Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>]

Karl,

My reaction to all the "wikinfo" articles was the same as Yigal Levin's: 
they misrepresent everything they claim to define. I read all your 
links, and the result was a confirmation of my perception that you and I 
occupy different universes of thought and discourse. I will just quote 
one sentence from wikinfo on the theory of evolution:
"By definition, we cannot observe this long development which by 
definition occurred in the past, therefore, evolution cannot be a 
scientific theory."
Ignoring the carelessness of this writing, the statement implies that 
there is no possibility of geology, astrophysics or other historical 
sciences. Clearly the writer does not understand the realities of 
scientific practice. Obsession with a simplistic notion of "observation" 
(or "facts", in your parlance) blinds him to the complexities of 
theory-formation, in which plausibility and coherence with existing 
knowledge play important roles. (I tried and failed to make this clear 
to you in private correspondence.)

Therefore when you ask, "Shouldn't this be a learning opportunity, to 
try to bridge that gap?" I must answer: the gap is too large. You do not 
appreciate how utterly unconvincing your arguments are to a mainstreamer 
like me (or how annoying it is to hear a naturalistic approach 
characterized as faith or ideology).
The fact is that I have witnessed no supernatural events, nor have I 
heard a credible report of such events. There is no comparison between 
my lack of belief in them and the faith that such events have occurred. 
(And bringing in evolution just muddies the waters further.)

You wrote:
"OK, Gabe, how many times have you read, I mean reading for understanding,
the Tanakh in Hebrew, cover to cover, with the intent of understanding? Even
once? How many of your questions and conclusions are based on that reading?"

The answer is that I have not done this reading, and that my 
understanding of Hebrew is very rudimentary. My professional background 
is in philosophy. (So I do have some familiarity with the concepts of 
truth and evidence.) My remarks in this thread (aside from what I said 
about Deuteronomy) are based on my scientific education, not on my 
understanding of the Bible. (My previous questions were based on Bible 
reading I did by first reading translations and then following along 
word by word in Hebrew.)

I reject Rolf Furuli's "third way" which says that we "accept what the 
text says until it is proven wrong".  This is just the "first way" in 
disguise.

I appreciate that you do have extensive knowledge of the Bible and its 
language. Surely you can be helpful with certain kinds of questions. And 
surely there is a lot to learn about the Bible's literary and moral 
dimensions without delving into history.
But in my view the whole truth about the Bible and its language requires 
a diachronic approach that is at odds with the traditional accounts of 
the origins of Biblical texts.
Therefore my proposal is as follows: when a particular topic seems to us 
Naturalists to require a diachronic analysis, you Supernaturalists [my 
use of the term "fundamentalist" seemed like name-calling to some; I 
hope this is better] should just stay out of the way, rather than 
bringing non-linguistic arguments against a diachronic approach. And 
when a topic seems to you to require explanations in terms of the 
supernatural, I will stay out of your way as well. Fair enough?


Gabe Eisenstein