The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

[robrecht]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post231711http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post231843

To which you responded:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post233787

I immediately asked you to quote me where you think I was overstating the conclusions of Westermann:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post233787

In that same thread, I again tried to get you to quote exactly where I supposedly misrepresented Westermann (#257, 259, 261), at which point you abandoned the thread because you were unable to provide any such quote.

[Adrift]

Basic intellectual honesty is a problem with you.

Wow. Truly rotten shunya. It is you, and has always been you with the problem of intellectual honesty. robrecht has had the patient of a saint with you, giving you opportunity after opportunity to formulate your thoughts, clarify your beliefs, and answer questions put to you, but in your typical fashion you've refused to answer any questions put to you directly about...anything, choosing the jello nailed to the wall approach above any semblance of intellectual honesty. You've made numerous assertions and accusations you never ever intended to back; have been contrary simply for the sake of being contrary, to the point where you often contradict yourself. You have shown that your own knowledge of the Bahai faith is severely lacking, as is your knowledge of those religions you constantly attack. Your modus operandi when you feel like you're being cornered is to quickly google web pages that you think support whatever view you're espousing at the moment, and quote mine them without reading or understanding the fuller context of what you're quoting, and making yourself look all the more foolish.

You're a mess shunya. A grown man, who acts like a childish mess.

[shunyadragon]

an introduction to the history of discussion of how historico-critical exegetes approach the question of the likely intent of an original author, editor, or redactor:

historico-critical exegetical scholars to discuss and try to understand what is the probable intent of the original authors as well as that of later redactors and editors of a text in their multiple historical contexts. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post231711http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post231843

To which you responded:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post233787

I immediately asked you to quote me where you think I was overstating the conclusions of Westermann:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post233787

In that same thread, I again tried to get you to quote exactly where I supposedly misrepresented Westermann (#257, 259, 261), at which point you abandoned the thread because you were unable to provide any such quote.

The highlighted above is what I consider over reaching the intent and purpose of Westermann's works on Genesis. These posts will be referenced in the thread on Westermann's work.

After looking over Westermann's work, and starting to read his books, I prefer it 'over any other work on Genesis.'

[robrecht]

The highlighted above is what I consider over reaching the intent and purpose of Westermann's works on Genesis. These posts will be referenced in the thread on Westermann's work.

After looking over Westermann's work, and starting to read his books, I prefer it 'over any other work on Genesis.'

Silly. You said previously that you believed that I overstated "the conclusions in Claus[ Westermann]'s Commentary on Genesis." The text you have highlighted above does not even address the conclusions of Westermann's commentary. The first, written today, is merely my reason for referring you to Westermann's commentary. The second text you highlighted does not even directly refer to Westermann's commentary. You've now also changed your critique of my statements to my supposedly "over reaching the intent and purpose of Westermann's works on Genesis." What does that even mean? I don't recall saying anything above or elsewhere about the intent and purpose of Westermann's commentary.

[shunyadragon]

Silly. You said previously that you believed that I overstated "the conclusions in Claus[ Westermann]'s Commentary on Genesis." The text you have highlighted above does not even address the conclusions of Westermann's commentary. The first, written today, is merely my reason for referring you to Westermann's commentary. The second text you highlighted does not even directly refer to Westermann's commentary. You've now also changed your critique of my statements to my supposedly "over reaching the intent and purpose of Westermann's works on Genesis." What does that even mean? I don't recall saying anything above or elsewhere about the intent and purpose of Westermann's commentary.

Your citation clearly links this to Westermann's work. Your back peddling.

[robrecht]

Your citation clearly links this to Westermann's work. Your back peddling.

[shunyadragon]

Read again . . .

of how historico-critical exegetes approach the question of the likely intent of an original author, editor, or redactor:

Back peddling continues.

[robrecht]

Read again . . .



Back peddling continues.

You're making a fool of yourself again. I am not backpedaling from that statement. Westermann's commentary is a good introduction to the history of discussion. He does a very good job of summarizing important historico-critical scholars before giving his own analysis of the text.

[shunyadragon]

You're making a fool of yourself again. I am not backpedaling from that statement. Westermann's commentary is a good introduction to the history of discussion. He does a very good job of summarizing important historico-critical scholars before giving his own analysis of the text.

No I rely on plain English. Your back pedaling.

