Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

***
The idea that observation per se "exists" is a fallacy.
Ultimately you need words to *convert* those observations into something 
*assertable* and *thinkable*.
And that operation of conversion is anything but neutral: it entails a 
selection, a dismissal and a categorization of a limited set of features 
interpreted from the whole situation.
Cf. A theory is what tells you what is a fact and what is not a fact.

***
Karl:
Years ago I heard a theory, “Fossils are in rocks because God put them there 
to decorate the rocks.” Therefore, according to what you said, this is a 
fact? It is a theory. Or are there other factors you take into account?

***

Another theory is that fossils are a "proof" of the Flood.
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I would say that 
depending on your implicit or explicit framework, that given thing i.e 
fossils is not at all "the same thing".
1. God did them and it's decoration
2. God caused a Flood, which caused them to be there
3. There's no God, no Flood, they are just remnants of dead animals which 
turned into stone long ago.

My PoV:
1. is nice and moving.
2. is not "true".
3. is ok with me, but ultimately unprovable.


And to go back to Proverbs, your theory of a sentence tells you it's a 
sentence. The conclusion is in the premice. I would say you have not proved 
much with that example, as far as I'm concerned.


Arnaud Fournet