HGL's F.B. writings: janvier 2020

mardi 21 janvier 2020

Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway · Midrash part of Debate with Drew · Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8 · Raqia debate : Josephus (and Philo) · Raqia debate : Hezekiel 1:22 · Raqia debate : Psalm 148 · Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Below was part

of original status:

Drew Gasaway

Now let's look at Genesis again so you can see the impossible description

Genesis 1:15-17
""15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,."

Genesis 1:6 "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

From the Sumerian myth, Enuma Elish which says, "The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament. Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places. Marduk puts the heavens in order, establishing the zodiac and telling the moon how to shine."

The picture below is from ancient Eygpt so this was a common theme in the ancient near east mythology. This doesn't mean Genesis or the message of the rest of the Old Testament isn't true. It just means we have to look at things in the ancient near east before Herodotus differently.

[Picture given of heaven goddess holding hands and feet to earth god in Egyptian mytho-theology.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Now let's look at Genesis again so you can see the impossible description Genesis 1:15-17"

Not impossible, computer time is short, I'll be back for another comment.

Comment by Biblical Spotlight

came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl in Genesis 1:15-17 having the stars, moon, and sun inside a hard dome above with an ocean behind is wrong from observation. There are probably a couple hundred sextillion alone most of which are many times the size of the earth and very hot and would have had to move away very fast. Then you have the issue of an ocean behind them. The creationist who think there was an ice canopy before a flood doesn't realize the belief was before the 1800s was that it still exists outside the astronomers before the 1500s.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"inside a hard dome above"

"Firm" and "strong" are in the text, "hard" is'nt (including parallels in the Bible).

"with an ocean behind" "Then you have the issue of an ocean behind them."

"Ocean" is not in the text, waters are.

"There are probably a couple hundred sextillion alone most of which are many times the size of the earth and very hot and would have had to move away very fast."

You omitted the word "stars" I presume?

Star sizes are determined from visual angle (apparent magnitude) and from distance. With geocentrism, there is really not any kind of proof for those distances.

Heat is partly determined from distance and size, partly from an equivalence with physics of the sun, which we have no proof for.

"The creationist who think there was an ice canopy before a flood"

Just because you might know I am a sometimes and now on and off fan of Kent Hovind doesn't mean you may safely conclude I share his ice canopy theory. I have told him a few years ago I don't believe it and that I have another solution for "waters above". Difference before the Flood? Well arguably some low H2 from "above" met some high O2 from atmosphere and some sparks did a reaction leading this H2 to our Oceanic Basins. But there is still observable H2 as well as H2O left (and perhaps some "dark water" too) which King David can tell (as to its movers) to praise the Lord.

"doesn't realize the belief was before the 1800s was that it still exists"

I do believe it still exists, as outlined.

"outside the astronomers before the 1500s."

Parse the correlation with rest of sentence, please!

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl clouds are mist not waters and the ancient people didn't know that they thought the clouds were like smoke and saw blue and believed there was a sea. You won't won't find any mists that don't rain or someone sprinkling someone in ancient literature because they didn't understand that. Again about the waters above the Psalm was after your flood timeline and everyone from the patristics to Martine Luther and John Calvin used to think the waters were still there. The interpretation has changed as have the meaning of words from how the authors intended in many ways based on the facts of science. In the 1500s to the 1700s space denial was the game in Christian fundamentalism and now it is creationism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are still missing, I am not a modern creationist, I am a scholastic. I also believe the waters are still there. So very probably did Riccioli.

The rest ... it so happens that the H2O and H2 we observe by spectrography is mostly more or less evenly dispersed.

This means, there would have been no overwhelming need to say "cloud" instead of "waters".

Explaing how "ancient people" thought is probably as imaginary as today (or 19th C.) explaining how "primitive people" think.

If 19th C. had a geographic tendency to racism, you have a historic one. From 19th C.

"In the 1500s to the 1700s space denial"

If you consider "geocentrism" as space denial, you have called me and Riccioli space denialists.

What ended geocentrism was not proof, but propaganda, like "think of where the Martians would visually observe the centre as being". A propaganda starting in the dialogus.

Biblical Spotlight

I'm sorry, but you guys sound like you're arguing as 8 year olds. You can't take what they saw as true to be, by folks who only had a naive perspective at best. The scriptures are not so much how imperfect they are, but more to how their faith was merely taking shape in the beginning. PLEASE!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What you think we sound like is not very important to me.

"The scriptures are not so much how imperfect they are,"

They aren't imperfect.

"but more to how their faith was merely taking shape in the beginning."

The Scriptures do not reflect a "faith taking shape" but inspiration by God for writers who wrote:

what they saw and heard as people
what they were told by other people
what God told verbally by dictation ("God spoke to Moses and said")
what God showed them in visions with sometimes physical immersion.

I reject your view of what the Scriptures are as heretical, condemned by both Trent Council and Vatican Council of 1869-70 (implictly even by the Dei Verbum of a pseudo-Council same place) and by Pope Leo XIII.

In obedience to the Church that Christ founded I find no room and in my human reason no temptation to agree with your view on what the Scriptures are.

As for "mental age" schmuck, it's a timid version of telling someone "thou fool" and could as per Matthew 5:22 risk you Gehenna if you really do that. If it was just a kind of bad habit, try to kick it.

Drew Gasaway

Biblical Spotlight I am not saying anything in scripture is untrue the message about God and living is 100% in the Old Testament but the genre isn't a fact-based narrative. Herodotus invented that in the 4th century BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the genre isn't a fact-based narrative."

It is.

"Herodotus invented that in the 4th century BC."

He did not.

There are no sane humans nor ever were who did not have the genre fact based narrative.

Herodot's innovation was sth else and I think closely parallel to what Moses had done before him when preserving Job and collecting Genesis.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl Martin Luther just wasn't geocentrism there is no commentary on his globe views but he believed that the stars were inside a hard dome. He cold the astronomer's philosophers and refused to believe they saw stars saying Christians have to believe otherwise. He believed they were challenging the authority of scripture by anything there wasn't a dome above.

Hans-Georg Lundahl as far as understanding ancient people there are over 100,000 known tablets of just Akkadian works just in western collections. We know a great deal about them. There also a great deal of information about Egypt but not as much even though it gets more attention. There are lots of Canaanite writings in various languages they used. We have plenty of Assyrian works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl if you're Romans Catholic you should listen to the Vatican's views on Genesis as well as most mainstream Catholic theologians. There is no council or ex-cathedra statement concerning Genesis being literal. The Fathers are complicated many see it as a theological book and some seem to see it as a historical book until you read else where in the same series of books or in their writings that was not what they meant. Sometimes this narration sometimes this expressing symbolism. At extent, not everything they say is a dogma as they taught things that aren't theological correct, cosmological correct and scientifically like their Greek version of the periodic tables. To find Catholic leaders who are creationists you have to resort "sedevacantist" and "old Catholics" that belong to sects no in communion with the Vatican.

Hans-Georg Lundahl there are no fact-based narratives in literature before the 4th century BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there is no commentary on his globe views but he believed that the stars were inside a hard dome."

Ptolemy's view as fix stars would be the outermost crystalline sphere, not refuted until Tycho's observation of a comet passing through supposed "crystalline spheres" after Luther died.

"He cold the astronomer's philosophers"

Context? Regiomontanus and Copernicus hardly were simply "astronomers".

"and refused to believe they saw stars"

I think you are garbling Luther's actual comment, precise quote please, even if he was a heretic, he was not a senile with Alzheimer. Astronomers certainly did see stars. They still do. Astronomers also certainly did not see earth move through stars, and they still don't. Heliocentrism was never an actual observation, it was always a conclusion.

"He believed they were challenging the authority of scripture by anything there wasn't a dome above."

OK, I get it, he was probably overdoing the singular and refused to believe the plural ... I'd still like the context though.

"as far as understanding ancient people there are over 100,000 known tablets of just Akkadian works just in western collections"

The Bible is not in Akkadian. You are behaving like a man purporting to study Esquimaux and claiming they believe in dream time and can't count to more than 4 because Australian aborigines show how "primitive peoples" think. There is no such thing as "primitive peoples" and there also is no such thing as "ancient people". There are peoples who are different and some have been lumped together as primitive, and there were peoples who were ancient and risk retrospectively getting lumped together in the equally chimeric "ancient peoples". You don't study Biblical cosmology by studying Akkadian or Sumerian cosmology, however well you do that.

"We know a great deal about them."

The anthropologist misrepresenting Esquimaux could claim he knew a great deal about Aborigines.

"There also a great deal of information about Egypt but not as much even though it gets more attention."

OK, fine, but this does not prove anything about the Bible. The world back then need not have been as uniform about cosmology as the modern (post-Christian) world is about Heliocentrism of solar system within a larger galaxy.

You find subterranean pillars shown as human-architectonic ones in Sumerian tablets (reminding me more of Yggdrasil than of anything in the Bible as to what it need mean), you don't find them in Egypt. Ergo, Egypt and Sumer are not equal, so why need Israel be equal to both? If A is B, C can either be or not be equal to A and to B, but if A is not B, C cannot be equal to both. You may think it is equal to the parts of A and B where they are equal, but as in some parts they aren't, you cannot know that.

