Dear Peter:
Now that you bring in science……
...
This is not a claim that ”creation science“ is science. It is not science for
the same reasons evolution is not science.
The reason I objected to ”proto-Semitic“ language, especially as a yardstickI hadn't mentioned proto-Semitic for some time, but you have anticipated my mention of it just posted. Well, there are a large number of words and grammatical structures which are more or less common between many modern and recorded ancient Semitic languages. These are similar to the large number of words and structures in common between e.g. Romance languages which can be traced back to a known ancestor, Latin. It is a reasonable speculation, although formally unprovable I agree, that the common Semitic vocabulary and grammar derive from an original common Semitic language, which is probably lost (although I suppose one could try to argue that proto-Semitic is Akkadian, the oldest recorded Semitic language). To go further into determining the exact shape of that proto-language may be speculative, but that is not actually my point.
to evaluate Biblical Hebrew, is because it, like evolution, is based on
inobservable presuppositions that may or may not be true. I would prefer to
stay with that which can be observed, in this case, the Biblical Hebrew
language recorded in Tanakh and what few other writings in Biblical Hebrew
that we have found.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.