The Boaters' directory to Alaska ports. Information on marinas, charters, fishing, lofts, and chandlers.

The Boaters' directory to Alaska ports. Information on marinas, charters, fishing, lofts, and chandlers.

Map and description of the harbor, on Resurrection Bay in Southcentral Alaska. Includes harbor policies, news, and fee schedule.

Map and description of the harbor, on Resurrection Bay in Southcentral Alaska. Includes harbor policies, news, and fee schedule.

> I think the "JEDP Documentary Hypothesis" contributes a lot to
> one's understanding of how the book of Genesis was originally written.

Only if it's true. There is no historical reason to think that it is,
nor have there ever been a reference to said documents.

> It helps explain many things, not just the number of pairs of animals
> that Noah put on the ark.
>
> 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!"

Why? It seems from what I can tell the only thing you don't like about
the Tablet hypothesis is that it isn't JEDP, which you already like.
However, since there is no historical evidence for JEDP, I don't see why
one would rule out other possible interpretations of the evidence.

Jon


((( 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. )))

Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <128.21.18.05.774856000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com
says...
> >
>
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >> In article <127.04.10.05.678068000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com
> >says...
> >
> >
>
> [snip]
> >> >the NT. But, sad to say, the woods are full of such narcissistic
> >> >quacks.
> >>
> >> And especially so among those who cast doubt on the legitimacy of
the
> >Byzantine
> >> Text of Scripture.
> >
> >Oh, by all means, I do reject the legitimacy of the Byzantine text
as
> >the best representation of the original text of scripture.
>
> Do you _read_ what you are responding to before you click 'send',
George? I said
> 'legitimacy'. Why are you switching the topic to 'legitimcay as ...
ORIGINAL
> TEXT'?

I guess it is because I don't know what you mean by legitimacy, but
very much interested in what the writers of the books of the Bible
actually said.

>
> > Rather I
> >think that all the old texts (including the Byzantine texts) can be
> >used.
>
> Do you? Even Codex W?

I said "all" the old texts. Is Codex W and old text?

>
> > And a literary study of the various texts can lead to an
> >accurate reconstruction of the original documents.
>
> But this is slippery language, that sounds like "weasel words". How
'accurate'?
> Are you really unaware of the prevailing opinion among NT
textual-critics on the
> Continent, that the original text cannot be reconstructed?

That is interesting. But I am not one to take a pole of the NT
textual-critics on