Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became inHebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Blau's explanation for how ultimate stress became inHebrew
  • Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:24:08 +0200



***
The idea that observation per se "exists" is a fallacy.
Ultimately you need words to *convert* those observations into something *assertable* and *thinkable*.
And that operation of conversion is anything but neutral: it entails a selection, a dismissal and a categorization of a limited set of features interpreted from the whole situation.
Cf. A theory is what tells you what is a fact and what is not a fact.

***
Karl:
Years ago I heard a theory, “Fossils are in rocks because God put them there to decorate the rocks.” Therefore, according to what you said, this is a fact? It is a theory. Or are there other factors you take into account?

***

Another theory is that fossils are a "proof" of the Flood.
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I would say that depending on your implicit or explicit framework, that given thing i.e fossils is not at all "the same thing".
1. God did them and it's decoration
2. God caused a Flood, which caused them to be there
3. There's no God, no Flood, they are just remnants of dead animals which turned into stone long ago.

My PoV:
1. is nice and moving.
2. is not "true".
3. is ok with me, but ultimately unprovable.


And to go back to Proverbs, your theory of a sentence tells you it's a sentence. The conclusion is in the premice. I would say you have not proved much with that example, as far as I'm concerned.


Arnaud Fournet






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page