ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[prodigal]

Granite called it right down the line. The bible is riddled with inconsistencies, inaccuracies and lies. Frankly, just on general principle alone, I find it hard to value the opinion of someone who bases their entire life's belief on the words of a 2000 year old book. It's primitive and naive.

Aimiel, didn't I tell you to go stand in the corner?

 

[prodigal]

Aimiel,

Check these out while you’re in the corner and let me know what you think.

We’ll begin with the apostle Paul’s conversion.

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

How many daughters did king Saul have?

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

?

KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Now check this out:

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

Aimiel,
I admire the strength of your convictions, and you are free to believe whatever you would like, but I would like this to be a two sided conversation. Please, let me know what you think of the scripture I quoted above.

I can’t help it, just one more…

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

Yours truly,

Prodigal

p.s. there's more where that came from.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Prodigal--those who don't understand the Bible shouldn't criticise it.
You are demonstrating your ignorance rather than any fault in the Bible.

And at the same time, you have the audacity to claim that books written by heathens such as yourself are comparable to the scientific evidences of the Bible's integrity that we have just been discussing. That is easy for you to do simply because truth, to you, is not the objective. Your purpose is to snuff out the light of truth that you hate.

You claim to have demonstrated that the Bible is not unique in its scientific references, yet you havce not bothered to point out ONE other book which lives up to your claim that it is comparable to the Bible. COME ON!! Prove me wrong!! Cite your heathen or MODERN "science" reference to scientific truths which appeared within millenia of those truths being precisely stated in the Bible!

As I said above, your purpose is to destroy light and understanding. Oh, yes! and when you cite the books that you claim are comparable to the Bible, cite book, chapter and verse as I have done with God's holy word. Even today, your false god of "science falsely so-called" hasn't come up with hard science evidence of origins as has the Bible in its account of ex-nihilo creation. On that subject--your questioning of my transposing Einstien's formula lets me know that your mathematical understanding doesn't go beyond fifth grade level.

If I seem harsh, it stems from your baseless dismissals of valid evidences in the bible while at the same time, you just posted a great host of supposed obkjections to the contents of the Bible which are made up of nothing more than your ignorance.

 

[Skeptic]

Just jumping in....

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Prodigal--those who don't understand the Bible shouldn't criticise it.

Should those who don't understand biological evolution be able to criticize it?

Cite your heathen or MODERN "science" reference to scientific truths which appeared within millenia of those truths being precisely stated in the Bible!

Did the Bible state that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor? I don't think so. Anyway, there's a scientific truth for you.

I believe that truth (lowercase 't') is that which as been confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. This is the kind of truth science deals with. Here today, modified tomorrow.

So far as I can tell, absolute Truth (uppercase 'T') is a fairy tale. Do you have any evidence for absolute Truth?

Even today, your false god of "science falsely so-called" hasn't come up with hard science evidence of origins as has the Bible in its account of ex-nihilo creation.

Sorry if I missed your hard scientific evidence for your creation theory. What was it?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

When did I say this?

If you're referring to my saying you accused me of beleiving something, I based it on what you were responding to. I assumed that that was the contention, because I easily lose track of who accuses me of that, because a lot of people do.

I apologize.

Now, would you care to tell me what you think the Christian idea of sin is?

And why didn't you answer my question?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Ligthhouse,



That doesn’t answer the question, LH. If it’s not about the penalty, if we are going to be saved from sin, than why the need for hell in the first place?

Hell was not intended for mankind. And, hell is seperation from God. If someone chooses that, then the purpose hell serves is to give it to them. And it also serves the purpose of teaching people that God is missed, when He is absent.

If we are going to whatever definition of hell you choose to subscribe to, wouldn’t you agree that by accepting your god you HAVE been saved from hell?

In a sort. I have been saved from seperation from God.

If sin penalty enough to be saved from, why is god so sadistic as to let non-believers believe the wrong thing, and THEN go to hell. Doesn’t seem very loving to me at all.

Sin is not a penalty.

God does not just let people go to hell. He only lets them, if they choose to go to hell. And, it is my firm beleif, that God leaves them no questions about Himself, before allowing them to make their final choce.

