gpatton@bayou.com:

> I see no reason to ascribe any value whatsoever to the Tablet
> Hypothesis. I think appropriate response to the Tablet Hypothesis is
> the expression, "Horse feathers!"

I have only read the Web page, not the book, and I am very sceptical about
any kind of science where the outcome is so precisely defined before the
research is undertaken (and in this respect I make no difference whether I
otherwise subscribe to the ideology which determines the results in
advance).

But the question is interesting in itself whether the style of the short
interspersed headlines (or footers) in Genesis have any resemblance to
similar headlines connecting tablets in oriental cultures of the time. If
so, it is another question which conclusions might be drawn on the age of
written Genesis.

Helmut Richter


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

gilgames wrote:
> <<
> gpatton@bayou.com
>
> I think it was probably around the same time the ass (of Numbers
> chapter 22) lost his speaking ability. What do you think?
> >>
>
> God's good angel was behind Balam's ass, and God's bad angle the Satan
> appared as a serpent in Gen 3.

Now you sound like you are changing your story. At first you
identified the serpent with Satan, now you seem to be saying Satan was
"behind the serpent". If you think about it, there is a
difference. You seem to abandon one weak theory to adopt another weak
theory. Please think it over and be consistent so that we can discuss
this in a sane manner.

Note that in Numbers 22:28 it was not the angel that gave the ass the
ability to speak but God. It was God that gave the ass the ability to
speak (was behind the ass), the angel was in the front of the ass not
"behind the ass". You got it backwards in Numbers and in the Genesis
account no angel was recorded to take part in the temptation, and later
cherubs were used to guard Eden, but they do not come into the story
until the last verse of chapter three. I think that your imagination
is over worked and needs a rest.


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <088.57.10.05.439520000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>In Hebrews 11:5, the verb is passive voice, meaning that Enoch was
>>acted
>>upon.
>
>Since you are dodging my earlier post here it is again and I will keep
>posting it until you answer it.

Is he dodging it? I would not be so sure.

>
>the Bible does not say Enoch was taken *up*. It