Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

Science is supposed to explain in details of two main questions:

1. WHAT it is?
2. and HOW it work?

Third important question would be - HOW can it be used - once you have managed to answer the first two questions.

The bible never answer these question, and certainly don't provide anything useful on how nature work.

Saying "God did it" is not an answer, nor is it logical. That sort of answer is nothing more than baseless superstition.



Jesus miraculously healing people, with a touch or with words, have done more harm to Christianity because we have a lot of fraudulently claims of healing.

There are certainly no evidences to support this healing powers.

How about the miracle of Speaking in Tongues, after Jesus' ascension? We have modern claims of this gift, from one of the churches, where we see a bunch of idiots, making incoherent noises.

No Jesus' miracles have made people make false claims of performing miracles themselves, make the New Testament looks like frauds.

I respectfully suggest that in many places the Bible does answer your questions 1 and 2, however, it is meant to be a guide for life--which wisdom does not always include scientific discourse.

Scientific Accuracies of the Bible | carm

 

[gnostic]

Scientific Accuracies of the Bible | carm

Science explain.

Those verses you have linked, are not explanations.

Matt Slick provided apologetic excuses, not explanation.

Take for instance, Slick's point 3 "The Stars are Innumerable", where he quoted Genesis 15:5, where God tell Abraham that his descendants will be like that of stars, being countless.

That a simile, not science. It is comparing population of people, plus descendants, to the stars, which has nothing to do with science or astronomy.

It doesn't explain a single thing about what a star is, nor do it explain how such a star work?

Why do the stars give off light and how?

The author to Genesis weren't even aware that the Sun itself is a star. No where in the entire bible, does it ever explain what a sun is and how it work.

Where do the light come from the sun? How?
Where do the heat come from the sun? How?
What is the sun made of?
Why do the authors think sun move across the sky?​

It say nothing about the earth is the one moving, its rotational spin, and say nothing about the earth orbiting the sun. Instead, it assume that the sun is moving, while the Earth is fixed. See Joshua 10, in the battle with the Amorites, where God stopped the sun over Gibeon. This tell us, that the author believe the Earth is fixed, while the sun and planets moved, across the sky, which is geocentric model.

As to the Earth being shaped as circle, it mean the earth is more like a disk than a sphere. They (ancient Israelites and later Christians) believe the same thing as Egyptians do, that the sun move across the sky from horizon to horizon, during the day, but at night, the sun travelled underground or the underworld, before returning to the other horizon in the east. Hence the geocentric model.

It was the Greeks who came up with the idea that the sun, planets and Earth were spherical shaped, like balls, and it was Aristarchus of Samos, working at Egypt's Alexandria, that came up with heliocentric model, that the the sun was in fixed position, while the earth and planets orbited around the sun. This was unpopular, even though Aristarchus was correct. It wasn't until Nicholaus Copernicus, who brought back the heliocentric model, which Galileo, Kepler and Newton proved.

The bible, in the entire book, explain nothing about stars, including our sun. When it described what it described, it is often based on ignorance and only superficial, and often false observation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Science explain.

Those verses you have linked, are not explanations.

Matt Slick provided apologetic excuses, not explanation.

Take for instance, Slick's point 3 "The Stars are Innumerable", where he quoted Genesis 15:5, where God tell Abraham that his descendants will be like that of stars, being countless.

That a simile, not science. It is comparing population of people, plus descendants, to the stars, which has nothing to do with science or astronomy.

It doesn't explain a single thing about what a star is, nor do it explain how such a star work?

Why do the stars give off light and how?

The author to Genesis weren't even aware that the Sun itself is a star. No where in the entire bible, does it ever explain what a sun is and how it work.

Where do the light come from the sun? How?
Where do the heat come from the sun? How?
What is the sun made of?
Why do the authors think sun move across the sky?​

It say nothing about the earth is the one moving, its rotational spin, and say nothing about the earth orbiting the sun. Instead, it assume that the sun is moving, while the Earth is fixed. See Joshua 10, in the battle with the Amorites, where God stopped the sun over Gibeon. This tell us, that the author believe the Earth is fixed, while the sun and planets moved, across the sky, which is geocentric model.

