Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 15/04/2006 18:54, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > With this as a background, the existence of a photon as a 
> > particle is a mathematical construct. ...
> 
> Which means that it isn't matter, or perhaps it doesn't matter? :-)
> 
The answer is, we don't know.

I personally believe that a photon is a discrete 
bundle of light energy that can be measured. Sort 
of like a tsunami on an ocean.

> ...
> > When one goes to the races, one chooses a horse and bets on it. 
> > My horse is named Genesis 1, yours the Big Bang. The race is not 
> > over yet, the horses are on the back stretch, we all are cheering 
> > on our horses, but as of yet the winner is not apparent to an 
> > unbiased observer.
> >
> >
> You misrepresent me. I don't reject Genesis 1, I just interpret it 
> in a different way from you.

The question is, what does it mean according to 
historical and linguistic principles? If the 
linguistic principles indicate a six 24 hour day 
creation, then a reinterpretation is a de facto 
rejection of the text.

>     My mention of the Big Bang was 
> explicitly dependent on "according to those same physicists". But 
> if I am forced to choose, I would prefer to trust those physicists, 
> many of whom are also believers, than the people who are mostly 
> incompetent in theology and biblical languages as well as in 
> sciences who promote so-called "creation science".
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

Peter, that characterization of creationists is not 
like the normal you.

If we want to get into a mud slinging contest, 
there is no argument for evolution as a science 
that I have seen that is not illogical, or at the 
very least riddled with logical fallacies. Also 
"creation science" fails the same logic tests. But 
we are here to discuss the text and linguistics of 
Tanakh, and to ignore how those arguments play 
outside of our ivory walls.

I will not think the less of you if you reject 
Genesis 1 and are honest about it. It is part of 
life to disagree with others. But I find this 
reinterpretation of the text not supported by 
linguistic principles to be intellectual dishonesty 
and it is that intellectual dishonesty that I 
despise. You claim that "day", when acted on by a 
number can mean something other than the equivalent 
of a 24 hour day? The onus in on you to demonstrate 
other examples where that occurs, just as the onus 
was on me to show examples where THW was used for 
carefully formed objects, therefore could not mean 
"formless". If you call Genesis 1 an "untrue myth" 
from which we can derive knowledge about human myth 
making practices, that's an honest rejection of the 
text. Either you reject the text as it stands, or 
show linguistic reasons and examples to back up 
your interpretation.

In the meanwhile, we should not belittle those with 
whom we have an honest disagreement.

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/