From: Jan de Koning (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 15:02:09 EST
At 12:26 PM 21/02/2003 -0500, RFaussette@aol.com wrote in part:
>I am not trying to read the Bible as a scientific book. Pastoralism began
>in Anatolia (Asia minor) around 7000 bc. Harran, where jacob went to get
>his wife is in Anatolia. The reputed location of the garden of eden is in
>northeast anatolia. The Bible was probably last assembled and edited by
>Ezra, that's at the return from exile in 539 BC, not 2000 BC. Abraham is
>reported by the Historical atlas of the jewish people to have lived around
>1800BC, Moses in the same book around 1300BC. There were no Israelites in
>2000BC. It was Ezra who re-architected the Law and brought it back to
>Israel from Babylon where he was a priest and scribe around 590BC.
Ezra may have belonged to the priestly class, but did he have "priestly"
duties in Babylon?
>The Israelites aided Cyrus in weakening babylon for persian conquest
>(olmstead's history of the persian empire) which supports the often made
>remark that the priestly caste in Babylon were at their origin zoroastrian
>and the source for that religion (zoroastriansim) is certainly the rg veda
>of the Indus Valley. The ancient priests of the indus valley sacrificed
>cattle. They were not shepherds. It is a bull that is the customary
>sacrifice of the priestly class in the Temple at Jerusalem, and not sheep,
>suggesting a direct line from the most ancient priestly class in the world
>(source of all the world's major religions) to the Levites of ancient
>Israel. Even today, among orthodox Jews, it is the Babylonian talmud that
>is most respected, not the Jerusalem talmud.
Where do you base the above information on? I mean in respect to the
relationship with Ezra.
>I never said anything in the Bible was no longer relevant. I say what you
>are saying but you have come to the wrong conclusion. The Israelites were
>That was their livelihood. To say pastoralism is not the relevant
>perspective from which to view the torah is to deny all of the pastoralist
>symbols and statements throughout the Bible and the very livelihood and
>means of survival of the people who inspired it.
>Look through the Bible through the eyes of the people who inspired it, not
>scientific eyes or any other eyes, but their eyes. That's what I'm saying.
>That perspective does not conflict with science, suggesting our religion
>is scientific at its core and if that is true, then the source of our
>religion is true religion! and that's the proposition I have been trying
Apart from the fact that the people did nor inspire the Bible, I agree as
long as you do not take the word "scientific" to mean what most people think.
Jan de Koning
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 14:58:37 EST