In the Beginning...

[Agent327]

Sorry, a bit of a long post this time:

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.

Unfortunately you show no connection between a week consisting of 7 days (the most likely link for the duration of creation by an omnipotent being and there being 7 'planets' known. This is basically the problem with your 'evidence': you assume connections instead of proving them. (By the way, it's not Genesis linking 7 to 6. That's you doing that. 7 is just the whole number which follows 6.)

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.

Which makes this whole paragraph redundant. (And once again, there was no planet - which thereafter mysteriously diappeared - at the asteroid belt.)

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

The tribes were founded by 10 sons and 2 grandsons

According to mythology.

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.

You seem to forget that while Marduk for Babylon replaced a god as creator god that original god did not disappear. His role was just diminished in the Babylonian pantheon.

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.

'Evolutionists' do not do that at all, actually.

IMO that was the Flood that was experienced worldwide, or it's after effects produced memorable flood accounts that were handed down.

Unfortunately, there was no such thing as a worldwide flood.

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

He didn't identify anything. In the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian world view both were treated as planets though: http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Asia350/ptolemy.html

Is the seafloor in the form of dry land?

How is that relevant to something being without form?

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, it doesn't. You assume that it is, but fail to sustain that with evidence.

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

It's not really relevant whose opinion it is, opinions aren't evidence.

Artifacts include depictions of creation and the cosmos

Yes. So?

So where is the evidence I ignored?

Pretty much all over this thread. But to use a single example: it was shown that a planet starting out at the asteroid belt would not end up here, but in the sun. and yet you still go on about a 'planet being formed at the asteroid belt'.

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

And yet, it isn't. Information also needs to be processed. Try being a teacher for a few months and you'll see.

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.

I often seem to do that. And yet, you keep posting.

Why?

Because unseen and invisible are, to all intents and purposes, the exact same thing. If you think otherwise, you should provide a solid argument to that effect.

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.

And yet, you are still in the wrong. For a planetary object to start out at the asteroid belt and end up where Earth is, not only would you need 'multiple impacts', these impacts would need to be pinpoint precise, as well as being produced by sufficiently large other objects. It's like playing interplanetary billiard. Earth was hit by a sufficiently large object to produce the moon. And yet, Earth's orbit barely changed.

In short, to all intents and purposes, it's impossible.

You've read their books?

I prefer to read non-fiction. Von Däniken is not a scientist, and Sitchin has no clue about basic astronomy. Both have launched 'revolutionary' theories which have no basis in fact.

Why does that make it really quite irrelevant?

Since that means we're not discussing science, but fantasy.

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.

Unfortunately, that, again, is an assumption, not evidence. Neither assumptions nor opinions constitute evidence. They are, in fact, in need of evidence.

Where? I want to see this proof.

You did see it. You just forewent to process it. I posted a succinct summary just above.

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

Who is saying that?

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

I found that by googling 'Mercury planet'.

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.

You're forgetting about the sun and moon, totaling 7.

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 just gave an example of you cherry picking. 'You couldn't use that evidence'. Well, you should. Evidence contradicting what you claim is still evidence.

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

Which is because Uranus has been known since prehistoric times.

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

It really doesn't matter at this point, I should think. It was shown that a planetary body starting out at the asteroid belt moving inward would, in all likelihood, simply end up in the sun.

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.

No. It doesn't. (But we'll get to that in a little bit.)

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.

Seeing as you at least seem to think that science supports the biblical creation myth, I somehow doubt it:

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.

Actually, science doesn't say that. You seem to confuse 'modern' (as used in paleobiological context) with our word 'modern'. Homo sapiens is 'modern', but it has been around for ca. 2 million years. In that sense 'modern' child birth is related to us being human. Lastly, it doesn't take a scientist to observe that giving birth is no picknick. It has to do with humans being bipedal, unlike the other great apes.

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

I did not. I said we should see ancient use of large numbers. But large numbers play no big part in mythology - for obvious reasons.

So you're cherry picking when you present evidence that supports your position?

No. Cherry picking means you ignore all the evidence that doesn't support your position.

The accusation of cherry picking is about deceit, not about supporting one's position.

No, it isn't.

I dont need a moderator to inform me when I've been insulted... and calling people deceitful, dishonest and conspiracy theorists are insults.

Well, you mentioned deceitful, not anyone else. Cherry picking, by the way, is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't mean you are dishonest. Lastly, if I note a connection between your way of arguing and that of a conspiracy theroist, that still doesn't mean you are one. It most certainly doesn't mean I am calling you one. But I do point out a similarity.

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!

To paraphrase you: I'm not complaining. I find this thread rather amusing. Boy.

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.

I'm aware of comparative mythology and you are doing no such thing. Lucky for us we do have scholars doing comparative mythology. But I assure you they don't go around picking numbers from random cultures and drawing broad generalizations from that.

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.

You're contradicting yourself. You claim 'you haven't seen evidence' while also claiming to have responded to evidence that contradicted your claims. Lastly, cosmologies based on layers with 9 to 13 levels' really doesn't tell us anything scientific. It tells us something about ancient mythology and cosmology, yes.

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?

It proves you're arguing badly. The number 7 derives from the collection of whole numbers. Not from ' the sun, moon and 5 visible planets', which also happens to be 7 (in ancient times).

You've made all sorts of claims, from Jupiter isn't as big as the gas giants (...)

No, I haven't. As I pointed out before, but you just don't seem to process such information,

(...)to nobody used larger numbers in their cosmologies.

They didn't. (There's an obvious reason for that: large numbers aren't easy to work with.)

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.

The argument hasn't moved at all. Science not supporting Genesis, and incidents of scientific facts in Genesis are two very different things. So, your conclusion still doesn't follow.

Like what?

Planets weren't created before stars. Another would be the whole idea of a watery universe. The universe isn't watery - it's mostly very, very empty. In fact, it's getting emptier all the time. Man wasn't created from 2 specimens, man and woman: it's biologically impossible. Etc. The whole of Genesis shows a distinct lack of interest in observation. It's certainly not 'divine knowledge'.

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.

Once again, your conclusion doesn't follow: it hinges on the word if. But even if if is correct, it doesn't follow that science supports the mythology, it follows that Genesis has something right. If it is correct, than Genesis supports science. Not the other way around. The important thing, however, is that Genesis generally does not support science. Which makes the exception a coincidence. Now that is logical.

I already pointed out that 'make' and 'create' are basically the same thing. You just ignore such points and continue as you were.

