In the Beginning...

[El_Machinae]

Then every single potential reality would have to be actualized, if God can run complete simulations of all possibilities.

 

[timtofly]

Then every single potential reality would have to be actualized, if God can run complete simulations of all possibilities.

Is that indicative of a non-deterministic universe?

 

[Berzerker]

Why are you deliberately ignoring that the Sun and the Moon were counted as planets by Ptolemy and his successors, making seven planets? Seven, of course, doesn't appear anywhere in our modern calendar.

I dont know that the sun and moon were planets to Ptolemy. How can I deliberately ignore an assertion you just made in his name? Where did he call them planets? My point remains - if 5 visible planets were so important why doesn't the number 5 play a much more significant role in cosmology?

You linked an image showing the cosmos, were there 5 or 7 levels? No, it showed 12-13 levels... Are you deliberately ignoring your own link? The number 7 represents the Earth, not the planets - well, the 7 heavens is another matter. As for the calendar, that was based on the phases of the moon.

 

[Old Hippy]

Why would knowledge be worthless? It may no longer be relevant, but it would never have been knowledge if it had no purpose. If we have humans at the time making up their version of creation, why would God not tell the Hebrews what happened? Technically, they would not have to make one up, even if they did not understand any of it.

if as you say people were making up version of creation, why would they also not make up god, its the easiest way to say ' my unknown truth is right because god says so' it is no different to saying in 2016 'my version of truth is right because the rain God Huey says so'

I get the point, but one may be a bored scientist, and not necessarily an oxymoron. Even if one knows everything, would it not have to be carried out to fulfill the knowledge known? There are some who claim it is all an allusion and there is no physical reality at all. Why introduce an idea we call science if there is no physical reality? Why is there an unknown "spiritual" knowledge if there is only physical reality?

again its unknown as you say but by saying that its also saying people have knowledge of what is unknown... it just seems that people want to be right so have their own version of Trumpism

 

[Berzerker]

...which is what you make up, and Genesis doesn't say. also, we know this isn't true. And yet, you keep repeating it. Which US politician does this remind us of...

I dont see a rebuttal there but I cant take credit for making it up, its Sitchin's theory.

No. They didn't.

You have your pre-determined conclusion and you're ignoring the evidence they left us.

A matter of numerology, I should think. Why is 3 more important in mythical numerology than 2?

The Sumerians claimed An(u) and his 2 sons Enlil and Enki shared control and the sky and world were divided up between them, they were an earlier trinity. Why isn't 5 more important?

No. It doesn't. Nor is this "according to ancient peoples all over the world".

Several cosmologies from across the world have already been mentioned in support of "Yes. It does". You haven't offered any evidence, where are these cultures with only 5 levels in heaven?

The 7 heavens "may" refer to the sun, moon and 5 planets but this cosmology was contained within a larger belief system incorporating 9, 12 and/or 13... This is evidence ancient peoples knew about other worlds, ones they could not see but were kept alive in myth and cosmology.

Wrt the 7 heavens, according to Genesis Heaven and Earth were made in 6 days and God rested on the 7th. The proto-Earth called Tehom or Tiamat at the asteroid belt was the 6th planet from outside the solar system and the Earth is now the 7th planet. The Lord is 7 heavens away from us...

That's a good one, considering you are cherry picking to support your argument:

Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. [/end internet definition]

Your accusation requires the existence of that significant contradictory data. Where is it? You seem to think your insults and accusations dont need to be supported. You're wrong.

I'd have to cherry pick the evidence to support you guys... I dont know that I could find any evidence to support you guys.

No, 'they' are not. You are. You see, no such 'evidence' exists. Which is entirely logical: not to have evidence of things one doesn't know about.

Some of the evidence has been posted in the thread. How can you accuse me of cherry picking while claiming the evidence I cherry pick doesn't exist? Not logical.

We've entered the realm of the bizarre now...

Where is their data?

Oh yes, scientists and scholars have ignored evidence they should have been seeing. But lucky for us, Berzerker has revealed all!

Name the scientists and scholars in this thread. I've already been told we should ignore any scientific evidence supporting Genesis because its just a coincidence. And I'm the one being accused of ignoring evidence in conflict with a pre-determined conclusion?

There is a clear pattern here. (Funny that you should mention that.) It's the pattern of the conspirational theorist.

How did you see a pattern when you're the only person who mentioned a conspiracy? You took what I said about some of the posters admitting they'll ignore the evidence to accuse me of believing the scientific community has conspired to keep Sitchin's theory a secret? They're a little late. But lectures about intellectual dishonesty from you are greatly appreciated.

 

[Agent327]

I dont see a rebuttal there but I cant take credit for making it up, its Sitchin's theory.

How many times do you want Sitchin rebutted exactly? It doesn't appear to have any effect on your view, so I'm just asking.

You have your pre-determined conclusion and you're ignoring the evidence they left us.

No. There isn't any evidence. Hence the inevitable conclusion. What you just said kind of matches your modus operandi: look for 'evidence' that matches your preconceived notion, then claim that 'everybody is 'ignoring the evidence'. They're not. We're still waiting for this 'evidence' you keep mentioning, but don't provide.

The Sumerians claimed An(u) and his 2 sons Enlil and Enki shared control and the sky and world were divided up between them, they were an earlier trinity. Why isn't 5 more important?

Ask a numerologist.

Several cosmologies from across the world have already been mentioned in support of "Yes. It does". You haven't offered any evidence, where are these cultures with only 5 levels in heaven?

Dito. You seem to think that a concurrence in numbers somehow (magically?) provides evidence for... something. It really, really doesn't.

