In the Beginning...

[timtofly]

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

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

That is the way the Enuma Elish was written. The Babylonians were not that up to date on the fact an exploding star produces planets. They were into astrology and mapping out orbits, not really big on the mechanics of formation.

I am not mixing up anything. The Babylonians either added levels, and/or they kept recycling the same names, and it would be hard to figure out what they actually meant. Some of them were just associated with a capital city, but their creation story came after the fact of all this happening, not before.

The horizon is where the sky and earth meet. It is also where the stars/planets seem to come out of nowhere, would be my guess at what they were thinking.

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

Because the 3 hours spent online did not yield up any one point that attributed the Chinese zodiac to anything in particular, and we know the Babylonians took the time to map the orbits of the planets. It seems more like a "they claim one thing and the other group claimed the same thing". Unless one can prove that the Babylonians had no influence over the Chinese at all, then it would seem that the Chinese adapted their beliefs from the Mesopotamians and the later Babylonians. I don't know, so I just left it as the Chinese may have done their own observations, but added that they may not have.

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 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 don't have to pick. I am not the one into numerology. The Hebrews kept their mysticism and their history separate. The Hebrews were a tribal people, and when they called role, they found twelve leaders of twelve tribes who decided to represent their perspective tribes. It gets coincidental when there were actually 13 tribes.

Jesus actually went around and found 12 men to be his disciples. One of them committed suicide and then there were 11, but then again 12. Because Paul claimed to be the 13th, and not the democratic process of the previous 12, there were still 13 alive. One of those 13 was never taught by Jesus, but the disciples decided to go ahead and voted in a 12th member.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

Minor quibble, it's those lights of heaven which appear to move relative to the stars, not us.

 

[timtofly]

Minor quibble, it's those lights of heaven which appear to move relative to the stars, not us.

The sun? Probably not a planet either.

Technically, if they thought the earth was a planet, how big do you think they thought the sun was? Did it never dawn on them that the sun traveled so fast in the sky, or that perhaps something else was causing it to change positions so fast, ie spinning earth? They put the moon, Mercury, and Venus, as being closer to the earth than the sun, if the rings actually represented the center, and the objects were on paths circling the earth. After the sun there was Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

The introduction to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos:

Of the means of prediction through astronomy, O Syrus, two are the most important and valid. One, which is first both in order and in effectiveness, is that whereby we apprehend the aspects of the movements of sun, moon, and stars in relation to each other and to the earth, as they occur from time to time; the second is that in which by means of the natural character of these aspects themselves we investigate the changes which they bring about in that which they surround. The first of these, which has its own science, desirable in itself even though it does not attain the result given by its combination with the second, has been expounded to you as best we could in its own treatise by the method of demonstration.

Later:

A very few considerations would make it apparent to all that a certain power emanating from the eternal ethereal substance is dispersed through and permeates the whole region about the earth, which throughout is subject to change, since, of the primary sublunar elements, fire and air are encompassed and changed by the motions in the ether, and in turn encompass and change all else, earth and water and the plants and animals therein.

 

[tetley]

The 12 tribes of Israel has nothing to do with any physical phenomenon. It started with Israel, who was a person. He had 12 sons. Those sons went on to have 12 tribes, those tribes came to be "the 12 tribes of Israel".

Hebrew numerology is a spin-off from old-school Judaism which originated primarily during the Babylonian exile, and was a result of mixing their beliefs with the pagan beliefs of Babylon. Torah expressly forbids this.

 

[Leoreth]

Technically, if they thought the earth was a planet, how big do you think they thought the sun was? Did it never dawn on them that the sun traveled so fast in the sky, or that perhaps something else was causing it to change positions so fast, ie spinning earth? They put the moon, Mercury, and Venus, as being closer to the earth than the sun, if the rings actually represented the center, and the objects were on paths circling the earth. After the sun there was Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

1) they did not think the Earth was a planet, because a planet is something that moves across the sky. The Earth is what you stand on.

2) what would make them assume that the sun is big? For instance, bigger than the moon?