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

Easy: you pick something from someone's post (in this case Senethro), then jump on it. 'Aha! You are wrong here!' Which may be true, but it basically ignores the argument.

I read you just fine... Only one person said anything about a scientific conspiracy and thats you.

No. I didn't.

Someone with such a logical mind shouldn't need to build straw men from which to launch insults.

Have you ever heard of the Romulans?

This is a good one to end with:

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?

Neither. The evidence I posted - and you missed - is that both the Sumerians and Chinese kept astrological records. (Doesn't really have anything to do with the zodiac, which is astrology. I was discussing astronomy.) This suggests no relations in astrology between China and Sumeria. Secondly, (the evidence I didn't post) there is no evidence ancient China and Sumeria had any knowledge about one another. (We do know that Sumeria had connections with Harappa though.)

In short, your assumption that there might be a connection between Sumerian and Chinese astrology lacks all factual support. (I hope that's clear now.)

If you like to claim otherwise, I'm sure people will be glad to hear about your evidence for such an assumption. So far, we have none.

 

[Berzerker]

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

the link says ancient jewish history, a different section is devoted to myth

 

[El_Machinae]

Exactly. You'll notice they fill their history section with their mythology.

 

[timtofly]

Neither. The evidence I posted - and you missed - is that both the Sumerians and Chinese kept astrological records. (Doesn't really have anything to do with the zodiac, which is astrology. I was discussing astronomy.) This suggests no relations in astrology between China and Sumeria. Secondly, (the evidence I didn't post) there is no evidence ancient China and Sumeria had any knowledge about one another. (We do know that Sumeria had connections with Harappa though.)

In short, your assumption that there might be a connection between Sumerian and Chinese astrology lacks all factual support. (I hope that's clear now.)

If you like to claim otherwise, I'm sure people will be glad to hear about your evidence for such an assumption. So far, we have none.

We know the Mesopotamians recorded the movement of the planets in relationship to the fixed stars. As an observation that is astronomy. Putting that information into prognostic practice is asrology, because the movement of the planet's was recorded in relation to the fixed stars known as the zodiac.

Because the orbits seem set in stone, this led to predictive temperament of daily events. Their observations went hand in hand with their astrology. Is your claim the Chinese could never plagiarize the recorded observations of anyone? And definitely no one in contact with the Mesopotamians?

 

[Lexicus]

Putting that information into prognostic practice is asrology, because the movement of the planet's was recorded in relation to the fixed stars known as the zodiac.

Using maths to predict when eclipses will happen isn't astrology.

 

[timtofly]

And when their calculations (involving math) were wrong, it was their death sentence. What do you think they were using to make their prognostic determinations if it wasn't math?

 

[Berzerker]

Exactly. You'll notice they fill their history section with their mythology.

I didn't notice, I'll look for a different link... Maybe the covenant was with 12 original sons and thats why that number had to be maintained.

 

[Agent327]

Maybe. and maybe not. Maybe the number 12 is simply random.

And when their calculations (involving math) were wrong, it was their death sentence. What do you think they were using to make their prognostic determinations if it wasn't math?

You're still talking about astronomy.

We know the Mesopotamians recorded the movement of the planets in relationship to the fixed stars. As an observation that is astronomy. Putting that information into prognostic practice is asrology, because the movement of the planet's was recorded in relation to the fixed stars known as the zodiac.

That's astronomy.

Because the orbits seem set in stone, this led to predictive temperament of daily events.

Which is astrology. It has no predictive value whatsoever.

Their observations went hand in hand with their astrology. Is your claim the Chinese could never plagiarize the recorded observations of anyone? And definitely no one in contact with the Mesopotamians?

And this is nonsense. The one making a claim is you. I merely pointed out we have no evidence for an astronomical (or other) connection between ancient Mesopotamia and ancient China. Nor would they need one, since astronomical observations can be made from pretty much any point on the planet (although some points are arguably better than others).

the link says ancient jewish history, a different section is devoted to myth

Not quite. Their History section starts thus:

The Tribes of Israel are the traditional divisions of the ancient Jewish people. Biblical tradition holds that the twleve tribes of Israel are descended from the sons and grandsons of the Jewish forefather Jacob and are called "Israel" from Jacob's name given to him by God.

This clearly isn't history. They merely repeat the biblical account as if it were a historical record. Unfortunately, the historical Bible books don't start until Judges and Kings, which provide valuable information on early Israel.(Also note the grammatical error, which any editor would have corrected.)

 

[timtofly]

So your only proof is: what the ancients wrote down does not fit your belief system, so they are wrong?

 

[Berzerker]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twelve-Tribes-of-Israel

there were 12 sons but Joseph had no tribe named for him and Levi's tribe was the priestly class and had no land.

thats a little confusing but if Levi is mentioned as a tribe then so is Joseph (even though he had no tribe), and both Levi and Joseph were dropped to make room for Joseph's 2 sons.

 

[tetley]

If you look in the New Testament, Joseph has a tribe. But now we're switching religions.

We're also switching from the beginning of the world to the end of it.

 

[El_Machinae]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twelve-Tribes-of-Israel

there were 12 sons but Joseph had no tribe named for him and Levi's tribe was the priestly class and had no land.

thats a little confusing but if Levi is mentioned as a tribe then so is Joseph (even though he had no tribe), and both Levi and Joseph were dropped to make room for Joseph's 2 sons.

There's no doubt that the 12 tribes were culturally significant. But the oral memory of why it started is lost in time. By the time we get the written account, the Hebrews had already forgotten too much of their history, and entwined the 12 tribes narrative into their myths.

 

[Berzerker]

That is the way the Enuma Elish was written.

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 myth mixes them up - some of the olden gods (pre-creation) were replaced post-creation. Sin and Shamash (father and son) became the moon and sun, but they weren't Kingu and Abzu (moon and sun before creation). These objects in our sky changed radically after creation, they became much brighter as the old world was in darkness.

And other than the 12 day Akitu festival re-enacting the Enuma Elish at New Years, some of these olden gods dont appear to have been worshiped or even mentioned much in other myths. Even one of the gnostic gospels has Jesus explaining the creator is not something to be worshiped, the creator is not a "he" but an "it".

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.

According to the Enuma Elish, we're told the olden gods before creation are:

Abzu, Tiamat and Mummu followed by 3 pairs of gods - Lahamu and Lahmu born in their midst (between Tiamat and Abzu), Kishar and Anshar, and finally An(u) and Nudimmud. Thats 9 olden gods and the text says Marduk was clothed or crowned by the halo of 10 gods.

