Yes I did ... did you?
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
That article doesn't contradict the point that the use of leeches to cure diseases is obsolete.
I said "to cure illnesses" so not really refuted by your article, but I learned something new from your post, so thanks for that
. However, what is your larger point? The fact that leeches have some medical use = The Bible is accurate 
Or just because something is old/antiquated doesn't mean its obsolete?If either of those is your point then you missed mine. Let me give another example. Just because the US Civil War lead directly to the end of slavery (a worthy result, obviously) does not mean we should be continuously fighting Civil Wars. We got what we needed out of it, now its time to move on, and build on what we learned/gained, not repeat the same harmful/destructive actions just because there was some benefit derived from them.
See MelisandreDon't know about the half naked fire priestess, sound interesting.
Lexicus
Deity
Sommerswerd said:
We should form a Pedant Society or something, we really should.
Hmmmm, yes I did misread and assumed you meant leeches were no longer used, apologies.I said "to cure illnesses" so not really refuted by your article, but I learned something new from your post, so thanks for that
If either of those is your point then you missed mine. Let me give another example. Just because the US Civil War lead directly to the end of slavery (a worthy result, obviously) does not mean we should be continuously fighting Civil Wars. We got what we needed out of it, now its time to move on, and build on what we learned/gained, not repeat the same harmful/destructive actions just because there was some benefit derived from them. See Melisandre
But what does the bible have to do with it?
OK, I bite, Why?
Lexicus
Deity
Each of us has a taste for fine distinctions that appears to be not unlike the taste other people have for fine wines.
Berzerker
Deity
Jesus was the lamb and the fish, Aries was precessing into Pisces... So I dont think astrology was the problem, something else was, some aspect of astrology was frowned upon. The 3 wise men didn't sin by reading the signs in the sky and traveling to Bethlehem.
Berzerker
Deity
Do you usually tell people not to read books you haven't wasted any time reading?
I'd recommend the chapter on the Epic of Creation in which Sitchin offers his analysis of the Enuma Elish and our solar system. Then read the opening page or two of the Enuma Elish describing the primordial gods and Marduk's dismemberment of Tiamat to form Heaven and Earth (thats available online). Sitchin explains the cylinder seal VA 243 in that chapter, the Babylonians not only described how the solar system formed they showed the results in clay. There is a reason the numbers 6 & 7 play a role in creation, Tiamat was the 6th planet and cleaved in two with part of it (Earth) bypassing Mars to become the 7th planet. Heaven (the asteroid belt) was left behind to mark the spot where the celestial battle took place.
The link was posted to show our water came from the asteroid belt. If our water came from the asteroid belt then thats evidence the Earth came from there too. It is not evidence the Earth formed here. The Earth being here is the evidence it formed here, and thats about it...
and for now that evidence is taken for granted in spite of the evidence the Earth may have formed further away from the sun surrounded by water and darkness just like the primordial world in Gen 1:2
The reason researchers went looking for our water further out is because they didn't think the Earth could form here with its water. But according to the link we had water before the lunar cataclysm, so we did have water ~4.5 bya and thats why our water is older than our rock. The world may have already been covered by water when the Moon was born.
So if the lunar cataclysm occurred here, where's the debris trail? Well, it leads back to the asteroid belt. Its just a matter of time before they figure it out, probably computer analyses of the asteroids will show the connection within a decade or 2 as our fear of getting hit by one will lead to more research.
That doesn't follow at all. The asteroid belt and Earth would have needed to be both in their place already for asteroids to bombard early Earth.
Apart from there being no evidence for that at all, this is also a misreading of Genesis 1:2, which merely speaks of a separation of the waters (the waters being separated into below and above). There are no 'waters' in space, there are only 'waters' in the sky and covering Earth's surface. (Of course the writers of Genesis couldn't really have known this, so they might have perceived heaven to be watery.)
No, it doesn't. The 'debris trail' would be what currently is our moon. There would, in fact, not be a debris trail resulting from a giant impact; there would be plenty of debris, but not in a single trail.
10 Earth has acquired all kinds of stuff courtesy of various comets and meteors over the last 4.5 billion years. Are you going to claim this proves Earth formed in the Oort Cloud?
What part of "the article you cited to prove that Earth was formed in the asteroid belt doesn't support your claim" is so hard to understand?
And you do realize that the ancient Babylonians didn't have modern instruments to figure out things that we, with our modern technology, have just been learning within the past century, right?
No? Of course, what was I thinking. Jumping up and down and repeating "but they COULD have!" is somehow scientific evidence.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I am not saying religion, history, and science are the same thing. I am saying that the Bible gives accounts of religion, accounts of history, and even accounts of science and methodology. Since people just write it off as a religious "textbook", they over look the finer points of how humans viewed the world around them.