 

[Berzerker]

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

Is it dry land? If not, then the dry land is without form. Gen 1:2 says the world was dark and covered by water. Then that world encounters God's "wind" and acquires day and night.

The world moved closer to the sun leaving behind the firmament called Heaven and the rest of our water, the water above the firmament (snow line).

Then on the 3rd day the dry land called Earth appears from under the water that was below the Heaven (the water brought with the planet from the asteroid belt). Why would you call the bottom of an ocean dry land? You wouldn't, the seafloor was not in the form of dry land.

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?

I need extraordinary evidence the Bible identifies an extra-terrestrial origin for God? This thread is about ancient knowledge you say man did not have, but when confronted with evidence man had that knowledge you dismiss it and ask for more evidence while claiming I haven't posted any. The 'artifact' we have is knowledge about creation and the solar system, our cosmologies...

Supposedly a few people did have vision good enough to see it, but why wasn't it generally known to the ancients, then?

Good question

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.

You've seen a few long term comets and envision a vast cloud of a trillion comets encircling the solar system. Maybe they exist, but we dont need them to explain long term comets. I dont see how that many comets could form that far from the sun, and if they did we'd see more than a relative few.

Yeah, you are.

Where is this evidence I'm ignoring?

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.

Like I said, you're ignoring the evidence ancient peoples knew about more planets because you've pre-determined their ignorance.

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?

I dont know that they didn't inform us, the amount of literature is vast and much of it was written in a style designed for repetition before live audiences during re-enactments of creation during religious ceremonies. Those settings, much less maintaining an oral tradition, limit how much information to transmit.

If you're describing the creation of land and life would you really concern yourself with 1 or 2 hundred moons? Well, yes... Maybe you would. The Enuma Elish not only describes the creation of our world, it describes an army being scattered by the creator during the celestial battle that created our world. While the Galilean moons may have been originals, most of the moons out there were captured.

LOL.

You make my point

You haven't provided any evidence.

Well thats great, I haven't provided any evidence but I'm cherry picking the evidence. It would be nice if y'all could argue over that and leave me out of it.

Google is your friend.

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.

Nobody's debating whether or not Ptolemy mentioned the sun and moon. Ptolemy described the visible, that doesn't preclude planets that were unseen. Does the image from your link show the Ptolemaic "universe"? Looks like 11 circles around the Earth, did the artist add 3 of his own?

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.

How did I blithely dismiss him? I explained the theory argues the proto-Earth suffered multiple collisions. Lori didn't respond to that, instead he said the Earth could not have moved here from a single impact. I corrected his mistake and we never saw him again.

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.

You're still confusing von Daniken with Sitchin

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.

Thats not true either, I dont always add the caveat "may have" but I do so more often than you or anybody else except for maybe Tim. I can actually quote myself saying the Earth may have formed at the asteroid belt, can you quote yourself saying it might not have formed here?

Those who deny this dont say I might be wrong, they insist upon it... Why they'll even dismiss evidence as coincidental when it conflicts with their pre-determined conclusion. Like you and your telescopes, you insist nobody had a telescope until recently. I didn't insist one way or the other. A telescope wouldn't have told our ancestors about creation, so whomever did tell them about events 4 bya might have also told them about the outer planets.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

I'm surprised Ptolemy called the sun and moon planets. Where did he say that? I'd like to see what I deliberately ignored... As for the image you linked, it shows levels beyond the sun, moon and 5 planets and stars. But now you dont care...

 

[Agent327]

I'm surprised Ptolemy called the sun and moon planets. Where did he say that? I'd like to see what I deliberately ignored...

From what you just quoted:

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.

The Ptolemaic view of the universe was a rather widely held belief (since antiquity) which wasn't seriously challenged until Copernicus. It's not just common knowledge to anyone who studied classical astronomy, but part of general history.

Is it dry land? If not, then the dry land is without form.

Neither wet nor dry has any effect on form. Your statement is nonsensical.

The world moved closer to the sun leaving behind the firmament called Heaven and the rest of our water, the water above the firmament (snow line).

