Biblical Hebrew Forum

[moniscreto landers <rmnnoute AT gmail.com>]

Unfortunately, it is the state of modern scholarship to enshrine skepticism
and deny that God and miracles have any proper place in the word of God.
It's a purely materialistic state of mind that is encouraged on all levels
of academia.

Solomon Landers

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Ishnian <ishinan AT comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>   Dear George,
>
>   I agree that the focus should be on literary and linguistic issues. But
> I do not understand your first point. You yourself and several others have
> argued that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 is mythological and is of the
> same nature as all the other cosmological accounts in ANE. Comparisons with
> Enuma Elish and other accounts have been made. One list member wrote that
> the account in Genesis 1 started with chaos—the mythological catchword. Did
> I violate the rules of b-hebrew when I argued that the account did not
> start with chaos, and that what is said in Genesis 1:1-2 accords with
> modern science? Is a reference to scientific findings (the laws of
> thermodynamics) not allowed, whereas references to ancient findings and
> documents are allowed?  My arguments are just as much a discussion of
> Hebrew "literature" as comparisons with Enuma Elish. When I claim that the
> account in Genesis 1 and 2 accords with what have been found in the crust
> of the earth, and t herefore need not be interpreted in a mythological way,
> this is a statement about the literary nature of the account, just as much
> as comparisons with mythological accounts. I have not understood the rules
> of b-hebrew in a way that all kinds of arguments in favor of mythology are
> allowed, but arguments in favor of of the opposite, that accounts in the
> Tanakh are non-mythological,  are not allowed.
>
>   I would like to stress that I do not believe in or defend creationism.
> And I have neither time not interest in a discussion of the creation
> account in the light of modern science. My motive for joining this
> discussion, was a wrong use of lexical semantics on the list. It was
>  argued that RQY( ONLY could refer to a solid vault, that is, its reference
> is mythological, and this is simply not true. I think it is a service to
> the listmembers when someone raises his voice and argues that there are
> alternatives to the mythological understanding of specific parts of the
> Tanakh, particularly when this is done by the help of linguistic and
> historical arguments.
>
>
>   Best regards,
>
>   Rolf Furuli
>   Stavern
>   Norway
>
>   Torsdag 6. September 2012 11:09 CEST skrev George Athas <
> George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:
>
>
>     Remember, let's keep discussion confined to the literature. Whether
> Genesis accords or does not accord with modern science is NOT the issue to
> be discussed in this forum (as interesting a question as it is). Let's keep
> ourselves to the literary and linguistic issues, please.
>
>
>     GEORGE ATHAS
>     Dean of Research,
>     Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
>     Sydney, Australia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>