Solomon Isaac?

whenever it was the bible was written? Curiousity, not arguing.

I don't really know anything about the history of the bible. When would
the current incarnation of the genesis story have been introduced to it?
The political stuff about the 'Holy Land' may not have been around at
the time.

On 1 Sep 2005 17:02:02 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 31 Aug 2005 21:44:48 -0700,
t1gercat <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote:

English jurisprudence was influenced by the presence of clergy in the
court system. The areas you mentioned are only Biblical in the sense
that the clergy looked for a Biblical basis to apply pagan, Germanic
notions that are only vaguely refected in the Bible (which is a knot of
contradictory statements anyway -- you can justify almost anything with
it). The English tradition, by the way, was certainly not the
foundation for the Western Legal Tradition. You have to look to the
French for that, and to the Romans, and to the Germans. English Law was
much more heavily dependent upon Roman Law -- Justinian's Code -- and
on Saxon and French traditions than on the Bible. Amercian law, which
is based on English Common law, likewise owes a great deal to
Justinian. The examples you've cited are exceptions, and questionable
exceptions at that.

My understanding is that the English (Anglo-saxon) system, the Common

is the basis of the legal systems found in the United States and the

Commonwealth. While I would imagine the Normans brought Continental law
over, I don't think the legal systems of the English-speaking world owe

much to it as do the Continental systems (filtered heavily through the
Napoleonic Code).

Christianity has nothing to do with English Common Law. And neither
does Roman law.

The big point is that while Roman Britain was a bit Christian, that
largely disappeared when the Romans left. Together with their law. The
Angles, Saxons, etc who gave us common law did not convert to
Christianity until later.

It dates back to pre-Christian England (not the partly Christian Roman
province of Britain).

Testifying is pre-Christian Roman: it's the same root as "testes".
Literally, one's balls were on the block if one didn't tell the truth.

I don't know if this survived Rome leaving Britain, or if it came back
with the Normans.

On 1 Sep 2005 17:02:02 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 31 Aug 2005 21:44:48 -0700,
t1gercat <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote:

English jurisprudence was influenced by the presence of clergy in the
court system. The areas you mentioned are only Biblical in the sense
that the clergy looked for a Biblical basis to apply pagan, Germanic
notions that are only vaguely refected in the Bible (which is a knot of
contradictory statements anyway -- you can justify almost anything with
it). The English tradition, by the way, was certainly not the
foundation for the Western Legal Tradition. You have to look to the
French for that, and to the Romans, and to the Germans. English Law was
much more heavily dependent upon Roman Law -- Justinian's Code -- and
on Saxon and French traditions than on the Bible. Amercian law, which
is based on English Common law, likewise owes a great deal to
Justinian. The examples you've cited are exceptions, and questionable
exceptions at that.

My understanding is that the English (Anglo-saxon) system, the Common Law,
is the basis of the legal systems found in the United States and the British
Commonwealth. While I would imagine the Normans brought Continental law
over, I don't think the legal systems of the English-speaking world owe as
much to it as do the Continental systems (filtered heavily through the
Napoleonic Code).

Christianity has nothing to do with English Common Law. And neither
does Roman law.

The big point is that while Roman Britain was a bit Christian, that
largely disappeared when the Romans left. Together with their law. The
Angles, Saxons, etc who gave us common law did not convert to
Christianity until later.

It dates back to pre-Christian England (not the partly Christian Roman
province of Britain).

Testifying is pre-Christian Roman: it's the same root as "testes".
Literally, one's balls were on the block if one didn't tell the truth.
I don't know if this survived Rome leaving Britain, or if it came back
with the Normans.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:

My understanding is that the English (Anglo-saxon) system, the
Common Law, is the basis of the legal systems found in the United
States and the British Commonwealth. While I would imagine the
Normans brought Continental law over, I don't think the legal
systems of the English-speaking world owe as much to it as do the
Continental systems (filtered heavily through the Napoleonic Code).

Napoleon was a bit too late to be a foundation for US law. The
Wikipedia article mentions some predecessors for his Code, so maybe
some of those were influential.

As I understand it, much of our legal system is derived from the
Roman, and traditional English common law covers a lot of the gaps.

On a slightly related topic, supposedly the <hatsoff>Founding
Fathers</hatsoff> of the USA were greatly troubled by a passage in
Tacitus, where he compares the various types of government and opines
that mixed types (such as our "branch" system) are the worst of all.

news:x1wRe.272$Ql.1974@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au by shane:

I wrote a response. How could I know he was posting an article with
which he didn't agree? Telepathy, perhaps? If he wasn't the author, I
didn't offend him.


Wexford

Some people consider these clues a dead giveaway: :)

1. From the article:
2. ------------------------------------
blah blah balh
3. ----------------------------------------

4. Read it at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050831

That still does not tell one if the poster agrees with the article or not.
Most frequently people post material that supports there position. In this
case, it would (very little) familiarity with t.o and a.a. to realize that
the Man of Space, Son of Jason is just the messenger.