No, it didn't. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this nonsense, which can't even be found in Genesis.

I need extraordinary evidence the Bible identifies an extra-terrestrial origin for God? This thread is about ancient knowledge you say man did not have, but when confronted with evidence

No offense, but your opinion is not evidence.

The 'artifact' we have is knowledge about creation and the solar system, our cosmologies...

Artifacts aren't knowledge. Whether they contain knowledge is another matter.

You've seen a few long term comets and envision a vast cloud of a trillion comets encircling the solar system. Maybe they exist, but we dont need them to explain long term comets. I dont see how that many comets could form that far from the sun, and if they did we'd see more than a relative few.

Actually, most objects that might hit or near miss Earth aren't observed until they have passed already.

Where is this evidence I'm ignoring?

You're pretty much ignoring all evidence, except that which suits your views. Which is when we speak of cherry picking.

Like I said, you're ignoring the evidence ancient peoples knew about more planets because you've pre-determined their ignorance.

We have no such knowledge. I'm not quite sure why you think you have uncovered some.

I dont know that they didn't inform us, the amount of literature is vast and much of it was written in a style designed for repetition before live audiences during re-enactments of creation during religious ceremonies. Those settings, much less maintaining an oral tradition, limit how much information to transmit.

Not really. For example, if you go to school, you might notice there is a lot of repetition going on. This, however, doesn't really limit the amount of information passed on.

Well thats great, I haven't provided any evidence but I'm cherry picking the evidence. It would be nice if y'all could argue over that and leave me out of it.

There would be no need to argue anything if you simply stopped posting.

Nobody's debating whether or not Ptolemy mentioned the sun and moon. Ptolemy described the visible, that doesn't preclude planets that were unseen.

Seeing as they were unseen, it pretty much does.

How did I blithely dismiss him? I explained the theory argues the proto-Earth suffered multiple collisions. Lori didn't respond to that, instead he said the Earth could not have moved here from a single impact. I corrected his mistake and we never saw him again.

You didn't 'correct' anything, nor was that post about a single collision. It was about the near impossibility of an object starting out at the ice line, and then braking to end up where Earth is at now. Planets do not have brakes.

You're still confusing von Daniken with Sitchin

They're pretty much on the same level of scientific probability, so that's neither here nor there.

I can actually quote myself saying the Earth may have formed at the asteroid belt, can you quote yourself saying it might not have formed here?

It's really quite irrelevant since the Earth may not have formed at the asteroid belt.

Those who deny this dont say I might be wrong, they insist upon it... Why they'll even dismiss evidence as coincidental when it conflicts with their pre-determined conclusion. Like you and your telescopes, you insist nobody had a telescope until recently. I didn't insist one way or the other. A telescope wouldn't have told our ancestors about creation, so whomever did tell them about events 4 bya might have also told them about the outer planets.

This is so confused, it's hard to determine where to start... A simple google search might have informed you when the telescope was invented. I'm not quite sure how that relates to 'someone' telling us about events 4 billion (I assume) years ago, seeing as there's no evidence of such a 'someone'.

The horizon is where the sky and earth meet. It is also where the stars/planets seem to come out of nowhere, would be my guess at what they were thinking.

They weren't. It's pretty easy to observe that both the sun and the moon have a cycle, of sorts.

Because the 3 hours spent online did not yield up any one point that attributed the Chinese zodiac to anything in particular, and we know the Babylonians took the time to map the orbits of the planets. It seems more like a "they claim one thing and the other group claimed the same thing". Unless one can prove that the Babylonians had no influence over the Chinese at all, then it would seem that the Chinese adapted their beliefs from the Mesopotamians and the later Babylonians.

Actually, you'd need to prove that the Chinese were influenced by Babylonian views (and not their own observations, of which we have records) to assume that. Hence my question mark at this statement of yours.

I don't have to pick. I am not the one into numerology. The Hebrews kept their mysticism and their history separate. The Hebrews were a tribal people, and when they called role, they found twelve leaders of twelve tribes who decided to represent their perspective tribes. It gets coincidental when there were actually 13 tribes.

