RE: sciDocument.rtf

From: Shuan Rose (
Date: Mon Jul 01 2002 - 12:55:13 EDT

  • Next message: Ron Scheller: "Re: sciDocument.rtf"

            I would say that the author in this case was not a biologist and was
    unconcerned about such things as how many legs an insect had, or whether a
    bat was a bird or flying mammal. His concern was telling the ordinary person
    of his time which animals were clean, and which unclean. Even today, many
    laymen in modern society would not know if a bat was a bird, or the true
    number of legs on insects. You don't need to be stupid not to know things
    outside your experience, or area of expertise.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: gordon brown [mailto:gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU]
    Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:27 PM
    To: Shuan Rose
    Cc: Asa
    Subject: Re: sciDocument.rtf

    Rather than assuming that the authors of the Bible were so incredibly
    stupid that they were unable to do such simple things as distinguishing
    bats from birds or counting the number of legs on insects, wouldn't it be
    better to assume that they were reasonably intelligent individuals and use
    their statements as clues as to what such words and phrases meant to them?

    For example, the word `oph also occurs in the passage in Leviticus 11
    about insects. A word that can be used to refer to birds, bats, and
    insects might be a word for flying creatures.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 01 2002 - 13:17:15 EDT