Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abel and His Flock
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 42 (72342)
12-11-2003 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brad McFall
12-11-2003 1:24 PM


Re: Creepy Things
Mr. McFall:
I am still having trouble determining exactly what you're after in this thread. The fault is mine because I apparently do not have the patience to work out your peculiar style of writing. That is not meant negatively, because I should be able to make enough heads outta tails to come up with at least one target question to answer. Not to worry, Brad. I will eventually figure out your style.
In the meantime, if you are asking about the dietary prohibition against eating "things that creep" meaning obviously those little creepy crawly insects, centipedes, millipedes, or whatever you more scientifically educated forum members call them, I understand that the Law is currently interpreted to wholesale prohibit the consumption of all such creatures as "unclean." I think there was a time when certain "locusts" and "grasshoppers" were allowable as food but since the Diaspora is thought to have dispersed the tribes so widely over the millennia, the rabbis now council the observant against eating any such insects for fear that the crunchy delight on which one munches may not be one of the very few subspecies that in fact were considered Kosher back in the hood. Now I hear it told that there are still a few individuals rumored to live I think in Ethiopia who still know the specific body markings that I.D. the Kosher locusts, but the information is not considered 100% reliable, and therefore the wholesale prohibition. Ah well, no chocolate coated grasshoppers for the observant I guess.
Now, as to the two of this kind and the seven of that ... that gets very confusing during the whole embarcation narration, doesn't it, Brad? First, in Chapter 6, it's two of each kind, one male and one female, "from fowl after their kind, from herd-animals after their kind, from all crawling things of the soil after their kind." Then, in Chapter 7 (coincidently maybe) it's "From all ritually pure animals you are to take seven and seven each, a male and a his mate; and also from the fowl of the heavens, seven and seven each male and female."
Now Brad, this is very interesting indeed. First of all, as others have pointed out in this thread, there were no "ritually pure animals" at the time of the Deluge, right? So this passage would appear to be a retrofit.
But even more interesting, let's assume for a moment that there were "ritually pure" mammals that required secure passage in seven mated pairs each into the post-Deluge world ... why then the requirement for "fowls of the heavens" in seven pairs each? Not all fowls of the heavens are "ritually pure." Eagles, kites, owls, cormorants, vultures, and other birds are specifically classified as traif by Law.
Ah, but alas, when the actual bon voyages were said at Chapter 7, Verse 7, "Noah came, his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the Ark before the waters of the Deluge. From the pure animals and from the animals that are not pure and from the fowl and all that crawls about on the soil -- two and two each came to Noah, into the Ark, male and female as God had commanded Noah." Now we're back to pairs of each.
Brian, what's it all mean? Best I can figure, outside of some sort of Kabbalistic encodification, maybe the editors wanted to make sure that they included all details regardless of apparent conflict from scrap of parchment to scrap of parchment so that just in case any of it is true that all of it was included in the consolidated canon. To err on the side of inclusion apparently indicates devine inspiration.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 12-11-2003 1:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 12-12-2003 12:04 PM Abshalom has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 32 of 42 (72384)
12-11-2003 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Abshalom
12-11-2003 11:50 AM


Re: Moses's Singular Knowledge of YHWH
Abshalom writes:
With regard to the obvious Egyptian influences on Israelite religion as detailed in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, et seq, I have a little twitty bird in the back of my mind that tells me this has something to do with a series of "rediscovery" activities and balancing acts by priests and scribes sandwiched between the two great empires of Babylonia/Assyria and Egypt, and beginning with "whoops, here it is" discovery of the Book of Law by good King Josiah, thence up until the completion of the majority of the "historical" work probably sometime around King Hezekiah.
I have noticed similarities to the federal law of Assyria.
With regard to "editorial license," who the heck had the ability, direction, and motivation to exercise more that those scribblers whose patrons held the ultimate secular power of life and death over the entire populace?
To the crux of the matter! My sentiments exactly.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Abshalom, posted 12-11-2003 11:50 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 42 (72463)
12-12-2003 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by doctrbill
12-11-2003 10:49 AM


