B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I've split this thread away from the Composition group, since a big part of my religious persuasion is humanism, and I respect Ste enough to not want to pollute the group threads with these types of discussions.

kwrandolph wrote:By the way, you reject scholarship that supports my position. We’re equal on that score.

Declaration by fiat does not scholarship make. What current scholarship can you offer in support of your positions? Present the scholarship, and I'll consider its merit. I haven't rejected it because I've never heard of it.

kwrandolph wrote:I read up on a history of that teaching in a PhD dissertation by Samuel R. Külling (in German only) and found that it is merely an application of an ancient religious belief, one that goes back to ancient Greece if not earlier, Without that religious belief as a foundation, that theory fails to stand. Even when that theory was more organized in the 1870s, it never jettisoned its reliance on that ancient religious belief. The article I read written by Dr. Cook is still based on that ancient religious belief. So when I reject that ancient religious belief, the foundation of that theory, then the whole edifice built on it crashes down with it.

The modern name of that ancient religious belief—“Darwinian evolution”. Don’t argue that that ancient religious belief is “science”, unless you use a different definition for “science” than what I was taught in science classes at secular universities.

If I understand correctly, you are claiming that biological evolution is an ancient religion, and that upon the basis of it we find that languages also evolve, which therefore invalidates our claims — since you think that evolution doesn't take place. Is that what you're saying?

kwrandolph wrote:Only one religion that I have studied teaches that presupposition, and that one is the Bible.

The Bible isn't a religion; several religions claim that their authority issues from the Bible.

kwrandolph wrote:That’s why accurate historical records are very important to my beliefs. All other religions I’ve studied say that the present is the key to understanding the past.

I sincerely don't even understand what you're trying to say.

kwrandolph wrote:But I can also request that you don’t push your religion in this forum, and part of your religion is contained in the article that Dr. Cook authored.

What religion is that, per se? I don't post my religious opinions here. You don't even know what my religious persuasion is, so how are you making these odd statements?

Jason

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:By the way, you reject scholarship that supports my position. We’re equal on that score.

Declaration by fiat does not scholarship make. What current scholarship can you offer in support of your positions? Present the scholarship, and I'll consider its merit. I haven't rejected it because I've never heard of it.

I have not been keeping up on the literature front. The only publication I know of specifically concerning the theory that supposedly discredits my position vis-a-vis the development of the Hebrew language is that PhD dissertation by Dr. Samuel Külling, that’s now a half century old.

There are several articles that have been published concerning the underlying religious belief, but you won’t find them in Nature or any other mainstream science publication, because of censorship. But you can find many of them on the web.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:The modern name of that ancient religious belief—“Darwinian evolution”. Don’t argue that that ancient religious belief is “science”, unless you use a different definition for “science” than what I was taught in science classes at secular universities.

If I understand correctly, you are claiming that biological evolution is an ancient religion,

That’s what the record shows. Darwin added nothing except popularization.

Jason Hare wrote:and that upon the basis of it we find that languages also evolve, which therefore invalidates our claims — since you think that evolution doesn't take place. Is that what you're saying?

Languages change, but that has more to do with native speakers’ exposure to other languages than to evolution. That is especially true of languages that are written, and written phonetically.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:Only one religion that I have studied teaches that presupposition, and that one is the Bible.

The Bible isn't a religion; several religions claim that their authority issues from the Bible.

Maybe I should have put this more clearly—there are many who claim that their authority is the Bible, but when one examines the content of their teachings, he finds that their teachings are more in line with other authorities instead of the Bible.

The Bible has a certain set of teachings, and I refer to that set of teachings when I mention the Bible.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:That’s why accurate historical records are very important to my beliefs. All other religions I’ve studied say that the present is the key to understanding the past.

I sincerely don't even understand what you're trying to say.

The Bible teaches a historical religion. The reason for certain teachings are based on certain actions having taken place. Therefore, the way to disprove the teachings of the Bible is to disprove that those historical events ever took place. But so far the only things that I have seen that supposedly disprove my religion can be summed up with “My religion claims that those events didn’t happen, therefore your religion is false to claim that they did happen.” Hardly an inspiring rebuttal.

Jason Hare wrote:

kwrandolph wrote:But I can also request that you don’t push your religion in this forum, and part of your religion is contained in the article that Dr. Cook authored.

What religion is that, per se? I don't post my religious opinions here. You don't even know what my religious persuasion is, so how are you making these odd statements?

You gave clues to your religion, specifically by how you championed Dr. Cook’s teachings. Now you have openly admitted above that humanism is your religion.

I have argued in the past against pushing teachings such as those by Dr. Cook because of their religious and speculative natures.

Jason Hare wrote:Jason

Karl W. Randolph.

Okay, gentlemen. The thread has wandered from language to philosophy/religion. Let's get back to the main topic.

Thanks!