Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Rolf:

I previously didn’t get involved with this discussion about science for the
following reasons:

Having studied science in the universities using textbooks written by top
scientists by reputation, I have heard many statements by those scientists
claiming that certain non-scientific (not unscientific as in contradicting
science) beliefs, statements of faith, are scientific. How they resolve
their logical contradiction is up to them to explain, not an issue on this
forum.

The only time that bringing up what is science is legitimate is when people
make illegitimate use of the above statements to pass judgment on the
Hebrew text.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:31 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.


These are two different issues, and I think legitimate for discussion on
this forum.

Comparison with other ANE cosmologies is legitimate, but here I say that
the language of Genesis gives a very different cosmology, so to say that
they are the same doesn’t hold up.

That Genesis 1–2—two accounts of the same event from different
viewpoints—are mythological also doesn’t fit with the accounts, both
internally and externally. While the creation itself is not dated (how long
a period was there between the creation and the Fall in Genesis 3?),
Genesis 3 and following were treated by Tanakh as datable events in
time/space history.


> …  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.
>

Actually, they are allowed, but they need to be formatted that it is clear
that they are linguistic arguments and not statements of faith. The problem
is that your statements sounded too much like statements of faith on a hot
button issue. Because that is a hot button issue, we need to take special
care that others can recognize it as a linguistic issue.

>
>   I would like to stress that I do not believe in or defend creationism.


That is clearly outside the purview of this discussion group. On the other
hand, the question of whether or not the text teaches according to
creationism is a linguistic question.


> … 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.


Agreed.


> 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.
>
> Agreed.

>
>   Best regards,
>
>   Rolf Furuli
>   Stavern
>   Norway
>
> Karl W. Randolph.