Re: personal revelations

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 15:02:09 EST

  • Next message: "Re: personal revelations"

    At 12:26 PM 21/02/2003 -0500, 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
    >to share...

    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