Some humans just view life as an illusion, and there is nothing that is real. Other's are so adamant on reality that all human thoughts are rejected unless they can be observed, and verified. What religion is the Bible about? Judaism came after the Old Testament. Christianity, as we know it, came after the New Testament. The early Christians were actually the first social-democracy, but after a while power corrupted, the fragile democratic spirit, and it turned into a human illusionary "theocracy". There is a difference between spirituality and religion. People have spiritual, emotional, "religious", and unexplainable experiences all the time. Most are so unnoticeable that they are missed, or dismissed. If there is no God, most would just dismiss them as glitches in the natural order of things. Some people use their experiences and start major religions. Where in the Bible is a religion endorsed? Based on the point that God is a reality, and not a religion, then in effect monotheism is technically the rejection of all religion. When we start to follow the whims of humans, we end up with a religion and leave God out. In fact the more absolute it gets, the less God is in it. Nature declares that there are unchangeable laws, and God is about laws. Humans seem to be the only entity that can rationalize laws and pick and choose which ones they can brake and get away with. From what I can tell, religion is the biggest illusionary mask in accomplishing that.
I would go further and claim that Religion is the biggest antagonist to God. Atheist are at least honest and claim they do not believe, or state there is no God. I am not even against organizations or groups who come together in unity and faith. We are to work God out in our lives. Not work for God's salvation and grace.
About a heavenly hierarchy. My belief is that God created perfect beings throughout the universe and on earth at the same time. It is kind of hard to claim that earth is the only habited planet, or that humans are the only fallen beings in the universe.
These perfect beings cannot go against God's will. These are the sons of God. Now they are called angels and demons. (Only the offspring of fallen Adam survived the Flood genetically.) They were the source for the stories of immortals and looked like humans, but could also transverse the universe to the fullest (whatever that entails). The universe is the limiter of what they could do. Neither were they bound by the same laws that we are. Hint immortality... more than likely able to interact with the universe on a molecular level, instead of a limited physical interaction.
Can we tell the difference between what happens naturally and what happens directly by God?
From what I can tell science grew out of throwing off the excessiveness of religion. God and nature's laws are not controlled by religion, but religion can hinder the thoughts of brilliant minds leaving the world in darkness and singularity of thought. Religion results in how narrow a human can make absolutes. Usually the less tenants and core beliefs the stronger the religion grows.
How did we get from the point, "God dislikes astrology" to the point "Bible is a Paradox"? There seem to be a lot of assumptions going on. If the story of the 3 eastern astrologers was written as some kind of authoritative point, then yes, there was a paradox, and the Bible contradicts itself by saying God hates it, but allows Christians to argue a point with an abomination to God. That is an assumption, unless there is proof to the claim.
I have stressed the notion that the Bible is just a book of accounts of God interacting with humans, and even eastern astrologers can interact with God. Considering the entirety of astrology humans would definitely have done well just enjoying the science of the activity and not base their beliefs on it. Humans come up with beliefs including the one that the Bible was just an invention, to prove a point, that to me has no bases in reality. For those of you stressing the fact that falsifiability is the way to go, would not changing the belief that the Bible is of God to the Bible is an account of humans who had contact with God be a part of the process? We cannot determine without observation which part is inspired and which part is not, but skeptics just want to throw the whole thing out based on contradictions and paradoxes. Some compromise and claim that it has truth that can be accepted, but that only applies on an individual pick and choose basis.
The obvious answer has been to accept the belief that it was just a bunch of made up stories, but the only point to that exercise is to create an illusion. Which is the very same thing the writers of the Bible are accused of. The illusion is that the Bible is fabricated to excuse the contradictions and paradoxes.
That the Bible is inspired and without error means that it has kept the stories in tact as the people actually experienced them; be it believable or not, with contradictions or not. Humans are shiftless and contradictory by nature. That is proven by the need to have a scientific method to figure out what is true and what is not.
The inspired parts are the thoughts that people wrote down, and claimed they came from God. Not every word in the Bible is an original thought, but sometimes a remembrance of what happened to them. Still subject to personal observation, but certainly verifiable and held to an accounting of those to whom they were being written to and for.
Why is there a Bible? Every scientist worth their salt, needs a control group..... Do we really think that we as scientist have outsmarted God? Or maybe that was the goal all along? I do not think that God can be put into a scientific "box" nor a religious "box". I do not think that we can limit God to just a primitive concept. It is more likely that God limited the interactions to fit the current mind set of the humans living at the time. God does not get more advanced with human knowledge. God will always be able to interact no matter what level human knowledge is at. If I were to conceptualize God to fit the current human state, why would I do away with the God as depicted in the Bible? Why would I convince others to get over their prejudices and learned thoughts that the Bible is a fairy tale, instead of an actual accounting? We have to take the good with the bad, because that is part of being human. If the Bible were whitewashed, then there would be no contradictions or seemingly paradoxes. I do see what a lot of people wrote down as being their experiences, and how they dealt with them. I am not writing new doctrine, just pointing out the consistency of the Bible throughout history. I do not see the Bible as being some perfect paradigm for religious intent, but a central paradigm handed down from one group to another. The OT is the covenant the Hebrews had with God. The NT is the covenant God has with all humans, not some central organized religion. My name in Greek is timao theos.