Tiamat is replaced by Earth and her champion Kingu (our moon) and Gaga is sent by Anshar to proclaim Marduk's supremacy (orbit) so we have a total of 12 "gods". Of these only Anu, Ea/Nudimmud, and Marduk were flesh and blood gods interacting with humanity. Anu was the father of Ea/Enki and Ea was Marduk's father and all 3 retain that familial relationship in the creation myth.

In earlier versions Anu's other son Enlil and his family may have played roles before Marduk became the Babylonian national god. But we know from the myth the other names were likely "original", Abzu, Mummu, Lahamu and Lahmu, Tiamat, Kishar and Anshar dont really appear as gods worshiped among the Annunaki.

Lahamu and Lahmu were female and male warrior twins and would become Inanna/Ishtar and Nergal - Venus and Mars. Sitchin said Kishar and Anshar as foremost of the firm worlds and foremost of the heavens with Ki being firm (eg Earth) and An being the heavens. Anshar gave birth to 2 gods, Anu and Gaga and Anu gave birth to Ea/Nudimmud.

Kishar is Jupiter pre-creation, I dont know who becomes Jupiter after creation. Marduk is typically cited as Jupiter but Kishar is not the creator in the myth. Marduk was Ea's son and the last in line, Kishar/Jupiter isn't last.

 

[timtofly]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twelve-Tribes-of-Israel

there were 12 sons but Joseph had no tribe named for him and Levi's tribe was the priestly class and had no land.

thats a little confusing but if Levi is mentioned as a tribe then so is Joseph (even though he had no tribe), and both Levi and Joseph were dropped to make room for Joseph's 2 sons.

Especially if a person rejects the notion that someone actually wrote down what happened. Those who write everything off as myth, may just as well create their own made up history and not confuse history that has already been written down and accepted within 3 or 4 centuries after the fact. Pretty soon we will relegate even the Revolutionary War to myth, and any one can claim anything and no one will ever believe them. The Tribes of Israel as established as the sons of Jacob, has been said to have been lost during the time spent in Egypt. Then we have those who claim the Hebrews never even went to Egypt, much less, left Egypt with 2 million people who could identify what tribe they belonged to after the 400 years they lived in Egypt. It is like saying that any family crest in modern times had no beginning. They just evolved out of the mythology of the past. Really, folks. Is it that hard to keep a family name alive for 8 to 10 generations?

There is a completely rational and plausible explanation, but what is the use to even post it? Jacob thought Joseph was dead, and Jacob blessed Joseph as a complete tribe. It was not that his sons replaced him. The point is that Jacob passed on the family blessing to Joseph's youngest son, and also to his oldest. Jacob gave the tribal blessing to both of Joseph's sons, but especially to Ephraim the youngest. The oldest son was Manasseh. Because Jacob blessed both sons, there were technically 13 tribes that carried on the blessing.

If you look in the New Testament, Joseph has a tribe. But now we're switching religions.

We're also switching from the beginning of the world to the end of it.

Joseph was a tribe complete even in the Old Testament. As pointed out the blessing was split between two different families beside the blessing given to the tribe as a whole. Even when the Hebrews were making claims on Territory the tribe of Manasseh itself was split into two different groups and localities. There were three groups who did not cross the Jordan but settled on the eastern side. There were still 10 tribes who crossed the Jordan, but the tribe of Levi, was not given land to farm. They settled in cities that belonged to the 9 tribes on one side of the Jordan river, and the 3 on the other side. Joseph grew into 2 tribes, and then into 3 tribes. But during the future kingdom, the 3 tribes of Joseph will only be recognized as one once more.

The OT and NT are not religions. They were not even written by followers of Judaism, nor Christianity. They became canon during the growing years of the two religions, but they were not written during the period that either were understood as the religions that claim them as their "Scriptures". Judaism was formed from the remaining tribe known to have lived in Judea before the Babylonian captivity, but it was not a religion until centuries after Babylon. Samaria was the remnant of the northern kingdom, and ten tribes, and Judea was the remainder after the Babylonian captivity. There was no form of tribal reference left, and no where near 12 recognizable family groups. There was a daily form of Temple sacrifice that started centuries before Judaism, and lasted to AD 70, when the temple was destroyed by the Romans. Judaism remained as a religion that kept the same feast, but the Temple rituals were not considered Judaism. Judaism has similar celebrations, but the two were completely different religious actions. The Temple was more a center of Government, without much form of religion other than the recognition of Holy Days. Judaism is a religion based more on a lack of governmental and economical way of life, and was just a remembrance of the former aspects of the culture. Christianity was supposed to be a silent remembrance of not needing the law, but yet some human decided to declare Christianity as a religion, and form of Government that went on and controlled half the world for centuries.

One point I have that most here would agree with, is the point that some today WRONGFULLY think that there needs to be a cultural war and humans need to be re-subjugated to some form of religious control.

The myth mixes them up - some of the olden gods (pre-creation) were replaced post-creation. Sin and Shamash (father and son) became the moon and sun, but they weren't Kingu and Abzu (moon and sun before creation). These objects in our sky changed radically after creation, they became much brighter as the old world was in darkness.

And other than the 12 day Akitu festival re-enacting the Enuma Elish at New Years, some of these olden gods dont appear to have been worshiped or even mentioned much in other myths. Even one of the gnostic gospels has Jesus explaining the creator is not something to be worshiped, the creator is not a "he" but an "it".



According to the Enuma Elish, we're told the olden gods before creation are:

Abzu, Tiamat and Mummu followed by 3 pairs of gods - Lahamu and Lahmu born in their midst (between Tiamat and Abzu), Kishar and Anshar, and finally An(u) and Nudimmud. Thats 9 olden gods and the text says Marduk was clothed or crowned by the halo of 10 gods.

Tiamat is replaced by Earth and her champion Kingu (our moon) and Gaga is sent by Anshar to proclaim Marduk's supremacy (orbit) so we have a total of 12 "gods". Of these only Anu, Ea/Nudimmud, and Marduk were flesh and blood gods interacting with humanity. Anu was the father of Ea/Enki and Ea was Marduk's father and all 3 retain that familial relationship in the creation myth.

In earlier versions Anu's other son Enlil and his family may have played roles before Marduk became the Babylonian national god. But we know from the myth the other names were likely "original", Abzu, Mummu, Lahamu and Lahmu, Tiamat, Kishar and Anshar dont really appear as gods worshiped among the Annunaki.

