以被否定既。

if you have a passage that you have doubts on the literally form...kindly quote the refrence and i will give you an answer to the best of my ability.

俾0左啦。。。創世紀既"一日"係幾耐"? 點解?

Gretzky

a) Most of my readings are on secondary sources...one of my favourite scholar's work on the Pentateuch is David Clines's Theme of the Pentateuch. You can find bookreviews on his position on the documentary hypothesis.
b) Here I guess we are on different pre-suppositions:
- My view of the Creation is there is a god (regardness of who that g/God is) and this god created everything, including the physical world and the intellectual world (our rational mindset). So I guess our difference here is the views of God in the first place. I am assuming your view of the Christian God (or all gods) is that they are falliable and subject to the scrutiny of science and rational thinking, right?
- hmm...may i ask whether you believe in absolute truth at all? (absolute truth can be on science too)
c)I spent 10 yrs studying Hebrew and still can't figure out the meaning of 'day' in Genesis...as posted before, it can mean 24 hr day (日） or a period of time (楷斷...sorry for the mispelling). There are positions leaning towards both stands but no concluding arguments. I wouldn't admit there are answers on that (and I don't mind telling you I am perplexed too) at all. [color=green]But not having answers doesn't mean there is no absolute truth. And that's why I would keep seeking. In the meantime I would try my best not to let the personal bias affect my pursuit.

May I ask what is your ontology?

Avator

１、上帝先造動物還是先造人？是同時造男造女還是先造男后造女？

說法一：〔創１：２３〕“神就造出大魚和水中所滋生各樣有生
命的動物，各從其類﹔又造出各樣飛鳥，各從其類。……是第五
日。”“于是神造出野獸，各從其類﹔牲畜，各從其類﹔地上一切昆
虫，各從其類。”“神就照著自己的形象造人，乃是照著他的形象造
男造女。……是第六日。”

說法二：〔創２：７〕“耶和華神用地上的塵土造人，將生氣吹
在他鼻孔里，
他就成了有靈的活人，名叫亞當。”“耶和華神說：‘那人獨居不
好，我要為他造一個配偶幫助他。’耶和華神用土所造成的野地各樣
走獸，和空中各樣飛鳥，都帶到那人面前看他叫什么。”“耶和華神
就用那人身上所取的肋骨，造成一個女人，領她到那人跟前。”

- ="...我只看到這..就看到geese..是...小學生嗎
我不信宗教...只是看了之後..為中文堂老師教教你這小學生

[耶和華神用土所造成的野地各樣走獸，和空中各樣飛鳥，都帶到那人面前看他叫什么]
看到.."帶"字嗎...是帶到面前...不是做了男人再"做"animal- ="..白痴

只看到這就夠...看下去會笑死

mememe

Gretzky兄,

a)

Most of my readings are on secondary sources...one of my favourite scholar's work on the Pentateuch is David Clines's Theme of the Pentateuch. You can find bookreviews on his position on the documentary hypothesis.

啱啱睇0左David Clines既一篇文﹐暫時覺得佢既觀點幾平衡﹐唔會嚴重偏袒任何一方。下面我引用0左幾段有關佢觀點同主張既例子。(註:我會將我覺得有point既部份highlight in Bold同Italics。原文係冇既)

取自于: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academ ... /IntParties9God.pdf

David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the
Hebrew Bible (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 205;
Gender, Culture, Theory, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 187-211.

They themselves, readings against the grain of the text, go against the grain also of the central tradition in biblical scholarship, which has generally striven for a harmonizing and unifying depiction of the character of the deity in the Old Testament, one indeed that maximizes the compatibility of the portrait with that of the God of the New Testament and of Christian theology.

The God of the Pentateuch is a complex and mysterious character, passionate and dynamic but by no means conformable to human notions of right behaviour. He is not very lovable, but he must be obeyed. He has his plans, but they are not infrequently deflected. He does not do very much explaining, and he relates to people mostly by a system of threats and promises. He has his favourites, and he is fiercely loyal to them. He is hard to please.

Reading against the grain implies that there is a grain. It implies that texts have designs on their readers and wish to persuade them of something or other. It implies that there are ideologies inscribed in texts and that the readers implied by texts share the texts’ ideologies. But, as I have suggested earlier, readers are free to resist the ideologies of texts, and, what is more, texts themselves sometimes provoke readers into resisting them by manifesting tensions immanent within the texts themselves. All the same, there is no obligation to resist, nothing wrong in adopting the ideology of one’s text. All that is wrong is not knowing and admitting that that is what you are doing or not permitting other people to resist the ideology of the text.

至于佢對documentary hypothesis既主張﹐我暫時未揾到source。請問你有冇網址介紹佢呢方面既觀點?

I am assuming your view of the Christian God (or all gods) is that they are falliable and subject to the scrutiny of science and rational thinking, right?

係。

hmm...may i ask whether you believe in absolute truth at all?

