Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Does Dr. Cook have any evidence, I mean, real, solid evidence that we can take to the bank? I have seen none.
What have you read of his published articles?
The one to which Jonathan Beck linked in a previous post.
Jason Hare wrote:You insinuate that those at the head of the curve with regard to Linguistics as it relates to biblical Hebrew are just shooting in the dark, yet your position is based on just taking the historical positions espoused by religion at face value — such as that Moses wrote the Torah around 1500 years BCE. I find it odd that you reject scholarship as untenable and unsupportable while holding to positions that have been discredited for 200 years already.
The position to which I hold has been no more discredited than that pigs can fly. It has just been rejected based on alternate religious beliefs. But I find no evidence for those alternate religious beliefs other than a leap of faith.
By the way, you reject scholarship that supports my position. We’re equal on that score.
Jason Hare wrote:It's hard to imagine what might be called evidence and good argument when your position is based on claims like these.
Just hold up a mirror to your beliefs and really examine them to see if they have any validity other than that those are the beliefs you have chosen.
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.
I freely and honestly admit that my beliefs are based on a set of presuppositions that cannot be proven. But I have yet to study a belief system that isn’t based on a set of unprovable presuppositions. One of the presuppositions I hold is that the past is the key to understanding the present. Only one religion that I have studied teaches that presupposition, and that one is the Bible. 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.
On this forum, we’re not to push our religions. If you reject my religion, that’s no skin off my teeth, you’re free to do so. 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.
Now let’s get back to discussing Biblical Hebrew language.
Karl W. Randolph.