In the Beginning...

[Agent327]

A bit?

Understatement.

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

I fail to see how that relates to:

What time would that be exactly?

From what the ancients are claiming.

Actually, no. Hence my question: where do these '2 million' Hebrews come from? (The ancients is not a singular category, by the way. It might be helpful to be a bit more specific.)

What are these family and tribal blessings you speak of?

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

I take it you don't have an answer then.

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

After crossing the Jordan. You seemed to claim they didn't cross it though.

Never said the tribes settled in cities. The Levites settled in cities.

Seems contradictory.

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.

You may call it a religion, if you like.

The OT was written before and during the Kingdom years, before the Babylonian captivity. Judaism began after the captivity.

Judaism 'began after the captivity', but the OT was written 'before the captivity'. I see.

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.

The last statement is correct.

That is also ironic that you think Judaism started with Moses, whom most here claim never existed.

I don't think Judaism started with Moses, actually.

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.

I'll just mention Buddhism here. Also, God leading the people is not what we consider 'government'.

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

Hm. I'll mention the 'kingdom of Samaria' which timtofly brought up. I pointed out no such kingdom ever existed.

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

You've never heard of religious courts? Who don't govern anything?

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

Seeing as I said

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

I'm not quite sure who's throwing out what here.

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

I said:

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

Again, I'm not sure who you think is claiming 'the ancients are wrong'. It's simply a conclusion that doesn't follow from anything.

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.

The number 6 doesn't need explanation.

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 fact that Sumerian identified planets with gods, doesn't imply they are interchangeable.

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.

This makes no sense whatsoever, since the Hebrews didn't know your revolutionary theory about Earth moving randomly through the solar system. And nowhere is it claimed that 'the number 7 is sacred' either.

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.

Nobody is asking for an explanation of '6', and astronomers don't use 'signs'; they use mathematics.

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

I was explaining the link between whole numbers 6 and 7. That is all.

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.

Your reasoning is incorrect. The Babylonians didn't replace any god.

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

I don't know why you think God has a home - or what that even has to do with anything. The picture illustrates the heavenly spheres. I would think that is obvious.

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.

Gas is not in the form of water. Yet gas isn't formless. That dry land is wet underwater doesn't mean it's formless.

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?)...

I don't follow debates, actually. I'm merely pointing out illogicalities in argument. But to the point: artifacts still aren't knowledge. They may contain knowledge, but that is not for you or me to ascertain, is it?

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.

Again with the 'single impact'. The point of his explanation was not that a single impact was needed, but that multiple, mathematically very precisely aimed impacts were needed. In practice it means that an Earth starting out at the asteroid field has a near 100 % possibility to end up in the sun. Which we clearly didn't.

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.

One can only hope.

I didn't say unseen was different than invisible.

This is called changing the goal posts - it's also a blatant lie. (And you may chalk that up as an accusation.)

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.

I think everybody knows now about Sitchin's 'theory'.

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

No. I said 'It may not'. As in: it's fantasy that it did.

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

You may have responded to it, but clearly didn't process it.

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

I think it would help more if you linked to your evidence - assuming you have any, of course. But if I can find something by simply googling you may well assume it as fact. If you don't trust the fact, use your googling skills.

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.

I didn't say, I pointed out. Anyone can google it. And your point doesn't stand with 8, it stands or falls with 7.

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...

Oh, there definitely is lost knowledge. Like in the middle ages about Roman cementmaking. But there isn't any lost knowledge about outer planets, as they hadn't been discovered yet. Which kind of decisively excludes such lost knowledge.

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

I would strongly advise against it. I'm also not quite sure how you come to that conclsuion from 'evidence that contradicts your views is still evidence' (which is what I was saying).

We have plenty of asteroids making the trip between the asteroid belt and the Earth - a debris trail left by a collision.

Asteroids don't travel, they are in orbit. (And the fact that you didn't process the information doesn't imply that it wasn't shown that a body starting out at the asteroid belt would most likely end up in the sun. So yes, it was shown.)

"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.

Modern has several meanings. Secondly, all mammals' babies have big heads. Thirdly, none of this is relevant to science vs Genesis.

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.

13 isn't a 'large number'. It can be counted digitally. Numbers above 100 or 1,000 might be considered large, and for obvious reasons no such numbers feature in astrology. (There are a couple of exceptions, but we'll chalk them up as insignificant.)

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.

If, as you claim, you are not ignoring evidence it would suit you well to stop mentioning Sictchins, Dänikens and the like.

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

It's quite true I don't read debates. But if Arakhor called you deceitful I think he's overestimating you.

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

Highly suggestive. But since no one has done that I'll say Yes.

Complaining is about all you do

Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? If you feel bugged by complaints about illogicalities you are missing the point though.

What broad generalization did I make and was it inaccurate?

Broad generalisations have a tendency to be inaccurate. That's why they are called broad generalisations.

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.

I just gave an example of it, it would seem. Mentioning numbers used by Sumerians, and (oh, suprise!) Incas isn't 'comparative mythology'. Rather it is making a broad generalization wihtout any foundation.

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.

So evidence contradicting your views is insignificant data? (I'm not quite sure how else to read that.) Whether you consider the data insignificant is not really relevant if it contradicts what you claim. Seeing as there has been posted quite a few data contradicting your claims, I wouldn't call such data insignificant. I would rather call it decisive. The mere fact that you consider it insignificant doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.

You'll have to explain that to the people who've been arguing 7 refers to the sun, moon and 5 visible planets.

I think I am addressing that person. I don't see anyone else base arguments around the number 7. (Well, except timtofly, possibly.)

IHere ya go:

I stand corrected.

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.

As logic goes, it really does matter very little 'whose' is the argument. But let's review once more what you are commenting on:

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 could be me, but I don't see any 'moving goalposts'. So your conclusion, as usual, doesn't follow.

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.

This is your response to Genesis not being scientific? Because that was what I was talking about:

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.

By the way, if God made 'the light', then he did create the stars.

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'm not quite sure why. Perhaps you can explain it. (Please keep in mind we just discussed how Genesis isn't scientific at all while doing so.)

Let's review once more what you are responding to though:

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.

It seems you are ignoring the whole argument, instead focusing on the word if. Interesting. And concluding that 'science supports Genesis'. Right after I showed it doesn't. That's really quite amazing.

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

Let's repeat it for you.

If a carpenter makes a table, using existing wood, he creates something that wasn't there. If a painter makes a painting, using existing materials, he creates a work of art that wasn't there. In both cases something is made, in both cases something is created.

It would seem then that 'create' and 'make' are basically the same. If you disagree, kindly explain.

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.

...which is your response to:

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.

Interesting how you, once again, pounce on something, yet manage to completely ignore the argument. (And start off with who jumped who, which wasn't even part of the comment.)

Really?

I take it you haven't heard of the Romulans. The Romulans descend from the Vulcans, who follow logic religiously. The Romulans do so as well, yet they are utterly ruthless and deceitful. The Vulcans, however, are not.

