Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>]

Karl wrote:
>When looking at a sentence, there are certain grammatical and 
lexicographic
rules that indicate what meaning the sentence has. That?s true with all
languages. However, if the person speaking has a reputation for dishonesty
and lying, the words he speaks will have a very different reaction than if
he is known for being very honest and factual. The meaning of the sentence
is independent of the reaction of the hearers. When we look at the
who/how/why/when the language was written and transmitted, we are not
looking at the words, but on other clues to gauge how we should react to the
words.
[end Karl]

But Karl, how many times have your urged us to look at the context? Of 
course there are basic grammatical rules and there is a rough, abstract 
core-meaning(s) for each word; but to get the meaning of a particular 
sentence, paragraph, chapter, etc. you have to decide when words are 
being used metaphorically, idiomatically, seriously or ironically, 
poetically, etc. The intended (not the actual) effect on the listener is 
part of what the speaker/writer "means". If he's consciously lying, 
that's something different from accidentally making false statements, it 
is part of his meaning. And the context extends out beyond the borders 
of the text, to information about its composition.

Karl wrote:
>The problem with ?pre-history? is that there is no way to date it. ?Stone
age? tools and implements may have been used long after metals were used in
other parts of the world, in fact we know that that is the case as the North
American Indians were still stone age people at 1500 AD.
[end Karl]

Your leap from the observation about stone tools to "there is no way to 
date it" is unwarranted. When we find several cities built on top of one 
another, we know which ones came first. Starting from observations such 
as this, we can piece together some pretty good hypotheses that go back 
into pre-history.

Karl wrote:
>I, too, have been trained in the natural sciences. Unless my professors,
PhDs in the natural sciences, didn?t know what they were talking about, they
gave a definition for science the rules out the past as being a proper
subject for scientific investigation.
[end Karl]

This goes to the heart of your worldview. Forgetting about it can lead 
to needless debate. I assume that there was no geology, biology or 
astronomy where you were trained. Those sciences necessarily deal with 
past events. I would also argue that even physics has to deal with past 
events, but never mind that.
It does puzzle me as to why you make a big deal out of history vs. 
prehistory when both are in the past. Does the study of old documents 
yield scientific knowledge or not? If it does, don't we have to follow 
the same rules of evidence and reasoning with them as with nonverbal 
images, artifacts like pottery, architecture, food remains, etc. etc.?
What your definition of science tells us is that when you talk about 
history you immediately consider yourself to be abandoning the 
scientific viewpoint. So it isn't just that you have a different idea 
about Bronze Age literature and other such subjects, you don't think 
that a scientific discussion of them makes sense.
So in the future when you bolster a point by means of historical 
assertions, we will know that it's just a lapse on your part.


Gabe Eisenstein