In the Beginning...

[onejayhawk]

Again, you can say it, but there's nearly no evidence that they were anywhere near as advanced as the Babylonians. They'd already forgotten their own history by the time they were in Babylon

Evidence to the contrary.

With one hand you admit that they were carried off to Babylon. With the other, you claim there was no cultural transfer. They were just conquered, yet you claim they had forgotten their own history. Points for consistency.

J

 

[Arakhor]

Where did I say one Norse myth is the only bar? You mentioned their myth, not me. And you thought it was a rebuttal, it isn't.

I suppose now you'll tell me that you didn't say that the majority of world mythologies support "the science" of a watery void.

 

[El_Machinae]

Evidence to the contrary.

With one hand you admit that they were carried off to Babylon. With the other, you claim there was no cultural transfer. They were just conquered, yet you claim they had forgotten their own history. Points for consistency.

J

I didn't claim there was no cultural transfer. I claimed they didn't partake of the advances that the Babylonians had.

And yes, obviously they'd forgotten their own history by then. The idea that they were the conquerers of Canaan was well-established in their own books.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

He said it is bright

As an attribute of visual perception that is determined only by the visual cortex, the moon is bright.

As an attribute of mathematical models of the physical world, it might not be bright.

It could be argued that models that do not account for perception are incomplete, or it could be argued that the visual cortex does not generate knowledge. What is anybody's point?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Religious texts suggest God has preferences. If those preferences predate creation of the universe then time needs to have existed before space and matter, meaning time exists outside the physical universe, and claims that time is determined by the speed of matter are cast into doubt. Einstein believed in Spinozism so the logic in this post creates a problem that needs to be solved.

Altenatively there may be another kind of time which isnt physicaly bound but rather infinite in nature.

 

[Berzerker]

The figurative writing is placing the sun and moon in the sky to rule and govern. I am glad that we got past trying to re-create the sun and moon on the 4th day.

God didn't create them, they were appointed or made to rule Earth's sky on the 4th day

The sun was already in position on the first day. It had yet to shine. God made it shine and bypassed the millions of years it would have taken to energize a single photon on the 4th day.

The sun was already shining but it wasn't in its current position in our sky, the Earth was further away from it...

No where does it mention when the earth started rotating.

The world may have been rotating prior to God's creation but "let there be light" and the separation of darkness and light into night and day refers to a rotating world near a star.

There was already form, because God had separated the waters from the land and created a breathable atmosphere.

Yes, the Earth without form and void appearing before the 1st day took form - dry land - on the 3rd day. And God didn't create it, he revealed it.

It does not say that the moon was shining the Evening of the 4th or 5th day. It just said that the moon would be there for a variety of purposes.

One of those purposes was to illuminate the night sky. And it was the 4th day, night precedes day in Hebrew custom.

I think to determine if the moon is bright, you need to first determine how much light it reflects, and how much light it transmits.

Try staring at a full moon high in the sky for a minute or two, then look away. If your eyes need time to re-adjust then you were looking at a bright object.

 

[Berzerker]

I suppose now you'll tell me that you didn't say that the majority of world mythologies support "the science" of a watery void.

Here's what you said:

And if that's the only bar for claiming that world mythologies support current theories, that's amusingly pathetic. An absence of information is not corroboration.

How did that one Norse myth become the low bar for the world's mythologies? You posted it as a rebuttal, I showed it wasn't a rebuttal but actually supports my interpretation.

As an attribute of visual perception that is determined only by the visual cortex, the moon is bright.

The authors of Genesis are talking about objects bright enough to be seen, they said so...

As an attribute of mathematical models of the physical world, it might not be bright.

What models?

 

[AlmostCivilized]

What models?

Any random proprietary models written by scientists to estimate brightness. There must be many used in video games, movie special effects, robotic vision, astronomy, etc.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

Try staring at a full moon high in the sky for a minute or two, then look away. If your eyes need time to re-adjust then you were looking at a bright object.

I agree in principle. Unfortunately, city light pollution prevents me from conducting the experiment.

In the interests of continuing an unending theoretical debate, optical illusions demonstrate that you cannot trust your eyes

 

[Birdjaguar]

I can understand how they made a case that they were descendants of Moses to the Persians. But why make it all up after the captivity? They did not make up going into captivity. There is some existing evidence that they did have kings from at least Solomon. Why make up a history before that, if they just wanted to impress the Persians with their authority. Would not a "long" line of kings do that? One would have to discount the Book of Daniel as well. Even the Babylonian Ruler before the Persians seemed to have had an experience or two with Daniel's God.

Well I can hardly speak for the writers of Genesis or claim I know their motivation for what they included in it. Maybe, it wasa simply that once they began to collect and write things down in one place, they decided to include everything they had.

There's a reasonable case that they had access. But there's no good evidence that they made use of that access. I cannot think of any examples of astronomical knowledge in the Talmud.

It would be like people in the year 3100 CE arguing that YECs 'clearly' understood evolutionary theory because it had been around for over a century. It was around, but no, they didn't understand it.

Couldn't chapter 1 of Genesis be evidence of that knowledge? While your UEC example is perhaps similar and certainly interesting, from it can we say that no YEC believers understand evolution? Do we have to also consider that they are opposed to evolution while ancient Hebrew scholars may not have been opposed to astronomy.

