What would it take for the atheist to believe in God?

[rogue06]

They are theologians - and (with the extremely rare exception) have a habit of assessing arguments on their merits, rather than on the reputation of the person making the argument.

What an odd concept.

[tabibito]

What an odd concept.

I was horrified. Not at all what I expected.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't need to - you just admitted to the error.

I have admitted nothing. I asked you to provide evidence to support your contention. You cannot so you wriggle instead.

As to your citation of Barton (sic) - I open up Baden's book,

Point of information John Barton is not Joel S.Baden. They are two separate individuals.

[tabibito]

I have admitted nothing. I asked you to provide evidence to support your contention. You cannot so you wriggle instead.

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...er#post1325843

Lucifer can also mean “morning star” and coincidentally is the fallen archangel’s name before he becomes the devil in Christian tradition.

Of course, you could "wriggle" and claim that it was a citation, and not your own comment etc so forth and so on, as you so often do. That would not change the fact that you put your nom de guerre to it as factual. Worse than any error, you would be admitting that you happily endorse comments that you believe or even know to be false.

Point of information John Barton is not Joel S.Baden. They are two separate individuals.

I see - and they both wrote books with the same title

As Joel Barton notes in his 2012 work The Composition of the Pentateuch,: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis,...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Of course, you could "wriggle" and claim that it was a citation, and not your own comment etc so forth and so on, as you so often do. That would not change the fact that you put your nom de guerre to it as factual. Worse than any error, you would be admitting that you happily endorse comments that you believe or even know to be false.



I see - and they both wrote books with the same title

Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I have emphasised the source as you clearly missed it the first time around despite commenting upon it


From my post #370

However, another brief snippet from John Barton on " Source Criticism" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 6, 162-165


SOURCE CRITICISM. [VI, 162] Formerly called “literary criticism” or “higher criticism,” source criticism is a method of biblical study, which analyzes texts that are not the work of a single author but result from the combination of originally separate documents. This method has been applied to texts of the Old Testament (especially but not exclusively the Pentateuch) and New Testament (especially but not exclusively the gospels). This entry surveys the application of this method to those texts.

Some OT books show extraordinary variations of style, ranging from a preference for particular words or phrases to peculiarities of grammar and syntax. In the Pentateuch, variation is particularly marked in Genesis and Exodus, where some sections are written in a lively narrative style akin to that of the books of Samuel, while others are marked by a stylized and repetitive manner, full of recurring formulas, lists, and technical terms. Compare, for example, the vivid narrative of Exodus 2—the childhood and early career of Moses—with the ponderous accounts of the building and equipping of the tent sanctuary in Exodus 36-40. Such variations in style can also be found in poetic books. Among the oracles in Jeremiah, for example, there are some (e.g., chapters 30 and 31) whose similarity to the style of Isaiah 40-55 (the so-called “Second Isaiah”) is so close, and whose dissimilarity from the rest of Jeremiah is so great, that they seem likely to derive from a different hand than the rest of the book. Other chapters in Jeremiah, especially those in prose, seem close to the style of the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua-2 Kings). While an appreciation of stylistic difference is often to some extent subjective, the variations within books such as these are wide enough to make it unlikely that a single author is responsible for all the material. English translations of the Bible tend to flatten out such differences by using a uniform “biblical English,” but in the Hebrew they are easily detected.

Lucifer the fallen archangel is not Satan. That in later Christian tradition Lucifer became "the Devil" aka Satan is another matter.

[tabibito]

Lucifer the fallen archangel is not Satan. That in later Christian tradition Lucifer became "the Devil" aka Satan is another matter.

ったく

And there you go again. "Lucifer the fallen archangel is not Satan." Lucifer was a man, the human king of Babylon - he was not an archangel by any name, nor any other kind of angel. And you have now made it clear that you got it wrong - and about so basic a matter. But you proclaim yourself competent to assess theological arguments.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

ったく

And there you go again. "Lucifer the fallen archangel is not Satan." Lucifer was a man, the human king of Babylon - he was not an archangel by any name, nor any other kind of angel. And you have now made it clear that you got it wrong - and about so basic a matter. But you proclaim yourself competent to assess theological arguments.

