[b-hebrew] Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Reading Jehovah in Psalm 16:2 and in Psalm 110...

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Jun 29 17:06:24 EDT 2010


Ted:

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:55 AM, <TedBro at aol.com> wrote:

> Hi, All:
>
> I'm not sure if a discussion of epistemological questions is appropriate to
>  this list...


As far as I understand, they are not appropriate to this list, becasue


> but much of what we discuss here comes down to differences
> between  scientific and religious approaches to evidence and knowledge.
>

this is a false dichotomy. The reasons this is a false dichotomy are:

science is based on basic beliefs that cannot be proven, merely believed,
the same as any other belief system. As such, the scientist is just as much
restricted by his faith as in any other orthodoxy (here used in its
linguistic sense).

science historically and ideationally in Northern Europe is based on
religious beliefs, in particular, those taught by the Reformers (Luther,
Calvin, etc.) without which science most likely would never have been
developed as a recognizable discipline.

The following are not accurate.

>
> The ideal scientist should be unbiased, with no emotional, social,
> religious or personal preference for one view over another, able to weigh
>  evidence
> and come down on whichever side makes the best argument.
>
> The ideal religionist, in contrast, is committed to specific set of beliefs
>  and often has taken a vow to uphold them and often is willing to die
> rather than  recant. They tend to be more apologists for a specific
> perspective
> than real  investigators. Scholarship becomes then a vehicle for finding
> good
> arguments to  support a preexisting position.
>
> That doesn't mean that in practice the scientist is more factual, more
> logical or more correct than the religionist. In practice  scientists have
> strong biases, often in opposition to faith-based  positions, but they are
> better at hiding it.
>

Quicker to deny it, is more accurate. He is just as much a slave to his
faith as any other religionist.

That’s enough of that.

>
>
> Peace,
> Ted Brownstein
>
>
> I have not commented so far on this latest iteration of the
Yahweh/Yehowah/Jehovah discussion because it is part of the larger question:
do we know, I mean absolutely know, what was the pronunciation of Biblical
Hebrew when it was spoken as a native tongue, i.e. before the Babylonian
Exile? Some of us on this list are quite sure they know, but their
confidence is based on religious beliefs, while others of us admit that
there is enough contradictory evidence to make that pronunciation
unknowable. So if the pronunciation for the whole language is unknown, how
is it possible that we can come to a conclusion on the pronunciation of a
single name within that language?

Karl W. Randolph.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list