The 7 heavens "may" refer to the sun, moon and 5 planets but this cosmology was contained within a larger belief system incorporating 9, 12 and/or 13... This is evidence ancient peoples knew about other worlds, ones they could not see but were kept alive in myth and cosmology.

Your conclusion doesn't follow, as it's not about numbers.

Wrt the 7 heavens, according to Genesis Heaven and Earth were made in 6 days and God rested on the 7th. The proto-Earth called Tehom or Tiamat at the asteroid belt was the 6th planet from outside the solar system and the Earth is now the 7th planet. The Lord is 7 heavens away from us...

What?

Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

We know.

Your accusation requires the existence of that significant contradictory data. Where is it? You seem to think your insults and accusations dont need to be supported. You're wrong.

Actually, you are. If I had insulted anybody, there'd been an infraction.

I'd have to cherry pick the evidence

...which is exactly what you are doing: mentioning numbers 'evidence' from various cultures which basically proves nothing in particular. Yet you seem to think that it does. It's not even remotely logical. It only proves that various cultures used numbers and that some of these numbers actually coincide. Really, what are the odds of numbers coinciding? Well, if you use low enough numbers those odds are rather high.

Some of the evidence has been posted in the thread.

And thoroughly refuted.

Where is their data?

I'm sorry, but if you claim something the onus to present data is on you.

I've already been told we should ignore any scientific evidence supporting Genesis because its just a coincidence.

Actually, nobody told you that. That is just the conclusion you erroneously drew.

The fact that some things in the Bible (notably Judges and Kings) tell us about actual historical events in no way implies that other books (notably Genesis and Exodus) also reflect historical events. The fact that the entirety of the Bible is a treasure trove on religious history of both Judaism and early Christianity in no way implies that it's a science book - or describes things scientific.

And I'm the one being accused of ignoring evidence in conflict with a pre-determined conclusion?

Exactly. In addition to making up 'evidence' and accusations no one has made.

How did you see a pattern when you're the only person who mentioned a conspiracy? You took what I said about some of the posters admitting they'll ignore the evidence to accuse me of believing the scientific community has conspired to keep Sitchin's theory a secret? They're a little late. But lectures about intellectual dishonesty from you are greatly appreciated.

You're quite welcome. First, Sitchin's theory is no secret. It's just not a very plausible theory (as elaborately explained). Second, the pattern you yourself apparently cannot see, is, I imagine, quite clear to any other reader of your posts. You have, basically, since the OP, posted no evidence, and, despite this, keep insisting that you are on to 'the truth'. That is quite typical of a conspirational theorist. (Note that I'm not actually calling you that, just pointing out the coincidence. In your book that would constitute undeniable evidence.)

Is it arrogant to be the only logical poster?

I really have no idea.

I can only speak for myself, but being able to see multiple sides of the human perspective is an educational and surprisingly informational endeavor.

I would think that the human perspective is what we all suffer from - not that it has multiple sides. Perspective has only 1 'side': that of the viewer.

I also did not expect this thread to be derailed, as an apologetic on Genesis. There is little in Genesis that can be compared to the Enuma Elish. The only point I can see, is the earth may have had more water, if it formed further out. If it hit a couple of other forming planets, it could have lost some water, and gained some heavier elements and mass to gain continents, and even a moon.

Before or after being absorbed by the sun?

 

[timtofly]

if as you say people were making up version of creation, why would they also not make up god, its the easiest way to say ' my unknown truth is right because god says so' it is no different to saying in 2016 'my version of truth is right because the rain God Huey says so'

again its unknown as you say but by saying that its also saying people have knowledge of what is unknown... it just seems that people want to be right so have their own version of Trumpism

I am not claiming to be right. Are you?

I really have no idea.

I would think that the human perspective is what we all suffer from - not that it has multiple sides. Perspective has only 1 'side': that of the viewer.

Before or after being absorbed by the sun?

Oh?

We are a hive mind?

The sun is still expanding.

 

[Berzerker]

How many times do you want Sitchin rebutted exactly? It doesn't appear to have any effect on your view, so I'm just asking.

Where is your rebuttal?

No. There isn't any evidence. Hence the inevitable conclusion. What you just said kind of matches your modus operandi: look for 'evidence' that matches your preconceived notion, then claim that 'everybody is 'ignoring the evidence'. They're not. We're still waiting for this 'evidence' you keep mentioning, but don't provide.

Evidence was posted and ignored, if the science supports Genesis its a coincidence

Ask a numerologist.

I'm asking you, support your arguments.

You seem to think that a concurrence in numbers somehow (magically?) provides evidence for... something. It really, really doesn't.

You said nobody had cosmologies incorporating larger numbers, evidence you're wrong has already been posted and you're ignoring it.

Your conclusion doesn't follow, as it's not about numbers.

If its not about numbers why did ancient peoples describe the heavens as numerical levels?

What?

The 7 heavens may not refer to the sun, moon and 5 visible planets

We know.

Then you're not supporting your accusation of cherry picking for some reason other than ignorance of its definition

Actually, you are. If I had insulted anybody, there'd been an infraction.

Insults and infractions are two different things

...which is exactly what you are doing: mentioning numbers 'evidence' from various cultures which basically proves nothing in particular. Yet you seem to think that it does. It's not even remotely logical. It only proves that various cultures used numbers and that some of these numbers actually coincide. Really, what are the odds of numbers coinciding? Well, if you use low enough numbers those odds are rather high.

If I'm cherry picking the evidence, then where is the evidence that contradicts me?

And thoroughly refuted.

Where?

I'm sorry, but if you claim something the onus to present data is on you.

And if you claim something the onus is on you, but you dont back anything up... You make claims and runaway from them

Actually, nobody told you that. That is just the conclusion you erroneously drew.