So, you are saying the ancient Hebrews din't know how to count? The number of '12' tribes doesn't actually conform with the number of tribes, as you yourself mention. But since it features in the Tanakh, it's copied in the NT.

Jesus actually went around and found 12 men to be his disciples.

Did he now. And you know this how?

Because Paul claimed to be the 13th, and not the democratic process of the previous 12, there were still 13 alive. One of those 13 was never taught by Jesus, but the disciples decided to go ahead and voted in a 12th member.

I'm not sure why you think the number of '12' disciples was based on a 'democratic voting process'. Also, it wasn't Paul who claimed to be the '13th' apostle, it was the church (somewhat incongruously, as Paul was never a disciple of Jesus).

 

[timtofly]

I'm surprised Ptolemy called the sun and moon planets. Where did he say that? I'd like to see what I deliberately ignored... As for the image you linked, it shows levels beyond the sun, moon and 5 planets and stars. But now you dont care...

Technically there was the earth and stars. The planets were "wondering" stars. The sun and moon were considered luminaries. They thought that the earth being the center of the universe was the source of all the elements including the fire that produced the "light" of the stars. They only had the Babylonians word that the earth came first out of chaos, and all the fixed stars were the result of the earth's formation. The first model was that the earth was a cylinder, and the stars/planets were also cylinders. One of the first models pictured the earth as the center of huge hoops, the sun was a fixed cylinder that was like a lamp, and the cylinder was opened at times to allow the lamp to shine as the hoops turned.

You have to remember that they looked up at the sky. Technically as we orbit and spin we look outwards to the sky, unless you are standing at the poles themselves. They thought the sun was actually carried by the northern artic ocean at night, instead of making a complete circle around the earth. Even before Ptolemy, there were some who argued that the earth was a sphere, and actually rotated. He argued that being at the center of the universe, if it started to rotate (they thought it was fixed) that because it seemingly had the fastest motion, that anything not fixed on earth would be left behind as the earth was spinning. (I think that we today think that if it stopped spinning, everything would start to fall apart, and drift out to space) Not only that, but Ptolemy thought it would fall out of the universe itself. (gravity had yet to be understood). Ptolemy figured out that the earth was a sphere, based on the fact that the sun came up at different times for the people in the east as opposed to those in the west. It seems though that the flat effect and the fixed dome ideology kept his math skills from accepting the truth. I think that he thought the center was still on the surface and not at the center of the earthly sphere. His argument was the earth/land was the center of the world. The world was the center of the universe. Mathematically he had to put the center of the sphere as his focal point, but he could not get over the fact that the earth was actually spinning, and had been all his life. His argument won out, but he laid down the math to eventually prove himself wrong. If he would have imagined the sun to actually do a complete circle around the earth, and that the earth was actually spinning, he may have figured out the earth did not have to rapidly spin, and the sun was not moving fast around the earth.

They already knew the time it took the known planets to do a full orbit. If you add them together they equal a human lifespan. They in theory realized that the sun and moon provided what the ancients thought came originally from the earth. Later they realized that the moon was not a light, and only the sun provided the exact temperature for life to survive. They moved from a deterministic universe to show that humans could decide for themselves how to live their lives.

On one hand Ptolemy set forth the best astrology for determinism, via established prognostication, and on the other, figured out some of the math to eventually leave behind his treatise on astrology.

@ Agent327

I was just seeing how well you would deny anything I said. Since you brought forth no evidence, we can assume that you at least gave it some effort and thought.

Seeing as how the zodiac seemed to be put into practice in Mesopotamia before the Chinese put it into practice, we would have to assume that either they figured it out separately, or the ancients who used it first influenced any people group afterwards.

They both seem to claim that they had it from antiquity, but whose word are you going to believe?

 

[Berzerker]

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

Where? I want to see this proof.

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.

So I deliberately ignored a claim Ptolemy didn't make?

Sure. Except only Mercury is described as 'the wanderer'. So no need for your generalizations.

Do you have a link? I thought the term derived from the motion of the outer planets.