As to the Earth being shaped as circle, it mean the earth is more like a disk than a sphere. They (ancient Israelites and later Christians) believe the same thing as Egyptians do, that the sun move across the sky from horizon to horizon, during the day, but at night, the sun travelled underground or the underworld, before returning to the other horizon in the east. Hence the geocentric model.

It was the Greeks who came up with the idea that the sun, planets and Earth were spherical shaped, like balls, and it was Aristarchus of Samos, working at Egypt's Alexandria, that came up with heliocentric model, that the the sun was in fixed position, while the earth and planets orbited around the sun. This was unpopular, even though Aristarchus was correct. It wasn't until Nicholaus Copernicus, who brought back the heliocentric model, which Galileo, Kepler and Newton proved.

The bible, in the entire book, explain nothing about stars, including our sun. When it described what it described, it is often based on ignorance and only superficial, and often false observation.

I'm always interested in hermeneutics (Bible interpretation methods).

How do you know when the Bible is giving facts and when it is using similes?

Is the passage in Point 3--the stars are innumerable--poetic? storytelling? history? science textuality?

 

[gnostic]

I'm always interested in hermeneutics (Bible interpretation methods).

How do you know when the Bible is giving facts and when it is using similes?

Is the passage in Point 3--the stars are innumerable--poetic? storytelling? history? science textuality?

There are no science involved.

Point 3 explain nothing, and it is merely a simile, because it is comparing the unknown population of future descendants of Abraham to the stars.

Anyone can write something about the countless stars in the sky, whether it is for religious scriptures, poems, etc.

It has nothing to do with history, because it doesn't write any other accounts of what those future descendants did, other than focusing on the line of son and grandson - Isaac and Jacob. And Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not considered as historical figures, because there are contemporary or near-contemporary accounts about their lives.

Other ancient civilisations have written myths and legends of larger than life figures, supposedly their ancestors, the founding father of race, tribe, or nation; so it is myth of national heroes, so what is contained in Genesis and Exodus are really not all that unique at all.

So about Abraham, it is more of mythological storytelling.

And again, Slick's point is superficial, because it doesn't explain what stars and galaxies are.

 

[gnostic]

In science, it is attempt to acquire knowledge, by explaining WHAT it is, HOW it work, and if necessary, HOW such knowledge can be use to do something with.

For instance, when physicists discovered the nature of electromagnetic waves. They explain what each EM waves are, how they work, and how they can be used, meaning applications for each EM wave.

Examples of applications for radio waves, can be for transmission of radio, for short-wave radio communication, television telecast, wi-fi network, etc.

The bible provide no details on what nature is, nothing on how they work. Saying god can do this or create that, is not science, but demonstration of religious belief.

It talk of sun moving across the sky, but doesn't explain how. It talk of stopping the sun for an entire day, while Joshua's warriors fight against the Amorites, but never explained how. Once the battle ended, sun move again.

It seemed to be saying the earth is fixed and stationary but the sun move, hence, what it is describing is geocentric model. The geocentric model was more scientifically popular than heliocentric model, but it is scientifically wrong.

The first astronomer to ever describe heliocentric model for the solar system, was Aristarchus of Samos, 3rd century BCE. But it was unpopular, especially among the Christians right up to the Renaissance. Nicolaus Copernicus brought heliocentric model back, Galileo and Newton verified the heliocentric model is correct for our solar system.

The bible and other scriptures are not science books, and any descriptions they give regarding to nature, should be treated with skepticism, questioned and tested.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are no science involved.

Point 3 explain nothing, and it is merely a simile, because it is comparing the unknown population of future descendants of Abraham to the stars.

Anyone can write something about the countless stars in the sky, whether it is for religious scriptures, poems, etc.

It has nothing to do with history, because it doesn't write any other accounts of what those future descendants did, other than focusing on the line of son and grandson - Isaac and Jacob. And Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not considered as historical figures, because there are contemporary or near-contemporary accounts about their lives.

Other ancient civilisations have written myths and legends of larger than life figures, supposedly their ancestors, the founding father of race, tribe, or nation; so it is myth of national heroes, so what is contained in Genesis and Exodus are really not all that unique at all.

So about Abraham, it is more of mythological storytelling.

And again, Slick's point is superficial, because it doesn't explain what stars and galaxies are.