Lahamu and Lahmu were female and male warrior twins and would become Inanna/Ishtar and Nergal - Venus and Mars. Sitchin said Kishar and Anshar as foremost of the firm worlds and foremost of the heavens with Ki being firm (eg Earth) and An being the heavens. Anshar gave birth to 2 gods, Anu and Gaga and Anu gave birth to Ea/Nudimmud.

Kishar is Jupiter pre-creation, I dont know who becomes Jupiter after creation. Marduk is typically cited as Jupiter but Kishar is not the creator in the myth. Marduk was Ea's son and the last in line, Kishar/Jupiter isn't last.

I think that it would make more sense if you had the three pre-creation gods, then the pre-flood gods, and then the post flood groups. There could be up to 4 thousand years between the pre-flood gods and the final flesh and blood gods. If Mars and Venus were not charted until last and the only original records, then they could have replaced Jupiter and Saturn who were the pre-flood gods. That seems to also be when it changed from a "sol" "calendar" to a lunar calendar. There was no moon pre-flood. It was not until humans realized that sol was the center, and the calendar went back to sol. Jupiter provided the 12 months, not the sun. If or when the earth was further out, it would not have had a 12 month orbit, unless it was moving way faster than it does now. If it was moving differently and even spinning differently that would throw off any ability to calculate how much time has passed since the earth had it's first continent.

I think that it is cherry picking when one uses the earth to proclaim it's own age, and then rejects the OT as being it's own proof of what happened.

 

[Agent327]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twelve-Tribes-of-Israel

there were 12 sons but Joseph had no tribe named for him and Levi's tribe was the priestly class and had no land.

A tribe is not a class.

Especially if a person rejects the notion that someone actually wrote down what happened. Those who write everything off as myth, may just as well create their own made up history and not confuse history that has already been written down and accepted within 3 or 4 centuries after the fact. Pretty soon we will relegate even the Revolutionary War to myth, and any one can claim anything and no one will ever believe them.

Seriously? It seems you're rambling a bit.

The Tribes of Israel as established as the sons of Jacob, has been said to have been lost during the time spent in Egypt.

What time would that be exactly?

Then we have those who claim the Hebrews never even went to Egypt, much less, left Egypt with 2 million people who could identify what tribe they belonged to after the 400 years they lived in Egypt.

Where do this '2 million people' come from?

There is a completely rational and plausible explanation, but what is the use to even post it? Jacob thought Joseph was dead, and Jacob blessed Joseph as a complete tribe. It was not that his sons replaced him. The point is that Jacob passed on the family blessing to Joseph's youngest son, and also to his oldest. Jacob gave the tribal blessing to both of Joseph's sons, but especially to Ephraim the youngest.

What are these family and tribal blessings you speak of?

Joseph was a tribe complete even in the Old Testament. As pointed out the blessing was split between two different families beside the blessing given to the tribe as a whole. Even when the Hebrews were making claims on Territory the tribe of Manasseh itself was split into two different groups and localities. There were three groups who did not cross the Jordan but settled on the eastern side.

So they weren't coming from Egypt then (which is to the west of the Jordan).

There were still 10 tribes who crossed the Jordan, but the tribe of Levi, was not given land to farm. They settled in cities that belonged to the 9 tribes on one side of the Jordan river, and the 3 on the other side. Joseph grew into 2 tribes, and then into 3 tribes. But during the future kingdom, the 3 tribes of Joseph will only be recognized as one once more.

Well, that's certainly a relief - if anyone is still counting. By the way, the Hebrew tribes didn't 'settle in cities': they had none. That's why they were called tribes. It means they are tribal.

The OT and NT are not religions. They were not even written by followers of Judaism, nor Christianity.

That's quite a revolutionary insight. Unfortunately no scholar in the world agrees with you here.

They became canon during the growing years of the two religions, but they were not written during the period that either were understood as the religions that claim them as their "Scriptures". Judaism was formed from the remaining tribe known to have lived in Judea before the Babylonian captivity, but it was not a religion until centuries after Babylon.

Seriously?

Samaria was the remnant of the northern kingdom, and ten tribes, and Judea was the remainder after the Babylonian captivity. There was no form of tribal reference left, and no where near 12 recognizable family groups.

Interesting. Actually, the Samaritans were Jews adhering to a slightly different form of Judaism. Who happened to live in Samaria. Hence Samaritans. Nothing to do with any kingdom, of which there were only two: Israel and Judah.

There was a daily form of Temple sacrifice that started centuries before Judaism, and lasted to AD 70, when the temple was destroyed by the Romans. Judaism remained as a religion that kept the same feast, but the Temple rituals were not considered Judaism.

Ah.

Judaism has similar celebrations, but the two were completely different religious actions. The Temple was more a center of Government, without much form of religion other than the recognition of Holy Days.

The Temple was never a center of government.

Judaism is a religion based more on a lack of governmental and economical way of life, and was just a remembrance of the former aspects of the culture.

But the temple was a 'center of government'. Makes sense.

None of the following statements can not be termed nonsensical:

Christianity was supposed to be a silent remembrance of not needing the law, but yet some human decided to declare Christianity as a religion, and form of Government that went on and controlled half the world for centuries.

I think that it is cherry picking when one uses the earth to proclaim it's own age, and then rejects the OT as being it's own proof of what happened.

The OT is also not a history book. (And you might want to look up cherry picking.)

So your only proof is: what the ancients wrote down does not fit your belief system, so they are wrong?

Are you addressing someone or something? Because I don't see anyone claiming 'the ancients are wrong'.

 

[Berzerker]

Unfortunately you show no connection between a week consisting of 7 days (the most likely link for the duration of creation by an omnipotent being and there being 7 'planets' known.

I wasn't trying to, that was an argument offered by others to explain the number 7. I suggested a couple possibilities, a lunar calendar preceded the days/planets practice by 3-4 thousand years and 7 is a quarter of the cycle - but that still doesn't explain 6.

And of course their creation story describing Marduk's journey to meet Tiamat in battle. He passed by 5 gods before the battle, the Fremont even gave us a picture. They show the hunter stalking the horned deity 6th in line. Its the same cosmology on opposite sides of the world.

The reason 7 is sacred is because it represents Earth, we acquired a new orbit inside of Mars thereby becoming the 7th planet. Thats why the creator rested on the 7th day.

Yes, the sun, moon and 5 visible planets were relevant. Astronomers and astrologers used them for signs etc and they eventually were used for our week. But that doesn't explain 6 either.

This is basically the problem with your 'evidence': you assume connections instead of proving them.(By the way, it's not Genesis linking 7 to 6. That's you doing that. 7 is just the whole number which follows 6.)