Why?

Because there are 5 visible planets, but we dont see that number playing a prominent role in cosmology. If it appears at all its part of a more complex system based on larger numbers.

For example, the Incan 'Genesis' and the Nazca monkey show two groups of "planets" of 5 and 4. But the 5 are the outer planets, some of which were not visible. So I couldn't use that as proof the reason for that number in their cosmology are the 5 visible planets.

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

How about historic times? Uranus is called Anu in the Enuma Elish but the text said he had a son named Nudimmud/Ea. That deity is Poseidon or Neptune.

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

Where? I've been pretty good about responding to people so I'd like to know if I missed such an important rebuttal.

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.

Who said the Bible is a scientific treatise? I sure didn't... Those are kind of important facts. A world full of creation myths (including Genesis) describing an ocean covering the "dry land" before life starts and the science supports the myth.

Like I said, we got people claiming the science doesn't support Genesis and people claiming its just a coincidence when the science supports Genesis. Hopefully this thread has converted some of the former to the latter.

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.

And Eve's curse was multiplied pain during child birth... What does the science say? The increased pain associated with child birth is a 'modern' phenomena, Eve's hominid ancestors didn't suffer as much and the first profession likely wasn't prostitution but midwifery.

No, I didn't.

Yes you did, in post #1357 you said people didn't use larger numbers to represent their cosmological beliefs.

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

So you're cherry picking when you present evidence that supports your position? I posted the definition already, 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.

The accusation of cherry picking is about deceit, not about supporting one's position. For you to accuse someone of cherry picking you need to prove that significant data exists and it was ignored. You've done neither, you apparently dont even know what cherry picking means. By your definition everyone cherry picks, including you.

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

I dont need a moderator to inform me when I've been insulted... and calling people deceitful, dishonest and conspiracy theorists are insults.
And then some of the people who spend so much of their time being rude complain about the length of the thread and how it lacks substance? Go look in the mirror, boy!

This is an example of cherry picking: you're focusing on numbers appearing in different ancient cultures and presenting this as 'evidence'.

That isn't cherry picking, its comparative mythology and religion and was already done for us by scholars and researchers who gathered data and noted patterns. My argument is the pattern was the result of a common or shared cosmology of a 'divine' origin and you think the pattern is cherry picking.

Now, I have not been ignoring the significant data that contradicts my position... I haven't seen it. Nobody has posted evidence showing the world could not have formed at the snow line, or that the unscientific descriptions of the world before dry land and life appeared are inaccurate. The world is full of cosmologies based on a layered heaven with 9 to 13 levels, even the systems using 5 or 7 believe in more layers.

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.

Evidence has been presented that the number 7 derives from the sun, moon and 5 visible planets. Of course if Uranus was known that would make it 6 planets for a total of 8 objects.
Does that argument basically prove nothing in particular?

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

You've made all sorts of claims, from Jupiter isn't as big as the gas giants to nobody used larger numbers in their cosmologies. But you just dont back much of anything up. You cant even support your accusation of cherry picking because that requires the significant evidence I've ignored.

... which is a conclusion that doesn't follow.

Why not? Senethro agreed with him... You're the only one who aint following. The argument for some has moved from "the science doesn't support Genesis" to its just a coincidence.

First, hardly anything in Genesis is 'supported by scientific evidence'. It gets most cosmic creation events wrong or simply in the wrong order.

Like what?

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.)

Are you cherry picking now? Genesis doesn't say the sun was created, it was made to rule over Earth's sky. And the Earth is the dry land exposed when the water gathered into seas on the 3rd day. If the world was covered by water and darkness before dry land and life appeared then the science supports the mythology.

Arguing over whether or not thats a coincidence is a waste of time. If every rebuttal begins with "Its just a coincidence" then we really have nothing to discuss. And given the increasing length of our posts I'll try to limit my responses to the science and myth.

Back to cherry picking:

Wrong again, Agent...

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

I was quoting Senethro, I assumed you were reading the debate you jumped into. How is that cherry picking?