Lets see:

Maybe I should specify that I mean "literal reading" to mean "taking any part of the creation story to indicate accurate (rather than coincidental) knowledge".

I assume that anything that tallies with modern science in a 2,500 year-old creation story is likely a coincidence

So you'll dismiss anything in Genesis supported by the scientific evidence as coincidence and tell us the scientific evidence doesn't support Genesis?

Well, yah, why not?

Wrong again, Agent...

Exactly. In addition to making up 'evidence' and accusations no one has made.

What evidence and accusations did I make up?

You're quite welcome. First, Sitchin's theory is no secret.

Then there's no conspiracy to keep it a secret

Second, the pattern you yourself apparently cannot see, is, I imagine, quite clear to any other reader of your posts. You have, basically, since the OP, posted no evidence, and, despite this, keep insisting that you are on to 'the truth'.

Where did I mention"the truth"?

That is quite typical of a conspirational theorist. (Note that I'm not actually calling you that, just pointing out the coincidence. In your book that would constitute undeniable evidence.)

Lol, you just did... But now we have your definition of a 'conspirational theorist' - somebody who claims they know the truth. And you dont? I'm claiming this world may have formed at the asteroid belt, it may be true. Those who deny this possibility are claiming to know the truth.

 

[Arakhor]

You linked an image showing the cosmos, were there 5 or 7 levels? No, it showed 12-13 levels... Are you deliberately ignoring your own link? The number 7 represents the Earth, not the planets - well, the 7 heavens is another matter. As for the calendar, that was based on the phases of the moon.

I can't tell if you're being serious now. Four of those levels were the four elements, three were the heavenly realms and one was the sphere of the Fixed Stars. You do realise what planet originally meant, don't you?

The months were based on the phases of the moon: the days of the week on the visible planets (including the Sun and the Moon). What's more, the number of days in a week is entirely arbitrary - the Roman Empire used an eight-day week before they adopted the modern seven-day week.

But now you've gone into full pseudo-science mode, picking out a specific number and 'refuting' any reasons why that number might be faulty.

 

[Old Hippy]

I am not claiming to be right. Are you?

No I am not claiming I am right but you used an example of a people who were told by god and they and subsequent followers have repeatedly claimed they are right, and still do, while at the same time they dismiss other peoples creationist storey as false. A closed mind to what should be an exploration of the unknown.

that's the problem with unknowns, they end up with someone having an epiphany and experience tells me to be careful as they often go away after several days or when the drugs wear off (or my lack of faith, as I've also been told)

spiritual unknowns are no different except they have far more competing theories often resulting in interesting diner party conversations, (where they should remain along with a good bottle of red) but still end up arguments about my enlightenment is better than yours. That's why they are often referred to as great mysteries by the very people that are explaining them.

 

[timtofly]

No I am not claiming I am right but you used an example of a people who were told by god and they and subsequent followers have repeatedly claimed they are right, and still do, while at the same time they dismiss other peoples creationist storey as false. A closed mind to what should be an exploration of the unknown.

that's the problem with unknowns, they end up with someone having an epiphany and experience tells me to be careful as they often go away after several days or when the drugs wear off (or my lack of faith, as I've also been told)

spiritual unknowns are no different except they have far more competing theories often resulting in interesting diner party conversations, (where they should remain along with a good bottle of red) but still end up arguments about my enlightenment is better than yours. That's why they are often referred to as great mysteries by the very people that are explaining them.

I was not using an example. We have been talking about Genesis, since the first post. We have hardly been portraying any creation stories as false. Other than the skeptics who have relegated all ancients as "making" stories up. From what I can tell there are still a lot of unknowns and scientist have a lot of work ahead of them. So if it is either an eureka, or epiphanous moment, to claim we have all the answers would lead to closed mindedness.

Claiming that a people group once had the truth is not the same as claiming they made it up. However being generations removed, of course it is natural to be skeptical of such claims. My question to you, is why would it be needed to be defended, and relegated to just a claim? The default answer should not be because they made it up, but that seems to be what is assumed.

It is even shaky ground claiming we have new evidence that proves it is wrong. There were those who questioned the experience even while it was happening. They decided to build an image and worship it instead of waiting for God to finish meeting with Moses. The experience can be denied, and rejected, but it already passed the refutation test, because even while it was happening, it could not be refuted. It would seem to me that the only reason why people would even reject it, is because it does not make sense to them, and they chose not to accept it, and some to the point of claiming it never happened, even without proof.

I have never been drugged or intoxicated, other than going through surgery a few times, where I was put into a deep sleep. So I will have to take your word that one "experiences" the spiritual world by that means. I would agree that even experiencing nature in some temporary artificial state or another, no matter how spectacular it may seem, hardly compares to experiencing the reality of God. Knowing both good and evil may be tempting, but to know only good would be more preferred.

 

[Berzerker]

I can't tell if you're being serious now. Four of those levels were the four elements, three were the heavenly realms and one was the sphere of the Fixed Stars. You do realise what planet originally meant, don't you?

You said I was deliberately ignoring Ptolemy's classification of the sun and moon as planets. I didn't even know he classified the sun and moon as planets, where did he make that claim?

The planets were wanderers. They could be portrayed as stars, orbs, sheep (or other herded animals), flowing rivers, or just a line in a spiral pattern (like your link). They could even be a monkey's fingers.

The Fremont panel at Nine Mile Canyon shows 8 sheep with a horned deity as the 6th planet being stalked by the hunter approaching from the right and below (inclined).