I still don't understand how you innately know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are poetical or simile. In the passage under debate, a conversation between a man and God are being recorded, not a sonnet or verse or poem.

It seems to underpin your arguments that "God doesn't show scientific accuracies" in the Bible (you did the same thing with Job) by demonstrating what is literal and what is poetic language. Did you attend seminary or some other hermeneutics training location?

I have given sermons, studied the Bible, and have a religion degree from a secular university. Where did you learn what parts of the Bible are symbolic and what parts are similes?

 

[gnostic]

I still don't understand how you innately know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are poetical or simile.

Recognising similes are easy in the bible, because the author will describe a person or people, to something else.

The one you already know, when comparing Abraham' descendants to the numbers of stars. The other was comparing number of descendants to the uncountable number of dust.

One of the most often used in similes, when comparing a person's physical characteristics or personality or action to that of animals.

he examples of using animals in Genesis, would be chapter 49, when Jacob gave his blessings to his sons. Some of his sons were compared to animals, like Judah with lion, Issachar with a donkey , Dan as a viper, Naphtali as doe, and Benjamin as a wolf. Joseph was not compared to animal, but to plant, like vines that climb over walls. And Reuben was described as turbulent water.

Similes are often used in poems, but in the bible they are found frequently in allegories, visions, revelation and prophecies.

For instance, in Isaiah 14, the author compared the king of Babylonia to the morning star, and his empire as stars.

You know that stars don't fall, and morning star is not a star, but the planet Venus. What Isaiah described as "fall", is actually when stars begin vanishing from view during dawn just before the sunrise.

What Isaiah were comparing the "morning star" and "falling stars", were Babylonian king at his empire, not satan and his followers, as interpreted by Christians. We have St Jerome to thank for when he translated morning star to Latin "lucifer", the morning star, which was later misused by medieval Christians to identify Lucifer with the Christian version of Satan, aka the Devil.

But I am getting sidetracked.

One of the ways to identify similes being used on someone or something, is when an author used the words - "like" or "as".

For instances, using a non-biblical examples, I can describe the famous sprinter Usain Bolt, like "Bolt ran like the wind" or "Usain runs like a cheetah". They are just similes of Usain being a a very quick runner; they shouldn't be taken literally, because Usain is not literally a cheetah or the wind.

But my points about Usain Bolt is that I used the words "like" in the two similes.

To give you another example of a simile, but this time not comparing a person or people to animals, plants, stars or elements (such frequently used fire, water, wind, etc), etc.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

Do see here?

It used the word "like", twice in one verses (highlighted in red). Christians, especially creationists, have often taken this verse literally, when they shouldn't.

One day never equals to one thousand years.

A different translation to Peter's verse, like KJV, will use "as", not "like" as the operative word to describe the simile (again, highlighted in red):

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Now do you understand why similes shouldn't be taken as literals?

I have given sermons, studied the Bible, and have a religion degree from a secular university. Where did you learn what parts of the Bible are symbolic and what parts are similes?

When I was teenager, I didn't really understand similes when I first read the bible, most likely due to inexperienced.

It was when I first read Homer's masterpiece - The Iliad and The Odyssey. I was 20 at the time. Both epic poems frequently used similes to describe a Greek or Trojan warrior. Achilles for instance, was often compared to fire. In Book 5, the other Greek hero, Diomedes was compared to a wild boar, as he recklessly charged into Trojan rank, killing his enemies.

If you know about Diomedes' family history from other myths, his father was an exiled Calydonian prince in Argos, Tydeus, who painted and depicted a wild boar as his emblem on his shield, and his uncle Meleager, who killed the famous Calydonian Boar in the hunt.

So for similes of a wild boar to describe Diomedes, is not surprising.

When you read other epic poems, like Aeneid (about Aeneas after the Trojan War and his migration into Italy) or the Argonaitica (the adventures of Jason and the Argonauts), or any of the Greek tragedies, you'll pick up knack for recognising similes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Recognising similes are easy in the bible, because the author will describe a person or people, to something else.

The one you already know, when comparing Abraham' descendants to the numbers of stars. The other was comparing number of descendants to the uncountable number of dust.