"There are lots of Canaanite writings in various languages they used."

Epics, right? Mostly? From Ugaritic to Carthaginian, right?

I didn't know there were lots, but OK. If there are, a closer study will reveal discrepancies between D and A and between D and B, and therefore further show the possibility of C not being equal to A or B, without this meaning it has to equal D.

You are really unable to grasp an argument, you jumpt to my conclusion as proof I hadn't grasped yours and then repeat it with more detail.

"We have plenty of Assyrian works."

That falls under A - Akkadian and Sumerian. Or?

"if you're Romans Catholic you should listen to the Vatican's views on Genesis"

Yes, the Vatican in Exile has a view on Genesis Worth listening to. The exile of the pope is in Topeka. Wait, did you mean the usual location of the Vatican? [That's like saying:] "If you are of the diocese of Alexandria, you should listen to bishop George who says Arius was right".

"as well as most mainstream Catholic theologians"

It so happens, a falling away is predicted. People who follow Teilhard de Chardin are not fully Catholic and if in position of a bishop, they are apostates. In the 4th C. AD a real true Alexandrian followed the bishop in exile - St. Athanasius - not the bishop intrusive and abusive in place, that being George (by the way, with my name I think bishop is a carreer I should avoid, would that a certain Jorge had had similar caution!).

"There is no council or ex-cathedra statement concerning Genesis being literal"

Indirectly there is. Trent. Since there are plenty of Patristic statements Genesis is literally true. And believe me, both Academia and free time equip me lots better than you on this.

"The Fathers are complicated many see it as a theological book and some seem to see it as a historical book"

Both categories see them as both.

The difference is what aspect they are mentioning for the occasion.

"until you read else where in the same series of books or in their writings that was not what they meant."

You don't read that. You read that into them mentioning the other aspect.

"Sometimes this narration sometimes this expressing symbolism."

Sometimes / sometimes as to what they mention, always both as to what is true on their view.

"At extent, not everything they say is a dogma"

If directly said by all who touch a subject, yes it is according to Trent.

"as they taught things that aren't theological correct,"

If you mean in Catholic theology, that is only true for individual fathers, not for what all of them said.

"cosmological correct"

On your Heliocentric view.

"and scientifically like their Greek version of the periodic tables."

Are all who speak on creation or make up of man using the four elements? I think one would find exceptions. Did St. Hippolytus or St. Irenee mention them in a way showing clear approval?

"To find Catholic leaders who are creationists you have to resort "sedevacantist" and "old Catholics" that belong to sects no in communion with the Vatican."

You mean the occupied Vatican. You missed that that is precisely my position : except that "sedevacantist" is inadequate for "conclavist". If your stats are correct, that would mean a very rapid falling off, since Dei Verbum (albeit of an invalid Council) actually in paragraph three expressed itself as YEC.

"there are no fact-based narratives in literature before the 4th century BC."

That is a blatant lie on more than one plane.

It is circular proof : Genesis cannot be fact based narrative, since there were none before the 4th C BC, which we know because we cannot place Genesis, Exodus, Judges, four books of Kings as fact based, which we know since there were none before 4th C ... where do you presume to break the circle?

It is also obvious nonsense. People do not live without facts, people do not live without narratives and there is no urgent motive for strictly separating the two, many urgent practical motives for uniting the two, so it is a priori totally improbable.

Arguably it comes from a prejudice Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid aren't fact based, and if you claim to find errors (apart from theological ones, immediately granted) so you find them in Herodotus. C. S. Lewis pointed out it is easier for God to send an angel with a plague than for mice to cooperate on nibbling precisely bow strings. Kings : Herodotus = 1:0.

Here is for the exact quote of the CSL alluded to by my final words in here:

"When the Old Testament says that Sennacherib's invasion was stopped by angels, and Herodotus says it was stopped by a lot of mice who came and ate up all the bowstrings of his army, an open-minded man will be on the side of the angels. Unless you start by begging the question, there is nothing intrinsically unlikely in the existence of angels or in the actions ascribed to them. But mice just don't do these things."

"Miracles" in God in the Dock p. 28 / p. 12 (depending on editions)

Thanks to the group Confirming C.S. Lewis Quotations

Raqia debate : Psalm 148

Below was part: of original status:
Drew Gasaway: Now we have next a Psalm of David that mentions the sun, moon, and stars and then waters above.

Psalm 148:3-4
"3 Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
4 Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!"
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Psalm 148:3-4
"3 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!"

In other words, the heavenly bodies either are or are represented each by some living creature, exempli gratia an angel.

"4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!"

Insofar as they are moved by angels around the earth each day, they can be said praising God when the angels moving them do so.

Waters "above the heavens" if not above all of them have been observed. Spectrography reveals interstellar matter as consisting of more H2 and H2O than any other molecules.
Comment by Biblical Spotlight: came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl there is no support in the text for your argument on Psalm 148:3-4 and the moon and sun aren't in the water which is a problem. The other things mentioned in that chapter are positioned differently.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: A Bible text is not a bare statement from those times, some are (if inspired in the actual sense of the word, not "inspired" as good poetry or even edifying such) bound to take on more meaning as some things are more understood.

If St. John was a prophet, he arguably knew who was going to have a gematria of 666 and what the name was. As it happens, we know his readers did not. It probably came as a surprise to him that Domitian had been succeeded by one - you could call him "M.NEPOYA!" - who as it happens had that gematria but was not the guy.

I do not know which of my comments you consider as having no support in the text.

Both have.

Angelic movers have support in tradition (and I know that better than you seeing your qualifications, mine include Latin and reading St. Thomas), and, here is the thing with concepts taking on more understanding, we know there are both H2O and H2 far up, and we know Moses had no separate word for Hydrogen and neither did King David. So, what word in Biblical Hebrew would designate Hydrogen? "Air" because it is a gas? Or "water" because if you mix it with oxygen and add a spark it shows it is instant water? Guess what "hydrogen" means in Greek?

There you have it. I do NOT have to prove that Hydrogen was present in the first readings and interplay between hagiographers and their earliest readers or listeners.

"and the moon and sun aren't in the water which is a problem."

You have no support in that text for calling it a problem.

"The other things mentioned in that chapter are positioned differently."

Mind giving an example, and telling why "positioning" would matter?

lundi 20 janvier 2020

Raqia debate : Hezekiel 1:22

Below was part: of original status:
Drew Gasaway: In the text of Ezekiel 1:22 the Semitic range for the word for crystal can be determined because in the Septuagint it is the Greek word "krystallos" and that is what the text says the "raqia" or firmament is made out of there. The Greek I mentioned is very much what it sounds like. This oddly matches what Josephus and some Midrashim say.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ezechiel 1:22 And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the firmament, as the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above.

"likeness of" the firmament?
"appearance of" crystal?

The prophet is not claiming to directly see the substance as it is.
Comment by Biblical Spotlight: came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl that is really a dishonest mistranslation of "demuth" Ezekiel 1:22 within a Semitic range it can mean figure or form and since it is given place object that would mean it is substance. As I also pointed out we can tell from the Septuagint that is isn't sparkle or shine this is actual crystal.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: LXX translated by Ellopos:

And the likeness over the heads of the living creatures was as a firmament, as the appearance of crystal, spread out over their wings above.

I still don't read "was a crystal" I read of the firmament that it was "as" namely still not crystal but "appearance of crystal".

You seem to be trying to make a grid with word meanings here from LXX, here from Masoretic, to get a meaning neither in itself has.

I think it is at the utmost permissible with proposing a possibility, not with attempting to prove a necessity in the meaning.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl "homoioma" has the same issue you have in the Hebrew and with the other word, it is a physical thing not a visual thing so we know what it means. For future reference, Ellopos uses a Greek text generated by Brenton that is edited away from the original Greek in some places. Blue Letter Bible is original and you can go to some of the Codex's online that have companion Greek that is easier to read.

[Image from entry homoioma]
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am not sure you have properly learned how to read a dictionary.

I saw meanings which do not necessarily imply solid objects.

Any visual thing is physical, btw.

Raqia debate : Josephus (and Philo)

Below was part: of original status:
Drew Gasaway: Josephus said, "After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and he determined it should stand by it self. He also placed a cristalline [firmament] round it; and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth; and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. (The Antiquities of the Jews — Book 1, Chapter 1)

The 1st century Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria said, "The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it; and the first portion of it, being also the most excellent of all made by the Creator, was the heaven, which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal; for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts; and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction? therefore he, very naturally contrasting that which was perceptible to the external senses, and corporeal with that which was perceptible only by the intellect and incorporeal, called this the firmament." (On The Creation, chapter 10)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: // Josephus said, "After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and he determined it should stand by it self. He also placed a cristalline [firmament] round it; and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth; and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. (The Antiquities of the Jews — Book 1, Chapter 1) //

While he is not as bad as Talmud, he is explaining Hebrew history to Gentiles whose cosmology involved spheres of crystal - and there was no movement outright rejecting this explanation. It was later systematised with all then known observations by Ptolemy, but spheres of crystal were around since Aristotle.

