| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Rampart" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2006 06:42:40 AM |
| Object: |
ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
04 Apr 2006 07:02:50 PM |
|
|
"Rampart" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in news:1144150960.749239.89220
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
In other words the story is no different to those of any other primitive
bronze age tribes.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SlammerPendragon" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
04 Apr 2006 09:34:04 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Rampart" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in news:1144150960.749239.89220
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
In other words the story is no different to those of any other primitive
bronze age tribes.
Klazmon.
Care to show us the stories from other Primitive Bronze age tribes...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
04 Apr 2006 10:19:05 PM |
|
|
"SlammerPendragon" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1144204444.293539.284220@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Rampart" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in news:1144150960.749239.89220
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers
had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events
on the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
In other words the story is no different to those of any other
primitive bronze age tribes.
Klazmon.
Care to show us the stories from other Primitive Bronze age tribes...
Epic of Gilgamesh:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/
Enuma Elish:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/enuma.html
Book of the Dead:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/egyptian/bookodead/index.html
Bhagavad Gita:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/indian/gita/index.html
You can add the Lliad and the Odyssey
There are several more. Is there any other aspect of your ignorance you
would like cured?
Klazmon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
05 Apr 2006 10:54:51 PM |
|
|
SlammerPendragon wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Rampart" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in news:1144150960.749239.89220
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
In other words the story is no different to those of any other primitive
bronze age tribes.
Klazmon.
Care to show us the stories from other Primitive Bronze age tribes...
===>Read any book about creation myths. -- L.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
05 Apr 2006 10:50:09 PM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "SlammerPendragon" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 06:11:16 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
Let look deeper into this, the first part of Genesis indicates that the
earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis
"day," though it does not say for how long. However, it does
describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day"
began: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
Would this comform to the theory that the planet was submerged into
water from the very start?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 11:26:34 AM |
|
|
SlammerPendragon wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
Let look deeper into this, the first part of Genesis indicates that the
earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis
"day," though it does not say for how long.
===>If you mean the formless watery mass (ERETZ) from which the entire
"universe" was formed, yes indeed, it does not say when or if it was created
by anyone.
However, it does
describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day"
began: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
===>A better translation is by the Hebrew scholars of the JPS TANAKH.
It says a "wind from God" was over the waters.
Would this comform to the theory that the planet was submerged into
water from the very start?
===>As I pointed out, the whole thing was a watery mass,
according to the story.
No dry land was visible to the extraterrestrials
(ELOHIM, translated as "God"). -- L.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?0G/Wb1o=?=" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 01:38:04 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4435413A.B77770B4@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
===>As I pointed out, the whole thing was a watery mass,
according to the story.
No dry land was visible to the extraterrestrials
(ELOHIM, translated as "God"). -- L.
==================
Jehovah's Witnesses like Rampart (aka Jabriol) are not allowed to use the
word "extraterrestrials" in any conversations regarding creation. It brings
images of little green men and UFOs we were told. Visions of seeding the
planet earth from elsewhere. All JWs believe in a creation that only took
7000 years, not 7 days. We were taught this because the bible says, "A
thousand years to Jehovah is as one day to man." Should a JW tell his/her
elders that's absurd, they would be DFed and shunned like lepers.
--
Do.........
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rampart" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 02:50:08 PM |
|
|
=D0o=D6oZ wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4435413A.B77770B4@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
=3D=3D=3D>As I pointed out, the whole thing was a watery mass,
according to the story.
No dry land was visible to the extraterrestrials
(ELOHIM, translated as "God"). -- L.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Jehovah's Witnesses like Rampart (aka Jabriol) are not allowed to use the
word "extraterrestrials" in any conversations regarding creation.
Conclusive evidence that Carol never read a thread, she only jumps on
it to Bash JW's.
If she would have read the thread she would know exactly where the
thread is going towards.
Therfore Carol please continue to look the moron in front of thousands.
And to embarras you eve further, I would say That Jesus Christ was an
Extraterrestial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starlord" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 04:45:20 PM |
|
|
time for the Super Massive Cyber Black Hole to pull you in so as to not
darken my screen anymore.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Rampart" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144353008.413512.13490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
ÐoÖoZ wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4435413A.B77770B4@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
===>As I pointed out, the whole thing was a watery mass,
according to the story.
