-----Original Message-----
From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 6:45 PM
To: Glenn Morton
Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
Well, Glenn, I don't know the Greek or Hebrew, but all
translations that I
have read translate the word used to refer to bats as bird.Check out this
all in one bible research site
http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/multibib.htm
every translation uses the word bird or fowl to apply to bats, even
evangelical ones like NIV and NASB.
Clearly, the writer meant to list bats as a type of bird.But this is De
minimis (How's your Latin?)Rabbits do not chew their cud; insects do not
have four legs.There are scientific errors in the Bible. Deal with it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton [mailto:glenn.morton@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:57 AM
To: Shuan Rose
Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
Well, occasionally, my reading comprehension is zippo. I just liked what
Gordon had suggested. Having learned a bit of Mandarin, some Doric, and now
studying Gaelic, I am learning that Wittgenstein was right. Words meaning is
determined by how they are used. If as Gordon suggests, the word was used
for flying beasties (a Doric word which includes all types of animals), then
it might not be as problematic as more pedantic typologists today might
believe.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
>Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 11:14 AM
>To: Glenn Morton; gordon brown
>Cc: Asa
>Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
>
>
> Hi Glenn,
> I think it is pretty straightforward that the writer meant
>to list clean
>and unclean animals.No need for a time machine: reading comprehension gets
>the job done in this case.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Glenn Morton [mailto:glenn.morton@btinternet.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9:57 PM
>To: Shuan Rose; gordon brown
>Cc: Asa
>Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>>Behalf Of Shuan Rose
>>Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:55 AM
>
>> 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.
>
>It is time for an assumption check. I would challenge anyone to prove what
>'his concern' was. We don't know, we can't know, but one thing is
>certain--all sides seem to KNOW what the writer's concerns, purpose,
>intention and will was. I wish I could be issued my time machine and go
>back and talk to that writer.
>
>
>
>
>glenn
>
>see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
>for lots of creation/evolution information
>anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
>personal stories of struggle
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 16:02:54 EDT