|
Post by xna on Oct 29, 2015 22:10:14 GMT -5
Russian Archaeologists Uncover Skeletons of “Satyr’ The reader must decide.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Oct 29, 2015 23:50:41 GMT -5
Think about it...
The Mamoth one....
The guy is a photographer....
Why such a short clip? He quit filming? No way. A photographer would have gotten a lot more footage....something smells funny...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 30, 2015 6:22:50 GMT -5
Think about it... The Mamoth one.... The guy is a photographer.... Why such a short clip? He quit filming? No way. A photographer would have gotten a lot more footage....something smells funny... Old woolly mammoth?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 30, 2015 8:12:57 GMT -5
Is there any reason to suppose (and I am not restricting the question to Christianity) that the ancients ever intended any of their writings to be taken literally? To them, expressing life's deepest Truths, relied on mystery, metaphor and myth. Something that literalism (which I suspect only showed up with a Newtonian view of the world) could never encompass. Myth does not equal a lie (contrary to how a lot of people might see it in our day and age). It is reaching for Truths that are otherwise inexpressible. Words, at best, are pointers to an underlying reality. They are not reality anymore than a restaurant menu equals a meal. So on top of the ideas that the oral tradition may not have been accurately preserved and that any one of the various translations/copying procedures may have been flawed you are now introducing the idea that it is up to the reader to decide what mystery/metaphor/myth the author was promoting and what meaning it was to impart? And this is how the word of god is delivered to the multitudes? Sounds like a fair analysis!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 30, 2015 8:47:05 GMT -5
Nathan I grew out of dragons when I was in my teens. Dragons are real. As long as you define them correctly!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 17:47:54 GMT -5
There's an interesting dragon in Revelations. The Red Dragon - corresponding to something coming on the Earth. Some have suggested this could have been Communism. There's a danger in identifying things in scripture with things in the world today, but the connection to the Red Dragon is interesting - it seems to control one third of the Earth, or one third of its population. It wars against the White Dragon which Revelations says is false religion. This Red Dragon seeks to seize the child from its mother. What it says is true, but isn't. And its various minions have the one mind and give their power to this dragon.
This is all Nostradamus style of course, but the parallels are interesting. Certainly, if you believe the bible you will be alert to the possibility that this dragon "has to be something" and there's nothing, to date, more apt, than Communism.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 30, 2015 18:01:16 GMT -5
There's an interesting dragon in Revelations. The Red Dragon - corresponding to something coming on the Earth.
Not to worry, the red dragon is afraid of the red heifer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 18:39:41 GMT -5
Certainly there are religions which hold to some aspects of Genesis, and the bible itself. You can't avoid that. But the logical fallacy is to judge the veracity of the bible against these. It's like guilt by association. There ARE symbolic things in the bible, and there ARE translation issues, and there ARE changes in what some terms mean - but the bible declares its HISTORICITY. We shouldn't read the story of King David, for instance, like we would read of Greek gods. Nor should we consider Genesis to be the Jewish equivalent of our aboriginal dream time creation snake.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 30, 2015 19:22:45 GMT -5
[ This is the model of the universe that the creation story in Genesis 1 describes.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 30, 2015 19:26:47 GMT -5
Bigfoot, snowman, Yeti..... exist for thousands of years before Homo Sapiens... Sounds like www.davidicke.com/
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 1, 2015 0:40:10 GMT -5
NathanB whether or not it is by intention, your contributions on this site are important when considering the null hypothesis that 'There is no difference between belief in a hollow earth or biblical miracles'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2015 23:51:55 GMT -5
[ This is the model of the universe that the creation story in Genesis 1 describes. That's the Skeptics View of the Bible, Bob. Doesn't it say in Job that God "hangs the world on nothing." There certainly is no earth foundation in that view. Someone has taken biblical prose and poetry to formulate this mockery. And of course, if you mock the bible's view on the earth then you can mock the bible's view on anything.
As an aside. The discovery of America had an adverse effect upon people's belief in the bible as the ultimate authority, so too with Copernicus' Heliocentric model - but the bible didn't REALLY say anything of the sort about these things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 0:17:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Nov 2, 2015 0:21:48 GMT -5
Why can't we dig down and find this place. I wonder how big the tree of Good and Evil is now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 0:30:06 GMT -5
At a certain depth the rock in the earth becomes molten. We don't know how to dig through molten rock. And this "hole" in the arctic was never found. It's all curious because the Earth weighs as much as a ball of iron the size of the earth - maybe lots of fat people live in this hollow earth. We can't ask Hollow Earthers anything about this as they are immune to questions, science, logic, maths and reason.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 2, 2015 0:38:55 GMT -5
This is the model of the universe that the creation story in Genesis 1 describes. That's the Skeptics View of the Bible, Bob.