No dry land was visible to the extraterrestrials
(ELOHIM, translated as "God"). -- L.
==================
Jehovah's Witnesses like Rampart (aka Jabriol) are not allowed to use the
word "extraterrestrials" in any conversations regarding creation.
Conclusive evidence that Carol never read a thread, she only jumps on
it to Bash JW's.
If she would have read the thread she would know exactly where the
thread is going towards.
Therfore Carol please continue to look the moron in front of thousands.
And to embarras you eve further, I would say That Jesus Christ was an
Extraterrestial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?0G/Wb1o=?=" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 10:27:43 PM |
|
|
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote in message
news:MYidnZHhofqBEajZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@inreach.com...
time for the Super Massive Cyber Black Hole to pull you in so as to not
darken my screen anymore.
==================
Don't bother because he's really JABRIOL from ARJ-W, a Jehovah's Witness
netstalking Carol across Usenet. He changes his nym several times a day to
avoid killfiles and hide his identity from his "brothers and sisters".
Check the headers - if the post is from a @gmail account or @Mailinator and
posted through Google - it's JABRIOL. If you notice he can't post more than
two messages without mentioning his victim's name. You'll also note he
picks new nyms that sound powerful like Slammer, Darkskull, Rampart etc. A
sure sign of someone who feels powerless in his RL as so many JWs are.
Looking at headers you can even see him replying to his own messages using a
different nym.
--
Do....
All the JWs wish for is walking around the COUNTRYSIDE (never any towns
pictured in the WT rags) smiling like the village idiot and carrying
baskets of veggies and fruit with them. Also note they all live in suit
pants and dress shirts. The women live in housedresses of 1952 vintage.....
and they call that paradise? Any normal human being would rapidly be bored
to death looking at trees, grass, each other's ever smiling faces and eating
a vegetarian diet.
They'd soon be longing for a good book, a movie, a Mall or a steak
dinner..... (Carol)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starlord" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 04:43:32 PM |
|
|
jehovah witless's never but never darken my doorstep, when I smell them
coming into this trailer park, I place my Stars and Strips on it's poll out
by my gate and then never cross that line.
I've a Vietnam Vet and I'm proud to display my countys flag.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"ÐoÖoZ" <watch@thistime.net> wrote in message
news:44356edb$0$20103$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4435413A.B77770B4@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
===>As I pointed out, the whole thing was a watery mass,
according to the story.
No dry land was visible to the extraterrestrials
(ELOHIM, translated as "God"). -- L.
==================
Jehovah's Witnesses like Rampart (aka Jabriol) are not allowed to use the
word "extraterrestrials" in any conversations regarding creation. It
brings images of little green men and UFOs we were told. Visions of
seeding the planet earth from elsewhere. All JWs believe in a creation
that only took 7000 years, not 7 days. We were taught this because the
bible says, "A thousand years to Jehovah is as one day to man." Should a
JW tell his/her elders that's absurd, they would be DFed and shunned like
lepers.
--
Do.........
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starlord" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 01:17:01 PM |
|
|
Oh! Now we have ET's visting Earth, and I'd bet they never saw the super
land mass that was to become all the land mass's that we see today.
186,000 MPS, not just a good Idea, it's the LAW.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:4435413A.B77770B4@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
SlammerPendragon wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers
had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
Let look deeper into this, the first part of Genesis indicates that the
earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis
"day," though it does not say for how long.
===>If you mean the formless watery mass (ERETZ) from which the entire
"universe" was formed, yes indeed, it does not say when or if it was
created
by anyone.
However, it does
describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day"
began: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
===>A better translation is by the Hebrew scholars of the JPS TANAKH.
It says a "wind from God" was over the waters.
Would this comform to the theory that the planet was submerged into
water from the very start?
===>As I pointed out, the whole thing was a watery mass,
according to the story.
No dry land was visible to the extraterrestrials
(ELOHIM, translated as "God"). -- L.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
07 Apr 2006 12:43:39 PM |
|
|
SlammerPendragon wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
Let look deeper into this, the first part of Genesis indicates that the
earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis
"day," though it does not say for how long. However, it does
describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day"
began: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
Would this comform to the theory that the planet was submerged into
water from the very start?