There are 5 visible planets - the number 5 should be prominent in ancient cosmologies. It isn't... I happen to believe Uranus was also visible in opposition and behaved like the other planets as Earth swings past them, so that would be 8 - the sun, moon and 6 visible planets.

But anyway, I know some levels of Heaven were occasionally associated with other seen phenomena, since the outer planets were unseen and perhaps the knowledge lost some cultures replaced them.

If your argument was valid they wouldn't have replaced them much less included them to begin with, we wouldn't see 12 levels of heaven if the cosmology was based on the sun, moon and 5 visible planets.

Now, look at your link and tell me how many levels comprise "the universe". Is it 7 levels? Or is it 12 or 13? The cosmology represented by your link shows more than 7 levels, I dont know why you think that supports your argument.

http://www.germanicmythology.com/original/9Worlds.html

Norse cosmology was based on 9 worlds and 12 levels of Heaven. The Toltec believed in the 9 lords of the night and a heaven comprised of 13 levels with the creator occupying 2 levels. Same with the Inca... They depicted their creator as an ellipse separating 9 stars in groups of 4 and 5 with the sun and moon nearby and the Nazca monkey peers down between two paws with 4 and 5 fingers.

Of course these ancient peoples considered 7 sacred, it was associated with "god" and the Earth, and we find that belief on both sides of the world - the Earth was represented by 7 dots or a 7 pointed star. But do we find ancient peoples claiming their cosmology is based on the sun, moon and 5 visible planets? I'd be cherry picking if I found them.

The months were based on the phases of the moon: the days of the week on the visible planets (including the Sun and the Moon).

The week was a quarter of the moon's cycle, naming the days of the week after the sun, moon and 5 planets was a more recent change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week

The fact people could see the sun, moon and 5 planets doesn't mean their cosmology was based on the number 7, the people who adopted the "modern" days of the week already had and maintained an earlier cosmology probably based on 9, 12 or 13.

The order of creation according to the Enuma Elish:

Abzu (sun)
Mummu (his companion)
Tiamat (proto-Earth, biblical Tehom)

Between them was born

Lahamu - Venus
Lahmu - Mars (brother and sister warriors)

Time passed... and beyond Tiamat a pair are born

Kishar - Jupiter
Anshar - Saturn

followed by their first born

Anu - Uranus

and his son

Nudimmud - Neptune

Thats the sun and 8 planets awaiting the arrival of the creator, and the text says Marduk was crowned with the halo of 10 gods... But Saturn would give birth again, Pluto (Gaga) was released to inform the gods of Marduk's supremacy. So thats the sun and 10 planetary gods before Tiamat was carved up to form Heaven and Earth. The moon witnessed the battle and was the last of the gods to join the pantheon of twelve.

What's more, the number of days in a week is entirely arbitrary - the Roman Empire used an eight-day week before they adopted the modern seven-day week.

I wouldn't say it was entirely arbitrary but I would agree the 7 day week spread and supplanted other systems that often did vary in length. Long before the Romans the lunar cycle was the basis of the calendar in Mesopotamia and a week was 1/4 of that cycle.

But now you've gone into full pseudo-science mode, picking out a specific number and 'refuting' any reasons why that number might be faulty.

You picked out a specific number (7) to "refute" my argument. But you also ignored your own link because "the heavens" did not number 7, your link shows 12-13 levels. You've looked at a system based on the number 12 and decided its based on 7 instead. Was that cherry picking and was it deliberate?

 

[Leoreth]

When Uranus was (apparently) rediscovered in the 18th century, why was there discussion on what to name it, and isn't it a terrible coincidence that it was given the exact same name as mythological deity it was associated with earlier in Mesopotamia?

 

[Arakhor]

You picked out a specific number (7) to "refute" my argument. But you also ignored your own link because "the heavens" did not number 7, your link shows 12-13 levels. You've looked at a system based on the number 12 and decided its based on 7 instead. Was that cherry picking and was it deliberate?

I posted that link because I found it interesting and because there are other people in this thread, not because I think that anyone has any chance of ever changing your mind. One more time though, the spheres of the four elements are clearly not part of the heavens and once you have discounted those, even the Nuremberg Chronicle has only eleven other spheres, not 12. Where you got 12 from, I don't know, and why you decided that that was an appropriate stick to beat me with is anyone's business.

Further, since "the" cosmology varies between cultures, unless you talk to Hancock, Sitchen or the like, obviously the numbers are going vary, but 7 does pop up a lot. Why they got seven I think is perfectly clear, but obviously you disagree.

 

[timtofly]

Tiamat Mother Goddess, wife of Apsu, mother of Lahmu and Lahamu. (Sumerian counterpart is Nintu.)

Apsu Ruler of all the gods and husband and father as above. (Sumerian counterpart is Anu.)

Mummu A son of Tiamat and Apsu. God of the mist.

Lahmu Brother and Husband of Lahamu Parent star or constellation.

Lahamu Sister and Wife of Lahmu Sometimes as serpent, but zodiac or constellation.

Anshar Brother and husband of Kishar. Whole Heaven

Kishar Sister and wife of Anshar. Whole Earth

Anu (An) Son of Anshar and Kishar. God of the sky. (Sumerian husband of Nintu and father/ruler of all the gods.)

Nintu (Ki) (Sumerian mother of all the gods. Created the first humans out of clay.)

Enlil God of the air between earth and sky. (Sumerian son of Anu and Nintu who becomes ruler of the gods with Anu.)

Ishtar (Inanna) (Sumerian first daughter of Anu (or Sin) and the goddess of love and war.)

Ea Son of Anu, husband of Damkina, and father of Marduk. Ruler of all the gods after Apsu. (Sumerian son of Nintu and ruler of the earth.)

Damkina Wife of Ea and mother of Marduk.