By the way, I’m sure you watch it, do you know when Smallville is coming back on?

Are they doing reruns, again? Last week was a new episode. And the few weeks before that were new, as well. I haven't seen them all, because I tape them, if I'm not here, but I don't have cable, so they don't always come in clear enough to watch them. That happened with last week's.

But that show has torn so much of Superman, and the characters surrounding him, apart, and even torn apart The Flash, that it isn't even worth watching, most of the time. Especially since they come up with so many sucky episodes. I really can't believe that Jane Seymour agreed to the episode she was in.:vomit:

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

How many daughters did king Saul have?

Since this is the one that first caught my eye, if you notice, it says Michal was bringing up someone else's child. So it does not contradict the other verse that says she died without any children of her own.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

?

Paul was saying that each man shall bear his own burden, but that we should help each other in bearing our burdens, yet we can not bear anyone's burden for them [them not bearing it at all].

Now check this out:

Firstly, verses from the OT can't be used to argue this, because the events described took place before Christ's sacrafice cleansed sin from the earth.

Now, the verse in Proverbs is not about whether or not sin can occur in someone. It is saying that no one can cleanse their own hearts, or purify themselves.

The verses you are referencing in 1 John are not in disagreement. 1 Jon 1:9 is written to unbelievers, as is shown earlier in the chapter. John switches to believers in the second chapter. My guess is that's why the break was made there, when the Bible was formed into chapters. And if you notice the end of 1:9, you will notice that it says God will cleanse those who confess from unrighteousness. That cleansing is for all their sin, for all time. And 1:10 says that we are not such that have never sinned. 3:9 says that those who are born of God do not sin. 1:9-10 is about the state of someone before being born of God, and 3:9 is about their state after. Now, for a better explanation look to 3:4:
"Whosoever committeth sin trasgresseth also the law; for sin is transgression of the law."
Then look to Romans 4:15:
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
This, of course, begs the question, "Where is there no law?" And the answer is in Romans 6:14
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."
So, who is under grace? Those who have accepted the grace God has given to all men. That is who Paul was writing to.

Also, I like 5:13:
"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

As for the verses about Elijah, and ascension, Elijah didn't ascend [by his own power], he was caught up, by the Lord. Jesus ascended, by His own power.

And the verses about tempting, James is saying that God does not tempt anyone with evil, not that He doesn't tempt anyone. And, tempt means test. God tested Abraham, but He did not do it with evil.

I can’t help it, just one more…

Just because God is merciful, and takes pity, does not mean that He always does. And just because he didn't take pity on Amalek, or have mercy on them, doesn't mean He never does for others. As for the last verse, you have just proven that you do not know true and perfect love.

 

[Frank Ernest]

:granite: 1010:
Nazareth was non-existent at the time of Christ's birth, Herod's slaughter of the innocents is unknown outside of the Bible, there is no record whatsoever of the wars waged by David (or of his kingdom, for that matter), and the "census" described by Luke is improbable and unknown in Roman history. To call the Bible historically accurate is ignorant in the extreme.

FrankiE:
Your above statement is a good example of that which you decry, i.e., "ignorant in the extreme."

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

If you're referring to my saying you accused me of beleiving something, I based it on what you were responding to. I assumed that that was the contention, because I easily lose track of who accuses me of that, because a lot of people do.

I apologize.

Now, would you care to tell me what you think the Christian idea of sin is?

And why didn't you answer my question?

No problem, apology accepted.

I didn't answer this question because of the way you'd phrased it before: something to the effect of "tell me what MY idea of sin is," and I don't like putting words in your mouth or someone else's.

There's any number of ways people have and can define "sin." Sin as a Christian understands it is separation from God, an act of rebellion, unholiness, what have you.

 

[wickwoman]

Just skipping back in here. Correct me if I missed something.

Though the Bible could be accurate as to time and place, how will it be proven true that God is Jehovah, Jesus is the son of God, the earth was indeed created by Jehovah God, etc.? It seems to me that the most important parts of the Bible have an essential nature that is "scientifically" unprovable at this time due to human limitations.

