SHEEP WEIGHT-GUESSING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 66, 18 March 1936, Page 6

SHEEP WEIGHT-GUESSING

Sir, —I du not wish to seem a carpin critic, and 1 have nothing but admire tion for the people of Parikino, wh have made of their annual spurts da\ an anniversary so well and widel known. But in this connect.on, 1 mus protest agaist a spectacle of what can only call cruelty, though probabl the result of ignorance or Ldifferenv rather than of callousness. 1 refer t ’he weight-judging competition at Par: kino sports on .'Saturday, The priz | (and victim) was a live sheep—techni eally, I believe, a iamb. Competitor were allowed to judge the animal’ weight by lifting it. Alany of then lifted it by the woo! How many peopl know that the skin of a sheep is as sen sittve as the sea’]- of a human being The carcass of a sheep which had beei handled in this way only once wOuh be rejected at the freezing works, o. account of the resulting bruise. Wha then must have been the state of th unfortunate sheep at Parikino, at th end of the day’ To get a comparison imagine a man or a child lifted and sus pended by the hair perhaps dozens o ever, scores of times in suceessioi throughout a whole day. It hardb bears thinking of. •Competitions of this nature, invoiv ing live animals, might well have thi attention of the S.P.C.A. Either sucl competitions should not be held or | humane conditions should be strict:.’ enforced on the competitors. How ever, perhaps I have said enough H call attention to the practice. Th( people of Parikino have shown they an “good sports,” and I am confiden' they can be relied on to prevent ani repetition of a spectacle which is un worthy of their justly-earned reputa tion.—l am, etc., “PROTEST.” DANIEL IN THE CRITIC'S DEN | Sir.—Although I made no reference to Air. L. T. Laws in my letter, thai gentleman, like a lion, bounds out oi his den and charges full butt at me: sc I will have to look out or else I will gel a terrible mauling. However, my I'aitl in the power of truth to overcome crroi gives me courage like another Daniel t< face another lion. The first one “ Ecrc Veritas” has slunk off with his tai down content to leave me to the tendci mercies of the other lions. Mr. Laws

opening remarks on atheism, Highe: Criticism, modernism do not call fo any special comment. I will first dea with his assertion that 1 said tha Daniel was appointed Bo! Mag.--chic-over the soothsayer’s and wizards ii the magnificent temple of Be!—1 wrote in my letter that. Professor John Gam mcll, London University, made tha statement, and also the reference tc Dan. 2. 48. I find on referring I > lh( Bible the verse that Mr. Laws denie.‘ to be there—ls there; and that it con firms Air. Gammell’s statement thal Daniel was made Rab Mag, that chiel of the wise men, i.e., the magicians ol the temple. Bible readers can verifj that for themselves; so much for lib challenge which emphasises his stupic blunder in calling a provable assertion a silly statement. Could any statement be more silly and ridculous than Mr Laws’ accusation that “A.T. ” seeks to destroy God. The “unco guid” must have received a shock on reading that dreadful impeachment. I must plead ‘not guilty” to even attempting Ic ! lestroy an abstraction. No doubt Air. Laws’ idea of God is nnthromorphic. ike that of the ancient Israelites. Martin Luther talked and wrote a great deal on God and lie tells me that “Go<l Is a blank tablet, on which there is nothing save which thyself has writ ten.’ I did not, as Mr. Laws avers say that the book of (Daniel is written in western Arannc. 1. said lhe main portion of it was written in western A ramie, which was a dialect spoken in Syria and Palestine 400 years after the captivity. That statement is supported by the British Encyclopaedia, viz.:—Article on the book of Daniel. Mr. Laws refers to Prof. Alban Heath whoso quoted remarks is clearly mutilated and does not convey his exact thought. 1 would point out that the Aminic tongue was current in Babylonia, but differed from Hebrew and Phoenician and from the arrow heads inscriptions of Chahlaea. ’l’he western dialect differed from the other dialect.and that the unknown writer nf Daniel used the western is strong evidence that ( the book was written sonic 409 years after the captivity. Mr. Laws grow:funny when he comments upon Mi. Ganiniell’s statement ‘ that we know now the language that the C-haldeans spoke • wc have got their cuneiform tablet.and can read them for ourselves.” Mr, Laws makes fun of that and telL youi readers that I could not read a '-unci form inscription. I never pretend t< 1 do so. I find that Professor Max Mu! lor in h : s “Science of Language” is Jr full agreement with Professor Ganimcll 1 Moreover, I find that Mr. Laws is mak 1 ing an incorrect assertion when he say? “that all the Babylonian inscription? ■ are in the ancient Babylonian language ' while the current tongue was A rami' 1 (Aramaic) or Syriack. That statemen: ) is incorrect for Max Muller,—the grea! t Oxford authority on language —say; that Aramaic was used in the cunei ‘ form inscriptions of Babylon am ? Nineveh (Science of Language Ith ed.i. Your readers can now judge o • Mr. Laws’ qualifications to write upoi the question. Mr. Laws denies tha Daniel called Belshazzer the son o Nebuchadnezzer. Read Dan. 5,2 I where Daniel says: “And thou, hi f son, O Belshazzer.” Now IDaniel wa - wrong as Nabonidus was the father o a Belshazzer ami not Nebuchadnezzer am e Mr. Laws cannot prove any rclatioi: c ship by blood. The last point Air. Laws makes i that Jesus declared Daniel to be prophet and that if Daniel was not sc ' Christ was an imposter. Air. Laws •’ argument is based on the assumptio e that the Gospels are absolutely true re ’ h cords and that the Gospel Dinpilers a ways understood and gave the exac f words of Jesus. That proposition e denied by hundreds of Christian scho ars to-day. Jesus wrote nothing hin -• self and is now looked upon by man scholars as an ideal figure around whic has crystalised a body of beliefs an s ’ theories of the first and second cei n turies which agitated the minds of r G ligious zealots at that time. Dr. Perc Gardiner and the Rev. Estlin Carpente both of Oxford University, have boi ie made a close study of Christian origit d and come to conclusions that we on ’ e see Jesus through the eyes of Gosp 'Y compilers who ut-ru not even firM hm ■ [ reporters of uhat they wrote. H w Gardiner says in the JoweLt i.ectui Q - that Jesus is made to comply or fit n d ; Gospel compilers’ interpretations of () 0 Testament prophecies ami propb<‘«-monge’-s <»*’ 10-dny err abo <arrying »

the same practice of the past in reading modern history and events into the lold vaticinations and predictions of the ! Bible. In conclusion, I would mention i that the Rev. Professor Schmeidel, in ■ his “Jesus in Modern Criticism” ' states: That there are only nine sayI :n-’s ascribed to Jesus that we can be ■ certain as being his utterances. Borne critics will not admit that much, so we 5 see in the light of critical research and i examination how little is left to base anv dogmatic assertions upon by any ’ student of prophecy. j It is impossible to prove either that - Jesus lived or that He did not live. No ■ contemporaneus account of his birth tjand life has come down to us. The s I Saviour of the Egypt : an ’s Ozircs is wud - to have lived and died and rose again. - Jt cannot be proved by anyone. . . c neither can it be disproved. The same h can be said of Heracles, the pagan god d of Greece. I have no desire to upset i- the faith of those, who, like Mr. ■ Aitken, can readily accept and find joy v in orthodoxy 's teachings, but, whatever r, wc do, let us have freedom of thought h and open discussion and allow that every s man has a right to express his honest v thought.—l am, etc., “A.T.”