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

And yet they are not a tribe. I'm sure that, at some point, the Levite class was identical to the Levite tribe. (That is, assuming the tradition here is correct.) It's also certain that, over time, that identity faded. But I agree this might be deemed nitpicking.

 

[timtofly]

Actually, no. Hence my question: where do these '2 million' Hebrews come from? (The ancients is not a singular category, by the way. It might be helpful to be a bit more specific.)

Are we talking logic or detail? It is in the text, and applying some math skills.

After crossing the Jordan. You seemed to claim they didn't cross it though.

The majority crossed into Palestine. That means they crossed from the east side into the land on the west side.

You may call it a religion, if you like.

Why would I want to do that? You are the one making claims in regards to what is and what is not a religion. I will pass on your authorization to do so.

Judaism 'began after the captivity', but the OT was written 'before the captivity'. I see.

I am sure you want to point out a better observation:

I'll just mention Buddhism here. Also, God leading the people is not what we consider 'government'.

I cannot figure out what would be a form of government for you.

Hm. I'll mention the 'kingdom of Samaria' which timtofly brought up. I pointed out no such kingdom ever existed.

Should I insert dishonesty here? I never said Samaria was a kingdom. No such kingdom existed. I said Samaritans were the remnant of people left after the Northern kingdom was removed by the invasion of other Nations. The area was named Samaria, and the remnants were called Samaritans especially after the Babylonian captivity.

You've never heard of religious courts? Who don't govern anything?

I have heard of ones who think they do.

Again with the 'single impact'. The point of his explanation was not that a single impact was needed, but that multiple, mathematically very precisely aimed impacts were needed. In practice it means that an Earth starting out at the asteroid field has a near 100 % possibility to end up in the sun. Which we clearly didn't.

Is the claim that practice dictates reality 100% of the time.

Oh, there definitely is lost knowledge. Like in the middle ages about Roman cementmaking. But there isn't any lost knowledge about outer planets, as they hadn't been discovered yet. Which kind of decisively excludes such lost knowledge.

Why use the term lost then?

Asteroids don't travel, they are in orbit. (And the fact that you didn't process the information doesn't imply that it wasn't shown that a body starting out at the asteroid belt would most likely end up in the sun. So yes, it was shown.)

The point is there may be enough material in the "field" of asteroids to allow 2 to 3 earth size planets. What happened in the formation process that instead of forming a planet like all the other planets, that area formed for all intense and purpose a "debris" area. It would seem that after formation there was a collision that just left debris.

Some even theorize that the moon formed after the earth, from another impact.

There is evidence that two impacts happened, some just rule out the point they may be related.

I think I am addressing that person. I don't see anyone else base arguments around the number 7. (Well, except timtofly, possibly.)

I was only commenting on Ptolemy's theory of cosmology. Which he hardly made a distinction between astronomy and astrology which you kept claiming he did.

By the way, if God 'made' the light, then he did create the stars.

Fixed. Some claim God just manipulated what was already there, which means light was already happening, and that leads to contradictions.

Let's repeat it for you.

If a carpenter makes a table, using existing wood, he creates something that wasn't there. If a painter makes a painting, using existing materials, he creates a work of art that wasn't there. In both cases something is made, in both cases something is created.

It would seem then that 'create' and 'make' are basically the same. If you disagree, kindly explain.

The wood was always there. Form changed, but nothing was created. A table is a new and different form, but you keep insinuating that the table was not formed from wood, that already existed, but was formed/created from nothing.

Pointing out what art is, is missing the point. Unless one is now claiming God is an artist. I am not knocking the notion, just prefer scientist myself.

And yet they are not a tribe. I'm sure that, at some point, the Levite class was identical to the Levite tribe. (That is, assuming the tradition here is correct.) It's also certain that, over time, that identity faded. But I agree this might be deemed nitpicking.

Pointing out flaws in logic does come across as nitpicking.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

I dont

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrud_lens
http://www.college-optometrists.org.../ophthalmic_lenses_gallery/ancient-lenses.cfm
http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/optics.htm

 

[Agent327]

Are we talking logic or detail? It is in the text, and applying some math skills.

Actually it isn't. Ancient Hebrews wouldn't know how to count to 1 million, let alone 2. But if you claim it is in the text, simply provide chapter and verse.

(To wit, it's also not 'in the text' that Earth is 6,000 years old. A common misconception among creationists.)

The majority crossed into Palestine. That means they crossed from the east side into the land on the west side.

That would be correct. What happened to the rest of the 2 million immigrants? Or did they simply die en route?

Why would I want to do that? You are the one making claims in regards to what is and what is not a religion. I will pass on your authorization to do so.

Once again, I'm not 'making claims'. I merely pointed out that your 'definition' of religion is hardly the common one. It's just that, if you use an irregular definition of 'religion' and 'government', you should make it clear you are doing so.

I am sure you want to point out a better observation:

I see we have no acutal comment and resort to snippet quoting.

I cannot figure out what would be a form of government for you.

That's really quite irrelevant. I don't use an uncommon definition of 'government'.

Should I insert dishonesty here? I never said Samaria was a kingdom. No such kingdom existed. I said Samaritans were the remnant of people left after the Northern kingdom was removed by the invasion of other Nations. The area was named Samaria, and the remnants were called Samaritans especially after the Babylonian captivity.

You can insert what you like. I'll just point our that "Samaritans were the remnant of people left after the Northern kingdom was removed by the invasion of other Nations" is just as nonsensical as your earlier statement. Look up 'Samaritans'; it has nothing to do with what you are saying.

I have heard of ones who think they do.

That would be equally irrelevant. Courts ruling doesn't imply they govern.

Is the claim that practice dictates reality 100% of the time.

I have no idea what you are saying here. What does "practice dictates reality 100% of the time" even mean?

Why use the term lost then?

Unless that's a rhetorical question you might wish to ask Berserker. I didn't bring this up.

The point is there may be enough material in the "field" of asteroids to allow 2 to 3 earth size planets. What happened in the formation process that instead of forming a planet like all the other planets, that area formed for all intense and purpose a "debris" area. It would seem that after formation there was a collision that just left debris.

That conclusion doesn't follow at all. Which is probably why no astronomer thinks this.

Some even theorize that the moon formed after the earth, from another impact.

Actually, that's pretty much fact, not theory.

There is evidence that two impacts happened, some just rule out the point they may be related.

Actually there were countless impacts on Earth. The moon, which is far smaller, is littered with impact craters. None of which are 'related'.

I was only commenting on Ptolemy's theory of cosmology. Which he hardly made a distinction between astronomy and astrology which you kept claiming he did.

Again, no such claim was made. And the distinction between astrology and astronomy is indeed a modern one. That doesn't mean we can't determine what was astronomy and what was astrology to Ptolemaeus. In fact, that we make this distinction is what allows us to do so.

Fixed. Some claim God just manipulated what was already there, which means light was already happening, and that leads to contradictions.

Genesis is clear about there being darkness. Then God said 'Let there be light'. This can only refer to the stars. You may note, as Berzerker pointed out, that the sun and moon aren't actually named. They are simply referred to as the 'two great lights' that God 'fixed'.

