Ray's Thought for the Day - I 16, '05
It is very late in the day now and I, Ray having not yet succeeded to a thought have asked Crumby to give me something to think about from the Potential Safety Topic, environmental hazard - Cedars, which is coming up anon. Here's what Paul gave me to think about. "Only some 130 plants (maybe) are mentioned in Scripture, which is not surprising since ordinary people are interested only in a few, whether useful or ornamental." The (maybe) is injected here by the Crumby Ovate.
Paul, the Crumby Ovate says this remark, the one in quotations, is absurd on a number of levels, and Crumby told me to think about that and come up with some of the levels he thinks it's absurd at. So, I Ray in the absence of having any other thoughts, will do just that.
Levels
1) Ordinary people did not write the bible, theologians wrote the bible. So the theologians made a decision that ordinary pople would only be interested in reading about 130 plants. And believe me, I have read through the list of the 130 plants and the #130 is not exactly accurate since many of the plants cited are actually plant derivatives, and the plants they are derived from are the subject of much speculation.
2) For a tousand or two tousand years or maybe twice that only theologians read the bible because they were the only ones that could read.
3) Who the heck are the ordinary people, the village idiots, the harlots and the money lenders? Wasn't the principal occupation in these olden times agricultural/pastoral?
4) It is clear that much of the theological scholoarship regarding biblical flora suffered form the absence of critical review by a few good natural historians, as well as the absence of the Linnaean nomenclature, or its equivalent.
5) The theologians who wrote the bible actually cared about what ordinary people were intereseted in? I thought they were transcribing the word of god.
6) The bible is of no account as a natural history of ancient Palestine because theologians who wrote the bible had little interest in the flora of a country with which they woefully unfamiliar.
Paul, the Crumby Ovate says this remark, the one in quotations, is absurd on a number of levels, and Crumby told me to think about that and come up with some of the levels he thinks it's absurd at. So, I Ray in the absence of having any other thoughts, will do just that.
Levels
1) Ordinary people did not write the bible, theologians wrote the bible. So the theologians made a decision that ordinary pople would only be interested in reading about 130 plants. And believe me, I have read through the list of the 130 plants and the #130 is not exactly accurate since many of the plants cited are actually plant derivatives, and the plants they are derived from are the subject of much speculation.
2) For a tousand or two tousand years or maybe twice that only theologians read the bible because they were the only ones that could read.
3) Who the heck are the ordinary people, the village idiots, the harlots and the money lenders? Wasn't the principal occupation in these olden times agricultural/pastoral?
4) It is clear that much of the theological scholoarship regarding biblical flora suffered form the absence of critical review by a few good natural historians, as well as the absence of the Linnaean nomenclature, or its equivalent.
5) The theologians who wrote the bible actually cared about what ordinary people were intereseted in? I thought they were transcribing the word of god.
6) The bible is of no account as a natural history of ancient Palestine because theologians who wrote the bible had little interest in the flora of a country with which they woefully unfamiliar.
posted by ray pistrum at Saturday, July 16, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home