Re: sciDocument.rtf

Date: Wed Jul 03 2002 - 02:35:45 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: sciDocument.rtf"

    Gordon wrote,

    << 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. >>

    and later


    The word translated "bird" in Leviticus and elsewhere ('oph) is a cognate of
    the verb to fly (also 'oph) , and is used in Lev 11:20 "every WINGED creeping
    thing." and therefore is properly translated "flying creature" the dominant
    flying creature being, of course, the bird.

    Amongst other pre-scientific peoples, the most basic biological
    classification system has Fish, Bird, Snake, then Wug (worm/bug) and Mammal.
    Not all peoples use all five categories. In 1 Kings 4:33, you find the basic
    biological classification: Fish, bird, snake and mammal.

    The Rofaifo and Ndumba of New Guinea, the African Rangi, the Hill Pandaram of
    India, and the Arab bedouin all classify bats under the classification, Bird.
    Since pre-scientific peoples tend to be very good classifiers of birds, even
    down to the species, I think it is clear that in Lev 11, the word "flying
    creature" is the broad classification of their basic taxonomy; and, I find it
    hard to accept that they should be faulted for not calling a bat a mammal.

    I'm wondering now if Linnaeus started right out calling a bat a mammal.

    I sympathize with Shuan's thinking on this issue, and most of it will still
    stand; but, on this precise issue, you got it riight.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:36:39 EDT