Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ishnian" <ishinan AT comcast.net>]

Dear George,

Thank you for your clarification. I think enough has been said in this 
thread, so I do not intend to continue. But I would also like to clarify my 
position.

My experience from Academia is that there is too little independent thinking. 
When a student begins at the university, he or she is taught the viewpoints 
of the teachers, and the curriculum is so big that there is little time for 
independent thinking. This usually continues until graduation; the students 
believe they are independent thinkers, but the opposite is the case.. A study 
of which projects were accepted for doctoral studies at the University of 
Oslo, showed that only those projects that had working hypotheses that 
accorded with the views of the teachers were accepted.

I for one have taken a different course, and time and again I have challenged 
that which is accepted. I have written a doctoral dissertation where I 
suggest a new understanding of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew; I have 
written two books on Babylonian and Persian chronology where I give evidence 
that the the chronology of Claudius Ptolemy, that is universally accepted, is 
wrong; and I have written two books on Bible translation, pointing out how 
theology and bias colors modern Bible translations. In my view, it is a 
service to scholars and students to challenge what is accepted. This is the 
way science should work!

Regarding the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2, my experience is that 
students are taught that it is mythological, on the basis of very superficial 
evidence. But when the teacher say so, it is so. My position is that I want 
to challenge the accepted viewpoints regarding the cosmology of the Tanakh, 
and I do this by arguing that the accounts can be interpreted  in  a 
non-mythological way. The readers should weight the arguments of both sides. 
I have of course my own philosophy and religious view, but in none of the 
posts to -b-hebrew in this and related threads have I used theological 
arguments. My position has been that Genesis 1 and 2 can be interpreted in a 
way that  accords with our modern cosmology. Thus, the account needs not be 
of the same nature as other ANE cosmologies. When Jerry, for example, wrote 
that THW WBHW in 1:2 can refer to chaos, he is of course right. But an 
alternative understanding of the words is "formless and void" (NJB) or 
"unformed and void" (JPS). My point was that the account do not start with 
THW WBHW, but with the creation of the universe by the one God. This is in 
contrast to Enuma Elish and other creation accounts. In order to show that 
the first words in the creation account were non-mythological I needed to 
refer to our knowledge of the universe (modern science). I did not use faith 
statments but only data. The eternality of the creator, stated elswhere, is 
not against logic, but accords with the laws of nature, and in contrast to 
ANE accounts and the view of many people at different times, heaven and earth 
had a beginning and are not eternal. The conclusion was that the first words 
of Genesis, apart for the metaphysical element "God", accord with what we 
know, rather than being mythical. By arguing this way, I do not claim that 
the writer of the account entertained a modern view of the earth and the 
universe. But I say that the descriptions in Genesis 1 and 2 can be 
interpreted in a non-mythological and literal way, and that they accord with 
what we KNOW about the origin of the earth and its living creatures.

Not being allowed to refer to our present knowledge of the universe, was what 
I reacted against. Thank you again for your clarification.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway




Fredag 7. September 2012 01:34 CEST skrev George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:


  Rolf,

  This is not censorship. I'm sorry if I've given you that impression, but 
censorship is not my aim at all. Rather, I'm simply wanting to stick to the 
analysis of the literature and language of the Hebrew Bible, because that's 
what the B-Hebrew forum is about. It's not about theology and it's not about 
science, even though occasionally we will skirt those topics, as we have now. 
Furthermore, you've actually made your statements about science on the forum 
anyway, so my appeal to you (and others) to stick to the literature and 
language is anything but censorship. I'm not calling for any retractions or 
anything like that. I'm simply calling all of us to be disciplined in 
ensuring that what we discuss at B-Hebrew is in accord with the forum's 
purpose and guidelines — B-Hebrew's main game.

  Finally, you can still make your arguments about the text without appealing 
to modern science. I don't see the need to go to modern science in order to 
discuss this piece of ancient literature, any more than the issue of modern 
whaling impinges upon a discussion of the book of Jonah. We can talk about 
what the ancients thought and wrote without going to today's scientists. 
Modern science is tangential to the specific discussion taking place here. 
And this is in no way a comment on whether modern scientists are right or 
wrong vis-a-vis the biblical texts. We're just leaving that discussion aside. 
I see how it is related, of course, and I have various opinions on it myself. 
But it is another issue entirely to the one being discussed here.

  So let's all just keep on track with a discussion that is at home in 
B-Hebrew.


  GEORGE ATHAS
  Dean of Research,
  Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
  Sydney, Australia

  _______________________________________________