Let's start with you admitting you got it wrong re John Barton because you did not actually read what I originally wrote.

[tabibito]

As Joel Barton notes in his 2012 work The Composition of the Pentateuch,: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, YUP

The first of these documents, in order of appearance, begins in Genesis 1 with the creation of the world and continues through the primeval history (including the flood), the patriarchs, the Exodus, the revelation at Sinai, the wilderness wandering, and the death of Moses. The second source begins in Genesis 2 with the creation of man and covers the same overarching narrative as the first. The third begins in Genesis 15 with God making a covenant with Abraham, before continuing on the same path as the others. The fourth document comprises the majority of the book of Deuteronomy and is, with the exception of an introduction and a few narrative transitions, the final speech of Moses to the Israelites before his death on the plains of Moab.

Did someone else use your login while you weren't looking perhaps?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Did someone else use your login while you weren't looking perhaps?

My typo and my apologies.

However, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Joel and John were the same person? There are two separate sources mentioned. The Anchor Bible Dictionary is not one volume.

I would have thought that simple common sense [and a quick look on Amazon] would have cleared up any confusion for you

So let me reiterate.

John Barton has an entry on Source Criticism in The Anchor Bible Dictionary at volume 6

Joel S Barden wrote a book entitled. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis.

[rogue06]

Forced to admit that it was in fact she who screwed up, nevertheless H_A still insists its your fault.

[tabibito]

Forced to admit that it was in fact she who screwed up, nevertheless H_A still insists its your fault.

She seems to be engaging in provocation in the hope that I WILL make a mistake, which would be a quite likely outcome - as evidenced by the fact that I made an issue of her typo. I'll withdraw for a while until I can address issues undistracted.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Forced to admit that it was in fact she who screwed up, nevertheless H_A still insists its your fault.

Ah little Tabaqui has arrived to nip at my heels.

I acknowledged my typo but it seems rather odd that tabibito somehow managed to confuse a section on Source Criticism which may be found in the sixth volume of The Anchor Bible Dictionary with a single volume work by Baden while also failing to recognise that two separate first names had been employed.

None of that inspires much confidence in his reasoning skills.

[rogue06]

Ah little Tabaqui has arrived to nip at my heels.

I acknowledged my typo but it seems rather odd that tabibito somehow managed to confuse a section on Source Criticism which may be found in the sixth volume of The Anchor Bible Dictionary with a single volume work by Baden while also failing to recognise that two separate first names had been employed.

None of that inspires much confidence in his reasoning skills.

You only acknowledged your mistake so you could blame tab for you making it.

Very much like when I provided a citation (which included the volume) and you kept demanding what volume it was in. I highlighted where I mentioned the volume. I repeated which volume it was in twice. But you kept insisting that I hadn't provided it. It wasn't until after I posted it at least three times you finally noticed it. And how did you respond? You blamed me for not posting it sooner

This is your M.O.

[NorrinRadd]

ったく

And there you go again. "Lucifer the fallen archangel is not Satan." Lucifer was a man, the human king of Babylon - he was not an archangel by any name, nor any other kind of angel. And you have now made it clear that you got it wrong - and about so basic a matter. But you proclaim yourself competent to assess theological arguments.

Not only that, the only "archangel" named as such in (the Protestant) Scriptures is Michael. AFAICT, there is no such thing as an "archangel" in the Hebrew Scriptures.

[rogue06]

Not only that, the only "archangel" named as such in (the Protestant) Scriptures is Michael. AFAICT, there is no such thing as an "archangel" in the Hebrew Scriptures.

While there is no explicit references to archangels in the Hebrew texts, they do appear to identify Michael and Gabriel as being archangels.