Re: Moses's Singular Knowledge of YHWH
doctrbill responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Indeed, there has been some editing of the text, but what evidence is there that the problem lies in the editor and not the source?
As far as I know, there is no evidence either way. It doesn't really matter which it is, however
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? The question is whether or not Cain was dealing with god. Your argument seems to be that Cain wasn't really since the words used in Genesis 4 to refer to the being that Cain was dealing with don't match up to the words used in other parts of the Bible...that somehow "elohim" and "adonai" and "YHWH" don't refer to the same entity.
And you seriously think that the reason for those differences has no effect upon the question of whether or not Cain was dealing with god?
quote:
because whether it was erroneous tradition or editorial license, the effect upon its veracity is the same.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
While I certainly agree that someone who makes a statement that is actually a lie and someone who misquotes someone and makes a statement that is actually a lie doesn't affect the result that the statement made is a lie. But the process by which we came about that lie is of tremendous importance. If the problem is that the quoter is simply making stuff up, then we have the option to cast about for evidence of what was actually say. But if the original source is lying, then we don't have any other recourse.
quote:
I cannot be sure how much of it is accurate.
Then one would need to be extremely careful basing anything upon it.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 12-11-2003 10:49 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 42 (72520)
12-12-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Abshalom
12-11-2003 4:57 PM


Re: Creepy Things
Right, but I am saying THERE IS NO 'retro' fit here at all. All there was so far was a pattern or systematic of DENIAL. See Bertrand Russel Principles of Mathematics chapter 1 "definition of pure mathematics" p4- "- an answer which, however, consists in reducing the above problems to problems in pure logic, which last will not be found satifactorily solved in what follows." Look I am not saying I am a "genius", I simply can read some things. It will get quite complicated to maintain this no matter what we define as "pure" at Flood time but bear with me here.. where I will reject Dauben's scholarship of Frege on Cantor p220 "More than anything else, Frege believed that the principles upon which arithemetic msut be founded were essentially logical in character. Thus his analysis of arithmetic stressed the need to base all theorems and deductions upon purely logical definitions. In his view, no sharp line could be drawn between logic and arithemetic." but one must not forget Boole OF INTERPRETATION p 84 "Now all these several denials ((immediately preceeding)These equations express a denial of the existence of certain classes of objects viz,: 1st Of beasts which are clean,...2nd. Of beasts where are clean....3rd Of beasts where are clean...4th Of beasts which divde the hoof...)involved in the original proposition. And conversely, if these denials be granted, the original proposition will follow as a necessary consequence. They are, in fact, the seperate elements of that proposition. Every primary proposition can thus be resolved into a series of denials of the existence of certain defined classes of things, and may, from that system of denials, be itself reconstructed. It might here be asked, how it is possible to make an assertive proposition out of a series of denials or negations."
What I HAD NOT considered before was what Dauben noticed in Cantor that Cantor had seperated himself from Reimann & Helmholtz. This is very very very significant.I will not grant the denial.The HISTORY of THEORETICAL BIOLOGY DID/DOes(even if when you try to look it up you only may find Woodger's "bauplan" here. There is more if you can read this stuff.) How can I do this you ask? Because I will be finding that clean and well orderings may be one in/and the same should Fisher's THOUGHT of exponential population growth MAP to DNA sequences fit to sequences of transfinite coeffients of e numbers for any given use of the central dogma of molecular biology. We may thus with a little more grammer find that Mendel already had the lexos that enables the pair to be retained after a numberical increase in individuals no matter used for what purpose. It is all so exicitng. Gould thinks that this MEANS species selection exists. I think that is Marxist economics at work only and I only FOUND the molecular clock conceptually here so should the SIMULATION OF TIME continue to read against the PRESUMED FACT of EVOLUTION in the large the small may simply be means of not using the popular notion of biological change when investigating the use case of nanotechonology that will COMPETE with chemical balances as to functioning the kind of morphospace that we presently have available for manipulation. I am guessing that if even a glimmer of light continues to shine in this direction that drug discovery if it continues to fail to provide the "grail" will by force of necessity recover the lost time of construction that I find continualy interrupting my own clear cognizance of the possiblity I have been trying to find other simply reading. I do. The key will be a formal pure math cirucit among cardinals ordinals and ordertypes provided baraminically such that any recovered metrics will speak to the issue of clean and unclean- time will tell what time that is... The interesting notion here will be that if indeed as I will be following, that the neutral changes can only tick the indivdual clock by means of INFINITE SEQUENCES we will find that lexicall we can "cash out" the grammetological past of molecular biology IN FAVOR of an organicists dream but without heeding to any old imagined level only those that aposteriori will apprear for the assertion without hypothesis that only denies the denial when biology is substituted with techonology (not chemsitry) inappropriately. Wolfram's claim which are new enough will bear in the test. I think his idea will fail but some of his programming will remain. This gets a little hard to work on as the construction involves doing a different CANTOR in the variable of Russel for any Mendel variation of hybrids while still keeping the parents as they were for any new ideas in biology. The last time I tried some of these thoughts I found that the logical constants could be used in Minimal Spanning Tree Panbiogeography but that was before I was able to conceptually seperate geometry and arithemetic. The escape goat will be the division of the body into data divisions but not programmetically -genotype and phenotype. An robust literary criticism can handle all of this but those able to do that have really not enough science foreground so far as I have seen.
C/E can now be seen to have a legit focus and means to its own end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Abshalom, posted 12-11-2003 4:57 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Abshalom, posted 12-12-2003 12:41 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 42 (72530)
12-12-2003 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Brad McFall
12-12-2003 12:04 PM