Actually no, it's not. I know where that specific drawing came from, and it was NOT skeptics. The is also reference in the Book of Job to the "dome" above the earth -- as in the drawing you posted. Who said anything about a foundation? Everyone has taken biblical prose and poetry to formulate something, anything they want, according to their own biases and level of reason. The person who wrote the Genesis 1 story would undoubtedly believe you were mocking the Bible by proposing that the earth was a planet revolving around the sun in a universe of space. Come on, Bert -- the only thing I'm mocking is the fact that ANYONE thinks that chapter describes a planet. [/b] [/quote] We have a well known church in this part of the world that would love your interpretation of history. It's called the FLDS -- Fundamental Latter Day Saints. Perhaps the "discovery" of Australia was sufficient to counter the adverse effects of the discovery of America.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 1:00:17 GMT -5
Bob, this model - I don't know who drew it, wouldn't be surprised if some medieval Catholic drew it. Most likely it's an attempt to shoehorn biblical verses into its medieval view of the earth and universe. You would be struggling to find anything specific in the bible to this effect - the bible quite simply had no time for things like this. Yes, the earth has foundations, it has "four corners" and the sun "rises" and "sets" every day - don't go making physics from that, though.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 2, 2015 3:04:56 GMT -5
Bob, this model - I don't know who drew it,
I knew you didn't know where it came from. How about some pre-Christian Greek Pagan. If it had been the a pre-Judaic Pagan he could have left out the pillars and the underworld. You're a very poor gambler. The Bible had not yet been invented. You should read the first chapter of Genesis while looking at the picture. But you'll have to remember that God hadn't yet revealed planets and solar systems at that time. Nathan says it's hollow I think it sits on Jupiter. And that Pagan oracle in Greece is it's belly button. Some ancient peoples believed it was a NEW sun every day. [/b] [/quote] Makes good philosophy, though. But if you were a Roman it would make a great god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 3:57:42 GMT -5
There is a medieval drawing of a man looking into the wheels within wheels of transparent celestial globes. These held the sun, moon, planets and stars. It appears often in books on Galileo and his run-in with the church over Copernicus. Only it's very wrong - the bible didn't give us revolving globes at all - it gave no cosmological model at all.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 2, 2015 4:45:29 GMT -5
There is a medieval drawing of a man looking into the wheels within wheels of transparent celestial globes. These held the sun, moon, planets and stars. It appears often in books on Galileo and his run-in with the church over Copernicus. Only it's very wrong - the bible didn't give us revolving globes at all - it gave no cosmological model at all. Yes, I know. But they lived millennia after Genesis chapter 1. And if they lived today they could draw pictures of people landing on the moon. At the time of Genesis 1 they still hadn't invented the WHEEL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 4:56:51 GMT -5
Why here is an amazing thing - they knew about the state of the Earth in Genesis better than we knew in 2004. And Jacob, last chapter of Genesis, knew the entire history of the Jewish nation till the 1st Century AD. Seriously Smart people, here - or incredibly good at fluking things.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 2, 2015 16:54:26 GMT -5
Why here is an amazing thing - they knew about the state of the Earth in Genesis better than we knew in 2004. And Jacob, last chapter of Genesis, knew the entire history of the Jewish nation till the 1st Century AD. Seriously Smart people, here - or incredibly good at fluking things. Of course they knew all about the entire history -- they never wrote it until it was long past. You don't think Jacob wrote part of the Bible, do you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 17:02:24 GMT -5
I used to read Genesis' account of a dark and oceanic Earth as I grew up. I found myself able to reconcile the evolution part because Genesis said the seas brought forth life (including birds) etc. but not this oceanic Earth. Until the news in about 2005 of a breakthrough in geology which gave scientists an insight into the first few million years of Earth's history - and it was "a lot of water." So!!!!
And, by way of example, did someone write Genesis after 2005?
Same with Jacob. He spoke of the end of the Jewish nation when there was no Jewish nation. And we know he wasn't alive in AD70, and we know the earliest extant books on him were hundred of years before Jesus.
We can close our minds to some of these wondrous things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 17:04:54 GMT -5
Another interesting one which I haven't looked into since the coming of the Internet - the Aztec prophecy that the white devils would come and destroy their empire - and Cortez arrived the very year of that prophecy.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 2, 2015 18:38:19 GMT -5
I used to read Genesis' account of a dark and oceanic Earth as I grew up. I found myself able to reconcile the evolution part because Genesis said the seas brought forth life (including birds) etc. but not this oceanic Earth. Until the news in about 2005 of a breakthrough in geology which gave scientists an insight into the first few million years of Earth's history - and it was "a lot of water." So!!!!
You didn't learn that in school, did you? No. Genesis was COMPILED as a book of stories sometime like about 500 BC -- long after the history was over. It would be something like you and I writing that Christopher Columbus foretold the development of the USA -- Christopher could thereby predict the whole history of America. No he wasn't, but neither was he alive when the history of the nation was WRITTEN. Jacob didn't write anything, and the writers never spoke to him. [/b] [/quote] Some of these things only happen when our minds are closed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 18:47:01 GMT -5
The bible's view of the universe is a simple story told for the people who existed at the time the story was told. Imagine how you would explain the what an iPhone is to a Hittite. You'd have to tell them in terms of concepts they already understood. Same goes for how to explain a multi-dimensional universe that we don't even understand today, to a the same group of Hittites.
The big joke is people who think the little story for the Hittites is actually historically true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2015 19:49:57 GMT -5
The bible's view of the universe is a simple story told for the people who existed at the time the story was told. Imagine how you would explain the what an iPhone is to a Hittite. You'd have to tell them in terms of concepts they already understood. Same goes for how to explain a multi-dimensional universe that we don't even understand today, to a the same group of Hittites. The big joke is people who think the little story for the Hittites is actually historically true. And "back then" that Genesis verse about birds coming out of the ocean was like explaining an iPhone. And Earth being an oceanic planet was like explaining an iPhone. And Jacob telling his sons they would would create a nation that would only last till the Messiah came was like explaining an iPhone. And the Jews returning to their homeland in the last days, when they hadn't even left it was like explaining an iPhone.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 2, 2015 20:13:21 GMT -5
This is the model of the universe that the creation story in Genesis 1 describes. That's the Skeptics View of the Bible, Bob. Doesn't it say in Job that God "hangs the world on nothing." There certainly is no earth foundation in that view. It is the view of the earth presented in Genesis. Job was not in the equation. The words in the bible were taken at face value. The mockery would be to assign your own meaning because you do not agree with the literal words/meaning. He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
does lead to the idea of a stationary earth.
|
|