The wood was always there. Form changed, but nothing was created. A table is a new and different form, but you keep insinuating that the table was not formed from wood, that already existed, but was formed/created from nothing.

This seems to be the same error Berzerker is making. Whether something 'was there' is irrelevant to the fact of creating a table, a painting, or Earth. All were created. Man was created: God makes one out of clay. Ergo, he used 'something that was there', We still call it creation, and the result is that God made man. In short, 'create' and 'make' are pretty much interchangeable here.

Pointing out what art is, is missing the point. Unless one is now claiming God is an artist. I am not knocking the notion, just prefer scientist myself.

Yes. Except nobody pointed out 'what art is'. so somebody is definitely missing the point.

Pointing out flaws in logic does come across as nitpicking.

Well, here you would be wrong. If an argument uses flawed logic, the argument is flawed.

 

[Arakhor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrud_lens
http://www.college-optometrists.org.../ophthalmic_lenses_gallery/ancient-lenses.cfm
http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/optics.htm

Well, thank you for those, but they're hardly evidence of Babylonian telescopes, given the poor overall quality of the linked items.

 

[Berzerker]

You asked for lenses... they are evidence a telescope good enough to see objects beyond the naked eye was possible.

This theory doesn't depend on a telescope, if we ignore the overwhelming evidence of more than 5 (or 7) planets in ancient cosmology, we still have their creation myths - a dark, water covered world preceded the dry land and life.

Does the science support such a possibility? Yes, our water formed at the asteroid belt and it might even predate the world itself - our planet formed surrounded by water. That means the planet formed at the asteroid belt, not here.

And it probably had an immense ocean, far deeper than what we have now. I'd expect no less for a planet forming at the solar system's snow line. God exposed the dry land by gathering the water under the firmament into seas. We had more water but "creation" left some of it above the firmament.

Somebody already figured it out and they probably had a telescope too... According to ancient peoples they could even fly to other worlds.

 

[Arakhor]

You asked for lenses... they are evidence a telescope good enough to see objects beyond the naked eye was possible.

The existence of glass itself is evidence that a telescope is possible, but it doesn't make any claims as to whether one exists.

 

[Berzerker]

The links show people were using glass for magnification, of course it doesn't claim telescopes existed... I never said they did. I'm not one of these people insisting nobody had a telescope.

 

[Arakhor]

So in fact the links show nothing whatsoever about telescopes, which makes them interesting but not very relevant to the discussion.

 

[timtofly]

Actually it isn't. Ancient Hebrews wouldn't know how to count to 1 million, let alone 2. But if you claim it is in the text, simply provide chapter and verse.

(To wit, it's also not 'in the text' that Earth is 6,000 years old. A common misconception among creationists.)

That would be correct. What happened to the rest of the 2 million immigrants? Or did they simply die en route?

Once again, I'm not 'making claims'. I merely pointed out that your 'definition' of religion is hardly the common one. It's just that, if you use an irregular definition of 'religion' and 'government', you should make it clear you are doing so.

I see we have no acutal comment and resort to snippet quoting.

That's really quite irrelevant. I don't use an uncommon definition of 'government'.

You can insert what you like. I'll just point our that "Samaritans were the remnant of people left after the Northern kingdom was removed by the invasion of other Nations" is just as nonsensical as your earlier statement. Look up 'Samaritans'; it has nothing to do with what you are saying.

That would be equally irrelevant. Courts ruling doesn't imply they govern.

I have no idea what you are saying here. What does "practice dictates reality 100% of the time" even mean?

Unless that's a rhetorical question you might wish to ask Berserker. I didn't bring this up.

That conclusion doesn't follow at all. Which is probably why no astronomer thinks this.

Actually, that's pretty much fact, not theory.

Actually there were countless impacts on Earth. The moon, which is far smaller, is littered with impact craters. None of which are 'related'.

Again, no such claim was made. And the distinction between astrology and astronomy is indeed a modern one. That doesn't mean we can't determine what was astronomy and what was astrology to Ptolemaeus. In fact, that we make this distinction is what allows us to do so.

Genesis is clear about there being darkness. Then God said 'Let there be light'. This can only refer to the stars. You may note, as Berzerker pointed out, that the sun and moon aren't actually named. They are simply referred to as the 'two great lights' that God 'fixed'.

This seems to be the same error Berzerker is making. Whether something 'was there' is irrelevant to the fact of creating a table, a painting, or Earth. All were created. Man was created: God makes one out of clay. Ergo, he used 'something that was there', We still call it creation, and the result is that God made man. In short, 'create' and 'make' are pretty much interchangeable here.

Yes. Except nobody pointed out 'what art is'. so somebody is definitely missing the point.

Well, here you would be wrong. If an argument uses flawed logic, the argument is flawed.

We are not having an argument, we are having a discussion on the topic of what happened in the beginning.

You are the one comparing a point to art work.

I am not sure we can hold a strict definition of religion, government, make, and create based solely on modern usage. If we do that, we ignore context. Is it our job to define the past in our terms?

I may be wrong, but trying to understand the past is not the same as declaring the past had to happen a certain way. If what was written does not fit our view of the past, can we point out the ancients are flawed in their logic, presentation, and flat out understanding of what they were experiencing?

What I point out as manipulation, you call creation. I have no issue with that.

"Let there be light" is not restricted to the current stars. It is now, but at that point in creation, we are talking about the point of the big bang. This is the first generation of stars, and then there was darkness. The next generation of stars happened on day 4.

We are talking about the formation of the solar system. Any impacts mentioned are ones that leave planets in shattered states, and the formation of the moon. We are not talking about impacts that happened after a planet is formed, and the moon was already in place. What we think happened, actually has no bearing at all on what actually happened. Our thoughts no matter how rigid the method, and how truthful the evidence is just that, our thoughts. We can probably, based on "unchanging phenomenon" claim what happened. How do we figure in the fact that things can change, thus nullifying the "unchanging phenomenon" part of the equation?

I am not sure where it is stated that astronomers think the asteroid field formed exactly as that, just an asteroid field.

Feel free to specify where I went wrong in portraying the established definition of government as being the governing body of a nation, state, or community. Going a step further, and show where govern was used in a wrong manner. Whenever a group of chosen leaders get together and form or carry out pre-existing policy, it is still a form of governing the social group for whom it represents. Being religious or secular hardly changes the fact that a body or social group actually exists or not.

It seems that context is more logical and not imagination. Now we can imagine that they just wrote down events that they were imagining. I will just stick with context and assume they knew what they were writing down.

I did look up the Samaritans, and what I wrote has everything to do with what I wrote. I am the one writing it.

The definition of religion states a belief in and worship of. Lack of worship would negate the person from being religious. Lack of belief would also negate one from being religious. Unless one changes the definition, technically one having knowledge by direct experience with a supreme being is not religious. The definition of belief is trust, faith, or confidence in someone. Still no knowledge introduced into the definition. Trust is a firm belief, or confidence in a truth. Truth still has to be accepted. Faith is complete trust or confidence, strong belief in God. "Complete" and "strong" do not necessarily mean "knowledge" even if it is indoctrinated via education. The statement is: one can "know of something", and that is different than actually "knowing something".

Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. The difference would seem to be the experience. Setting aside the point that even experiences can be subjective, one cannot deny experiences or there would be no defined objectiveness to life and no reality at all. It is not logical to reject another person's experience solely on the basis of one's subjective biases. Even if one claims they have "knowledge of" something based on tons of evidence, one cannot refute the experience of said person who actually gained knowledge because of the experience. It can be rejected, denied, untrustworthy, nonsensical, but that still does not prove it is true or not. If everything made sense to all human's, we would be of all one mind.

I still do not accept the point that education alone, can form a truth. In the insurance business, knowledge can be considered a failure. One may have all the knowledge needed, but if they cannot put that knowledge to use, it is worthless. Being able to do something dictates life more that just knowing about life. Practice without knowledge is bad, but knowledge without practice is even more useless.

Exodus 18:25 points out they can do math by 1000's, 100's, 50's, and 10's. Numbers 1:21 states there were 46,500 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Reuben. Numbers 1:23 states there were 59,300 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Simeon. Numbers 1:25 states there were 45,650 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Gad. Numbers 1:27 states there were 74,600 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Judah. Numbers 1:29 states there were 54,400 from the tribe of Issachar. Numbers 1:31 states there were 57,400 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Zebulon. Numbers 1:33 states there were 40,500 males over the age of 20 who can fight from the tribe of Ephraim. Numbers 1:35 states there were 32,200 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Manasseh. Numbers 1:37 states there were 35,400 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Benjamin. Numbers 1:39 states there were 62,700 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Dan. Numbers 1:41 states there were 41,500 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Asher. Numbers 1:42 states there were 53,400 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Naphtali. The total of fighting men over the age of 20 was 603,550. There were 13 tribes, but the tribe of Levi was not allowed to fight, nor do we have to guess how many males there were. The total males 1 month old and over was 22,000 in the tribe of Levi. This comes to the amount of males counted in the senses to be 625,550.

The total number of firstborns in the 13 tribes was 22,273. The firstborns counted were roughly 3% of the amount of fighters. What is not clear is if the firstborns counted only included the firstborn of the firstborn of the firstborn. The census would have covered at the most 3 generations. The firstborns would have carried the family name through each generation. However there would be hundreds and thousands of families that would know of their family name, but not part of the firstborn census. These families and their firstborns would not necessarily be part of the census but would still have fighters who would fight over the age of 20.

Even today (Israel) with a mandatory service for both male and female age 18 at 100%, 54% as of 2007 do not serve, and a predicted 60% will not serve by 2020. At the least, assuming that only 54% were eligible male fighters, from the numbers, there was 1,158,425 total population. If there were only 40% eligible fighters, there was 1,563,875 total population. If one is realistic and the numbers are correct in the actual number of people willing to fight, then perhaps those numbers reflect only 25% of the total population, one would get 2,502,200 as total population.

In Numbers 26 there was another census taken, this time it was all people (male and female) over 20. It did not include the 603,550 from the first census, because all those males allegedly died out over the course of 40 years. Now if you want to claim that they did not, they would have been between the age of 60 and 100. Whether they were actually alive or dead, they were not included in the census. The total population eligible to fight this time above 20 was 601,730. There were at this point 23,000 males over a month old in the tribe of Levi. Even if the number includes females this time, there are still the females not included in the first census and all those under 20 for the 12 tribes.

My mathematical guess would be that there were at least 2 million at Mt. Sinai, but after 40 years there were probably closer to 1 million Hebrews. There were 13 tribes, and roughly 23,400 firstborns representing statistically 125,000 family units. That is about 9,615 average families per tribe. If each family had an average of 3 boys and 3 girls, the first census would have came up with an average of 375,000 males over 20.

From the account while in Egypt if all the boys had been killed at birth and the latest families had only girls then perhaps there were actually way more girls than boys over the age of 20 at first. The first census had way more men about to turn 40 than men between the ages of 20 and 35. Then after 40 years it averaged back out, and the census showed an equal amount of boys to girls. The Egyptians complained that they were loosing a huge work force, and females were probably not a huge portion of that work force. After attempting to kill off all the newborn males, eventually the Egyptians would have lost the workforce. It seems that the first census would have been mostly males who were approaching 40 years of age, and there were too many females who were younger compared to younger males. This would skew the first census with a higher amount of men who could actually fight as opposed to a lot of untrained younger males. It is plausible that there were 1.4 million females along with 600,000 fighting males.

We were told that at least 603,550 males died in the wilderness, and more than likely at least 400,000+ females. In 40 years it is plausible to have had at least 100,000 plus births, if there were around 125,000 family units.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

How do we kill this thread?

 

[Berzerker]

So in fact the links show nothing whatsoever about telescopes, which makes them interesting but not very relevant to the discussion.

You asked for a link to ancient lenses, you got 3

now you're complaining because lenses aint relevant to telescopes?

 

[timtofly]

How do we kill this thread?

This thread started out "in the beginning" thus it is immortal. Normally a thread dies a slow death by sinking out of sight. Or it mysteriously goes missing one day by unknown forces.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

It seems the tribes were listed ~3 times, each list had 12 tribes... But there were 14 tribes.
So when Joseph's sons are listed they replace their father and the tribe of Levi. They kept the number at 12, I dont know if they did that because there were 12 original blessings or because 12 was significant for cosmological reasons.

Seems kinda strange they'd replace the tribe of Levi when his had that blessing, so the number appears more important than the names. It looks to me like the same practice involving the 12 ruling gods, the departure of 1 required a replacement. Adding 1 required dropping one...

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.

The preflood gods didn't die in the flood and the precreation gods were celestial in nature, not flesh and blood.

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.

Those ages are calculated using radioactive decay ratios

 

[timtofly]

It seems the tribes were listed ~3 times, each list had 12 tribes... But there were 14 tribes.
So when Joseph's sons are listed they replace their father and the tribe of Levi. They kept the number at 12, I dont know if they did that because there were 12 original blessings or because 12 was significant for cosmological reasons.

Seems kinda strange they'd replace the tribe of Levi when his had that blessing, so the number appears more important than the names. It looks to me like the same practice involving the 12 ruling gods, the departure of 1 required a replacement. Adding 1 required dropping one...

The tribe of Levi was not disbanded. They were keepers of the Temple, and lived in the cities designated for distributional purposes through out the other tribes. They would be like local arbitrators for both the preservation of the culture and governing body embodied in the Law given to Moses. They were not the priestly "class" which carried on the P source of the written Law (first 5 books). But they were the second source of the written Law.

The Hebrews actually still accept this even today. It is not well publicized, but the tribes are subconsciously being re-grouped, and there are even actions in process to re-assemble the High Priest and education in regards to Temple processes. Yes I used the term Hebrew on purpose. Remember that deterministic point of the universe? Try telling lab rats, that they are not in a controlled experiment.

