Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi,


Quoting 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.

Yes. But that is precisely it. That's all we know. That the city  
underneath must have come first. Providing an exact and reliable date  
for that city is another thing entirely. In fact, most of our dating  
for cities rely on things like 'this inscription refers to this event,  
which in our framework happened at about this time, so the city must  
be from such and such a period'.


> 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.

I am struggling endlessly to see a connection between what Karl  
actually said and your summary above. You are trying to paint a  
picture of Karl being against archaeological evidence when, in fact,  
he isn't. He didn't say any of the things you are suggesting.

James Christian




> Gabe Eisenstein
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.