Marduk Wisest and most accomplished god. He became ruler of all the gods. (Sumerian counterpart of Anu and Enlil.)

Kingu Leads Tiamat's army against Marduk.

Sin God of the moon and father of Shamash.

Shamash God of the sun.

This matches up to wiki and the family tree.

Anshar and Kishar are not planets. They are points of reference that make up the sky. They sorta make Lahmu and Lahuma redundant.

Other than someone coming along much later and making the claim they are the planets, where is there a record that calls them that at the time the Enuma Elish was written? At the most you get the zodiac and the 12 constellations. I guess there were actually 13, but in order to make it fit 3 in each direction, they narrowed it down to 12.

The Sumerians even skipped the first three generations and started with Anu and Nintu. They actually came before the Enuma Elish, so the Babylonians added a couple of layers to fit the zodiac into the narrative.

The Babylonians did identify 5 planets besides the earth, sun, and moon.

These five planets were:
Jupiter with Marduk,
Venus with the goddess Ishtar,
Saturn with Ninurta (Ninib),
Mercury with Nabu (Nebo),
Mars with Nergal.

The movements of the Sun, Moon and five planets were regarded as representing the activity of the five gods in question, together with the moon-god Sin and the Sun-god Shamash, in preparing the occurrences on earth. If, therefore, one could correctly read and interpret the activity of these powers, one knew what the gods were aiming to bring about.

The calendar started out relating the gods to the zodiac. They first recorded the movement of the stars and constellations. It would seem that after a while, they could have been credited by first observing the "wondering" stars as planets. Venus was a special one, because it was seen twice a day, and some civs gave each occurrence a different name. The Babylonians however called the planet venus: Venus.

IMO, that the gods were associated with planets, may have never actually occurred, or if they did it was at the very end. Logic would dictate, that the names were just re-used and the original meanings lost to later generations. Even the later Babylonians added to the original list handed down by the Sumerians. Jupiter was the chief, and it's 12 year orbital cycle may have been the basis for the 12 signs of the zodiac being narrowed from 13 to 12. There was a thirteenth month that was exchanged in an out of the calendar.

Saturn started out as part of the constellation Aquarius. In astrology is still part of Aquarius and Capricorn. Guess Jupiter must have worked out a deal to bring it into the sol system. Just kidding, just turned out to no longer be "fixed", but started to wander around as a planet.

Mercury was identified as Udu.Idim.Gu "the jumping planet". It was associated with Nabu, the messenger of the gods.

Mars was etched in history first by the Egyptians and Chinese. By the period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 BC), Babylonian astronomers were making systematic observations of the positions and behavior of the planets. For Mars, they knew, for example, that the planet made 37 synodic periods, or 42 circuits of the zodiac, every 79 years. The Babylonians invented arithmetic methods for making minor corrections to the predicted positions of the planets. This technique was primarily derived from timing measurements—such as when Mars rose above the horizon, rather than from the less accurately known position of the planet on the celestial sphere. This is the closest information we have that perhaps Babylonians were more than just theologians, but actually carried out pre-science observations. Of course they ended up just being incorporated into so-called religio astrology. The god associated with mars was already recycled several times, including the sol, setting sun, king of the underworld, and god of war, so it may have been Greek influences that gave the Babylonians any clue as to giving Mars a god identity.

I posted that link because I found it interesting and because there are other people in this thread, not because I think that anyone has any chance of ever changing your mind. One more time though, the spheres of the four elements are clearly not part of the heavens and once you have discounted those, even the Nuremberg Chronicle has only eleven other spheres, not 12. Where you got 12 from, I don't know, and why you decided that that was an appropriate stick to beat me with is anyone's business.

Further, since "the" cosmology varies between cultures, unless you talk to Hancock, Sitchen or the like, obviously the numbers are going vary, but 7 does pop up a lot. Why they got seven I think is perfectly clear, but obviously you disagree.

I mentioned it above, but it seems the Babylonians figured out that Jupiter had a roughly 12 year orbital cycle. The Chinese also figured that out, but not sure if it was from Babylonian influences. The Han Dynasty around 206 BC, and the founders of Taoism (Wu Xing) did associate the 5 planets with the 5 elements: wood/Jupiter, fire/Mars, earth/Saturn, metal/Venus, and water/Mercury. The numbers most important seem to be 3: Trinity of highest deity/earth moon sun, 12: Orbit of Jupiter/12 months/zodiac. 5: five planets/five elements/five organs/pentatonic music/five senses/five directions.

So as not to be labeled as leaving out pertinent information, there were also 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples. The Hebrews via the Talmud were also big into the number 5 and 12 in a mystical sense. I would also like to point out that these numbers were derived from observation of a natural phenomenon, and should not be taken as any pattern of mystic and astrological divination. I would add that even 3 chief deities were at one time a known "natural" phenomenon, as in God was manifested in such a way, as to give humans insight into 3 separate, but equal parts. The Chinese claim that the one created the two. The two created the three. The three created the whole of the universe. The Babylonians claimed Apsu created Tiamat, and Mummu. The Hebrews claimed that God, the Spirit, and the Word created the universe.

 

[Berzerker]

I posted that link because I found it interesting and because there are other people in this thread, not because I think that anyone has any chance of ever changing your mind.

Didn't you cite your link as evidence for the importance of the number 7? Proving Sitchin wrong will change my mind. And you're changing your mind? Jesus, spare me the constant hypocrisy.

One more time though, the spheres of the four elements are clearly not part of the heavens and once you have discounted those, even the Nuremberg Chronicle has only eleven other spheres, not 12.

Where you got 12 from, I don't know, and why you decided that that was an appropriate stick to beat me with is anyone's business.