[One can add same thing applies to Philo]
Comment by Biblical Spotlight: came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl on Josephus doesn't count any of it that was the wide census on this matter including from the text of scripture. You could make arguments about the understanding on a number of issues and words in Torah things in law using contemporary sources.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am sorry, did you use any ellipsis in your English, to me it comes out as incomprehensible as certain passages in Tacitus before the teacher parsed and showed "here he omitted an est" and so on ...

[I asked this about Drew's own words above and here below he responds as if I had asked it about the citation from Josephus.]
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl no this version is on two other sites at least and I have the text on a hard drive but not in my browser. It matches the text in I have on my version.

Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book I
PENELOPE.UCHICAGO.EDU
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html

At the end of the first part, he indicates he is reading from the Hebrew and not the Septuagint.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: It seems you could have avoided missing my argument if you had written the responde under mine. Perhaps you wanted to force me to scroll past a comment by "Biblical Spotlight" first? Did the comment include any allusion to me?

The idiocy in this is on you, since my comment on Josephus was that in fact this, that his view of the firmament was influenced by Greek astronomy as very little later systematized by Ptolemy. Rabbis in his time would have been as often prone to take it as crystalline, as clergy today are to believe your stuff.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem with that argument, as I pointed out, is we have Ezekiel 1:22, virtually every Jewish source having the same cosmology and meaning for these words without even mentioning the issue of Genesis sometimes and other Jews in the first century thought this not just describe what it was but giving a description of the words graphically like Philo who is decades before Josephus. He, in that case, isn't just giving a cultural description but a detailed meaning of meaning. We know from his writings that he read the text in Hebrew and Greek.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I already refuted your argument on Hezekiel 1:22 under that argument. You'll have to defend it there and to argue from sth else here.

I don't like it when opponents jump from one topic to another as soon as refuted.

Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8

Below was part: of original status:
Drew Gasaway: In this account of the tower of babel from the Jewish Apocrypha in 3 Baruch 3:5-8 it describes there being a metal skydome they were trying to penetrate. It says, "5 the angel: I pray thee, Lord, say to me who are these. And he said, These are they who gave counsel to build the tower, for they whom thou seest drove forth multitudes of both men and women, to make bricks; among whom, a woman making bricks was not allowed to be released in the hour of child-birth, but brought forth while she was making bricks, and carried her child in her apron, and 6 continued to make bricks. And the Lord appeared to them and confused their speech, when they 7 had built the tower to the height of four hundred and sixty-three cubits. And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of 8 brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest."
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "In this account of the tower of babel from the Jewish Apocrypha in 3 Baruch 3:5-8"

Arguably, unlike canonic book of Baruch, fan fiction.

But even if not, Nimrod's men trying to pierce a thing as if it were a solid could be due to a mirage and need not mean the thing was solid in itself.
Comment by Biblical Spotlight: came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl on 3 Baruch 3:5-8 something doesn't have to be canonical to gain an understanding if canon was required we couldn't read a single word of either testament in Greek or Hebrew.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: There is a difference of gaining understanding of a word meaning and gaining understanding of a precise concept.

Sure, take any literature you can find from the period (!) to see whether for instance "presbyteros" ever has meanings other than "older man" (btw, excluing traditional reading of NT and going only to "literature to gain understanding" would be the wrong method, but you would still have diplomats being called so).

But you do not determine the precise scope of a context by going to non-canonic literature and then discard the literal and factual truth of either Bible or tradition from what "understanding" you gain this.

It's like when some guys knowing in detail how the Athenian Ekklesia worked in Pericles' time think this disproves the Catholic idea of the NT Ekklesia being very hierarchic. Hint : Athenians were not alone in having an Ekklesia, Spartans and Romans also had such (called Coetus in Rome), and the time of Pericles was long over before NT.

Similar with raqia.

It can have one precise scope of meaning in Baruch 3 and another one (like Baruch 3 - actual solid) elsewhere.

"But even if not, Nimrod's men trying to pierce a thing as if it were a solid could be due to a mirage and need not mean the thing was solid in itself."

You did not respond to this, as if it didn't matter that Baruch 3 ALSO is not any kind of guarantee that OT Hebrews universally considered the firmament as an actual solid, when even its author cannot be proven to do so.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl some of our understanding of Greek comes from stories about sky god shooting lightning bolts and another god hold up the earth on his shoulders so it doesn't fall which is flat or round depending on when and who wrote the version. Using fact-based literature as ruler is faulty we don't even do that with contemporary history the Trojan Wars comes from mythology, the history of ancient Egypt is all mythology as well as Sumer and ancient China. We get history from Egypt from the same stories where the Pharho was raised just beneath the sky fault by the god Ra and taken from the north Nile to the south Nile. Then he makes the crops from seed to harvest in a day and commands the sun to go down. The ledgers have some pretty crazy stuff as well!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "some of our understanding of Greek comes from stories about sky god shooting lightning bolts"

Doesn't mean we need to consider Ptolemy as believing the exact concept of Zeus being placed on Ida and raised by goats whenever he speaks of a planet smaller than Sun, but larger than "Kronos".

My precise point of difference between determining basic word meaning and exact meaning of a concept from a source other than the text you study. Word meanings? Fair play.

Exact concept? You would need a providential parallel for that. Like the prayer of Velleius Paterculus being written exact same year that Christ said Sermon on the Mont with Mt 6:7. (16th year of Tiberius). And there you also have Christ actually pointing to an external source of understanding, namely in "as the heathens do". Velleius Paterculus being one.

"the Trojan Wars comes from mythology,"

Would you care to tell me why you call mythology something other than "fact based" in the case of Trojan Mythology?

"We get history from Egypt from the same stories where the Pharho was raised just beneath the sky fault by the god Ra and taken from the north Nile to the south Nile."

Was it one within the King Lists? Is the oldest attestation of that story from after Elijah?

"Then he makes the crops from seed to harvest in a day and commands the sun to go down."

Was the earliest attestation after Joshua's long day?

I would consider these stories as mainly fact based. That fact based and not fictional stories include errors and lies (from vanity, like "counting to oneself") is really not unique for this case.

dimanche 19 janvier 2020

Midrash part of Debate with Drew

Below was part: of original status:
Drew Gasaway: Here are some Midrashim or commentaries from early Judaism on "raqia;"

Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 11:1 says, "Abram and Sarai would not have a child. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do for them? Rabbi Yehudah beRabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Chanin, "It is written (Genesis 15:5), 'And He took him outside and said, "Observe towards the heavens."' He raised him above the dome of the firmament (raqia)."

Shaar HaEmunah Ve'Yesod HaChassidut, Introduction to Beit Yaakov 13:6 says, "This means the God raised Abraham above the dome of the firmament so that all the goodness he receives will come directly from God.”

Or HaChaim on Genesis 1:15:2 says, "And according to the words of the Sages (Chagigah 12:), of blessed memory, that the stars are in the second firmament, the stars only break through the first firmament and the firmament shines upon the earth."
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 11:1
Shaar HaEmunah Ve'Yesod HaChassidut, Introduction to Beit Yaakov 13:6
Or HaChaim on Genesis 1:15:2

Dome of the firmament are words totally compatible with the aether circulating around earth each day, taking stars with them.

Either the dome is the part known as magnetic field or the dome is the part rotating, and either way, firmament could be the aether. First and second firmament imply that even if all the aether is "firmament" there are divisions in it, so that waters above really are above one of them. Better for my view, since I was willing to translate "above" as "in the upper part of" with the proviso a Hebraist should look at it, since I don't know enough of Hebrew prepositions to say aye or nay to my hunch definitely.
Comment by Biblical Spotlight: came before Drew posted below as a separate thread.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl on Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 11:1
Shaar HaEmunah Ve'Yesod HaChassidut, Introduction to Beit Yaakov 13:6 Or HaChaim on Genesis 1:15:2

Domes aren't spheres.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Domes aren't spheres."

Spheres are a kind of very completed domes, since domes in the most usual sense are incomplete spheres.

Also, the thing you seemed to want to prove with the quotes was solidity, not "flat earth".

It was as to solidity that I considered the quotes were weak.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl no from Merriam Webster, "a large hemispherical roof or ceiling." Do roofs have a floor? A lot of them probably did think the earth was flat a lot of early Christians and Jews believe Job, Isaiah and the Psalm's proved the earth was flat and the Greek and Roman philosophers were pushing a sphere to take the center away from man in the universe and remove God above.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: // no from Merriam Webster, "a large hemispherical roof or ceiling." //

Merriam Webster is not an authority for how Hebrews used "dome" and Duden is not an authority for how Greeks used the original equivalent of the German word Mythus.

"A lot of them probably did think the earth was flat"

A "lot of them" doesn't tie the hagiographer.

"a lot of early Christians and Jews believe Job, Isaiah and the Psalm's proved the earth was flat"

Is Lactantius a lot to you? Or can you prove parallels from Sts Irenaeus or Hippolytus?

