Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Rolf:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Ishinan <ishinan AT comcast.net> wrote:

>
> …
>
> Please note: I am not here arguing for anything, I just point out the real
> issue. This means that the creation account cannot be based on human
> observation, and therefore we cannot explain any part of it as such.
>  Either its origin is mythological, it is a guesswork by the writer, or it
> is given the writer by God. And here we have a real clash between the
> scientific method where metaphysics is excluded, and the Tanakh that is
> full of metaphysics—God is everywhere. The farthest a person can go while
> upholding the scientific methodology, is to ask whether we, on the basis ic
> lexicon, grammar and syntax and historical comparisons  can point out
> mythological elements in the creation accoun; or whether the whole account
> can be given an interpretation that accords with all we know about the
> earth and the universe. This is what I have done. And the result is that
> that clash is now between the creation account that in every detail
> literally accords with what we know about the earth and the universe and
> the scientific method that a priori excludes God.
>

This is a false dichotomy, in that we are not contrasting faith vs.
science, rather faith vs. faith. The scientific method can deal with only
that which is presently observable.

http://www.wikinfo.org/Multilingual/index.php/Scientific_Method_from_science_textbooks

Hence the “scientific cosmology” isn’t scientific. Rather it is faith.

We are not here to decide what is mythical vs. history, rather what does
the text actually say? What message is conveyed by the words and literary
styles used by the writers?

The question whether it is mythical or not is a question of faith, which
has been ruled off limits for this discussion board.

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