Seems rather convenient says the very skeptical side of me (little "s" Skeptic). However, I am not saying all or part of these "unprovables" are not true, just "good luck proving them. "

So, as to the claim that any religionist can prove anything which they have spiritually discerned, seems to be idolatry of a sort. A religionist should stick to what they know, that is, the inner wo/man. And the inner knowledge of the things Spirit reveals, and not attempt to prove to themselves or anyone else for that matter something that cannot be proven. God will not be found in some magical future when once and for all He/She is proven by science to exist, God will be found by each individual who seeks after Him/Her in their heart.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:granite: 1010:
Nazareth was non-existent at the time of Christ's birth, Herod's slaughter of the innocents is unknown outside of the Bible, there is no record whatsoever of the wars waged by David (or of his kingdom, for that matter), and the "census" described by Luke is improbable and unknown in Roman history. To call the Bible historically accurate is ignorant in the extreme.

FrankiE:
Your above statement is a good example of that which you decry, i.e., "ignorant in the extreme."

Then prove me wrong.

 

[prodigal]

Rolf,

those who don't understand the Bible shouldn't criticise it.
You are demonstrating your ignorance rather than any fault in the Bible.

What leads you to believe that I don’t understand the bible? Where have I demonstrated ignorance? Please elaborate.

you have the audacity to claim that books written by heathens such as yourself are comparable to the scientific evidences of the Bible's integrity

What books have I quoted? Where is the audacity in pointing out the astronomical observations made by cultures that predate the writing of your bible? The only thing I’ve done is point out that the bible is in no way unique in it’s references to astronomy, even if it were unique, it still proves nothing. Your bible references are thin at best, for every Christian who has an interpretation of what the bible says, there’s usually a hundred more with a hundred different interpretations. You have gone as far as to admit that these biblical references you have made are based on your own opinion and perspective.

yet you have not bothered to point out ONE other book which lives up to your claim that it is comparable to the Bible.

I have pointed out comparable sources of ancient scientific reference. You presented evidence, I rebutted. Why are you getting so upset about this? So far you’ve had nothing to say about my rebuttals, I have asked you to present evidence that would make the bible unique, evidence separate from scripture. All you’ve done is use scripture to validate reality, you have not used reality to validate the scripture.

when you cite the books that you claim are comparable to the Bible, cite book, chapter and verse as I have done with God's holy word

Once again, I have made no such claim. You’re dabbling in Lighthouse’s territory, the mind reading and word placement field. I’m asking questions, you presented your case, I presented my counter case. Isn’t this the way debates happen? But I presented my case and you’re immediately jumping to the conclusion that I’m out to destroy light and understanding. I don’t understand why you’re taking this so seriously.

your false god of "science falsely so-called"

Rolf, I don’t know where you got this idea that science is my god. I’m my own god, Rolf. Not science, so please, stop putting words in my mouth, stop putting thoughts in my head, and stop putting beliefs in my heart. You’ve been misrepresenting me from the start of our discussion, claiming that I’m out to destroy light and understanding, that my god is science, that I will deny any claims you make before you make them…

Stick with the facts. I’ve been so good as to offer you this courtesy, I require the same from you.

your questioning of my transposing Einstien's formula lets me know that your mathematical understanding doesn't go beyond fifth grade level.

Perhaps. But instead of taking the opportunity to both explain yourself and teach me something, you insult my intelligence and carry on. If anyone is trying to squelch the power of understanding, it’s you. You presented the e=mc squared with your idea transposed on the end. I saw no logically reason for why you did this, so I pressed the issue in the hopes that you would explain, but instead I got a classic, patented Christian response: Insults and equivocation. You had the chance to school someone, you had the chance to rationally defend your position, but you digressed instead to name calling.

If I seem harsh, it stems from your baseless dismissals of valid evidences in the bible while at the same time, you just posted a great host of supposed obkjections to the contents of the Bible which are made up of nothing more than your ignorance.

You don’t seem harsh, you just seem quick to judgement. As for baseless dismissals of valid evidence? Perhaps the evidence was valid, but my rebuttal was anything but baseless. You called it baseless and ignored my exhortations for you to rebut it. If it is baseless, you should be able to rebut it with ease.