"and the Greek and Roman philosophers were pushing a sphere to take the center away from man in the universe and remove God above."

Were they? Or are you saying early Christians thought they were?
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl for example of flat earthers there were a lot of Jews and Christians like St. Lactantius, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and St.Jerome,

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am saying some early Christians even in the reformation era believed astronomy was a move against God. Luther and Calvin did seem to state the shape of the earth just that they believed there was a hard firmament and Luther was a firm believer the things we could see in space were stock in it and thought the astronomers were working against the faith.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "St. Lactantius,"

Lactantius : agreed, didn't know he had a feast day ....

"St. Athanasius,"

Considering "earth" as a disc on waters can mean that he uses the word as you think from early Egyptian parallels, a disc floating on an infinite ocean, and can also mean he used the word as "continent". As the context says he also considered the waters as a globe in the centre of the universe, I opt for the latter.

"St. John Chrysostom,"

Possible, haven't refreshed this quote in a while.

"St. Basil"

More like he was indifferent. He considered the different philosophical options as a waste of time.

"and St.Jerome,"

I'd like a quote on this one.

"some early Christians even in the reformation era believed astronomy was a move against God."

You have overstated the Patristic era "flat earth" case, and you can't speak of people in the Reformation era as being early Christians, but you could mean "even as late as" and you would be missing out on Scholasticism in between and on how Reformation dumped scholasticism and Patristics.

For Patristics other than Lactantius, reference please. Actually, for Lactantius too, reference please, I start getting suspicious. When an early Christian says "astronomers blaspheme God" they usually mean about freewill vs "influence of stars" on human fates. The word was very commonly used as synonym for astrologer.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl St. Basil said, "What shall we answer? One thing only: because the interior of a body presents a perfect concavity it does not necessarily follow that its exterior surface is spherical and smoothly rounded. Look at the stone vaults of baths, and the structure of buildings of cave form; the dome, which forms the interior, does not prevent the roof from having a flat surface. Let these unfortunate men cease, then, from tormenting us and themselves about the impossibility of our obtaining the water above." (Hexaemeron 3:4)

Hans-Georg Lundahl they and others cite the Jerome quote but without proper citation which commentary on Isaiah isn't there is no way to know. Other writings in and the Vulgate can be taken to mean circle or sphere so that isn't as clear cut as some have said. He made big mistakes in the Vulgate but not that big.

Fathers of the Church on the Flat Earth
Flat Earth Trads | 11.IV.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS_GyIlqr-w

Hans-Georg Lundahl in the case of Martin Luther it was very clear he didn't mix words what his issue was. They were going against what the scriptures plainly said about the earth and the stars he said. That was the same issue he took with geocentrism it went against the book of Joshua that said the earth didn't more, in other words, it didn't rotate and that it said the sun circles the earth. On geocentrism, you had people as late and mainstream as Arthur Pink fighting astronomers the efforts to launch the space program.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: St. Basil quote given is more like suggesting offhand a flat roof over the heavens, to hold a water reservoir, than suggesting a flat floor under the vault.

He probably did not bother or master the idea of Aristotle that "down" doesn't mean one uniform direction with every "down" parallel to every other "down", and that "down" instead means approaching to the centre point of the universe. This does not mean he was actively opposing a round earth.

HENCE - no, St. Basil was not teaching a flat earth in this quote, he was throwing off a possibility to counter a physical argument he didn't know the correct physical answer to.

"they and others cite the Jerome quote"

Which St. Jerome quote? Is it given in the video?

"That was the same issue he took with geocentrism it went against the book of Joshua that said the earth didn't more, in other words, it didn't rotate and that it said the sun circles the earth. On geocentrism, you had people as late and mainstream as Arthur Pink fighting astronomers the efforts to launch the space program."

Not a fan of Luther, but St Robert Bellarmine took exactly same view when reviewing some theses or a book by Galileo.

Yes, Joshua excludes the apparent rotation of Sun and Moon from being an apparent only rotation due to an inverse rotation of Earth. If not in verse 13, which could be phenomenal language, in verse 12, as Joshua is adressing the entity which is miraculously changing behaviour.

Plus St. Robert's argument that if only Earth had stopped rotating, Moon having a monthly movement (even on Galileo's view) would imply that during the 12 or 24 hours the Moon would have visibly moved, instead of fully stopping.

Plus the parallel from Habacuc, about them standing still "in their orbits" = where they were, not just from Earth perspective.

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway

Debate with Drew Gasaway on YEC as relating to inter alia Jericho · Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway · Midrash part of Debate with Drew · Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8 · Raqia debate : Josephus (and Philo) · Raqia debate : Hezekiel 1:22 · Raqia debate : Psalm 148 · Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Drew Gasaway: Admin
16th January 2020, 07:02 am: People say that you can't prove that Moses used mythology in Genesis or that "raqia" or "firmament" or "expanse" as some Bibles have mistranslated it is a crystalline dome. Well, you are about to shown wrong and to show from scripture they thought that in addition to the sources that help us understand Hebrew. You will see the correct reading of Genesis not only matches mythology but it is impossible.

[parts omitted here as given elsewhere with their threads, except following last one to which computer time was too short to respond]

From the Sumerian myth, Enuma Elish which says, "The Great Abode, Esharra, which he made as the firmament. Anu, Enlil, and Ea he made occupy their places. Marduk puts the heavens in order, establishing the zodiac and telling the moon how to shine."

The picture below is from ancient Eygpt so this was a common theme in the ancient near east mythology. This doesn't mean Genesis or the message of the rest of the Old Testament isn't true. It just means we have to look at things in the ancient near east before Herodotus differently.
Hans Georg Lundahl: responded to various parts here omitted and given on other parts with corresponding threads.
Biblical Spotlight: In my view, many do not take into account, the level of understanding, (or lack thereof), predates any possible attempts at assuming the scriptures were written by learn men, but only of that time. Trying to establish whether these writings are made of true weight or not, is like trying to argue with a thirteen year old, after he has determined he knows everything. Please pay more attention to the value within the human nature of those times, rather whose right or not.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am not sure who you are trying to compare to a thirteen year old.
Biblical Spotlight: I'm not speaking of today's historians, but to the level of insight from those of five thousand years ago.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: In that case, foreseen as possible, while I waited, you are like certain colonialists of the 19th C. in the attitude they had to "primitive people".

A Siberian Shaman is not a man with the immaturity of a thirteen year old, it is an adult with another and heretical outlook on life. Even as to "a thirteen year old" who has "determined he knows everything", some thirteen year olds do know some subjects better than their dads do, because they actually studied them, which the dad had or took no opportunity for.
Biblical Spotlight: Fair enough. However, I have looked into several nations' beliefs and faiths from 3 to 5 thousand years ago and similar ideals or perceptions, were collectively known in those times. For example, everyone knew the Earth was flat, which we now know different. Everyone knew that the stars were under a dome, which we now know, are both stars and galaxies that go on for millions of light years. And of coarse, everyone knew that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Shall I go on? There was nothing really wrong with their strength in faith, but because these peoples were merely starting out into becoming a civilized cultivation among men, their perceptions could only contain what they understood. As was once posed to Confucius what virtue was, he replied, "It is to love men. Wisdom is to understand them."
Hans-Georg Lundahl: It's like saying everyone in the Middle Ages wore plate armour and everyone in the Middle Ages from 476 to Reformation feared the Inquisition ... and obviously, St. Jerome's Bible had no native readers after Emperor Romulus Augustulus was no longer in place, that miraculously changed the native language of everyone who had lived under him. Just by overgeneralising the separation of Latin and vernacular, which started in non-Latin and delatinised British Isles and Germanies and became standard on Roman territory starting in France between 800 and 813.

Not only your generalisation on "flat earth" but also your generalisation about the present:

"which we now know, are both stars and galaxies that go on for millions of light years."

Yes, if I am a Medieval. Skipping the irony, no we don't everyone know that and those who think they do should quit speaking for inter alia me.

"And of coarse, everyone knew that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it."

Except apparently a disciple of Pythagoras ... it so happens, some of us still do.

"their perceptions could only contain what they understood."

For "flat earth" - you rather get absence of clear round earth than universal clear references to a flat one.

For heliocentrism and billions of light years, you'd need to argue this is something "we" (inluding you but actually not me) understand now, and something which makes us more civilised.

Emperor's New Clothes, and closely connected to new barbarism.
Biblical Spotlight: I have seven different Bible versions on my top shelf, along with two copies of the Apocrypha, one of The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, another writer's version of the Collected gospels called; THE GOSPEL, by Kermit Zarley, Dialogues of Plato, Plato's work on The Last Days of Socrates, writings of Confusius, A copy of the Koran, one on Understanding Islam, Eerdman's Handbook to the Worlds Religions, a small collection of Benjamin Franklin's Wit and Wisdom, Mysteries of The Holy Grail, The Case For the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel, Greatest Miracle In The World by Og Mandino, I'm OK - You're OK by Thomas A Harris, M.D., (which by the way displays one of the best illustrations of human nature, using geometrical methods), and two full Encyclopedias, (which, helped pave an interesting picture of how much Emperor Constantine the Great had to do with how we view Christianity today). This is besides what I look up on line at viable, not propaganda sites. So if you don't mind, please don't play games with me. I love Earth science and have been studying human nature and psychology most of my life. In spite of all this, my love an admiration for Jesus has multiplied a hundredfold, once I picked up on the horrible conditions he was trying to correct back then. The sad thing is, because of past history interference, almost no one is aware of this.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am sadly neither playing games with you, nor getting through that I am not so.