And some misreading:

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

I read you just fine... Only one person said anything about a scientific conspiracy and thats you. Someone with such a logical mind shouldn't need to build straw men from which to launch insults.

 

[Berzerker]

From what you just quoted:

The Ptolemaic view of the universe was a rather widely held belief (since antiquity) which wasn't seriously challenged until Copernicus. It's not just common knowledge to anyone who studied classical astronomy, but part of general history.

Did Ptolemy say the sun and moon were planets or did he identify the sun, moon and 5 planets?

Neither wet nor dry has any effect on form. Your statement is nonsensical.

Is the seafloor in the form of dry land?

No, it didn't. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this nonsense, which can't even be found in Genesis.

The world went from darkness to day and night with the sun and moon dominating the sky. That means the world of Gen 1:2 was further from the sun and then moved closer.

No offense, but your opinion is not evidence.

It is not my opinion ancient man believed in more than 5 or 7 worlds, he said so himself.

Artifacts aren't knowledge. Whether they contain knowledge is another matter.

Artifacts include depictions of creation and the cosmos

You're pretty much ignoring all evidence, except that which suits your views. Which is when we speak of cherry picking.

So where is the evidence I ignored?

Not really. For example, if you go to school, you might notice there is a lot of repetition going on. This, however, doesn't really limit the amount of information passed on.

If you spend time repeating information you have less time for learning more. Seems logical to me...

There would be no need to argue anything if you simply stopped posting.

You dont need me to argue, you've claimed I dont post any evidence while accusing me of cherry picking the evidence. You're arguing with yourself.

Seeing as they were unseen, it pretty much does.

Why?

You didn't 'correct' anything, nor was that post about a single collision. It was about the near impossibility of an object starting out at the ice line, and then braking to end up where Earth is at now. Planets do not have brakes.

I had just explained to him multiple impacts were involved and he ignored that and based his response on a single impact so I corrected him. I was there, I know what happened.

They're pretty much on the same level of scientific probability, so that's neither here nor there.

You've read their books?

It's really quite irrelevant since the Earth may not have formed at the asteroid belt.

Why does that make it really quite irrelevant?

This is so confused, it's hard to determine where to start... A simple google search might have informed you when the telescope was invented. I'm not quite sure how that relates to 'someone' telling us about events 4 billion (I assume) years ago, seeing as there's no evidence of such a 'someone'.

I didn't mention when the telescope was invented, I was accused of insisting my opinions were facts by somebody you says its a fact nobody had a telescope further back in time. As for the evidence, ancient man gave us pictures and stories about their cosmos and the science supports their beliefs. Somebody way back in time knew and told our ancestors.

 

[Leoreth]

Did Ptolemy say the sun and moon were planets or did he identify the sun, moon and 5 planets?

What's your definition of planet?

 

[tetley]

MHO: the whole 12 disciples, 12 tribes thing is a rabbit trail. It has nothing to do with the Beginning of the universe. The number 7, however, is fair game.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why would 'seven' be fair game? Though I agree on the 12 tribes. There's no reason to link the numbers and the beginning of the earth.

 

[timtofly]

MHO: the whole 12 disciples, 12 tribes thing is a rabbit trail. It has nothing to do with the Beginning of the universe. The number 7, however, is fair game.

I wanted to see how pertinent it was to how important numerology was in reference to using higher numbers.

I have tried to point out how the argument as portrayed would make more sense, but people like quibbling over derailments. It happens in a lot of threads I read.

IMO, the biggest hurdle is the point that evolutionist look at things in ages defined by catastrophic events, and information does not pass from the event except for leaps in species genetic abilities. The ancients and the ancients' ancients are either all modern humans and lived through catastrophic events, and know everything about all the planets. Or it is a coincidence that they have information that we only figured out much later, or some being with great communication skills told them who did witness the event.

The only other answer would be some of Sitchin's argument comes from after the 1800's, and any speculation going on at that time. If Ptolemy knew about Uranus and Neptune, they should be mentioned in his writings, and they seem to be conveniently missing. If the Babylonians had made such claims, they were no longer "scientifically" observable (and left out, because they no longer could be used in astrology). At least not until they were rediscovered and added "back" in.