One of the most often used in similes, when comparing a person's physical characteristics or personality or action to that of animals.

he examples of using animals in Genesis, would be chapter 49, when Jacob gave his blessings to his sons. Some of his sons were compared to animals, like Judah with lion, Issachar with a donkey , Dan as a viper, Naphtali as doe, and Benjamin as a wolf. Joseph was not compared to animal, but to plant, like vines that climb over walls. And Reuben was described as turbulent water.

Similes are often used in poems, but in the bible they are found frequently in allegories, visions, revelation and prophecies.

For instance, in Isaiah 14, the author compared the king of Babylonia to the morning star, and his empire as stars.

You know that stars don't fall, and morning star is not a star, but the planet Venus. What Isaiah described as "fall", is actually when stars begin vanishing from view during dawn just before the sunrise.

What Isaiah were comparing the "morning star" and "falling stars", were Babylonian king at his empire, not satan and his followers, as interpreted by Christians. We have St Jerome to thank for when he translated morning star to Latin "lucifer", the morning star, which was later misused by medieval Christians to identify Lucifer with the Christian version of Satan, aka the Devil.

But I am getting sidetracked.

One of the ways to identify similes being used on someone or something, is when an author used the words - "like" or "as".

For instances, using a non-biblical examples, I can describe the famous sprinter Usain Bolt, like "Bolt ran like the wind" or "Usain runs like a cheetah". They are just similes of Usain being a a very quick runner; they shouldn't be taken literally, because Usain is not literally a cheetah or the wind.

But my points about Usain Bolt is that I used the words "like" in the two similes.

To give you another example of a simile, but this time not comparing a person or people to animals, plants, stars or elements (such frequently used fire, water, wind, etc), etc.



Do see here?

It used the word "like", twice in one verses (highlighted in red). Christians, especially creationists, have often taken this verse literally, when they shouldn't.

One day never equals to one thousand years.

A different translation to Peter's verse, like KJV, will use "as", not "like" as the operative word to describe the simile (again, highlighted in red):



Now do you understand why similes shouldn't be taken as literals?



When I was teenager, I didn't really understand similes when I first read the bible, most likely due to inexperienced.

It was when I first read Homer's masterpiece - The Iliad and The Odyssey. I was 20 at the time. Both epic poems frequently used similes to describe a Greek or Trojan warrior. Achilles for instance, was often compared to fire. In Book 5, the other Greek hero, Diomedes was compared to a wild boar, as he recklessly charged into Trojan rank, killing his enemies.

If you know about Diomedes' family history from other myths, his father was an exiled Calydonian prince in Argos, Tydeus, who painted and depicted a wild boar as his emblem on his shield, and his uncle Meleager, who killed the famous Calydonian Boar in the hunt.

So for similes of a wild boar to describe Diomedes, is not surprising.

When you read other epic poems, like Aeneid (about Aeneas after the Trojan War and his migration into Italy) or the Argonaitica (the adventures of Jason and the Argonauts), or any of the Greek tragedies, you'll pick up knack for recognising similes.

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed explanation. We have in Genesis 15: He took him outside and said, "Look up at the sky and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

and in Genesis 26: I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed . . .

and in Genesis 22: I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies . . .

None of the three passages use "like".

The passages contain things that were fulfilled. There were millions of Jewish descendants (and non-Jewish descendants) of Abraham, the Jewish people conquered enemy cities and the Christ provided blessings to many nations.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed explanation. We have in Genesis 15: He took him outside and said, "Look up at the sky and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

and in Genesis 26: I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed . . .

and in Genesis 22: I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies . . .

None of the three passages use "like".

The passages contain things that were fulfilled. There were millions of Jewish descendants (and non-Jewish descendants) of Abraham, the Jewish people conquered enemy cities and the Christ provided blessings to many nations.

You do realise that the number of the stars that a person can see in the night sky of the northern hemisphere, is really not countless.

And I am talking back then when there was no telescope - ancient time, in ancient Israel.

The number doesn't even approach 1 million stars. Do you know the number, BilliardsBall?

It is only 9096 individual stars, visible to the naked eye. And that's only the stars a person can see, which are the stars nearest to our own solar system.