It seems you made religion and philosophy your pursuit, and theory of knowledge and specifically on how we want to view events in ancient texts and authorships of them has not been that.

I was a fan of Sherlock Holmes and a somewhat naive admirer of palaeontologists before becoming at age nine a Christian.

I have also not forgotten how CSL argued about the Higher Critics taking the Fourth Gospel as "a spiritual novel or more precisely an allegory". He mentioned, this is worthless from a man spending all of his life studying the Gospels and none of it studying the literary genres of novels and of allegories.

"This is besides what I look up on line at viable, not propaganda sites."

In other words, you are hidebound about where you get your information from.

"how much Emperor Constantine the Great had to do with how we view Christianity today"

Shall I take it you are the heretical and anti-Catholic school who considers Catholicism a product of Constantine? Like Langdon, Neveu and most of all Teabing in a novel by a Brown.

"I love Earth science"

Why have you not looked up earth science answers on the Creationist side?

"and have been studying human nature and psychology most of my life."

You include psychology as an academic subject (whether you took it or read books of it by yourself)? That's a bit like studying astrology.

[after looking up his profile]

What's your problem with St. John's Gospel?

The way "Jews" or "the Jews" is used?

The narrator living when "Jews" had become a name for the non-Christian sect used it as a substitute for diverse factions opposing Jesus, while Our Lord used it as the name of the people and religious covenant He belonged to.
Biblical Spotlight: I myself was brought up as a Catholic. I also learned, that philosophy was a required subject for those who were preparing for priesthood. But it was not until later that I put some real effort into understanding the Teachings of Jesus. After running into some issues that were contradicting, I asked the Lord for His blessing, on taking on the four Gospels as one collective matter. In other words, I was taking a Huge leap of Faith. I did get a sign of acknowledgment, but also a vision warning, for anyone going that far. That was over forty years ago. Since then, my love and admiration for Jesus has multiplied a hundredfold, now that I have acquired a richer understanding of the whole picture. And a huge picture it is and very few that see it. How can they, when the character of Jesus was used as a leverage in their scheme of things, while the real reason he was trying to teach truth to the unfortunate ones, because of their own leaders in that time, was swept under the rug. One of my personal statements goes like this; "Most of us are willing to accept the true teachings of wisdom, unless it should happen to fall across our personal paths of preference." It's human nature to the core. By the way, I do appreciate you getting back to me, and on a kind note, I may add. thank you.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: You are welcome, if you think the note is kind.

But your personal relation to Jesus is not by and of itself a qualification for upholding what you are saying.

With this "journey" in mind, perhaps there are a few more steps to take, or even a turn to make - read Pilgrim's Regress by C. S. Lewis on that latter item, please!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
bis: As to philosophy, I suggest you rebrush Theory of Knowledge. If you were more or less saying Christendom after Constantine has swept truth under the carpet for personal preference, I disagree.
Other threads: (those alluded to above) continued after Biblical spotlight had made his comment, with this short thread to it.

lundi 6 janvier 2020

Debate with Drew Gasaway on YEC as relating to inter alia Jericho

Debate with Drew Gasaway on YEC as relating to inter alia Jericho · Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway

Drew Gasaway

Admin · 26th December 2019, 19:55

Now we can see from some of these pictures of Jericho that the walls did fall (Joshua 6) but that isn't all Jericho tells us. The C14 dating at various places shows us at some level a settlement was by 9000 BC and large a settlement by 8400 BC. Now even the age of King Gilgamesh creates issues with using the Bible for cosmology. Now C14 dating isn't the only evidence and this isn't the oldest site just one of the oldest. The vast amount of artifacts, layers of settlement/aftifacts, and people that would have had to live there over a period of time could put some people to being there out around 10,000 BC.

Now I believe what the Bible says but we have to understand what truth it is revealing and by what means. We have to understand how people in the ancient near east communicated and understood things and what kinds of literature existed before Herodotus. Clearly, the earth is older than 6,000 or 10,000 years old and there are cities and even things in Egypt Moses probably saw that are older than a worldwide flood timeline. So we have to rethink how we sort out historical information from the employment of mythology used by Old Testament writers to reveal things about God and how we live.

[Pictures omitted for now]

I

initial skirmishes, leading up to following threads.

RB

You need to back to school!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Clearly, the earth is older than 6,000 or 10,000 years old"

Supposing the carbon dates are correct. Which does not only depend on correct measure of present C14 proportion (which I grant is correct), and constant halflife (which I grant is constant and correctly calculated or calibrated to 5730 years) but also the assumption that the samples contained originally 100 pmC. This latter I do not grant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We have to understand how people in the ancient near east communicated and understood things and what kinds of literature existed before Herodotus."

It so happens, the chronicles of Samuel, Kings, and the books called in one translation such show people in the ancient near east had no trouble communicating in exact historic narrative, which was therefore a kind of literature existing before Herodotus.

"So we have to rethink how we sort out historical information from the employment of mythology used by Old Testament writers to reveal things about God and how we live."

You should rethink the use of "mythology" as describing one genre which involves non-factuality as per genre.

Fall of Troy counts as Greek mythology and St. Augustine starts out City of God presuming factuality of it as narrated by Virgil as common ground between himself and the pagans he adressed. Other claims of Greek mythology are elsewhere dismissed, not because of genre mythology but because of a specific claim incompatible with Christianity. For instance Hercules being "son of Zeus" or Perseus and Andromeda being taken up to the stars.

"Now C14 dating isn't the only evidence and this isn't the oldest site just one of the oldest."

Would you mind specifying some of the other evidence?

II

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl most of the earth dating isn't done by carbon dating that only goes back 50,000 years there are 13 other methods that go back further with radiometric dating being one the furthest. The dating in this tel isn't only done by carbon 14 dating it is also done by 30 layers of stone construction not from wars as there is no evidence of invasion prior to the walls coming down but from them deteriorating and short periods of expansion. That makes the dating of just 1000 or 2000 years before the fall of the walls impossible. We can tell a number of other ways by the artifacts as well how old the city is within the layers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, "earth dating" by non-carbon is not even interesting.

The 4.5 billion years of a meteorite mean it has about 50 % U and 50 % Pb in the Actinium series.

And that the ones doing the dating are presuming all the Pb that is compatible with Actinium series (as the U is) as per isotope, came from that isotope of U.

"there are 13 other methods"

If you mean thermoluminiscence, it is discrepant from C14 in the case of Mungo Woman.

If you mean Uranium Lead Actinium series or the other (shorter) series or Ka-Ar - all of these involve untestable assumptions.

For C14 you have at least the guarantee the atmosphere can't go overnight from 0 to 100 pmC, but nothing like that for the rest of them.

"it is also done by 30 layers of stone construction"

But each layer of stone construction can be known in its absolute time only by either history or assuming C14 reflects 100 pmC.

NONE OF the 13 other methods has any bearing on older layers of Jericho.

"That makes the dating of just 1000 or 2000 years before the fall of the walls impossible."

Not really, depends on how much they liked rebuilding - and on whether the 30 layers are definitely 30 or only 30 by a contestable estimate.

BBL to answer the other one.

Drew Gasaway

There really is no unstable assumptions with C14 dating if the conditions on earth went one way or the other outside of the range we wouldn't be able to live.

The layers in Jericho are rock construction which last a long time and that dating isn't based on C14 but how long growth expansion and how long it takes for a building to deteriorate to that level. Then there is the analysis of the artifacts. You just don't seem to understand how dating is done.

They dated Jericho with 3 times of evidence in each layer and each type of dating matched the other! If these forms of dating were inaccurate then they would show different dates. It is interesting you want to use C14 dating for the falling of the walls but not the rest of the city.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There really is no unstable assumptions with C14 dating if the conditions on earth went one way or the other outside of the range we wouldn't be able to live."

False. I checked it out. My tables for carbon 14 rise need at the mot intense 11 times faster production than now.

But 11 times or even 121 times our csmic radiation won't kill.

Therefore, yes, the assumption really is unstable. A build up from 1.4 pmC at Flood to 100 pmC like times of King David really is feasible and would not kill us off.

The fact is, I had heard the exact same allegation about carbon build up before I started my check-up. The words were it would take so much radiation only spiders would survive.

I checked it with intensely applied mathematics and found it false. But why is the exact same lie still circulating?

"The layers in Jericho are rock construction which last a long time and that dating isn't based on C14 but how long growth expansion and how long it takes for a building to deteriorate to that level."

