Unfortunately, it is the state of modern scholarship to enshrine skepticism and deny that God and miracles have any proper place in the word of God. It's a purely materialistic state of mind that is encouraged on all levels of academia.
Solomon Landers On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Ishnian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear George, > > I agree that the focus should be on literary and linguistic issues. But > I do not understand your first point. You yourself and several others have > argued that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 is mythological and is of the > same nature as all the other cosmological accounts in ANE. Comparisons with > Enuma Elish and other accounts have been made. One list member wrote that > the account in Genesis 1 started with chaos—the mythological catchword. Did > I violate the rules of b-hebrew when I argued that the account did not > start with chaos, and that what is said in Genesis 1:1-2 accords with > modern science? Is a reference to scientific findings (the laws of > thermodynamics) not allowed, whereas references to ancient findings and > documents are allowed? My arguments are just as much a discussion of > Hebrew "literature" as comparisons with Enuma Elish. When I claim that the > account in Genesis 1 and 2 accords with what have been found in the crust > of the earth, and t herefore need not be interpreted in a mythological way, > this is a statement about the literary nature of the account, just as much > as comparisons with mythological accounts. I have not understood the rules > of b-hebrew in a way that all kinds of arguments in favor of mythology are > allowed, but arguments in favor of of the opposite, that accounts in the > Tanakh are non-mythological, are not allowed. > > I would like to stress that I do not believe in or defend creationism. > And I have neither time not interest in a discussion of the creation > account in the light of modern science. My motive for joining this > discussion, was a wrong use of lexical semantics on the list. It was > argued that RQY( ONLY could refer to a solid vault, that is, its reference > is mythological, and this is simply not true. I think it is a service to > the listmembers when someone raises his voice and argues that there are > alternatives to the mythological understanding of specific parts of the > Tanakh, particularly when this is done by the help of linguistic and > historical arguments. > > > Best regards, > > Rolf Furuli > Stavern > Norway > > Torsdag 6. September 2012 11:09 CEST skrev George Athas < > [email protected]>: > > > Remember, let's keep discussion confined to the literature. Whether > Genesis accords or does not accord with modern science is NOT the issue to > be discussed in this forum (as interesting a question as it is). Let's keep > ourselves to the literary and linguistic issues, please. > > > GEORGE ATHAS > Dean of Research, > Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) > Sydney, Australia > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