===>No planet is "submerged in water".
Also, the earth of Genesis 1 is not a planet.
It is the stuff the whole universe, as perceived by the ancient writer,
was imagined to have been made of: a formless watery mass. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starlord" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 07:19:20 AM |
|
|
There's No ocean big enough to put a "Planet" in, the only ocean we are
afloat in is the endless sea of Stars.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"SlammerPendragon" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144321876.221310.305870@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
Let look deeper into this, the first part of Genesis indicates that the
earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis
"day," though it does not say for how long. However, it does
describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day"
began: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
Would this comform to the theory that the planet was submerged into
water from the very start?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rampart" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 07:59:19 AM |
|
|
No water planet anywhere?
Not feasible?
why?
Starlord wrote:
There's No ocean big enough to put a "Planet" in, the only ocean we are
afloat in is the endless sea of Stars.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"SlammerPendragon" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144321876.221310.305870@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
Let look deeper into this, the first part of Genesis indicates that the
earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis
"day," though it does not say for how long. However, it does
describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day"
began: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
Would this comform to the theory that the planet was submerged into
water from the very start?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starlord" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 11:08:03 AM |
|
|
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
bible, written by man to control man.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Rampart" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144328359.175868.80540@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
No water planet anywhere?
Not feasible?
why?
Starlord wrote:
There's No ocean big enough to put a "Planet" in, the only ocean we are
afloat in is the endless sea of Stars.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"SlammerPendragon" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144321876.221310.305870@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in
mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
===>Of course it does.
It was written by a HUMAN author who knew absolutely NOTHING
about the universe, his universe was what he was able to see.
So
it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers
had
they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on
the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as
great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far
greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to
them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth,
the
sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon
a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.
===>Exactly.
But some believers think it is a description given by "God"! ;-) -- L.
Let look deeper into this, the first part of Genesis indicates that the
earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis
"day," though it does not say for how long. However, it does
describe what earth's condition was just before that first "day"
began: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force
was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
Would this comform to the theory that the planet was submerged into
water from the very start?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rampart" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 11:42:01 AM |
|
|
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
You are ignoring the question. Is there the posibility of a planet that
is totally submerged in water?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
07 Apr 2006 12:50:00 PM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
You are ignoring the question. Is there the posibility of a planet that
is totally submerged in water?
===>NO.
There may be (and often is) some water on the SURFACE of a planet or moon,
but no planet is "submerged" in water. It is like asking if a continent
can be submerged in a lake. ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 11:46:34 AM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
You are ignoring the question. Is there the posibility of a planet that
is totally submerged in water?
===>No.
That makes no sense.
But an entire planet (or moon) can be
and some are known to be,
COVERED with water
(or ice). -- L.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rampart" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 11:59:41 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
You are ignoring the question. Is there the posibility of a planet that
is totally submerged in water?
===>No.
That makes no sense.
But an entire planet (or moon) can be
and some are known to be,
COVERED with water
(or ice). -- L.
ok.. covered in water.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
06 Apr 2006 01:30:13 PM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some
moons, want to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go
out tonight and LOOK UP at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water
to be found.
You are ignoring the question. Is there the posibility of a planet
that is totally submerged in water?
===>No.
That makes no sense.
But an entire planet (or moon) can be
and some are known to be,
COVERED with water
(or ice). -- L.
ok.. covered in water.
Possible, but you won't like the science behind it, so why not just make up
your own idea and ignore scholarship as you do with your other claims.
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR96XO4HD_extreme_0.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy. |
07 Apr 2006 05:13:43 PM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Rampart wrote:
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
You are ignoring the question. Is there the posibility of a planet that
is totally submerged in water?
===>No.
That makes no sense.
But an entire planet (or moon) can be
and some are known to be,
COVERED with water
(or ice). -- L.
ok.. covered in water.
===>That's better.