Thats 11 plus the Earth in the center. But hey, keep eliminating them because they dont count and you'll eventually get to 7... And I said 12-13, so are you deliberately ignoring what I said? Its an appropriate "stick" because it makes my point - the cosmos was layered and contained more than 7 levels.

Further, since "the" cosmology varies between cultures, unless you talk to Hancock, Sitchen or the like, obviously the numbers are going vary, but 7 does pop up a lot. Why they got seven I think is perfectly clear, but obviously you disagree.

First, where did Ptolemy classify the sun and moon as planets? You said he did and used that to accuse me of deliberately ignoring him. You're running away again... The number 7 pops up because it represented the Earth and its god. The cultures that named the days after the planets maintained a cosmology based on larger numbers, like 9, 12 and/or 13... Your link does not identify 7 as representing the "universe".

 

[Berzerker]

Apsu Ruler of all the gods and husband and father as above.

Sin God of the moon and father of Shamash.

Shamash God of the sun.

The moon was the sun's father?

You're mixing the flesh and blood gods of the Mesopotamians with the olden celestial gods from the time before Heaven and Earth were created

Anshar and Kishar are not planets. They are points of reference that make up the sky.

How does a point of reference in our sky give birth to a planet?

 

[Agent327]

Didn't you cite your link as evidence for the importance of the number 7? Proving Sitchin wrong will change my mind.

Sitchin was proven wrong years ago - and this was posted pages ago.

I mentioned it above, but it seems the Babylonians figured out that Jupiter had a roughly 12 year orbital cycle. The Chinese also figured that out, but not sure if it was from Babylonian influences.

If they 'figured it out' (from observation), what would 'Babylonian influences' have to do with anything?

So as not to be labeled as leaving out pertinent information, there were also 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples.

The one does not confirm the other. Rather, the number of 12 disciples given in the NT is based on the '12 tribes' of Israel.

The Hebrews via the Talmud were also big into the number 5 and 12 in a mystical sense. I would also like to point out that these numbers were derived from observation of a natural phenomenon, and should not be taken as any pattern of mystic and astrological divination.

The number of 12 tribes was based on 'observation of a natural phenomenon'? You say that right after putting the number 12 'in a mystical sense'. I suggest you take a pick here.

You said I was deliberately ignoring Ptolemy's classification of the sun and moon as planets. I didn't even know he classified the sun and moon as planets, where did he make that claim?

We still speak of things as the sun and the moon 'rising', even though we know it's just the Earth turning. In short, Ptolemy didn't need to 'make that claim', as you put it. In the ancient view 'the heavens' moved around the Earth.

The planets were wanderers. They could be portrayed as stars, orbs, sheep (or other herded animals), flowing rivers, or just a line in a spiral pattern (like your link). They could even be a monkey's fingers.

Sure. Except only Mercury is described as 'the wanderer'. So no need for your generalizations. (By the way, we still have the animal signs in our zodiac, even though we know they are stellar constellations.) I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.

There are 5 visible planets - the number 5 should be prominent in ancient cosmologies.

Why?

I happen to believe Uranus was also visible in opposition and behaved like the other planets as Earth swings past them, so that would be 8 - the sun, moon and 6 visible planets.

You don't need to 'believe' that: Uranus was known in prehistoric times already.

Where is your rebuttal?

I don't need to rebutt: an entire post was dedicated to Sitchin's 'theory', and you just ignored it.

Evidence was posted and ignored, if the science supports Genesis its a coincidence

No, 'evidence' was soundly rebutted and you ignored that result - and still do.

And your conclusion still doesn't follow. I'll try and explain why again. Genesis (and the Bible at large) is not a scientific treatise. Ergo, if any scientific fact happens to reflect in it, it is coincidence. Think of the Iliad, also not a scientific treatise. If any scientific fact would be present in it, it would be coincidence, because science is not the purpose of the Iliad. Dito the Bible.

The problem, most likely, is that you expect to find scientific facts in Genesis (or the Bible) at large. That is highly unlikely. Genesis (and the Bible at large) isn't about science or scientific fact: it's about spiritual truth. It is, therefore, as unlikely to find scientific fact in Genesis (or the Bible at large) as it is to find spiritual truth in a scientific treatise.

I'm asking you, support your arguments.

I did, but your snippet quoting ignores it.

You said nobody had cosmologies incorporating larger numbers, evidence you're wrong has already been posted and you're ignoring it.

No, I didn't.

If its not about numbers why did ancient peoples describe the heavens as numerical levels?

I'll repost what you are quoting:

Your conclusion doesn't follow, as it's not about numbers.

The 7 heavens may not refer to the sun, moon and 5 visible planets

They may, or they may not.

Then you're not supporting your accusation of cherry picking for some reason other than ignorance of its definition

So, posting a list of your cherry picking is not support?

Insults and infractions are two different things

Not to a moderator. So don't make false accusations.

If I'm cherry picking the evidence, then where is the evidence that contradicts me?

Again, I'll just repost what you're quoting:

...which is exactly what you are doing: mentioning numbers 'evidence' from various cultures which basically proves nothing in particular. Yet you seem to think that it does. It's not even remotely logical. It only proves that various cultures used numbers and that some of these numbers actually coincide. Really, what are the odds of numbers coinciding? Well, if you use low enough numbers those odds are rather high.

This is an example of cherry picking: you're focusing on numbers appearing in different ancient cultures and presenting this as 'evidence'. The only evidence you have is that various cultures used numbers and that some of these numbers actually coincide. Which basically proves nothing in particular.

So I'm not sure what evidence you are asking for.

Where?

See the beginning of this post.

