Well, I'm not, and I don't. I don't believe that "beasts of the field" is an antonym of "cattle". You've given me no reason to believe it, so why should I?
However, it was also pointed out that "all animals" being included in "beasts of the field" was an overstatment.
Perhaps you should both try to establish just what "beasts of the field means". In addition, reference to the original Hebrew was made.
If there are arguments over the quality of the translation being used it may be necessary to back up to the details of translation or why one uses a particular translation.
It seems that Kelly and you may not be as far apart as some people here are. After all Kelly is already saying that the Bible that we have, since it is not the original writings and has, perhaps, had translation mistakes it can't be taken as totally inerrhant. With that agreement in hand perhaps you can discuss the details without so much fuss.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-01-2004 11:17 AM