I thought a lot were in fact stamped earth?

How about voluntary deterioration? Like deterioration of houses with unpaid debts or with possessors getting in trouble with authorities for other reasons?

"Then there is the analysis of the artifacts."

My view only takes artefact styles changed faster.

"You just don't seem to understand how dating is done."

Apart from C14 you didn't even pose a challenge. With C14, one I already responded to.

"They dated Jericho with 3 times of evidence in each layer and each type of dating matched the other!"

The non-C14 would be elastic - houses voluntarily destroyed, styles changing faster.

"If these forms of dating were inaccurate then they would show different dates."

Not if the archaeological styles changed faster overall in the Ancient Near East. Remember, the Neolithic or Chalcolithic or Early Bronze elsewhere also get absolute dates from C14.

"It is interesting you want to use C14 dating for the falling of the walls but not the rest of the city."

It is interesting you attribute a position to me which is not mine and which I did not express.

Does your normal "intake" version of exegesis just shut off with me, replaced by some "got to figure out what he means" type?

III

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl the fact there are great problems with the Old Testament as a historical narrative even the books you mentioned. There is no archaeological evidence of a hostile take over of Canaan by the Israelites. In fact, taking their language suggests they traded with them. Dr. Peter Enns who has P.hD. in the near east from Harvard points this out as do most contemporary scholars. I read lots of Greek mythology I have a couple hard drives of Greek texts and near east texts in the original languages. There is no way they took place. They describe very wild things and so does the old testament but your dogma won't accept it.

CW

I suspect it was a mix of both. More like the interactions between Amerindians and the Anglo-American settlers (uneasy coexistence, alternating between trade, land disputes, and explosive violence, resulting in dominance of one group) than an all-out blitzkrieg/genocide. Genesis 30, 38, and 48:22 could preserve a memory of this. 2 Samuel 21 says that Saul attempted a "herem" on the Gibeonites, and I see no reason to question this.

Drew Gasaway

CW I don't doubt there was a conflict that took place but I don't think armies Amorite armies were chased by hornets. That could mean several things besides that and I think in some cases these were allegorized real events.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There is no archaeological evidence of a hostile take over of Canaan by the Israelites."

Depends a bit on how you take carbon dates of Jericho.

Also presumes that events usually leave archaeological records. When it comes to style of artefacts, there is no clear reason why Hebrew would have a different style from Canaaneans.

"I read lots of Greek mythology I have a couple hard drives of Greek texts and near east texts in the original languages. There is no way they took place."

If you mean Theogony, I agree it didn't take place. As to Virgil / Homer / Apollonius of Rhodes, I'd consider most of what they wrote as historical, excluding obviously simple blunders and misunderstandings in transfer between very different Achaean vs Classic cultures. AND excluding things which could only be true by idolatry being correct. Hercules didn't come from the loins of Zeus, didn't fight Thanatos over Alcestis, didn't descend to and ascend from Hades, nor visit the Hesperides. But that's basically it, the rest would involve some moot points, I can't say it's "no way they took place".

I am well read in Greek mythology too.

Drew Gasaway As to hornets, it's even prophecied beforehand:

"And I sent before you hornets: and I drove them out from their places, the two kings of the Amorrhites, not with thy sword nor with thy bow."
[Josue (Joshua) 24:12]

"Sending out hornets before, that shall drive away the Hevite, and the Chanaanite, and the Hethite, before thou come in."
[Exodus 23:28]

"Moreover the Lord thy God will send also hornets among them, until he destroy and consume all that have escaped thee, and could hide themselves."
[Deuteronomy 7:20]

In other words, you are denying very much of the Bible if you deny God used a hornet infestation to get rid of Amorrhites.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl what evidence is there of fighting in Canaan? There basically is none! I also know not a single scholar who claims the Jericho was Canaanite. Jericho was is in Jordan or Moab and about 15 miles from the 5 cities that one group claims are among the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah but can't agree on which two cities are them. There is also the issue that there are two other cities close by besides Jericho and lot went to one of them when all 5 cities died out. Nobody knows what culture lived in Jericho but it wasn't Canaanite they began far too late and were further north.

Hans-Georg Lundahl As to being prophesied before in when since has a prophecy given an exact description beforehand? Was Jesus named Immanuel? Do you think there will be a dragon with 7 heads in the end? When they rebuild the temple after the return from Babylon as Ezekiel prophesied they didn't do it as Ezekiel described it wouldn't fit on the mount.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway "what evidence is there of fighting in Canaan?"

What evidence of fighting is there most battle fields in history? [Apart from one narrative with retellings, I'd add/HGL edit]

"There basically is none!"

Exactly.

"I also know not a single scholar who claims the Jericho was Canaanite."

It still was part of Joshua's conquest. Joshua chapter 6.

Cyrus was named Cyrus, and Antichrist will arguably have a gematria of 666.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl Jericho isn't in Canaan it is in the area of Moab or Jordan they aren't Moabites but we don't know what race they were. We just know they never developed writings which both the Moabites and the Canaanites did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl 666 comes from the Zohar or Kabbalah and Jesus talks about the false christ and the anarchist. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 indicates the antichrist will come because of the build of a temple and he will make himself god their. The Bible said that even the elect will be deceived by a false Christ. The antichrist is a false messiah who will possibly claim to be Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway "We just know they never developed writings which both the Moabites and the Canaanites did."

Which means the hypothesis of voluntary destruction 30 times over between 2500 BC and 1470 BC cannot be excluded.

This would also explain why falling walls carbon ate to 2200 BC and city abandoned to 1570 BC for same year 1470 BC : the walls were made from older débris (if you know the archaeology well, you can obviously either confirm or infirm walls being from débris - I am guessing).

Drew Gasaway Apocalypse is clearly older than Zohar.

The exact meaning of 666 in its symbolism is irrelevant : Apocalypse 13:18 tells us we need knowledge or understanding, but not wisdom to simply add up the gematria. The wisdom is, this is sufficient.

Btw, when one of your references was to "the anarchist" - that was a typo, right? Anarchists are very far from simply anomoi or lawless.

IV

Drew Gasaway

RB I have an MDiv from Yale and a bachelor's in Biblical Studies from Wheaton and I also have a degree in biology. I also took courses at Hebrew University in Hebrew and courses in the near east at UCLA and other places. I have seen lectures on Genesis and Enuma Elish from scholars at Oxford, Harvard, and Yale when we covered Genesis.

V

Drew Gasaway

Every source for "raqia" that we have in the ancient world for Hebrew says it is a hard surface. That is what 3 Baruch 3:1-8 says, multiple citations in both Talmud's including those on Genesis who in that case that was a hard crystalline dome with water above, Josephus said it was a crystalline dome in Genesis in the Antiquities of the Jews book 1, chapter 1, Philo of Alexandria who didn't believe in literal Genesis said that it meant a crystalline dome, Maimonides held this view and it was held by the reformers. The idea of an expanse of a sky didn't come about in Genesis until it became overwhelming that stars were far away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"3 Baruch 3:1-8" - Non-canonic, right?

"multiple citations in both Talmud's" - definitely non-canonic.

"Josephus said it was a crystalline dome in Genesis in the Antiquities of the Jews book 1, chapter 1" - perhaps bc Ptolemy's crystalline spheres favoured it?

" Philo of Alexandria who didn't believe in literal Genesis" - at all? Any chapter? Have trouble believing that. ... "said that it meant a crystalline dome" See comment on Josephus about Ptolemy.

"Maimonides held this view and it was held by the reformers." - That's definitely non-canonic.

"The idea of an expanse of a sky didn't come about in Genesis until it became overwhelming that stars were far away."

I do not hold to the modern view, I consider that raqia refers either to magnetic field around earth or to the aether, turning about earth each day and constituting the medium of place, vectors, light, electricity and perhaps a few more.

HGL edit:

[I missed that Ptolemy wrote after Josephus and Philo, but his ideas on crystalline spheres were not original inventions of his own, but already in the vogue. I think Aristotle's cosmology uses it too, in a simpler manner - since the Philosopher was no astronomer and did not know of retrogrades and other complications simple orbits in simple concentric spheres would imply.]

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl you can cry non-canonic all you want but we can read Koine Greek and Hebrew because of non-canonic sources. Without these sources, we could read Hebrew so you have to throw out Hebrew and the Old Testament and stop reading it if you don't like it. Hebrew was a dead language for a long time. Koine Greek is the same way it realizes mostly on the patristics since the classics were mostly written forms of Greek-like Attic and most commentaries in language we understand was patristic work in Latin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl what ancient source linguistically do you gain your understanding of "raqia?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I looked up the Bible passages and confer, not with Ptolemy, but with what Geocentrism takes scientifically today (magnetic field would arguably be available to Heliocentrics too).

Drew Gasaway "we can read Koine Greek and Hebrew because of non-canonic sources"

Yes, fine.

This doesn't mean non-canonic sources are a fool proof clue to the actual thought and meaning of the hagiographers.

As to the better ones, Josephus and Philo would have been influenced by Greek astronomy which postulated crystalline spheres.