睇0下你"絕對真相"既定義係乜啦。你問我信唔信已經假設0左:
1)有"絕對真相"呢樣嘢。
2)大家都知道"絕對真相"係乜嘢。
3)"絕對真相"同"現實世界"有唔同(如果唔係就唔使諗多呢個字眼出嚟啦)。
4)"絕對真相"係可以或者需要信既(而唔係睇﹐聽﹐聞﹐食﹐諗既)。
你既問題引導性好強噃!

But not having answers doesn't mean there is no absolute truth. And that's why I would keep seeking.

你0甘講以經假設0左有"絕對真相"啦。
全世界人都冇見過飛馬Pegasus唔代表冇﹐不如你尋求真相既時候幫我順便揾埋。

May I ask what is your ontology?

如果我有權唔答既話你即管問啦! 哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈!

你假設0左我有存在本體論。我都唔知我有冇。。。

不如我0甘答你啦:
講真﹐我唔知我點解喺度﹐我甚至唔敢肯定我真係喺度。不過﹐既然我既五官話我知我"好似喺度"﹐0甘不如就喺呢段"好似喺度"既時間做0的"好似有建設性 "同"好似會開心"既事。記得冇錯既話﹐我0甘諗應該係存在主義(Existentialism)﹐不過我某程度上又認同宿命論 (Determinism)﹐而我又覺得佛教(Buddhism)同道教(Taoism)既理論都好有道理﹐再加上我認為儒家(Confucius)同墨家(Mo-tze)既思想都有好多可取之處。你可唔可以話俾我知我既ontology係乜?:cool:

geese

Originally posted by Avator at 2005-7-3 11:47 AM:
１、上帝先造動物還是先造人？是同時...

先在此謝謝Avator兄教導我這白痴小學生!
我想在這再向Avator兄請教一下,
你在說法二：
〔創２：７〕“耶和華神用地上的塵土造人，將生氣吹
在他鼻孔里，
他就成了有靈的活人，名叫亞當。”“耶和華神說：‘那人獨居不
好，我要為他造一個配偶幫助他。’耶和華神用土所造成的野地各樣
走獸，和空中各樣飛鳥，都帶到那人面前看他叫什么。”“耶和華神
就用那人身上所取的肋骨，造成一個女人，領她到那人跟前。”
這段文字中,
何以見得不是做了男人再"做"animal???
煩請Avator兄再次指教!!

另外若小弟此貼引起那一位大大不快的話,
小弟在此誠心向各位致歉,
懇請原諒!

Gretzky

Originally posted by geese at 2005-7-4 09:28 AM:


先在此謝謝Avator兄教導我這白痴...

喂！老友 (geese)！你有無睇我D reply 架！

To mememe 學長，Thanks for the diligent follow up of the Clines pt of view. I know we don't operate on the same "OS" but am so glad to have someone who can actaully have meaningful dialogues with. There aren't many credible websites on the JEDP hypothesis...so maybe you can get the Clines book from a university liberary and have a look at his bibilo at the end of the book.

[ Last edited by Gretzky on 2005-7-4 at 11:51 AM ]

mememe

Gretzky兄,

乜我哋唔同OS咩?
我覺得似係一樣hardware(人腦)﹐一樣OS(思考)﹐一樣software(邏輯)﹐不過唔同input(背景﹐教育﹐朋友﹐家人﹐等等)。

There aren't many credible websites on the JEDP hypothesis...so maybe you can get the Clines book from a university liberary and have a look at his bibilo at the end of the book.

你由頭都尾都冇答到我條問題噃。你冇用實際既證據去推翻"JEDP hypothesis"﹐而只係話呢個猜測唔夠證據支持﹐點樣唔夠你又唔講清楚﹐0甘我會覺得你冇認真0甘去嘗試過接受佢0架噃。再講﹐猜測(Hypothesis)係唔使好多證據支持0架﹐只要冇證據同個猜測既結論強烈矛盾﹐個猜測就唔會被推翻﹐最多係話佢唔可以信0西。

你可以用David Clines既觀點去批評JEDP hypothesis﹐不過唔好連你(同佢)既觀點都要我research埋好唔好? 你唔present你既立場你都唔該outline0下0丫。你連outline都唔outline既話都唔該你link0下0丫。你連link都唔link就0甘叫我去大學查我會覺得你好冇誠意0架噃! 我朝早下晝要番工﹐住得又離大學遠﹐網上面又冇大學圖書館既full article access﹐番到屋企好艱苦0甘用中文表達0左我既觀點(我打中文好慢﹐所以"好艱苦")之後﹐你重要我去揾一大輪先*有可能*知道你想講乜﹐我真係好難做0架噃。

講出你諗緊乜﹐當幫幫手0丫。

inpennhouse

我覺得聖經只係一本故仔書,唔需要理佢講d真係假

slwong3

Originally posted by inpennhouse at 2005-7-5 09:42 PM:
我覺得聖經只係一本故仔書,唔需要理佢講d真係假

yes, I agree with you

I don't quite believe in 聖經 anyway