Westermann' commentary exegetes do not approach this question.

You did what I requested, therefore I will respond to your other question.

[robrecht]

No I rely on plain English. Your back pedaling.

No I am not. I stand by every statement I have made about Westermann. If you do not believe so, make a plain English statement about what you think I said previously about Westermann that I no longer defend. So far you are not making sense to me, just throwing out accusations that do not seem to have any substance.

Westermann' commentary exegetes do not approach this question.

Who do not approach what question?

You did what I requested, therefore I will respond to your other question.

I am still waiting for you to identify what conclusions of Westermann's commentary I have supposedly misrepresented.

[shunyadragon]

Who do not approach what question?

I am still waiting for you to identify what conclusions of Westermann's commentary I have supposedly misrepresented.

Westermann' commentary exegetes do not approach the question of the likely intent of an original author, editor, or redactor.

Please explain the highlighted.

[robrecht]

Westermann' commentary exegetes do not approach the question of the likely intent of an original author, editor, or redactor.

Please explain the highlighted.

For example, in discussing the first verse of the Bible, Westermann cites, among others, the view of EA Speiser on the syntax of Gen 1,1-3 being comparable to the opening of Enuma Elish, but Westermann sides with Julius Welhausen, A. Heidel, WH Schmidt, and H Gunkel against Speiser. Thus Westermann considers Gen 1,1 not as a dependent clause, but as a principal sentence written by P, the priestly author (pp 96-97): "The creation of the world by God is expressed in one sentence as in the praise of God. And because this sentence is prefixed to the actual account of creation it acquires monumental importance which distinguishes it from other creation stories." Quoting Gunkel: "There is nothing in the cosmogonies of other peoples which can compare with the first sentence of the Bible." Westermann speaks of P's intent in the creation account of Gen 1 in pp. 173 to 177. The priestly author describes creation by word of command but he also includes elements of the more traditional accounts (Israelite and non-Israelite). "He tells of the creation of the world and of humanity in such a way as to make them [his audience] face how incomprehensible, inscrutable, indescribable is the subject of his story. ... It is quite inappropriate to ask if P's description of creation has anything to do with creatio ex nihilo

[shunyadragon]

For example, in discussing the first verse of the Bible, Westermann cites, among others, the view of EA Speiser on the syntax of Gen 1,1-3 being comparable to the opening of Enuma Elish, but Westermann sides with Julius Welhausen, A. Heidel, WH Schmidt, and H Gunkel against Speiser. Thus Westermann considers Gen 1,1 not as a dependent clause, but as a principal sentence written by P, the priestly author (pp 96-97): "The creation of the world by God is expressed in one sentence as in the praise of God. And because this sentence is prefixed to the actual account of creation it acquires monumental importance which distinguishes it from other creation stories." Quoting Gunkel: "There is nothing in the cosmogonies of other peoples which can compare with the first sentence of the Bible." Westermann speaks of P's intent in the creation account of Gen 1 in pp. 173 to 177. The priestly author describes creation by word of command but he also includes elements of the more traditional accounts (Israelite and non-Israelite). "He tells of the creation of the world and of humanity in such a way as to make them [his audience] face how incomprehensible, inscrutable, indescribable is the subject of his story. ... It is quite inappropriate to ask if P's description of creation has anything to do with creatio ex nihilo

Yes, I am reading this now, but I do not believe this addresses your highlighted statement. I will address the above to a certain extent in the thread on Westermann's work.

ie, the Priestly editing and redaction does not represent the intent of the original author. You may to limited extent infer the intent of later editing and redaction of the earlier oral traditions and written records between ~1000 BC to the Christian era, but it is unreasonable to determine the intent of the 'original authors' of Genesis.

[robrecht]

Yes, I am reading this now, but I do not believe this addresses your highlighted statement. I will address the above to a certain extent in the thread on Westermann's work.

ie, the Priestly editing and redaction does not represent the intent of the original author. You may to limited extent infer the intent of later editing and redaction of the earlier oral traditions and written records between ~1000 BC to the Christian era, but it is unreasonable to determine the intent of the 'original authors' of Genesis.