And if you claim something the onus is on you, but you dont back anything up... You make claims and runaway from them

I'm making no claims whatsoever. I am pointing out illogicalities. The only 'backup' that I need for that is logic.

Lets see:

Indeed, let's:

Maybe I should specify that I mean "literal reading" to mean "taking any part of the creation story to indicate accurate (rather than coincidental) knowledge".

I assume that anything that tallies with modern science in a 2,500 year-old creation story is likely a coincidence

So you'll dismiss anything in Genesis supported by the scientific evidence as coincidence and tell us the scientific evidence doesn't support Genesis?

... which is a conclusion that doesn't follow. First, hardly anything in Genesis is 'supported by scientific evidence'. It gets most cosmic creation events wrong or simply in the wrong order. (This is already an indication that science is not the purpose of Genesis.) Now, if something in Genesis would indeed be supported by scientific fact that is most likely a coincidence because the writers of Genesis aren't interested in scientific fact. But, even considering that, they might, accidentally, mention something which happens to be a scientific fact. How could that be anything else than a coincidence? I'll give an example. Genesis mentions the creation of Earth and the sun. We happen to know that indeed the Earth and the sun were created. (Just not in the way Genesis describes.) So, that would be a scientific fact that happens to be mentioned in Genesis. (Not a very accurately described scientific fact, but a scientific fact nonetheless.) Now why is that a coincidence? It is, because the purpose of Genesis is not explaining how (science), but why (spiritual truth). Now, if science and spiritual truth concur, we call that a coincidence. (You might call it something else, but whatever you call it, it would still be a coincidence.)

Back to cherry picking:

[QUOTE[Well, yah, why not?

Wrong again, Agent... [/QUOTE]

I've no clue who is wrong about what here (and I don't think anybody else is either).

And some misreading:

That is quite typical of a conspirational theorist. (Note that I'm not actually calling you that, just pointing out the coincidence. In your book that would constitute undeniable evidence.)

Lol, you just did...

No, I said it is typical of a conspirational theorist. That's not 'calling you a conspirational theorist'.

I'm claiming this world may have formed at the asteroid belt, it may be true.

No, it may not.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So at one point a day was not 24 hours?

Correct. The day was not always 24 hours. In fact, it isn't even 24 hours now. It's 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

Gen 1:2 doesn't say a water planet was without form, it says the "dry land" under that water was without form - it wasn't dry land, yet. The dry land was without form...

Have you ever looked at the bottom of a lake, river, or ocean? It's not formless.

And it was obvious, but extra-terrestrial means:

originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere

Extraterrestrial refers to any object or being beyond (extra-) the planet Earth (terrestrial).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraterrestrial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial

By definition God is extra-terrestrial

God is a made up character in a story.

But by all means, feel free to provide your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim. Where are the artifacts that couldn't possibly have been manufactured on Earth?

Repeatedly debunked? Where? Why do you keep dodging questions?

This thread is over 1300 posts long. There have been many posts where debunking has occurred.

All those people who are posting that the sun was there on day 1, and then "re-appearing" on day 4.

All those posters who claim the un-formed earth which was hidden in a formed water planet created at the asteroid belt, waiting at the edge of the solar system which was not there, because God had not arrived yet. When God arrived and asked why it was waiting there, God decided to create a solar system for it to have a home.

So Earth was a stray kitten and God happened along and gave it some solar-powered kibble before drenching it with water, just because of reasons?

That's too nonsensical even for the Lolcat Bible.

So if a rotation only lasted for 21 hours, was the earth smaller with less mass, or did it just rotate faster? If a day only lasted 21 hours then was there a time that it only lasted 12 hours? If a day was only 12 hours did that mean that time went by twice as fast as it does now? When it said 500 years, did they actually mean 250 years? They say that a dog ages 7 years for every human year.

No.

And dogs don't age 7 years for every human year, unless you're going to tell me that 7-year-old human girls are able to have babies. Not that this has anything at all to do with the rotation of the Earth, which is influenced by the Sun and the Moon.

The answer to your question about the sun and moon is simply because the text does not mention the sun or moon, but states there were two lights in the sky. For all of the assuming every one is doing about the passage, it could be describing a totally different solar system, as there were no planets mentioned at all.

Since they had no understanding of our own solar system, it's a huuuuuuuge stretch to claim that Genesis was referring to a different solar system.

To put things in perspective, though, 3,000 years from now (if mankind exists, which I doubt), YOU will be that preliterate, ignorant herdsman.

Oh, are the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. going to retroactively change 3000 years from now?

As practicing scientists, the way to put Genesis to the test is clear. I think it's to safe to say in 3,000 years we will know just a little more about space and cosmology than we do now. So to test it, we just need to freeze one member of this forum for 3,000 years. And if the Biblical account seems to better match what we know at that time, then we know God is real, and we should adopt the Bible as the gold standard for which we pursue all future space research. And if cutting-edge science at the time debunks the Bible, we can blow it off.

Now, to just find that one person to freeze for 3,000 years. I might have my opinions, but I'm not sayin'.

Oh, come now. There's an opt-in social group with dozens of people willing to be singled out as examples in OT threads. Pick someone and let us know who you'd be willing to freeze.

Then tell us how that person is supposed to come back here and put an end to the quibbling in this thread.

The bible has already been debunked. There's no need to rely on some hypothetical future science.

If backward herdsmen get the secrets of the universe right, with no knowledge of subatomic particles, differential calculus, the earth is round, Newton's laws, nothing--then the only possible conclusion is that God told it to them.