Also, if the contradictions I sited to Aimiel are made up of nothing more than my ignorance, than I’m sure you’ll be able to explain these apparent and VERY REAL contradictions to me. You obviously know the explanation for why these real contradictions in scripture exist, yet I get the impression that you will refuse to provide me with this explanation you have.

Lighthouse,

Hell was not intended for mankind.

Yet apart from salvation mankind is doomed to go there anyway? Wouldn’t you say that the bible teaches that we are all deserving of destruction and torment? And if that were the case, wouldn’t you say that hell IS intended for mankind?

Since this is the one that first caught my eye, if you notice, it says Michal was bringing up someone else's child. So it does not contradict the other verse that says she died without any children of her own.

Cool, I’ll have to check that out when I have a bible handy.

just because he didn't take pity on Amalek, or have mercy on them, doesn't mean He never does for others

Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated? That sort of thing? Ever read Romans 9, the chapter where it talks about vessels of wrath and election? As a former Calvinist I used to use that one when debating Christians such as yourself. No insult intended either by that last sentence, just a side thought.

LH, thanks for responding to the contradictions. I actually liked your use of scripture in backing up your points, kinda put an scripture based objective spin on it, but at the same time when a biblical answer to a biblical contradiction is formulated, there’s usually a hundred different explanations possible.

Granite1010,

Frank Ernest is incapable of proving you wrong. Christians of his ilk will talk all day long about being right, but will never be able to produce firm, testable proof that can be demonstrated by one or all of the five senses of all common men. Rolf has used thin biblical references to claim that because the bible points out what it is true, than the bible itself is true! What a jump! What kind of logic is that, Granite? Where unbiased evidence, evidence that would exist with or without a Christian worldview, is passed off as evidence for the validity of a system whose core beliefs cannot even come close to being proven.

Hmmm.

Just food for thought.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Skeptic-- concerning your post #604: hard scientific proof of creation ex-nihilo is seen in Einstein's E=MC2 which transposes into M=E/C2.

The Bible says that God created all things by the power of His word, and that His word runs very swiftly. That is in accord with Einstein's theory of relativity. "scientists" used to ridicule the Bible's statement of creation ex-nihilo, but when Einstien wrote E=MC2 upon the board, they shut up about that. Notice that they no longer ridicule the Genesis account of creation because everytime they do, it gives someone the opportunity to rebut their ridicule with Einstein's theory.

Yet they ignore that scientific fact and grope about for their absurd evolutionary hoax simply because the fact of God's creative work is inadmissable on philosophical grounds; that is, their "science" is held hostage by the premise of their anti-God philosophy. Some "science."

But Einstein's "theory" is hard science that has been proven in a laboratory. They have even applied it to create gold, but doing so is more expensive than the market price of gold.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Prodigal--To cite your misunderstanding of the Bible--consider your
handling of the text concerning Michal, Saul's daughter.

You ignore the majority opinion of Christians concerning Biblical integrity which is that the original manuscripts are without error and that the text we now have, though having been transcribed numerous times, is still without error on any point critical to Bible doctrine.

I understand Lighthouse's statement concerning Michal, and there is text to back it up. The Bible refers to the Michal's five children--children of the man who married Merab. Merab was also Saul's daughter, so the man whose children the Bible says Michal brought up was her brother-in-law. It is not at all unusual, when a man or woman raises children for whom they have become responsible, for the children to be referred to as their sons or daughters even though they are not their biological children. I believe that this is probably the case in regard to Michal because the Bible doesn't usually refer to someone having brought up a man's children when the children are their own also.

These things would have been noticed by someone who has a sincere interest in the Bible, but those who look for ways to attack
God's word deliberately view scripture through a very poorly focused lense.

The other objections you raise are based on nothing more than your misunderstanding of the Bible, and I don't feel like wasting my time detailing your errors since you have REPEATEDLY claimed sources of scientific truth comparable to the Bible and also as early as or even prior to the Bible, YET you have not bothered to be specific in regard to even ONE of these so-called scientific citations comparable to the Bible. Don't just claim it. Show it. Book chapter, and verse. There has to be a place where your claims are recorded if they are really valid. Acceptance of the oral record these days is called hearsay. Strange that their science was so far advanced that it was comparable to the Bible yet, unlike the Bible, they never got beyond the oral tradition. Oral traditions and witchdoctors go together, you know.