This seems like a misinterpretation of my views. There are a variety of ways to speak of authorship and how it relates to prior traditions and sources. Westermann does not consider P as a mere collector of older stories, but as a writer with a specific purpose and intent. It is now common to speak of the Yahwist author or priestly author and not just separate sources, and among those of us who are critical of the documentary hypothesis, it is more common to highlight the role of later redactors and editors in the final composition of the whole text and not just earlier authors. More recent methodologies, which I also employ, even leave aside any consideration of the historical context of authors and merely speak of a more idealistic narrator. Our initial discussion had to do with the interpretation of the original authors' intent as discerned in the Hebrew text of Genesis as opposed to later interpretations by Paul or Church Fathers. I am interested in understanding the authors' of the Hebrew Genesis account. In some cases we are aware of the details of earlier texts and sometimes this is only fragmentary or surmised. My point all along was that I considered at least one of these various authors, redactors, editors of the Hebrew account of Genesis did not portray Adam as an historical person but a representative figure of all humankind. Here, Westermann would speak of the Yahwist, not the priestly author, and I would be more hesitant and typically speak merely of some who developed the final form of the text of Genesis, without necessarily being able to specify all the details of the prior forms of traditional stories and texts. The 'original authors, editors, and redactors' are all those who had a role in developing what is now the final text. They are original in the sense that they had a role in developing the actual Hebrew text as opposed to later interpretators of the text. Anyone who had a purpose or intent in shaping the meaning of a text is an author in some sense, as opposed to a mere collector of stories or scribe. An editor can play this role at times, and when we have a clear Vorlage or defined prior text, we may more effectively use the tools of redaction criticism and more clearly speak of a redactor. My intent is merely to speak of the original authors, editors, and redactors as a whole as opposed to later interpreters.

[shunyadragon]

This seems like a misinterpretation of my views. There are a variety of ways to speak of authorship and how it relates to prior traditions and sources. Westermann does not consider P as a mere collector of older stories, but as a writer with a specific purpose and intent. It is now common to speak of the Yahwist author or priestly author and not just separate sources, and among those of us who are critical of the documentary hypothesis, it is more common to highlight the role of later redactors and editors in the final composition of the whole text and not just earlier authors. More recent methodologies, which I also employ, even leave aside any consideration of the historical context of authors and merely speak of a more idealistic narrator. Our initial discussion had to do with the interpretation of the original authors' intent as discerned in the Hebrew text of Genesis as opposed to later interpretations by Paul or Church Fathers. I am interested in understanding the authors' of the Hebrew Genesis account. In some cases we are aware of the details of earlier texts and sometimes this is only fragmentary or surmised. My point all along was that I considered at least one of these various authors, redactors, editors of the Hebrew account of Genesis did not portray Adam as an historical person but a representative figure of all humankind. Here, Westermann would speak of the Yahwist, not the priestly author, and I would be more hesitant and typically speak merely of some who developed the final form of the text of Genesis, without necessarily being able to specify all the details of the prior forms of traditional stories and texts. The 'original authors, editors, and redactors' are all those who had a role in developing what is now the final text. They are original in the sense that they had a role in developing the actual Hebrew text as opposed to later interpretators of the text. Anyone who had a purpose or intent in shaping the meaning of a text is an author in some sense, as opposed to a mere collector of stories or scribe. An editor can play this role at times, and when we have a clear Vorlage or defined prior text, we may more effectively use the tools of redaction criticism and more clearly speak of a redactor. My intent is merely to speak of the original authors, editors, and redactors as a whole as opposed to later interpreters.

Not really a misinterpretation of your views, but an objection that they can be supported by Westermann's commentaries.

The highlighted above is revealing and will be responded to the other thread. I do not believe that Westermann proposed that 'the original authors, editors, and redactors as a whole as opposed to later interpreters' can be reasonably accomplished. He did apparently support that his can be achieved with the J, P and R editors and redactors and editors. In fact, I believe he saw problems with this view as far as the Primeval sources and 'original authors.' This is probably the root of our disagreement. I have to read Westermann's commentaries more on this issue and cite him in the new thread.

My point all along was that I considered at least one of these various authors, redactors, editors of the Hebrew account of Genesis did not portray Adam as an historical person but a representative figure of all humankind.

Just one of the various authors, redactors, editors did not portray Adam as an historical person' is too anecdotal and vague for me to accept it as a reasonable conclusion that the original authors etc, remotely believed that Adam was not real person. I need better references.