The preflood gods didn't die in the flood and the precreation gods were celestial in nature, not flesh and blood.

I never said they did, but they were lost to the knowledge of those after the flood, except or unless the Babylonians excavated in their time the archeological ruins left from the ancients. That and the fact that Mars and Venus were now in observational sight. Before that the outer planets would have been observational. IMO, the pre-flood earth was moving from it's outer orbit, to it's inner orbit, if indeed it started further out at all.

Those ages are calculated using radioactive decay ratios

Which would be rendered practically useless during each cataclysmic event. As pointed out, there are only a few land areas that can date back to the original continent. Every time the surface is re-cycled it looses it's ability to date. Otherwise all of the current surface would have the same date. IMO, the reason that the current acceptance seems to deny the Flood is that if it actually happened during human experience, it would stand as proof that ages have recently been skewed by an event. They have to have cataclysmic events, for natural selection to work, but if they are too close then it's skews their time clock.

The whole issue seems to revolve around the so-called deterministic aspect of the laws of the universe. I doubt we want to accept this, but the ancients observed the stars and fell into the trap of deterministic predictions and used astronomy to back up astrology. The kicker is now in modern times we have the means to determine human behavior and deterministic predictions based on science. Science can now be used to back up the modern version of astrology in the form of social sciences.

We have already been led to believe that a theory is now considered a fact by scientific fiat. I would even concede that it was never an overt and conscious move on the part of those caught up in the process. Science is still science and not at war with religion. Remember those pre-flood gods..... It is ok to know everything that God knows. This time it is going to work out for the better.

 

[Agent327]

The tribe of Levi was not disbanded.

Hardly surprising, as a tribe is not a club or some other gathering that can be legally disbanded. Nor, interestingly, is this what Berzerker is talking about:

It seems the tribes were listed ~3 times, each list had 12 tribes... But there were 14 tribes.
So when Joseph's sons are listed they replace their father and the tribe of Levi. They kept the number at 12, I dont know if they did that because there were 12 original blessings or because 12 was significant for cosmological reasons.

But let's continue:

Seems kinda strange they'd replace the tribe of Levi when his had that blessing, so the number appears more important than the names. It looks to me like the same practice involving the 12 ruling gods, the departure of 1 required a replacement. Adding 1 required dropping one...

If you are referring to the Babylonian pantheon, as already mentioned, no gods were kicked. This is not really a practive you'll find in ancient theology. Rather, the number of gods tends to increase.

They were keepers of the Temple, and lived in the cities designated for distributional purposes through out the other tribes. They would be like local arbitrators for both the preservation of the culture and governing body embodied in the Law given to Moses. They were not the priestly "class" which carried on the P source of the written Law (first 5 books). But they were the second source of the written Law.

I don't think any statement in that paragraph is factually correct.

The Hebrews actually still accept this even today. It is not well publicized, but the tribes are subconsciously being re-grouped, and there are even actions in process to re-assemble the High Priest and education in regards to Temple processes.

Dito. I have no clue where you get this 'information'.

I never said they did, but they were lost to the knowledge of those after the flood, except or unless the Babylonians excavated in their time the archeological ruins left from the ancients.

Dito.

That and the fact that Mars and Venus were now in observational sight. Before that the outer planets would have been observational. IMO, the pre-flood earth was moving from it's outer orbit, to it's inner orbit, if indeed it started further out at all.

A paragraph consisting of utter nonsense.

Which would be rendered practically useless during each cataclysmic event. As pointed out, there are only a few land areas that can date back to the original continent. Every time the surface is re-cycled it looses it's ability to date. Otherwise all of the current surface would have the same date.

Again, nothing here is factually correct.

IMO, the reason that the current acceptance seems to deny the Flood is that if it actually happened during human experience, it would stand as proof that ages have recently been skewed by an event. They have to have cataclysmic events, for natural selection to work, but if they are too close then it's skews their time clock.

The nonsense continues. But then, it starts with IMO. Opinion not factual, sorry.

The whole issue seems to revolve around the so-called deterministic aspect of the laws of the universe.

There is no such thing, sorry.

I doubt we want to accept this, but the ancients observed the stars and fell into the trap of deterministic predictions and used astronomy to back up astrology. The kicker is now in modern times we have the means to determine human behavior and deterministic predictions based on science. Science can now be used to back up the modern version of astrology in the form of social sciences.

I'll just point out that the social sciences have nothing to do whatsoever with astrology.

We have already been led to believe that a theory is now considered a fact by scientific fiat. I would even concede that it was never an overt and conscious move on the part of those caught up in the process. Science is still science and not at war with religion. Remember those pre-flood gods..... It is ok to know everything that God knows. This time it is going to work out for the better.

No clue what even is being argued here.

You asked for a link to ancient lenses, you got 3

now you're complaining because lenses aint relevant to telescopes?

I think it may have more to do with you not grasping what a telescope is. The existence of lenses in antiquity was never in dispute:

The links show people were using glass for magnification, of course it doesn't claim telescopes existed... I never said they did. I'm not one of these people insisting nobody had a telescope.

Right. Well, that's crystal-clear then.

One wall of text left. We'll divide it into parts for clarity:

We are not having an argument, we are having a discussion on the topic of what happened in the beginning.

Glad that's clear. We're not having an argument, we're having a discussion.

You are the one comparing a point to art work.

I wouldn't even know what that means.

I am not sure we can hold a strict definition of religion, government, make, and create based solely on modern usage. If we do that, we ignore context. Is it our job to define the past in our terms?

I wouldn't know what brought up that concluding question.

What I point out as manipulation, you call creation. I have no issue with that.

That's nice.

"Let there be light" is not restricted to the current stars. It is now, but at that point in creation, we are talking about the point of the big bang.

The Big Bang theory wasn't proposed until the mid 20-th century. How do you suppose would that be relevant to something written centuries BC?

This is the first generation of stars, and then there was darkness. The next generation of stars happened on day 4.

Interesting speculation. Unfortunately not really something we can find in Genesis.

We are talking about the formation of the solar system. Any impacts mentioned are ones that leave planets in shattered states, and the formation of the moon.

What?

We are not talking about impacts that happened after a planet is formed, and the moon was already in place. What we think happened, actually has no bearing at all on what actually happened.

Of course.

Our thoughts no matter how rigid the method, and how truthful the evidence is just that, our thoughts. We can probably, based on "unchanging phenomenon" claim what happened. How do we figure in the fact that things can change, thus nullifying the "unchanging phenomenon" part of the equation?

I wouldn't know what this "unchanging phenomenon" even is. But then, I suspect, nor do you.

I am not sure where it is stated that astronomers think the asteroid field formed exactly as that, just an asteroid field.

Should the asteroid field have formed a s a potato perhaps?

Feel free to specify where I went wrong in portraying the established definition of government as being the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

Alright. A community having a governing body only makes it a government if that community is independent. Like a state. Since the Levites governed nothing, they are not a government. There.