Our solar system is about 26,000 light year from Milky Way's centre, and there are any where between 100 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy, and 9096 stars is only a fraction of what we can see unaided.

According to Numbers 1:46, if we were to believe the Exodus happened, there are 603,550 men in the census, who could bear arms for war.

So the number of men in Moses' time have already exceeded the number of stars in the northern sky. So there weren't really that much stars that people can see back then, and it was "countless" or "immeasurable".

So I am not all that impress by god's claim in Genesis 15, 22 or 26. Apparently god is so stupid that he can't count up to 9000 or so stars.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You do realise that the number of the stars that a person can see in the night sky of the northern hemisphere, is really not countless.

And I am talking back then when there was no telescope - ancient time, in ancient Israel.

The number doesn't even approach 1 million stars. Do you know the number, BilliardsBall?

It is only 9096 individual stars, visible to the naked eye. And that's only the stars a person can see, which are the stars nearest to our own solar system.

Our solar system is about 26,000 light year from Milky Way's centre, and there are any where between 100 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy, and 9096 stars is only a fraction of what we can see unaided.

According to Numbers 1:46, if we were to believe the Exodus happened, there are 603,550 men in the census, who could bear arms for war.

So the number of men in Moses' time have already exceeded the number of stars in the northern sky. So there weren't really that much stars that people can see back then, and it was "countless" or "immeasurable".

So I am not all that impress by god's claim in Genesis 15, 22 or 26. Apparently god is so stupid that he can't count up to 9000 or so stars.

Please provide your understanding of the Hebrew where God said, "the stars visible to the naked eye".

Please provide your understanding of the Hebrew where God said, "the stars visible in some hours to people on the far side of the planet, looking at stars in a different hemisphere".

Please provide your understanding of the Hebrew that you are changing your stance from "this was a simile" to "this was a literal accounting of the stars visible to the naked eye".

 

[gnostic]

Please provide your understanding of the Hebrew where God said, "the stars visible to the naked eye".

Please provide your understanding of the Hebrew where God said, "the stars visible in some hours to people on the far side of the planet, looking at stars in a different hemisphere".

Please provide your understanding of the Hebrew that you are changing your stance from "this was a simile" to "this was a literal accounting of the stars visible to the naked eye".

Now you are being pedantic, BilliardsBall.

I didn't say the bible literally written anything about the "naked eye", but no one would have a telescope during Abraham 's time so any counting of stars would be done unaided, hence the "naked eye".

I used the words "naked eye", not in Genesis, but you being stupidly pedantic about it.

And Abraham was living in Canaan at the time, when god gave this covenant, so this would be the night sky over Canaan. And God told Abraham to count the stars if he could, and that would be the number of his descendants.

But the number of the individual stars that could be seen, from horizon to horizon, is less than 10,000 stars. The number of stars that can be seen, is not limitless or infinite, BilliardsBall. And you could see more if you had a telescope, and Abraham clearly didn't have one.

You are being ignorant about this, if you think Abraham could see more than 9096 stars. The tribe of Judah alone, was more than 74,000 men, when Moses had the census done.

There are of course a lot more stars than 9096 stars, but these stars are closest to earth, and the only ones that are visible to us without any telescope.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now you are being pedantic, BilliardsBall.

I didn't say the bible literally written anything about the "naked eye", but no one would have a telescope during Abraham 's time so any counting of stars would be done unaided, hence the "naked eye".

I used the words "naked eye", not in Genesis, but you being stupidly pedantic about it.

And Abraham was living in Canaan at the time, when god gave this covenant, so this would be the night sky over Canaan. And God told Abraham to count the stars if he could, and that would be the number of his descendants.

But the number of the individual stars that could be seen, from horizon to horizon, is less than 10,000 stars. The number of stars that can be seen, is not limitless or infinite, BilliardsBall. And you could see more if you had a telescope, and Abraham clearly didn't have one.

You are being ignorant about this, if you think Abraham could see more than 9096 stars. The tribe of Judah alone, was more than 74,000 men, when Moses had the census done.

There are of course a lot more stars than 9096 stars, but these stars are closest to earth, and the only ones that are visible to us without any telescope.

I'm not trying to be pedantic. I'm trying to understand your stance, which seems to be, "the remarks about stars in Genesis are meant to be poetic similes but God is stupid because his poetry isn't scientifically accurate."