Now, what? -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starlord" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 01:13:57 PM |
|
|
Someplace in this endless sea of Stars, out there someplace among the
coutless Galaxys, there might be a PLANET or even a Moon ( of a muti-Jupiter
sized planet) who has a planet wide ocean, but then I would NOT call that a
submerged planet, it is a planet with a planet wide ocean and even then,
it'll be most likly that it has at lest some islands on it, so that would
mean it's not totaly covered with water.
But the question could also be asked, what if the planet is NOT covered by
H2O, but by something else in a waterly form, that could happen to and I'd
almost lay odds that someplace in the billions of stars in our own galaxy
that there's a planet like that.
Heck, look at the Moon IO of Jupiter, while not an ocean, it is devoid of
water, it's a big match head and if you could smell the so called "Air" it's
smell like rotting eggs.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Rampart" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144341721.583396.103710@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons,
want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK
UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
You are ignoring the question. Is there the posibility of a planet that
is totally submerged in water?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
07 Apr 2006 05:07:43 PM |
|
|
Starlord wrote:
Someplace in this endless sea of Stars, out there someplace among the
coutless Galaxys, there might be a PLANET or even a Moon ( of a muti-Jupiter
sized planet) who has a planet wide ocean, but then I would NOT call that a
submerged planet, it is a planet with a planet wide ocean and even then,
it'll be most likly that it has at lest some islands on it, so that would
mean it's not totaly covered with water.
===>"Covered" with water, possibly.
"Submerged in" water, no way. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 11:38:47 AM |
|
|
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
bible, written by man to control man.
In the Genesis stories, creation is performed
by several beings called ELOHIM
in the first story, but in the second story it was done by only one
of the ELOHIM, named YHWH. He is not even mentioned in the
first story.
AND the two stories contradict each other in many details:
1. The order of creation is completely different
Man, according to the second story,
was made before any plants and animals were created.
In the first story, plants were created in day three and
animals in day five and six, BEFORE man.
2. The first story says man and woman were created simultaneously.
The second story describe the creation of woman as an afterthought, after
YHWH ELOHIM was unable to find a mate for Adam among the animals:
3. In the first account, covered the entire earth.
Dry land was made on the third day.
In the second story, the earth was dry land, then
a mist came up and watered the whole earth.
4. In the first story, they could eat any fruit.
In the second story there is a prohibition coupled with an empty
threat that if they eat of the tree of "knowledge", they would die
that same day.
etc. -- L.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starlord" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 01:03:19 PM |
|
|
I've always wondered what the writters where smokeing when they dreamed up
those storys.
The very atoms that make up everything we see, feel, touch where made in the
harts of Stars that die in Super Novas and it still happens today.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:44354417.D18464E1@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons,
want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK
UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
bible, written by man to control man.
In the Genesis stories, creation is performed
by several beings called ELOHIM
in the first story, but in the second story it was done by only one
of the ELOHIM, named YHWH. He is not even mentioned in the
first story.
AND the two stories contradict each other in many details:
1. The order of creation is completely different
Man, according to the second story,
was made before any plants and animals were created.
In the first story, plants were created in day three and
animals in day five and six, BEFORE man.
2. The first story says man and woman were created simultaneously.
The second story describe the creation of woman as an afterthought, after
YHWH ELOHIM was unable to find a mate for Adam among the animals:
3. In the first account, covered the entire earth.
Dry land was made on the third day.
In the second story, the earth was dry land, then
a mist came up and watered the whole earth.
4. In the first story, they could eat any fruit.
In the second story there is a prohibition coupled with an empty
threat that if they eat of the tree of "knowledge", they would die
that same day.
etc. -- L.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rampart" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 11:55:49 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons,=
want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LO=
OK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
bible, written by man to control man.
In the Genesis stories, creation is performed
by several beings called ELOHIM
in the first story, but in the second story it was done by only one
of the ELOHIM, named YHWH. He is not even mentioned in the
first story.
Snipped for brevity, this is what you are trying to say; a theory has
been set forth by some Bible critics that Genesis is not the work of
one writer or compiler, namely, Moses, but rather that it represents
the work of several writers, some of these living long after Moses'
time. On the basis of supposed differences of style and word usage,
they have advanced the so-called documentary theory. According to this
theory, there were three sources, which they call "J" (Jahwist),
"E" (Elohist), and "P" (Priest Codex). Because of a double
mention of a certain event or because of similarity of accounts in
different parts of Genesis, some would add still further sources to the
list, going so far in dissecting the book of Genesis as to claim that
there were up to 14 independent sources. They contend that these
various sources or writers held different views and theologies yet
that, nevertheless, Genesis as an amalgamated product of these sources
somehow forms a connected whole. There are many absurdities to which
they go to support their theories, a few of which may be mentioned.
