Bogus 312-325 CE Christian Creation... c. 273-272 BCE Entire Torah Creation?

[StephenGoranson]

If one considers the bogus all-Constantine-Christian-creation proposal exceedingly not probable,
then why would any of the same people--*if* any such do--
consider the all-c.273-272-Torah-creation proposal probable?

[Peter Kirby]

Split from: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10620&start=220

[Secret Alias]

Just what the Jewish section cried out for, another Gmirkin thread.

[Peter Kirby]

Yeah, I know. Aren't wedge issues fun.

[neilgodfrey]

The serious answer to Stephen G's question:

The all-Constantine-Christian-creation proposal makes no appeal to independent evidence but seeks to explain why there is no evidence for its interpretation of origins of the existing documents.

The all-c.273-272-Torah-creation proposal is about publishing evidence that is independent and thereby able to test a hypothesis, and one that has caught the respect of some of the leading experts in the field and whose proposer has been invited to share the hypothesis at academic conferences and has a respectable publishing record with highly respected academic publishers.

As for "fun", fun is what fundamentalists have when mocking the theory of evolution and all those "egg-head scientists"; what undergrad engineering and science students have when mocking the Arts students for their flim-flam philosophy courses; or what anti-intellectuals have when rubbishing gun-control advocates; "fun" is also what apologist academics have when digging the boot into minimalists by personal attack and misrepresentation. I was always taught not to have "fun" at other people's expense, especially if they were less fortunate, or less educated, than we were. Punching up is okay, but never, never, ever punch down!

I think we would do better here if we were more informed about the research of sociologists and political scientists into how academic life works, what passes the filters and what is relegated to heresy and why.

Meanwhile, to quote from one scholar who has written about such issues,

There are numerous ways to wage a historiographical debate. The worst is by failing to engage the issue.

[Peter Kirby]

Oh yes, very serious. Very serious.

[neilgodfrey]

Oh yes, very serious. Very serious.

I have yet to see you fault or even address Russell's scholarship though you say it is not impressive, despite some very highly reputed scholars saying otherwise. I guess you're smarter than them.

[neilgodfrey]

Oh yes, very serious. Very serious.

Can you address my comment intelligently or is anything other than mocking beneath you?

[StephenGoranson]

As far as I know, the "leading experts in the field" who are "very highly reputed scholars" do not accept the claim that "the Hebrew Pentateuch was composed in its entirety about 273-272 BCE by Jewish scholars at Alexandria that later traditions credited with the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch into Greek." (quote from RE Gmirkin, Berossus book, 2006, page one.)

Or can anyone name such individuals and provide their quotations accepting--in the sense of endorsing or advocating, not merely saying how interesting or the like--the above quote?

[Secret Alias]

The all-Constantine-Christian-creation proposal makes no appeal to independent evidence but seeks to explain why there is no evidence for its interpretation of origins of the existing documents.

As someone who has engaged with Pete for over 20 years. Bullshit! This is NOT "all" Pete is interested in doing. This guy could repackage manure as chocolate pudding.