They linked 6 and 7 just to add the next whole number?

You seem to forget that while Marduk for Babylon replaced a god as creator god that original god did not disappear. His role was just diminished in the Babylonian pantheon.

There's only room for 12 in their creation story. If somebody was added then somebody was replaced. Of the 12 only Ea and Marduk appear to be possible changes made by the Babylonians. In earlier times it might have been Anu, Enlil and Ninurta - they were father, son and grandson too.

He didn't identify anything. In the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian world view both were treated as planets though: http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Asia350/ptolemy.html

Does that picture represent the Ptolemaic "universe"? The Earth surrounded by 11 circles with God's home in the last one?

How is that relevant to something being without form?

The seafloor is not in the form of dry land. The dry land is not in the form of dry land when its under an ocean. Its relevant because Genesis is describing our world before the creation of the dry land and life.

Yes. So?

You have a habit of jumping into my debates with others without reading them. I was talking to somebody who wanted artifacts that couldn't have been produced here, ie evidence of ET. The 'artifact' we have is knowledge about creation and the solar system, our cosmologies (appearing on artifacts - that had to be explained?)...

Pretty much all over this thread. But to use a single example: it was shown that a planet starting out at the asteroid belt would not end up here, but in the sun. and yet you still go on about a 'planet being formed at the asteroid belt'.

That wasn't shown, it was a possibility and he was talking about a single impact. I didn't ignore him, I told him the theory involves multiple impacts - twice - before and after his only post. He disappeared and I'm the one who gets accused of ignoring him. Thats funny.

I often seem to do that. And yet, you keep posting.

Not for long, in the future I'll debate the science and myth but not your constant complaints and unsupported accusations. That'll shorten our debate quite a bit.

Because unseen and invisible are, to all intents and purposes, the exact same thing. If you think otherwise, you should provide a solid argument to that effect.

I didn't say unseen was different than invisible.

And yet, you are still in the wrong. For a planetary object to start out at the asteroid belt and end up where Earth is, not only would you need 'multiple impacts', these impacts would need to be pinpoint precise, as well as being produced by sufficiently large other objects. It's like playing interplanetary billiard. Earth was hit by a sufficiently large object to produce the moon. And yet, Earth's orbit barely changed.

That didn't happen here, but according to the lunar cataclysm theory the impactor was traveling in the same direction at a similar speed. Sitchin's theory involves highly elliptical and inclined impactors with retrograde orbits.

Since that means we're not discussing science, but fantasy.

The Earth may or may not have formed at the asteroid belt is fantasy? Didn't you just say it may not have?

You did see it. You just forewent to process it. I posted a succinct summary just above.

Yes I did see and I responded to it. You said I ignored it, thats not true.

Who is saying that?

The person I was debating when you jumped in to explain what they really meant.

I found that by googling 'Mercury planet'.

Where is the link? You expect me to go hunting for your evidence?

You're forgetting about the sun and moon, totaling 7.

Didn't you say people knew about Uranus? That makes 8... My point still stands, we employ the 5 visible planets for a variety of reasons but they dont figure much into our ancient cosmologies given how important they are to more recent peoples.

Why? Because the knowledge of the outer planets was lost in some cultures but the number of the heavens didn't change. So we end up with the visible lights and the outer planets replaced by other realms with God above them all...

You just gave an example of you cherry picking. 'You couldn't use that evidence'. Well, you should. Evidence contradicting what you claim is still evidence.

I should use the 5 outer planets as evidence the Inca based their cosmology on the 5 visible planets?

It really doesn't matter at this point, I should think. It was shown that a planetary body starting out at the asteroid belt moving inward would, in all likelihood, simply end up in the sun.

That wasn't shown... We have plenty of asteroids making the trip between the asteroid belt and the Earth - a debris trail left by a collision.

Actually, science doesn't say that. You seem to confuse 'modern' (as used in paleobiological context) with our word 'modern'. Homo sapiens is 'modern', but it has been around for ca. 2 million years. In that sense 'modern' child birth is related to us being human. Lastly, it doesn't take a scientist to observe that giving birth is no picknick. It has to do with humans being bipedal, unlike the other great apes.

"Modern" means anatomically modern, homo sapien sapiens, not 2 myo hominids. And I already posted a link to research claiming the intense pain women suffer is not from bipedalism but babies with larger skulls and shoulders requiring rotation to exit the birth canal.

I did not. I said we should see ancient use of large numbers. But large numbers play no big part in mythology - for obvious reasons.

Yes you did, and we do see larger numbers. From 9, 12 and/or 13 - those represent the heavens, creation. You got into a different debate I was having with someone else about why cosmologies were based on those larger numbers and not on 5 and 7.

No. Cherry picking means you ignore all the evidence that doesn't support your position.

First, I'm not ignoring evidence. Second, ignoring evidence is only cherry picking when that evidence is significant and contradictory - much of the evidence I'm ignoring supports my argument, there's just too much of it to post. But you haven't posted any evidence much less anything significant and contradictory, you think its cherry picking even if that significant contradictory evidence doesn't exist.

Well, you mentioned deceitful, not anyone else.

Arakhor did... See, you jump into other people's debates without reading them.

Cherry picking, by the way, is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't mean you are dishonest.

Is it intellectually dishonest to accuse someone of cherry picking without the evidence?

To paraphrase you: I'm not complaining. I find this thread rather amusing. Boy.

Complaining is about all you do

I'm aware of comparative mythology and you are doing no such thing. Lucky for us we do have scholars doing comparative mythology. But I assure you they don't go around picking numbers from random cultures and drawing broad generalizations from that.

What broad generalization did I make and was it inaccurate?

You're contradicting yourself. You claim 'you haven't seen evidence' while also claiming to have responded to evidence that contradicted your claims.

I said I haven't seen significant data that contradicts my position. And I didn't say I responded to evidence that contradicts my claims. You sure are sloppy for someone handing out lectures on intellectual dishonesty.

It proves you're arguing badly. The number 7 derives from the collection of whole numbers. Not from ' the sun, moon and 5 visible planets', which also happens to be 7 (in ancient times).

You'll have to explain that to the people who've been arguing 7 refers to the sun, moon and 5 visible planets. That aint me... But what happened to Uranus?

No, I haven't. As I pointed out before, but you just don't seem to process such information

Here ya go:

Jupiter isn't really that big: beyond Jupiter are the gas giants.

You've littered the thread with many gems, but that one has the most carats. And you deny saying that?