The original basis for the documentary theory was the use of different
titles for God; the critics claim that this indicates different
writers. The unreasonableness of such a view, however, can be seen in
that in just one small portion of Genesis we find the following titles:
"the Most High God" (=B4El `El=B7yohn=B4, Ge 14:18); "Producer of
heaven and earth" (14:19); "Sovereign Lord" (=B4Adho=B7nai=B4,
15:2); "God of sight" (16:13); "God Almighty" (=B4El
Shad=B7dai=B4, 17:1); "God" (=B4Elo=B7him=B4, 17:3); "the true God"
(ha=B7=B4Elo=B7him=B4, 17:18); "the Judge of all the earth" (18:25).
Trying to use this as a basis for attributing each of these sections to
a different writer produces insurmountable difficulties and becomes
absurd. Rather, the truth is that the different titles applied to God
in Genesis are used because of their meaning, revealing Jehovah in his
different attributes, in his various works, and in his dealings with
his people.
Other examples are: Because of the use of the word ba=B7ra=B4=B4,
"created," Genesis 1:1 is said to be written by the source called
"P." Yet we find the same word at Genesis 6:7 in the source
supposed to be "J." The expression "land of Canaan" appearing
in several texts (among which are Ge 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8) is said
to be a peculiarity of the writer known as "P," and therefore these
critics hold that "P" wrote these passages. But in chapters 42,
44, 47, and 50, we find the same expression in the writings attributed
by the same critics to "J" and "E." Thus, while the critics
claim that their theories are needed to account for supposed
inconsistencies in Genesis, examination shows that the theories
themselves are riddled with inconsistencies.
If the material attributed to each theoretical source is extricated
portion by portion, and sentence by sentence, from the Genesis account
and then reassembled, the result is a number of accounts each one of
which by itself is illogical and incoherent. If we were to believe that
these various sources were used and put together by a later compiler,
we would be forced to believe that these incoherent accounts, before
being amalgamated, were accepted as historical and were used for
centuries by the nation of Israel.
How am I doing so far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 01:22:16 PM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
Snipped for brevity, this is what you are trying to say; a theory has
been set forth by some Bible critics that Genesis is not the work of
one writer or compiler, namely, Moses, but rather that it represents
the work of several writers, some of these living long after Moses'
time. On the basis of supposed differences of style and word usage,
they have advanced the so-called documentary theory. According to this
theory, there were three sources, which they call "J" (Jahwist),
"E" (Elohist), and "P" (Priest Codex). Because of a double
mention of a certain event or because of similarity of accounts in
different parts of Genesis, some would add still further sources to
the list, going so far in dissecting the book of Genesis as to claim
that there were up to 14 independent sources. They contend that these
various sources or writers held different views and theologies yet
that, nevertheless, Genesis as an amalgamated product of these sources
somehow forms a connected whole. There are many absurdities to which
they go to support their theories, a few of which may be mentioned.
It is not just Genesis but the Pentateuch that the Document hypothesis
addresses.
It is not a theory, however there has been no challenge to it in the world
of the real bible scholar* for close to 100 years. Except for that and
leaving out "D" as a source you are wrong on the other accounts. People
noticed these difference 1400 years ago. A few of the records of these
inquiries survived the ruthless persecution of those who questioned.
Only the waining power of the church let the differences be brought into
public light.
"Yes, I keep hearing that, too: people claiming that the hypothesis has been
disproven, refuted, that nobody believes it anymore. What can I say? It is
taught at the great majority of universities and seminaries, it figures in
nearly all the standard textbooks. The faculty of the major graduate
institutions in the U.S. for study of the Bible are persuaded by the
evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania,
Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt." -Richard Friedman
*
"There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology,
and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
Richard Elliott Friedman "Who wrote the bible."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
07 Apr 2006 02:50:04 PM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Starlord wrote:
There's lots of planets that don't have water on them, even some moons, want
to see one? You don't even need a telescope! Just go out tonight and LOOK UP
at the Earth's Moon, not a drop of water to be found.
bible, written by man to control man.