If the Babylonians did see these planets, then the earth would at one time been closer to them, and Mars would not have been. Mars does seem to be the last planet extensive observations were ongoing and recorded, when the Greeks entered the scene. Pointing out which god represented which planet, seems pointless, as they kept reusing the same names over and over again. If it could be proven which group of Mesopotamians and at what date they actually observed and named Uranus and Neptune, then it may be a more sensible claim about the fact that the earth did originate elsewhere besides it's current location. I keep pointing out that the Babylonians claim Jupiter was chief God, and probably first planet observed, as that seems to be their basis for the number 12. If perhaps this happened even before the earth had a moon, then the two luminaries would be Jupiter and the Sun. We cannot comprehend this, because since the moon, the moon was the second one. Genesis does not name the sun or moon. That could be because at that time, the moon did not exist. Why would Jupiter be even more important than the sun and moon? Because the sun and Jupiter were the brightest luminaries, and even then, Jupiter could still have had a 12 year orbital pattern. Modern astrology technically goes back to after the point when the moon became the earth's satellite. IMO that was the Flood that was experienced worldwide, or it's after effects produced memorable flood accounts that were handed down. If the Mesopotamians actually observed the earth moving through the solar system, then they would have objected to it being the center of the universe, because the whole point about being the center is that the earth was a "fixed" point.

Ptolemy only refers to Egyptian and Chaldean astrology records.

 

[Berzerker]

What's your definition of planet?

Thats a tough question, generally its a body large enough to be round, differentiated, orbiting the sun and not another planet, and had or has a gravitationally bound atmosphere. But I try to use the context provided by others. If Ptolemy classified the sun and moon as planets I'd use his definition in a discussion about his cosmology.

MHO: the whole 12 disciples, 12 tribes thing is a rabbit trail. It has nothing to do with the Beginning of the universe. The number 7, however, is fair game.

Genesis links 7 to 6, creation took 6 days and God rested on the 7th day. If 7 refers to the sun, moon and 5 planets then why was creation finished on the 6th day? The reason is planets, but not the ones we can see.

The asteroid belt is where the 6th planet was as one approaches the sun from beyond the solar system. The Earth is now the 7th planet. Of course with the demotion of Pluto from planethood the Earth would be the 6th planet. But the authors of these cosmologies weren't defining planets based on our criterion.

As for 12, it is the basis of Mesopotamian cosmology and their pantheons - traditions lasting millennia thru many cultures. It is the number most often used to represent "the universe". Both the Enuma Elish and cylinder seal VA 243 compliment each other and both are based on 12 celestial gods.

The 12 tribes and 12 disciples may not be part of that tradition, but the number is so widespread I wouldn't be surprised.

Thus, if one tribe were to withdraw from the union or to be absorbed into another, the number twelve would be preserved, either by splitting one of the remaining tribes into two or by accepting a new tribe into the union. For example, when the tribe of Levi is considered among the twelve tribes, the Joseph tribes are counted as one. However, when Levi is not mentioned, the Joseph tribes are counted separately as Manasseh and Ephraim.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/tribes.html

The tribes were founded by 10 sons and 2 grandsons

This suggests the tribes were meant to number 12 but not because of 12 sons. This is similar to how changing creation stories and pantheons were limited to 12, adding a god required dropping one. When Marduk became the Babylonian creator he replaced an earlier deity who served as creator.

 

[Perfection]

What if the world was created from a carton of 12 cosmic eggs? Wouldn't that be something?

 

[Lexicus]

Were the eggs organic or from a CAFO? Brown or white? It's these kinds of important theological questions that keep the thoughtful ones up at night.

 

[El_Machinae]

Jewishvirtuallibrary is a source of their mythology, not of their history, keep in mind.

 

[timtofly]

Jewishvirtuallibrary is a source of their mythology, not of their history, keep in mind.

Certainly everything since before last Tuesday is mythspoken.