Precisely like "expanse" rendering is influenced by modern cosmology.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl it means that is how we understand what those words mean. These sources tell us that is what "raqia" means. If you're changing the meaning of words to fit a modern understanding then that is changing the text. The authors meant something else because of the very source that it came from. There are two words that mean an open space and heavens they could used those but didn't

HGL edit:

[As I missed answering the last point - unless he added it - my rendering of raqia as either aether or magnetic field is NOT the modern "expanse" idea and does NOT correspond to "open space". The magnetic field is hammered on by lots of cosmic rays and doesn't let them through - any more than a thick piece of solid metal would. The aether is on my view pulling Sun, Moon, Stars of all kinds - fix stars, planets, meteorites, comets, exoplanets, nebulae - around Earth full circle each 23 hours, 55 minutes (Sun and Moon circling Earth in somewhat longer time due to proper circle backwards along zodiac). This makes it the cohesion of the universe, also a case of comparing it to solids without it being an actual one.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"These sources tell us that is what "raqia" means."

No, they do not.

A Sumerian clay model or Egyptian papyrus does not contain the word raqia.

Josephus, Philo and Maimonides are too late to be reliable about Moses' view of raqia.

"If you're changing the meaning of words to fit a modern understanding then that is changing the text."

I am not changing the meaning of words, considering raqia necessarily meant sth solid rather than firm in another meaning is not part of the duly attested word meaning.

It's as if you were taking Reformers' view on Mt 6:7 as "word meaning" for battologein. It's not.

Now, translation like stereoma and firmamentum most certainly do give what universally accepted word meaning was at the time of translation. And firmness or strength is predicated of it in Job too.

AND that word meaning I am respecting. Geocentrism unlike Heliocentrism needs an aether with some qualities of solidity, as we can gather from Geostationary satellites. When aether moves, things move with it, and if they don't move with it they have a movement against it. This is stronger than the strongest vectors, as aether is "place of" these.

Word meaning and modern knowledge respected.

VI

Drew Gasaway

Genesis reads near east cosmology of dome with the stars, moon, sun in planted inside of it and an ocean behind it where the heavens were where the gods lived. To change the meaning of "raqia" you have to throwout every ancient source we have to understand the Hebrew language. That is why scholars from objective scholars don't take people from Liberty, Oral Roberts, and Biola seriously. The people from Hebrew University, Oxford, Harvard, and Yale all agree on this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It could be that none of these other sources actually say "raqia" and it could also definitely be that Ancient Near East cosmologies vary.

For one clear example : Babylonians were Flat Earth, Phoenicians eventually at least Round Earth, and the Bible takes neither side, clearly, if we refer to readings which were available in the past.

In the present, "four corners" would favour round earth, since one very popular Flat Earth map is showing three corners, unless Australia counts for two very close ones.

Drew Gasaway

They vary very little because of where they saw their gods living and how they viewed their travel. Also, four corners would mean round it would be a square but I don't think that was a cosmological statement. Jobs' statement of the earth being flat lack clay under a seal or Isaiah's about the earth being God's footstool is a more flat-earth cosmology. The circle of the earth isn't a sphere and more like disk. The Sumerians made maps that were disks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"because of where they saw their gods living and how they viewed their travel."

Yes, Osiris needed a flat earth, because his realm of the dead was under earth.

However, Helios and Shamash don't really and even Osiris can update to having Tir nan Og in the West.

AND Hebrews didn't believe in Osiris in the first place.

"Also, four corners would mean round it would be a square but I don't think that was a cosmological statement."

IN Apocalypse 7:1 you have an angel at each corner.

Job, Isaiah? Citations, please.

"The circle of the earth isn't a sphere and more like disk."

Unprovable and unproven detail of semantics.

"The Sumerians made maps that were disks."

And sea faring Phoenicians didn't, as I mentioned.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl they didn't need Osiris to believe in a flat earth lots of places believed in a flat earth with that like in America's and Sumer. They can easily modify their mythology as well to a hollow earth.

Job 38:14 "As the light approaches, the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal; it is robed in brilliant colors."

Isaiah 66:1 "Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway As to Osiris, his myth would in some ways promote flat earth, even if replaceable.

What Egyptians believed is no clue as to what hagiographers believed. Or even Hebrews in their time. And even less to what hagiographers expressed in their words.

As to seal or footstool, you might be pressing the tertium comparationis over much.

The taking shape is the point of Job, very available even with round earth. A footstool can be round, it can only not be moving, and yes, I am a Geocentric. Thanks for another Biblical proof.

VII

from other status of Drew, as a PS:

Drew Gasaway

Admin

7th January, 21:20

People, who hold to a historical narrative in the Old Testament before Herodustus; explain this how did the Nephilim (who were called men which means they human and mortal) survive the flood? The truth is they're based on mythical tall gods demigods in Sumer called the "Apkallu" in the tablet and there 7 of them and they became pure humans after the Epic of Gilgamesh's deluge and in same texts are then distinguished as by being called "Ummanu." The mention of the Nephilim was a slap in the face toward the Sumerians who saw these tall beings as a show of why were greater than everyone else.

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."

Genesis 6:7 "So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Numbers 13:33 "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And it could not be the reverse, like Genesis' 6 based on Nephelim without bungling the story and Sumerian Ummanu bungling it?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl the other is older then the Nephilim and Sumerians were worshiping these figures and it was part of their claim to fame of being related to the gods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, the Nephelim in real life are older than either text.

The Sumerian text may be older than the Hebrew, possible (when is the oldest tablet of that text dated to?) but both texts would depend in different measures on the same pre-Flood occurrence (and that the younger text is more faithful than the older is not a problem, since not depending on but getting tradition in parallel with the older one).

Drew Gasaway

What evidence do you have of that? The oldest mention of them is probably in the Epic of Gilgamesh which the oldest copy dates to 2100 BC and would have been around longer since you don't things based on their earliest copy unless you want to date Genesis to the late second Temple period. In the text of the Epic of Gilgamesh seven sages that were humanized to repopulate the earth, we called "Apkallu" instead of sages in the text. Gilgamesh was a real king who ruled in a city in around 2700 BC. The rest of the tablets mentioning them predate any scrolls or fragments of the Old Testament.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Epic of Gilgamesh which the oldest copy dates to 2100 BC"

Which version? Does that version have these "Apkallu"?

Then, as 1700 sth BC is carbon dated 2600 BC (Djoser's coffin, since Joseph was the real Imhotep, vizeer under Djoser), "2100 BC" is either after 1510 BC, if carbon date for when Jericho fell is carbon date of walls, or between Joseph and Moses, if the carbon date is rather when Jericho ceased to be inhabited a few centuries.

Either way, not long before Moses wrote Genesis.

"and would have been around longer"

Perhaps. Some texts are around since their earliest copy (a confession mirror for a Swedish King by the Swedish confessors of St. Bridget, I'd have made an edition of it for a thesis, if I had been PhD in Latin).

"since you don't things based on their earliest copy unless you want to date Genesis to the late second Temple period."

The reason I do not date Genesis to the late second Temple period is:

its attribution to Moses (lived 1590 to 1470 BC in chronology of Roman martyrology).
its recognition by Samaritans, who separated from Jews after the death of King Solomon.

With Sumerian Bilgamesh, we don't know all that much of the identity of the writer or author and cannot go by an attribution.

If Genesis were NOT by Moses, it could be from late second Temple period, but as you know I do not agree with that. If Bellum Gallicum were NOT by Caesar, some 9th C. monk or knight could have made up the campaigns in it.

"In the text of the Epic of Gilgamesh seven sages that were humanized to repopulate the earth, we called "Apkallu" instead of sages in the text."

You said "seven sages"? Wait ... I think we might be dealing with the Cainite lineage of Genesis 4 ... or did you say repeople, as in after the Flood? Could be a memory of the 8 on the Ark, then.

Since they lived centuries, they would have seemed immortal to their descendants.

"Gilgamesh was a real king who ruled in a city in around 2700 BC."

2700 BC would be before Younger Dryas. Babel, the first city, comes in c. 2602 BC. I took the 40 years of Babel as beginning five years after Noah died and ending six years before Peleg is born (the upbreak of mankind into ethnicities still ongoing then).

Noah dies 350 after Flood, 2607 BC
Babel begins, 2602 BC - carbon : 42.89 pmc, 9600 BC
Babel ends, 2562 BC - carbon : 48.171 pmc, 8600 BC
Peleg is born six years after end of Babel, 401 years after Flood, 2556 BC.

Creation vs. Evolution : Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/preliminary-conclusion-with-corrections.html

If Gilgamesh actually lived in 2700 BC, which is possible, he might have been Nimrod or son of Nimrod, since Nimrod was obviously still alive when building Babel.

"The rest of the tablets mentioning them predate any scrolls or fragments of the Old Testament."

But not Moses' authorship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(added)

Drew Gasaway "What evidence do you have of that?"

Both texts are evidence of some reality insofar as presumed not to be conscious fiction (a presumption certain for Genesis).