 

[Pepper]

Rolf,

You continue to use Creation ex Nihilo as an example. I would like to just step in and speak my own little piece as small as it may be. Yes, scientists say that creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) is possible. And yes, the Biblical creation account would be creation ex nihilo as well. The difference is completely in the semantics of the word. In the Bible the creation out of nothing is out of absolute nothing, God pointed his finger and said "I want this there, and this here, and this to be this color, etc..." (not an exact quote...I'm just paraphrasing). Scientific creation ex nihilo however is slightly different. Although it is still creation out of "nothing", the definition of nothing is not really nothing. To a scientist, creation ex nihilo is creation of matter from a state of zero energy. In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing". Matter is created by energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. Basically when negative energy meets positive energy, they cancel each other out creating zero energy.

I understand your use of this as an example, but in the long run, they are still two different things. So one could argue that this is not something that the bible says that scientists later find to be true, because they are arguably two different things.

 

[prodigal]

Rolf,

You ignore the majority opinion of Christians concerning Biblical integrity which is that the original manuscripts are without error and that the text we now have, though having been transcribed numerous times, is still without error on any point critical to Bible doctrine.

Uh, yeah. I would rather have an outside perspective on the bible, rather than a biased opinion of the majority of people who base what they believe on presuppositions.

The other objections you raise are based on nothing more than your misunderstanding of the Bible, and I don't feel like wasting my time detailing your errors

Of course you won’t. Rolf, your behavior is just as predictable as Clete’s.

you have not bothered to be specific in regard to even ONE of these so-called scientific citations comparable to the Bible.

Okay, I’ll see what I can do. However, the proof that is out there of the scientific observations of ancient cultures may turn out to be far more specific than your vague at best biblical references. Remember, you did go as far as to say that your bible references were based on your “opinion”, your references are based on your presuppositions, therefore will more than likely not stand against specific records of ancient astronomical observations.

That’s neither here nor there though, at least not until I find something credible that you requested. Just be warned, I will more than likely be able to find something more concrete than vague biblical references referred to in the light of presuppositions.

 

[prodigal]

This is quoted from Stacey Abrams at http://www.stormpages.com/swadhwa/hofa/mesopotamia.html.

She used as her sources:

· Abetti, Giorgio, THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY, Abelard-Schuman, New York, 1952
· Payne-Gaposchkin, Cecilia, INTRODUCTION TO ASTRONOMY, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963
· "Mesopotamia", ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, Micropedia Volume 8, Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, Illinois, 1987

I will be entering only certain sections of the article, but I have provided the web address above so that anyone who would want check my source may.

Mesopotamia, the ancient land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in southwest Asia, was far more advanced than many other emerging civilizations of its time. By the year 3000 B.C., the Mesopotamian culture had developed an irrigation system, building methods using clay bricks rather than wood or mud, and a system of writing. Mesopotamia also made explorations in science and mathematics. While much ancient knowledge of astronomy is attributed to the works of Greek astronomers conducted centuries later, the people of Mesopotamia had begun to delve into the oldest of sciences as far back as 4000 B.C.

All right, this sets the scene and the time line.

These early scholars recorded their findings on thousands of clay tablets belonging to both the Babylonian and Assyrian cultures. The tablets, which have been excavated in various parts of ancient Mesopotamia - primarily Sumer - have been difficult to decipher. However, the perusal of these tablets has resulted in many important disclosures useful to the present day.

Rolf, you said that these ancient cultures never developed beyond an oral tradition.

Much of the data was collected before the era of Nabonassar, the time period which occurred after the destruction of the Assyrian capital city of Nineveh in the Seventh Century B.C.. The historical records accumulated over the course of many centuries before the destruction of Nineveh made it possible to verify and establish short-range astronomical predictions.

The information found on the clay tablets includes both observations and calculations of the motions of the planets.

Ima hafta find out more about these clay tablets whose existence you denied, Rolf.

one important Chaldean discovery was a method of predicting, within a certain degree of accuracy, the apparent motion of the planets as they sped through the sky. These predictions included times of retrograde (backwards) motion, helical rising and setting, and conjunctions with principal stars. The Chaldeans were also able to calculate the times of Earth's Moon's "new" phase as well as lunar and solar eclipses.