The argument hasn't moved at all. Science not supporting Genesis, and incidents of scientific facts in Genesis are two very different things. So, your conclusion still doesn't follow.

It isn't your argument so how would you know? Claiming Genesis is not supported by science is different from claiming its just a coincidence when Genesis is supported by science. Yes, and that difference moves the goal posts.

Planets weren't created before stars. Another would be the whole idea of a watery universe. The universe isn't watery - it's mostly very, very empty. In fact, it's getting emptier all the time. Man wasn't created from 2 specimens, man and woman: it's biologically impossible. Etc. The whole of Genesis shows a distinct lack of interest in observation. It's certainly not 'divine knowledge'.

There were people before Eve, if not Adam too. The 6th day people were told to be fruitful and fill the Earth - thats what they were doing by the time Adam and Eve were getting kicked out of Eden. Now it appears there was one very 'large' migration out of Africa rather than several smaller ones.

I dont know where you got a watery universe from Genesis, it says the Earth wasn't dry land yet and was covered by water. Genesis doesn't mention the creation of any planets or stars, it says the stars were made to serve the Earth as lights, signs, seasons, etc.

Once again, your conclusion doesn't follow: it hinges on the word if. But even if if is correct, it doesn't follow that science supports the mythology, it follows that Genesis has something right. If it is correct, than Genesis supports science. Not the other way around. The important thing, however, is that Genesis generally does not support science. Which makes the exception a coincidence. Now that is logical.

My conclusion doesn't follow but it hinges on "if"? Genesis preceded our science, scientists not all that long ago were telling us the world was a molten lava lamp for over a 1/2 billion years before continents and life appeared. Genesis disagreed... The science didn't support Genesis. Now it does...

I already pointed out that 'make' and 'create' are basically the same thing. You just ignore such points and continue as you were.

They aren't basically the same thing, you just ignore such points and continue as you were.

Easy: you pick something from someone's post (in this case Senethro), then jump on it. 'Aha! You are wrong here!' Which may be true, but it basically ignores the argument.

I didn't jump on his post, he jumped on mine. I was talking with Arakhor and Senethro chimed in, then you chimed in. But you didn't read any of the debate we were having. Maybe you should actually read before responding.

Have you ever heard of the Romulans?

This is a good one to end with:

Really?

A tribe is not a class.

I guess not... To which tribe did the priestly class belong? The tribe of Levi...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I've been trying to post replies, but my browser keeps eating them... So I'll try to condense some of this down (Agent327 has very ably addressed some of my points for me ).

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

I hope you realize that land that's underwater is not formless. Of course I know it's not dry when it's underwater. But it does have form. If you don't believe me, duck your head underneath the surface next time you visit a lake or the ocean, and have a look for yourself.

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).

So now you're saying Heaven is in the asteroid belt? That doesn't sound very appealing.

I need extraordinary evidence the Bible identifies an extra-terrestrial origin for God?

Yes. It doesn't matter who you claim is an alien - God or your own grandmother - you need extraordinary evidence to prove it.

This thread is about ancient knowledge you say man did not have, but when confronted with evidence man had that knowledge you dismiss it...

You haven't confronted me with anything remotely resembling evidence. "Because Sitchin said so" is not evidence, and neither is Genesis. I have explained over and over that the ancient Babylonians could not possibly have known information that could only be learned with the use of a telescope and other modern scientific instruments - because there isn't one shred of evidence that the ancient Babylonians had these instruments or the knowledge to make them.

There's no evidence that they'd have any reason to want to make them, for that matter. In the Renaissance times, the telescope was invented several years before Galileo had the idea to use it to look at the night sky. Prior to that, telescopes were only used to look out to sea or across ground-based distances. Prior to Galileo, nobody thought there was any point to using a telescope to look at the night sky.

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

A story passed down via oral history is not an artifact. It's a mentifact (something thought, but not tangible). Once that story is written down in some way, the object it's written on becomes an artifact.

I could tell you a summary of today's episode of General Hospital, but merely telling you would not be an artifact. If I wrote the summary on a piece of paper (or via some other method of recording), the resulting record would become the artifact of this summary.

Good question

Thanks. Where's your answer? I'm still waiting.

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.

We don't need to see comets every night to know that there are more than just a few in the outer solar system. We do have telescopes and probes that give us information about the Kuiper Belt and farther out. Do you understand just how vast the distances are out there? The comets I saw nearly 20 years ago will not be back in Earth's vicinity (within naked-eye viewing distance) for thousands of years.

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.

I don't dispute that most of Jupiter's moons (and Saturn's as well) are captured asteroids. But they're chunks of rock. They're not members of an army.

The Galilean satellites are rather significant, though. So are the ring systems of the gas giants (they all have ring systems). I wonder why these so-called aliens never mentioned them? Nobody knew about the other planets' moons or Saturn's rings until Galileo started making discoveries in 1610.

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.

Lorizael spends more time on other forums than he does here. He didn't know about this thread until I mentioned it on one of those other forums and asked if he could provide a link to any reputable source that would back up your argument. I didn't ask him to post here; that was his own decision. If he hasn't posted since, I assume he doesn't think it's worth his time. After all, he does have a cosmology thread at that other forum where people don't tend to argue with him that scientists have it all wrong and mythology writers are the ones who have the real story.

You're still confusing von Daniken with Sitchin

I am not even slightly confused about them. Both of them peddle pseudoscientific nonsense. And yes, I've read them and Velikovsky.

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.

Show me an ancient telescope, and I might change my mind. After all, that would be more evidence than you've shown so far. Or provide proof that these "aliens" you keep talking about were real.

Technically there was the earth and stars. The planets were "wondering" stars.

What did they wonder?

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.

Oh? Is there some reason people at the poles are not able to look up at the sky and outwards into the universe? Granted, seeing the night sky there during the period of 24-hour daylight isn't doable, but it certainly is the rest of the year.

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.

Less than 50 years (if you add up Mercury through Saturn).

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.

Since pregnancy is necessary before needing a midwife, I'd say that prostitution came first. Unless you're claiming that prostitutes never get pregnant?

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.

You were present in the asteroid belt?

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.

Nope.

I could draw a picture of an alien with any configuration I could imagine, but it wouldn't be evidence that such an alien existed. The only evidence the scientific community would even begin to accept would be an actual alien artifact created by the aliens and that could not have been created on Earth, by humans.

These pictures and stories are only evidence of pictures and stories. They are not evidence that the pictures and stories are true. Independent verification is required, and you haven't provided any.

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.