Going a step further, and show where govern was used in a wrong manner. Whenever a group of chosen leaders get together and form or carry out pre-existing policy, it is still a form of governing the social group for whom it represents. Being religious or secular hardly changes the fact that a body or social group actually exists or not.

Which is arguing what exactly?

It seems that context is more logical and not imagination. Now we can imagine that they just wrote down events that they were imagining. I will just stick with context and assume they knew what they were writing down.

As do I. I'm writing down text. Again, no clue what is being argued here.

I did look up the Samaritans, and what I wrote has everything to do with what I wrote. I am the one writing it.

The latter statement is factually correct.

The definition of religion states a belief in and worship of. Lack of worship would negate the person from being religious. Lack of belief would also negate one from being religious.

Not really. (One does not negate from, by the way.) Judaism doesn't worship, and yet few would assert that Judaism is not a religion.

Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

You seem to be forgetting about spiritual knowledge. Which is kind of odd, since that is the topic of this thread, actually.

Now to the interesting bit:

Exodus 18:25 points out they can do math by 1000's, 100's, 50's, and 10's.

Interestingly, this suggests a multitude of thousands.

Numbers 1:21 states there were 46,500 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Reuben. Numbers 1:23 states there were 59,300 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Simeon. Numbers 1:25 states there were 45,650 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Gad. Numbers 1:27 states there were 74,600 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Judah. Numbers 1:29 states there were 54,400 from the tribe of Issachar. Numbers 1:31 states there were 57,400 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Zebulon. Numbers 1:33 states there were 40,500 males over the age of 20 who can fight from the tribe of Ephraim. Numbers 1:35 states there were 32,200 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Manasseh. Numbers 1:37 states there were 35,400 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Benjamin. Numbers 1:39 states there were 62,700 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Dan. Numbers 1:41 states there were 41,500 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Asher. Numbers 1:42 states there were 53,400 males over the age of 20 who could fight from the tribe of Naphtali. The total of fighting men over the age of 20 was 603,550. There were 13 tribes, but the tribe of Levi was not allowed to fight, nor do we have to guess how many males there were. The total males 1 month old and over was 22,000 in the tribe of Levi. This comes to the amount of males counted in the senses to be 625,550.

It does, doesn't it. It seems our multitude has grown substantially since the first counting. Or, it could be that - as in other ancient sources - the numbers are so ridiculously high, a division by 10 would bring us closer to actual numbers.

My favourite example here is the battle of Issus, where it is reported Alexander faced 1 million Persians. (So the biggest army Darius could muster was only 1 1/2 times that of the Hebrew tribes.) Now the problem with such incredibly large numbers is that they seem to forget about logistics. All these men have to be fed, on the move. If we estimate Alexander's forces at 50,000 max, Darius could use 150,000 to completely encircle Alexander and have 850,000 men in reserve. (He could, in fact, encircle Alexander 3 times, and still have half his army in reserve.) Oddly, noting of the sort happened at Issus. We are told Alexander stretched his line, in order to prevent encirclement, This alone tells us there could have been nothing in the region of 1 million men on the Persian side. The setup becomes a bit more understandable if we divide the Persian numbers by 10, however. Which, in the case of ancient huge numbers, is a sound practice.

But, we weren't at Issus, we were in the middle of Sinai desert. With 2 million people. For 40 years. I wonder how these were fed.

It is interesting that you should mention modern Israel. Population 8 million (so only 4 times the number that was in the Sinai desert, for 40 years). It has an army of 176,500 with a reserve of 445,000. You may note that modern day Israel can muster a total military force barely exceeding that reported in the Bible. Now this is odd, to say the least. It is odd, because the present day population of Israel is substantially (exponentially) larger than the population in antiquity.

In Numbers 26 there was another census taken, this time it was all people (male and female) over 20. It did not include the 603,550 from the first census, because all those males allegedly died out over the course of 40 years.

How convenient.

Now if you want to claim that they did not, they would have been between the age of 60 and 100. Whether they were actually alive or dead, they were not included in the census. The total population eligible to fight this time above 20 was 601,730.

I would hazard to guess that either no census was held or that Hebrews didn't know how to count.

My mathematical guess would be that there were at least 2 million at Mt. Sinai, but after 40 years there were probably closer to 1 million Hebrews.

Interesting guess, but I don't see any math involved.

From the account while in Egypt if all the boys had been killed at birth and the latest families had only girls then perhaps there were actually way more girls than boys over the age of 20 at first.

Interestingly, Exodus tells us that no firstborn were killed. You must be confused with Egyptian firstborn.

We were told that at least 603,550 males died in the wilderness, and more than likely at least 400,000+ females. In 40 years it is plausible to have had at least 100,000 plus births, if there were around 125,000 family units.

Yes. Best forget about child mortality and such.

So, because the regime in Egypt under unnamed pharaoh was so harsh, the Hebrews decided to flee en masse into Sinai, where they died in droves. (According to you mathematical guess, 50 % mortality.) This nonewithstanding they stayed in the desert for 40 years, and miraculously a great horde of 2 million erupted into Palestine. And yet, this mass of desert-hardened, God-inspired people were unable to take a single city. Truly a miraculous story.

 

[Berzerker]

This makes no sense whatsoever, since the Hebrews didn't know your revolutionary theory about Earth moving randomly through the solar system. And nowhere is it claimed that 'the number 7 is sacred' either.

One of the commandments was keeping the sabbath holy, that makes 7 sacred. Of course thats based on God's 6 days of creation followed by a 7th day of rest. And Genesis says the world was in darkness and covered by water. That water was divided and the waters below the Heaven (the divider) became our seas.

That means the world changed locations, from one where darkness and water prevailed to one where day and night were ruled by a much brighter sun and moon.

Nobody is asking for an explanation of '6', and astronomers don't use 'signs'; they use mathematics.

I said, "Yes, the sun, moon and 5 visible planets were relevant. Astronomers and astrologers used them for signs etc". This is what you want to argue about?

I was explaining the link between whole numbers 6 and 7. That is all.

Yes, one follows the other... That doesn't explain why they appear in Genesis.

Your reasoning is incorrect. The Babylonians didn't replace any god.

A similar earlier version in ancient Sumerian has Anu, Enil and Ninurta as the heroes, suggesting that this version was adapted to justify the religious practices in the cult of Marduk in Babylon.

http://www.crivoice.org/enumaelish.html

I don't know why you think God has a home - or what that even has to do with anything. The picture illustrates the heavenly spheres. I would think that is obvious.

The picture shows God's abode above all and it illustrates 11 circles around the Earth. Thats 12...

That dry land is wet underwater doesn't mean it's formless.

Is it in the form of dry land? No, therefore submerged land is not in the form of dry land. The dry land was without form...

I don't follow debates, actually. I'm merely pointing out illogicalities in argument. But to the point: artifacts still aren't knowledge. They may contain knowledge, but that is not for you or me to ascertain, is it?

The Enuma Elish is an artifact, man's recorded knowledge is an artifact. I've been linking these artifacts throughout the thread. What are you complaining about? If you dont actually follow debates why are you telling me what debaters said or didn't say?