In the Genesis stories, creation is performed
by several beings called ELOHIM
in the first story, but in the second story it was done by only one
of the ELOHIM, named YHWH. He is not even mentioned in the
first story.
Snipped for brevity, this is what you are trying to say; a theory has
been set forth by some Bible critics that Genesis is not the work of
one writer or compiler, namely, Moses, but rather that it represents
the work of several writers, some of these living long after Moses'
time.
===>That is no theory.
It is an obvious FACT.
On the basis of supposed differences of style and word usage,
they have advanced the so-called documentary theory. According to this
theory, there were three sources, which they call "J" (Jahwist),
"E" (Elohist), and "P" (Priest Codex). Because of a double
mention of a certain event or because of similarity of accounts in
different parts of Genesis, some would add still further sources to the
list, going so far in dissecting the book of Genesis as to claim that
there were up to 14 independent sources. They contend that these
various sources or writers held different views and theologies
===>True.
yet
that, nevertheless, Genesis as an amalgamated product of these sources
somehow forms a connected whole.
===>False.
There are many absurdities to which
they go to support their theories, a few of which may be mentioned.
The original basis for the documentary theory was the use of different
titles for God;
===>False, again.
You yourself said "differences of style and word usage".
Also, differences in DETAIL, such as two conflated "Flood"
stories.
the critics claim that this indicates different
writers. The unreasonableness of such a view, however, can be seen in
that in just one small portion of Genesis we find the following titles:
"the Most High God" (´El `El·yohn´, Ge 14:18); "Producer of
heaven and earth" (14:19); "Sovereign Lord" (´Adho·nai´,
15:2); "God of sight" (16:13); "God Almighty" (´El
Shad·dai´, 17:1); "God" (´Elo·him´, 17:3); "the true God"
(ha·´Elo·him´, 17:18); "the Judge of all the earth" (18:25).
===>That is evidence AGAINST you!
Proof of the merging of independent documents.
Trying to use this as a basis for attributing each of these sections to
a different writer produces insurmountable difficulties and becomes
absurd.
===>"Insurmountable" only to your doctrinally prejudiced mind.
Bible scholarship has NO difficulties.
Rather, the truth is that the different titles applied to God
in Genesis are used because of their meaning, revealing Jehovah in his
different attributes, in his various works, and in his dealings with
his people.
===>That is YOUR unsupported surmise.
Your argument is false and ridiculous.
You obviously neither know nor understand bible scholarship.
Other examples are: Because of the use of the word ba·ra´´,
"created," Genesis 1:1 is said to be written by the source called
"P." Yet we find the same word at Genesis 6:7 in the source
supposed to be "J." The expression "land of Canaan" appearing
in several texts (among which are Ge 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8) is said
to be a peculiarity of the writer known as "P," and therefore these
critics hold that "P" wrote these passages. But in chapters 42,
44, 47, and 50, we find the same expression in the writings attributed
by the same critics to "J" and "E." Thus, while the critics
claim that their theories are needed to account for supposed
inconsistencies in Genesis, examination shows that the theories
themselves are riddled with inconsistencies.
If the material attributed to each theoretical source is extricated
portion by portion, and sentence by sentence, from the Genesis account
and then reassembled, the result is a number of accounts each one of
which by itself is illogical and incoherent. If we were to believe that
these various sources were used and put together by a later compiler,
we would be forced to believe that these incoherent accounts, before
being amalgamated, were accepted as historical and were used for
centuries by the nation of Israel.
How am I doing so far?
===>Terrible!
You sound like a total ignoramus, quoting some JW pamphlet, and
even that you don't seem to understand very well. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: ToBs: The Genesis Account-Ancient Astronomy |
06 Apr 2006 10:45:24 PM |
|
|
Rampart wrote:
When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind
that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth.
Um, yeah. Hey, buddy, I got news flash for ya. Everything written by
humans is from the standpoint of "people on earth."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
