Thanks.
For your kind reply.
A GREEK husband seeking to KNOW his wife exhaustively after the GREEK manner of seeking truth
would take a scalpel and dissect her organ by organ down to the tiniest sub-atomic particle.
A HEBREW husband seeking to KNOW his wife exhaustively after the HEBREW manner of seeking truth
would KNOW HER AS ADAM KNEW EVE—have sexual INTERCOARSE with her—lots.
I suspect the wife would have a preference for one over the other.
The purportedly ‘scientific’ method takes after the GREEK model.
Phenomenology takes after the HEBREW model.
A case study were one video tapes; takes exhaustive notes; etc. etc. is a phenomenological study.
Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. My dissertation collected massive amounts of both kinds of data. So much that most of it remains unanalyzed. LOL.
The tragedy is that folks immersed in the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM end up believing that the pseudo-scientific method is the only route to truly truest truth.
I say pseudo-scientific because THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ITSELF has PROVEN that there ARE NO TRULY OBJECTIVE observations. The very act of observing distorts reality at a subatomic level. Light can evidently be a particle or a wave. That’s phenomenology pure and simple.
So all this wailing about OBJECTIVE PROOF; SCIENTIFIC PROOF; OBJECTIVE REALITY—is at some level a huge farce.
That doesn’t mean there’s no usefulness in it. It’s provided us with a lot of increased understanding and pretty toys.
But it’s a delusion to think that it’s the Nirvana and purest reality regarding seeking truth.
I can’t recall more than 1 or 2, if that many, scientific types on the other side of issues ever even admit or acknowledge that fact in all my years on FR. To that degree—they are being hypocritically UNScientific.
Certainly I prefer solid, mutiply vetted, documented, tangible ‘scientific’ proof of the topics I’m interested in. BY THEIR VERY NATURE, HOWEVER, THAT’S NOT LIKELY TO OCCUR MUCH AT ALL—until the time when such spring brazenly onto the public square more or less unhidden any more.
In the mean time, we have these warehouses full of case studies and other phenomenological data
ALONG WITH A SMALL STORAGE BUILDING FULL OF NORMALLY SCIENTIFICALLY COLLECTED, VETTED AND ANALYZED DATA—which is still dismissed by folks whose minds are made up ahead of time.
I happen to think it’s utterly ignorant, clueless and stupid to ignore the phenomenological data.
I hope that helps answer your question.
And "I happen to think it’s utterly ignorant, clueless and stupid to ignore", play down, or reject the other Fields of knowledge required for proper study of the Bible
For instance:
"...The genres of the Bible include narrative, poetry, proverbial literature, wisdom discourse, a treaty (that's what Deuteronomy is, believe it or not!), legal codes, genealogies, biography (that is what the Gospels are!), personal letters and general letters, rhetoric (an art form in the ancient world), riposte, and apocalyptic. Treating each one as a newspaper -- written yesterday and with our own ideas in mind -- is a mistake..."
<>//<>
Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat?
"It should be understood that the Hebrews, like all ANE cultures, obviously lacked the scientific terminology we use to describe things today. We should not expect descriptions of "tectonic plates" or of "molten lava". On a lesser scale, we will find that the Hebrews lacked key words which would have been most useful in describing cosmological phenomena.
"Furthermore, we will not address certain words and verses that use "phenomenological" language - i.e., sunset, sunrise, or references to sun and stars moving. As we still use such terms today, in spite of hundreds of years of "knowing better", it should not reflect badly upon the use of such language in the Bible. ..."
Valid points all I suppose, but it's, uh, intercourse.
Not that I know a whole lot about it, mind you. Just tryin' to help. :)