Re: Surrealistic Cushion
Mr. McFall:
Again, I wish I could follow. Alas, I cannot. I can't say yet whether it's the math, the surrealism, or these damned drugstore glasses. Perhaps you can descend to a lower level that is closer to the floor I operate on (picture Japheth ... or is it Yafet ... with a pitchfork attempting to manage the scuttle deck in a hard Nor'eastern blow).
Captain to pilot ... captain to pilot ... carry on.
Now, I must remember to wind and set my strawberry alarm clock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 12-12-2003 12:04 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 12-16-2003 11:20 AM Abshalom has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 42 (73332)
12-16-2003 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Abshalom
12-12-2003 12:41 PM


Re: Surrealistic Cushion
The "problem" is with this word. But the issue is with non-directed variation as to a variable logically. Creeping things cover anything I can think hepetologically. Gould noticed the "compartment" style of Genesis but insisted on bricks vs columns rather than toxin-antidote bacterial modules' ancestral of cell death. Mendel noticed that only a line seperates the arithmetics involved no matter the names. The names still will cover the herpetologist's interest in hoxology. Therefore as to why lizards and salamdenders sometimes creep without four legs may be asked in the same "superannuated" way that organacism is rejected by many molecularbiologists. The first kids had all this mole bio channeled in any way on this inside that was given by God in the part ment. There is a numerical issue that I asserted Gould's God mishandled that IS still in the words having to do with clean and unclean. You could look in the Hebrew if there is any reason to make an analogy between creppy things and unclean. I dont know. I think this may have to do with outpouching and blood comparmetalizing rank mutation refilings such that gill slits are like leaves (the garden of eden covering)not that toad thumbs are like sea monkey mating strategies. But that is only a guess and I have not supported THAT with science. In other words change by direct imposition may yet, despite the current science, exist and even be by GOD. Special creation is another issue that DOES depend on the acutal names.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Abshalom, posted 12-12-2003 12:41 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Abshalom, posted 12-16-2003 6:17 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 42 (73487)
12-16-2003 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brad McFall
12-16-2003 11:20 AM


Re:
Brad:
With regard to 4-legged creepers in Leviticus dietary listings, it is my understanding that some of those six-legged insects that would otherwise be declared unfit to eat were declared fit to eat and that there is some indication that their fitness was due to their "hopping" or "flying" methods of locomotion. These particular critters such as locusts and grasshoppers use four of their legs to creep and the two hind legs to hop or become airborne in conjunction with wings. Apparently the dietary powers that be used phrasiology to distinguish the difference between kosher and shagetz creepers that somehow lead to our misinformed translations rendered "four-legged creepers."
But rather than depending upon the windings and ramblings of mylobed brain you may rather prefer to wait until the colloidals kick in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 12-16-2003 11:20 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 12-18-2003 7:45 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 42 (74033)
12-18-2003 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Abshalom
12-16-2003 6:17 PM


Re: Bancroft
No need-the frog is not that ambiguous. I know how to respond to Gould chapter 11 from my very own LEGAL record but the academy is not all that. Best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Abshalom, posted 12-16-2003 6:17 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Stormdancer
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 42 (77174)
01-08-2004 3:51 PM