The biggest reason is that we are still putting our thoughts down today about it. What compels us to keep writing about it even in this medium? Is it just pedantic quibbling, or thoughts that bubble up and cannot be stopped?
Do you usually tell people not to read books you haven't wasted any time reading?
Not usually, no, but it wouldn't take pseudo-science to work out that Valka wasn't going to be interested. Besides, given that we already know what the angle is (Babylonians described the Solar System and only Sitchin has realised why!!), that's what places like Wikipedia do so well.
Berzerker
Deity
Tehom is the abyss, the deep, and its surface was covered by the waters, not space. This world had a crust, it was submerged. The Earth (dry land) wasn't revealed until the 3rd day. God could not have created dry land in the beginning if it didn't become dry land until the 3rd day. Heaven and Earth were created on different days and neither was created on or before the 1st... Your interpretation has God creating Heaven and Earth twice.
Heaven was used to divide the waters and Earth is the dry land, neither is the water and both were "created" later in the story.
Gen 1:2 says the dry land was without form, it was covered by the deep/water. It became dry land on the 3rd day.
Tehom was the pre-Earth and it was covered by water
The Mesopotamian Heaven was a hammered out bracelet, a chunk of metal is heated and pounded into a circular band. God placed this band of hammered metal amidst the waters, dividing them into the waters above Heaven and the waters below Heaven - the waters below still covered this world for one more day and then they were gathered together to form seas thereby revealing the Earth/dry land.
And orbiting the sun at the asteroid belt
Because the beginning in Genesis refers to Heaven and Earth, not the universe.
The stars were not created, they were made to serve for signs and seasons and to illuminate the dry land
They came later in the story because Earth came later in the story, the 3rd day
I dont, the asteroid belt is the hammered bracelet...
Thats how Gen 1:2 describes this world before the dry land and life appeared
Genesis doesn't say God made Heaven firm, it says he placed something firm amidst the water and called it Heaven.
Berzerker
Deity
When, in the beginning, The Lord created the Heaven and the Earth, The Earth, not yet formed, was in the void, and there was darkness upon Tiamat.
Then the Wind of the Lord swept upon its waters and the Lord commanded,
“Let there be lightning!” and there was a bright light.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/genesisrevisto/genrevisit03.htm
Then the Wind of the Lord swept upon its waters and the Lord commanded,
“Let there be lightning!” and there was a bright light.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/genesisrevisto/genrevisit03.htm
Lexicus
Deity
timtofly said:
No, which is why God is unfalsifiable and outside the realm of science.
... and thus unsuitable to be taught in school as an "alternative" to evolution.
Again, what is amusing is that we agree on that, but I also again agree that its probably not for the same reason. To put a finer point on it, the truth sometimes has a way of creating strange bedfellows and uniting old adversaries.
Another one I just remembered along those lines which is actually one of the best Star Trek examples of an advanced Alien punk'ing the superstitious natives is TNG-"Devil's Due", which besides being one of my favourite episodes, contains a decent example of "Worf effect" as well as being an example of both Data and Picard at their absolute best (especially Data... "Sir... I have ruled *frowns*... Please sit down.").
Actually, within the context of Genesis, the heavens and the earth is what we call the universe. The writers of Genesis had no concept of universe, other than 'the heavens'.
They stars were not created, they were made. Right. So they weren't there before, they were made, but not created.
So God made something firm, called it Heaven, but heaven was not made firm. That's illogical, captain.
I read your link.
What you and that link seem to be doing is trying to make a case that the Sumerians had knowledge of of the solar system and its creation that was far in advance of anyone else in ancient times or even today.
You and the link's author are selecting mythological data and fitting the choicest pieces into a cosmological picture that appears to coincide with what we think we know today. All of the other Sumaerian data from their stories and tales is being ignored. Oh well.
Putting such a puzzle together is both interesting and challenging. but it begs the real question. If what you have said about the Sumerians is true and they did know how the solar system was created, where did that knowledge come from? They certainly could not have figured it out using the scientific tools they had at hand. What is the source of this Sumerian knowledge? Without some evidence of how they knew such things, all you have is a cut and paste arrangement that just looks like it tells a complete story.
The first Sumerian city, Eridu, dates back to about 5000 BCE, but wasn't particularly large until about 3000. If we accept their creation story as "true" do we also accept their king list as true? Do we accept that kings rules 30,000 years?
But in any case, if the origins of Sumerian knowledge go back no more than to 5,000 BCE, where did they get information on the origins of the solar system? If what you say is true, the Sumerian myth makers had a source. Without evidence of such a source we are left with: god told them or they just made it up. If they just made it up and it was passed down through the Babylonians to the Hebrews, then your story is just a clever cut and paste to fit. If god told them, then we are back to figuring out who is better at interpreting god.
So, Berserker, it is time to fish or cut bait. What is the source behind the chain of stories that reveal the "facts" behind creation?
If this is a depiction of creation, how did they know what to write. What was their source?
