From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 11:15:41 EST
My "Mmm" post was not to ding you, ...just a thought stimulated by your
post. Your post led me to think that this might be a reasonable question
to ask to perhaps level the field a little when the "theory" card is
played in creationist conversation. Regards JimA
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/19/03 1:07:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> jarmstro@qwest.net writes:
>
>
>> Mmm, I suppose one might be led to enquire in such a circumstance,
>> "What theory do you follow in interpreting scripture?" Maybe I'll
>> give that a try next time the T word comes up in this context! -
>> Jim Armstrong
>>
>
>
> When you interpret the actions of the chosen people themselves in
> Scripture, you must look through a pastoralist's eyes, but most
> particularly in the Torah rather than the entire Bible. Pastoralists
> wrote the Bible and they were animal breeders. Pastoralism is not a
> theory. It's the purview of 4H clubs. Animal domestication and
> breeding is not a theory. The earliest pastoralists to write religious
> books were the Indo-Aryans, cattle breeders. The Levites, priestly
> caste in Judaism sacrifice cattle, not sheep, just like those earliest
> known religionists. The greatest symbol in the Bible is the
> pastoralist, the shepherd.
>
> rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 11:15:46 EST