Which backward herdsmen were those? And if your claim that God told them all this science stuff, why didn't their so-called fantastic memories for oral histories result in that knowledge being passed along so it didn't need to be rediscovered over the past few centuries? Looks like somebody was goofing off instead of tending to his memorization tasks.

God is a scientist.

Whut?

The earth was never a bowl of water. You are confusing me with Berzerker. I guess we could speculate was the water above spinning, or just the earth and water below?

Well, I am relieved that you understand one thing. Earth was never a bowl of water. Good. That's progress. Now if the two of you could realize that the rest of your water-themed obsessions are equally nonsensical, that would be even more progress.

It states that there was no rain, and that dew came up from the ground, I speculate there were no weather systems at all on earth, until the Flood. They did not seem to know what a rainbow was until then.

There are not enough facepalm images on the entire internet to express my opinion of this post.

...did that mean that God instituted astrology, or was that added later as an excuse to use astrology?

Humans invented astrology.

There were 5 visible planets but they knew about more. If they knew only about 5 planets why doesn't the number 5 play a bigger role in cosmology? I'm sure people have seen Uranus enough to make 6 visible planets integral to myth. Maybe...

I've seen Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes. I've never seen Mercury because the horizon around here is too obscured with trees, houses, and other stuff that's in the way. I've also never seen Uranus with my own eyes. Supposedly a few people did have vision good enough to see it, but why wasn't it generally known to the ancients, then?

But then I'm talking to someone who doubts the existence of the Oort Cloud, even though I (and many other people) have seen Oort Cloud-based comets with our own eyes.

The number 5 is prevalent in nature, but not because of the number of planets the ancients could see with the naked eye.

I'm not the one who is guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't support my "pre-determined conclusion".

Yeah, you are.

They're arguing ancient peoples didn't know about the outer planets. They are ignoring all the evidence that doesn't support their conclusion.

I'm still here, y'know.

After all these pages, you're still going on that the ancients knew about planets that weren't discovered until the 18th century or later.

Telescopes were required to find these planets, Berzerker. The first use of the telescope in astronomy happened in the first decade of the 17th century.

Answer me this: If the ancients knew so much about the planets that they couldn't possibly have seen, why didn't they inform us of all those moons the gas giant planets have? Galileo saw Saturn's rings, but why didn't the ancients inform us of the rings surrounding Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune?

They dont have any data to support their conclusion.

LOL.

Ignoring the pattern is cherry picking... What evidence have they looked at? Their pre-determined conclusion was people couldn't see the outer planets therefore any evidence they knew about them should be ignored.

You haven't provided any evidence.

I dont know that the sun and moon were planets to Ptolemy. How can I deliberately ignore an assertion you just made in his name? Where did he call them planets? My point remains - if 5 visible planets were so important why doesn't the number 5 play a much more significant role in cosmology?

You linked an image showing the cosmos, were there 5 or 7 levels? No, it showed 12-13 levels... Are you deliberately ignoring your own link? The number 7 represents the Earth, not the planets - well, the 7 heavens is another matter. As for the calendar, that was based on the phases of the moon.

Google is your friend.

Ptolemaic astronomy

The Almagest is one of the most influential books in the history of Western astronomy. In this book, Ptolemy explained how to predict the behavior of the planets, as Hipparchus could not, with the introduction of a new mathematical tool, the equant. The Almagest gave a comprehensive treatment of astronomy, incorporating theorems, models, and observations from many previous mathematicians. This fact may explain its survival, in contrast to more specialized works that were neglected and lost. Ptolemy placed the planets in the order that would remain standard until it was displaced by the heliocentric system and the Tychonic system:

1. Moon
2. Mercury
3. Venus
4. Sun
5. Mars
6. Jupiter
7. Saturn
8. Fixed stars

Source.

Do you see any mention of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in that list? I don't. I do see mentions of the Sun and Moon.

I dont see a rebuttal there but I cant take credit for making it up, its Sitchin's theory.

A notion is not a theory.

Name the scientists and scholars in this thread. I've already been told we should ignore any scientific evidence supporting Genesis because its just a coincidence. And I'm the one being accused of ignoring evidence in conflict with a pre-determined conclusion?

I don't have a list of everyone's academic credentials handy, but you've blithely dismissed the input of a current astronomy student. I don't have a degree in astronomy, but I've studied it both formally and independently for nearly 50 years.

Berzerker, I used to be gung-ho for this ancient alien nonsense, too. I was in my early teens and trying to understand the universe. I'm really glad my high school anthropology teacher showed us the film "Chariots of the Gods"... and then explained why it's nonsense.

A good dose of Cosmos and serious reading with real astronomy resources cured me of this ancient aliens stuff.

You want to convince me? Invent a time machine. I'll go back and see for myself, and if your version is correct, I'll let you know.

I'm claiming this world may have formed at the asteroid belt, it may be true. Those who deny this possibility are claiming to know the truth.

Actually, you've been extremely insistent, no "may have" about it. Those who deny this are asking you for evidence. You haven't provided any.

 

[Arakhor]

Thats 11 plus the Earth in the center. But hey, keep eliminating them because they dont count and you'll eventually get to 7... And I said 12-13, so are you deliberately ignoring what I said? Its an appropriate "stick" because it makes my point - the cosmos was layered and contained more than 7 levels.

You're still harping on as if I care how many levels the cosmos is divided into. Just reviewing my original post with that image in it will show that the artist disagreed with Dante's Paradiso in more than one way. What it does show is that the Ptolemaic system consisted of the Earth, seven 'planets' (those lights in the heavens which seem to move relative to us) and the Fixed Stars. Pretty much everyone who studied any classical astronomy knows this.

What the Babylonians believed is a different issue, but it almost certainly wasn't about an exclusively 20th Century view of the Solar System.