 

[gnostic]

I'm not trying to be pedantic. I'm trying to understand your stance, which seems to be, "the remarks about stars in Genesis are meant to be poetic similes but God is stupid because his poetry isn't scientifically accurate."

Similes can appeared in any type of writings, eg poems or verses, or prose, but they appeared more frequently in poem than prose.

They also appeared more frequently in fiction than non-fiction.

Let's go back to your earlier post:

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed explanation. We have in Genesis 15: He took him outside and said, "Look up at the sky and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

and in Genesis 26: I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed . . .

and in Genesis 22: I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies . . .

None of the three passages use "like".

The passages contain things that were fulfilled. There were millions of Jewish descendants (and non-Jewish descendants) of Abraham, the Jewish people conquered enemy cities and the Christ provided blessings to many nations.

I am saying similes are more frequently recognisable when using the words "like" or "as", but there are no rules that say "like" or "as".

As those 3 verses doesn't use "like", they are still similes, because the passages are comparing people to non-people objects, like stars, sands or dusts.

When you star comparing people to stars, then it is a simile, whether you the word "like" or not, because people and stars are two completely different things.

If I compare the number of lemons in the backyard to the same number of school children in one classroom, it is not numbers that are simile, but I am comparing a lemon to a child, that make it a simile, regardless if I using "like" or not.

Using "like" is just more recognisable, but you can express similes without the word "like".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Similes can appeared in any type of writings, eg poems or verses, or prose, but they appeared more frequently in poem than prose.

They also appeared more frequently in fiction than non-fiction.

Let's go back to your earlier post:



I am saying similes are more frequently recognisable when using the words "like" or "as", but there are no rules that say "like" or "as".

As those 3 verses doesn't use "like", they are still similes, because the passages are comparing people to non-people objects, like stars, sands or dusts.

When you star comparing people to stars, then it is a simile, whether you the word "like" or not, because people and stars are two completely different things.

If I compare the number of lemons in the backyard to the same number of school children in one classroom, it is not numbers that are simile, but I am comparing a lemon to a child, that make it a simile, regardless if I using "like" or not.

Using "like" is just more recognisable, but you can express similes without the word "like".

Here are the problems I see:

1) The passages at hand talk about 1) literally possessing the land of the Jews' enemies 2) literally multiplying to become a great group of persons from Abraham, and 3) literally blessing the world [through the Bible and the Christ from the people issuing from Abraham]. That is why I don't think they are simile passages.

2) In Abraham's day, as you noted, astrologers could see 2,000 to 9,000 stars in an evening, depending. They were counted, often catalogued, and God says to Abraham that the stars of the Heavens are innumerable. Are they STILL, presently numbered all by man or innumerable?

Now, the ancient Israelites had contact with the Babylonian and Assyrian astrologers, as you know. That's how the gospel of the very stars came about. Do you see scorpions and virgins in the night sky? Consider the ancient signs:

*sacrificial ram and bull
*twins (Adam and Christ)
*virgin (Mary/Miriam)
*scales (God's justice)
*water bearer (Christ of the living waters)
*lion (of David, Christ)
*scorpion (dragon, Satan)
*fish (-ers of men)
etc.

The ancients saw the gospel in the sky!

There are numbers much greater in both testaments than 9,000. The Torah writer wasn't ignorant of great numbers, but chose the word "innumerable". Modern Christians recognize the stars ARE STILL innumerable despite modern technology.

God's Word stands.

 

[gnostic]

Here are the problems I see:

1) The passages at hand talk about 1) literally possessing the land of the Jews' enemies 2) literally multiplying to become a great group of persons from Abraham, and 3) literally blessing the world [through the Bible and the Christ from the people issuing from Abraham]. That is why I don't think they are simile passages.

2) In Abraham's day, as you noted, astrologers could see 2,000 to 9,000 stars in an evening, depending. They were counted, often catalogued, and God says to Abraham that the stars of the Heavens are innumerable. Are they STILL, presently numbered all by man or innumerable?