Joseph Campbell
Joseph Campbell : There's a very amusing Sumerian dialogue that appeared about 1500 years earlier than the Cain and Abel story. It's about a herder and an agriculturalist competing for the favor of the goddess. The goddess chooses to prefer the agriculturalist and his offering. Well, the Jews come into this area, and they're not agriculturalists, they're herders. And they don't have a goddess, they have a god. So they turn the whole thing upside down, and make God favor the herder against the agriculturalist.
The interesting thing is that throughout the Old Testament, it's the younger brother who overturns the older brother in God's favor. It happens time and time again. This is simply a function of the fact that the Jews come in as younger brothers. They come in as barbaric Bedouins from the desert, into highly sophisticated agricultural areas, and they're declaring that although the others are the elders - as Cain was, the founder of cities and all that - they are God's favorite. It's just another form of sanctified chauvinism. You understand the view of exclusive religion, don't you - "You worship God in your way, I'll worship God in his."

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 01-08-2004 8:35 PM Stormdancer has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 40 of 42 (77236)
01-08-2004 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stormdancer
01-08-2004 3:51 PM


Re: Joseph Campbell
Jews come in as younger brothers. They come in as barbaric Bedouins from the desert, into highly sophisticated agricultural areas, and they're declaring that although the others are the elders - as Cain was, the founder of cities and all that - they are God's favorite.
Baseless sophistry. Note the glaring absence of evidence supporting this babble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stormdancer, posted 01-08-2004 3:51 PM Stormdancer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Abshalom, posted 01-09-2004 3:44 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Stormdancer
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 42 (77385)
01-09-2004 3:30 PM


CA,
I was just sharing something I had read that I thought might be helpful and of interest.
Nothing is set in stone, I will be the first to admit when I am wrong, for heavens sake I Am just squirreling around looking for tidbits of information and trying to fill in the Gaps.
I am no closer to realizing the full extent the historical evidence then I was in the beginning everyday I change my mind on this, that or the other.
You can tell me I am wrong without insults. I don't mind being shown the error of my way I just don't particularly care to be insulted while you are doing it , but then again I may get used to it....
I however happen to like Joseph Campbell's take on mythology.
Interpretation of myth is not an exact science.
I am defiantly not trying to deceive any one but I do see certain information as being plausible.
When you find ultimate truth will you fill me in please.

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 42 (77387)
01-09-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ConsequentAtheist
01-08-2004 8:35 PM


Re: Joseph Campbell
[M]mideen or Midianites , in the Bible, a nomadic Bedouin people of N Arabia in what is S Jordan. They were associated with the Moabites and the Israelites. Moses took refuge with them and married the daughter of their priest Jethro. They were defeated by the Hebrews after they gave refuge to Balaam, whose advice to the Midianites led to the disastrous Baal-peor incident. The defeat of the Midianites by Gideon became the precedent for God's final victory over his enemies.
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004.
"The Midianites consisted of a number of semi-nomadic and bedouin tribes, including Ishmaelites. They were connected with Abraham’s other sons (other than Isaac). They engaged in both caravan trade (Genesis 37.28) and despoiling any weaker than themselves, as well as herding sheep and goats (Exodus 2.15; 3.1). They dwelt in, and moved around in, the wilderness and desert from south of the Dead Sea to lands east of the Jordan (Genesis 25.2-6; 37.25 on; Exodus 3.1; Numbers 22.4, 7), and were fairly widespread. Because of what they had done to Israel some suffered at the hands of Israel (Numbers 25.16-18; 31.2, 7-12). Five Midianite chieftains, ‘the princes’ of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and thus his vassals and presumably fairly settled, were defeated by Moses in the approach to the land" (Joshua 13.21). Angelfire - error 403
Genesis 25:2 "And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."
However, the Midianites had intermarried with the Ishmaelites, and other nations, and mixed together, and took their heathen gods. These people were a Bedouin people, and it is important to know this, to understand what kind of people it is that conquered the Israelites. As Bedouins and wanderers, they are not soldiers and they were not well organized. When an organized army comes against any massive numbers of these wandering tent people, they will run from the danger. judges6
Just some more baseless, sophistic, unsupported folktales for you to ridicule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 01-08-2004 8:35 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024