I feel kinda low just quoting someone, but the fact is, you asked me for specific information, and this is the first thing I found.

Some of the oldest astronomical artifacts are astrolabe tablets. These clay tablets consisted of three concentric circles divided by twelve radii into twelve sections. Each of the thirty-six fields contained the names of constellations and simple numbers. No one yet understands the significance of these numbers. It is believed that the numbers represented the months of the Babylonian calendar. These calendars are similar to calendars developed by the Egyptians. Astrolabes are still used today to determine the relative positions of stars and planets.

Wouldn’t you agree that this is interesting stuff, Rolf?

The Babylonians also predicted certain celestial phenomena, such as eclipses and lunar periods. They began their studies with the eclipse of March 19, 721 B.C.. Calculations were difficult because the astronomers had no instruments of high accuracy. Both the Chaldeans and Babylonian eclipse records are used in studying long-term variations in the lunar orbit in modern theories.

[/quote] While Babylonian and Chaldean astronomers were more advanced than scholars in other contemporary cultures, they did lack knowledge of geometry and trigonometry. This kept them behind the Greeks in their astronomical studies. As we have seen, though, they contributed much to the study of astronomy which has survived into the present era.[/quote]

I’m sure there’s more where this came from, Rolf. I’ll be finding more from those clay tablets called astrolabe tablets.

Let me know what you think so far. If quoting the work of someone else isn’t good enough for you, just remember, I sited my sources, you haven’t.

 

[prodigal]

Astrolabes
Records of the heliacal rising of certian stars. The Astrolabes divided the sky up into three paths of Anu, Enlil and Ea. These "paths" were essentially arcs on the eastern horizon through which a rising star would pass. Which path a star rises in depends on its position in the sky. One star from each path was associated with each month.
The oldest of these records is Astrolabe B, found in Assur and dating to around 1100 BC. Astrolabe B gives the months and the corresponding stars in parallel columns, along with the positions of these stars and their relevance to agriculture and myth. Other Astrolabes are arranged in a circular fashion, and there is evidence that the circular format is actually older than that used in Astrolabe B. (van der Waerden, 65).

Enuma Anu Enlil
An astrological omen series comprising some 68 tablets. The tablets themselves were found in the Assyrian king Assurbanipal's library in the ancient city of Nineveh (modern Tell Kuyunjik, Iraq), and were written in the 7th century BC. However, evidence suggests the collection of omens is much older than the tablets found in the library, and the original series probably dates back to the Old Babylonian period at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.
The EAE deals mostly with the constellations, or "fixed" stars, and, to a lesser degree, with the planets. The exception to this is tablet 63, known as the "Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga". It was composed under king Ammizaduga who ruled Babylon from 1646 to 1626 BC. Several copies of tablet 63 have been recovered in varying degrees of preservation, but a composite of these reveal the tablet to be a record of rising and setting dates for the planet Venus over a period of 21 years. As with EAE as a whole, the "Venus Tablets" also contain omens.
The structure of each partuclar omen in EAE is the same as that used for omen texts in general. Each omen can be divided into two parts:
(1) the protasis, a description of the celestial phenomenon and
(2) the apodosis, the reprocussions the phenomenon given in the protasis will have on the terrestrial world.
Occassionally there is also a commentary on the protasis giving an alternate star or planet, or an explanation of the phenomenon described.(Reiner, 1; 24-5).
Here is an example, from BPO2, of an omen in Enuma Anu Enlil
Text XIII, number 5:
[ina ITI.BAR MUL.UD.KA.D]U8.A IGI MU.5.KAM ina KUR.URIki ina KA dIr-ra BE.MESH GAL.MESH ana MASH.ANSHE [NU TE]
"If in month I the Demon with the Gaping Mouth (Cygnus) rises heliacally: for 5 years in Akkad at the command of Irra there will be plague, but it will not affect cattle"

MUL.APIN
This astronomical collection was found in Assur, and dates to around 687 BC. Like the Astrolabes, MUL.APIN deals with the rising and setting of particular stars. However, all of this is here expanded to include simultaneous rising and setting dates, which make note of which constellations rise as others set, along with some planetary theroy, lunar observations and ziqpu-stars.
Hermann Hunger explains ziqpu-stars as being "so chosen that one crosses the meridian before dawn, in the middle of each month, as another constellation is rising heliacally" (Hunger 142). These stars would be useful if, for whatever reason, the horizon were obscured and the astronomers were unable to observe the heliacal rising directly.
Beyond celestial observations, the text presents intercalation schemes, shadwo table and water clock readings. MUL.APIN does not give as much attention to omens as does Enuma Anu Enlil, mostly becasue the latter was still used as a reference on the matter.