Please. Understand this once and for all: These groups of Mesopotamians might have seen Uranus. Apparently people with really super-good eyesight could see it, just as people with really super-good eyesight can see more of the Pleiades stars than most people can. But they could not possibly have seen Neptune without a telescope. It's too dim and too far for humans to see with the naked eye.

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.

Whut? I'm quite sure that the Babylonians didn't need Jupiter to be able to count to 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.

The Moon was created - naturally, not by any gods or aliens - when the proto-Earth collided with another proto-planet. Material from both planets coalesced and became our Moon. This happened billions of years ago, and honestly, there were no humans back then. And since there were no humans at that time, there was no astrology going on.

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.

Earth "moves through the solar system" only in its own orbit. It doesn't decide to go wandering around on a Sunday drive whenever it pleases.

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.

Pluto's demotion has nothing to do with how many spherical bodies are out there. Pluto would still be there no matter what we called it.

So your only proof is: what the ancients wrote down does not fit your belief system, so they are wrong?

What the ancients wrote down is not corroborated by any evidence, so there is no reason to accept that what they wrote is correct.

Pretty soon we will relegate even the Revolutionary War to myth, and any one can claim anything and no one will ever believe them.

I claim no expertise on the Revolutionary War, but there are many, many artifacts from that time, and many examples of contemporaneous records written by people who were there as participants and observers and others who corresponded with them.

That said, there are some myths associated with George Washington, are there not? Something about chopping down a cherry tree?

It is like saying that any family crest in modern times had no beginning. They just evolved out of the mythology of the past. Really, folks. Is it that hard to keep a family name alive for 8 to 10 generations?

Considering that most people can name their parents, grandparents, and maybe their great-grandparents at the best of times (unless they have access to genealogical records that go back further), yes, it can be very difficult. All it takes is a war, or records lost in a fire, or even an immigrant family changing their name when they arrive in their new country. I'm fortunate in knowing my dad's side of the family back to my great-grandparents, and what my grandfather's original name was before he changed it upon arriving in Canada. I wouldn't be able to name my great-great grandparents if my life depended on it. I don't know my great-grandparents' names on my mother's side, and couldn't care less; it's always been my dad's side that mattered to me.

I've got a photo album of pictures from the 1800s, and the only people I recognize are my great-grandparents. I have no clue at all who the other people are and can only assume that they're distant cousins. Sadly I'll never be able to find out, since everyone who might be able to tell me is dead.

So yeah, it's very likely that people lose track of their family names over 8-10 generations.


As for family crests, there are rules of heraldry that have to be followed if you want to be entirely official about it, and you have to prove your lineage so you can claim the right to use it. And yeah, you can make one up and register it, as long as it's not in conflict with anything already registered and doesn't contain any prohibited elements. Who knows - someday I might do that with my SCA device, assuming it's not in conflict with anything already registered. It's strictly a vanity thing, though, and can't be passed along since I have no children.

The OT and NT are not religions. They were not even written by followers of Judaism, nor Christianity.

Well, they weren't written by followers of Pastafarianism or the Jedi. If not the followers of Judaism and Christianity (at least some variety of these), to whom are you crediting them?

...some human decided to declare Christianity as a religion, and form of Government that went on and controlled half the world for centuries.

And some would prefer that this continue. Just yesterday, someone posted on CBC.ca (regarding an article about physician-assisted death) that "God trumps the SCC (Supreme Court of Canada)."

There was no moon pre-flood.

There was a Moon billions of years ago. What there never was, was Noah's flood.

It was not until humans realized that sol was the center, and the calendar went back to sol. Jupiter provided the 12 months, not the sun. If or when the earth was further out, it would not have had a 12 month orbit, unless it was moving way faster than it does now. If it was moving differently and even spinning differently that would throw off any ability to calculate how much time has passed since the earth had it's first continent.

Whatever length of time it takes for a planet to orbit its primary once, is its year. Funny thing about calendars... I've just been doing some reading, and Jupiter isn't mentioned even once. Why are you giving credit to Jupiter, when people kept track of the days and months using the Sun and Moon, and years by observing specific stars and building stone calendars (ie Stonehenge)? What does Jupiter have to do with any of this?

Earth's day was once considerably shorter than 24 hours. In the future, it will be noticeably longer than 24 hours - if anyone is still alive here to notice (I suspect that won't be the case).

I think that it is cherry picking when one uses the earth to proclaim it's own age, and then rejects the OT as being it's own proof of what happened.

Earth can be measured in many different ways to figure out how old it is, and no argument over how many tribes there were regarding Jacob's offspring/grand-offspring is going to make one iota of difference. All the OT has is "this is true because it's true, and it's true because it's true." That's not proof.

 

[Berzerker]

I hope you realize that land that's underwater is not formless.

Its not in the form of dry land, it wouldn't take that form until the 3rd day.

Of course I know it's not dry when it's underwater. But it does have form. If you don't believe me, duck your head underneath the surface next time you visit a lake or the ocean, and have a look for yourself.

Did you see something in the form of dry land down there? I dont know why this is posing a problem, you and I may have worded it differently but Gen 1:2 tells us the dry land wasn't dry yet because water covered the world.

All God did to "create" the dry land he called Earth was gather the water into seas and the Earth was exposed. The scientific explanation is plate tectonics built the landmasses, but what started plate tectonics?

I believe this world had a thicker crust before the late heavy bombardment and lost much of it about 4 bya. Some of it flew into the moon, the side facing us now was the side facing the Earth when it was struck.

And whatever hit us was loaded with heavy elements, maybe remnants from one of those nearby supernovas that triggered the collapse of our nebula. The crust was thinned, we lost water and we've been geologically hot ever since.

So now you're saying Heaven is in the asteroid belt? That doesn't sound very appealing.

I know... But Heaven is the name God gave the firmament - the hammered out bracelet - placed between the waters above (the snow line) from the waters below (our water). However it is also the perihelion of the creator, so every few thousand years a planet (Nibiru) comes through the region. Maybe

Yes. It doesn't matter who you claim is an alien - God or your own grandmother - you need extraordinary evidence to prove it.

I didn't claim God has an extra terrestrial origin, Genesis makes that claim. I dont know why I need extraordinary evidence for that, you can read the text yourself.

You haven't confronted me with anything remotely resembling evidence. "Because Sitchin said so" is not evidence, and neither is Genesis.

Where did I offer "because Sitchin said so" as evidence?

I have explained over and over that the ancient Babylonians could not possibly have known information that could only be learned with the use of a telescope and other modern scientific instruments - because there isn't one shred of evidence that the ancient Babylonians had these instruments or the knowledge to make them.