Now, the ancient Israelites had contact with the Babylonian and Assyrian astrologers, as you know. That's how the gospel of the very stars came about. Do you see scorpions and virgins in the night sky? Consider the ancient signs:

*sacrificial ram and bull
*twins (Adam and Christ)
*virgin (Mary/Miriam)
*scales (God's justice)
*water bearer (Christ of the living waters)
*lion (of David, Christ)
*scorpion (dragon, Satan)
*fish (-ers of men)
etc.

The ancients saw the gospel in the sky!

There are numbers much greater in both testaments than 9,000. The Torah writer wasn't ignorant of great numbers, but chose the word "innumerable". Modern Christians recognize the stars ARE STILL innumerable despite modern technology.

God's Word stands.

Oh, good grief.

Isn't it bad enough that you don't recognise a simile when you see one, but now you are trying turn astronomy into astrology.

This why Christians have remained so ignorant for so long before the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment. They have let superstitions to hold sway.

Seeing biblical characters in the stars, just showed that you are living in your own personal mini-Dark Ages.

I know that back then, ancient people mixed astronomy with astrology, but must you do that as well?

As to those zodiac constellations. You do know that are really no lines connecting the stars, don't you? And none of them have those ridiculous symbolic meanings. These constellations are just patterns, made up by men (as in astrologers). The symbolic meanings are made up by men (as in astrologers).

The patterns in the constellations are useful for mapping out the sky, so that astronomers can easily find that star again. At sea, it is impossible to navigate during the night without the stars.

But none of the stars or constellations actually inherently possessed meanings. And I don't see what you are doing, is any better.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh, good grief.

Isn't it bad enough that you don't recognise a simile when you see one, but now you are trying turn astronomy into astrology.

This why Christians have remained so ignorant for so long before the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment. They have let superstitions to hold sway.

Seeing biblical characters in the stars, just showed that you are living in your own personal mini-Dark Ages.

I know that back then, ancient people mixed astronomy with astrology, but must you do that as well?

As to those zodiac constellations. You do know that are really no lines connecting the stars, don't you? And none of them have those ridiculous symbolic meanings. These constellations are just patterns, made up by men (as in astrologers). The symbolic meanings are made up by men (as in astrologers).

The patterns in the constellations are useful for mapping out the sky, so that astronomers can easily find that star again. At sea, it is impossible to navigate during the night without the stars.

But none of the stars or constellations actually inherently possessed meanings. And I don't see what you are doing, is any better.

Ancient astronomy was tied closely to astrology. I bet this is a fact you knew before attacking me yet again.

God has fixed a day for all men to repent, including you and I. Repent.

 

[gnostic]

God has fixed a day for all men to repent, including you and I. Repent.

The only thing I need to repent for, is wasting my time replying to you when you go fanatically weird on me with an order to repent.

Sorry, but a day exist regardless if someone is repenting or not, but to say that god created a day for people repenting, is just beyond absurd.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The only thing I need to repent for, is wasting my time replying to you when you go fanatically weird on me with an order to repent.

Sorry, but a day exist regardless if someone is repenting or not, but to say that god created a day for people repenting, is just beyond absurd.

It's a day per person, not the same day for everyone. Today could be your day!

What would you be willing to repent of for the chance of eternal life? An old friend of my family's was a geologist with two Master's degrees. Confronted with biblical claims while older, in the workforce, he spent two years studying creation concepts before repenting. He was challenged, armed with science, wanting to be cautious, but burning within with the light of God.

 

[gnostic]

It's a day per person, not the same day for everyone. Today could be your day!

What would you be willing to repent of for the chance of eternal life? An old friend of my family's was a geologist with two Master's degrees. Confronted with biblical claims while older, in the workforce, he spent two years studying creation concepts before repenting. He was challenged, armed with science, wanting to be cautious, but burning within with the light of God.

I am not your "old friend", BB.

The whole concept of the zodiac constellations to symbolise Jesus, Mary or David, is another absurdity. But the absurdity is not in the NT, but in your obscure (and absurd) belief.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not your "old friend", BB.

The whole concept of the zodiac constellations to symbolise Jesus, Mary or David, is another absurdity. But the absurdity is not in the NT, but in your obscure (and absurd) belief.

Why are we not friends? Friends love each other and tell each other the truth. I think you have been truthful and honest with me and vice versa.