Hipparchus (Greek Ἳððáñ÷ïò) (circa 190 BC - circa 120 BC) was a Greek astronomer, geographer, and mathematician. The ESA's Hipparcos Space Astrometry Mission was named after him.

Hipparchus was born in Nicaea (now in Turkey) and probably died on the island of Rhodes. He is known to have been active at least from 147 BC to 127 BC. Hipparchus is considered the greatest astronomical observer, and by some the greatest astronomer altogether, of antiquity. He was the first Greek to develop quantitative and accurate models for the motion of the Sun and Moon. For this he made use of the observations and knowledge accumulated over centuries by the Chaldeans from Babylonia. He was also the first to compile a trigonometric table, which allowed him to solve any triangle. With his solar and lunar theories and his numerical trigonometry, he was probably the first to develop a reliable method to predict solar eclipses. His other achievements include the discovery of precession, the compilation of the first star catalogue, and probably the invention of the astrolabe. Claudius Ptolemaeus three centuries later depended much on Hipparchus. However, his synthesis of astronomy superseded Hipparchus's work: although Hipparchus wrote at least 14 books, only his commentary on the popular astronomical poem by Aratus has been preserved by later copyists. As a consequence, we know comparatively little about Hipparchus.

Many of the works of Greek scientists - mathematicians, astronomers, geographers - have been preserved up to the present time, or some aspects of their work and thoughts are still known through later references. However, achievements in these fields by middle-eastern civilizations, notably those in Babylonia, had been forgotten. After the discovery of the archeological sites in the 19th century, many writings on clay tablets have been found, some of them related to astronomy. Most known astronomical tablets have been described by A.Sachs, and later published by O.Neugebauer in "Astronomical Cuneiform Texts" (3 vol.s; Princeton and London, 1955).

Since the rediscovery of the Babylonian civilization, it has become apparent that Greek astronomers, and in particular Hipparchus, borrowed a lot from the Chaldeans.

I found this information at http://home.comcast.net/~neburoker1/Hipparchus.htm.

Just in case anyone wants to check.

 

[Pepper]

Oh, and my point was, Rolf, try using another example, you've beaten this one into the ground. This example is obviously not proving your point. Also, you keep accusing prodigal of being some kind of science worshiper, I can't really figure out where you got that from. I haven’t seen any cases of prodigal saying “Science is right and the Bible is wrong”. You seem to be the one who brings up science more often than not. He’s just asking the Bible to be validated, scientists are able to validate everything they write and believe in, you good sir, seem to be unable to do that. He seems to me to have a good understanding of the Bible to me, maybe a couple of words threw him off, but what do you expect from a book that seems to have been written to confuse? The thing about Michal’s sons is actually a great example of the way the bible was written: Prodigal interpreted it one way and lighthouse interpreted it another, but either could be right, there really is no way of knowing. The bible was written in a way that can be interpreted a million different ways in order to have it say exactly what you want it to say when you want it to say that. Changing a word or sentence structure can completely change the meaning of a sentence. A funny thing is, in reading your posts, you seem to be getting a little thrown off guard. In the progression of them, you’ve seemed to become more flustered, resort to insults and repeat yourself a lot. Eventually, you are going to have to admit that there is no way to validate the Bible, which is how this thread started. It’s an ancient book that has been translated so many times that there is no way of knowing if it’s even been translated correctly or if it’s in the right order, or if those books were even all supposed to go together. And eventually, I’m sure you’re going to resort to the old Christian standby to get out of any debate when someone asks you a question you know you can’t answer..... “That’s where faith comes in.”