A telescope would not inform anyone about what the world was like before dry land and life appeared. But they got that right too... So if they knew what the world was like before dry land and life appeared, knowledge we're just now acquiring centuries after the telescope, maybe they knew about the outer planets because the source for their creation epic knew

A story passed down via oral history is not an artifact. It's a mentifact (something thought, but not tangible). Once that story is written down in some way, the object it's written on becomes an artifact.

I could tell you a summary of today's episode of General Hospital, but merely telling you would not be an artifact. If I wrote the summary on a piece of paper (or via some other method of recording), the resulting record would become the artifact of this summary.

The Enuma Elish is an artifact

Thanks. Where's your answer? I'm still waiting.

I dont have one, I'd have to re-read some books to find out what the literature says.

We don't need to see comets every night to know that there are more than just a few in the outer solar system. We do have telescopes and probes that give us information about the Kuiper Belt and farther out. Do you understand just how vast the distances are out there? The comets I saw nearly 20 years ago will not be back in Earth's vicinity (within naked-eye viewing distance) for thousands of years.

You were talking about the Oort Cloud? The Kuiper Belt appears to be debris more or less confined to the plane of the planets (if Pluto counts anyway). Same as the asteroid belt.

I don't dispute that most of Jupiter's moons (and Saturn's as well) are captured asteroids. But they're chunks of rock. They're not members of an army.

Its a metaphor, back then armies hurled chunks of rock at each other.

The Galilean satellites are rather significant, though. So are the ring systems of the gas giants (they all have ring systems). I wonder why these so-called aliens never mentioned them? Nobody knew about the other planets' moons or Saturn's rings until Galileo started making discoveries in 1610.

The Enuma Elish says Gaga (Pluto?) was a moon of Anshar (Saturn). I dont know that Saturn's rings were unknown.

Lorizael spends more time on other forums than he does here. He didn't know about this thread until I mentioned it on one of those other forums and asked if he could provide a link to any reputable source that would back up your argument. I didn't ask him to post here; that was his own decision. If he hasn't posted since, I assume he doesn't think it's worth his time. After all, he does have a cosmology thread at that other forum where people don't tend to argue with him that scientists have it all wrong and mythology writers are the ones who have the real story.

What scientist has said the Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt and what is their proof?

I am not even slightly confused about them. Both of them peddle pseudoscientific nonsense. And yes, I've read them and Velikovsky.

You've been identifying von Daniken as my source all this time and I keep reminding you Sitchin is my source. Yes, you're confused or you just dont care about accuracy. If you read Sitchin why didn't you know about the Enuma Elish? Didn't you say you never read it? I think you did say that because I was surprised such a student of anthropology and astronomy as yourself never read it.

Show me an ancient telescope, and I might change my mind.

There are ancient lenses

Or provide proof that these "aliens" you keep talking about were real.

The proof is in the knowledge they gave to ancient man

Since pregnancy is necessary before needing a midwife, I'd say that prostitution came first. Unless you're claiming that prostitutes never get pregnant?

Are you claiming the first pregnant woman was a prostitute? The article I linked suggested midwifery was the first profession because anatomically modern women were in need of much more help giving birth than earlier hominids.

You were present in the asteroid belt?

I was present when Lori ignored the theory and I was present when he disappeared.

The only evidence the scientific community would even begin to accept would be an actual alien artifact created by the aliens and that could not have been created on Earth, by humans.

These pictures and stories are only evidence of pictures and stories. They are not evidence that the pictures and stories are true. Independent verification is required, and you haven't provided any.

We have verification, we can see the outer planets and we're discovering the world was covered by water before land and life appeared.

The Moon was created - naturally, not by any gods or aliens - when the proto-Earth collided with another proto-planet. Material from both planets coalesced and became our Moon.

A recent article suggests the moon is mostly our mantle

Pluto's demotion has nothing to do with how many spherical bodies are out there. Pluto would still be there no matter what we called it.

Who said otherwise?

 

[Arakhor]

Can you provide a link to these ancient lenses you mention?

The Babylonian duodecimal system was (as I was taught) based on counting the knuckles of the hand. Why you think it had anything to do with Jupiter, I don't know.

 

[timtofly]

Seriously? It seems you're rambling a bit.

A bit?

What time would that be exactly?

If no one is claiming that ancients are not wrong, what are you asking me for?

Where do this '2 million people' come from?

From what the ancients are claiming.

What are these family and tribal blessings you speak of?

Still talking about those ancients that no one is claiming are wrong.

So they weren't coming from Egypt then (which is to the west of the Jordan).

They took a field trip through the desert between Babylon and the Jordan River.

Well, that's certainly a relief - if anyone is still counting. By the way, the Hebrew tribes didn't 'settle in cities': they had none. That's why they were called tribes. It means they are tribal.

Never said the tribes settled in cities. The Levites settled in cities. They only gained control over cities when they were strong enough to do so, and they never had complete control over all cities, even with the strongest kings in either kingdom. Their land was right in the middle of the warring Egyptians, Akkadian, and Babylonians. Most of the time, they were ignored, or just trampled on by the stronger nations that surrounded them.

That's quite a revolutionary insight. Unfortunately no scholar in the world agrees with you here.

At the time the NT was written, Christians were called atheist and at worst a cult. That is hardly considered a religion. Unless atheism is now a religion.

The OT was written before and during the Kingdom years, before the Babylonian captivity. Judaism began after the captivity. So now we are claiming that scholars have re-written history? Religion is a group of people. The OT and NT are a group of writings. I think that Valka D'Ur pointed out one is mentifact, and the other artifact.

That is also ironic that you think Judaism started with Moses, whom most here claim never existed. Your point is based on mythology not history. My point is based on history and not mythology. When God is a known and directly leads the people it is a form of government, not a religion. Religion is a group of people who claim to be guided by an unknown god.

Interesting. Actually, the Samaritans were Jews adhering to a slightly different form of Judaism. Who happened to live in Samaria. Hence Samaritans. Nothing to do with any kingdom, of which there were only two: Israel and Judah.

That is what I actually said. Can you name a kingdom ruled by Jews after the Babylonian captivity?

The Temple was never a center of government.

Then perhaps you can explain what a Sanhedrin is, and why they held court to preside over the temple affairs.

The OT is also not a history book. (And you might want to look up cherry picking.)

So we throw it out with all the other bad cherries?

Are you addressing someone or something? Because I don't see anyone claiming 'the ancients are wrong'.

You sure do go out of the way to pretend otherwise.