Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Perhaps what we need in such cases is a better definition of "science."

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 03:47, Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 14/06/2004 22:19, Karl Randolph wrote:
> >Dear Peter:
> >
> >Now that you bring in science……
> >
> >...
> >
> >This is not a claim that ”creation science“ is science. It is not science
> > for the same reasons evolution is not science.
>
> I agree with you, more or less. Certainly evolution in terms of
> mechanisms is no more scientific than creationism because both are based
> on unfalsifiable speculation.
>
> >The reason I objected to ”proto-Semitic“ language, especially as a
> > yardstick to evaluate Biblical Hebrew, is because it, like evolution, is
> > based on inobservable presuppositions that may or may not be true. I
> > would prefer to stay with that which can be observed, in this case, the
> > Biblical Hebrew language recorded in Tanakh and what few other writings
> > in Biblical Hebrew that we have found.
>
> I hadn't mentioned proto-Semitic for some time, but you have anticipated
> my mention of it just posted. Well, there are a large number of words
> and grammatical structures which are more or less common between many
> modern and recorded ancient Semitic languages. These are similar to the
> large number of words and structures in common between e.g. Romance
> languages which can be traced back to a known ancestor, Latin. It is a
> reasonable speculation, although formally unprovable I agree, that the
> common Semitic vocabulary and grammar derive from an original common
> Semitic language, which is probably lost (although I suppose one could
> try to argue that proto-Semitic is Akkadian, the oldest recorded Semitic
> language). To go further into determining the exact shape of that
> proto-language may be speculative, but that is not actually my point.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
is like getting a kiss over the telephone.