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to 2150 BC to 2000 BC your source is taking the latest dating. This article as do others show the earlier dating. Genesis is no less fiction then they're you have things in both texts that aren't factual and that contradicts. For example, in Genesis 7 it says after it says it would raid for 40 days it later says the waters would remain for 50 days. Then in Genesis 8 it says the waters came and would remain for 150 days. A lot of people misread and think that it simply means that it rained 40 days and the waters stayed on the earth for 150 days but even then after the 150 days the waters remained. Now, of course, you have all the plants in the ocean and on earth not leaving enough oxygen to live and not enough time for an olive branch to grow as their growth cycle to reach that point is to long.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Epic Poem Summary - Other Ancient Civilizations - Classical Literature
ANCIENT-LITERATURE.COM
https://www.ancient-literature.com/other_gilgamesh.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to 2150 BC to 2000 BC your source is taking the latest dating."

I don't know what you are calling "my source".

I linked to my own earlier work, since a comprehensive equation between older carbon dates and real dates fitting the Biblical chronology doesn't exist before me.

I am saying, from my carbon tables, that a carbon date of 2150 BC is in fact a date AFTER 1700 BC. Since 1700 BC is carbon dated 2600 BC, like Djoser's coffin.

You will hardly deny that your date 2150 BC is a date depending in some ways on carbon dates. You will not pretend Sumerians had a calendar with an epoch still currently in use and you can compare a date "Anno Diluvii 800" from the tablet with an "Anno Diluvii 4070" for the current year. Instead you will have dated the tablet by associated organic elements (like if it was wrapped in a cloth, or has same spelling system as another Sumerian tablet wrapped in a cloth, or same spelling system as a third Sumerian tablet on a wooden shelf), that is you will ultimately have indirectly carbon dated the tablet. THIS means, the 2150 BC date is a carbon date and as liable to be calibrated as any other carbon dates. Now, I DO calibrate carbon dates as old as that. Think of it : Joseph in Egypt in 1700 BC (carbon dated to 2600 BC), and Exodus in 1510 BC. And a carbon date for taking of Jericho is ambiguous, and depending on the choice, 2150 BC either carbon dates after Jericho was taken (i e after Moses died, so epic is posterior to Genesis) or carbon dates some date between 1700 BC and 1510 BC (meaning, at least not much before Genesis was written). How about UNDERSTANDING my methodology before you criticise how I APPLY it?

"This article as do others show the earlier dating."

I am sorry, but I was already speaking of a carbon date close enough to 2150, namely the carbon date 2100. Exactly the one given by you. I then proceded to CALIBRATE that carbon date into the Biblical chronology.

"Genesis is no less fiction then they're you have things in both texts that aren't factual and that contradicts."

You get contradictions in very factual history, because one of the things the historian considers factual isn't. One or two misunderstandings do not add up to an account being fiction.

Since you do not believe in inerrancy for Genesis anyway, why not give it the benefit of the doubt as at least somewhat bungled history?

Ah, no. You rush on to declaring it fiction.

"For example, in Genesis 7 it says after it says it would raid for 40 days it later says the waters would remain for 50 days. Then in Genesis 8 it says the waters came and would remain for 150 days. A lot of people misread and think that it simply means that it rained 40 days and the waters stayed on the earth for 150 days but even then after the 150 days the waters remained."

I would say the waters rose during 40 days of rain (not rain alone but also wells of the deep), then remained in the maximal height for 150 days. The waters remaining after 150 days were slowly receding.

"Now, of course, you have all the plants in the ocean and on earth not leaving enough oxygen to live and not enough time for an olive branch to grow as their growth cycle to reach that point is to long."

By what means (not excluding miracle) plant life was available after the Flood, I don't know.

One option is, all of it was not killed.

As to the olive branch, it could theoretically have been from a dead olive tree, and the branch simply told Noah he was around where things could be found on the ground. But I also recall a miracle story from Tannhäuser, in which a pope's staff gets green branches, now since Tannhäuser is arguably moralising fiction, the similar miracle is how Child Jesus identified Himself to St. Christopher and at the flight to Egypt, before they crossed the border, one St. Amator told Herod's soldiers very truthfully about seeing a child who had sown wheats that were fullgrown when the soldiers came, so they didn't bother to ask him more. Child Jesus had sown wheat grains that went through months of growth cycle in minutes or seconds : so, the plant life could have been miraculously restored, and this would solve one presumed "non-factuality" which anyway would not prove fiction.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there is carbon dating of tablets going back to what suggested. That isn't odd at all the Isaiah Scroll C14 dates between 100 and 200 BC. I gave you a source and without looking hard you can find at least 6 other sources that aren't blogs like yours was that say the same thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there is carbon dating of tablets going back to what suggested. That isn't odd at all the Isaiah Scroll C14 dates between 100 and 200 BC."

And whether you date by letter forms or by carbon - the oldest manuscript for Corpus Caesareum is after Charlemagne.

I was NOT disputing what you said about the carbon dates.

I AM disputing your methodology on TWO accounts: taking carbon dates literally rather than calibrating them into a Biblical chronology and deciding authorship by "somewhat before oldest dated manuscript" rather than by historical attestation.

"I gave you a source and without looking hard you can find at least 6 other sources that aren't blogs like yours was that say the same thing."

Yes, and these sources make the exact same mistake as you do about carbon dating. If the carbon date 2150 BC really meant 2150 BC, it would be older than Moses by six centuries. Obviously a dated manuscript - tablet, papyrus, vellum, even paper - will replace an attestation which is lacking. What it won't is being a requirement in order to back up an attestation.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl anyway you put the dates things exist before the oldest surviving copy when they're that old. That means that it predates when the Israelites left UR. It certainly predates Moses by a long shot. If you look at the way these accounts were written in the Old Testament they were written to give downing to these gods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"anyway"

= You don't bother about the argument.

"you put the dates things exist before the oldest surviving copy when they're that old."

Instead you present "how things are done" at your academia and you expect me to bother about that when the result is guaranteed to be wrong by contradicting Bible, Church Fathers and the Traditional Magisterium.

"That means that it predates when the Israelites left UR."

Only if you take the carbon dates as what they would mean (and are given as) if (by presuming that) pmC level was c. 100.

I already told you, but you seem deaf or blind by wilful ignorance of the argument (called ignoratio elenchi, and that is one of the fallacies) that I consider a carbon date of 2600 / 2800 BC (whichever was the date for Djoser's coffin) as a real date c. 1700 BC (when Joseph's Pharao died). Meaning a carbon date of 2150 BC will reflect a real date much closer to Moses, if not later (depending on what carbon dates are relevant and how for the taking of Jericho in 1470 BC).

"It certainly predates Moses by a long shot."

Not so long if my recalibrations are correct, which I think they are, feel free to prove me wrong, but "academic consensus" will not do it.

"If you look at the way these accounts were written in the Old Testament they were written to give downing to these gods."

Or the nephelim simply were the true account while the Sumerian version gave an upping to them. (I suppose the opposite of a downing is an upping, right?).

Drew Gasaway

I don't believe in the magisterium Hans-Georg Lundahl but there is no contradiction if you understand the author's intent and genre being used. Moses was the one who had the Torah revealed and that didn't happen until after they left Egypt and that is long after these stories were written.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Moses wrote Exodus to Deuteronomy (minus its final chapter, which was written by Joshua) as partly his biography, partly things revealed to him (at the burning bush, on Mt Sinai).

This means, as he did not himself state Genesis 1 - 50 "was revealed to him" and since only for six days (Genesis 1 or Genesis 1:1 - 2:4) we have any tradition it was revealed to him, we must presume Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 as pre-history, before human observers, and the rest as history.

" if you understand the author's intent and genre being used"

I suppose you consider "myth" a genre, I do not.

Epic is a genre, tragedy is a genre, and the myth of Pharsalia is recent history, just as the myth of Persai.

So, myth is not a genre distinct from history, not a genre distinct from epic and not a genre distinct from tragedy.

Conversely, undisputed historical events can be described in genres such as epic, tragedy, prose historiography.

As I suppose you consider, incorrectly as mentioned, "myth" as a genre, do you consider Joseph in Egypt as a myth "upping" the Pagan halfgod Imhotep?

And again, when you claim "long after these stories were written" you are presuming that carbon dates like 2100 BC reflect dates like 2100 BC and carbon dates like 2150 BC reflect dates as 2150 BC. I have already stated my disagreement with this, it is not an undisputed fact you can use when arguing with me.

Indeed, it is a kind of bad manners to shift away from the debate I offered on the dating and on carbon dates in general while going on to use the dates that I dispute as an argument.

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

mardi 21 janvier 2020

Raqia debate : Genesis Day 4

Raqia debate : Psalm 148

lundi 20 janvier 2020

Raqia debate : Hezekiel 1:22

Raqia debate : Josephus (and Philo)

Raqia : debate on 3 Baruch 3:5-8

dimanche 19 janvier 2020

Midrash part of Debate with Drew

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway

lundi 6 janvier 2020

Debate with Drew Gasaway on YEC as relating to inter alia Jericho

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB