Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Gabe:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Gabe Eisenstein 
<gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

Looking at the context involves the same rules as I mentioned for an
individual sentence above, only spread over a longer section of text. And
yes, you are correct, the context will sometimes adjust the understanding of
an individual sentence before it reaches the filters of our personal biases.

A good example of acknowledging the meaning of the documents, but then
reacting to what is said in a negative manner is the message that follows
your message, by George Athas; his basic thesis is that the documents give a
certain message, but that he doesn’t believe their message.

>
> 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.
>

The dating question is still valid.

>
> 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.


LOL! A professor in biology was a missionary for evolution, and chose a
textbook specifically because it was written by another missionary for
evolution, namely Dr. George Gaylord Simpson in connection with still
another missionary for evolution Dr. William S. Beck. Yet it was his class
which gave the most solid foundation on the definition of science and
scientific method that I have seen, a definition which rules out science as
being the proper tool for the study of history. Yet all those professors
logically contradicted themselves. That experience reminds me of Romans
1:22.


> Those sciences necessarily deal with
> past events. I would also argue that even physics has to deal with past
> events, but never mind that.


That is an illogical self-contradictory claim. Number one most basic rule in
logic; don’t contradict yourself.


>
> 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.


Science, as defined in the natural science classes I studied, deals only
with observable phenomena where the observation is repeatable. Ancient
documents that have survived to the present are observable, are they not?
Therefore science can study them. The same is true of the text of Tanakh,
which is why we can study it using the science of linguistics. But science
cannot deal with that which cannot be observed. For example, did the sun's
shadow go backwards one time (2 Kings 20:11, Isaiah 38:8)? That was a
non-repeatable observation, therefore science cannot touch it.

>
> 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.
>

History is a different subject run by different rules than science.

>
>
> Gabe Eisenstein