quote:
IanJoseph writes:
speech cannot be proven without writings,
A claim that would mean we have no proof of human speech in Australia prior to contact with Europeans.
The claim Aboriginals are an ancient peoples is not disputed, but this requires qualification. The claim of a 60K year speech endowed life form must be rejected by any honest and logical contemplation, because of the lack of any evidence [cave marks notwithstanding], essentially because their population should be 7.9 Trillion, and their mental prowess should also allign with this. These are far more impacting than any of the decontructionist evidences used to make the widespread claims so readily accepted by a large sector of academia - which is clearly agenda based. Here, if a fraction of the credibility upon Genesis is made to apply to the Abo claim, the answer is blatant.
quote:
And speech does not become proven by skeletal remains
It can be inferred by some physical characteristics, such as the placement of the pharynx or the formation of Broca's area in the brain. As we learn more about the genetics governing speech we may also get a time-frame for the acquisition of speech through genetic history.
The 'infers' premise cannot be sretched to fantasy, which is outside of science. More impacting, is the said inferences do not result in the required conclusions, not just for the present time, but also of any past times - with a vacuum of transit imprint grads. This says the so-called inference syndrome is defective, even when one fully co-operates with it using every generosity possible. It is appropriate we sould not wait for Zebras to display speech anytime soon. There is an agenda here: the obsession to create doctored spins by scientists in lone labs with accomodating comrades to negate genesis needs no debate: many careers and grants would vanquish if they spoke the antithetical truths here; there is a great disdain for the theology term, compounded by the foodhardy premise of placing Genesis in the same bag of the THEOLOGY basket - this has no veracity. The OT is hardly Zeus, but the world's most primal historical document, with over 50% of its stats proven by archeology and cross-nation historical writings - no other document anywhere on the planet shares this status.
quote:
Adaptation is not "elevationary". And the brain of birds does not have the same conformation as the human brain. Nevertheless, birds can be surprisingly intelligent.
Whatever criteria one uses, adaptation of speech is the most elevationary aspiration for any life form aspiring elevation. That birds are intelligent is not disputed. Speech is not dependent on intelligence.
quote:
Irrelevent. Biologists have made even greater errors on this issue, and have no answers for speech's occurence.
Selective use of expertise. You accept Chomsky's expertise in his field because it agrees with your assertions, but reject the expertise of biologists in their field because it does not. A phenomemon known as "cherry-picking" your evidence.
It may sound over confident to you, but there is really no need to be selective: there is a vacuum when it comes to the primal proof factor: speech is unique in the ratio of 1 to all else in the known universe, while selectivism requires other options - there are none. There is no biologist credence here whatsoever, and there is nothing to cherry pick: there is not a shred of evidence of speech pre-6000.
quote:
And the text does not comment on how it is said: hence no codified grammar.
Knock, knock! You have to find an example of poor grammar in any single verse of what is an ancient telephone size book, if you fail to acknowledge the examples I gave you as the epitomy of grammar.
quote:
And I didn't. I said that it appears to be the oldest codified grammar i.e. the oldest literature that comments not on what is said but on how it is said, paying attention to grammatical relationships and studying them with careful attention.
Yes, I understood your import, and rejected it. LET THERE BE LIGHT does constitute how a sentence is cushioned, and there is nothing in Sanskrit with measures it - with respect to the sanskrit language which I do admire greatly. I found the Indian alphabetical writings 90% the same as Hebrew, in all aspects.
quote:
When was the first codified grammar of Hebrew published? i.e. in what Hebrew literature were the different forms of the verb given names and their uses explored?
Its very advanced. There is also a unique PERFECT tense here, applying to past/present/future simultainiouslu.
quote:
I expect someone as well-versed in grammar as you understands the use of 'sic'.
This was your term, not mine. I only questioned why the use of such a derogatory term for what is clearly and evidentially the world's most respected book - by period of time, concensus and impact. Today, every forum on the planet is debating only against the criteria posited by one book. No other one can put up against state of art science. They are NOT debating about the Sanskrit grammar - or any other 'theology' - a term you used to eronously place the OT in.
quote:
How many grammatically inclined expressionisms in 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'?
The expression is subjunctive and can be used in English in two relevant ways.
1. to express a wish or prayer for something that does not currently exist
2. to command in the third person
I do not know Hebrew well enough to know if both these possibilities exist in Hebrew. I don't even know if Hebrew has a subjunctive.
There more than two usages here. But you must be able to SEE THE LIGHT. LOL.
quote:
Do you percieve maybe a metaphor and analogy here, as this verse is used today in so many applications?
Grammatically there is no metaphor in this statement. However,that does not mean it cannot occur in a metaphorical setting or that there is no analogy here. e.g. is the light which is commanded here a physical or spiritual light? Some take it to be "light" in the sense that "God is light" although this would seem to contradict the sense that it is created light. Since it cannot be both eternal and created, this is an analogous treatment of the term "light".
That the light can have nothing to do with the light, depends how the verse is employed. Ironically, this maginificient verse is placed atop of the book's opening, as an indicatory pointer there is more here than meets the eye.
quote:
I said this word is limited to the CREATION CHAPTER in Genesis.
Then you are still wrong. Strong lists it as occurring 8 times in Genesis, which means five times in addition to the three in Genesis 1.
I am not wrong. The term does not appear outside the creation chapter.
quote:
Are you claiming that Hebrew grammar changed significantly between the days of Moses and the days of Isaiah?
I don't know about that. But Isaiah had nowhere to learn from but the OT - no other books existed of such a calibre, and all his writings are contexted to the OT references. The same applies with the older and more advanced Psalms of King David.
You should play devil's advocate to see another view of this issue - this is a fine method of affirming a position. Consider what import and conclusion occurs, based on an accepted premise that genesis is correct about speech endowed humans being less than 6000. Then measure which position has more negative anomolies and which has more positive veracity. That's what Sherlock Holmes would do. But you have to be prepared of negative consequences in your career too.
™ Version 4.2