Again with the 'single impact'. The point of his explanation was not that a single impact was needed, but that multiple, mathematically very precisely aimed impacts were needed. In practice it means that an Earth starting out at the asteroid field has a near 100 % possibility to end up in the sun. Which we clearly didn't.

He responded to a scenario involving multiple impacts with a prediction based on a single impact. And you're using his prediction while telling me the multiple impact theory is wrong. You even acknowledged that if multiple impacts were precise enough the Earth could have moved here from the asteroid belt. Did you clear that with Lori?

This is called changing the goal posts - it's also a blatant lie. (And you may chalk that up as an accusation.)

And you didn't back it up, what a surprise...

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

And your response: "Seeing as they were unseen, it pretty much does."

How does a seen planet preclude the existence of unseen planets?

I think it would help more if you linked to your evidence - assuming you have any, of course. But if I can find something by simply googling you may well assume it as fact. If you don't trust the fact, use your googling skills.

Where is your link showing only Mercury was called a wanderer?

I didn't say, I pointed out. Anyone can google it. And your point doesn't stand with 8, it stands or falls with 7.

If ancient people knew about the sun, moon and 6 planets then the number 8 would be relevant, not 7. That was my point, your argument is with the people claiming there were only 5 visible planets.

Modern has several meanings. Secondly, all mammals' babies have big heads. Thirdly, none of this is relevant to science vs Genesis.

And the definition I'm using refers to anatomically modern humans. Telling me the word has several meanings is...meaningless. And the reason why women suffer more in child birth is because there is less room for those larger heads (and shoulders) to pass thru the birth canal. This was already discussed (and linked) in the thread, maybe you should follow the debate before repeating mistakes.

13 isn't a 'large number'. It can be counted digitally. Numbers above 100 or 1,000 might be considered large, and for obvious reasons no such numbers feature in astrology. (There are a couple of exceptions, but we'll chalk them up as insignificant.)

Like I said, you jump into debates without reading them. The number 13 is larger than 5 or 7... It was argued ancient cosmology was centered around the sun, moon and 5 visible planets, ie 5 or 7. I said if that was true we wouldn't see cosmologies based on larger numbers like 9, 12 or 13.

It's quite true I don't read debates. But if Arakhor called you deceitful I think he's overestimating you.

Is being deceitful easier than being intellectually dishonest? If so, he would be under estimating me since you've already awarded me intellectually dishonest status. No logic for you!

Broad generalisations have a tendency to be inaccurate. That's why they are called broad generalisations.

You didn't identify this broad generalization or explain why its inaccurate.

I just gave an example of it, it would seem. Mentioning numbers used by Sumerians, and (oh, suprise!) Incas isn't 'comparative mythology'. Rather it is making a broad generalization wihtout any foundation.

The foundation is the use of 12 in the cosmologies of both cultures. How is that a broad generalization and how is it inaccurate?

So evidence contradicting your views is insignificant data?

I said I haven't seen significant data that contradicts my position. I haven't seen this evidence you claim exists. Where is it?

Seeing as there has been posted quite a few data contradicting your claims, I wouldn't call such data insignificant. I would rather call it decisive. The mere fact that you consider it insignificant doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.

I call it non-existent

I think I am addressing that person. I don't see anyone else base arguments around the number 7. (Well, except timtofly, possibly.)

You think wrong, but you'll have to actually read the debates you've been ignoring to find that out. I'm not among those claiming 7 was based on the sun, moon and 5 visible planets. I've argued 7 refers to the Earth. You'd already know this if you read the debates you're joining.

It could be me, but I don't see any 'moving goalposts'. So your conclusion, as usual, doesn't follow.

If I said science does not support Genesis and when I was shown it did I said it was a coincidence, I'd be changing my argument.

This is your response to Genesis not being scientific? Because that was what I was talking about:

It was my response to your specific examples. You said the universe isn't watery... Genesis doesn't say it was. You said it was impossible for people to stem from a couple, Genesis says people were made on the 6th day and told to be fruitful and multiply. Eve wasn't one of them and we aren't told how many people preceded her.

By the way, if God made 'the light', then he did create the stars.

The light doesn't refer to the stars, it refers to day on this world - God even called the light, day.

If a carpenter makes a table, using existing wood, he creates something that wasn't there. If a painter makes a painting, using existing materials, he creates a work of art that wasn't there. In both cases something is made, in both cases something is created.

It would seem then that 'create' and 'make' are basically the same. If you disagree, kindly explain.

But God didn't create the stars, he made them to serve for signs and seasons etc for earthly observers. They were given a different, new role in Earth's sky because the world (and eventually the dry land) acquired night and day, ie spinning closer to the sun.

And yet they are not a tribe. I'm sure that, at some point, the Levite class was identical to the Levite tribe. (That is, assuming the tradition here is correct.) It's also certain that, over time, that identity faded. But I agree this might be deemed nitpicking.

Nobody said every member of the Levite tribe was a priest, only that the priestly class belonged to the Levite tribe.

 

[timtofly]

So, because the regime in Egypt under unnamed pharaoh was so harsh, the Hebrews decided to flee en masse into Sinai, where they died in droves. (According to you mathematical guess, 50 % mortality.) This nonewithstanding they stayed in the desert for 40 years, and miraculously a great horde of 2 million erupted into Palestine. And yet, this mass of desert-hardened, God-inspired people were unable to take a single city. Truly a miraculous story.

That is not even what I posted. After 400 years in Egypt, they had gained a population of around 2 m. By the time they arrived, where they were supposed to be in their Faith with God, there were only around 1m. Two thirds of the evolved fittest could still fight, and even that was debatable. I thought you accepted evolution? They were not a warrior nation, they were tribal. What does your army example have to do with a tribal group of males and females, where females outnumbered the males 2 to 1? According to the account, with 2m, and physically fit "industry" hardened males, they could have started clearing out Palestine, immediately, but those males, decided it was too much work, so they died in the desert instead.

The modern nation of Israel is made up of immigrants from all over the world. They probably at 8m, do not have room to expand, unless they obtain more land to do so. It also has been roughly 76 years. That is about twice as long as the Hebrews spent in the desert.

Is it rather spurious to claim humans cannot live in a desert? As for being convenient, you could just as well posted the passages yourself and refuted them.

 

[Agent327]

It may surprise you to know that Numeri, nor Exodus, nor Genesis are counted among the Bible's historical books. And here's - in part - why:

After 400 years in Egypt, they had gained a population of around 2 m.

Source missing.

By the time they arrived, where they were supposed to be in their Faith with God, there were only around 1m. Two thirds of the evolved fittest could still fight, and even that was debatable.

I'm so glad. In case you missed the jist of my comment: no 1 or 2 million people could have survived for 40 years in the desert. That's not even possible today.

Secondly, according to Numeri the Hebrew tribes had a fighting force of 600,000 men. The Egyptian army under Ramses II consisted of 40,000 total - and swept through Palestine and Syria without opposition to face the Hittites at Kadesh.