Again, you can say it, but there's nearly no evidence that they were anywhere near as advanced as the Babylonians. They'd already forgotten their own history by the time they were in Babylon

If the writers of Genesis had that knowledge it is sufficient. No we don't know for sure either way. Someone more scholarly than me might know such things.

Evidence to the contrary.

With one hand you admit that they were carried off to Babylon. With the other, you claim there was no cultural transfer. They were just conquered, yet you claim they had forgotten their own history. Points for consistency.

J

I didn't claim there was no cultural transfer. I claimed they didn't partake of the advances that the Babylonians had.

And yes, obviously they'd forgotten their own history by then. The idea that they were the conquerers of Canaan was well-established in their own books.

Is there any evidence that the Hebrews didn't partake of Babylonian knowledge? How would such partaking manifest itself?

The vigorous anti evolutionary positions and writings of the YEC shows that they oppose such thinking so the future will know that they knew of evolutionary theory. lack of evidence can be an indicator of acceptance.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

Altenatively there may be another kind of time which isnt physicaly bound but rather infinite in nature.

So the universe is two timing. I can actually sense Perfection frowning and turning red as he reads this.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is there any evidence that the Hebrews didn't partake of Babylonian knowledge? How would such partaking manifest itself?

That's kind of proving a negative.

But to turn around, what astronomical knowledge did the Babylonians have that we can see the Hebrew incorporated into their most important myths? That's a much simpler question. During the Babylonian era, the Hebrews thought Venus and meteorites were comparable, and that the Earth was flat.

 

[Arakhor]

How did that one Norse myth become the low bar for the world's mythologies? You posted it as a rebuttal, I showed it wasn't a rebuttal but actually supports my interpretation.

What I was referring to, several times, was that if all you are concerned about is that world mythologies all mention a watery void at the beginning of creation (a generous assumption, but I'll grant for now), how is that at all relevant to anything other than your attempt to insist that Jehovah did not actually create the world as Genesis 1 purports?

It also literally supports nothing in current scientific thinking as since you are explicitly not interested in creation stories beyond the moment of creation, it's not hard to claim that "all" stories have one common point of interest and then point to a theorised point in history where the Earth may also have resembled this point of interest.

 

[onejayhawk]

I didn't claim there was no cultural transfer. I claimed they didn't partake of the advances that the Babylonians had.

And yes, obviously they'd forgotten their own history by then. The idea that they were the conquerers of Canaan was well-established in their own books.

You claim that you have evidence that the Hebrews were excluded from certain levels of learning. This I want to see. I also like that they used books to forget. That is truly original.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, they used books to forget.

By the time of the Babylonian exile, they had already rewritten their history to cast themselves as successful foreign invaders of Canaan. Are you not aware of the books of Exodus and Joshua?

I don't have evidence the Hebrews were excluded

How you get from

There's near-to-no evidence the Jews were as advanced as the Babylonians.

to

You claim that you have evidence that the Hebrews were excluded from certain levels of learning.

is reasonable evidence you're not replying in good faith. I'd even later specifically called out your objection before you made it that your request would be proving a negative.

 

[onejayhawk]

is reasonable evidence you're not replying in good faith. I'd even later specifically called out your objection before you made it that your request would be proving a negative.

About that good-faith bit, no sale. You start by claiming that the Babylon civilization is more advanced. That is very different from claiming rigid segregation. Where is the good-faith in that?

There are accounts of Hebrew men who were castrated and set to work as bureaucrats. One of them, Daniel, is in the Bible. Other Hebrew writings of the time exist, but that one directly contradicts your statement that the captives were kept completely separate. The point is this. There may no direct evidence to suggest that the Babylonian understanding of the stars passed through the captives.

However, there is substantial evidence that knowledge was not sequestered. It would be entirely consistent that a street level knowledge of astrology was common among the captives. A few persons, probably eunuchs, could have had more detailed knowledge. There is no record to show one or the other.

J

 

[Berzerker]

What I was referring to, several times, was that if all you are concerned about is that world mythologies all mention a watery void at the beginning of creation (a generous assumption, but I'll grant for now), how is that at all relevant to anything other than your attempt to insist that Jehovah did not actually create the world as Genesis 1 purports?

It also literally supports nothing in current scientific thinking as since you are explicitly not interested in creation stories beyond the moment of creation, it's not hard to claim that "all" stories have one common point of interest and then point to a theorised point in history where the Earth may also have resembled this point of interest.

Its relevant if the science shows a dark, water world preceded land and life. Its relevant if neither Heaven nor Earth is the universe. But Gen 1:1 doesn't say God created the world, it says God created the dry land and named it Earth. The water was here before God and the creation of Heaven and Earth.

 

[Hygro]

Which is all the proof I need to know not to jerk the willy

 

[Lexicus]

Its relevant if the science shows a dark, water world preceded land and life. Its relevant if neither Heaven nor Earth is the universe. But Gen 1:1 doesn't say God created the world, it says God created the dry land and named it Earth. The water was here before God and the creation of Heaven and Earth.

It doesn't say that at all.

 

[Berzerker]

yes it does