And yet, 600,000 Hebrews were unable to take a single city in Palestine.

Something tells me these ancient Hebrews couldn't count.

One of the commandments was keeping the sabbath holy, that makes 7 sacred.

Actually, it does no such thing. It might make the 7th day holy though.

Of course thats based on God's 6 days of creation followed by a 7th day of rest. And Genesis says the world was in darkness and covered by water. That water was divided and the waters below the Heaven (the divider) became our seas.

Close enough. But that means there was no light. Not, as you claim:

That means the world changed locations, from one where darkness and water prevailed to one where day and night were ruled by a much brighter sun and moon.

Which the Genesis authors simply neglected to mention?

I said, "Yes, the sun, moon and 5 visible planets were relevant. Astronomers and astrologers used them for signs etc".

Which is incorrect. 'Signs' is something we find in astrology, not astronomy. (Which, interestingly, is exactly what I commented.)

Yes, one follows the other... That doesn't explain why they appear in Genesis.

You may have noticed Genesis follows the order of whole numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7.

http://www.crivoice.org/enumaelish.html

Still not showing any god being replaced. Marduk, in the Babylonian version, took over the role of creator god. It may surprise you to know that each Mesopotamian city had its own city god. This was the central god for that city. Ergo, they would use their city god in the rol of creator god if that befitted their mythology.

The picture shows God's abode above all and it illustrates 11 circles around the Earth. Thats 12...

Fine with me.

Is it in the form of dry land? No, therefore submerged land is not in the form of dry land. The dry land was without form...

No, it wasn't. What on Earth would make you think that land (a matter) could be without form? Everything material has form.

The Enuma Elish is an artifact, man's recorded knowledge is an artifact.

The first part of that statement is correct.

He responded to a scenario involving multiple impacts with a prediction based on a single impact.

It was an explanation of what was most likely to happen.

And you're using his prediction while telling me the multiple impact theory is wrong.

No. I'm pointing out that you have more chance of winning the lottery 10 times in a row.

You even acknowledged that if multiple impacts were precise enough the Earth could have moved here from the asteroid belt.

You fail to acknowledge the conclusion: no such impacts occurred. Ergo, Earth didn't start out t the asteroid belt.

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

And your response: "Seeing as they were unseen, it pretty much does."

How does a seen planet preclude the existence of unseen planets?

What?

Ptolemy described the visible, that doesn't preclude planets that were unseen

I'll explain the sentence to you (i.e. what you wrote):

1) Ptolemy described the visible

2) that doesn't preclude planets that were unseen.

You may notice that visible contradicts unseen.

Now do you understand what you wrote?

Where is your link showing only Mercury was called a wanderer?

I'm not sure why you expect a link from me to something which is public knowledge. Am I the guardian of public knowledge?

If ancient people knew about the sun, moon and 6 planets then the number 8 would be relevant, not 7. That was my point, your argument is with the people claiming there were only 5 visible planets.

No, it's not.

And the definition I'm using refers to anatomically modern humans. Telling me the word has several meanings is...meaningless. And the reason why women suffer more in child birth is because there is less room for those larger heads (and shoulders) to pass thru the birth canal. This was already discussed (and linked) in the thread, maybe you should follow the debate before repeating mistakes.

Indeed. Now explain why other mammals with big heads have less trouble giving birth than humans.

The number 13 is larger than 5 or 7... It was argued ancient cosmology was centered around the sun, moon and 5 visible planets, ie 5 or 7. I said if that was true we wouldn't see cosmologies based on larger numbers like 9, 12 or 13.

None of which are large numbers. 1,000 would be a large number. Or 684. Or 600,000 Hebrews arriving in Palestine.

Is being deceitful easier than being intellectually dishonest? If so, he would be under estimating me since you've already awarded me intellectually dishonest status. No logic for you!

Are you arguing something? Because none of the statements in that paragraph follows from the previous.

You didn't identify this broad generalization or explain why its inaccurate.

Broad generalizations are by definition inaccurate. That's kind of why we call them broad generalization. But since you missed my repeatedly pointing out your broad generalization, here it is again: 'Earth started out at the asteroid field'. I will even explain why this is not 'Sitchin's theory'. Sitchin suggested Earth might have started out at the asteroid field. Which in your reading turns to 'Sitchin said the Earth started out at the asteroid field'. Now why did Sitchin not claim that? Very simple: because there is absolutely no evidence for it. For soem reason even this fact fails to be processed by you, and we still hear you claiming 'Earth started out at the asteroid field'. Without any evidence whatsoever. Calling that a broad generalization is an understatement.

The foundation is the use of 12 in the cosmologies of both cultures. How is that a broad generalization and how is it inaccurate?

Simple. You neglect the possibility that the number 12 occurs in 2 cultures by sheer coincidence. You immediatley assume a connection. For which, again, we have no evidence.

Broad generalization no 2. Here's no 3:

I said I haven't seen significant data that contradicts my position. I haven't seen this evidence you claim exists. Where is it?

See above. (And various pages of this thread.)

I call it non-existent

I call you dyslexic.

You think wrong, but you'll have to actually read the debates you've been ignoring to find that out. I'm not among those claiming 7 was based on the sun, moon and 5 visible planets. I've argued 7 refers to the Earth. You'd already know this if you read the debates you're joining.

Which is your response to:

I don't see anyone else base arguments around the number 7

I don't see any mention of sun, moon, planets in there.

If I said science does not support Genesis and when I was shown it did I said it was a coincidence, I'd be changing my argument.

1) science does not support Genesis
2) Genesis sometimes is in accordance with science.

Try processing that for a few seconds. (Keep in mind Genesis is not a science book, so no presence of science in Genesis is required. It might be about elves and ogres or the big bad wolf.)

It was my response to your specific examples. You said the universe isn't watery... Genesis doesn't say it was.

The world was watery. This is not fact, it's fiction. The world didn't become watery until much, much later.

You said it was impossible for people to stem from a couple, Genesis says people were made on the 6th day and told to be fruitful and multiply. Eve wasn't one of them and we aren't told how many people preceded her.

What?

The light doesn't refer to the stars, it refers to day on this world - God even called the light, day.

And what makes daylight, pray?

But God didn't create the stars, he made them

A subtle difference, I'm sure.

Nobody said every member of the Levite tribe was a priest, only that the priestly class belonged to the Levite tribe.

Good.

That was all, for now.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Of all the other things being argued about, it would be nice if you could all agree to drop the pedanticism about the "without form" part. It's clear that this can legitimately be interpreted as another way of saying "not yet formed" or some other such phrase, especially as it's just the English translation anyway. And if the land is currently underwater then it's also perfectly legitimate to say that dry land has not yet formed, in the same way that it would be legitimate to say that some cave system/cliffs/mountains had not yet formed. This doesn't mean you are denying that the matter which will eventually be part of them does not exist and doesn't currently have some other "form".

Whether or not you agree with that interpretation of "without form" in the original biblical context is another matter of course, but this endless pedantic arguing about what "form" is allowed to mean is just pointless.